Social practice, not genetics, determines racial classification

Evidence

There is now general agreement that when in English-speaking countries reference is made to race, as, for example, in instances of racial discrimination, the reference is to race as a social construct and not a biological category. The social nature of the category can be demonstrated by considering the position of persons of mixed origin. In the United States a person of 90 percent African and 10 percent European ancestry may consider himself or herself, and be considered by others, to be black, or African-American. It is social practice and not genetics which decides that person’s position. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 675 (#expands, via linked claim)

Nevertheless, the second approach has rejected the “natural race” view in favor of the argument that racial categories are always socially constructed (Harding, 1993). Reflection on the World War II atrocities committed in the name of maintaining “racial purity” decreased the attractiveness of continuing to search for biological determinants of racial differences. Moreover, the “social race” defenders pointed out the immense cultural variation in systems of racial classification. The US had had a complex system of classifying people of African descent as quadroons, octoroons, and those legally counted as black because their ancestry gave them 1/32 “black blood.” In parts of the Caribbean class has shaped racial classification so that the richer one is, the whiter one is perceived to be. South Africa, Japan, and other cultures have their own systems of racial classification. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1564 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Three lines of thinking have developed in response to the question of whether there are natural race differences and, if so, what they are. The first assumes that the fundamental “truth of race” is part of the natural order, can be discovered by biology, and has valuable social implications and consequences. The second argues that race is entirely a socially constructed category, that it is not a useful scientific concept, and that these facts destroy the foundation for racist prejudice and discrimination. The third challenges both of these views, arguing that the second insufficiently questions the nature/culture dichotomy that provides the foundation for scientific race difference debates. Since bodies are physiological entities that are shaped by social practices, race is always both biological and social. What we need to learn is just how social practices produce socially and biologically raced bodies. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1561 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: If race is social, race is an amalgam of practices, not proxies like phenotype — Cyra Akila Choudhury, Racecraft and Identity in the Emergence…, 89; Race categories result from social assignment, not biology — Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White, 27; Racial classification criteria vary wildly by culture and era — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1564 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Social practice, not genetics, assigns mixed-ancestry persons to racial categories. #expands (0.97) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 675
• Racial classification criteria vary wildly by culture and era #corroborates (0.93) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1564
• Race is both biological and social because bodies are shaped by social practices #complicates (0.76) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1561