What follows is an historical analysis of the concept of race as defined in Anthropology. I hope that if you read it, you will come to understand racial designation as a social construction, not a biologically determined catagorization. Comment if there are questions. I'll do my best to explain these concepts further.
A substantial amount of diversity and variation exists in all forms of life on this planet. One can discover environments teeming with organisms in nearly every nook and cranny of the globe, and evidence shows that individuals conducted investigations of these creatures throughout history. The desire to categorize this multitude remains as prevalent now as always. In order to study the abundance of life comprehensively, academics must organize their characteristics and unique features that distinguish them from every other living thing. They must biologically define the traits exhibited by the objects under investigation. When attempting to accomplish this in the species known as Homo sapiens, naturalists sparked a debate that remains unsolved in the present day. Concepts of human diversity permeate all levels of society. Issues of race are found everyday, in every culture, in every part of the world. Alliances are based on them, and enemies are sworn by them. People develop or neglect personal relationships due to their perceptions of race. This convoluted mess of racial interpretations brings an inexhaustible amount of conflict. In order for an individual to gain an understanding of race and its complexities, a person begins with its inception.
Variety in the animal domain has been a topic of interest since the days of the first documented philosophers in the fourth century before the Common Era. Aristotle contemplated this fact among many others. In this endeavor, he organized known life on the planet into distinguished categories he called, scala naturae. He coined the concept as “The Great Chain of Being”, and he based it on his belief that all beings in God’s creation should be arranged from the simplest organism to the most complex in ranked order. In this system, many aspects of physical complexity organized organisms: Amount of legs, outer covering, colors, etc. Humans reigned supreme and others fell in behind them. The bottom rung of the hierarchy held zoophytes, organisms similar to plants. (Jurmain, 2003; www.artchive.com, 2003; www.suite101.com, 2003; www.strangescience.net, 2003)
During European expansion in the eighteenth century, people were introduced to individuals distinctly different from themselves. This led to ponderings regarding the classification of human beings. In this day, intellectuals believed there was a fixed number of static organisms inhabiting the world. They perceived the study of these creatures was simply a matter of data accumulation and organization. (Molnar, 1998) One naturalist, Carolus Linnaeus established a classification of plants and animals that expanded upon Aristotle’s theory. He published his Systema Naturae as a guide to the planet’s biological diversity. In this taxonomy, he labeled humans as Homo sapiens and defined them as a member of a group called Primates. With exploration and discovery, new human variations became known, and Linnaeus applied his taxonomy to human diversity. (Jurmain, 2003; Marks, 1994) He established a hierarchy among Homo sapiens through the construction of four subspecies named for geographic domain and physical characteristics of skin color, hair form, stature and shape of nose. Eventually, he incorporated behavioral characteristics as a means to broaden the definitions of these distinct groups. He named these subspecies American, European, Asiatic, and Negro. (Molnar, 1998) These ambiguous descriptions fostered trends in biological determinism that haunt the study of racial diversity among humans.
Comte de Buffon and Johan Friedrick Blumerbach revised Linnaeus’s taxonomy. Buffon was the first to apply the term, race, to humans, and Blumerbach altered the characteristics defining subspecies. He utilized the skull as the defining trait among Homo sapiens. It was believed that the skull was the part of the body most resistant to change. Also, it was discerned that since the skull holds the brain, its characteristics are indicative of the capacities of an individual. After conducting research, Blumerbach concluded that the most “ideal” human was Caucasoid. He considered his other classifications; Mongoloid, American Indian, Ethiopian, and Malay to be inferior. (Molnar, 1998)
Over the next several decades, statistical calculations of cranial variation, anthropometry, were implemented to further distinguish races. Many investigators continued to search for “perfect” representations of particular populations. This branch of discovery, called phrenology, resulted in defined traits that supported the growing number of racial distinctions. Anders Retzius aided development of these new typologies of skull morphology that further distinguished races within previously classified geographic boundaries. As with other methods, these theories were based on physical characteristics that enabled productive investigation of human diversity in order to discover migration patterns between distinct populations. Continuing the trend, scientists applied these features to behavioral patterns to further elitist interpretations of human diversity. Pierre Paul Broca was one such scientist. Like his predecessors, he believed anthropometry could be used to classify physical distinctions among humans. In addition, he thought he could discover behavioral patterns that could be linked to cranial features in order to show racial differences as unchanging and continuous. In his opinion, physical traits were measures of intelligence and status, in addition to measures of biological variation. (Molnar, 1998)
Phrenology as a science disappeared in the late nineteenth century, but the concepts of physical characteristics linking individuals with their intelligence and behaviors continued to flourish. Samuel Morton and George Glidden furthered these perceptions through analysis of Native American and Egyptian skulls. Morton purportedly found that Native Americans had a smaller cranial capacity than Europeans; therefore, the Natives were intellectually inferior. He even reported that skulls of Caucasoid dimensions were found at mound sites around the Americas. In his view, the findings proved that a superior race of humans, Caucasoid, was responsible for the complex constructions of archaic origin. Coincidentally, Morton exemplified features of the Caucasoid race. Glidden produced similar results in Egypt. Utilizing the same methods of analysis, he concluded that the Caucasoid race was responsible for the erection of the pyramids. These findings continued the exploitation of scientific methods in support of ideals that held Caucasoids, Europeans, as superior to all other realms of human diversity. The work of these scientists encouraged biological distinctions as cultural bias. (Molnar, 1998)
Around this time, Darwin’s evolutionary theories brought about new explanations of human diversity. His theory of natural selection led to broader analysis of our species, but anthropometry continued as scientists were faced with new opportunities to investigate similarities and differences among humans and the relationship of these features to behavior. This was all done to support the early concepts established by Aristotle. Members of the perceived superior race conducted the investigations to further establish and maintain dominance over other geographic populations. It was believed that with continued investigation, race specific behavioral patterns and characteristics would emerge to definitively prove the taxonomies of human diversity. (Molnar, 1998)
In his studies seeking the ideal European, Lambert Quetelet attempted this to no avail, but his analysis was influential in the studies of Francis Galton, who took the concept further. In 1869, he published Hereditary Genius, which built upon Quetelet’s data. He utilized the information he acquired to statistically determine the shared traits and variations among human races. His results were graphed in a parabola where shared traits were located at the apex, and variable traits were distributed along the extremities of the graph. Commonly referred to as the “bell-curve”, this analysis gave insight into the purity of an individual. Galton began to correlate this with status and intellect. Upon further study, Galton thought he had proven hereditary procreation of intelligence, concluding that further human evolution could not occur through the support of weaker individuals. Herbert Spencer produced further evidence that Darwin’s theories could not exist in human populations as long as the weak and feeble minded were allowed to pass on inferior traits. With these theories, also called eugenics, scientists sought to improve the Caucasoid race through procreation of socioeconomic elites. (Molnar, 1998)
These typologies and biases remained prominent in the works of Karl Pearson and Charles Davenport, and the continuation of these concepts persists in modern analysis in the work on Carlton Coon. Throughout history, there have been scientists that challenge these methodologies based on the lack of practical evidence. In Linnaeus’s time, James Cowles Pritchard rejected classification systems based on anthropometry. He noticed that there was no perfect representation of any taxonomic species, and by definition, to be defined as a subspecies, an organism must be recognizably distinct from other units of the species. Taxonomies also assume the presence of static processes in the natural world. This misleads because many traits are simultaneously affected as a result of environmental variation. (Gould, 1977; Molnar, 1998) Other biologists were also skeptical as it became more wide spread that categorization can be too ambiguous. They found it incorrect to designate distinct groupings based on dynamic, natural variation. In the early years of the twentieth century, Franz Boas figured prominently in disputing typographical research. He found the shortcomings to be as they always had been. No factor of heredity can be conclusive for all members of the particularly defined racial group. In his arguments, the existence of dynamic variation was enlisted to dispel the elitist concepts of his contemporaries. Boas, along with Alfred Kroeber, pounded eugenic theories with contradictions. They did not succeed in eliminating the ideas from scholarly investigation, but their efforts did spurn a schism in anthropology as the nature vs. nurture debate came into fruition. (Gould, 1977; Molnar, 1998)
Regardless of the contradictions, racial typologies persisted as no efficient method of analyzing variation existed. However, in the last few decades, scientists have developed methods and discovered concepts that help disprove taxonomic designations of racial diversity among Homo sapiens. Scientists developed a system called multivariate analysis that allowed continuous scrutiny of dynamic species. This development spurned a transition from dependence on complex taxonomies of diversity in favor of more continuous, statistical investigation. This method allows investigation of alterations in a species over time and through the environmental conditions of its geographic area. It considers the diversity among and between species as well as their similarities and differences. Some technological advancements have brought about the ability to define the elements of human diversity on a cellular level. Most notably, the discovery of DNA has played a role in dispelling traditional concepts of race. When variation can be investigated on a sub-genetic level, common physical traits lose their weight as defining characteristics. Another concept emerged in the 1960s. Clinical distribution of individual traits reflects the influences of natural selection and gene flow. This method of analysis limits biases in racial designation as it investigates diversity through exclusively evolutionary forces. With these developments, previous concepts of natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow become more accurately and efficiently calculable. (Gould, 1977; Jurmain, 2003; Molnar, 2003)
Modern methods of research have resulted in a more flexible and comprehensive view of diversity that has no fixed biological or geographic restrictions. Biological evidence has always been used to distinguish populations from one another, but the concept of biodeterminism has always been used in a cultural context, to establish the superiority of one distinction over another. Migration and exploration have occurred throughout history, these population movements and climatic changes have been the source of human variation. There can be no defined races if gene flow has been apparent across space and time. Racial categories are cultural constructions that attempt to find support in biological theory. Society has become grid locked by the prevalence of these ethnocentric, European ideals. Convoluted racial distinctions have infiltrated all aspects of life, especially with the emergence of concepts of economic globalization in the late twentieth century. Historically, concepts of race have resulted in the production of social identity that is easily recognized by others though not distinguished by nature. (Gould, 1977; Marks, 1994; Molnar, 1998)
Geographic variability exists in known fact, but race is simply a concept. Though methods of classification resulting in ambiguous nomenclature help increase our understanding of human variation; in reality, these labels encourage beliefs in static environments and polarize factions that support hierarchal stratification. These ideals are set in cultural distinctions and socioeconomic status; not science. The exploitation of biological facts to support elitist perceptions can only be achieved through diachronic analysis of related theories.
To quench a fire, you must extinguish its fuel. In anthropology, we must achieve this by debunking biological theories in concepts of race. Only then can we begin to fully realize the cultural constructions that serve to separate geographic populations from one another.
Bibliography
Gould, S. J. “Why We Should Not Name Human Races -- A Biological View”. Ever Since Darwin. Pgs. 231-236. 1977.
Jurmain, Robert; Kilgore, Lynn; Traventaan, Wenda; Nelson, Harry. Introduction to Physical Anthropology. Pgs. 24-25; 395-397. Wadsworth/Thompson. 2003.
Marks, Jonathan. “Black, White, Other”. Biological Anthropology: An Introductory Reader. Pgs. 159-162. 1994.
Molnar, S. “Racial Variation and the Perception of Human Differences”. Human Variation, 4th Edition. Pgs. 1-33. 1998.
www.artchive.com/artchive/V/valezquez/valezquez_atlec.html. 2003
www.strangescience.net/aristotle.htm. 2003
www.suite101.com/article.cfm/4003/29309. 2003
No comments:
Post a Comment