Is race a biological category or a social construct?

Question

RedThread · Accepted Answer

In reality there are biological groups called genetic clusters. They're regions in the world where people have a lot in common genetically but it isn't tied entirely to what we call race. For example, I could pull a random black guy off the street and have more in common with him genetically than a random white guy. What we consider to be white people actually don't share a common genetic heritage. People who are now considered white or European came from different parts of Africa and Asia. Another example is the fact that a lot of men of African descent carry a gene in their Y chromosome that originated in Asia. It suggests that a migration of a sizable group comprised of mostly Asian men went back to Africa after being geographically isolated for thousands of years. With all this talk of purity of race or mixed race we fail to realize we are all complete mutts. Our ancestors were hunter-gatherers that migrated constantly. Truth is, we all carry genes that originated all over the globe in varying amounts.

In summation, these genetic clusters show there are regions of the world that are more closely related but it isn't linked to the groups we commonly break people up into. So yes race is a social concept but scientifically we can tie people together but these clusters aren't determined exclusively by traits like eye color, skin color, hair texture, etc. There's a lot of crossover.

Studies of clustering reopened a debate on the scientific reality of race, or lack thereof. In the late 1990s, Harvard evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin stated that “no justification can be offered for continuing the biological concept of race. Genetic data shows that no matter how racial groups are defined, two people from the same racial group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different racial groups. This view has been affirmed by numerous authors and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists since.

web.mit.edu/.../
check out that article. It's very interesting.

BlueCoyote · Accepted Answer

It depends how you define "biological category". Race is a combination of physiological phenotypes that have come into existence through group isolation and the adaptation to a certain environment. So in that sense you could call it biological. However, there are no differences whatsoever on the basis of genetics. This is why there is no such thing as "race" in the taxonomy of the animal kingdom (or humans). If you took the DNA of a black person and the DNA of a white person, you wouldn't be able to tell which DNA comes from which individual. There is no such thing as a "race gene". So races are like colors of Iphones. You might have a black and a white Iphone but the way they are built and the way they function is exactly the same.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

Race, that word, that concept we have, is not a recognized biological category for evolutionary biologists. Evolutionary biologists look at specific ethnicities.

You can have all kinds of people on this board claim otherwise, but their opinions don't change what is actually recognized by science. I would encourage people here to do some reading about the topic.

It's not that issues of race and racial prejudice are not worth discussing. It's just that the term race is not based in genetics - it's an old holdover from before genetics was better understood.

www.livescience.com/...-not-a-science-concept.html
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed

dragonfly6516 · Accepted Answer

I think of us the same way people think of dogs, because, well, we are. We're all humans, we just wear a different coat on the outside, and just like different breeds of dogs have different genetic defects, so too do people. These defects, and even the more superior genetic traits are nothing more than a product of evolutionary adaptation. Humans evolved to develop or even lose certain traits and characteristic to better enable them to survive in the areas where they lived. Location shapes culture, couple that with a certain look and you'll find your personal base for the meaning of "normal".

lovelyhoneybones · Accepted Answer

There is only one race, and that's the human race. It's scientifically proven that we're all from ONE RACE. We all trace back to the same ancestors. Yes, I understand that different ethnicities are different as far as appearance, but we're all the same. Problems arise when we try separate ourselves from one another.

Curlybeauty17 · Accepted Answer

Both. It's real enough for people to have features specific to their group of people and have predispositions toward certain health issues and it's real enough for people to lack the ability to sympathize or empathize with other people because of their race.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

There are obvious physical differences between the races and those were not "invented by social constructs." With respect to race, "social construct" is an idea used to attempt to ignore or minimize the differences between the races because some people perceive that an admission of differences is inconsistent with social notions of equality. It is similar to people who want to deny differences between genders; they don't want facts to get in the way of a good argument.

Fyourfeelings · Answer

neither, most people are stupid and conflate nationality with race. Like Mexicans for instance are not a race, but a nationality. Races are made from environmental conditions over many generations in an area. The culture is what matters, and their can be many cultures within one race or nation. Read some Thomas Sowells books he goes into why culture is the prime reason for success​ and failure. When you think in race and nationality you over simplify the issue. For instance during world war 2 when the Japanese came to both America and Brazil. America put them in camps and treated them badly, yet the Japanese stayed loyal to America. In Brazil they catered to the Japanese in every way they could, the Japanese stayed loyal to Japan and most didn't bother learning Portuguese. We also put the Germans in camps and had them in longer they also stayed loyal. Do you know what America didn't do back then? Give welfare to foreigners, instead of they came here they better get a job and have loyalty to America. That's why Europe has fucked it's self they offer money and welfare for showing up with no incentive to become loyal to the host country.

Starrk · Answer

Race is purely a social construct.

In the field of biology there is no taxonomy that is related to what we will refer to as race. Race in Humans is simply a crude way of classifying people who share the same phenotypes (genes that show on our physical body). For example, Black people are by far the most genetically diverse group of people on this planet. If we were looking purely at one's genetics, you could divide the black race into 100+ different races. However, we don't do that. We pigeonhole all black people into a single category not because of their unique genetic markers but because they share the same features (dark skin, curly hair, flat nose)

Race is and has always been an awful way to classify human beings. You can't just look at a person and predict what their genes look like, because not all genes express themselves. For example, many brown eyed people have the genetic coding to produce a blue/green/hazel eyed child. However, you wouldn't know that just by looking at them.

Only a miniscule portion of our DNA shows itself on our physical body, so to classify people into arbitrary groups base on looks while calling it a biological fact is not only an insult to the biology community but it's an insult to all the sciences.

FreshOutaIdeas · Answer

Meh... Can't say I'm particularly surprised seeing all the usual "race is just skin deep" and "out of africa" rhetoric. Homo-sapiens in all their racial forms did not just pop out from the east of africa, in some sort of pseudo-judeo-christian fable-like manner. We have been, and always will be our own respective racial/biological 'colour'.

Race, as a socially constructed categorical tool, is definitely rooted in the physically innate biological reality of the racial differential that is so utterly obvious it should be clear that race is not a "skin deep" socially constructed psdeuo-reality... But a simple REALITY that affects every intricate detail of individual and tribal (collective, monolithic) identity...

People really need to stop being brainwashed with the narrative driven by a concotion of cultural marxism (critical theory) and "academic" agenda-driven pseudo-science... And the whole premise that race is just a social construct, is fresh out of the vitriolic, anti-white mouth of former (current?) Harvard sociological proffessor Noel Ignatiev... ANYWAYS... Don't wanna 'rant' too far off course ;)

abc3643 · Answer

How does one define if somebody is "wealthy"? If you're homeless, then you are clearly not wealthy. If you have a net worth in the billions of dollars, you are clearly wealthy. But what about someone making $75,000/year but who owns their home with no mortgage? What about someone who makes $300,000/year, but has a $300,000 mortgage and is still paying student loans?

My point is that determining someone's wealth is rather complex. In reality, it is probably net worth, but there is still no magic number $X where we can say "Bob is worth one dollar more than $X and Bill is worth one dollar less than $X so Bob is wealthy and Bill is not."

There is this gradual shift from not wealthy to wealthy and each of us has differing degrees as to we believe "wealthy" means. My $X for determing if someone is wealthy or not might differ from your $X.

So, even though we have this concept of wealth and an idea of determining if someone is wealthy, it is not well defined and universally agreed upon. (Google "fuzzy logic".)

The same can be said about "race". But, like dollars are to determining wealth, genes are to determing race. We can all agree that native sub-Saharan Africans are "Negroids", but what about African-Americans who are approximately 26% white? What about our "mixed-race" people such as President Obama?

So, to answer your question, the idea of race isn't a social construction but is part of the millions of years old human instinct for identification and making sense of the universe. Biologically, race is similar; while based in genetics, there are no clear well-defined and universally agreed upon groups that in which we can place anyone with ease.

Levin · Answer

We have to think of the vestiges of primitive human consciousness, where we through experience understood that those who were different (outside of the tribe) represented a threat to us. So it was basic self preservation and primitive drives.

I think part of it is that.

I think part of it is so called Nietzschean resentiment. ie blaming others for your own egoistic shortfalls. ie a way of salving the ego.

We can hardly say the biological is separate from the social. Surely the social is reflective of each of us internally? If sufficient people believe it, it has some sociological root or expression in society? Even if it remains as an undercurrent.

I guess the problem is, social conditioning which tells us to be tolerant and loving of others; neglects the fact that deeply internally, some people don't feel that way, and don't understand themselves and their inner workings, to do the work to make a more transformative and non superficial inner change. (ie genuine reflection and meditation )

Anonymous · Answer

its biological. race is not an absolute fact, but nothing in science is an absolute fact, not even our existence. science is merely an observation of our surroundings. it also strives to be as accurate as possible. science rejects the existence of absolute facts.

some biologists argue that race only leads to racism. they are biased politically. they want the concept to go away because some races commit more of certain crimes of others, which can be used by right wingers who hold etho-nationalist view points. ethno-nationalism does not fit in the world view of these politically biased biologists so they want to abolish the concept of race as to sabotage the political opposition. very unscientific.

race does hold biological and of course medical significance since blacks are more prone to certain diseases and whites are more prone to other diseases. how does a doctor go about informing their patients they are more at risk due to their race if race is so taboo he cannot utter the word without losing his job? people would simply make use of a proxy word for the word 'race'.

race also holds biological significance in sports. why aren't blacks winning the tour de france? because they are not competitive in bicycle racing as whites are. why dont blacks win Olympic swimming competitions? the same reason. why are blacks so good at basketball? the same reason. its because of race.

xXiTacoXx · Answer

It's biological and social. Black people weren't called ourselves black people until white people came around and called us black people. Before Africans identified each other based on tribe, culture, and language and not by the color of their skin. However, each race has a distinct look to them and when it comes to health they each have unique benefits to them as well as some cons. All this doesn't mean you should stay to one, and shit on another. It actually means the opposite because if you do mix there's less chance of incest, and the child could have health benefits from both sides.

pogicraft · Answer

Social construct. The Irish gingers used to not count as white. Aryans don't include regions of Turkey and Greece that actually had similar lineage. And blacks (people whose ancestors came as slaves) have more in common with white people than with African Americans (people who immigranted from Africa). The inconsistencies and gradual variations suggest there is nothing concrete about the idea of race and its just a way for us to relate to others relative to ourselves, especially regarding culture and values.

ladsin · Answer

Both to an extent? But mostly sociological. It's been said that there's more diversity in one group of chimpanzees than in all humans.
Some differences that have been noted are reactions to certain drugs, skin tone, muscular makeup (fast twitch fibers), lack of certain enzymes etc. nothing substantial.

Nyx_85 · Answer

According to scientists it's a social construct.

"What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded," Pääbo told Live Science. "It is all a question of differences in how frequent different variants are on different continents and in different regions."
www.scientificamerican.com/.../

englisc · Answer

It's biological. The different races, while they may have the same common ancestors, evolved in different parts of the world. We developed different characteristics that helped us in these different environments the simplest example being skin colour - black people have darker skin to protect from the sun, white people have lighter skin so that we can more quickly absorb vitamin D from sunlight which is obviously lacking in colder climates up north. Different races are prone to different diseases, we also tend to need organs from someone of the same race when it comes to a transplant. We have hormonal differences. Differences in bone structure. That explains why certain sports are dominated by certain races of people e. g. black people tend to dominate in sprinting, white people tend to make the best swimmers. It goes beyond just skin colour. It's just politically correct to pretend that we're all the same, while preaching about diversity at the same time.

UnknownXYZ · Answer

It's a social construct. We are only one race, the human race and the only reason why we get away with using race is because it is practical and people get what we are talking about over-generalising a subset of people based on their features. This is another reason why I think racial preferences are absolute bullshit. But humans aren't perfect.

RedHood7 · Answer

We dont have race. Dogs have race. We have ethnicity. It's a bunch of genes that defined things like nose shape and size, eye shape, skin color, etc, mostly tied to small biological advances for each environment. There are also different risks for diseases, since each environment had it's own risks, some risks were perpetrated in the population since the ones who'd suffer those problems never died of it and had children, passing those genes down the line. It's superficial to define anyone by it or to give it any credit in any social matter.

Map4Territory · Answer

It seems like plenty of people have brought up good biological arguments as to why race is cultural. I'd like to bring up a historical one. How we currently view race has changed dramatically throughout history. White was not viewed as a race until pretty recently, about 300 years ago. And even then, it didn't mean what it does now. The Irish were not considered to be apart of the White race for the majority of the time that term has existed. So our conception of race clearly changed based on factors that have nothing to do with biology. Culture dictates what each race is and it is often arbitrary and likely to change again. By necessity any biological argument about race would be an ex post facto argument.

cosmickitty · Answer

It's a social construct. Things like skin color or eye shape etc don't count as an own biological category. We're all humans that just look a little different. Some caucasians have brown hair, others are blonde or have ref hair. Some people have white skin, others are naturally tan or have a deep skin tone. We're all one race: the human race.

ΉOMO_乇尺乇CTU丂 · Answer

Depends. There is actually one race in science actually. Homo Sapien..

The term race most people refer to is ethnicity. It differs a lot to some people living is other countries. Example I always find it weird when Americans would refer to Hispanics are race.. In UK they refer Asians as the people from South Asia, different to the common notation of East Asian. A lot of this views are influenced by culture hence soxial construct. It has always been since our time. It was only recent (in terms of human history) it was said that there is one race, due to discovery and understanding of human genome.. DNA. As opposed to in the past, there is an argument different races. mongoloid, Negroid, Caucasoid etc etc and other variation throught the milleniums.. Well looking beneath the skin and bones and superficial changes due to adaptation.. We're 99.9% the same.

cth96190 · Answer

Race is self evidently a biological reality.
There a big differences between the races, both physically and intellectually.
The social construct idiocy was created by the Cultural Marxists, who want the different races to miscegenate into one retarded brown mass.

TheFlak38 · Answer

If race is a social construct then why do we need racial divesity (of course only in White countries) ?
If raceis a social construct then why am I a racist because I don't want to accept the demographic replacment if Europeans inside their own homelands?
If race is a social construct then why do anti-racist organisations even exist?
If race is a social construct then why do idiots like Rachel Dolezal become "Africans"?
If race is a social construct then why do black lives matter more than others?
If race is a social construct then why do we need to "celebrate" our differences?
If race is a social construct then why are Europeans encouraged to have mixed babies in order to fight "racism" by destroying their own identity?

beccaboo2 · Answer

Race is just a category for people with a shared variety of phenotypes within a certain geographical area. If you were to walk from South Africa, through the Middle East, and into Europe, you won't notice any significant changes in the appearance of the people you would meet. The races aren't well defined and they blend into each other. It's only noticeable if you were to hop on a nonstop flight from Kenya to Norway.

cipher42 · Answer

Both? Like clearly the differences between different races are biological, but how we choose to actually draw the lines between one race and another is entirely social. Like, how dark does someone's skin have to be before they're considered a wholly different race? How much does eye or hair color matter? Stuff like that is all socially determined, even if the factors used are biological.

cheapshotbob · Answer

its social i think and it did not really become an issue till after the American civil war and ww2 with hitler.

while there were ethnic killings much earlier like vlad tepes and his war against the turks or muslims it really wasn't a controversial thing till later on.

apexalpha · Answer

Social construct.
Race classification is only a recent phenomena prior to the Spanish inquisition it didn`t exist. "blue blood" was used to differentiate between White Spaniards whos blood appeared blue due to lighter skin compared to darker Moors.

Today Race is used by losers who are irrelevant in society to ride on the achievements of others they even called paler irish people "white niggers" to justify enslaving them. There descendants are still living in the Caribbean today called "red legs".

Phenotypes are fluid in homosapiens you can have darker skinned people with blonde hair and blue eyes like the Melanesians.

littleheartbigbooty · Answer

Feom a biological pov, you can talk about ethnicity more than race but it's pretty much the same thing. It gained a negative meaning because of well medias society and stuff, but sure there are biological differences between ethnicities. So I guess you can say it's both, since both biological and social factors are involved

hellionthesagereborn · Answer

Social construct. The genetic variation between people (of the same gender) of the same race is 1%, the difference between different races is the same i. e. their is no significant difference between races to the point where its undefinable through science. Even the differences that are observable are not strictly associated with one race i. e. dark skin can be multiple groups, same with nose shape etc. So it is very much a social construct.

Chico_brah · Answer

People are ridiculous. Some weird studies on the huffignonpost or some youtube video doesn't change facts. I'd instantly lose respect for anyone's intelligence if they actually believe in their heads that race is just the the outcome of a social construct. That's not being liberal and accepting... that's being a delusional fucking retard. I can't even..

SomeGuy37 · Answer

All modern humans are of the Biological RACE: Homo sapiens sapiens. That is Caucasian, Asian, 'Black' or 'Eskimo', 'Native American' or any others!!
We are all more genetically alike, than different!! The Phenotype: how we look, and skin color, eye shape, physical attributes, have all been used to segregate, and divide us, socially!! What people call 'Race' is a social construct, to divide, and separate us through the phenotype that our physical bodies express.

Soteris · Answer

Social construct. There is a biological component in race but I can guarantee you that what they consider different races and what you consider different races is completely different so putting them together or even calling them the same thing is just making it more confusing.

Phoenix98 · Answer

How is race a social construct Race refers to a distinct sub population with given characteristics within a species, it is purely biological and can be reliably evaluated by DNA.

Plus each race has it's own physical characteristics and features unique to to them or people who share their DNA.

Nuala · Answer

It biological diversity. Red fox's can be red, white, brown, or in rare cases black. They can have big tails or small tails, long hair or short fuzz. But in the end they are all red foxes. They all look different, some closer then others, but in the end they are all the same.

People are different from one another and that is a fact. What is a social construct is that different is separate.

MementoMori_ · Answer

"Race" is completely arbitrary. The scientific theory du jour is that human life started in Africa. If true, that would mean all Americans, for example, are African-American. So why the obsession with the distinctions?

Anonymous · Answer

It was literally created as a social construct. It's not enough to say, for example, that those of the Caucasian race are defined by blue eyes and blond hair because there are other race individuals who share those characteristics as well. It's an arbitrary set of classifications that are applying less and less these days, and of course what does one do if one is the dark eyed, dark haired, and darker skinned Caucasian?

Anonymous · Answer

It's definitely biological to an extent, but for the most part it doesn't matter and we blow it out of proportion. The difference between two races is about as significant between the difference between two (naturally created) dog breeds. They're both pretty cool animals. And if they get together they'll still make a cute little pupper.

kylie_birdy · Answer

how the fuck is this even a question ofc its genetic

Izumiblu · Answer

Race refers to a distinct sub population with given characteristics within a species, it is purely biological and can be reliably evaluated by DNA. Ethnicity is a combination of race and social factors like culture.

Dramaqueen1 · Answer

Race is biological but culture is a social construct

matheus_mb · Answer

According to what I studied I believe it's a social construct. There's just one human Race... so the differences between us aren't really races as we refer to them, they're just differences.

Anonymous · Answer

Race is entirely a social construct propigated in the concept of social darwinism. What we call race is really the manifestation of a variety of phenotypic traits amongst the population. In fact, you are more genetically similar to someone who is of a different 'race' than to someone of your own race. Scientists have also discredited the idea that there is significant distinction among various races.

anastasiasgun · Answer

I would say it's a social construct. I'm African American but if you saw me you would disagree because I have Beige skin, curly reddish brown hair and my features are not common of a black person, even black people think I'm Mexican or something

Telekinetic-Potato · Answer

It's both. And don't let the fact that it's largely a social construct make you think it's less valid. A persons race denotes (usually) the culture they come from. It's useful for common sense interpersonal skills.

Savatar · Answer

It's a social construct based on biological traits.
easiest example: Too much underbite was a lot more likely to be seen in blacks from Africa and can stil be seen mostly there where the lips reach farther than the nose.

Reach500 · Answer

There are physical differences in people across the globe, but our notion of race with solid, man-made boundaries and categories is a social construct.

TacosRAwesome · Answer

According to my science teachers the genetic difference within the same race is bigger than the differences between different races, but I think the differences go beyond just looks. In a way they go towards personality and disease protection.

COCOCHANEL · Answer

i think race is a very broad term and the genetics of the individual is the only way to determine

foxmental · Answer

Social construct. There's little to no difference between humans

ps891 · Answer

The most beautiful people in god's eyes don't see race

Ironlak282 · Answer

Well it's a social Construct based on biological features. I don't think the idea of race as a scientific concept exists though as human DNA dosen't vary significantly enough for their to be races.

TheCrimsonPath97 · Answer

Race is very real. Each of the races are different on a genetic level. Only brainwashed SJW libtards believe race is a social construct.

Maik567 · Answer

Well if it was just a social construct you wouldn't be able to tell the differences between parts of that image.

Fizpop · Answer

Skin colour is biological. Race is a social construct.

BlondeBlueEyes84 · Answer

Societies are racial constructs. That's why the superior races, White Europeans and East Asians have created the most advanced and greatest civilizations.

SnowHearth · Answer

It can be both, although it was first used by biologists, and then by sociologists.

DrBiG · Answer

biological category because no one can choose his race... we are born based on genetic materials of our ancestors, not by choice

catelyntje · Answer

I think biological you see differences from the outside but from the inside I think it's a social construct

darthPulU · Answer

The latter Of Course, skin color is just a line of Genes on a DNA helix, the race is still home salient, no doubt there as a single trait like skin color cannot be used as grounds to differentiate race, but I can see where you made that connection!

sedrftvgyhujik · Answer

Both A socially motivated crude biological categorisation.

alchemist_01 · Answer

There is a difference in levels of melatonin in both bodies. Talking about Social construct, what is not?

genericname85 · Answer

ethnicity is obviously a biological thing. we´re all the same "race" though by biological definition though.

Greek_God · Answer

Race, sex, age, height, weight and all of those things can NEVER be a "social construct", enough with this hippie bullshit

Anonymous · Answer

HAHA Race is about as much a social construct as sex.

Is race a biological category or a social construct?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said