Constructing Race

Abstract

Constructing Race helps unravel the complicated and intertwined history of race and science in America. Tracy Teslow explores how physical anthropologists in the twentieth century struggled to understand the complexity of human physical and cultural variation, and how their theories were disseminated to the public through art, museum exhibitions, books, and pamphlets. In their attempts to explain the history and nature of human peoples, anthropologists persistently saw both race and culture as critical components. This is at odds with a broadly accepted account that suggests racial science was fully rejected by scientists and the public following World War II. This book offers a corrective, showing that both race and culture informed how anthropologists and the public understood human variation from 1900 through the decades following the war. The book offers new insights into the work of Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict, and Ashley Montagu, as well as less well-known figures, including Harry Shapiro, Gene Weltfish, and Henry Field.

Race and statistics in facial recognition: Producing types, physical attributes, and genealogies

“…There are various scientific strategies used to determine how best to describe a group of individuals. In the study of human variation, charts and measurements represented a way to obtain descriptions of the characteristics of a population, which were usually conceptualized as racial differences (Dias, 2010;Morris-Reich, 2016;Teslow, 2014). The British biometric school contributed to this effort by introducing multiple statistical methods to the study of biology and anthropology (MacKenzie, 1981).…”

“…In other words, it is expected that people from a place will look alike, and in expected ways. This expectation of phenotypic resemblance is not new: it has been used within physical anthropology for the production of racial typologies (Broca, 1865; see Teslow, 2014) and in population genetics for the production of populations of reference (see Fujimura & Rajagopalan, 2011;M'charek, 2005;Nash, 2013). By assuming that the organization of the personal face space depends on our geographical and biographical trajectories, as well as our own face, the face space theory incorporates racial types and stereotypes in face recognition.…”

“…These three enactments of race are reminiscent of the history of racial science, in which typologies, body descriptions, and lineages have been constructed as evidence of racial difference (Teslow, 2014;Wade, 2019). However, in contrast to past efforts (involving portraits, measurements, and averages) in facial recognition, these racialization processes leave no material trace and are usually invisible.…”

Dutch scientists and the UNESCO Statement on Race

“…Both documents also stated that cultural, national and religious groups should not be confused with racial groups and emphasized that all people should be treated equally. 76 However, in the second statement, race was restored as a valid concept and defined as an 'anthropological classification showing definite combinations of physical (including physiological) traits in characteristic proportions'. 77 The declaration was inconclusive (or vague) about the relationship between race and mental and social aspects, and hope was placed in future genetic and anthropological studies: a rhetoric of humility that paved the way for future studies on exactly this topic.…”