race revisited...

This is another conversation from the book African American Philosophers. I seriously love this book. It explores the validity (or lack thereof) of the term “race” in ways only philosophers can.
This is a conversation of Yancy interviewing Albert Mosley. In an earlier post referencing this book, I quoted an interview with Lucius T. Outlaw in which he criticized Appiah’s position on the concept of race. This interview is from another philosopher that was present at a conference in which each of their arguments, I’m guessing, were put on the table or vocalized in some way. Mosley goes on to give his thoughts on both of their positions, and then states his.

YANCY: Did you attend the particular African American philosophy conference in 1994 held at Rutger’s University?

MOSLEY: I was there.

YANCY: Would you explore the conceptual rift that occurred there between Anthony Appiah and Lucius T. Outlaw.

MOSLEY: Anthony Appiah has argued that race is a fiction and has spearheaded a movement among philosophers to disavow race as a legitimate and useful concept. He’s made a very strong case for this and I think many African Americans have reacted negatively to his efforts. The fact of the matter is that the majority of African Americans do identify themselves in terms of race. This act of self-identification by race reinforces an important sense of historical continuity. Their parents and grandparents were classified in terms of race and most associate denying their racial identity as an act of self-hatred. But Appiah has argued that the very concept of race is fiction. And within the literature of biology and anthropology this claim has been made by many others. ….Moreover, biologists have shown that there is no such thing as a race gene, something that makes every person who has that particular gene (or constellation of genes) Negro or Caucasian or Oriental. As a result of World War II, there was a concerted attack by scholars against the illegitimate use of racial categories; especially the idea that race determines a peculiar national orientation. Appiah has taken this orientation and applied it to the American situation in his essay “The Uncompleted Argument: Du Bois and the Illusion of Race.” There, he argues that W.E.B. Du Bois used the notion of race in characterizing African Americans, but was never able to define it adequately because it can’t be adequately defined.

YANCY: What was Outlaw’s response to that?

MOSLEY: …Some biologists believe that there are distinct human populations and other biologists do not believe this. Outlaw has a similar point of view. He argues that you can’t deny that race exists simply because it’s a historical construction. At the conference, Outlaw was bemoaning the fact that he had to continue to comment on commentaries about his and Appiah’s differences, and rather offhandedly characterized Appiah’s position as a form of ethnic cleansing. Given what was happening in Yugoslavia at this time in terms of ethnic cleansing, Appiah was insulted by the analogy, and he walked out of the room. …..the passions generated reflect the importance of the issue. One of the attacks on affirmative action is based on the idea that there is no such thing as an African American. Were we able to get rid of all references to race there would be no basis for affirmative action on the basis of race. Many African Americans believe this is simply a ploy designed to consecrate the status quo and ignore the historical wrongs that have been and continue to be perpetrated against African Americans. Restitution for opportunities denied because of race could not then be corrected on the basis of race.

YANCY: In your essay “Negritude, Nationalism, and Nativism: Racist or Racialist,” you discuss the distinction between a racist and a racialist. Would you briefly define the two terms?

MOSLEY: A racialist position accepts the claim that there are races and that there might be differences between races, both physiological and even behavioral. A racialist wants to allow that possibility. There is physiological evidence of such differences and a racialist would not preclude the possibility of correlated differences in behavioral traits. In the article, I make the analogy between races and varieties of dogs, not in order to taint the notion of races, but in order to point out that if you segregate any population long enough they will develop distinctive traits as a result of assortative mating. This is how people create varieties of dogs. Pit bulls didn’t exist three hundred years ago. ….A racialist would argue the same thing with respect to races. There has been geographical isolation between continents as well as social isolation within continents that has led to the existence of distinct groups of people. Now, this doesn’t mean that those groups have always existed or should be preserved into the future. So a racialist need not believe that races are primordial groups created by God after the blood or the Tower of Babel. But there is no reason to believe that groups cannot legitimately be differentiated into racial varieties.
YANCY: And to that extent, are you a racialist?

MOSLEY: I see no reason to deny racialism. Racism, on the other hand, would not only say that there are different races, but that certain races are superior to other races. That I would deny.

I think that some of the points Mosley makes are valid and sound. However, I think his argument is resting on a separate ethical issue. He’s almost saying that the notion of race has to exist; otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to right the wrongs that have been done to blacks in the past. Which, is….possibly true, but that isn’t a sound argument. Just because a negative consequence may come from a notion, theory, or fact doesn’t mean that that notion, theory or fact is false or wrong. It’s almost like saying “well, god has to exist, otherwise there would be no moral foundation.” While it is arguably true that the lack of a god would render morality baseless, that doesn’t mean that god exists; this doesn’t mean that now morals are objective with a solid foundation, it just means that the consequences of this fact/probability are not that favorable. In the same sense, just because the concept of race would breakdown arguments for affirmative action does not mean that now race exists and is something testable, tangible, and real (whatever that means…). Truth isn’t always favorable or comfortable. But what is “truth” anyway besides something that many credible people accept until something else comes along…?

That being said though, I have for some time now tried to figure out an analogy in the non-human animal kingdom for the differences in race, while showing that race is nothing more than phenotypical variations. I thought about dogs, but dogs do not just vary in their appearance, and this is the problem with his analogy. They also differ in personalities, temperaments, and levels of aggression. Some dogs, like Chows, are known for the loyalty they have for their owners, and their aggression towards children of their owners. Other dogs, like Labs are friendly while Rottweilers and Pitt Bulls are more aggressive. So, unless he wants to continue with that analogy and say that the differences in races are not just external, but also internal (personalities, temperaments, etc.), then he should abandon this analogy. Are we also going to start referring to people of mixed heritage as the human equivalent to mutts?

Although I think it is logically problematic to include the moral consequence of a question about the reality of a concept, I still think he is not fully thinking about the consequences of both findings. If race is found to “exist”, then I feel that the consequences would be worse than if it was found to not exist. If it does exist, then now they have an argument for affirmative action, and blacks will have some type of retribution for the dehumanization that was and is being done to us…..and on the other hand, we would have bigots coming out the woodworks with their arguments about how we’re a sub-human species yet again. “blacks and Latinos fill the prison walls not because there’s any link between poverty and the rate of violence….but solely because they are less human than whites and their affinity for violence is simply…in their blood”. Right? Can’t we all see these “arguments” arising once everyone deems race a reality? So what do you think is the worst outcome? Having a basis for affirmative action or returning to a time in which any non-white is thought of as inferior and thus treated accordingly?

Overall though, I would say that I would still side with Appiah. Outlaw’s arguments had some validity to them, but not enough. I think the anthropologists and scientists of the 1800’s who put too much effort into deciphering what made one a negro….from hair follicles, to the arch of one’s foot, to the color of one’s palm…..to the way one walks, the way one carries themselves. These people (bigots) had a similar argument for race that was also hinged on what they considered an ethical issue. If race doesn’t exist and there is no separation between the Negro and any other human (or even an argument that said blacks WERE human…), then slavery would be wrong. Therefore, race must exist because that would mean that they were wrong in treating humans like cattle. This was their argument and it is eerily similar to Mosley’s. I see that as a problem.

We should be trying to figure out what is true, what stands against arguments, and what can be logically the end of an argument. Should we be thinking about the consequences of an argument prior to making that argument? I would say no.
Simply put, I don’t think that race is real/factual/truth. However, this does not mean that I excuse or deny in any way degradation and rift that has occurred between humans due to this concept. I am black, I am a product of a slave trade justified by race, I am a descendant of a slave…I am a descendant of people whose ethnicity was used interchangeably with the term “slave”, I am the product of every negative thought of blacks, I am the product of blackness, my identity does have a lot to do with my color, my “race”, by thoughts…my blog, have to do with this concept and its historical actions and current repercussions, I am the product of an inferiority complex branded on my people, I am the product of 400 years of dehumanization based on race, I am the consequence. I cannot deny this even if I wanted to.
But let’s assume that race is not real, as Appiah and I are arguing, then what is the standing for issues like Affirmative Action? I personally am somewhat on the fence about Affirmative Action. I feel as though we, as blacks should learn to advance in this society without a handout from the individuals that have put us in such a position to ask for handouts. It’s like asking the man that has kidnapped you from your home and beat you senselessly for a job. I want blacks to be in a position to where we don’t need handouts, and if we aren’t there yet (which I would agree, we aren’t…), then we need to get there ourselves. Then again, I can completely see Mosley and others’ position that says that we have been wronged in the past, and situations where others have benefitted from the back breaking labor blacks have done in the history of this nation should be leveled, and that affirmative action is one way in which that can be done. But can his point not be argued were race argued to not exist? No. even during the time in which non-whites were being treated like animals, they didn’t have any scientific or realistic idea of race. One was white if they had white skin and straight hair and one was black if they had dark skin and kinky hair. It was that absurdly simple (I’m reading about the trials during this time in a book entitled What Blood Won’t Tell by Ariela J. Gross). The idea of race was never based on anything legitimate, so why should it for affirmative action arguments?

The idea that if race does not exist, then affirmative action would have no grounds, is just assuming. We have affirmative action now; does this mean that the United States government has reason to believe that race is a verifiable concept? Or do they feel that the wrongs of the past need some retribution? Well, the latter would imply that the government or the majority of whites in this country (or even non-whites, for that matter….) actually realize and acknowledge what they have done to minorities. Which is certainly not true, I feel.

Race, I feel, does not exist. But this does not change the fact that most people think it does, and it affects the way people see me, the way others treat me, and thus affects my job prospects, my status in society, by financial standings, and my personal esteem. But that doesn’t mean it exists. …but just to give credence to the polemic, if race effects all these things in my life, and the life of others, then would that make it real?

I think something we need to ask ourselves, especially people of color, is whether or not we would feel the same way about race had it not been for the hierarchy of value placed on it in the past. If my people were never taken from Africa and stripped of their culture, worth, and humanity, then would I even feel the need to refer to myself as African American or black? Would I feel an unspoken connection with those of color? What would it mean to be black in the Americas if there was never a slave trade? What would it mean to be African in a country that was never colonized? What would it mean to be the “other”(as bell hooks would say…) if there never was a “self”?

Give me your comments. I want to know what you think.

The Concept of Race

I’m reading this book titled African American Philosophers in which George Yancy interviews seventeen different African Americans that have attained doctorates or Masters degrees in Philosophy, and teach philosophy (or something in the field) at major colleges. He asks general questions about how they got interested in philosophy, which I found interesting and in some cases similar to my own relationship with philosophy, but then he also asks in depth questions about the concept of race, whether there’s a such thing as “African American Philosophy” (and if there were, what its characteristics and limitations consist of), and then personal questions to each philosopher about heir particular philosophical fields of study.

I wanted to talk about the interview Yancy had with Lucius T. Outlaw Jr. (professor of Philosophy at Haverford College with a B.A. from Fisk University and a Ph.D. from Boston College. Areas of specialization are African Philosophy, continental philosophy (phenomenology and hermeneutics), and social and political philosophy (Marx and critical social theory). Outlaw is referring to an argument presented by the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah.

YANCY: Briefly on this issue of race construction, what is the nature of your opposition to Appiah’s position?

OUTLAW: Briefly, it is Appiah’s position that, epistemologically and ontologically, the concept race is very much the same concept as witch: that is, though there are persons who believe that there are witches and use the word “witch” to refer to persons they believe to be witches, realistically (that is to say, on the terms of scientific empiricism or realism) there are no such things as witches. The term “witch” has no real referent, no matter a speaker’s beliefs to the contrary. Likewise, Appiah has argued, “race” as no real referent that fulfills all the conditions-that is, embody all the biological, categorical, psychological, etc. characteristics-that would have to be met in order for a group of persons to be properly called a race.
Now, to an important extent, I agree with Appiah. In other respects, I don’t. I remain convinced that it is important to get clear about deficiencies in older conceptions of race, particularly those that improperly mixed or conflated biological, cultural, and caharachterological characteristics. Having done so, I think it then possible to reconstruct the notion of race such that it refers appropriately to relatively distinct, more or less complex population groups that are also more or less complex cultural groups.


YANCY: With respect to this issue of race, do you see it as a social construction?

OUTLAW: The short answer to that question is “yes”, but it is very important of how we take care in how we understand and speak of social construction. One of the most influential texts that I ever read in graduate school…was Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s ‘The Social Construction of Reality’. …It helped me to understand that human beings must basically construct virtually all of their meaning systems about everything. As a species we don’t have any choice since we don’t come into the world with any pre-established meaning systems repertoires for surviving, adapting, and flourishing. We humans have to construct all that we have. Now there certainly have been long and rich traditions of naturalistic accounts of human species-being, accounts that, in quite important respects, have been different from and opposed to social construction accounts. And there are those who have argued against the viability of concepts of race by holding that there are no natural races (by which they tend to mean race is not a tenable concept by the terms of contemporary biological science), only individuals who have been constructed as races, that is, had an untenable complex of defining characteristics attributed to and imposed on them, most always for pernicious reasons.
Well I think there is much in this argument that is correct, but that there is also a way in which some who take this position become facile and dismissive, particularly when their argument takes the form “Well, so and so is not real, its only a social construction.” I think that in many cases this is a really dumb and inappropriate way to go about making an important distinction: that is, between things that are socially constructed and things that are real.
In so many ways, what is real for us is by way of constructions that have social groundings. Language is a social venture in and through which we designate the real and the unreal. Perhaps if you’re talking about what we might call the materially real, then some of the things of this kind do not owe their reality to social activity. Mountains, for example, don’t tend to come about because you or I, nor any other humans, have wished them into being, or brought them about otherwise. Other materially real things are very much social constructions, such as automobiles produced in factories by way of highly coordinated social labor. A car is not a natural object, it is constructed socially, but it is real.

This interview was interesting because of the commentary on the concept of race. I think many people have this idea that race is something biological, it makes you who you are, it is in your “blood” (like when people say phrases like “African blood” or “Indian blood”). But, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is a social construct, and my argument pretty much parallels that of Appiah’s. Comparing just whites and blacks, one might come prematurely come tot he conclusion that it is biological, but when you start to look at groups of people like Phillipinos, or Arabs, Native Americans or Aborigines, the concept gets sketchy, if not completely disintegrates. Many anthropologists have argued that these aforementioned peoples are not distinct races from any other groups of people, but that they fit into 3 main racial categories- Negroid (Negro), Mongoloid (Asian), and Caucasoid (Caucasian).

The typical idea of “race” is something deeper than skin or hair or facial features, but when you take away one’s social upbringing that might make up for distinctions, then you are left with no deeper distinction than ones that are phenotypical. “Race” implies that there is something evident in every individual of that particular “race” that people of other “races” do not possess. But is there anything that every single person in a particular “race” possesses that no other “race” has? No. is there any marker in one’s blood that insists they are any of the three aforementioned groups? I think the best questions that breaks down the concept of race is this- Is it possible for someone with racially ambiguous features, hair texture, and skin color that for some reason knew nothing of their biological parents be able to find out their “race”? and the answer is no. No scientist (no accredited one, anyway…) has been able to do this. I’ve heard arguments that present the fact that there are some diseases, such as Tay-Sachs Disease (which impacts mostly Jews) and Sickle-Cell Anemia (which impacts mostly people with African ancestry), that may show that “races” exist. But, I think this part of an argument ignores human evolution. Using the Jews an example- Jews were/are Caucasians (it really depends on what they prefer to call themselves). After Judaism, they began to live together, worship together, and yes, procreate together. Considering that one must covert to Judaism in order to marry a Jew, it is likely that few Jewish/non-Jewish children have been born. Someone has the disease, continues to pass it around, and over time this disease becomes a disease for Jews. Now, are the followers of Judaism their own “race”? I would say no. Take any genetic disease, isolate a group of people, make them procreate only with each other, and you’ll get the same result in a couple centuries. This doesn’t mean that a “race” exists.

Outlaw’s argument against mine and Appiah’s is basically saying that there is no such thing as reality or the term “real”, so why would one use it in their argument. Nothing and anything can be argued as being “real”, so what does one mean when they say something isn’t “real”? You cannot say ….”Concept A is a social construct/it is not real while the idea of “reality” is not a social construct”. By “real” do we mean “scientifically proven” Do we mean that under scientific and anthropological scrutiny that it does not retain the same concepts as it does in everyday society (referring back to saying “African blood”…). I don’t think the concept of race is “real”, and what do I mean by “real”?

Personally in this case I think I mean that it isn’t real in the sense that it not only does not stand up to scientific scrutiny but also logical scrutiny. For example, let’s look at the indigenous peoples of Australia- The Aborigines. It is up for debate whether they ventured there by sea or walked there when land may have been present between Australia/New Zealand and the Asian continent. I think most anthropologists might categorize them as “Mongoloids”, but they have dark skin, darker than some Africans, broad noses, large lips, and some of them have kinky hair, so then they could also be categorized as Negro. So are they Negroid or Mongoloid? Or are they both? And if they are both, then are they a new/distinct race (considering they have inhabited Australia and New Zealand for millions of years)? If they are a distinct race, then how many years does it take for any group of people to form into a “race”? none of these questions can be sufficiently answered by individuals who believe race is something biological.

Although I think his criticism on using the term “real” in Outlaw's argument is a sound criticism, one of my problems with Outlaw’s criticism, however, would be when he makes the concept of “race” as a social construction analogous to a car being a social construction. For an analogy to work, the two entities, ideas, or objects being compared need to me similar. And in this analogy, they are not. “Race” is a socially constructed idea, it is intangible, and subjective in some cases. A car is simply something that is constructed physically by humans. It took a human mind and arguably some social requirements (such as advancement in technology, financial stability, and a certain level of education) to produce a society /societies to conceptualize a car and then produce it, however, it is no longer an idea. I can buy a car, break a car, crash a car, experiment on it, take it apart and make it into other things. And whether a society calls it an automobile or a car, differentiates between trucks, SUV’s and compact cars, or refers to anything with wheels as one word, they all have basically the same concept of a car. This is not the case for race. Race can be a means of hierarchal power or dehumanizing treatment in some societies, it can be a means of personal identity. It can mean one’s culture, one’s place of origin, one’s ancestor’s place of origin, one’s facial features and skin tone, one’s skin tone & hair, one’s skin tone & eye color, the shape of one’s eyes, the shape of one’s eyes & hair texture or simply what one considers theirself. Outlaw is comparing something that is intangible with something that is; something that is solely an idea (since scientists and anthropologists have never come up with any genetic differences) with something that is an idea as well as a physical object.
I think what he is trying to say in his argument is that if you think it is real, then it is real. Real in some sort of objective sense? No, because there is no objective concept of reality. It is subjectively real because that is the only type of reality there is.

I think one can look at these arguments in the same way someone might look at the arguments and concepts of god/gods. I don’t think there is any “reality” to the concept of god or gods…but there is no such thing as “reality”, so then “god” is real for those who believe in him. People, like me, I think feel the need to dissect and scrutinize these concepts like “god” and “race” because they have impacted humans in such a negative way. Race has divided people in a way I don’t anything else has, even religion. But just like religion, people have been killed over it. Race and/or religion can be argued as being the reasoning for most, if not all of the genocides, mass killings, and sustained oppression and dehumanization of people in all of history. And when it impacts our societies in such a way, it HAS to be scrutinized, dissected, experimented on, broken down, built up and broken back down again so that we can get past these trivial means of separation and progress as a society. This MUST be done. It is imperative, it is necessary, it is vital.

if you would like to comment on something i have said, please feel free. i have enabled it so that people that do not have blogs can post comments, and you can post anonymously if you'd like. i welcome any type of criticism as well as new arguments (just be able to back your shit up...). even if you don't have a criticism, and want to mention some experience you've had or think i think about something it doesn't look like i've considered...then post it.