Race as a Technology

[Derin Darkpaw]

As one may or may not know the idea of what race is is a strongly debated topic.  The most prominent viewpoints held in this debate are that either race is entirely a social concept or that race is a set of biological categories.  Both of those viewpoints have been examined thoroughly by many philosophers throughout history and the strengths and weakness of both viewpoints are well known.  What I am here to bring up today is however a relatively new outlook on defining race that views it as neither entirely a set of biological categories or entirely a social concept but instead as a kind of mental technology.  In her book Toward a Political Philosophy of Race author Falguni Sheth lays the framework for this new outlook on defining race.

If we would say that race is a type of mental tool we may want to understand who is creating and using this tool, why they use it and how they manage to accomplish it.  Falguni Sheth argues that race is created by sovereign power in order to manage unruly populations and this is accomplished through racialization.

This video here does a much better job then me of summarizing and explaining the basic groundwork for this new method of defining race

 

 

I find this particular theory very fascinating and very useful in regards to explaining both how race comes to be and how we see race being used in our society.

What do you guys think though?  Do you see any particular strengths or weakness in this argument?  I know we have some people that either feel very strongly about race or are very confident in their definition of it and I would love to hear their comments about this theory.

Just a reminder to everyone that race and racism can be a particularly touchy subject and it would be much appreciated if people could attempt to discuss this topic in a civil and respectful manner.

[Guest]

I will be watching this thread carefully, you guys. 

[Teto]

This isn't something I've ever really thought much about until recently, while reading Tehanu by Ursula K. Le Guin, which had a lot of commentary about prejudice, with the main character being a self-respecting middle-aged foreign woman just trying to live an unhindered domestic life, and undertake her duties unmolested.

A takeaway quote from that was "If your strength relies on another's weakness, then you always live in fear." Maintaining social dominance when you're essentially weak and undeserving, means belittling and disempowering those who would take your place.

That's not really a complete thought on the subject, but I'll drop it in. I haven't done the research.

[Derin Darkpaw]

53 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Welp, I stand even more convinced that people are just too eager to label things.

There's only the human race, or rather, species.

That's reality. No human construct can beat it.

While the idea that we are a singular species and we should put aside our differences is a noble and admirable idea such a definition of race fails to accurately reflect the way we see the phenomena being used in society.  This theory isn't about being any more or less eager to label things its an attempt to explain the way in which we see human beings labeling each other through the concept of race.

[Khaki]

6 hours ago, Saxon said:

I don't find the video completely persuasive; the recognition of the existence of races isn't inherently a political tool to suppress threats to the state. 

I also find the notion that 'you can't be racist against the powerful' is a bit silly, and shows that what the video is describing is daemonisation, rather than just race. 

 

Yeah, that was the message I was getting from this film too, it didn't really provide any tangible information to really back such a claim,

honestly I think it's a load of wank and isn't worth watching.

 

[Derin Darkpaw]

10 hours ago, Saxon said:

I don't find the video completely persuasive; the recognition of the existence of races isn't inherently a political tool to suppress threats to the state. 

The video claims that thinking variations in skin colour are viewed as racial delineations, while hair and eye colour don't, is an arbitrary belief. 

This is clearly wrong; the Australoid people who are native to Australia have dark skin and black, blond or dusty red hair. The Mongoloid people of China uniformly have pale skin and black hair. Hence Australoid hair colour is a poor predictor of ancestry to compare these groups, while skin colour is a very good predictor. 

I also find the notion that 'you can't be racist against the powerful' is a bit silly, and shows that what the video is describing is daemonisation, rather than just race. 

 

Alright then what biological signifiers are necessary and/or sufficient to determine what is and is not a race?  At what point does some one stop being a certain race and do they become another?  Is dark skin all that is necessary to make some one born within the United States African American?

If you say that the argument in the video isn't compelling would you then please present a argument for why race is entirely a biological category, as that seems to be what you are claiming?  Also how does your definition race explain the way in which we see race being used within liberal societies?

Edited February 13, 2016 by Derin Darkpaw

[willow]

I can't watch the video right now because my computer his having some driver issues but I can see it..sort of. race is a biological concept since people with certain characteristics typically produce offspring with similar characteristics and I feel that race is just a way to classify different variations of people. also saying breeds of humans would be weird.

but race has been used so many times as a way for certain groups of people to hold superiority over other groups. so then it becomes political and sociological. the US actually used to use head size to justify slavery. same with the Hutu and Tutsi. etc.

the video might mention this but if I'm not mistaken, the dude who developed the idea of Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid supposedly did so to justify German superiority. even though the skulls he found were in the Caucasus Mountains..which are in Turkey

[Derin Darkpaw]

@Saxon I sadly don't recall where exactly I read it, but I remember reading that groups of Chimpazees separated by a single continent are more genetically different from each other then all humans are from each other.  If that is true that is starkly distinct from your analogy of the difference between dinosaurs and birds.

Also you have proven that people possess certain genetic similarities and that those same genetic similarities can be medically useful information.  You do however admit that people generally do not use the word race in a biological sense.  How then is this classification relevant to society outside of the medical field?  Based on this genetic information what would you be able to predict about a person other then the aforementioned medical information?