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. 

Montagu's "Race"

Both readings for today’s class by Locke and Montagu come to the general consensus that the term race is meaningless. While Locke tries to give it a new meaning, Montagu advocates for dropping it completely. At the end of class, Dr. J said that no matter what, we all know what people mean to communicate to us when they refer to races even when not explicitly stated. Montagu writes that race is meaningless and artificial. The term of race seems to be holding us back in some ways. So why do we as a society generally feel the need to maintain a strong grasp around this constructed term? In Montagu’s example of the “race omelet”, it is evident that the assumptions and associations made do not have any basis in nature or the right to be accepted. How does this term that Montagu states was invented for convenience carry so much weight still to this day? These are questions that I have been wondering about more and more over the course of the semester. One possible explanation is that people feel the need to classify in order to better understand their own place. What I mean by this is that by rashly making discriminations based on physical appearances, talents, social status, etc., we as humans attempt to understand our individual role in society. Although it is not always helpful or even healthy to constantly compare, it is a part of human nature. Our preferences become a part of who we are. Historically, when it comes to race, people are hyper sensitive to differences and similarities. But when we have so many alternative ways to compare (occupation, age, hobbies, etc.) why do we feel the need to use race? The stereotypes today are just as relevant now as they were in earlier times. In fact, any example that strays from these fabricated stereotypes is viewed as an anomaly when they could just as easily have been the norm because neither is consistently found in nature.