In the US,
having a single definition of race seems to be an action that is almost
impossible. There is the notion that race comes from biological differences,
which means that races are simply ways to physically categorize humans into
different groups. These physical attributes can be visible characteristics,
such as hair color and texture, skin color, and body shape, or genetic
specifications from parents. However, genetic tests have shown that there is
more genetic diversity and variation within certain “racial” categories than
compared to other categories. (Marger, 2012). This suggests that defining race
in just biological terms is not as simple as it might seem to be.
Ann Morning
points out in her article that Weber had described race as “groupings of people
believed to share common descent, based on perceived innate physical
similarities” (53, 2009). However, Morning also discusses the fact that
defining race is not as simple as Weber or others have tried to describe. To
truly define race, what should be considered? Should racial categories be
focused on “surface physical characteristics… [and] reflect unobserved patterns
of genetic difference?” (Morning, 51, 2009). How might ethnicity come into play
with race? Should culture, history, and language also be considered when race
is being defined?
Howard F. Taylor
has argued that race can be a combination of any of the following
characteristics: physical appearance (like skin color), social construction,
ethnicity, racial formation, and self-determination (2009). These
characteristics take into account the cultural, social, and biological traits
that are often used to define race. Even with the multiple ways to define race,
the term is often described as a socially constructed concept that has been
used for generations to categorize people into a social order. There are two claims that support the idea
that race is socially constructed and the most focused on was the constructionist
idea. This idea claims that “race is a product of particular historical
circumstances and also that [race] is not rooted in biological difference – it
only claims to be” (Morning, 54, 2009). Ultimately, many agree that simply
defining race in just biological terms or in just social terms is an
interesting debate.
One contemporary
social phenomenon that shows how race is often viewed as a biological reality
is infant mortality in the United States. Many organizations, including the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, track infant mortality rants in a
given time period (typically a year) and with the finished data, there is
usually a breakdown of the different rates for different races. Within the
United States in 2007, the highest infant mortality rate belonged to American
Indian or Alaska Native women and was around 4.5 infant deaths per 1,000 live
births. Women who were African American (non-Hispanic)
had the second largest rate that year, with 3.8 infant deaths per 1,000 live
births. In contrast however, Asian or Pacific Islander mothers had the lowest
infant mortality rate during the same year at 1.67 deaths per 1,000 live
births. (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2011) .
Several health
care issues, such as infant mortality, can be attributed to the fact that
racial minorities within the US generally tend to “have a lower life expectancy
than Whites… [and] … have considerably lower annual incomes relative to Whites.
American minorities have less access to medical care” (Taylor, 44, 2009).
Because of the lower access to care, the infant mortality rate can be then
explained by this gap between those in the white majority and those in the
racial minority. This can used to show that issues like infant mortality may
seem to be different among races but in reality, the rates can be generally be
explained due to societal reasons like socioeconomic status rather than
biological traits. However, the relationship between infant mortality, racial
categories, and socioeconomic status is correlational, but still societal. This
means that while there is an obvious relationship between the three concepts,
finding exact causality might be difficult.
Defining race is
a constant struggle between biological traits (like skin color and hair
texture) and social constructions (like income and power). However, many
scientists argue that race is not a biological reality, as there have not been
any biological traits to distinguish between races and there are more genetic
variations between those of the same race than with those of different races.
At the same time, there are plenty of aspects to consider while defining race,
including physical traits like skin color, social class, ethnicity, language,
and culture. One current event that shows the difference between the biological
traits and social construction of race is the infant mortality rate within the
US. Those within certain racial minorities tend to have higher rates but
typically, those in racial minorities tend to have less access to health care.
The correlation between typically less access and infant mortality rate means
that the differences between races can be more societal rather than biological.
Ultimately, defining race as a biological notion is not correct. There are many
other aspects to consider with race and the social construction of the concept
has had an interesting (and often negative) influence on people.
Works Cited
Marger, M. N. (2012). Race and Ethnic relations.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. (2011, October 14). Quickstats:
Term Infant Mortality Rates, by Race/Ethnicity - United States 2008.
Retrieved January 17, 2013, from Center for Disease Control and Prevention:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6040a9.htm
Morning, A. (2009). Race. In E. Higginbotham, & M. L. Andersen, Race
and Ethnicity in Society: The Changing Landscape (pp. 51-55). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Taylor, H. F. (2009). Defining Race. In E. Higginbotham, & M. L.
Andersen, Race and Ethnicity in Society: The Changing Landscape (pp.
44-50). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
