What do anthropologist mean by saying "race" is a social construct?

Question

What do anthropologist mean by saying "race" is a social construct?

Answer 1

My synopsis is that we are all one race.  Variations in physical structure and skin coloration were merely adaptations to the environment.  For example, if you lived in a cold area like Northern Russia, you would have lighter skin than someone living at the equator.  

So, anthropologists use the archaeological record to infer that there is no "race," we simply made it up (social construct) to explain differences.

Not all anthropologists agree on this matter.

Answer 2

Social construct is a concept or practice which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society.   For example:  it is obvious to us that their are physical differences between Caucasians, asian, and blacks- the three main racial divisions.   However many believe that humans should all be placed in one category or we should place humans in more than three divisions.   (I had an anthropology teacher  that gave 7 divisions:  i.e.. one was Latin's which he said are  a combination of Caucasians, blacks, and the native Americans.    His theory was that 7 made more sense than 3, since it was an artificial distinction anyway.

This is not my teaching area but everybody should have base of knowledge to work from.

Answer 3

race is just something thought of by society but does not really exist.

Answer 4

good question!

it means that there is no genetic or biological basis to "race"

there may be a genetic or biological basis to skin color and other physical characteristics, but there is no such thing as a "black gene" or a "chinese gene".

therefore, the whole idea that humans are divided into distinct "races" was invented by humans and is therefore a "social construct". that is, it is a theory that was created by society, without any basis in science.

it was created in order to justify racism and imperialism.

Answer 5

there are no real biological differences between people from different nations. yet we precieve that there are and develop our own views and cultures.

if you raised a black child with white people, the child would be no different than those around him. socially we would expect said child to be unlike the people he was raised with

Answer 6

It is an attempt to 'classify' people according to supposed 'typical' features. Overall, it works toward a police description; white, black, hispanic, etc. (all jailhouses I've been to seem to have these three major occupants.)

Answer 7

My understanding is that it means that there is really no biological basis for race distinctions. Genetically speaking, there is not enough variation between so called "races" to classify humans by "race". In fact, some studies have found more genetic variations within individuals in race groups than between them as a whole. Saying it is a social construct means just that--that the concept of race is an artificial one created by society. Read on if you wish more detail:

The American Anthropological Association’s statement on race states: “physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them.”

According to Webster’s Dictionary, Social Construct refers to a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is `constructed' through cultural or social practice.

Research studies have challenged the idea of race by presenting evidence that the scientific basis for racial difference rests on shaky ground. Studies found that "within group" differences (genetic variations within same-race groups) were more significant than those found between groups representing different races, and thus concluded that there is truly only one race, the human race.

The idea that race is a social construct can be more easily understood when we consider the way in which we classify individuals of mixed heritage.

An increase in interracial marriages and children born of these marriages has given rise to new classifications. "Amer-Asian," for example, refers to someone who is half Asian and half White. Note however, that this term "Amer-Asian" does not refer to Black American/Asian mixes. As such, we can also discern that this term is intended to equate "American" with "White."

Examples:

Despite the term "Mulatto," American society continues to categorize those who are half Black and half White as Black. This practice reflects the influence of the "One Drop Rule" - a relic from the Jim Crow era where one drop of Black blood made you “Black.”

Harvard Professor Stephan Thernstrom addressed social constructs when he said, "The United States is the only country in the world in which a white mother can have a black child but a black mother cannot have a white child."

Answer 8

Contemporarily, we've come to define race in biological terms. This, in fact, is unfounded. As someone here already said, there is more biological variation within one "race" than between two "races."

In addition to the lack of biological foundation for our everyday concepts of race, it's important to realize that conceptions of race have changed over time and they are indeed historically and socially construct (meaning that in each historical era, there were different understandings of what constituted a race and what that meant).

Some common examples include Jews in both Europe and the US and the case of the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda.

With the Jewish example, there have been historical periods in which Jews were thought to comprise a different race. Nowadays, that understanding of Jewishness is largely obsolete. In Israel, for example, there are thought to be many different "races" of Jews (Ashkenazi and Sephardic, for example).

In the Rwanda example, the Hutu and the Tutsi are thought to comprise different races with disastrous recent manifestations. If we look historically at the period of Rwandan history prior to Belgian colonization, we can see that the groupings of Tutsi and Hutu weren't racial so much as class distinctions that were very fluid and open to social mobility. It was during the period of Belgian colonization where these social categories became biologized. People came to believe that there were biological differences between the two groups whereas prior to colonization it was about class.

These examples show that the meaning and understanding of race changes over time and lacks any biological foundation and is a culturally defined (and contested) concept.    I hope the examples helped.

Answer 9

We are all the same species, and dividing us into "races" makes no real sense, though it's something we've long done.

There's no coherent, consistent way to distinguish among the races, nor any significant differences between them, except for a couple of physical characteristics of SOME humans (such as sub-Saharan Africans' dark skin).

Other than that one thing, the rest of the race (homo sapiens sapiens) isn't divisible into discrete racial groups in any meaningful and consistent way.

Any racial divisions are going to be arbitrary, and not based in biology. They are divisions many people THINK are there, but actually aren't.

Answer 10

That's what I want to know !!

I don't believe that there is such thing as a race just different forms of human evolution "on the outside" to protect us and help us adapt better to our environment.

This is what the so CALL race really is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_...