EDIT: Brief googling couldn’t confirm either of the statements marked by “IIUC”, so take them with a huge grain of salt. Also, “no”, “no-one” etc. in the penultimate paragraph aren’t meant 100% literally—no doubt some people say and do lots of weird stuff.
Assume for the sake of argument that in Northern Ireland certain medically relevant alleles are much more common among Protestants than among Catholics or vice versa (not terribly unlikely, given that IIUC Protestants are mainly of Anglo-Saxon ancestry and Catholics are mainly of Gaelic ancestry). Would that make Protestatism and Catholicism not social constructs?
Or, the fact that people with different ancestries have different genotypes and phenotypes is not a social construct, but that’s just the motte. The fact that you write on the census which of those groups you’re in, they tend to live on different neighbourhoods, not interbreed, have distinctive cultures, have quotas in universities, etc., is the bailey.
(Here in Italy, IIUC the alleles for blond hair mostly originate from Germanic immigrants in the middle ages, and probably correlate with all kinds of other genes; but blonds and brunets freely interbreed, there’s no such thing as a blond church or Germanic-Italian music or a blond school or Germanic-Italian studies departments, no-one is ever accused of acting brunet, no-one refrains from going to a festival because it’s a brunet people thing, there’s no blog titled Stuff Brunet People Like, IIRC we aren’t asked for our hair colour on the census, and it wouldn’t occur to anyone to figure out the percentage of blonds in a university.)
So I’d say we have two correlated but distinct concepts, race2 which is a social construct, and race1 which isn’t except insofar as race2 reduces intermarriages which would otherwise dilute race1 over time to some extent.
If we’re taking about the usage of the word “race” then there are many possible meanings. Generally speaking, the proper usage depends on the context and on the aims of the speaker.
Certainly, some people use the word “race” to refer to social constructs—but that’s not the issue. The issue is whether race is a valid biological construct—and many people say no.
The issue is whether race is a valid biological construct—and many people say no.
It seems to me there’s not just one issue here; the conversation has drifted from one to another in a rather ad hoc way. Whether race is a valid biological construct is different from the issue raised above (“Are you sure doctors (of the medical kind) agree [that race is a social construct]?”), which itself doesn’t, to my eye, address Elund’s original comment (“Race is a social construct anyway”).
Let’s cut to the chase. The issue is whether there are genetically similar populations with some phenotype features which are important and significantly different from other populations. IQ is the classic example. We are talking here in purely biological terms.
The issue is whether there are genetically similar populations with some phenotype features which are important and significantly different from other populations. IQ is the classic example. We are talking here in purely biological terms.
There are certainly populations with higher within-population genetic similarity than between-population genetic similarity, and which differ significantly in IQ and other important phenotypic features. It presumably follows because of reductionism that most of those phenotypic differences, including those in IQ, are mostly biological; big differences in IQ are probably manifestations of differences in brains, and brains are biology. (I’m assuming the referents of “We are talking here in purely biological terms” are differences in IQ and other phenotypic features...?)
(Seems to me this issue too is pretty distant from the remark that kicked things off. It’s hard for me to avoid the impression that “cut to the chase” really means “ride a personal hobby-horse” here.)
Seems to me this issue too is pretty distant from the remark that kicked things off
Well, speaking empirically, the phrase “race is a social construct” is pretty often followed by “therefore all races are the same in all important ways”. “Social construct” implies an arbitrary choice—our society decided to split humanity into races this way, but another society might do it in an entirely different way and all such ways are equally valid, which is to say, there are no underlying “real” differences.
It’s not that it is a personal hobby-horse, it’s just that I have some experience in watching similar conversations develop.
I’m now more sure you’re riding a hobby-horse. I’d better explain why.
Well, speaking empirically, the phrase “race is a social construct” is pretty often followed by “therefore all races are the same in all important ways”. [...]
It’s not that it is a personal hobby-horse, it’s just that I have some experience in watching similar conversations develop.
Me too. Which is probably why I had a hunch that, from the start, you pattern matched Elund to the kind of person who says things like “all races are the same in all important ways” — because you’d observed such people before — in spite of Elund not having said that. That hunch now seems to be confirmed.
That pattern matching would make sense to me if, say, in the context of an argument about race & IQ, Elund had started insisting “race is socially constructed so racial IQ differences can’t exist haha I win!” as a desperate gimmick to shut down the argument. But the context wasn’t a fraught debate like that; Elund’s “Race is a social construct anyway” was an aside to explain why they were content with someone treating “mixed race” or “Hispanic” as racial categories, which doesn’t sound like a mind-killed person invoking “uh uh uh it’s a social construct!” to evade an argument.
So the way you responded to Elund (asking a pointed but not especially relevant question about what doctors think; intimating that Elund was doing an intellectually dishonest post-modernist two-step; asking a question which falsely implied Elund said race wasn’t a useful concept; and dragging IQ (hitherto unmentioned) into the conversation) didn’t seem consistent with a dispassionate correction. It looked a lot more like taking a hobby-horse out for a canter. Reviewing the argument, I’m not sure I could come up with any empirical question about race where the two of you would disagree on the answer!
Mea culpa, though I find pattern matching to be a useful tool. The reason that it’s useful is that it often works—though not always, of course.
The whole argument in this subthread wasn’t particularly focused—one notable diversion was into the meaning of “socially constructed” which Elund seems to understand very widely.
intimating that Elund was doing an intellectually dishonest post-modernist two-step
No, I don’t think I went this far—I didn’t and I don’t believe Elund showed any intellectual dishonesty.
didn’t seem consistent with a dispassionate correction
Oh, but I lay no claim to being a dispassionate corrector :-D I have preferences, tastes, opinions, aesthetics, etc. all of which colour my posts and affect my responses. I am not even above—oh, horrors! -- periodically doing things purely for their amusement value.
Mea culpa, though I find pattern matching to be a useful tool. The reason that it’s useful is that it often works—though not always, of course.
Yeah, had the pattern match been correct I would’ve said nothing.
intimating that Elund was doing an intellectually dishonest post-modernist two-step
No, I don’t think I went this far—I didn’t and I don’t believe Elund showed any intellectual dishonesty.
I’m glad to hear that. (I continue to think your comment would’ve planted the idea in some readers’ heads, regardless of intent, but since I’ve made my view clear and you indicate a lack of intent on your part, I’ll just agree to disagree.)
Oh, but I lay no claim to being a dispassionate corrector :-D
I’ve noticed!
I have preferences, tastes, opinions, aesthetics, etc. all of which colour my posts and affect my responses.
You’re entitled to those. I’m entitled to highlight when they’re fuelling a dubious argument.
“Social construct” implies an arbitrary choice—our society decided to split humanity into races this way, but another society might do it in an entirely different way and all such ways are equally valid, which is to say, there are no underlying “real” differences.
Supposing someone wanted to split humanity into arbitrary races based on actual genetics (which is not how the concept of race originally started because genetics wasn’t known at the time), it would make sense for most races to be African, since Africa has far more human genetic diversity than all the other continents combined do. The reason races are delineated the way they are now is due to social reasons. (It could possibly make sense when you consider the phenotype though, but due to the outgroup homogeneity bias, I have some doubts.)
Still, regardless of where you set the boundaries between races, there will be average biological differences between them (provided you don’t do something biologically ridiculous like classifying whites and Asians as the same race but then classifying their half-white/half-Asian children as a different race).
You’re using a definition of “social construct” under which the word “heaps” is a social construct. Sure, given this definition race is a social construct, too, along with a rather long list of most everything. However I think your interpretation of “social construct” is atypical.
Race2 is not a valid biological construct. Certain people by “race” mean that, and call race1 other words e.g. “ancestry”.
Sure, there also are people who say that race1 is not a valid biological construct. Bu then again, there also are people who say that Elvis is not dead.
Sure, there also are people who say that race1 is not a valid biological construct. Bu then again, there also are people who say that Elvis is not dead.
Unfortunately, the former are more likely to get taken seriously than the latter.
EDIT: Brief googling couldn’t confirm either of the statements marked by “IIUC”, so take them with a huge grain of salt. Also, “no”, “no-one” etc. in the penultimate paragraph aren’t meant 100% literally—no doubt some people say and do lots of weird stuff.
Assume for the sake of argument that in Northern Ireland certain medically relevant alleles are much more common among Protestants than among Catholics or vice versa (not terribly unlikely, given that IIUC Protestants are mainly of Anglo-Saxon ancestry and Catholics are mainly of Gaelic ancestry). Would that make Protestatism and Catholicism not social constructs?
Or, the fact that people with different ancestries have different genotypes and phenotypes is not a social construct, but that’s just the motte. The fact that you write on the census which of those groups you’re in, they tend to live on different neighbourhoods, not interbreed, have distinctive cultures, have quotas in universities, etc., is the bailey.
(Here in Italy, IIUC the alleles for blond hair mostly originate from Germanic immigrants in the middle ages, and probably correlate with all kinds of other genes; but blonds and brunets freely interbreed, there’s no such thing as a blond church or Germanic-Italian music or a blond school or Germanic-Italian studies departments, no-one is ever accused of acting brunet, no-one refrains from going to a festival because it’s a brunet people thing, there’s no blog titled Stuff Brunet People Like, IIRC we aren’t asked for our hair colour on the census, and it wouldn’t occur to anyone to figure out the percentage of blonds in a university.)
So I’d say we have two correlated but distinct concepts, race2 which is a social construct, and race1 which isn’t except insofar as race2 reduces intermarriages which would otherwise dilute race1 over time to some extent.
If we’re taking about the usage of the word “race” then there are many possible meanings. Generally speaking, the proper usage depends on the context and on the aims of the speaker.
Certainly, some people use the word “race” to refer to social constructs—but that’s not the issue. The issue is whether race is a valid biological construct—and many people say no.
It seems to me there’s not just one issue here; the conversation has drifted from one to another in a rather ad hoc way. Whether race is a valid biological construct is different from the issue raised above (“Are you sure doctors (of the medical kind) agree [that race is a social construct]?”), which itself doesn’t, to my eye, address Elund’s original comment (“Race is a social construct anyway”).
Let’s cut to the chase. The issue is whether there are genetically similar populations with some phenotype features which are important and significantly different from other populations. IQ is the classic example. We are talking here in purely biological terms.
There are certainly populations with higher within-population genetic similarity than between-population genetic similarity, and which differ significantly in IQ and other important phenotypic features. It presumably follows because of reductionism that most of those phenotypic differences, including those in IQ, are mostly biological; big differences in IQ are probably manifestations of differences in brains, and brains are biology. (I’m assuming the referents of “We are talking here in purely biological terms” are differences in IQ and other phenotypic features...?)
(Seems to me this issue too is pretty distant from the remark that kicked things off. It’s hard for me to avoid the impression that “cut to the chase” really means “ride a personal hobby-horse” here.)
Well, speaking empirically, the phrase “race is a social construct” is pretty often followed by “therefore all races are the same in all important ways”. “Social construct” implies an arbitrary choice—our society decided to split humanity into races this way, but another society might do it in an entirely different way and all such ways are equally valid, which is to say, there are no underlying “real” differences.
It’s not that it is a personal hobby-horse, it’s just that I have some experience in watching similar conversations develop.
I’m now more sure you’re riding a hobby-horse. I’d better explain why.
Me too. Which is probably why I had a hunch that, from the start, you pattern matched Elund to the kind of person who says things like “all races are the same in all important ways” — because you’d observed such people before — in spite of Elund not having said that. That hunch now seems to be confirmed.
That pattern matching would make sense to me if, say, in the context of an argument about race & IQ, Elund had started insisting “race is socially constructed so racial IQ differences can’t exist haha I win!” as a desperate gimmick to shut down the argument. But the context wasn’t a fraught debate like that; Elund’s “Race is a social construct anyway” was an aside to explain why they were content with someone treating “mixed race” or “Hispanic” as racial categories, which doesn’t sound like a mind-killed person invoking “uh uh uh it’s a social construct!” to evade an argument.
So the way you responded to Elund (asking a pointed but not especially relevant question about what doctors think; intimating that Elund was doing an intellectually dishonest post-modernist two-step; asking a question which falsely implied Elund said race wasn’t a useful concept; and dragging IQ (hitherto unmentioned) into the conversation) didn’t seem consistent with a dispassionate correction. It looked a lot more like taking a hobby-horse out for a canter. Reviewing the argument, I’m not sure I could come up with any empirical question about race where the two of you would disagree on the answer!
Mea culpa, though I find pattern matching to be a useful tool. The reason that it’s useful is that it often works—though not always, of course.
The whole argument in this subthread wasn’t particularly focused—one notable diversion was into the meaning of “socially constructed” which Elund seems to understand very widely.
No, I don’t think I went this far—I didn’t and I don’t believe Elund showed any intellectual dishonesty.
Oh, but I lay no claim to being a dispassionate corrector :-D I have preferences, tastes, opinions, aesthetics, etc. all of which colour my posts and affect my responses. I am not even above—oh, horrors! -- periodically doing things purely for their amusement value.
Yeah, had the pattern match been correct I would’ve said nothing.
I’m glad to hear that. (I continue to think your comment would’ve planted the idea in some readers’ heads, regardless of intent, but since I’ve made my view clear and you indicate a lack of intent on your part, I’ll just agree to disagree.)
I’ve noticed!
You’re entitled to those. I’m entitled to highlight when they’re fuelling a dubious argument.
Supposing someone wanted to split humanity into arbitrary races based on actual genetics (which is not how the concept of race originally started because genetics wasn’t known at the time), it would make sense for most races to be African, since Africa has far more human genetic diversity than all the other continents combined do. The reason races are delineated the way they are now is due to social reasons. (It could possibly make sense when you consider the phenotype though, but due to the outgroup homogeneity bias, I have some doubts.)
Still, regardless of where you set the boundaries between races, there will be average biological differences between them (provided you don’t do something biologically ridiculous like classifying whites and Asians as the same race but then classifying their half-white/half-Asian children as a different race).
You’re using a definition of “social construct” under which the word “heaps” is a social construct. Sure, given this definition race is a social construct, too, along with a rather long list of most everything. However I think your interpretation of “social construct” is atypical.
I’m just using it to mean things that are constructed socially.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+construct
Race2 is not a valid biological construct. Certain people by “race” mean that, and call race1 other words e.g. “ancestry”.
Sure, there also are people who say that race1 is not a valid biological construct. Bu then again, there also are people who say that Elvis is not dead.
Unfortunately, the former are more likely to get taken seriously than the latter.
The former are perfectly capable of getting those of a different opinion into a lot of trouble. The latter aren’t.