Jump to content

Is race a social construct?

From The Wikle
← Older editNewer edit →
WikleBot (talk | contribs)
162 edits
m Updated page with AI-generated answer [automated edit by WikleBot]
Line 3: Line 3:
----
----


== Overview  ==
Is race a social construct? 
The word “race” is used in at least two main ways in contemporary discourse:  
————————————————————  
# as a sociopolitical label that groups people according to rules that differ across time and place, and 
There is no single answer that satisfies every scholar or commentator. Two broad positions dominate the debate:
# as a loose biological shorthand for clusters of human genetic ancestry.


Whether those two meanings can be kept separate—or whether one should be preferred over the other—lies at the heart of the modern debate.
# Social-construction view Race classifications arose from historically contingent social, political and economic processes and do not correspond to discrete biological partitions in Homo sapiens [4] [9]. 
# Biological-population view While the word “race” is historically loaded, large-scale human population structure is real, genetically measurable and partially maps onto traditional racial labels [1] [10] [7].


----
Most researchers today accept that social meanings heavily shape racial categories while also recognising that human populations show patterned genetic variation.
 
== Is race a social construct?  ==
 
Short answer 
* Yes, in the sense that the everyday categories “Black,” “White,” “Asian,” etc., are defined by social rules that vary by country and epoch and are not required by biology alone [4][6]. 
* No, or at least “not only,” in the sense that humans do form partially distinguishable genetic clusters that broadly map onto continental ancestry, and these clusters can be predicted from DNA far better than chance [1][5][7][10][11].
 
Most scholars therefore speak of race as ''socially constructed'' yet ''constrained by population genetics''. The relative emphasis differs among authors, yielding ongoing controversy.
 
----
 
== Arguments that race is '''primarily a social construct'''  ==
 
* Classification rules are historically contingent: a person classified as “Black” in the U.S. might have been “coloured” in South Africa or “white” in Brazil at the same time period [4]. 
 
* Genetic variation is mostly ''within'' continental groups (~85 %, Lewontin 1972); hence between-group boundaries are blurry [6]. 
 
* Genomic clustering methods require researchers to pre-specify the number of clusters; the output can shift with sampling decisions and statistical settings [6]. 
 
* The label “race” has been entangled with colonial and political projects; UNESCO’s 1950 and 1951 statements called the biological race concept scientifically obsolete and socially harmful [4]. 
 
* In medicine, social conditions (e.g., access to care) often explain outcome disparities as well as, or better than, genetic ancestry [6].
 
----
 
== Arguments that race is '''not purely a social construct'''  ==
 
* When thousands of genetic markers are used, individuals cluster reliably into groups that align with self-identified continental ancestry—even when no population labels are supplied to the algorithm [10][11]. 
 
* A convolutional neural network can infer a patient’s self-reported race from radiological images with high accuracy, even when human experts cannot, suggesting a biological signal not reducible to social labelling [2]. 
 
* Certain allele frequency differences (e.g., lactose persistence, sickle-cell trait, EDAR variants affecting hair morphology) follow continental patterns and have medical relevance, implying that ignoring population structure can harm precision medicine [5][7]. 
 
* Critics of the Lewontin 85 % figure note that multiple loci considered jointly can separate populations with near-perfect accuracy (Edwards 2003) [10]. 
 
* Empirical geneticists such as David Reich argue that while race is a poor proxy, ancestry differences ''do'' exist and matter for some traits; denying this risks eroding public trust in science [5][7].
 
Authors disagree over how much weight to give these points. Aporia’s “Race Realism” essay emphasises them; the UNESCO historiography and some genomics sociologists emphasise social construction.
 
----
 
== Historical factors shaping the “social construct” view  ==
 
* 18th–19th c. naturalists (Linnaeus, Blumenbach) first formalised continental races, often ranking them hierarchically.


* Early 20th c. eugenics misused race categories; Nazi race science culminated in genocide, discrediting biological race in post-war scholarship.
Arguments for race as a social construct 
—————————————————————————— 
* Genetic differentiation is clinal and more continuous than categorical; neighbouring populations blend into one another without sharp breaks [9]. 
* Early racial typologies (e.g., “Caucasian”, “Negroid”) were created to justify colonial hierarchies and slavery, not to describe neutral biology [4].
* The majority of genetic variation (about 85 %) lies within any given population rather than between classic “races” (a finding popularised by Lewontin in 1972) [10]. 
* Legal, census and everyday definitions of race shift over time and place—e.g., Irish or Italians once counted as non-white in the U.S. [4]. 
* Modern genomics can identify fine-grained ancestry that cuts across continental labels, undercutting the idea of a few fixed races [6].


* UNESCO 1950, 1951, 1964 statements promoted “the race concept must be abandoned” and substituted “ethnic group” [4].
Arguments against (or qualified) 
———————————————— 
* When many genetic markers are analysed together, individuals cluster by continental ancestry with high statistical accuracy, indicating real population structure [10] [1]. 
* Certain medically relevant traits (sickle-cell, lactase persistence, drug-metabolising alleles) vary systematically by ancestry, so ignoring population structure can harm medical care [2] [7]. 
* The fact that variation is mostly within groups does not preclude robust average differences between groups; different markers carry non-redundant information [10]. 
* Popular denial of any biological component can impede honest discussion and fuel public mistrust when genetic findings do show group patterns [5] [3].


* 1972: Richard Lewontin’s famous paper quantified within- vs. between-group genetic variance and was widely interpreted as proving race is meaningless.   
Historical factors behind the constructivist turn 
—————————————————————————————————— 
1945–1952 Post-war reaction against scientific racism; UNESCO statements declare “race” mainly social [4]. 
1950s–1960s Anthropology embraces cultural relativism; civil-rights era stresses equality. 
1972 Lewontin’s famous paper quantifies within- vs between-group variation, widely cited against biological race [10].   
1990s Human Genome Project popularises the “we are 99.9 % the same” slogan. 
2000s–present Genomics re-opens debate; population geneticists describe clines and clusters, and historians unpack how race concepts evolved [6] [7].


* 1990s–2000s: The Human Genome Project popularised the slogan “there is more genetic variation within races than between them.” 
Human population groups and known differences 
———————————————————————————————— 
“Population group” usually refers to clusters of common ancestry detectable in allele frequencies. Roughly continental clusters are: sub-Saharan African, European/Middle Eastern, East Asian, South Asian, Native American, and Oceanian. Within each are many sub-clusters.


* 2003: Edwards’ rejoinder “Lewontin’s Fallacy” rekindled debate by showing that multivariate methods can classify populations [10].   
Documented average differences include: 
* Skin pigmentation genes (e.g., SLC24A5 in Europeans, OCA2 variants in East Asians) [7]. 
* Disease risks such as sickle-cell (higher in West-African ancestries) and Tay-Sachs (higher in Ashkenazi Jews) [7]. 
* Drug-metabolising variants (CYP2D6, VKORC1) relevant for warfarin or codeine dosing [2]. 
* Frequencies of lactase persistence (high in northern Europeans and certain East African pastoralists, low in East Asians) [7].   
Because traits are polygenic and overlapping, none of these differences create hard boundaries, but they are statistically detectable.


* 2010s–2020s: Cheap whole-genome sequencing and admixture studies complicated the picture; public discussion polarised along political lines [3][5][6][11][13].
Origins of population groups 
——————————————— 
* Out-of-Africa migration ~50–70 kya created a primary split between African and non-African ancestries [7]. 
* Subsequent divergences (West vs East Eurasian; later Amerindian founders) were shaped by geographic isolation, drift and local selection. 
* Recent admixture events—Atlantic slave trade, colonial era migrations—introduced additional complexity, producing clines rather than discrete blocks.


----
The race and IQ debate 
———————————————— 
Core question: Do observed average IQ score gaps between ancestral groups reflect environmental causes alone or partly genetic ones?


== Human population groups and known differences  ==
Timeline of the public discourse 
1969 Arthur Jensen argues heritable component; fierce backlash. 
1994 The Bell Curve amplifies the controversy. 
2013 Jason Richwine loses a policy job after discussing IQ and immigration [12]. 
2017 Quillette runs essays criticising mainstream media for avoiding the topic [8]. 
2021–present Blogs and podcasts (Razib Khan, iSteve, etc.) defend open debate, while many academics label the question scientifically unproductive or socially harmful [3] [5] [13].


Meaningful ''population'' (or ''ancestry'') groups are usually defined by common descent across geographic space. A minimal list often used in medical genetics is:  
Main positions  
* West Eurasian (roughly Europe & Near East),
Environment-only Socioeconomic status, test bias, discrimination and culture explain gaps; genetics is marginal [9].  
* East Asian,   
Mixed-heritability Both environmental and genetic factors contribute; heritability within populations suggests potential between-group effects pending further evidence [8] [12].  
* Sub-Saharan African, 
Current state No definitive study has separated all confounds; funding and publication barriers restrict new data, keeping the controversy alive [3].
* Native American,  
* Oceanian,
* South Asian.


Selected documented differences:  
Conflicting views among cited authors  
* Disease alleles: Sickle-cell trait (African malarial regions), Tay-Sachs (Ashkenazi), alcohol-flushing ALDH2''2 variant (East Asia) [5][7].
* Edwards [10] and the Aporia essay [1] stress biological reality; Gould, Lewontin (critiqued by Edwards) and the Biology & Philosophy article [9] stress social construction. 
* David Reich suggests acknowledging both genetics and social history [5]; UCSC Science & Justice notes disagreement even within genomics [6].


* Morphology: Average skin melanin, hair‐shaft shape (EDAR V370A), tooth-shovel trait, high-altitude haemoglobin adaptations in Tibetans [5][11]. 
Public-discourse conformity and censorship 
 
Opinion writers describe strong social sanctions against dissent from the “race is only social” narrative [3] [8] [12], whereas others worry that emphasis on biology may revive discredited racial ideologies [14].
* Height: Northern Europeans are among the tallest populations; Pygmy groups are among the shortest. Polygenic height scores track this partially but incompletely [11]. 
 
* Drug metabolism: CYP2C19 poor-metaboliser alleles are more common in East Asians than Europeans, influencing clopidogrel dosing guidelines [7].
 
All differences are statistical averages with large overlap among individuals.


----
----


== Origins of the major population groups  ==
This article summarises ongoing debates without endorsing any side.
 
* Modern Homo sapiens left Africa ~60–70 kya. 
 
* A series of founder effects and isolation by distance produced continental genetic structure; for example, East vs. West Eurasians diverged roughly 40 kya, with later back-migrations [5][7]. 
 
* Admixture with archaic humans (Neanderthals and Denisovans) varies by region (higher in Oceanians) [5]. 
 
* Subsequent Holocene migrations (e.g., Bantu expansion, Steppe pastoralists, Austronesian dispersal) reshaped regional genomes, so present-day populations are mosaics rather than discrete branches [11].
 
----
 
== The race and IQ debate  ==
 
Definition 
The “race and IQ” debate asks whether average IQ score gaps among population groups are wholly environmental or partly genetic.
 
Key moments 
* 1969: Arthur Jensen argued a partly genetic explanation for the Black–White gap in the U.S. 
 
* 1994: “The Bell Curve” (Herrnstein & Murray) reignited controversy. 
 
* 2003–2010: Increasing twin and adoption data suggested high heritability ''within'' populations but did not settle ''between-group'' causes. 
 
* 2013: Heritage Foundation analyst Jason Richwine resigned after criticism of his dissertation claiming Hispanic–White IQ differences were partly genetic [12]. 
 
* 2017: Quillette article criticised mainstream media for dismissing any genetic component without argument [8]. 
 
* Polygenic scores: GWAS now predict a share of IQ variance in Europeans, but portability across ancestries is limited, making inferences about group gaps uncertain [11].
 
Positions 
* Genetic contribution likely non-zero (race-realist writers)[1][8][13]. 
* Evidence insufficient; environment dominates (critics, many psychologists). 
* Most genomicists caution that present methods cannot definitively answer between-group causation [5][6].
 
----
 
== Timeline of public discourse  ==
 
1700s Linnaeus classifies ''Homo sapiens* into four continental “varieties.” 
 
1850s Scientific racism peaks; craniometry used to rank groups. 
 
1945 End of WWII discredits overt racial typologies. 
 
1950–51 UNESCO statements: race mostly social, replace by “ethnicity” [4]. 
 
1972 Lewontin variance analysis [6]. 
 
1994 “The Bell Curve.” 
 
2003 “Lewontin’s Fallacy” paper [10]. 
 
2013 Richwine controversy [12]. 
 
2018 David Reich NYT op-ed argues for a middle position [7]. 
 
2021 Substack, Aporia, Persuasion hosting freer debates amid claims of “conformity pressure” in academia [1][3][11]. 
 
2022 AI imaging paper suggests non-visible racial signal in tissue scans [2].
 
----
 
== Updated Sources  ==
 
# The Case for Race Realism – Aporia Magazine (Opinion/Essay) – https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-case-for-race-realism 
 
# “AI Recognition of Patient Race in Medical Imaging” (2022 pre-print, empirical research PDF) – https://www.thewikle.com/resources/AI''recognition''of''patient''race''in''medical''imaging''%282022%29.pdf 
 
# Discourse on Race Has a Conformity Problem – Persuasion (Opinion) – https://www.persuasion.community/p/discourse-on-race-has-a-conformity 
 
# Changing the Concept of Race: On UNESCO and Cultural Internationalism (2020, historical scholarship PDF) – https://www.thewikle.com/resources/Changing''the''concept''of''race''-''On''UNESCO''and''cultural''internationalism_%282020%29.pdf 
 
# David Reich: How to Talk about Race and Genetics – Unz Review (Interview/Blog) – https://www.unz.com/isteve/david-reich-how-to-talk-about-race-and-genetics/ 
 
# Developing Debate on Race and Genomics – UC Santa Cruz SciJust (Blog overview) – https://scijust.ucsc.edu/2019/05/30/developing-debate-on-race-and-genomics/ 
 
# How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of Race – New York Times (Op-ed) – https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/opinion/genes-race.html 
 
# No Voice, Vox: Sense & Nonsense in Discussing IQ & Race – Quillette (Opinion/Analysis) – https://quillette.com/2017/06/11/no-voice-vox-sense-nonsense-discussing-iq-race/ 
 
# “On the Concept of Race” (Philosophy of Biology, peer-reviewed 2009) – Springer – https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7 
 
# Lewontin’s Fallacy – A. W. F. Edwards, 2003 (Peer-reviewed PDF) – https://www.thewikle.com/resources/Edwards2003-LewontinFallacy.pdf 
 
# The Current Status: It’s Complicated – Razib Khan Substack (Blog) – https://www.razibkhan.com/p/current-status-its-complicated 
 
# Jason Richwine IQ Controversy – Politico (News/Opinion) – https://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-095353 
 
# Latest Rationalization: “Race Doesn’t Exist” – Steve Sailer Blog (Opinion) – https://www.stevesailer.net/p/latest-rationalization-race-doesnt 
 
# Trump Annoyed the Smithsonian Isn’t Promoting Discredited Racial Ideas – Ars Technica (Satire/Commentary) – https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/03/trump-annoyed-the-smithsonian-isnt-promoting-discredited-racial-ideas/


== Sources ==
== Sources ==

Revision as of 01:45, 1 May 2025

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? ———————————————————— There is no single answer that satisfies every scholar or commentator. Two broad positions dominate the debate:

  1. Social-construction view Race classifications arose from historically contingent social, political and economic processes and do not correspond to discrete biological partitions in Homo sapiens [4] [9].
  2. Biological-population view While the word “race” is historically loaded, large-scale human population structure is real, genetically measurable and partially maps onto traditional racial labels [1] [10] [7].

Most researchers today accept that social meanings heavily shape racial categories while also recognising that human populations show patterned genetic variation.

Arguments for race as a social construct ——————————————————————————

  • Genetic differentiation is clinal and more continuous than categorical; neighbouring populations blend into one another without sharp breaks [9].
  • Early racial typologies (e.g., “Caucasian”, “Negroid”) were created to justify colonial hierarchies and slavery, not to describe neutral biology [4].
  • The majority of genetic variation (about 85 %) lies within any given population rather than between classic “races” (a finding popularised by Lewontin in 1972) [10].
  • Legal, census and everyday definitions of race shift over time and place—e.g., Irish or Italians once counted as non-white in the U.S. [4].
  • Modern genomics can identify fine-grained ancestry that cuts across continental labels, undercutting the idea of a few fixed races [6].

Arguments against (or qualified) ————————————————

  • When many genetic markers are analysed together, individuals cluster by continental ancestry with high statistical accuracy, indicating real population structure [10] [1].
  • Certain medically relevant traits (sickle-cell, lactase persistence, drug-metabolising alleles) vary systematically by ancestry, so ignoring population structure can harm medical care [2] [7].
  • The fact that variation is mostly within groups does not preclude robust average differences between groups; different markers carry non-redundant information [10].
  • Popular denial of any biological component can impede honest discussion and fuel public mistrust when genetic findings do show group patterns [5] [3].

Historical factors behind the constructivist turn —————————————————————————————————— 1945–1952 Post-war reaction against scientific racism; UNESCO statements declare “race” mainly social [4]. 1950s–1960s Anthropology embraces cultural relativism; civil-rights era stresses equality. 1972 Lewontin’s famous paper quantifies within- vs between-group variation, widely cited against biological race [10]. 1990s Human Genome Project popularises the “we are 99.9 % the same” slogan. 2000s–present Genomics re-opens debate; population geneticists describe clines and clusters, and historians unpack how race concepts evolved [6] [7].

Human population groups and known differences ———————————————————————————————— “Population group” usually refers to clusters of common ancestry detectable in allele frequencies. Roughly continental clusters are: sub-Saharan African, European/Middle Eastern, East Asian, South Asian, Native American, and Oceanian. Within each are many sub-clusters.

Documented average differences include:

  • Skin pigmentation genes (e.g., SLC24A5 in Europeans, OCA2 variants in East Asians) [7].
  • Disease risks such as sickle-cell (higher in West-African ancestries) and Tay-Sachs (higher in Ashkenazi Jews) [7].
  • Drug-metabolising variants (CYP2D6, VKORC1) relevant for warfarin or codeine dosing [2].
  • Frequencies of lactase persistence (high in northern Europeans and certain East African pastoralists, low in East Asians) [7].

Because traits are polygenic and overlapping, none of these differences create hard boundaries, but they are statistically detectable.

Origins of population groups ———————————————

  • Out-of-Africa migration ~50–70 kya created a primary split between African and non-African ancestries [7].
  • Subsequent divergences (West vs East Eurasian; later Amerindian founders) were shaped by geographic isolation, drift and local selection.
  • Recent admixture events—Atlantic slave trade, colonial era migrations—introduced additional complexity, producing clines rather than discrete blocks.

The race and IQ debate ———————————————— Core question: Do observed average IQ score gaps between ancestral groups reflect environmental causes alone or partly genetic ones?

Timeline of the public discourse 1969 Arthur Jensen argues heritable component; fierce backlash. 1994 The Bell Curve amplifies the controversy. 2013 Jason Richwine loses a policy job after discussing IQ and immigration [12]. 2017 Quillette runs essays criticising mainstream media for avoiding the topic [8]. 2021–present Blogs and podcasts (Razib Khan, iSteve, etc.) defend open debate, while many academics label the question scientifically unproductive or socially harmful [3] [5] [13].

Main positions Environment-only Socioeconomic status, test bias, discrimination and culture explain gaps; genetics is marginal [9]. Mixed-heritability Both environmental and genetic factors contribute; heritability within populations suggests potential between-group effects pending further evidence [8] [12]. Current state No definitive study has separated all confounds; funding and publication barriers restrict new data, keeping the controversy alive [3].

Conflicting views among cited authors

  • Edwards [10] and the Aporia essay [1] stress biological reality; Gould, Lewontin (critiqued by Edwards) and the Biology & Philosophy article [9] stress social construction.
  • David Reich suggests acknowledging both genetics and social history [5]; UCSC Science & Justice notes disagreement even within genomics [6].

Public-discourse conformity and censorship Opinion writers describe strong social sanctions against dissent from the “race is only social” narrative [3] [8] [12], whereas others worry that emphasis on biology may revive discredited racial ideologies [14].

This article summarises ongoing debates without endorsing any side.

Sources

  1. The Case for Race Realism – Aporia Magazine (Opinion / Essay)
  2. “AI Recognition of Patient Race in Medical Imaging” (2022 pre-print PDF; Empirical research)
  3. Discourse on Race Has a Conformity Problem – Persuasion (Opinion / Essay)
  4. Changing the Concept of Race: On UNESCO and Cultural Internationalism (Historical scholarship)
  5. David Reich: How to Talk About “Race” and Genetics – iSteve (Blog commentary)
  6. Developing: Debate on “Race” and Genomics – UCSC Science & Justice (Research commentary / Blog post)
  7. How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of “Race” – The New York Times (Opinion / Op-Ed)
  8. No Voice at Vox: Sense and Nonsense About Discussing IQ and Race – Quillette (Opinion / Essay)
  9. Race: A Social Destruction of a Biological Concept – Biology & Philosophy (Peer-reviewed journal article)
  10. Lewontin’s Fallacy – A. W. F. Edwards (2003) (Peer-reviewed article)
  11. Current Status: It’s Complicated – Razib Khan’s Unsupervised Learning (Newsletter essay / Blog post)
  12. Why Can’t We Talk About IQ? – Politico (Opinion / Op-Ed)
  13. Latest Rationalization: Race Doesn’t Exist, But Subraces Do – Steve Sailer Blog (Blog commentary)
  14. Trump “Annoyed” the Smithsonian Isn’t Promoting Discredited Racial Ideas – Ars Technica (News article)

Question

Is race a social construct? What are the arguments for and against race being a social construct? What historical factors influenced the idea of race as a social construct? What are human population groups and what are some known differences between them? What are the origins of different human population groups? What is the race and IQ debate?

Retrieved from "https://www.thewikle.com/index.php?title=Race_Social_Construct&oldid=479"