Is the Concept of Race on "Locke"?

Is the concept of race “on Locke”?  Or is it a disease?

The biggest point that I got out of Lockes reading was that race does not express culture, but culture produces race. This appears to be a bold thesis with a lot of weight and support.  That is it not geographical regions that provide the illusion of race, but it is psychological differences that give the appearance that a “group” of people are different in the sense to form a “race” or counter species. But this reading has only left me with more questions than answers.  It seems to me that he is likely to be very accurate on this, but I’m not so sure on the precision and he definitely does not answer all the questions. This is a question combining multiple fields, including genetics, philosophy, geography, and anthropology (which may not may not even exist according to class discussion).  Locke quotes Flinders-Petrie saying that “the only meaning a race can have is a group of persons whose type has become unified by their rate of assimilation and affection by their conditions, exceeding the rate of change produces by foreign elements.” This supports what Locke is saying, but Locke does not explain why or how the concept even exists, which is the main question I’m thinking about.  From this reading this is what I have gathered. I might be rabbit trailing a tad off queue but this is what I am pondering after these readings.

Race to me sounds like a human behavioral construct consisting of the pursuit of finding the familiar and avoiding the unfamiliar. The more different someone looks or acts, I think it makes sense evolutionarily, that we tend to avoid or be cautious towards unfamiliar people or things.  It makes sense psychologically because the amygdala is the area in the brain that has a strong role in facial processing and social cognition, but is it also a key component in fear and anxiety disorders. It also shows there is a basis for this behavior genetically and neurologically because autistic children have issues with facial recognition and social anxiety (Grelotti, DJ et al; 2005). (Sorry for nerding out on neuroscience =) ) But If this is true, then this explains why the illusion of race exists, but it doesn’t explain if race it’s self exists.  Unfamiliarity is going to stimulate this region providing a fear response, possibly providing a neurological basis for this phenomenon.  Locke appears to be on point, in my view because race does not have a clear border or boundary, it is abstract and varies between people.  In my view, racism sounds like a medical condition really, similar to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  One hypothetically could be racist enough to dislike the person next to them, even of the same skin color or gender, and they could be called a “race”.  Thus, since there is no way to even empirically support the concept of race, therefore it must not exist.  There is some evidence for biological differences in people from different regions, however that does not make them a different “race”, and the data appears to be sketchy on this anyway.  However we are all one species but have minute genetic differences which at times are irrationally motivated by fear and anxiety.  I think we could dive even deeper into facial recognition and what are the definite premises are of racist behavior and even the whole illusion itself.  More questions are, is this fear learned? Is it an innate fear? Why do we discriminate and have subconscious social anxieties? What is the basis for this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15707614

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mreimers/SysNeuro/Adolphs%20-%20Fear,%20faces%20and%20amygdala.pdf

Why "What is Right" Scares Me

In class on Thursday, there was a moment where Dr. J apologized to anthropology majors before continuing with the "thrashing" of the subject that is supported by both Locke and Montagu's essays. What was said was that anthropology, especially the anthropological concept of race, is concerned with creating a classification of phenotypical (observable) traits in order to have a classification of hierarchical genotypical traits. In plain English, this is saying that anthropology does exactly what we have just labeled one of the most damaging and effective ideas for racism; namely, the idea that race expresses culture biologically.

I am not an anthropology major, but this definition confused me; if this is the case for the subject of anthropology and we have proved it to be false, why is it still a field of study in almost every college and university in America? A friend of mine that is majoring in anthropology at Northwestern provided me with an answer. Some of the things she said were pertinent to our class:

1. Much of the work anthropologists are doing now is focused on repairing this damage. By going back and looking at the "old goal" with the knowledge that it was not only scientifically untrue, but also a direct catalyst of racial discrimination across history, anthropologists can now...

2. Look at history with a less biased and more critical view. Interestingly, what my friend said here almost directly mimicked the instructions that Locke gave at the end of his essay. Anthropology is now supposed to be a "dynamic and social interpretation of race/culture," operated by "principles of organic interpretation" and "principles of cultural relativity." These are Locke's words, but they are simply a more carefully composed representation of my friend's explanation of the purpose of her own major in anthropology, as explained by the higher-ups at Northwestern.

______________________________

Yesterday I read about the Westboro Baptist Church, a group that I previously knew about, but not by name or in any sort of detail. You all probably know them too, but if you don't here is a quick refresher- Westboro Baptist Church. Their leader, Fred Phelps, seven full years after the creation of his hate organization, won 14.72% of the votes for the Democratic Primary in Kansas. That means that 15,233 people voted for him.

Although I realize that now, more than ever, it is possible for scientists to double-check and call out illogical or unfounded arguments, it still frightens me how sure I am of some things that I have no real backing for, as well as how many of those unfounded arguments are still reaching (through families passing them down, hate organizations, etc.) groups of people in the U.S.

______________________________

Going back to my conversation with my friend, I wonder how substantial of an impact philosophers, Locke especially, had on the field of anthropology. Could it be possible that they changed the entire nature of the subject? I am certainly not well educated on the current state of anthropology across the globe; I have consulted but one source on the subject. But if what my friend said is true, and even if it is true just for one person at one university in one country, doesn't that say something remarkable about the nature of what is accepted as "right" at any given time in human history? 

Race as a Social Fact

At this point in class, we have come across a wide range of writings, all of which deal with the topic of race in slightly different ways. Some like claim that race is biological fact that determines part of our essence as human beings while others such as Locke and Montague deny this idea and proclaim that this construct of race is false and meaningless. Yesterday in class, Professor J left us to question the role of race in our own lives today. In his time, Locke insisted that though race and culture are not fixed, they do share a significant (non-casual) relationship. For Locke, race needed to be redefined because the current understanding was flawed. He agreed with Montague who argued that race is an artificial construct which leads to the perpetuation of errors which proves its lack of meaning/false nature. However, unlike Locke, Montague called for the complete erasure of the term race altogether. This solution, however, seems extremely problematic. Though race may not be genetically/biological real, it is still a cultural force which carries a lot of power in our society. 

Locke argued that race does not express culture; rather, culture produces race. This belief is better illustrated in the following quote: “Frequently enough, what is assumed to be an innate racial characteristic turns out on closer study to be the resultant of purely historical causes. A mode of thinking, a distinctive type of reaction, gets itself established in the course of a complex historical development as typical, as normal; it serves then as a model for the working over of new elements of civilization (93).” I found Locke’s argument as expressed in this selection to be quite compelling, and found myself agreeing with the majority of his argument. 

So, how what is the role of race today? I would argue that it could be defined in sociological jargon as an example of a “social fact”. According to Durkheim, the “founding father” of sociology, social facts are non-material forces which are external, objective, and coercive. Their existence pre-dates and will post-date the life of the individual. They exist in spite of the will of the individual, and they impose themselves on the individual in a way that is consequential regardless of our intentions. Additionally, they maintain a “sui generis” quality; they are self-generating or self-perpetuated. All of these things seem to hold true for race in our current society. Completely ignoring the existence of race (as Montague encouraged) would be counter- productive. Race exists regardless of its status as a biological myth and continues to act on us in everyday life. We live in a society that pushes us to choose/align ourselves with the “correct” behavioral traits which we can based on the normalized modes of classification such as race as well as class, gender, religion, etc. We are socialized into a society that reifies these classifications norm. But, we cannot make the mistake of reifying race; we must remember that it is a social/human construct but one that has power.  

We cannot ignore race. Only through acknowledging its existence and examining the ways in which it structures our lives as individuals and a society can we hope to move forward in a positive direction. This is a song that I think does a good job at bringing the complex issues of race into perspective. It recognizes historical significance of race as well as calling attention to current issues by questioning his own social location especially in relation to his music/work. 

Racial Performativity

Today during our discussion of Locke, I found it really interesting how his anti-essentialist attitude towards race was very reminisce of different gender theory essays. Many people believe that if you see someone's outward appearance (their body, their gender presentation, their race, their clothing) that you can extrapolate very specific and personal attributes about them based on their essential nature. The impact of believing there are essential natures to things like race and gender allows for hierarchies to be formed.
A brilliant philosopher Judith Butler made famous the idea of 'gender performativity'. She posits that someone acts in particular ways NOT because it is how a person of a particular sex acts naturally, but rather because society conditions then to act in certain ways. When a young boy is reprimanded for acting in a 'womanly' way, his gender presentation is being reinforced through punishment. People are performing when they act as a certain gender, because there is no real way to be a gender. Butler says the way to get away from gender performativity is to stop gender essentialism. She says we must break down the believed natural connection between sex and gender and acknowledge it as a cultural influence.
Reading Locke, it was hard not to see the similarities in his argument. People believed that different races essentially acted differently based on genetics. White people were predetermined to be one way, black people another, etc. I think our classroom discussion agreed with Locke. Children are not born with some sort of basketball gene or hockey gene, but rather they are conditioned (possibly in a similar way to how boys and girls are conditioned to act like their gender is socially expected to act) by their cultures to be a certain way. Do you think race is performed in a way similar to gender?
When society has stereotypes, expectations, and cultural norms, it's hard for people to not see them influencing their actions. Locke says that can't just get rid of race because of how important it has become in society. Do you all agree? Personally I think it would be impossible to erase race (as well as gender) from discussion because of how influential it is in all of our actions.

What is race? Is it "real"?

Today's lecture put a lot into perspective. Our discussion sort of clarified some of the questions we have been attempting to answer, but, of course, raised an even larger question to tackle: Is race real?

At the beginning of the course, we learned that the term "race" first appeared in 1684. Considered "scientific" at the time, race was defined as a major division of humanity displaying a distinctive combination of physical traits that are transmitted through a line of descent. So basically, race was thought to be a genetic factor. We now know, however, that there is no single genetic marker for race, and after breaking down the major points of Alain Locke's argument, we arrived at a new meaning for race. Race is now a peculiar selective process for certain culture traits and a resistance to others, which is characteristic of all types and levels within a cultural organization. In his article, Locke argues that it is not race that expresses culture, but rather culture that produces a culture- or social-type.

So, is race real? In other words, is it genuine in existence? To say the least, yes and no. Here's a quick video that I found to help explain this loaded question.

From the video and class lectures, we know that race was not originally used in the discrimanatory context as we know it today. However, with time, race has exhibited social consequences.

It is safe to say that, technically, race is not "real," but rather a social construct with so much power that it has been able to survive throughout centuries. As the video states, "Racial divisions were perpetuated in the interest of groups that wished to maintain power and social exclusion." I think this is still a valid point even in today's society, which leads to covert racism. It is hidden in the fabric of society, covertly suppressing the individuals being discriminated against, such as residential segregation and those citizens who live in poverty. For example, when we think of people who live in inner city projects, we automatically think of African Americans, and consequently those who live in the "projects" tend to have a lower socioeconomic status than those who live in the suburbs.

Basically, I agree with Locke's account of race. It is now defined by cultural characteristics of people within society. What is your opinion on this topic? Do you think race is real? And do you think it's safe to say that certain characteristics of a group of people help define their "race?"