(Boxill, 2001:3) The meeting of new people with visibly different characteristics to themselves demanded an explanation. The original connotations attached to the term ‘race’ at this time was that certain ‘races’ were inferior biologically. Thus, their genetic make-up was so that it made them minor human beings. Due to this control and distinction of those ‘racially different’ persons and groups, the notion of race took root and became part of common sense. ‘Race’ was now apparent.
However, towards the end of the nineteenth century there was confusion as to what races were being classified for. The work by Charles Darwin on the theory of evolution set the stages for the discussion of ‘race’. He developed the theory in a scientific way and created the shift from “the stability of ‘pure types’ to a subsequent genetics-based approach to individual characteristics and the effects on them of processes of change,” (Boxill, 2001:65) His studies were based on changes in the gene pool of a group or groups. This unravelled the opinion of there being more differences within the groups themselves than between them. This idea from the hard sciences disproved much of what had previously been created as ‘race’ and, thus came the idea that the term ‘race’ had no importance or existence except as a social tool in peoples imagination.
In light of the above information one must consider if the term ‘race’ should be used and, if so, in what context ant to carry what meaning. The primordial approach to ‘race’ carries much of the traditional ideas carried with the term. It argues the essence of identity that have existed throughout time and which are innate, essential and unchanging. It is apparent that any scientific reasoning when referring to race has been denounced, “ ...the notion of race in the natural sciences of man is being refuted on grounds of scientific reason and intellectual honesty.” (Guillaumin, 1999:360) However, with the idea that humans are ‘naturally’ different disappearing, there are still differences between the groups (‘races’) within society. For this argument, with the aim of social sciences being to study society and human behaviour, it would be impossible to ignore that there is a division. “Given that race is seen as a scientific sociological factor and that racial differences are taken to exist and to have a determining saliency, there is a need to specify the meaning of ‘race’ outside the officially recognised group classifications of apartheid. But with the ‘fact’ of ‘race’ contradicted by scientific research findings in modern biology and genetics, what kind of conceptual terminology of ‘race’ is adequate for such a task?” (Ratcliffe, 1994:98)
The terminology associated with ‘race’ is rife in modern society, for example words such as “white” and “black” are used to distinguish between people, usually for appearance purposes. One would find the question of ethnic origin followed by these types of words and others as choices for the response. They provide an essence of identity for most humans which has come to be a natural aspect that we look at subconsciously. So, despite there being no scientific proof to back up the original idea of ‘race’, it could be a more fitting and useful idea for social scientists to look at the reasons behind this behaviour and the meanings humans attach to it. Perhaps it is not a good idea for sociologists to abandon the use of the term as it would be an extremely powerful social understanding of identity to ignore.
However, present sociological ideas for example the constructivist viewpoint, argue the point that identities are socially determined or constructed and race is by no means a classification of a human being. The concepts of ‘race’ and identifying humans are dependant on the presence of one another to carry meaning. This use of the term as a conceptual tool allows the individual and society to manipulate it as they see fit, as with the ‘slave trade’ which consequently resulted in a great amount of inequality and injustice in society. Current DNA analysis is providing us with increasingly opposing evidence to any kind of biological racial differences between individuals.
“Hoffman claims that ‘race accounts for only a miniscule .012 per cent difference in our genetic material’. The implication, though he does not say it explicitly, is that there cannot be important innate differences between the races. Levin has responded that ‘subtle genetic differences can have large “non-linear” effects’, and as a counter-example to Hoffmann’s argument cites the fact that chimpanzees and humans share 98.5 per cent of their genetic material, though of course they differ from each other in important ways. On this ground he maintains that Hoffmann’s claim about the miniscule genetic differences between the races fails to show that races do not differ from each other in important ways.” (Boxill, 2001:41)
The small genetic differences account for far less between groups than between the individuals within them. Term’s like ‘black’ and ‘white’ are meaningless and only have some sort of social interpretation because of the connotations given to them by people within society.
On this account it is apparent that as the whole notion of race seems to be a fabrication it would seem pointless recognising it in social research. Another important argument to support this argument is that one could claim the use of the term ‘race’ has a heavily negative association with racism.
The concept of racism is still extremely young with “The second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) dates the earliest appearances of the term ‘racism’ only to the 1930s.” (Garcia, 2001:257)
It is important to note the dangerous and disturbing events which can come about from open prejudice towards others of different physical attributes to yourself. The original definition of racism is similar to ‘an opinion that one race is superior’. This strong link, resulting sometimes in acts of severe violence and strong prejudice towards others, clearly denounces the use of the term in general. When specifically relating to the social sciences, it must be stressed that being so negatively loaded as a term and with such bad historical content, ‘race’, therefore shouldn’t be used.
In conclusion, one must attempt to answer the question at hand. It is important, primarily to determine whether or not ‘race’ exists. Due to the fact that ‘race’ is scientifically disprovable from the work of Darwin to the current DNA analysis, one could argue that it does not exist. It would seem fitting, therefore, to abandon the use of the term. However, as Ratcliffe states, “To exclude it altogether would be to deny its presence in contemporary debates”. (Ratcliffe, 1994:4) As this is apparent and race still exists for people as a conceptual tool, it is perhaps more useful for social scientists to use it as a means of understanding its presence in society, thus social inequalities and conflict between groups. One must also ask the underlying vitriolic debate as to the placing of values in sociological research. Can research be value-free and, if so, should it? Those who argue that it can be free from exterior factors take an objective view to their study and claim that the role of social scientists is simply to observe social facts for authenticity of their findings. However, if at all, when discussing the ‘race’ debate, perhaps it would be more advisable to carry out value-laden research with a committed means to stand on a particular side of the debate as a means to break down hierarchies and empower the participant.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam, H (1971), Modernizing Racial Domination – South Africa’s Political Dynamic’s, University of California Press, London.
Anthias, F and Yuval-Davies, N (1992), “The concept of ‘race’’ in Racialized Boundaries, Routledge, London
Boxill, B (2001), Race and Racism, Oxford University Press, New York.
Garcia, J.L.A (2001), “The Heart of Racism’ in Race and Racism, edited by Bernard Boxill, Oxford University Press, New York.
Guillaumin, C (1999), ‘The Changing Face of ‘Race’,’ in Racism, edited by Martin Bulmer and John Solomos, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
Miles, R (1999), ‘Racism as a concept’ in Racism, edited by Martin Bulmer and John Solomos, Oxford University Press, New York.
Outlaw, L (2001), ‘Towards a typical theory of “race”’ in Race and Racism, edited by Bernard Boxill, Oxford University Press, New York
Ratcliffe, P (1994), “Race”, Ethnicity and Nation, University College London Press, London.
Solomos, J (2003), ‘The politics of race and immigration since 1945’ in Race and Racism in Britain, Macmillan, London.
