The Genomic Challenge to the Social Construction of Race

Abstract

Recent research on the human genome challenges the basic assumption that human races have no biological basis. In this article, we provide a theoretical synthesis that accepts the existence of genetic clusters consistent with certain racial classifications as well as the validity of the genomic research that has identified the clusters, without diminishing the social character of their context, meaning, production, or consequences. The first part of this article describes the social constructionist account of race as lacking biological reality, its main shortcomings, and our proposed solution: the concept of clinal classes. The second part discusses the character of the group differences that would be consistent with clinal classes and introduces the concept of genomic individualism, which extends an emerging model for understanding biosocial causation to include the genetic effects of ancestry. The third part develops the argument for a “bounded nature” reformulation of racial constructionism that reconceptualizes racial and ethnic categorization as the social perception of ancestry. The final part summarizes the article’s contributions and outlines implications for future research.

The Continuing Significance of Race

“…While some argue that social scientists are naive in their resistance to viewing race as having any biological essence at all and that we need to understand race both as a social construction and as biologically based (Bliss 2012;Shiao et al 2012;Walsh and Yun 2011), in this article, I argue sociology can help us understand the resurgence of race as biologically based. To do so, I rely on Herbert Blumer's classic argument on race as group position to understand the emergence of racial genomics.…”

“…It will still allow for a racial/ethnic hierarchy to exist and be perpetuated and it will still fuel notions of racial inferiority and superiority, only it will do so by linking cultural deficiencies to genetic deficiencies of populations. Shiao et al (2012) also proposes changing the terminology as a way to avoid the context, meaning, and consequences of using racial terminology. Rather than using the term ''race,'' they argue for using the notion of clinal classes to understand the clustering of alleles, similarly to the way the term ''class'' is used among social scientists today.…”

Does Genomics Challenge the Social Construction of Race?

“…1 To the extent that racial assignments incorporate information (alongside beliefs) about individuals' phenotypic characteristics or geographic origins, they can be said to be informed by (or correlated with) biology. If that is the "biological reality" of race that Shiao et al (2012) wish to emphasize, it does not represent a novel contribution-much less a challenge-to the constructionist account.…”

“…The connection between clinal class and race is not immediately obvious; Shiao et al (2012) often describe them as "homologous" to another, a formulation that could admit many interpretations. In fact, the authors envision multiple potential configurations in which clinal classes overlap or not with race categories.…”

“…I begin this reply to Shiao et al (2012) by countering that constructionist theory is already quite capable of accounting for new (and not-so-new) claims about race and biology. Indeed, genetics-based claims about the "biological basis" of race offer a textbook case of social construction.…”