Recently I was listening to two friends who were in an
intense conversation and debate regarding race, one friend who studies medicine
and one who studies sociology. Both had opposing views. I did not contribute
much to the debate because it is not a topic that I have studied in depth
(until this class) or felt confident in debating. Both people had made several
critical arguments, even though they were somewhat intoxicated, although it has
now come to my attention that neither had represented race as a social
construction. The student who pursues their studies in medicine had even
explained that there were no biological differences in race, yet had continued
to use the word objectively. I know for a fact that the student who studies
sociology studies race as a social construction yet he too represented it as
objective. I have brought this up because at the time of the debate I too had
considered race to be real and actual, mainly because it was never brought to
my attention to consider otherwise. Upon reading Robert Mile’s take on race or
“race” I began to rethink the meaning and the use of the word.
Miles’ repeatedly and in fact always places quotation marks when using the word race. So, first of all why is it that he uses quotation marks? He explains their use when he refers to race as ideological notions “because ‘race’ and ‘race relations’ are ideological notions which are used to both construct and negotiate social relations (and hence their use in quotation marks throughout this text)” (Miles, year, p.73). To put it bluntly, Miles refers to the concept as a social construction. More specifically, it is society using human characteristics to categorize the human race. He argues that there are two levels of selection involved in this process of signification. First; the selection of biological or somatic characteristics in general and second; is a selection of somatic characteristics. (Miles, p.70-71)
My first thought when I was reading Miles’ explanation on race was that there had to be reasoning as to why society uses these classifications to categorize race in this specific way. Why is it that we classify the human race by these somatic characteristics and more importantly, when and how does it become problematic? According to Miles, our classification of race is based on historical construction, for example, European discourse to create the “other”. This is in fact problematic because race is being used to create the illusion that there is still superiority of certain races like the “white” European population even in the post-colonial age. If race is simply a classification, then why must one or another be viewed as superior to “others”. So the next question to ask is why does a problematic concept like this still exist?
The use of the word race and its strong implementation in the minds of societies is clearly problematic based of what Miles has strongly argued and he explains the reasoning as to why that race is a concept that is still used. One example used by Robert Miles is the well-known rise of the Black Power Movement in the United States in the 60’s. As Miles (1989) states: “The political content, objective and strategy of such mobilizations vary considerably, but they all have in common at least an implicit acceptance of the legitimacy and accuracy of the European discourse by means of which they have been constituted as an Other” (p.73). This is an example of how the people classified as the “other” have accepted their designation as a biologically distinct and discrete population as a race.
In terms of connecting the understanding of race as a problematic concept to recent social phenomena, I would use the maltreatment and misrepresentation of middle-eastern people or people with brown complexion after the 9/11 attacks as an example. Although the middle-east is a geographical construction and classification rather than race (they are actually considered Caucasian), we as a society tend to refer to middle-eastern people as a race. Upon doing so the people and the media label them and generalize the entire population as being part of the Muslim faith and further generalizing them as being responsible for 9/11, the media has always provided poor representations of Muslims, but it has become much worse since the attacks. As Miles (1989) states: “People differentiated on the basis of the signification of phenotypical features are usually also represented as possessing certain cultural characteristics.”(p.71) Recently we as a society have held this “race” of people responsible by this misrepresentation and determining that they all possess this additional culture and that way of thinking. In reality it is the individuals of a terrorist organization who took part in the attack and not a religion, geographical area or a race.
Miles, R (1989). Racism (pp.69-98), London & New York: Routledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment