Larry Moran is wrong about race, and you don’t have to be a biologist to see why November 2, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Politics, Science, race.trackback
Larry Moran knows way, way more about Biochemistry than I could ever hope to, but he makes a classic category error when trying to defend the idea that race is a biological category. He appears to mean that it is biological, as opposed to social. And his stunning evidence for this? Africans look different from Europeans, and we see genetic differences between human polutations.
We all know what people mean when they talk about blacks and whites. Those are synonyms for Africans and Europeans. Unless Sternberg is being extremely pedantic, he’s arguing that there are no such thing as distinct populations of Europeans and Africans that differ genetically. Races—or demes if you wish—don’t exist according to him.
That’s nonsense, of course, but it seems to be widespread nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder whether the discipline of psychology deserves to be called a science.
There’s an interesting press release out today from Cold Spring Harbor Press [Scientists discover genetic variant associated with prostate cancer in African Americans]. It reports on a study of higher incidence of prostate cancer among African Americans compared to European Americans. The scientists identified a particular locus on chromosome 8 (8q24) that may contain a genetic variant that differs between the two groups.
Other studies show that the incidence of cystic fibrosis is higher among Europeans (whites) than among Africans (blacks).
How could there be a genetic difference between Africans and Europeans if there’s no such thing as race? If these are just social constructs there shouldn’t be any genetic differences that correlate with other features used to distinguish the two groups, right?
Ouch. I like Moran’s blog, and I’m on his side about a lot of issues, but that is lazy thinking. While I’m not a biologist, I am qualified to talk about why what we mean by race is not closely related to any biological concept, because I have studied how race is defined and I know it is not biologically. Moran is wrong about this issue for at least three related reasons:
1. Differences between populations do not correspond to our social conceptions of race
Moran seems to think that because we can divide humans into populations based on ancestry, and that because these populations reflect differences in genetics, that they must correspond to the idea of “race.” He’s right, of course, that we can see differences between populations, but he fails to understand that these populations do not correspond to our social constructions of “race.”
You see, there is no true agreement on what constitutes a “race” and how to divide the so-called races. Until fairly recently in the U.S., for example, people of Irish ancestry were not thought of as “white,” and frequently Italians and people from Eastern Europe were also not white. Now we look at Irish people and think it is obvious they are white. Why? Not because of any genetic distinction, nor because of any physiological distinction, but because we have a different definition of what constitutes whiteness than we used to.
Moran might argue–correctly–that people of African descent have higher genetic risk factors for certain illnesses, but these risk factors do not correspond one-to-one with our racial categories. We don’t check a person’s genetic predisposition to cystic fybrosis when making judgments about their race. We look at skin color and facial features and (usually) think their race is obvious. Race is not determined by biological differences between groups; rather, race is a complex social concept.
2. We don’t have a meaningful way to make distinction between races
If you don’t believe me, ask yourself how much “black blood” a white person must have to be considered Black or of mixed race. And if you think I’m splitting hairs, remember that there were elaborate rules for just these distinctions in the antebellum United States. After all, slavery depended upon sharp distinctions between races, and interbreeding illustrated that those distinctions were not sharp at all. So it was essential to track a person’s heritage, lest the socially-constructed racial distinctions break down and take with them the elaborate construction of slavery which they were set up to support.
So it was that terms like “one drop” became important. Even if a person looked white, if they had any Black ancestry, they could not be white. Terms like “quadroon” and “mulatto” exist due to anxiety at the breakdown of racial categories.
Now, one could pick a set of genetic factors in a population and “determine” a persons race by seeing if they possess those factors, but that distinction would have no relationship to how we perceive race. Socially defined categories influence our understanding of race far more than genetics does.
3. Race does not have to be biologically defined to be meaningful
What appears to have have Moran upset (aside from the bogeyman of “political correctness”) is that everyone knows races exist and human populations clearly have different traits. But he’s conflated these two ideas into one, arguing that people can distinguish between races and people have “racial” differences, therefore race is biological. But this sloppy conflation misses the point: our social conceptions may bear some relation to actual biological differences, but they are not the same thing.
Which is not to say that race is unimportant. Race is fascinating and important in part because it is socially constructed. The fact that genetics doesn’t drive the distinction doesn’t make the plight of the Jena 6 go away. It doesn’t change the fact that Black people were disproportionately affected by Katrina. It didn’t protect Jews or Gypsies or Black people from Hitler. The distinctions between races continue to be important, but that does not mean that they are distinguished by any biological absolutes.
Simply put, genetic differences between populations do not equate to what we call race. Certainly such differences exist, but to ignore the distinction between them via some absolutist view of race is to conflate biological and social distinctions by conveniently ignoring that the two are separate and only tangentially related concepts.
And if Moran disagrees, I would like him to articulate how many racial categories truly exist and which are merely unnecessary distinctions. After all, if the distinction is merely biological, there should be no difficulty in doing so. And one cannot claim that population differences exist but an absolute count of races is impossible without conceding my point that there is no necessary correspondence between the our conceptions of race and the biological distinctions between populations.
You say,
Moran seems to think that because we can divide humans into populations based on ancestry, and that because these populations reflect differences in genetics, that they must correspond to the idea of “race.” He’s right, of course, that we can see differences between populations, but he fails to understand that these populations do not correspond to our social constructions of “race.”
That may be true—it probably is—but it’s not really the point I’m addressing. I’m addressing the point that there are no such things as demes in our species.
What you’re doing is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just because there are people in our society who abuse the concept of race does not mean that there’s no biological concept that applies.
The distinctions between races continue to be important, but that does not mean that they are distinguished by any biological absolutes.
The concept of demes does not require biological absolutes. That’s where your lack of biological training is leading you astray. In all other species, we define subpopulations in terms of different frequencies of alleles because that’s what evolution is all about. We don’t say that population X has only allele “a” while population Y has only allele “b”. We say that the frequencies of these two alleles in the different populations are not the same. What that that means is that there is restricted gene flow between them. Hence, they are demes (races)
And if Moran disagrees, I would like him to articulate how many racial categories truly exist and which are merely unnecessary distinctions. After all, if the distinction is merely biological, there should be no difficulty in doing so.
I don’t know how many different demes there are in the species. Probably quite a few. There are superdemes and subdemes. For example, within the Asian population there are many different subgroups.
Furthermore, demes are ephemeral in biology. They form and they break up. In today’s world we have numerous examples of previously isolated populations that are now mixing with other populations.
From our knowledge of biology and evolution we would predict that it’s impossible to draw sharp boundaries around all demes. This is exactly the opposite conclusion that you reached.
Here’s the problem. You are so familiar with the social construction of race that you are trying to apply the same definition to biology. Because you see the social construction as flawed, you assume—incorrectly as it turns out— that the biological definition must be flawed as well.
Demes (races, populations) exist whether we can put everyone into a particular bucket or not. Quite the opposite, if real demes exist then by definition the edges have to be fuzzy. That’s how biology works.
And one cannot claim that population differences exist but an absolute count of races is impossible without conceding my point that there is no necessary correspondence between the our conceptions of race and the biological distinctions between populations.
I concede that point. I’m sorry if I haven’t been clear about it. Let me say it one more time. The concept of race that’s promoted by nonbiologists is usually scientifically incorrect. That does not mean there is no scientifically correct concept of race that applies to the human species.
Thank you for responding. The biological concept you say applies certainly does, in the sense that human populations obviously do have distinctions between them. But I feel that at very least arguing for race as a biological factor indicates a conflation of terms. Biological understandings of race do not correspond at all to social ones. I have no problem at all saying the human species may be subdivided by demes, and so we may merely have a misunderstanding of the terminology here. But race as a biological term is certainly not the same thing as race as it is understood by humans in genera.
Perhaps, as you say, I’ve misunderstood you. I hope so. But I would hope that such a distinction would be kept in mind when scientists write about the topic, because without a clear distinction drawn between the concept of demes and the socially constructed concept of race, one plays into a narrative that allows confused or unethical people make false claims about race.
So when you say that race is a biological category, I’d ask you to at least make clear the distinction between race-as-a-synonym-for-memes and race as people actually use the word in non-scientific discussion. The two don’t closely correlate, and when people don’t understand that it plays into a very harmful set of myths about race.
The fact that words such as “race” can be misused by the general public should not be used as an excuse to deny that biological races exist. But that’s exactly what’s happening in the politically correct culture.
I’ve seen lots of so-called scientists in recent days denying that there’s any such thing as a biological concept of race. That’s just nonsense. And that was the subject of my posting.
What we need is for scientists and intelligent people like you to stand up for science, don’t sacrifice science for political/cultural expediency. Please, from now on, whenever you address this issue in public start off with the words you just said; “The biological concept you say applies certainly does, in the sense that human populations obviously do have distinctions between them.” Then you can go on to criticize the social definition and explain why it distorts the science.
With all due respect, that’s not what you did in your positing. You started off by assuming that I was stupid and couldn’t tell the difference between science and racism. That’s not a very productive way to defend science.
From your original post:
We all know what people mean when they talk about blacks and whites. Those are synonyms for Africans and Europeans. Unless Sternberg is being extremely pedantic, he’s arguing that there are no such thing as distinct populations of Europeans and Africans that differ genetically.
In this passage, you conflated common-knowledge understanding of race (“we all know what people mean when they talk about blacks and whites”) with the scientific concept of race. I never said, implied or assumed you were stupid. I argued you were conflating two different ideas. I believe your original post does exactly that.
Finally, let me add on a personal note that I’m not pleased with your use of the “defend science” card. I refuse to let the fact that there are irrational people in the world stop me from addressing an ally when I believe they’ve made an error.
In this passage, you conflated common-knowledge understanding of race (”we all know what people mean when they talk about blacks and whites”) with the scientific concept of race. I never said, implied or assumed you were stupid. I argued you were conflating two different ideas. I believe your original post does exactly that.
Point taken. Instead of “people” I should have said “scientists like me.” We often use “blacks” and “whites” as shorthand for “Africans” and “Caucasians.” In that passage I was objecting to an article in New Scientist that focused entirely on skin color as the only way of defining races. I pointed out that this was silly because that’s not really what people mean when they refer to blacks and whites. It was the nonsensical point about black moths and white moths that ticked me off.
Finally, let me add on a personal note that I’m not pleased with your use of the “defend science” card. I refuse to let the fact that there are irrational people in the world stop me from addressing an ally when I believe they’ve made an error.
No problem, now that I see what you were objecting to. I do think you were being overly sensitive in your efforts to address an ally but, what the heck, we all get involved in pedantics from time to time.
However , in the interests of defending science I still recommend that you state clearly that biological races exist before launching into criticisms about category errors. When you say things like,
Race is not determined by biological differences between groups; rather, race is a complex social concept.
you are treading on very soft ground. The biological concept of race is determined by biological differences between groups as long as those biological differences have a genetic component.
What appears to have have Moran upset (aside from the bogeyman of “political correctness”) is that everyone knows races exist and human populations clearly have different traits. But he’s conflated these two ideas into one, arguing that people can distinguish between races and people have “racial” differences, therefore race is biological. But this sloppy conflation misses the point: our social conceptions may bear some relation to actual biological differences, but they are not the same thing.
There was no attempt in my posting to define races in any serious way. I mentioned “Africans” and Europeans” as categories that go far beyond mere skin color. They may be reasonable descriptions of humans races—I think they are—but I’m not really interested in that game. What interests me is the politically correct attempt to pretend that humans races can’t exist. The American social conceptions of “race,” whatever they are, are of little concern to me.
In future postings I’ll talk about Asians and Europeans. This avoids mentioning “blacks” and “Africans” and that turns out to be a wise thing to do because as soon as you use those words it triggers a response from all kinds of people who want to advertise the fact that they aren’t racists … and maybe Larry Moran is. That’s what political correctness is all about.
The operative difference between “scientific” race and “social” race is that one considers the genotype and the other the phenotype. People descended largely from the Bantu cultures in Africa and people descended largely from the aboriginal peoples of Australia are both “black” in America and get identical social status. However they occupy completely different demes.
Certainly race has a biological basis — we are, after all, classifying people by their visible biological morphology. It’s what we do with animals and plants all the time and it’s essential for telling predators from prey, mushrooms from toadstools. The error is in arguing that our racial categories have anything like the same utility as the distinctions we make between other living things. Races are not differences of kind. When people argue that race doesn’t exist, they are really just arguing that our racial judgments have no value. They don’t tell us anything beyond the tautological fact that the people we call black or asian have some descendents we would have called black or asian.
Political correctness is never a reason to reject the use of a word nor to embrace it. One has to be aware, however, that none of us get to make up definitions. We have to look at what a word means when used by other people to understand what we’re saying when we choose to employ it.
jack*
Well said. :)
Jack says,
When people argue that race doesn’t exist, they are really just arguing that our racial judgments have no value. They don’t tell us anything beyond the tautological fact that the people we call black or asian have some descendents we would have called black or asian.
No, that’s not correct. There are plenty of people out there who specifically argue that the concept of biological races does not apply to Homo sapiens. What they are doing is letting their personal biases about the social concept of race cloud their view of the science.
Political correctness is never a reason to reject the use of a word nor to embrace it. One has to be aware, however, that none of us get to make up definitions. We have to look at what a word means when used by other people to understand what we’re saying when we choose to employ it.
Agreed. That’s why I try very hard to address the biological concept of race in my posting on the subject. But, no matter how hard I try, there are still people who want to accuse me of talking about the non-scientific definitions. There are a great many politically correct people who don’t want anyone to ever mention that there might be a real biological basis to humans races. It’s a taboo subject.
What you’re doing, Jack, is applying your concern about the misuse of the word “race” in your particular culture to try and squelch any discussion about the subject of biological demes. In spite of what you say, you are yielding to political correctness to avoid talking about the science because when we talk about science we are forced to admit that races exist.
Look at all the discussions in recent weeks. Every single time a scientist tries to point out the biological definition of race they are accused of “category error” or some such nonsense. In some cases, the scientists are accused of racism. (I’m not talking about Watson.) The goal here is to intimidate scientists so they don’t touch the subject with a ten foot pole for fear of having their reputations damaged. It’s working. Does that make you proud?
Does that make you proud?
That’s twice now in this thread you’ve tacitly accused someone of being anti-science, or working against the goals of science. No one’s demanding you agree with jack’s analysis, or with mine, but accusing him of intimidation without evidence is simply unacceptable. It’s a personal attack on someone’s motives because of a legitimate disagreement.
You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you–or even challenges you, as I did, to make the distinction between biological race and what people call race–is eiher a footsoldier for “political correctness” or isn’t interested in “defending science.”
Please try to keep the personal shots to a minimum. It’s unbecoming.
I’ve refrained from mentioning this in the interest of a civil discourse, but now I feel I must ask.
On your blog, you write: Watson was stupid to make those remarks but they were perfectly consistent with a lifelong career of being as politically incorrect as possible in today’s society. Does that make him a racist whose career should be terminated?
Watson reportedly said:
The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.”. He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
Since your above quote seems to imply he is not a racist, I would ask you if these remarks are either a) incorrectly attributed to Watson, b) racist (that is, they incorrectly attribute to black people lower intelligence than white people) or c) a reasonable (even if incorrect) position to hold?
I’m hesitant to get into this, but I wanted to address this statement of yours, Mr. Moran:
The goal here is to intimidate scientists so they don’t touch the subject with a ten foot pole for fear of having their reputations damaged.
No, it isn’t, and it’s frustrating that you see it that way. The ultimate goal here, as I see it, is to fight racism, i.e. the idea that non-Europeans are inherently inferior. The trouble with conflating race as it is understood by laypeople and race as it is understood by biologists is that it gives ammunition to those who would point to a biological basis for the social conception of race and discriminate accordingly. For example: “Watson said Africans aren’t as intelligent as Europeans, so I shouldn’t have to hire any Black people.” Yes, Watson is an extreme example, and yes, it’s frustrating that we live in a world where one often has to modify one’s language because hatemongers twist other people’s words to fit their agendas. However, the implication that when pro-science laypeople ask that scientists in the public sphere be explicit about whether they’re discussing the biological or social conceptions of race, their true aim is to stop scientists from discussing race at all a) seems to suggest that scientists should be above criticism, and b) has the potential (as this discussion has illustrated) to turn allies into enemies.
The Lizard Queen says,
No, it isn’t, and it’s frustrating that you see it that way. The ultimate goal here, as I see it, is to fight racism, i.e. the idea that non-Europeans are inherently inferior.
It’s interesting to me that this “ultimate goal” seems to be very discriminatory, as you point out. On my blog I reviewed a scientific paper by two scientists who claim that Caucasians have inferior intelligence relative to Ashkenazi Jews [Race and Intelligence]. I don’t have a problem with this but I’m intrigued by the silence among the politically correct crowd.
Why haven’t you condemned David and Lynn as racists for saying such a thing or at least challenged their concept of race? It seems to me that if there’s any logic to your position you would be obligated to speak out against “racism” no matter where it appears. It looks like hypocrisy—is it?
What about all those scientific papers that show susceptibility to certain genetic diseases in Asian, or native American, or Caucasian populations? Why isn’t there outrage from the same group that got so upset over my comments? That group pretends that this is all about concepts of race and category errors but for some strange reason they seem to be very selective in their criticism of people who talk about race.
Strange, isn’t it? My observations suggest that only certain scientists are asked to be “explicit about whether they’re discussing the biological or social conceptions of race.” It’s when those scientists are talking about one “race” but not about others. Hmmm …. don’t we have a word for that kind of prejudice?
Why haven’t you condemned David and Lynn as racists for saying such a thing or at least challenged their concept of race?
Mr Moran:
Arguing that other people are hypocrites because they haven’t specifically addressed every racist thing ever said is incredibly foolish. So is attempting to refute an argument by lumping the arguer into a group with whom you disagree. It’s a childish argument, and one I would expect from Creationists, not you.
And you seem awfully eager to project racism upon those who disagree with you. Above, I’ve given you a chance to clarify whether you think Watsons remarks were racist or not. I note you haven’t taken it.
It should be obvious that there is a difference between discussion of disease predisposition and saying that anyone who has had black employees knows they have inferior intelligence.
In this thread, then, you’ve made personal attacks, refuted strawmen, and tried to cast aspersion on those who disagree with you by association. I’m exceptionally embarrassed by your behavior here. It is beneath you, and it gets worse each time you post.
Mr. Moran:
First, you’ve done a marvelous job illustrating the last sentence of my previous comment.
Second, you seem to be misunderstanding my intent. Note the way you phrased part of one of your claims (emphasis added): “What about all those scientific papers that show susceptibility to certain genetic diseases in Asian, or native American, or Caucasian populations?” No one here is arguing that demes don’t exist, that a genetic disease might occur more frequently among one population than another. We are arguing that the biological definition of race differs from the general social definition of race (see Jack’s point about African Americans and Aboriginal Australians).
Third, I don’t read your blog. I was responding to a specific statement that you made here; I don’t think it’s fair to call me a hypocrite for that. Evil Bender does read your blog, and he opted to respond to one of your posts. Does it really make sense to call him a hypocrite for not responding to an earlier post? Am I not allowed to respond to a comment someone makes on one of the blogs I follow unless I’ve been responding to similar comments since they began blogging? Fact: science has often been used to promote racist ideas. (See Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man for numerous examples.) Are we really only allowed to discuss the difference between demes and “race” (at least without being called hypocrites and/or racists) if we’ve commented on everything that’s come before?
Fourth, I do, in fact, have several problems with the study you cited in the post to which you linked, many of which the commenter Sanders covered already (another reason why one might not respond to every instance of racism, perceived racism, etc. one finds in science and/or on the internet: because someone else has already done so). But, since you asked, here: I’m not convinced IQ tests measure anything beyond the ability to take tests and/or tell testers what they want to hear; I’m not convinced that the fact that one ethnic group does better on IQ tests than another actually tells us that the first ethnic group is more intelligent than the second; I’m not convinced that intelligence is heritable in the same way, say, genetic diseases are. If I ignore those issues, then let’s say someone wrote a headline for a blog post that referenced that paper that read “Jews are smarter than Whites.” I would have a problem with that.
I’m not a scientist; my specialty is language, hence my interest in people being specific about what they mean. Is it so much to ask for scientists — particularly scientists we agree with on a number of other points — to say “race as a biological concept” or “demes” or “populations” when that’s what they mean?
Larry Moran, in a comment on the aforementioned thread: Watson is not a racist, just in case you’re interested in the truth.
My apologies. That answers my above question. Unfortunately, it does nothing to help your credibility.
Claiming one population is inferior in intelligence to another, and that all employers know that to be true, and doing so without evidence, is a racist claim. Your personal opinion on the character of Watson does not change that. I am not being “politically correct” when I accuse a man who says racist things of being a racist. Or were his comments justified?
You can blame political correctness all you want, but the truth is Watson offered no real justification for his position and made bigoted remarks. I have previously argued that he should not have been silenced, and should be allowed to voice even bigoted views. I stand by that.
But if you want to defend his comments, please provide some justification for their validity, or at least stop with the personal attacks on those who have real objections to his words. It is not my obligation to be silent on Watson’s bigoted remarks. Nor will I let your claims of political correctness cause me to pretend those same remarks weren’t racist.
I was not intending to intimidate, but I do have a warning. I have known a lot of smart people who have fallen into the trap of thinking that their technical expertise gave them mastery of a topic. They rejected views that fell outside their narrow conception and when this annoyed people, rather than realizing that the subject might be more complex than they think, they would instead whine that they were being persecuted for defending an unpleasant truth that no one else was honest enough to accept. Just sayin’.
As to the topic, here’s why I don’t think race is a valid biological concept.
1) Human races are too blurry. The variation between individuals of the same race are much greater than the differences between races. The differences in rates of certain diseases or complications between different races are so trivial as to render the idea of racial medicine ludicrous. A good medical history is far better at predicting risks.
2) Any science of race is a social science. If you run an experiment to test differences between races, 99 times out of hundred any differences you see are social — they are caused by variation in culture, diet, wealth — not biological. The rare cases where you can identify an allele are the exception, not the rule, and even then race is a poor predictor of allele frequency (see #1).
3) Race biology has too much historical baggage. You can say that it shouldn’t matter but it does. If a scientist says that there are important biological differences between races then it cannot help but bring along with it the whole edifice of 19th century scientific racism. The fact that any such claim has no real basis (see #’s 1 and 2) make it all the more unacceptable to stoke those fires.
[...] in on the topic of race-as-a-category. He’s right on, of course. My prediction: his comments, just like mine on the same topic, will be decried by those who would prefer to downplay the very real differences between [...]
[...] close to the same time, there was an argument over at Evil Bender’s place about race as a biological category (as opposed to a social contruct), which came about not too long after James Watson’s [...]
[...] Evil Bender in Science, bigotry, race. trackback [For context on this post, you should check out here and [...]
[...] I’ve pointed out before, our social conceptions of race do not match any biological categories. Race-as-deme-equivalent might make biological sense,* but it does not correspond to what we mean [...]