Nominalist and realist approaches to defining race yield different research programs.

Evidence

In opposition the nominalist school has contended that a definition should distinguish the thing being defined from other things with which it might be confused. A favorite illustration is to say that while a realist (or essentialist) might define Homo sapiens as a rational animal, a nominalist would define Homo as a featherless biped! Realists seek the true nature of the relations that are called racial; nominalists assume that these relations are too complex to be grasped in this way and elaborate concepts that will facilitate analysis of the different component parts or aspects of the relations in question. Since these relations change over time, realists claim to distinguish new racisms. Nominalists believe that instability of definitions leads to confusion; instead of talking of new expressions of some underlying essence it is better to identify the component elements of social processes. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 674

Categorization

• DEFINE: The realist-vs-nominalist distinction in concept definition, with the featherless biped illustration, is a clean framework worth keeping for reference.
• XREF: Connects to nominalism versus essentialism disputes in other fields (biology species concepts, economics measurement debates). — connects to: the MOC “The False Compass: How Racial Categories Reorder Bodies, Minds, and the Self”