Is Race Purely a Social Construct?

Bear in mind that I'm talking about race, not ethnicity (they are not necessarily the same).

I'm not suggesting that there aren't differences between certain groups of people, but if races (as we know them) truly exist, how exactly do we define them? Where do we draw the line between these 'races'?

How would one define, for example, the black 'race'? Which exact physical/anatomical characteristics would one have to possess in order to be a member of the black race? Black skin, right? However, what if a white-skinned Albino child is produced from two black people? Would they be considered as a 'black' person? If so, why?

So, how do you define 'race'? Is it a social construct?

Yes. Genetic and physical variation occurs at the individual level, so selecting a few traits then saying, "I declare these are important and should serve as the basis of a racial categorisation" is intrinsically a social construct. Even your example is problematic because skin tone is a continuum; the point at which the category of 'black skin' begins is chosen arbitrarily. The category in itself is equally arbitrary, for that matter.

"[D]ifferent genetic polymorphisms are differently distributed over the planet, and their distributions are not generally correlated. Clusterings are always possible, but the fact that two populations fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) when described at loci A, B, C does not imply that they will fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) based on loci X, Y, Z. In addition, differences between populations are often so subtle that the location of boundaries may change substantially even when the same data are analysed under different assumptions on the mutational model" (Barbujani and Belle, 2006).

"Medin and Wattenmaker (1987) point out that plums and lawnmowers are unlikely to be categorised together, even though they are clearly similar on a number of dimensions (both weigh less than 1000 kg, both cannot hear, both have a distinct smell, both can be dropped). It is not the case that one comparison dimension is objectively more relevant than another one, and that empirical reality would dictate which dimension should be attended to. Rather, the choice of comparison dimensions is informed by socially constructed meaning." (Zagefka, 2009).

The classification of people into particular groups is to a certain extent arbitrary and a product of our need for order, but I don't agree that the genetic characteristics some people share is tantamount to a social construct.

If I decide to classify people according to gender or height does this mean tall people don't really exist because their height is little more a 'social construct' that I've made up rather than a quantifiable characteristic?

The classification of people into particular groups is to a certain extent arbitrary and a product of our need for order, but I don't agree that the genetic characteristics some people share is tantamount to a social construct.

There is so much genetic variation among humans that to categorise people into 'races' based on certain differences in physical appearance/anatomy is arbitrary. Who decides which differences are important? For example, why should skin colour play a bigger part in determining 'race' than height?

The exact characteristics we use to determine race are debatable I suppose. But I don't understand why anyone would think it's unreasonable to make a distinction between Europeans and Africans for example based the inhereted traits that both these 'groups' (if I'm allowed to use that term) of people exhibit.

The exact characteristics we use to determine race are debatable I suppose. But I don't understand why anyone would think it's unreasonable to make a distinction between Europeans and Africans for example based the inhereted traits that both these 'groups' (if I'm allowed to use that term) of people exhibit.

I can't help but think that the objection is political rather than anthropogenic and probably something to do with anti-racism.

i think race is just like the way other species are divided into categories based on appearance etc.

but not just appearance. different races have average differences biologically -- like hormone levels etc.

I don't think your example works. My point wasn't that there aren't differences between people; my point was that to group them into races based on insignificant differences is pretty arbitrary and that 'race' may be nothing more than a social construct.

How exactly you would define a 'race'?

Example: "Japanese people are different to Dutch people because they are, on average, 165cm tall and 180cm tall, respectively."

You cannot declare Japanese and Dutch people are distinct on the basis of an average distinction because this begs the question and doesn't establish an actual difference. Is anyone who is 180cm Dutch and anyone who is 165cm Japanese? If not, in what way is height relevant to someone's status as Dutch or Japanese? Or is it just an attempt to link a quality to a 'group' that does not in fact exist as an essential/universal quality of that 'group'?

You're not being specific at all. Why are the differences between Africans and Europeans significant enough to categorise them into 'races'? Additionally, I could say that everyone is 'African' in at least one sense because (according to a popular theory) apparently the first humans were African, so we all have African ancestry. How would you define 'European' and 'African'?



I could say the same to you.



That seems like a cop-out to me. Are you telling me that you couldn't have done some research?



I don't think there's much interaction or 'cross-breeding' between different species of birds or fish so it's probably easier to classify them.

You're still not getting my point. Why should we determine 'race' based on such specific, arbitrary criteria? If races (as we know them) actually exist, where do we draw the line between them?

"Allele-frequency differences exist between all populations, including communities separated by short geographic distances, or by cultural barriers at geographical distance zero. With large sample sizes, these differences reach statistical significance" (Barbujani, 2005).

Let's not pretend your decision to treat 'Africa' and 'Europe' (both recent territorial inventions) as significant geographical scales, opposed entities and the bases of analyses isn't political.

Taxonomy, being a social construct, can be subject to debates about its social consequences.