The Definition of Race?

I am starting to be struck by a theme that I feel is at the heart of a lot of "race" talk. There are a million definitions of race, and most people are not defining the term when they use it, Templeton exempted from this.

Radio Lab. MacArther Genius Grant Award winning radio show. Episode: "Race Doesn't Exist. Or Does it?"  They never actually define the term "race." The closest they get is "Race doesn't not have a biological basis." When they remove their own double negative, they then state at the top of the program, after talking about the human genome project (sciencizing the subject some more), that "race kind of has a biological basis." If they define the term "race," as a social construct that varies wildly from culture to culture, then there can't be a biological basis. What they mean at that moment is "biological ancestry," which is the definition that Kahn states the medical community wants to use. Except no where in the world does "race" mean "biological ancestry," as Kahn points out.

So what is the definition of "race?"  There's the academic definition: a social construct specific to the culture that prescribes it, and that has no biological basis. But that's not the definition that makes everyone afraid. As the comedians Key and Peele say, there's nothing worse to a white person than calling them a racist. To use the term racist, we would not say "You're a social constructor of something that doesn't exist and that is culturally specific and has no biological basis." That's not what people are afraid of being. They are afraid of something worse. So there's a different definition of race that cannot be divorced from the word, or else our students would fluidly and easily answer when we ask "What is race?"

That working definition is dirty. It has a history, and I find that no one says it out loud. I've been trying to define it to myself for a couple months now. The best I can come up with is this: "race" is a way of grouping people by physical traits to judge those people's value without getting to know them. "Race" places value on people based on how they look. This is the best I can do, and I don't feel it's good enough. But from this definition, or something like it, springs all the hushed worry and fear to openly talk about race and confront it. No well meaning person wants to be called a racist.

So in statements like "race kind of has a biological basis," there are actually two definitions of race. 1. The dirty definition of race, as they proceed to continue through the episode addressing classic cases of race as it's defined in an American social context (black, white, asian, etc.). 2. Biological ancestry, which is not race, but is looking at the results of gene flow, founder's effect and genetic drift from small portions of populations that are geographical very disparate (comparing Swedes to Yoruba to San to Han). The first one is the public definition, and the second one is the medical profession's preferred definition, for which they use the term race as a proxy.

A comment on the trellis vs tree portion of Templeton's argument: the trees of today are a far cry from the candelabras of our past field. A candelabra was a tree with deep divisions between the "races" and was associated with physical anthropologists like Carleton Coon (who could make mundane human variation roaringly racist - public definition). I can support Templeton's argument, as I have only recently become aware, awakened from my ivory tower, that the implied gene-flow of today's trees does not sit front and center in the public's mind today.

I'm sorry to not be there and be a part of the conversation, as I've really enjoyed these articles, but I hope I've added a bit to the conversation.

Interdisciplinary conference in Sydney

From Drew:


This just came across my e-desk, and I thought the topic (if not the conference) might be interesting to the group. If any thing, it's an example of the type of reaching across strict disciplinary boundaries that is going on.

EvolDir is a email list for evolutionary biologists and is commonly used to disseminate job postings, conferences, questions, and questions of broad interest.

A Conference at the Interface of Evolution and Economics
February 2 - 5 2014, UNSW, Sydney
www.evolvingeconomics.com<http://www.evolvingeconomics.com>
Abstract Submission<http://evolvingeconomics.com/call-for-abstracts/>  Closes 31 August 2013
Early-Bird Registration<http://evolvingeconomics.com/registration/>  Closes 30 September 2013

The Cooperation and Conflict in the Family, UNSW, Sydney Australia.  February 2-5 2014.

We will bring together leading economic and evolutionary researchers to explore the nature of conflict and cooperation between the sexes in the areas of mating, fertility, marriage and family life. The conference provides an opportunity for researchers to discuss the economic and evolutionary biology approaches to these issues, explore common ground and identify collaborative opportunities.

Sydney makes a magnificent year-round destination, but is especially splendid in February. The Conference and social events will all happen in Randwick and Coogee, near some of Australia's most famous beaches, and a short bus or cab ride from the City Centre.
Public Lectures
Paul Seabright: What role is there for biology in explaining gender outcomes in the 21st century workplace?
Monique Borgerhoff Mulder: "My Kin are Witches" - Life in an African Village in an Era of Globalization
Invited Speakers
David P. Barash: The evolutionary mysteries of female sexuality
Alison Booth: Gender Differences in Risk Aversion: Do Single-Sex Environments Affect their Development?
Lena Edlund: I do, I do, I do — family law and how the West won
Michael Jennions: A biologist's perspective on sexual conflict in humans. Just another animal?
Hillard Kaplan: An ecological framework for understanding the role of men in families
Hanna Kokko: How to make sense of male care strategies
Jason Potts: Cooperation and Conflict in Innovation Commons


----------------------