September 26, 2004
Reasons for Race
Why is the man on the left of this picture described as "black" while the two on the right are described as "white?" Assuming that there is a reason for everything, why do humans rely so heavily on such fuzzy concepts as racial identity?
Richard Dawkins in an article adapted from his recent book explores this question. Despite the almost universally agreed upon view that "racial classification can be actively destructive of social and human relations," racially classification must have some cultural and/or genetic utility in human evolution. Dawkins proposes two competing explanations for this. On one hand is the strict cultural explanation where mates were selected based on distinctive genetic markers. The other view is that geographic separation and natural selection (warm-climate cultures developed melanin-rich skin, for example) initially set the stage for racial differences which cultural selection then accelerated.
The second view is a more hopeful. As long as we can recognize the accidental nature of the initial racial separation, we can reject the legacy of cultural differentiation and racial discrimination that has plagued our recent history.
(By recent, I of course mean our entire recorded history.)
What about this, less optimistic one -- that people use race as a heuristic, so that they can make judgments about people without learning more information. It's a (very regrettable) way of streamlining information. The only way to break out of it is to constantly have it shown to be inaccurate, regardless of your prejudices. That's going to be tough. And why is it that people are more positive about 'good looking' people even when they know nothing else about them?
Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2004 04:08 PMI think that's basically what Dawkins is saying (and which I may have done a poor job of summarizing). Historically, race has been a marker for sexual selection, e.g., a Norwegian cave-person may have selected mates on the basis of fair skin (and hence a greater ability to absorb the vitamin D enriching sunlight), essentially excluding outsiders. This may have been an evolutionary trick that humans have reinforced with cultural habits.
You're right, though. Now that humans are more mobile and cultures interconnected, those cultural habits have become primarily a means for exclusion, disconnected from any further evolutionary impetus. The only solution I can see is to continue to make the world smaller. This is one of the reasons why I tend to favor globalization, and the homogenization of cultures. No matter what the French say.
Posted by: ken at September 28, 2004 05:37 PMWe're all San bushman from the Kalahari.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html
Posted by: Seth Hopkins at October 2, 2004 12:04 AMWe're all San bushman from the Kalahari.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html
Posted by: Seth Hopkins at October 2, 2004 12:04 AMBen-Lag
Capitalism, Chinese-Style
Year of the Sleeping Dog
Learning from Each Other
Home at Last
We Are Family
Ladies Man
Feeling Blessed
Traveling in a Pack
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
