July 14, 2011
Is Race a Social Construct? The Natural History Museum Investigates
More on Race: Are We So Different is on view at the Natural History Museum
Race and racism are complex subjects, but the Natural History Museum takes them on with energy and zeal in a new exhibition, Race: Are We So Different? The show is the first national exhibition to spell out the construct of “race” and all that it encompasses from a biological, cultural and historical point of view.
Race acknowledges the fact that people are different and seeks to examine the historical consequences of the idea of “race.” Visitors can participate in a number of activities and view different materials that help show the impact of race and explain the history of race as a biological concept. The exhibit is staffed with volunteers trained to encourage dialog and reflection. One of the volunteers, Caitlyn Harkin, explained some of the more complex ideas behind the exhibit.
Harkin, who is completing an undergraduate degree in American Studies at George Washington University, underwent up to 30 hours of training to staff the exhibit, learning about the content of the show, strategies for engaging visitors and addressing various race-related issues.
Race: Are We So Different? tackles the issue of race and racism, which can be tricky subjects sometimes. What have been your experiences with race thus far in the exhibit?
There have been some guests that felt objection to certain parts of the exhibit, particularly in the science content, but overall I would say that the reception from the public has been enormously positive. I have talked to many families in the exhibit who have faced, in their lives, many of the issues the content covers, and who have been happy to see such issues addressed in such a prominent forum. And they too have added a great deal to the exhibition. Through their willingness to engage with facilitators and museums guests their own diverse and unique stories have greatly enhanced what Race is trying to do.
Race and racism are important issues in society but are often overlooked, why address them?
Problems never get solved by ignoring them; great social change is never the product of complacency. By bringing the issues that come along with race to the forefront, we are providing an opportunity for people to better understand not only the history and sociology of race, but each other. I truly believe that it is that understanding that is fundamental to human progress in terms of race relations.
The exhibit seeks to show that race is not rooted in biology. Why is this an important fact for people to know and understand?
By discussing the genetics—or lack thereof—of race, we eliminate the argument that there is something fundamentally, on a molecular level, different about people. We are then left to explore what those other social and historical factors are that lead to the development of race as we know it today.
There have been visitors of all ethnicities viewing the exhibition. Does that emphasize the point of the exhibit at all?
While the exhibition is designed to enrich even the most homogenous of audiences, the diversity within the exhibit was excellent, and in many ways it does highlight the undercurrent that runs under everything in the exhibit, which is that race is still a very present and very important thing in this country.
If there was one thing that every exhibit visitor should take away, what would that be?
That race is not inherent in our genetics, but rather a social construct developed over time, which continues to be a strong and ever present force in our country and in our lives.
Race: Are We So Different? will run until January 2, 2012. Volunteers are in the exhibit most days engaging visitors, answering questions and encouraging thoughtful conversation about the question of why people are different, as well as helping visitors explore the exhibit.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
47 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
The argument that differences in genetics are not the primary determinant in the differences of the races has gotten to the point where it is a state-sponsored religion.
Propaganda
It’s obvious and palpable to most people that there are real differences between the races. The genetic argument is a red herring. The human genome is also almost identical to pigs, and yet it’s apparent that humans and pigs are different. In this regard, it’s important to distinguish between genetics and genotypes.
Creationists don’t believe in evolution because they think God created people. And anti-race radicals think evolution stopped as soon as humans diverged from chimpanzees. Is this what passes for science nowadays? That’s not science.
Absolute anti-science propaganda. The Smithsonian should be ashamed. Neo-lysenkoists.
I resent the fact that my tax dollars are funding propaganda such as this. Of course race (AKA “populations”) is based on biology. The fact that there are no rigid boundaries does not negate the fact that humans have evolved differently to adapt to diverse environments.
Forensic scientists could tell you a skull’s ancestral continent. They couldn’t tell you whether the skull had contained racist thoughts. The social construct is racism, not race.
Really Smithsonian? I thought you were supposed to teach natural history, not liberal propaganda. This has now officially made you a joke in my eyes. I could have even let it slide if you portrayed both sides of the debate, but that would be too fair, right? If race is a social construct than why can’t an African and and Asian couple make a Caucasian baby? If race is a social construct please explain sickle cell, lactose intolerance, and why organ transplants have a much higher rate of failure when they are of a different race? Why have I read all these articles in medicine about how Africans are more prone to heart disease and Caucasians to autism? Why can forensics identify races based on skulls and other bones (Caucasians have longer torsos while Africans have longer legs)? We clearly define the differences in dogs, which are the same species, but have hundreds of different breeds; are the differences in a golden retriever and a boxer a social construct or do you just deny them in their entirety?
This is a debate for the scientists and the “social” anthropologists. When it comes to science I’ll listen to the scientists. What does someone that studies cultures throughout history know about genetic grouping anyways? For shame Smithsonian, you are following the same path you condemn in regards to “science” in 1920′s Russia, 1930′s Germany, and 1950′s China. Congratulations.
It is strange that the idea of race as a social construct hasn’t yet got through to us zoologists. We still continue with the concept of the subspecies, and the criteria we use work just as well on the human species.
Of course race is a biological reality, and rooted in genetics! Whether it is important is another matter, but the Smithsonian is doing nothing for its credibility by foistering political correctness in place of science.
This exhibit sounds like an exercise in ideological indoctrination rather than intellectual enlightenment. “The exhibit seeks to show that race is not rooted in biology.” Huh? That’s the equivalent of saying that the Civil War was not rooted in slavery. Yes, there are some cultural “constructions” which have been added onto our concepts of race, but such constructs themselves are based on the underlying biological REALITY of race, which of course IS based on genetics, not “the lack there-of,” a suspicious phrase which sounds like rhetorical sand to be thrown into visitors faces, designed to confuse, not inform.
“The exhibit is staffed with volunteers and facilitators trained to encourage dialog and reflection.” Perhaps they are trained not so much to encourage as to discourage – discourage any thoughts that race DOES have a physical basis, that there ARE meaningful physical differences between races, and that maybe the government shouldn’t be spending our tax money to present such misleading exhibits.
But maybe I’m wrong. I’ll find out in September when I visit the exhibit, and I’ll want to speak with all the facilitators so they can help me “dialog” and “reflect.”
Humans lived in different parts of the world for hundreds of thousands of years. Over that time, they evolved differences to better suit (mate and reproduce successfully in) their environments.
These differences include, but are not limited to, skin color, bone structure, bone marrow, the kidneys, the immune system, age of puberty, likelihood of non-identical twins/triplets, and probably intelligence and parenting instincts.
The politically-correct crowd is eventually going to have to face this reality.
As the great German-American Harvard University biologist Ernst Mayr said,
“Anyone who thinks there is no such thing as race understands nothing about biology.”
Cavalli-Sforza, perhaps the world’s leading population geneticist says that genetically, the human species breaks down into two groups:
black Africans on the one hand, and everyone else on the other, and that the main genetic divisions are between Europe, Asia, and Africa.
He claims that the genetic distance between an Englishman and a Dane is 1, then the difference between an Englishman and a black African is ca 100, and between a Chinese and an African – even larger.
He also says that there “is no such thing as race,” but this is just PC lipservice which allows his research team to publish the contrary in detail in dozens of books and thousands of articles.
Denial of racial difference is our number one taboo – like sex for the Victorians.
Racial difference, meanwhile, is visible, palpable, and real, as any child can see.
The Emperor is naked, even if the Smithsonian says he’s wearing new clothes.
Racial difference is the most basic fact about human existence, and everyone knows it, whether they admit it or not.
If race is simply a social construct, why laud the “diversity” of the attending audience? This kind of doublethink is pervasive.
-I truly believe that it is that understanding that is fundamental to human progress in terms of race relations.
Since when is it the job of a museum to engender “human progress in terms of race relations”?
“race is a social construct”?
Such drivel. The 1984 style indoctrination continues.
Shame on you, Smithsonian!
Below are a few lines from long-time New York Times science reporter Nicholas Wade’s 2006 best-seller BEFORE THE DAWN: Recovering the Lost History of our Ancestors:
“Neil Risch, an eminent geneticist now at the University of California, San Francisco, was the first to say in print that the emerging view of human population structure had major points of correspondence with the public conception of race. Risch’s article was sparked by his irritation at the sociologists’ race-is-not-biological dogma surfacing in, of all places, the New England Journal of Medicine … ‘Race is a social construct, not a scientific classification,’ declared an editorial by Robert S. Schwartz, the journal’s deputy editor. Since race is ‘biologically meaningless,’ Schwarz argued, it should not play any part in a physician’s work. A similar editorial, though less absolutist, appeared in the Journal Nature Genetics.
“Much of this discussion, Risch wrote in rebuttal of the two editorials, ‘does not derive from an objective scientific perspective… Numerous genetic studies of the human population have found that differences are greatest between continents. These studies, he said, ‘have recapitulated the classical definitions of races, based on continental ancestry.’ Updating those definitions, Risch and his colleagues suggested that racial groups should be defined on the basis of continent of origin, with ethnicity being used to describe smaller divisions within races” (pp183-184)
Race isn’t a social construct, political correctness is.
One wonders how long our society can continue to function in complete defiance of reality.
This sort of ‘science’ sounds like ‘economics’ out of the waning the soviet union.
I find it rather funny that all of you are posting your negative opinions for an exhibit on this blog, when this blog is just to inform people of an exhibit at the Natural History Museum. The writer of this blog isn’t the creator of said exhibit. So why doesn’t everyone take their opinions to the Natural History Museum instead of spamming up the comment section of a blog? That would make a little more sense.
Of course race is a social construct. Because as we all know, social constructs can be determined through DNA testing (sarcasm).
A person’s race can be established with 99.86 accuracy through a genetic test, but it must just be a coincidence! Our DNA codes our race in it, but it doesn’t exist!! Oh, and the “diverse” crowd – If race doesn’t exist, how can diversity exist? “We are all the same” I thought? Oh well, at least the Smithsonian admits to having a political agenda. That’s better than a lot of the politically correct failed dogma pretending to be science.
REF: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies
My God even the Smithsonian is feeding us doublethink psuedo-science to claim there’s no such thing as race the people responsible for this should be fired
A museum devoted to science can be many things, but one thing that it should never do is lie about science.
Shame on you Smithsonian!
Scientists have known for 25 years now that there are clear and distinct genetic (DNA) differences among the races. In fact, when using large numbers of nucleotides, the races and even “ethnicities” sort out quite nicely.
You should never lie, because all truths are interconnected.
sigh…..this:
http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html
which version of science do we believe in??? stop trying to be politically correct!!!!! every race is different in some way.
Mr. Armstrong,
People can still give their opinions here on this blog. Not all of us have the means or the time to just pack up their bags and head to the Smithsonian. If there was a post in this blog announcing that the Smithsonian was hosting an exhibit on intelligent design, the blog would be flooded with negative comments as well. There would be nothing wrong with this, because intelligent design is unscientific. Likewise, there is plenty of scientific evidence to support the existence of racial differences. This calls for the negative comments.
And…the sun does not come up in the morning, the earth does not revolve around the sun and Darwin did not exist. We know that race is biologically based and we also know that those scientists who have the guts to do research on this subject are muzzled. But not for long.
I really would like to have a long conversation with someone who seriously believes this nonsense. I would like to try and understand how a human mind can actually be so incredibly irrational. This stuff doesn’t pass the laugh test. Even worse, we’ll never have social progress until after we acknowledge the truth: on an aggregate/statistical scale, the races are different, very different.
Now riddle me this: If race is a social construct, how on earth can there be such a thing as racism ie: the hatred of someone based on there what?…Social construction? I may have lived in Africa all my life, but I have travelled to Europe and backpacked trough India, there is many races and not a single one of them is a social construct.
This blog entry is just a joke, right? …Right? Please someone tell me it is. I honestly can’t believe the Smithsonian is posting this pseudo-scientific Boasian fraud. I have just lost ALL respect for the Smithsonian!
Replying to Matt Armstrong,
This blog has a “comments” section, and people are leaving comments. Why are you mystified and what does this have to do with “spam”? Clearly comments are invited, or there wouldn’t be a comments section!
Is race a social construst?
Of course it is – the television told me so!
Do the people that make these absurd assertions really believe them?
Perhaps the difference of opinion shown between those who say that race is only a social construct, on the one hand, and those that say that race is biological, comes down to what one means by the term “race.” Maybe those on the race as a social construct are thinking that “race” is the equivalent of “species,” in which case they would be correct, while the other crowd is defining “race” as a word equivalent to “subspecies.”
However, if the race as a social construct group is asserting the notion that there are no human subspecies, and with it all the myriad real biological differences that are readily identifiable by the average person on the street as well as learned scientist, then they are engaging, literally, in Orwellian Doublespeak.
I understand there will be negative comments. However, there are other places better suited for said negative comments that would be more effective. That was my point. My point wasn’t that there shouldn’t be any negative comments at all.
MR. ARMSTRONG: as I mentioned in #10, I’m planning on visiting the Natural History Museum in September. I have a general interest in many subjects related to natural history, and was looking forward to spending at least half a day looking around, although not in this exhibit. I have seen these “Oh…race? Nah, doesn’t exist!” exhibits before, in Dallas and Houston, and found them politically, not scientifically, driven. I do not relish visiting this particular exhibit, but will do so out of a sense of duty, as a tax-payer. Since I have studied enough about race to understand the dishonesty of these exhibits, and also understand their use as weapons in the campaign to reconstruct Western societies along politically correct, multicultural lines, I will take whatever opportunity I have to critique them and to tell others how deceptive they are.
Thankfully, the internet affords other people, who don’t have the opportunity to actually travel to the exhibit, the means to tell the truth about the exhibit as well. If the Smithsonian doesn’t want the exhibit to be openly discussed, they of course have the means to shut down discussion. (Which the general media does as a matter of policy, btw.)
So I guess these guys over at the Harvard Medical School are mistaken. Someone from the Smithsonian Institute better run up to Cambridge and let them in on The Truth!
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/21/138548043/genome-maps-may-spot-disease-in-african-americans
This article is absolute baloney!
Race is not a social construct but a genetic reality.
Why are pc propagandists pushing scientific mistruths down the collective public’s throat.
We don’t believe this is real science, why do you insist on making us?
Commendations to the Smithsonian for allowing this important debate about one of its exhibits. I am sure many — probably including the creators of the exhibit — would have been tempted to suppress these above mostly intelligent and substantive criticisms of the exhibit. Someone in the management at the Smithsonian thought otherwise, however. They deserve our gratitude.
By the way, one other observation:
“Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are…political messages…” (From the Smithsonian comment policy below.)
What, exactly, is this exhibit if not a thoroughbred political message?
Does anyone with *a shred* of intellectual honesty actually believe this exhibit is *in anyway* scientific? …That it’s in anyway objective? …That it isn’t just the latest example of multiculti-agenda-driving propaganda?
Is the Smithsonian being hypocritical by hosting a clearly political exhibit–and an Orwellian one at that–but yet refusing to allow political commentary on said exhibit?
So I guess my comment asking whether the Smithsonian Institute was being hypocritical by disallowing “political messages” in the comments section of an article about an exhibit that is a 100% “political message” (and 0% scientific) did not pass the censors of this board.
Not terribly surprising.
Michael, over the weekend we were unable to get to approving the comments on the post. Both of your comments are now published. Apologies for the delay.
This reminds me of that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060101986.html
Could I know how much money are you being paid this time for this exhibit? And who is sponsering you this time?
I lost all my confidence in the Smithsonian institute in 2005. I am not surprised by this exhibit.
wow! so many angry comments. i bet none of you have even seen the exhibit. i would also bet most of you are caucasian.
my husband and i went to the museum today. we found the exhibit refreshing and a bit enlightening. one thing i learned today: the idea of “race” didn’t exist until 1492. race and racism have been used to physically and mentally enslave people for too many years. it is truly a social construct.
scientists have agreed that humans originated in africa and migrated throughout the world. we know that these first humans were dark-skinned people. other than the albino theory or the neanderthal, we don’t know how the first caucasoid came to be. i find it ironic that they are the ones always pointing out “racial differences.”
i think the main point of the exhibition is that, on a human level, we are the same. when we can all grasp that idea, the social construct will crumble.
Dee:
Just to clarify, by “Caucasian,” do you mean “Caucasoid,” a major grouping of mankind loosely defined as the white race, or do you mean “deriving from the original inhabitants of the Caucasus geographical region”? By dictionary gives both as definitions.
Thanks!
My father is part Jewish and mostly black (there are French and Central American Indian ancestors in there as well), my mother is European. To what “race” do I belong? Why? Race is not a very useful definition of who I am.
You’re mixed-race, dave c.
There you go. That wasn’t so difficult was it?
Simply absurd. Delusion has become enlightenment and knowledge, science, and common sense are “ignorance.”
In response to Dee’s comment above, the idea of race may not have existed until 1492, and it’s true that racism has been used to enslave and oppress people for many years.
But it does not follow from any of that that race does not exist other than as a social construct.
The idea that race is nothing but a social construct is advanced by people who no doubt sincerely believe that to suggest otherwise is to step onto a slippery slope that is bound to lead to oppression and perhaps genocide. Thus, the idea that race is nothing but a social construct is a “noble lie.”
The idea of the “noble lie” comes from Plato, who in The Republic suggested that the vast majority of people, the “mob,” are like prisoners trapped in a dark cave, and that the few who escape into the light and who thereby become enlightened are elites who must sometimes tell noble lies in order to keep the mob under control.
Um, I don’t think that flies in a democratic society, and of course those who push political correctness aka cultural Marxism, don’t want a democratic society.
Good work. Smithsonian mag gets one right!