If "race" is social, what about sickle-cell and forensic anthropology?

I noticed your reply to one of the questions asking about race and intelligence, you explained that race is a social construct and not a biological reality. I've heard this stated before but, it's never quite made sense to me. If this was the case, why do we see diseases like sickle cell affecting only specific racial groups and how could forensic anthropologists determine race from skeletal remains? I would agree with your answer, there isn't any relation between race and intelligence but, perhaps you could elaborate on your explanation. You seem to have some expertise in the field and I feel like I'm missing something here :P

-Alex


*

Hey Alex!

Wow, I am so impressed that you would ask such a thoughtful and well-formed question. I'll try to break my answer down to address the two (related) parts: what do I mean by saying "race is a social construct" and how does this idea correspond to what we know are genetically inheritable traits like sickle-cell anemia. It's a complex and counter-intuitive topic that I take over a week to cover in my class, so I hope my response is not overwhelming.

1) Race as a social construct:

Humans as a species ARE genetically diverse; no one is denying that. However, the idea that what "race" someone is tells you something definite about their DNA is misleading. Our ideas about "race", even though we often think they are based on biological lines and categories, are actually decisions we make -- depending on WHICH parts of our diversity we decide are important.

First of all, how many races ("biological categories") are there supposed to be? In the 1950s, my dad was taught that there were four (and please forgive the antiquated language): "caucasoid," "negro", "mongoloid", and "Australian bushman". Yet our ideas about how many races there are change over time -- you could just as easily find reasons to say there are six categories instead of four, or thirty racial categories instead of six.

The point is that there are no clear biological boundaries that categorize people into a certain number of groups; there is a broad and complex continuum of gene flows across the world, and where we decide to draw racial lines is a cultural, legal, and political decision, which may have little to do even with the "obvious", genetic differences it claims to.

Take skin colour, for example. There are no CLEAR categories that can be made based on skin colour. Two people with identically dark skin may be from two different "races" / ancestral backgrounds: (say one person is "black-West African" and the other "caucasian-Southern Indian"). Two people with objectively different skin tones - one with a pale tan colour and one with dark brown -- may both be identified as "black" -- (or both as "caucasian").

Also, the criteria for who belongs to which race also change over time, and across space -- based on people's ideas. In much of history, arguments were made about Jewish people being of a "different race" than Aryans, or Irish as racially different from the English -- yet today most people regard them as all simply "white". Someone who is considered "black" in the U.S. may travel to South Africa or Brazil and find that they are actually "white" - or another category - there. In each case, people are assigning racial labels which they think says something signficant about biology, but which are really based on different cultural ideas about what "race" means in that place, and about who belongs to which one.

The relatively new ability to map human DNA also tells us interesting things. First, that there is far more genetic diversity among members of any one "race" than there is between two people from different races. Anyone who is perceived as descending from African ancestors is classified with one racial term: "black". But two people from different parts of Africa might share nothing in common genetically (besides the 99.9% of our genes that ALL humans share). Meanwhile, Alex, although you and I are both "white", you could be far more genetically similar to Don Cheadle than to me. It's easy to be mislead when we look to visible human differences, thinking they correspond to deeper genetic similarities. Yet most of our genetic diversity is non-visible, and is shared by people of all "races".

The point is, what we mean by "black" and "white" is more than an observation about actual genetic categories (which don't exist); it is a subjective decision we are making, based on many factors, and the criteria change through space and time (social construct).



2) why do we see diseases like sickle cell affecting only specific racial groups and how could forensic anthropologists determine race from skeletal remains?

Sickle cell is a great example in this context. We know it is a genetic trait, and that it occurs much more frequently in some human populations than others. Yet a closer examination of the distribution of the sickle-cell trait reveals that it is not actually mapped onto racial lines at all, but rather onto something else: the presence of malaria.

Most individuals with sickle-cell trait are at an evolutionary disadvantage: they are much more likely to die than their neighbours, so the trait is selected against and is uncommon in most areas. However, for some reason, carrying the sickle-cell genes provides natural protection against malaria. In areas of the world where malaria is widespread, then, individuals with sickle-cell are more likely to survive than their neighbours, and the trait is selected FOR.

By comparing distribution maps, (see http://images.sciencedaily.com/2010/11/101102130133-large.jpg) we can see that sickle-cell trait (center map) is prevalent in parts of Africa as well as the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and India -- all parts of the world where malaria (bottom map) is common. Although it is genetic, the trait crosses several perceived "racial" lines. At the same time, the perception of sickle-cell as an "African" or "black" trait is also misleading, as the trait is NOT prevalent in, for instance, southern or eastern African populations, even though the peoples there are certainly normally considered "black".

(This, incidentally, puts us right back to your first question. What do we mean by calling all people from Africa "black", as if to imply that they all had something genetically in common that other races don't have? Why aren't there more perceived racial groups within Africa? And indeed there certainly have been, depending on whom and when in history you ask).

Similarly, forensic scientists can tell certain things about a person's probable ancestry, and how they looked, by the structure of their skull bones. Yet these things still require culturally-based interpretation to deduce their "race". Skull A appears to be from a person of Turkish descent. Does that make them the same race as you, or a different one? That's a cultural decision. Skull B appears to be very similar to those of people from northern Europe. Does that mean that that person shares ANYTHING genetically in common with you? Not necessarily.

Alex, this was a very long answer, about a very complex topic, and I hope it has been at least a little helpful. Even though I teach this concept for a living (!), I am still learning about it myself, and I would be really interested if you had any thoughts or comments on ... well, anything that just got said!

Daye

White Flag Warriors

Today's scriptural "reading" is from the Flobots:

White Flag Warriors (lyrical excerpts):

We request to negotiate
We come to you unarmed
We desire to communicate
You cannot do us harm

They say war is necessary
But we say war is child abuse

We'd rather make our children
martyrs than murderers

This is love, this is not treason

*

You can listen to the whole song at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsgbb23z27w

What do anthropologists mean when they say that "race" is "imagined but not imaginary"?

So part of my class's anthropology quiz this week asked my students to respond to the above question. My friend was helping me revise the test earlier and he asked me what a 5/5 answer would look like for this question. My response to my friend is as follows.

*

A 5/5 answer could be quite simple, but needs to address at least the following two points:

1) Race is “imagined”: ideas/categories about race are “socially constructed”, not “biologically real”; they are not confirmed by DNA, genetics, any other quantitative analysis, but are based on learned ideas about "difference" that change over time and space.
2) Race is “not imaginary”: just because it’s not “biologically real”, doesn’t mean it’s not still powerful. Ideas about “race” have profoundly shaped the world we live in – racism is very real, with very real social, economic, etc. consequences that affect how people from different “races” may live their lives.

Now, I know how weird it sounds to say that “race is not biology”, particularly to a science major. But if you have the patience, here is my much more thorough answer, to explain:

When anthropologists say that the concept of “race” is “imagined, but not imaginary,” they mean that it is socially constructed (rather than biologically “real”), but that the effects that believing in “race” has on our society are indeed very real and not imaginary.

To open our minds to this idea, let’s consider something else that is “imagined but not imaginary”, with an example of paper money. The idea that paper money has value is “imagined” – it is a social idea, rather than being based on anything inherently “real” or “true” about the paper itself. However, because it is imagined, and because it is imagined by so many people at the same time, it has real consequences, in the world we live in, and so is “not imaginary”. Whether or not someone has that piece of paper can make a real difference to whether they eat that day, where they sleep, and how they are treated by other members of that society.

When most people identify someone’s “race”, they believe they are talking about a biological fact about that person. However, closer examination reveals that ideas about “who is a member of which race”, “how many races there are”, and what the criteria are for each, are decisions that change throughout time and from place to place. What it means to be “black” is not a genetic category or even, counterintuitively, dependent on skin colour. Many people with very dark skin are not identified as “black” but rather as East Indian or Australian. At the same time, people who are identified as “black” have a huge range of actual skin tones, light to dark, which overlap with skin tones from other “races”. Africa is the most genetically diverse continent on the planet, yet often people from any part of it are all labelled “black”, as if this signified that they had something (biological) in common, even when they have less genetically in common with each other than in comparison to a “white” person.

Finally, what it means to be “black” changes over time, and from place to place. The meaning and criteria of being “black” in the U.S. is not the same as “black” in Brazil or “black” in South Africa. In other words, although humans do have biological and genetic diversity, that diversity is a continuum and does not divide itself into neat categories. The creation of neat boundaries and particular racial categories is social, and therefore “imagined”.

However, although race is not “biologically real”, this does not mean that the concept has no social effects, or consequences. Ideas about race have fundamentally shaped societies around the world. For instance, the idea that “blacks” and “whites” are different groups of people was foundational to the 17th century slave trade. The idea that “Jews” were racially or biologically different than “Aryans”, or "Hutus" from "Tutsis," or “Irish” people from “English” fuelled very real persecution and genocides. “Racial” categories continue to inform social realities today. What “race” you are identified as will have a real correlation with or effect on where you grow up, where you are likely to work, how much you will earn, how you will be treated by law enforcement, and what assumptions people will make about you. Therefore, as we can see, although “race” is not “biology”, the effects of “race” are very real and not imaginary.

*

Author’s anecdote: As an eighteen-year-old first-year anthropology student rightly confused as sh*t by this very novel concept, I went to my professor’s office hours with a question.

“What do you mean, race is not biological?” I asked. “If a black father and a black mother have a baby, won’t it be black?”

“Yes,” he said, humoring me, “but what do you mean by black?”

And seven years later here I am.

Week of February 5: Free Will Astrology

“Publishing a volume of poetry is like dropping a rose petal down the Grand Canyon and waiting for the echo,” said author Don Marquis, speaking from experience. Something you’re considering, Leo, may seem to fit that description, too. It’s a project or action or gift that you’d feel good about offering, but you also wonder whether it will generate the same buzz as that rose petal floating down into the Grand Canyon. Here’s what I think: To the degree that you shed your attachment to making an impact, you will make the exact impact that matters most. Give yourself without any expectations.

My good friend read this to me over the phone in a huge, amazingly sunny field today. I was just biking on my way to the ocean. I asked him to read it again. He indulged me. I asked to call him back. Finished making my way to the seawall, touched the salt water. There is something I've been considering doing, but hesitating. Hearing my friend read that horoscope opened me up to the reason I was hesitating -- because I knew I was still too attached to do it well. So I'm still waiting, but relaxed, unhurried, recommitted. It's rather Bgvd-Gita ish, isn't it? :)

Update finally

So I know, I've fallen right off the bandwagon with this whole posting-the-scriptures-I'm-reading thing. I actually haven't stopped reading them -- on the contrary, I'm reading more than ever, including scriptures/spiritual or uplifting or inspirational ET CETERA readings from:

Paulo Coehlo's The Alchemist,

Dan Savage (syndicated sex advice columnist) on love, relationships and building a meaningful, compassionate, honest, autonomous identity for yourself independent from a partner (whether you have one at the time or not),

Cormac McCarthy's The Road (I picked this up in the staff room at work two days ago and didn't get up again until I finished it four hours later ... oh such a fine, crafted author McCarthy is),

Jared Diamond's The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee

David Cruise & Alison Griffiths' Vancouver - an historical fiction novel spanning some 20,000-ish years of NW Coast history.

"Eating Christmas in the Kalahari" by Richard B. Lee (which I really should post for you here in a minute, it's a great true short story),

An amazing horoscope my friend read me today (okay, I will look that one up for you and post it, it was very meaningful) ... hang on ...

So, I've been having some great insights thanks to this project, which after all was focused on getting me to read more scriptures and not necessarily to blog about them, which started as a side project. And YES, all of those things DO count as scriptural readings, INCLUDING Dan Savage; it's my "scripture project" and if it can include Robert Frost it can include whomever I please and am inspired by :)

January 16: Ethics and the Dalai Lama

Certainly each of the major religious traditions has a well-developed ethical system. However, the difficulty with tying our understanding of right and wrong to religion is that we must then ask, "Which religion?" Which articulates the most complete, the most accessible, the most acceptable system? The arguments would never stop. Moreover, to do so would be to ignore the fact that many who reject religion do so out of convictions sincerely held, not merely because they are unconcerned with the deeper questions of human existence. We cannot suppose that such people are without a sense of right and wrong or of what is morally appropriate just because some who are anti-religion are immoral. Besides, religious belief is no guarantee of moral integrity. Looking at the history of our species, we see that among the major troublemakers - those who visited violence, brutality and destruction on their fellow human beings - there have been many who professed religious faith, often loudly. Religion can help us establish basic ethical principles. Yet we can still talk about ethics and morality without having recourse to religion.

Again, it could be objected that if we do not accept religion as the source of ethics, we must allow that people's understanding of what is good and right, of what is wrong and bad, of what is morally appropriate and what is not, of what constitutes a positive act and what a negative act must vary according to circumstances and even from person to person. But here let me say that no one should suppose it could ever be possible to devise a set of rules or laws to provide us with the answer to every ethical dilemma, even if we were to accept religion as the basis of morality. Such a formulaic approach could never hope to capture the richness and diversity of human experience. It would also give grounds for arguing that we are responsible only to the letter of those laws, rather than for our actions.

From His Holiness the Dalai Lama 1999 Ancient Wisdom, Modern World: Ethics for the new millennium. London: Abacus. p. 27-28 (emphasis mine).

January 15: C.S. Lewis on space and the faculty of recognition

Space-travel really has nothing to do with the matter. To some, God is discoverable everywhere; to others, nowhere. Those who do not find Him on earth are unlikely to find Him in space. (Hang it all, we're in space already; every year we go a huge circular tour in space.) But send a saint up in a spaceship and he'll find God in space as he found God on earth. Much depends upon the seeing eye.
...
Indeed the expectation of finding God by astronautics would be very like trying to verify or falsifythe divinity of Christ by taking specimens of His blood or dissecting Him. And in their own way they did both. But they were no wiser than before. What is required is a certain faculty of recognition.

If you do not at all know God, of course you will not recognize Him, either in Jesus or in outer space.

The fact that we have not found God in space does not, then, bother me in the least. Nor am I much concerned about the 'space race' between America and Russia. The more money, time, skill and zeal they both spend on that rivalry, the less, we may hope, they will have to spend on armaments. Great powers might be more usefully, but are seldom less dangerously, employed than in fabricating costly objects and flinging them, as you might say, overboard. Good luck to it! It is an excellent way of letting off steam.

Lewis, C. S. 1967. Christian Reflections United Kingdom: Fount Paperbacks. p 213, 215.