The Wikle

Race Social Construct: Difference between revisions

← Older edit
WikleBot (talk | contribs)
174 edits
m Updated page with AI-generated answer [automated edit by WikleBot]
WikleBot (talk | contribs)
174 edits
m Updated page with AI-generated answer [automated edit by WikleBot]
 
(8 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? 
Race is largely a social construct in that the labels, boundaries and meanings attached to human variation are produced by societies; yet measurable biological population structure also exists. Geneticists find that variation is clinal and overlapping, but multivariate methods can nevertheless cluster most people into broad continental groups that resemble folk-racial terms [10][1]. Whether one calls those clusters “races,” “ancestry groups” or something else is partly a matter of convention, so the answer depends on the definition one adopts.
-------------------------------- 
Most contemporary anthropologists and sociologists describe “race” as a social construct—a classification scheme created in specific historical contexts to make sense of visible human variation and to justify social hierarchies [9]. Many geneticists, however, argue that while folk‐race categories are imprecise, they nevertheless map—sometimes crudely—onto real patterns of ancestry and allele-frequency differences among continental populations [1] [7] [10] [11]. Thus, whether race is “social” or “biological” depends on which aspects of the concept are being discussed (names, boundaries and stereotypes vs. measurable population structure).


Arguments that race is primarily a social construct
'''Arguments for race being a social construct'''
---------------------------------------------------- 
* Historical contingency: European colonial powers created racial categories to legitimise slavery and imperial rule; these categories changed across time and place, showing their malleability [4] [9]. 


* Genetic overlap: The majority of human genetic variation (≈85 %) is found within local populations rather than between continental groups, suggesting that racial boundaries are biologically weak [9].   
* Classic racial taxonomies relied on a handful of visible traits and ignored most genetic variation; 85 % of that variation lies within, not between, conventional races [9]. 
* Genetic differences change gradually with geography; the drawing of lines is therefore arbitrary and culturally contingent [7][6]. 
* Racial categories are historically fluid—e.g., U.S. census definitions have changed repeatedly—showing their social rather than biological origin [4].   
* Modern ideas of race were entangled with colonialism, slavery and nation-building; their primary function was social placement, not scientific classification [4][3].


* Continuous clines: Human traits vary gradually with geography (clinal variation) rather than as discrete blocks; dividing a continuum into races is therefore seen as arbitrary [6] [9]. 
'''Arguments against the claim that race is only a social construct'''


* Social consequences outweigh biology: In medicine, education and law, the social meaning attached to race often determines life outcomes more than biology does [3].
* Using hundreds of genetic loci, algorithms correctly assign continental ancestry with >95 % accuracy, indicating that some structure is real and detectable [10]. 
* Medical AI systems infer a patient’s self-identified race from X-ray images that look identical to clinicians, suggesting systematic biological correlates of ancestry [2]. 
* Certain alleles (lactase persistence, APOL1, EDAR, EPAS1) differ markedly in frequency across regions; ignoring that structure can impair biomedical research [7][1]. 
* Statistically defined clusters correspond well enough to everyday labels that discarding the term “race” can obscure communication about population genetics [1][10].


Arguments that race has a biological basis (race realism) 
Hence, many scholars describe race as simultaneously a social category and an imperfect proxy for ancestry-based population structure.
--------------------------------------------------------- 
* Cluster analyses: Multivariate genetic studies — e.g., principal-component analyses of thousands of loci — recover five-to-seven ancestry clusters that correspond roughly to traditional continental races [10] [11].


* Predictive power: Machine-learning systems can infer self-identified race from medical images even when human experts cannot, implying the presence of subtle, widely distributed biological signals [2]. 
'''Historical factors influencing the social-construction idea'''


* Population-level trait differences: Frequency differences in disease alleles (e.g., sickle-cell trait, lactase persistence) and some morphological traits track ancestry lines commonly labelled as racial [7] [10].
* Enlightenment taxonomists (Linnaeus, Blumenbach) tied perceived behavioural hierarchies to physical traits, embedding race in Western science [4].
* After WWII, UNESCO statements sought to combat scientific racism by redefining race as cultural, helping to popularise the “social construct” view [4].
* Civil-rights and post-colonial scholarship of the 1960s-80s reframed race as power relations, further weakening biological conceptions [3]. 
* Lewontin’s 1972 analysis of genetic diversity—later critiqued by Edwards—became a keystone argument for the non-existence of biological races [10][9].


* Rejection of “Lewontin’s Fallacy”: Critics argue that while most variation is within groups, the between-group component is nonetheless sufficient to classify individuals with high accuracy [10]. 
'''Human population groups and known differences'''


Conflicting views among sources 
Geneticists usually speak of continental ancestry clusters—Sub-Saharan African, West Eurasian, East Asian, Native American, Oceanian—and finer sub-populations formed by isolation and drift [12]. Documented average differences include:
------------------------------- 
* Edwards [10] claims racial classification is biologically meaningful, directly challenging Lewontin’s 1972 conclusion echoed by Sesardic [9].


* Reich [7] and Khan [11] adopt an intermediate position: acknowledging social misuse of race while insisting that population genetics cannot ignore structure.   
* Disease alleles: sickle-cell trait in West Africans; BRCA1/2 founder mutations in Ashkenazi Jews [7]. 
* Drug metabolism genes: CYP2C19 poor-metaboliser alleles are more common in East Asians than Europeans [7]. 
* Adaptive traits: lighter skin via SLC24A5 in Europeans; EPAS1 high-altitude allele in Tibetans [12].   
* Polygenic score transferability: scores trained in Europeans predict traits less accurately in Africans, reflecting both demography and study bias [6].


Historical factors shaping the “social construction” idea 
Claims about behavioural or cognitive differences remain disputed; some authors argue for partial genetic influence [8][1], while others emphasise environment and measurement artefacts [3]. There is no consensus.
--------------------------------------------------------- 
* UNESCO statements (1950–1952) promoted the view that race is primarily cultural to combat scientific racism after WWII [4].


* U.S. civil-rights era (1950s–1970s) transformed race from a biological to a legal-political category; courts relied on social definitions in desegregation and immigration cases [9]. 
'''Origins of different human population groups'''


* Post-Genomic debates (2000s-present) reignited discussion as inexpensive genotyping revealed both the complexity and the detectability of ancestry [6] [7] [11]. 
Modern humans left Africa roughly 60–70 kya. Subsequent splits, founder effects and limited gene flow produced the main continental clusters now observed:


Human population groups and known differences 
* An initial divergence between Africans and non-Africans, the latter acquiring Neanderthal ancestry [7].  
---------------------------------------------   
* Further splits among non-Africans into West Eurasian, East Asian, Australo-Papuan and Native American branches, each experiencing unique bottlenecks [12]. 
“Population group” usually refers to breeding populations that have shared ancestry over many generations. Continental-scale groupings (sub-Saharan African, European, East Asian, Native American, Oceanian, South Asian) are the broadest commonly used clusters [7] [11].
* Within Africa, long-standing differentiation (e.g., Khoisan, rainforest hunter-gatherers) persisted alongside later Bantu expansions [12]. 
* Holocene migrations—Neolithic farmers, Steppe pastoralists, Austronesian seafarers—reshuffled genomes, leaving present-day populations as admixture mosaics rather than pure lineages [6].


Documented differences include: 
'''Public discourse'''
* Disease allele frequencies (e.g., APOL1 variants and kidney disease in West Africans; cystic fibrosis ΔF508 in Europeans) [7]. 


* Drug-metabolism variants (e.g., CYP2D6 copy-number variation differing across groups) that affect pharmacogenomics [7].
Discussion of race and genetics is polarised. Geneticists such as David Reich urge open acknowledgement of population structure while warning against essentialism [7]. Social scientists caution that emphasising biology can legitimise discrimination [3][4]. Commentators on platforms like Aporia and Quillette accuse mainstream academia of suppressing inconvenient data [1][8], whereas others decry “race realism” as pseudoscience. Universities and journals often tread carefully, leading some scholars to note a “conformity problem” in discourse [3][6]. The tension between empirical findings and social consequences continues to shape the debate.


* Physical traits such as skin pigmentation alleles (SLC24A5, SLC45A2) and average bone density contrasts used in forensics [10]. 
'''Sources'''


* Machine-vision detectable patterns in X-ray and MRI images whose biological basis remains unclear [2].   
[1] The Case for Race Realism – Aporia Magazine.   
 
[2] “AI Recognition of Patient Race in Medical Imaging” (2022).   
Origins of population groups 
[3] Discourse on Race Has a Conformity Problem – Persuasion.   
---------------------------- 
[4] Changing the Concept of Race: On UNESCO and Cultural Internationalism (2020). 
* All modern humans trace ultimate ancestry to Africa (~50–70 kya).   
[6] Developing: Debate on “Race” and Genomics – UCSC Science & Justice.   
 
[7] How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of “Race” – The New York Times (David Reich).   
* Successive founder events (e.g., out-of-Africa, settlement of Eurasia, peopling of the Americas ~15 kya) created regional gene pools [7] [11].   
[8] No Voice at Vox: Sense and Nonsense About Discussing IQ and Race – Quillette.   
 
[9] Race: A Social Destruction of a Biological Concept – Biology & Philosophy.   
* Admixture, isolation-by-distance and local adaptation (to climate, diet, pathogens) sculpted present-day differences; hence groups are fuzzy and intersecting rather than strictly bounded “subspecies” [6] [11]. 
[10] Edwards, A. W. F. “Lewontin’s Fallacy” (2003).   
 
[12] Razib Khan. Current Status: It’s Complicated – Unsupervised Learning.
The race and IQ debate 
---------------------- 
Core question: Do average IQ score gaps between major ancestral groups reflect mainly environmental causes, genetic causes, or both? 
 
* Environmentalist position: Emphasises socioeconomic status, schooling quality, discrimination and test bias; argues genetic contribution is unproven [9].   
 
* Hereditarian position: Argues that because IQ is highly heritable within populations and because group gaps have been persistent, partial genetic explanations cannot be ruled out [8] [12].   
 
* Methodological critiques: Small sample sizes, cultural loading of tests, and the portability of heritability estimates across environments remain contested [8]. 
 
Public discourse and conformity pressures 
* Journalists, academics and policy staff often avoid the hereditarian view, citing potential social harms; this is labelled a “conformity problem” by some commentators [3] [12].   
 
* Others argue open discussion of genetics can coexist with egalitarian politics, citing Reich’s 2018 op-ed as an example [7]. 
 
Timeline of selected public milestones 
-------------------------------------- 
1950–1952  UNESCO statements declare race socially constructed and warn against biological determinism [4].   
 
1972  Lewontin publishes variance-partitioning analysis supporting weak biological race concept; widely cited [9]. 
 
2003  Edwards publishes “Lewontin’s Fallacy,” reviving biological race arguments [10].
 
2013  Politico highlights controversy over IQ research and immigration (Richwine affair) [12].   
 
2018  David Reich op-ed in New York Times urges nuanced talk about race and genetics [7]. 
 
2020  Historical study traces how UNESCO helped entrench “race as social construct” in policy discourse [4]. 
 
2022  Deep-learning paper shows medical images reveal race, adding new empirical wrinkle [2]. 
 
Ongoing  Blogs, magazines and newsletters (iSteve [5], Quillette [8], Razib Khan [11]) continue to debate genetic structure, IQ, and public speech norms, often reaching differing conclusions.


== Sources ==
== Sources ==
Line 110: Line 80:
# [https://www.stevesailer.net/p/latest-rationalization-race-doesnt Latest Rationalization: Race Doesn’t Exist, But Subraces Do – ''Steve Sailer Blog''] (Blog commentary)
# [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/ Trump “Annoyed” the Smithsonian Isn’t Promoting Discredited Racial Ideas – ''Ars Technica''] (News article)
# [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)
x


== Question ==
== Question ==
Line 117: Line 88:
What are human population groups and what are some known differences between them?
What are human population groups and what are some known differences between them?
What are the origins of different human population groups?
What are the origins of different human population groups?
What is the race and IQ debate?
Retrieved from "https://www.thewikle.com/w/Race_Social_Construct"