Tryston Taylor
Anthropology 1020
Doctor Teri Potter
4/23/2016
Biological Species Concept of Race
Race has very different connotations based on the theater it performs in; biology has an objective connotation in comparison to the socially unstable connotation that is given to the same word in a social theater. Defining Race is dependent on the connotation used for the word, while the word stays generally the same in terms of definitions its connotations determine how it is taken and applied in context. History tells us the beginning and intent of the concept of race as well as what the concepts end result was when introduced to the public. The biological concept has merits in the scientific connotation but also encounters many ethical issues, especially when categorizing populations. The beginning to any evaluation is defining the topic at hand and understanding how it performs in specific theaters of context.
Defining race is based entirely on the theater you find yourself in, socially it is unstable and charged with hate more often than not, while biologically it’s an objective classification system of members of the same species with differences. Socially race is defined as “a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics (Gannett)” which often times becomes ranked as witnessed through history. Biologically race is defined as “genetically distinct phenotypic populations of interbreeding individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically (Gannett)” which denotes a more objective connotation in order to distinguish groups of individuals with similar characteristics with the intent of categorization rather than separation. The definitions are very similar in terms of worded intent but differ greatly due to the connotation given to them by society. History is the best example of how the intent of race was changed due to the connotation it was given through time.
History shows to be the best result of an experiment through time, and the introduction of the concept of race is no different as history itself shows how it changed through time when compared to its intent of biological classification. The original intent of defining race was to distinguish nation or ethnic group during the 16th to 19th century, and then acquiring its current meaning of “genetically distinct phenotypic populations of interbreeding individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically” in the field of physical anthropology in the mid 19th century. In the 18th century a man named Johann Friedrich Blumenbach categorized the human species into 7 races and in the 19th century there were attempts to change race from taxonomic to a biological concept which eventually led to eugenics and later racism which is largely in the social theater. Beginning in the 20th century racism became a known concept; an extreme example is Nazi Germany, which created a decline in racial studies due to negative connotation of “superiority” and “inferiority” added to the word which is the social concept of race. Biologically defining race has many merits but also has many ethics problems because like most scientific ideas it bleeds into social structures and ideals (Gannett).
Human beings like to classify and organize things, doing so to each other is no exception. A biological concept of race for a species isn’t inherently a bad thing, understanding the differences that make each of us unique is important especially if we can understand how those differences come about, and one of the only ways to do that is by classifying and organizing similar characteristics of groups of individuals of the same species. Another merit to a biological definition of race is that it’s not intended to separate the groups it classifies, it is intended to understand those differences and how they come about. While the biological definition ahs its merits it is not without issues, by classifying and organizing members of the same species it is easy for someone to claim that one race is superior to another which creates conflict as seen throughout history with the concept of eugenics. The concept of race has proven to be both a concept that must be explored to understand the objective reality of differences in individuals and source of conflict through history due to its connotation of “inferiority” and “superiority” (Mncube).
Race as an objective concept serves its purpose, but as the biased concept that exists in the social theater it corrupts the intention all together ceasing any progress that a study on race can achieve. Race differs greatly in the biological and social theaters of definition and intent, biological definition is objective and oriented towards understanding differences while the social concept is geared towards separation and segregation of races in population. History shows that its original intention was to identify people with where they are from or ethnic back ground and as time went on it became a power grab for species and a tool of separation rather than a tool to understand differences. While a biological definition has its merits of being objective and goal oriented towards understanding it fails to stop the bias of “superiority” and “inferiority” that people attribute to races which causes conflict and problems due to the concept bleeding into the social structure and ideals. The concept of race largely depends on the theater that you operate in, if you operate in the scientific theater it is a means to categorize and understand differences in groups of the same species, if you operate in the social theater race is a tool for separation, segregation, and primarily used as a negative connotation, which was caused by a scientific principle bleeding into a biased social structure and gaining traction with that structure.
References
Mncube, Zinhle. "Are Human Races Cladistic Subspecies?." South African Journal Of Philosophy 34.2 (2015): 163-174. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
Gannett, Lisa. "Theodosius Dobzhansky And The Genetic Race Concept." Studies In History & Philosophy Of Biological & Biomedical Sciences 44.3 (2016): 250-261. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
Howard, Jacqueline. "What Scientists Mean When They Say ‘Race’ Is Not Genetic." The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 9 Feb. 2016. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
Anthropology 1020
Doctor Teri Potter
4/23/2016
Biological Species Concept of Race
Race has very different connotations based on the theater it performs in; biology has an objective connotation in comparison to the socially unstable connotation that is given to the same word in a social theater. Defining Race is dependent on the connotation used for the word, while the word stays generally the same in terms of definitions its connotations determine how it is taken and applied in context. History tells us the beginning and intent of the concept of race as well as what the concepts end result was when introduced to the public. The biological concept has merits in the scientific connotation but also encounters many ethical issues, especially when categorizing populations. The beginning to any evaluation is defining the topic at hand and understanding how it performs in specific theaters of context.
Defining race is based entirely on the theater you find yourself in, socially it is unstable and charged with hate more often than not, while biologically it’s an objective classification system of members of the same species with differences. Socially race is defined as “a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics (Gannett)” which often times becomes ranked as witnessed through history. Biologically race is defined as “genetically distinct phenotypic populations of interbreeding individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically (Gannett)” which denotes a more objective connotation in order to distinguish groups of individuals with similar characteristics with the intent of categorization rather than separation. The definitions are very similar in terms of worded intent but differ greatly due to the connotation given to them by society. History is the best example of how the intent of race was changed due to the connotation it was given through time.
History shows to be the best result of an experiment through time, and the introduction of the concept of race is no different as history itself shows how it changed through time when compared to its intent of biological classification. The original intent of defining race was to distinguish nation or ethnic group during the 16th to 19th century, and then acquiring its current meaning of “genetically distinct phenotypic populations of interbreeding individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically” in the field of physical anthropology in the mid 19th century. In the 18th century a man named Johann Friedrich Blumenbach categorized the human species into 7 races and in the 19th century there were attempts to change race from taxonomic to a biological concept which eventually led to eugenics and later racism which is largely in the social theater. Beginning in the 20th century racism became a known concept; an extreme example is Nazi Germany, which created a decline in racial studies due to negative connotation of “superiority” and “inferiority” added to the word which is the social concept of race. Biologically defining race has many merits but also has many ethics problems because like most scientific ideas it bleeds into social structures and ideals (Gannett).
Human beings like to classify and organize things, doing so to each other is no exception. A biological concept of race for a species isn’t inherently a bad thing, understanding the differences that make each of us unique is important especially if we can understand how those differences come about, and one of the only ways to do that is by classifying and organizing similar characteristics of groups of individuals of the same species. Another merit to a biological definition of race is that it’s not intended to separate the groups it classifies, it is intended to understand those differences and how they come about. While the biological definition ahs its merits it is not without issues, by classifying and organizing members of the same species it is easy for someone to claim that one race is superior to another which creates conflict as seen throughout history with the concept of eugenics. The concept of race has proven to be both a concept that must be explored to understand the objective reality of differences in individuals and source of conflict through history due to its connotation of “inferiority” and “superiority” (Mncube).
Race as an objective concept serves its purpose, but as the biased concept that exists in the social theater it corrupts the intention all together ceasing any progress that a study on race can achieve. Race differs greatly in the biological and social theaters of definition and intent, biological definition is objective and oriented towards understanding differences while the social concept is geared towards separation and segregation of races in population. History shows that its original intention was to identify people with where they are from or ethnic back ground and as time went on it became a power grab for species and a tool of separation rather than a tool to understand differences. While a biological definition has its merits of being objective and goal oriented towards understanding it fails to stop the bias of “superiority” and “inferiority” that people attribute to races which causes conflict and problems due to the concept bleeding into the social structure and ideals. The concept of race largely depends on the theater that you operate in, if you operate in the scientific theater it is a means to categorize and understand differences in groups of the same species, if you operate in the social theater race is a tool for separation, segregation, and primarily used as a negative connotation, which was caused by a scientific principle bleeding into a biased social structure and gaining traction with that structure.
References
Mncube, Zinhle. "Are Human Races Cladistic Subspecies?." South African Journal Of Philosophy 34.2 (2015): 163-174. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
Gannett, Lisa. "Theodosius Dobzhansky And The Genetic Race Concept." Studies In History & Philosophy Of Biological & Biomedical Sciences 44.3 (2016): 250-261. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
Howard, Jacqueline. "What Scientists Mean When They Say ‘Race’ Is Not Genetic." The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 9 Feb. 2016. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.