The Wikle

Race Social Construct: Difference between revisions

← Older edit
No edit summary
Tag: Manual revert
WikleBot (talk | contribs)
162 edits
m Updated page with AI-generated answer [automated edit by WikleBot]
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
''Written by AI. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources section. When the sources section is updated this article will regenerate.''
''Written by AI. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources section. When the sources section is updated this article will regenerate.''


Is race a social construct?   
'''Is race a social construct?'''  
Many scholars in the humanities and social sciences argue that race is primarily a social construct—an idea invented, reshaped, and given meaning by societies to classify and rank people. Others, mainly from population genetics and evolutionary biology, argue that while “race” is an imprecise folk term, it still tracks statistically meaningful clusters of human genetic variation and therefore has at least a partial biological grounding. The consensus across disciplines is therefore mixed, depending on how one defines the term “race.” [4] [6] [7] [9] [10] [11]


Arguments that race is a social construct 
The phrase “race is a social construct” captures the view that racial categories are created and maintained by social, political, and historical forces rather than by clear-cut biological boundaries. Several historians, social scientists and philosophers defend this position [9]. Geneticists and some evolutionary biologists counter that, while the folk categories of race are indeed social products, they overlap with statistically measurable patterns of human genetic variation, so the claim is only partly true [1][5][7][10][11].
• Genetic variation is overwhelmingly within rather than between continental populations (about 85 % within‐group in Lewontin 1972), so racial categories poorly capture individual ancestry [9].
• Historical “races” have changed repeatedly (e.g., Irish, Italians, and Jews in the U.S. shifted from non-white to white), demonstrating socio-political elasticity [4] [6]. 
• UNESCO’s post-WWII statements on race emphasized cultural and political equality and framed biological race as scientifically untenable, influencing later scholarship [4]. 
• Labeling divisions as “racial” often justifies unequal treatment and therefore reflects power relations more than biology [3] [6].


Arguments that race has a biological component 
'''Arguments for the social-construct view'''  
• Modern genomic studies recover geographically structured clusters that correlate with major continental “race” labels, even when race labels are not provided to the algorithm [1] [5] [10] [11]. 
• A deep-learning survey of medical images could identify patient race with high accuracy, implying that phenotypic signals correlate with genomic ancestry beyond obvious visual cues [2].  
• Some disease risk alleles and drug-response variants differ in frequency between continental populations, suggesting biomedical utility for ancestry-based categories [5] [11]. 
• Critics of Lewontin’s 1972 analysis argue that ignoring correlations among loci underestimates between-group differentiation; a small fraction of the genome can still powerfully predict continental ancestry [10].


Historical factors that popularized the “race as social construct” view  
* Human genetic diversity is clinal—changes gradually over geography—so drawing hard lines is arbitrary [9].  
• 19th-century anthropologists originally treated race as fixed biological essence. The catastrophic misuse of those ideas in eugenics and Nazi ideology led to strong post-1945 critiques [4].   
* Early racial typologies emerged alongside colonialism and slavery, serving social and political goals rather than scientific ones [4].   
• The 1950 and 1951 UNESCO statements urged scientists to abandon typological race thinking in favor of population genetics, embedding the “social” framing in policy and education [4].   
* The UNESCO statements of 1950 and 1951 deliberately replaced the word “race” with “ethnic group,” arguing that the biological concept had been misused to justify hierarchy [4].   
• Civil-rights movements of the 1960s–70s further delegitimized biological race claims in U.S. social science, culminating in the popularity of Lewontin’s 1972 genetic partitioning result [9].   
* Modern genomic studies find more genetic variation within any so-called race than between races (the classic Lewontin 1972 result) [9].   
• Since the Human Genome Project (2001), low overall human diversity (≈0.1 %) was publicized as proof that race lacks biological basis, reinforcing social-construct arguments [6]. 
* Because racial labels vary across countries and time (e.g., U.S. “Hispanic,” Brazilian “pardo”), they cannot be fixed biological kinds [6][9].
• Nevertheless, the rise of consumer genomics (2007‒) and population-genetic work by groups like Reich’s lab reopened debate on whether large-scale clusters are meaningful [5] [7].


Human population groups and known differences 
'''Arguments that race has a biological component (race-realist or population-structure view)'''  
Population geneticists often replace “race” with “continental ancestry clusters” or “human population groups.” Broad groups commonly cited are: sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans (including Middle Easterners), East Asians, South Asians, Native Americans, and Oceanians [11]. Differences documented include: 
• Allele frequencies at disease-relevant loci (e.g., sickle-cell trait in parts of Africa; lactase persistence in Northern Europeans) [11]. 
• Polygenic height scores differing by a few centimeters in predicted adult stature across continents [11]. 
• Variation in skin pigmentation genes (e.g., SLC24A5, OCA2) explaining much—but not all—phenotypic color differences [5]. 
• AI models can infer these groups from medical images, even controlling for visible features, indicating deeper correlates in tissue morphology [2].  


Origins of different human population groups  
* Multivariate analysis of thousands of loci can classify individuals into continental clusters that correspond to common racial labels with high accuracy (Edwards’ critique of Lewontin) [10].  
• All modern humans descend from an African population ~50–70 kya that expanded out of Africa; successive founder effects, isolation by distance, and local adaptation produced regional clusters [11].   
* Deep-learning systems can identify a patient’s self-reported race from medical images even when expert radiologists cannot, suggesting that phenotypic correlates of ancestry exist beyond the obvious [2].   
• Back-migrations into Africa, as well as admixture with archaic hominins (Neanderthals, Denisovans), further shaped present-day continental genetic structure [5] [11].   
* Some medically relevant gene variants (e.g., sickle-cell trait, certain drug-metabolizing alleles) differ in frequency among continental populations, so ignoring ancestry can reduce clinical accuracy [5][7]. 
• Most clusters are clinal rather than discrete; where geography forms barriers (Sahara, Himalayas, oceans) the clines steepen, creating partially separable groups that map onto folk races [5].
* Evolutionary history, migration bottlenecks and local adaptation predict that populations separated for tens of thousands of years will show small but systematic genetic differences [1][11].   
Authors defending this view emphasise that statistical population differences do not justify social hierarchies; they only claim descriptive reality [1][5].


The race and IQ debate 
'''Historical factors shaping the “social construct” idea'''  
• Beginning with Arthur Jensen’s 1969 Harvard Educational Review article, scholars argued that mean IQ gaps between U.S. Black and White populations are partly genetic; others attributed the gap entirely to environment. 
• Herrnstein & Murray’s 1994 bestseller “The Bell Curve” mainstreamed the debate, provoking strong pushback from social scientists. 
• Jason Richwine’s 2013 PhD and subsequent firing from the Heritage Foundation kept the controversy alive [12]. 
• Online venues such as Quillette and blogs by Steve Sailer continue to argue for partial heredity, whereas mainstream outlets emphasize environmental explanations and warn about misuses [8] [13]. 
• Current genomics finds thousands of loci associated with cognitive traits, but their portability across ancestries is limited, leaving the causal balance unsettled [11].  
Conflicting views: hereditarians (e.g., Sailer, Richwine) cite polygenic score gaps, while critics (NYT op-ed by Reich, UCSC Science & Justice) warn that socioeconomic confounders and stratification artifacts remain large [6] [7].


Timeline of public discourse  
* 19th-century “scientific racism” tied race to moral and intellectual ranking; the revulsion after World War II prompted UNESCO’s campaign to de-biologise the concept [4].  
1940s–1950s: Post-war UNESCO statements promote social-construct framing [4].   
* Post-war sociological literature reframed race as a product of power relations, culminating in the civil-rights era consensus that racism, not biology, explained group disparities [4][6].   
* Continuing association of biological race with eugenics has kept the term politically charged, encouraging many scholars to treat any biological talk of race with suspicion [6][14].


1972: Lewontin publishes variance-partitioning paper; widely cited as refutation of biological race [9].  
'''Human population groups'''  


1980s–1990s: Population-genetic clustering methods (RFLPs, microsatellites) quantify ancestry; The Bell Curve (1994) sparks race-IQ debate.
Population geneticists usually speak of continental ancestry clusters—e.g., sub-Saharan African, West Eurasian, East Asian, Oceanian, Indigenous American, etc.—identified through allele-frequency data rather than census labels [5][10][11]. These “population groups” are fuzzy, overlap at the edges, and reflect historical migrations and admixture rather than discrete subspecies.


2003: Edwards’ “Lewontin’s Fallacy” essay argues population structure is still real [10].  
'''Known differences among population groups'''  


2013: Jason Richwine controversy renews political focus on IQ and immigration [12].   
* Frequency differences in disease-related alleles (e.g., APOL1 kidney-disease variants in West Africans, lactase persistence in northern Europeans) are well documented [5][7]. 
* Average skin pigmentation, lactose tolerance, alcohol-flush response, and various pharmacogenomic markers differ by ancestry cluster for evolutionary reasons [5][11].   
* Recent work shows AI can recover ancestry signals from X-ray and MRI data, implying anatomical correlates that are not obvious to humans [2]. 
All authors agree that individual overlap is large and that group averages do not determine any given person’s traits [5][9][11].


2018: David Reich NYT op-ed urges honest engagement with genetic differences, igniting wide commentary [5] [7].  
'''Origins of different human population groups'''  


2022: Medical-image AI paper shows race prediction, challenging “biology-free” view [2].   
* Modern humans left Africa ~60–70 kya, then experienced serial founder effects; major splits between African and non-African lineages date to this period [11]. 
* Subsequent regional adaptations (altitude tolerance in Tibetans, skin-color genes in Europeans and East Asians, starch-digestion genes in agricultural populations) arose over the last 5–20 kya [5][11].   
* Extensive admixture—e.g., between European farmers, steppe pastoralists, and earlier hunter-gatherers—means that present-day populations are mosaics of multiple ancient lineages [5].


Present: Blogs, magazines, and preprints keep the debate active; academic consensus remains that human variation is both clinal and patterned, with social meaning layered on top [1] [6] [11].
'''The race and IQ debate''' 
 
The debate asks whether average IQ differences observed between racial/ancestry groups are wholly environmental or partly genetic. 
* Hereditarian commentators (e.g., Richwine, Sailer, some contributors to Aporia and Quillette) argue that genetic factors probably play a role, citing the high heritability of IQ within populations and the stability of group gaps across environments [1][8][12][13]. 
* Environmentalists point to socioeconomic inequality, discrimination, test bias, and the Flynn effect as sufficient explanations, and warn that genetic claims risk reinforcing prejudice [6][9][14]. 
* Most mainstream geneticists avoid firm conclusions, noting that the causal architecture of complex traits like cognition is still poorly understood and that polygenic scores have ancestry-specific biases [5][7]. 
The topic remains controversial; several venues have de-platformed or disinvited researchers discussing it, illustrating what some writers call a “conformity problem” in race discourse [3][12].
 
'''Public discourse and areas of disagreement''' 
 
Across the sources, three recurrent tensions appear: 
# Terminology: whether to keep the word “race,” replace it with “population,” or drop categorisation altogether [4][6][7][13]. 
# Moral stakes: fear that biological discussion can fuel racism versus concern that denying biology can harm medical accuracy and inhibit open inquiry [2][3][5][7]. 
# Epistemic standards: disagreement over how much evidence is needed before discussing sensitive hypotheses, especially regarding cognitive traits [3][8][12]. 
 
Because different authors emphasise different risks—medical, moral, or intellectual—consensus on the nature and significance of race remains elusive.


== Sources ==
== Sources ==
# [https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-case-for-race-realism The Case for Race Realism - Aporia Magazine] (Opinion/Essay)
# [https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-case-for-race-realism The Case for Race Realism – ''Aporia Magazine''] (Opinion / Essay)
# [https://www.thewikle.com/resources/AI_recognition_of_patient_race_in_medical_imaging_%282022%29.pdf “AI Recognition of Patient Race in Medical Imaging”] (2022, pre-print PDF). Empirical research
# [https://www.thewikle.com/resources/AI_recognition_of_patient_race_in_medical_imaging_%282022%29.pdf “AI Recognition of Patient Race in Medical Imaging”] (2022 pre-print PDF; Empirical research)
# [https://www.persuasion.community/p/discourse-on-race-has-a-conformity Discourse on Race Has a Conformity Problem]
# [https://www.persuasion.community/p/discourse-on-race-has-a-conformity Discourse on Race Has a Conformity Problem – ''Persuasion''] (Opinion / Essay)
# https://www.thewikle.com/resources/Changing_the_concept_of_race_-_On_UNESCO_and_cultural_internationalism_%282020%29.pdf
# [https://www.thewikle.com/resources/Changing_the_concept_of_race_-_On_UNESCO_and_cultural_internationalism_%282020%29.pdf Changing the Concept of Race: On UNESCO and Cultural Internationalism] (Historical scholarship)
# https://www.unz.com/isteve/david-reich-how-to-talk-about-race-and-genetics/
# [https://www.unz.com/isteve/david-reich-how-to-talk-about-race-and-genetics/ David Reich: How to Talk About “Race” and Genetics – ''iSteve''] (Blog commentary)
# https://scijust.ucsc.edu/2019/05/30/developing-debate-on-race-and-genomics/
# [https://scijust.ucsc.edu/2019/05/30/developing-debate-on-race-and-genomics/ Developing: Debate on “Race” and Genomics – UCSC Science & Justice] (Research commentary / Blog post)
# https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/opinion/genes-race.html
# [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/opinion/genes-race.html How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of “Race” – ''The New York Times''] (Opinion / Op-Ed)
# https://quillette.com/2017/06/11/no-voice-vox-sense-nonsense-discussing-iq-race/
# [https://quillette.com/2017/06/11/no-voice-vox-sense-nonsense-discussing-iq-race/ No Voice at Vox: Sense and Nonsense About Discussing IQ and Race – ''Quillette''] (Opinion / Essay)
# https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7
# [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7 Race: A Social Destruction of a Biological Concept – ''Biology & Philosophy''] (Peer-reviewed journal article)
# https://www.thewikle.com/resources/Edwards2003-LewontinFallacy.pdf
# [https://www.thewikle.com/resources/Edwards2003-LewontinFallacy.pdf Lewontin’s Fallacy – A. W. F. Edwards (2003)] (Peer-reviewed article)
# https://www.razibkhan.com/p/current-status-its-complicated
# [https://www.razibkhan.com/p/current-status-its-complicated Current Status: It’s Complicated – ''Razib Khan’s Unsupervised Learning''] (Newsletter essay / Blog post)
# https://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-095353
# [https://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-095353 Why Can’t We Talk About IQ? – ''Politico''] (Opinion / Op-Ed)
# https://www.stevesailer.net/p/latest-rationalization-race-doesnt
# [https://www.stevesailer.net/p/latest-rationalization-race-doesnt Latest Rationalization: Race Doesn’t Exist, But Subraces Do – ''Steve Sailer Blog''] (Blog commentary)
# https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/03/trump-annoyed-the-smithsonian-isnt-promoting-discredited-racial-ideas/
# [https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/03/trump-annoyed-the-smithsonian-isnt-promoting-discredited-racial-ideas/ Trump “Annoyed” the Smithsonian Isn’t Promoting Discredited Racial Ideas – ''Ars Technica''] (News article)


== Question ==
== Question ==
Retrieved from "https://www.thewikle.com/w/Race_Social_Construct"