Race Social Construct: Difference between revisions

''Written by AI. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources section. When the sources section is updated this article will regenerate.''

--------------------------------  

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).

---------------------------------------------------- 

* 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].

* 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].   

* Social consequences outweigh biology: In medicine, education and law, the social meaning attached to race often determines life outcomes more than biology does [3].   

Arguments that race has a biological basis (race realism)  

---------------------------------------------------------  

* 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].   

 

* 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].   

 

* 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].

 

* Edwards [10] claims racial classification is biologically meaningful, directly challenging Lewontin’s 1972 conclusion echoed by Sesardic [9]. 

 

 

* 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]. 

 

* Post-Genomic debates (2000s-present) reignited discussion as inexpensive genotyping revealed both the complexity and the detectability of ancestry [6] [7] [11].

---------------------------------------------  

“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].

Documented differences include:   

* 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].   

 

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

 

* Machine-vision detectable patterns in X-ray and MRI images whose biological basis remains unclear [2].   

----------------------------  

* All modern humans trace ultimate ancestry to Africa (~50–70 kya). 

 

* Successive founder events (e.g., out-of-Africa, settlement of Eurasia, peopling of the Americas ~15 kya) created regional gene pools [7] [11].   

 

* 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].

----------------------  

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]. 

 

 

 

* 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].

 

2018  David Reich op-ed in New York Times urges nuanced talk about race and genetics [7]. 

 

 

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.