However, since the beginning of the twentieth century, social scientists realised that characteristics of personality were determined by outside influences such as education, background and surroundings rather than biology. Therefore the term ‘race’ was, and still is, associated with biological differences only. (Ibid, page 2)
Depending on how much social or cultural contact humans receive, differences in physical types derive from population inbreeding. A scientist for example cannot tell the difference between white or black blood samples, thus physical aspects are defined according to appearance and nothing else (Giddens, 1993, page 255).
The study of ‘race’ is currently linked to analysing the social constructions which divide certain groups in society (Marshall, 1998, page 547). Research into what causes and what the consequences are of these particular social constructions have been examined closely. Furthermore they continue to be investigated in a variety ways, for example employment, housing and educational inequalities. These inequalities found within certain ethnic groups have been a major subject matter that has influenced social, economic and political spheres alike.
Accordingly, it is evident that the study of ‘race’ has had much influence in the development of social sciences despite the changes in its meaning over time.
While there are the scientific limitations of the concept, it is widely believed that ‘races’ do exist, in turn impacting the behaviour of general society (Haralambos and Holborn, 1995, page 657). Therefore, according to W. I. Thomas, despite being a contested term, ‘race’ is defined by people in society as real and thus its social consequences can be seen as being real too. (Richardson, J, and Lambert, J cited in Ibid, page 657).
Subsequently, since society has accepted the use of the term ‘race’, it has validity to be used by social scientists. A social Scientists’ position is to study society and human relationships as well as engaging in debates about the nature of science and scientific status (Marshall, 1998, page 620). By taking a social constructionist viewpoint however, it is believed that how people define and feel towards different ‘races’ depends on the dominant belief system in their particular society.
This can be seen in the fact that attitudes towards ‘race’ change according to the political ideas in different societies. There is no longer one affirmative issue of ‘race’ in politics, but rather a whole set of policies which have different aims. In the eighteenth century, policies were set to benefit certain groups of people whereas now the aims and methods of policies are more varied and significant (Sniderman and Piazza, 1993, page 5).
Sniderman and Piazza go on to explain this political influence:
‘To treat the politics of race as though it is only about race and not about politics misrepresents the nature of contemporary disagreements over issues of race’ (Ibid, page 5)
By this, although writing about The United States of America, Sniderman and Piazza are stating that there are more underlying issues in relation to ‘race’ and the way its associated issues are dealt with in society.
In addition Huxley and Haddon argue that the term ‘race’ is a ‘pseudo-science’ and is used to ‘rationalise emotion’ (Miles, R, cited in Bulmer and Solomos, 1999, page 345). They saw political science as having a responsibility to identify the truth value of ideas engaged in political life. Hence they agreed that the term ‘race’ should not be used.
At the same time, Richardson and Lambert suggest that people do not just passively accept definitions of ‘race’ in a particular society and much depends on the historical and cultural context. (Haralambos and Holborn, 1995, page 658).
According to Miles, once the unscientific formulation that ‘race’ determines culture was rejected, the idea of ‘race’ was left unquestioned and unchallenged. This meant that according to Barzun: ’’race thinking’ remained, sanctioning some from of biological classification as meaningful and useful’ (cited in Miles, R, 1999, page 350).
Here, Miles is writing from a Neo-Marxist perspective, where ‘race’ is a human construct, an ideology with regulatory power within society. He sees ‘race’ as being able to control and dominate society. Thus it is the wider social and class relations found in society which is of paramount importance (Solomos, J, and Back, J, 1996, page 90). Miles is concerned with the analytical and objective status of ‘race’ as a basis of action. The idea of ‘race’ being an ideology means that it acts as a mask which hides realistic economic relationships (Ibid, page 8).
As a result, writers such as Miles have argued that the term ‘race’ should not be used as it is ‘…analytically useless’ (Miles, 1989, page 72, cited in Ibid, page 8). This has prompted other terms to be used as an alternative to ‘race’. Ethnicity is a term more widely used in contemporary text, although it has its roots firmly in historic writings (Cornell and Hartmann, 1998, page16).
Rather than ‘race’, ethnicity has become known as being something that one prescribes to oneself rather than to another person. Race’, argue Cornell and Hartmann, has been the most powerful and persistent group boundary…with often devastating consequences’ (1998, page 25). Whereas ethnicity does not have to echo differences in worth, ‘race’ implies that it does. The links between ethnicity and power are more context related, unlike with ‘race’ where identity characteristically reflects power relations (Ibid, page 35).
However, there are similarities between both ‘race’ and ethnicity. Both are products of contact between assorted populations, both depend far more on the claims people make about one another or themselves than on any physical or genealogical difference and both overlap. For example ‘race’ refers to a group of people socially defined on the basis of physical features whereas ethnicity is more associated with shared history and symbols, yet there are many groups who fit in to both of these categories, such as American Blacks (Ibid. page 33).
Moreover Stuart Hall sees ethnicity as a term used to acknowledge: ‘…the place of history, language and culture in the construction of subjectivity and identity (1992, cited in Ibid, page 37). This is unlike ‘race’ which is seen as more ‘natural’ whereas ethnicity can be seen as both natural and cultural (Ibid, page 37).
Nevertheless, ‘race’ is still a political and social construct, and in itself has managed to form its own exploitative system, that of racism (Hall cited in Hesse, 2000, page 222). It has been argued that ‘race’ helps us to ‘make sense’ of the world, and is a firmly established important field of study within a number of social science and humanities disciplines (Solomos and Back, 1996, cited in Gandy, 1998, page 36).
However, since scientific advancements are now widely known and accepted throughout the academic (and no doubt scientific) world, the question has arisen of whether it is still applicable to use ‘race’ as a valid form of labelling in today’s society. This fate of this question can only be determined by us. It is our society that decides who fits in to which category and what the consequences are for this (Cornell and Hartmann, page 25). Perhaps if social scientists and academics halt using the term ‘race’ this will be a start for the rest of the world, yet in the meantime, it is up to society how they wish to treat people, equally or unequally, justly or unjustly to make our world what it is today.
Bibliography
Dictionaries:
-
Brookes, I, (2002), English Dictionary, HarperCollins: Glasgow.
-
Marshall, G, (1998), Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Books:
-
Christie, C, J, (1998), Race and Nation, I. B. Tauris: London.
-
Cornell, S and Hartmann, D, (1998), Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World, Pine Forge Press: London.
-
Gandy Jr. O, H, (1998), Communication and Race, Arnold: London.
-
Giddens, A, (1993), Sociology, Polity Press: Cambridge.
-
Hesse, B, (2000), Un/Settled Multiculturalisms: Diasporas, Entanglements, ‘Transruptions’, Zed Books: London.
-
Haralambos, M, and Holborn, M, (1995), Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, Collins Educational: London.
-
Miles, R, (1989), Racism, Routledge: London (cited in Racism edited by Blumer, M, and Solomos, J, (1999), Oxford University Press: Oxford.
-
Sniderman, P, M, and Piazza, T, (1993), The Scar of Race, Harvard University Press: Massachusetts.
-
Solomos, J, and Back, L, (1996), Racism and Society, Macmillan Press Limited: London.
-
Zack, N, (1998), Thinking about Race, Thompson: New York.
