The Modern Product of Racialized Science
Jenny Freedman
Black Studies
April 17, 2020
The essentialism of race is highly prevalent within American customs and norms to this day. This concept implies ascribing one’s behaviors, actions, or beliefs to race and identity and defining them as immutable. The roots of modern race essentialism derive from the misconception that race is justified by genetics. The truth is that race is not scientifically determined. Racialized science utilizes racial misconceptions in order to fuel racist theories about conclusive and innate differences between races. Racialized science often attempts to prove intellectual or mental inferiority, historically in terms of Black people, in order to provide explanations for existing power dynamics and explicit racism. Race is not a preexisting human condition, but rather it is a category to enforce a social order and maintain inequality.
Humans often fear what is foreign to them. This can be seen again and again throughout Europe’s history of colonization, enslavement, and discrimination. Examples of such xenophobia can be seen through Johann Blumenbach, Carolus Linnaeus, and Louis Agassiz, as they all “developed racial categories and ranked humanity according to phenotypical differences such as skin color, hair and body type, and facial features during the Enlightenment period. They advanced an idea of immutable differences that was deployed in popular literature as well as in scientific writings of the day” (Brewer 513). Key points in racialized science are the one drop rule, brain and head measurements, and the development and widespread implementation of IQ tests. The one drop rule defines anyone with any percentage of non-European blood as colored and, therefore, lesser. In 1910, representation of this rule became present in legal policies began in Tennessee (Heine 161).
In a 1963 study, John Henning and Russell Levy claimed they found a correlation between poor listening skills, which suggests delinquency, and poor reading skills for Whites. They explained the inclination for White males to resort to crime as a reflection of their poor reading and verbal skills. These are skills that can be developed and improved upon, which implies the opportunity for reform and education for Whites. On the other hand, the study stated that there was not the same correlation between poor verbal and poor reading IQs for “negros.” This conclusion suggests that there is a separate, and most likely innate, factor that influences the Black population to commit crimes (Henning and Levy 167-168). I think it’s reasonable to assert that these supposedly scientific findings further justified the eugenics movement, which was already prevalent at the time of this study.
Eugenics is a concept revolved around using genetics in order to exclude groups viewed as inferior and “improve” the human race in the process. Mental disabilities, promiscuity, criminality, and other traits with negative connotations were viewed as undesirable. This idea rose in the U.S. throughout the early 20th century, led by biologist Charles Davenport and a former teacher, Harry Laughlin. Davenport founded the Eugenics Records Office (ERO) in 1910, with Laughlin being the first director. This organization worked to analyze “the inheritance of physical, mental, and moral traits” (Rivard). The idea of eugenics was also prevalent within the general public, as a social movement promoting eugenics rose in the 1920s. The pervasiveness of eugenics in the U.S. could be seen in the founding of the American Eugenics Society, films, books, and sterilizations programs and laws.
The idea of race has culturally manufactured and primarily fueled by power and hierarchical motivations. Race stems from utilizing physical differences, such as “skin color, hair texture, nose width, and lip thickness”, in order to group humans into seemingly innate categories; however, in actuality, the concept of race has very little, if any, scientific connection to biology and genetics. Ethnicity refers to the categorization of humans by a common or shared culture, including “a common language, geographic locale or place or origin, religion, sense of history, traditions, values, beliefs, food habits”, and more relevant factors involved in one's culture and sense of self. Culture is not a set, unchanging factor, and it can be transferred or spread. The concepts of ethnicity and race can overlap in terms of discrimination or judgement, but the terms alone have distinct meanings and implications (Smedley & Smedley).
Racialized science had a rebirth elevated by the success in mapping the human genome. Genetics became an explanation for social and political inequalities. Preexisting structural inequalities transitioned to a new form of denying and ignoring the issue: color-blindnessThere is little doubt among researchers who study discrimination, however, that “the history of racial discrimination in the United States has left a lasting residue, even in a society that overtly abhors discrimination. Deliberate discrimination by many institutions in American society in the past has left a legacy of [social and] economic inequality between Whites and minorities that exists today” (Smedley and Smedley, 22). Although much progress in general the sciences and genealogy has been made since then, there is still a big misinterpretation of the meaning and power behind genes. The prevalence of ancestry tests has risen exponentially throughout the 2010s, such as 23 & Me and AncestryDNA. I have seen people I know take ancestry tests. We each place meaning into these invisible results and some of us let them deeply change our mindset and sense of self.
It is important to recognize that ancestry tests are not wholly destructive. People should not be reliant on them to define their identity; however, they can allow users to gain insight on preventable diseases or reveal their ethnic origins. DNA tests can have different meanings or implications depending on the context. For example, many Blacks feel a great sense of empowerment and a sense of belonging through exploring their genetics. Concurrently, increasing accessibility to individuals’ health risks and information through an unobtrusive easy test seems like a fun, harmless pursuit. The issue arises when people fail to recognize that ancestry often carries a deeper psychological meaning about how we attribute characteristics and behaviors to genetics rather than environmental factors.
The high costs of DNA tests can unknowingly place meaning and worth onto their results, even though many companies are not accredited with authorized agencies and the technology is not at a point where they can 100% guarantee reliable results. The results can easily be misinterpreted or seen as definitive, as genomics requires a special niche of relatively inaccessible knowledge. In fact, the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology published a study that suggested that people who believe they have a genetic predisposition to depression often display increased depressive symptoms. The study concludes that their “findings highlight potentially harmful consequences of personalized genetic testing in mental health” (Lebowitz and Ahn). The significance of DNA tests is up for the interpretation of the individual and they only reveal a small fragment of a complex family history. DNA tests will not give one all of the answers, but they could provide a sense of pride and connection to one’s ancestral roots. I believe that it is key to not rely on tests for a sense of empowerment but rather allow it to be a steppingstone to feel connected to your familial history.
I think it is crucial to recognize your individual biases rather than deny their existence, as we all have them. I personally grew up in a predominantly White, liberal neighborhood outside of D.C. While my parents supported equal rights for all and held progressive ideals, I did not grow up being exposed to many of the realities of race-based discrimination. Throughout high school, I certainly became more aware of the history of racism and slavery in America. As an upper-division student in high school, I took a class called Race Matters; this course covered Reconstruction, race-based policies and laws, boycotts, Black social movements and figures, apartheid in South Africa, and more. As I dove into the class and learned more, I became passionate about the social construction of race and its extensive effects. I was especially struck by our readings and discussion surrounding police brutality and mass incarceration. Although I was aware of the concepts and the Black Lives Matter movement, I was never exposed to the true realities of brutal racism that still flourished in America. The semester after Race Matters, I took another course called International Development, which helped me see the world as a whole, and not defined by where I happened to be born. We covered multiple topics extensively, ranging from the complex history of the Haitian revolution to long-term entrepreneurial businesses in developing countries. These two high school classes shaped the passions that I maintain to this day.
My intentions as an activist and student are always to listen, grow, and empathize. This is why I am dedicated to unfolding the realities of race essentialism. We all have different ways of living and there are many facets to intelligence and value, although this circumstance is not always realized. As Americans, we must take a step back at our system and consider how “race is a means of creating and enforcing social order, a lens through which differential opportunity and inequality are structured” (Smedley and Smedley 24). American laws, ideals, and norms are calculated and goal oriented. The legal system itself works to maintain and reinforce the preexisting power of the small group at its center; however, individuals cannot dismantle an entire intricately built system without first addresses their own predispositions
Humans are drawn to the idea of essences instead of analyzes the complexity and magnitudes of various afflictions, which is evident in our general view of genetics. Rather than fueling essentialist cultural beliefs about genealogy, we should all aim to reject the oversimplification of complex processes and alter our dependency on metaphors to shape understanding. I believe that fatalistic terms solidify ancestral determinations of our identities creating a sense of fear from an unknown source. It is not a productive way of thinking, as subjective concern and actual risk do not align. Finding comfort in the complexity and expanding knowledge and understanding of genetics is key in eliminating essentialist biases.
Black Studies
April 17, 2020
The essentialism of race is highly prevalent within American customs and norms to this day. This concept implies ascribing one’s behaviors, actions, or beliefs to race and identity and defining them as immutable. The roots of modern race essentialism derive from the misconception that race is justified by genetics. The truth is that race is not scientifically determined. Racialized science utilizes racial misconceptions in order to fuel racist theories about conclusive and innate differences between races. Racialized science often attempts to prove intellectual or mental inferiority, historically in terms of Black people, in order to provide explanations for existing power dynamics and explicit racism. Race is not a preexisting human condition, but rather it is a category to enforce a social order and maintain inequality.
Humans often fear what is foreign to them. This can be seen again and again throughout Europe’s history of colonization, enslavement, and discrimination. Examples of such xenophobia can be seen through Johann Blumenbach, Carolus Linnaeus, and Louis Agassiz, as they all “developed racial categories and ranked humanity according to phenotypical differences such as skin color, hair and body type, and facial features during the Enlightenment period. They advanced an idea of immutable differences that was deployed in popular literature as well as in scientific writings of the day” (Brewer 513). Key points in racialized science are the one drop rule, brain and head measurements, and the development and widespread implementation of IQ tests. The one drop rule defines anyone with any percentage of non-European blood as colored and, therefore, lesser. In 1910, representation of this rule became present in legal policies began in Tennessee (Heine 161).
In a 1963 study, John Henning and Russell Levy claimed they found a correlation between poor listening skills, which suggests delinquency, and poor reading skills for Whites. They explained the inclination for White males to resort to crime as a reflection of their poor reading and verbal skills. These are skills that can be developed and improved upon, which implies the opportunity for reform and education for Whites. On the other hand, the study stated that there was not the same correlation between poor verbal and poor reading IQs for “negros.” This conclusion suggests that there is a separate, and most likely innate, factor that influences the Black population to commit crimes (Henning and Levy 167-168). I think it’s reasonable to assert that these supposedly scientific findings further justified the eugenics movement, which was already prevalent at the time of this study.
Eugenics is a concept revolved around using genetics in order to exclude groups viewed as inferior and “improve” the human race in the process. Mental disabilities, promiscuity, criminality, and other traits with negative connotations were viewed as undesirable. This idea rose in the U.S. throughout the early 20th century, led by biologist Charles Davenport and a former teacher, Harry Laughlin. Davenport founded the Eugenics Records Office (ERO) in 1910, with Laughlin being the first director. This organization worked to analyze “the inheritance of physical, mental, and moral traits” (Rivard). The idea of eugenics was also prevalent within the general public, as a social movement promoting eugenics rose in the 1920s. The pervasiveness of eugenics in the U.S. could be seen in the founding of the American Eugenics Society, films, books, and sterilizations programs and laws.
The idea of race has culturally manufactured and primarily fueled by power and hierarchical motivations. Race stems from utilizing physical differences, such as “skin color, hair texture, nose width, and lip thickness”, in order to group humans into seemingly innate categories; however, in actuality, the concept of race has very little, if any, scientific connection to biology and genetics. Ethnicity refers to the categorization of humans by a common or shared culture, including “a common language, geographic locale or place or origin, religion, sense of history, traditions, values, beliefs, food habits”, and more relevant factors involved in one's culture and sense of self. Culture is not a set, unchanging factor, and it can be transferred or spread. The concepts of ethnicity and race can overlap in terms of discrimination or judgement, but the terms alone have distinct meanings and implications (Smedley & Smedley).
Racialized science had a rebirth elevated by the success in mapping the human genome. Genetics became an explanation for social and political inequalities. Preexisting structural inequalities transitioned to a new form of denying and ignoring the issue: color-blindnessThere is little doubt among researchers who study discrimination, however, that “the history of racial discrimination in the United States has left a lasting residue, even in a society that overtly abhors discrimination. Deliberate discrimination by many institutions in American society in the past has left a legacy of [social and] economic inequality between Whites and minorities that exists today” (Smedley and Smedley, 22). Although much progress in general the sciences and genealogy has been made since then, there is still a big misinterpretation of the meaning and power behind genes. The prevalence of ancestry tests has risen exponentially throughout the 2010s, such as 23 & Me and AncestryDNA. I have seen people I know take ancestry tests. We each place meaning into these invisible results and some of us let them deeply change our mindset and sense of self.
It is important to recognize that ancestry tests are not wholly destructive. People should not be reliant on them to define their identity; however, they can allow users to gain insight on preventable diseases or reveal their ethnic origins. DNA tests can have different meanings or implications depending on the context. For example, many Blacks feel a great sense of empowerment and a sense of belonging through exploring their genetics. Concurrently, increasing accessibility to individuals’ health risks and information through an unobtrusive easy test seems like a fun, harmless pursuit. The issue arises when people fail to recognize that ancestry often carries a deeper psychological meaning about how we attribute characteristics and behaviors to genetics rather than environmental factors.
The high costs of DNA tests can unknowingly place meaning and worth onto their results, even though many companies are not accredited with authorized agencies and the technology is not at a point where they can 100% guarantee reliable results. The results can easily be misinterpreted or seen as definitive, as genomics requires a special niche of relatively inaccessible knowledge. In fact, the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology published a study that suggested that people who believe they have a genetic predisposition to depression often display increased depressive symptoms. The study concludes that their “findings highlight potentially harmful consequences of personalized genetic testing in mental health” (Lebowitz and Ahn). The significance of DNA tests is up for the interpretation of the individual and they only reveal a small fragment of a complex family history. DNA tests will not give one all of the answers, but they could provide a sense of pride and connection to one’s ancestral roots. I believe that it is key to not rely on tests for a sense of empowerment but rather allow it to be a steppingstone to feel connected to your familial history.
I think it is crucial to recognize your individual biases rather than deny their existence, as we all have them. I personally grew up in a predominantly White, liberal neighborhood outside of D.C. While my parents supported equal rights for all and held progressive ideals, I did not grow up being exposed to many of the realities of race-based discrimination. Throughout high school, I certainly became more aware of the history of racism and slavery in America. As an upper-division student in high school, I took a class called Race Matters; this course covered Reconstruction, race-based policies and laws, boycotts, Black social movements and figures, apartheid in South Africa, and more. As I dove into the class and learned more, I became passionate about the social construction of race and its extensive effects. I was especially struck by our readings and discussion surrounding police brutality and mass incarceration. Although I was aware of the concepts and the Black Lives Matter movement, I was never exposed to the true realities of brutal racism that still flourished in America. The semester after Race Matters, I took another course called International Development, which helped me see the world as a whole, and not defined by where I happened to be born. We covered multiple topics extensively, ranging from the complex history of the Haitian revolution to long-term entrepreneurial businesses in developing countries. These two high school classes shaped the passions that I maintain to this day.
My intentions as an activist and student are always to listen, grow, and empathize. This is why I am dedicated to unfolding the realities of race essentialism. We all have different ways of living and there are many facets to intelligence and value, although this circumstance is not always realized. As Americans, we must take a step back at our system and consider how “race is a means of creating and enforcing social order, a lens through which differential opportunity and inequality are structured” (Smedley and Smedley 24). American laws, ideals, and norms are calculated and goal oriented. The legal system itself works to maintain and reinforce the preexisting power of the small group at its center; however, individuals cannot dismantle an entire intricately built system without first addresses their own predispositions
Humans are drawn to the idea of essences instead of analyzes the complexity and magnitudes of various afflictions, which is evident in our general view of genetics. Rather than fueling essentialist cultural beliefs about genealogy, we should all aim to reject the oversimplification of complex processes and alter our dependency on metaphors to shape understanding. I believe that fatalistic terms solidify ancestral determinations of our identities creating a sense of fear from an unknown source. It is not a productive way of thinking, as subjective concern and actual risk do not align. Finding comfort in the complexity and expanding knowledge and understanding of genetics is key in eliminating essentialist biases.
Works Cited
Brewer, Rose M. “Thinking Critically about Race and Genetics.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, vol. 34, no. 3, Fall 2006, pp. 513–519. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00064.x.
Heine, Steven J. DNA Is Not Destiny: the Remarkable, Completely Misunderstood Relationship between You and Your Genes / Steven J. Heine. W. W. Norton & Company, 2018.
Henning, John J., and Russell H. Levy. “Verbal-Performance Iq Differences of White and Negro Delinquents on the Wisc and Wais.” Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 23, no. 2, Apr. 1967, pp. 164–168. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=15844636&site=ehost-live.
Lebowitz, Matthew S, and Woo-Kyoung Ahn. “Testing Positive for a Genetic Predisposition to Depression Magnifies Retrospective Memory for Depressive Symptoms.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Nov. 2017, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29083221.
Rivard, Laura. “America’s Hidden History: The Eugenics Movement.” Nature Education, Nature Publishing Group, 18 Sept. 2014, www.nature.com/scitable/forums/genetics-generation/america-s-hidden-history-the-eugenics-movement-123919444/.
Smedley, Audrey, and Brian D. Smedley. “Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem Is Real: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race.” American Psychologist, vol. 60, no. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 16–26. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.16.
Heine, Steven J. DNA Is Not Destiny: the Remarkable, Completely Misunderstood Relationship between You and Your Genes / Steven J. Heine. W. W. Norton & Company, 2018.
Henning, John J., and Russell H. Levy. “Verbal-Performance Iq Differences of White and Negro Delinquents on the Wisc and Wais.” Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 23, no. 2, Apr. 1967, pp. 164–168. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=15844636&site=ehost-live.
Lebowitz, Matthew S, and Woo-Kyoung Ahn. “Testing Positive for a Genetic Predisposition to Depression Magnifies Retrospective Memory for Depressive Symptoms.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Nov. 2017, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29083221.
Rivard, Laura. “America’s Hidden History: The Eugenics Movement.” Nature Education, Nature Publishing Group, 18 Sept. 2014, www.nature.com/scitable/forums/genetics-generation/america-s-hidden-history-the-eugenics-movement-123919444/.
Smedley, Audrey, and Brian D. Smedley. “Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem Is Real: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race.” American Psychologist, vol. 60, no. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 16–26. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.16.