Morning cites that the "intellectual consensus" is race as a social construct; still, this view is held only largely in some social sciences (anthropology and sociology, particularly) and not much elsewhere. In fact, in Morning's book, "The Nature of Race," she suggests that hard-sciences perpetuate a static biological conceptualization of race, one which becomes disseminated all the way down to high school biology textbooks. Doctors often believe race is an important aspect in diagnosing diseases (Satel 2002). Historically, biological conceptualizations of race have led to policies such as slavery or eugenics. While it is less negatively charged today, the biological explanations for race still give race a concrete structure, one that implies serious differences between races. She believes that both biologists perpetuate this viewpoint but still, it is influenced in a circle-like context between political and social conditions. In the introduction of her book, Morning writes,
"Despite the special authority that scientists enjoy, their beliefs are by no means independent of the broaer society in which they train and practice. If lay people are influenced by what 'experts' say about race, the reverse is true too: scientific notions of race are informed by the broader political and social current of their times. This was the case in the nineteenth century when scientists sought to corroborate popular wisdom concerning the intelligence of whites or the physical frailty of mulattoes, and it still holds true today. This book, then, can be understood as focusing on one section of what is in fact a loop: the flow of scientific thinking to the public, which in turn unquestionably shapes scientists' views in the first place. (Morning 2011, p. 4)
This study of biology textbooks is one of the main focuses of Morning's research: how notions of race get disseminated down to individuals. In "The Nature of Race," Morning does a content-analysis of secondary education textbooks, finding that biology and even psychology, the most widely studied social science, convey a static depiction of race, largely based on genetic or physical characteristics. Also, by interviewing academics in biology, psychology, anthropology and other disciplines, she found interesting ways in which race was conveyed to students: in anthropology, race is displayed as a social construct, and this reflects the attitudes of anthropology students, whom believe more than any other major that race is a social construct; in biology, professors perpetuate an essentialist view, even though it is indirect--while professors say they do not acknowledge race, through activities and lectures, they indirectly support genetic and biological differences according to race; psychology often directly attributes race as physical differences, implying an inherently biological structure.
Morning's research, however, shows that the most common conceptualization of race (especially in undergraduate students) is a still static but "cultural grouping" explanation. This keeps the concreteness of the biological explanation but states that people's differences are in cultural practices. Therefore, to the culturalist, race implies irreconcilable differences between the ways types of people live. This is equally as dangerous as any other.
Morning believes that the way we define race is largely telling of how prejudice places out at the micro and macro level. She discusses the interaction between individual conceptualizations of race and the way institution's define race. She strongly discusses racial classification in much of her research, often studying Census data, and the ways in which the government operationalizes race. She also discusses the role racial classification plays in policies. Morning and Sabbagh (2005) together analyze the adoption of antidiscrimantory policy that is founded using the same mechanisms for categorizing disadvantaged groups that were once used solely for purposes of oppression. They suggest the United States in particular engages in this practice, and historically traces the development of racial classification, from initial measurements of slave vs. non-slave, to more recent racist measures such as the "one-drop" rule, where a person is considered black if they have any amount of blackness to them. More contemporary classifications are based on these, providing a dangerous foundation for antidiscriminatory policies.
Still, Morning does not deny the benefits of using racial classification to collecting data. She cites work such as Devah Pager's (2003) study that found whites with criminal records are more likely to be considered for jobs than blacks without criminal records, as important research found on these principles. Still, Morning focuses on how the collection of data on race "arose from--and may help perpetuate--longstanding American beliefs in the reality and significance of race (Morning 2005; 70).
Interestingly, Morning looks at structure to explain racial prejudice but expands the notion passed simply materialism. She looks at the structure of ideas--a theory rooted in sociology of knowledge and microsociology. While economics may be hard to overcome, solutions on issues of definition and classification may be our greatest asset in the fight to overcome racism.
I include this picture, the melting of the candle, to represent the melting of discriminatory classification practices that trap in the light of equality.
References
Morning, Ann. 2009. “Toward a Sociology of Racial Conceptualization for the 21st Century” Social Forces 87, March 2009
Morning, Ann. 2011. “The Nature of Race: How Scientists Think and Teach about Human Difference.” University of California Press
Morning, Ann & Daniel Sabbagh. 2005. “From sword to plowshare: using race for discrimination and antidiscrimination in the United States” ISSJ 183
No comments:
Post a Comment