By Holly Dunsworth

This series aims to guide individuals in navigating diversity and inclusion. The questions and scenarios presented are based on real conversations encountered in various settings. This content is part of our corporate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training. For further details, click here.

Question:

I find it confusing when people say that "race is not biological, it's a social construct." Skin color variations are biological and undeniably real, not merely a societal fabrication. What am I missing? I genuinely want to be anti-racist, but I'm struggling to comprehend this concept.

Answer:

Many individuals share your confusion, and I once did too. Prior to my journey as an anthropologist, I viewed "race" as a biological differentiation indicative of a person's geographical ancestry. My lighter skin, grayish eyes, and dirty blonde hair lead many to assume my ancestry is predominantly European, and thus I am categorized as white. To me, that was the essence of race.

I wasn't entirely oblivious to the concept of white supremacy before delving into anthropology, although my upbringing in Florida involved the misconception that the Civil War was fought over states' rights rather than slavery. I never subscribed to the notion that distinct human "kinds" existed, akin to some fantasy narrative.

However, before my academic exploration, I failed to recognize the crucial difference between biological human variation and "race." This misunderstanding likely stemmed from my own whiteness and the powerful myth that is "race."

Misinterpreting race as merely skin color variation obscured my understanding of it as an arbitrary label, akin to money. For a time, I felt torn between two conflicting truths until I finally grasped the concept of "race," which then clarified everything. Essentially, I had to abandon my conventional understanding of "race" to begin truly comprehending it.

What ultimately transformed my perspective was recognizing that race cannot be discussed without considering racism. (1)

This shift prevented me from using "race" as a mere substitute for discussing biological variations such as skin color or disease resistance. Race is not an inherent trait rooted in biology; rather, it is a societal construct—a system imposed upon individuals.

Transitioning from the notion of "race" to understanding race/racism becomes straightforward when one learns the historical context of race science, through which numerous 18th, 19th, and 20th-century European and American scholars legitimized existing beliefs about racial hierarchies. "Race" science was never an objective endeavor; it served to justify political and economic inequalities, fostering a colonial mindset that positioned "superior" individuals over "inferior" ones. This pseudoscience linked visible traits like skin color and head shape to unfounded claims about intelligence. It was responsible for eugenics and its acceptance by the Nazis, as well as the unfounded "anti-miscegenation" laws that persisted into the 20th century. Regrettably, this misguided "science" is not merely a relic of the past.

Due to the influence of "race" science and longstanding political and religious traditions, many Americans perpetuate the myth of "race." They believe they understand what race signifies, yet they are often referring to the flawed concept of "race."

Before engaging with the relevant literature, I frequently hear students express sentiments like, "Though we may belong to different races, we can eliminate racism," or "Our differences don't matter; kindness prevails!" While these are positive and hopeful statements, they reveal a lack of understanding regarding race.

They assume that if we collectively agree on the equality of different "races," then racism will cease to exist. However, subscribing to the biological concept of "race" is inherently racist, which may sound harsh to those who haven't yet grasped this idea, but it is the truth. Regardless of how kind or just one may be, believing in the myth of "race" contributes to racism.

Author Ibram X. Kendi notes:

> Biological racism is based on two beliefs: that races are fundamentally distinct in their biology and that these distinctions create a hierarchy of value. I grew up rejecting the second notion of biological racial hierarchy, which contradicted the biblical creation narrative I learned, where all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. It also conflicted with the secular principle that "all men are created equal." My acceptance of biological racial differences while dismissing their hierarchical implications was akin to accepting water but rejecting its wetness. This dichotomy illustrates what many of us have internalized in our conflicted racial awareness. The belief in biological racial differences is a prevalent and insidious racist notion that few recognize as such, nor do they understand its roots in racist ideologies.

(from How to Be an AntiRacist)

A key aspect of anti-racism involves challenging the myth of inherent, biological "races." Acknowledging that biologically-based "race" is a myth does not dismiss the reality of biological differences that roughly align with the geographical distribution of our ancestors. However, race is not biological variation.

Race operates as a mechanism of oppression, causing biological variation due to its detrimental effects on individuals' health and development. Skin color, genes, ancestry, and ethnicity do not constitute systems of oppression; rather, race embodies a system characterized by unequal power and oppression.

Race seeks to legitimize a "natural" hierarchy among groups. Similar myths underpin cultural perceptions of gender and class disparities in America. These falsehoods encourage passivity instead of driving the cultural changes necessary for justice and equitable opportunities for all.

In Between the World and Me (adapted into a film), Black author Ta-Nehisi Coates asserts, "They made us into a race. We made ourselves into a people." I incorporate this quote into my teachings on race, as it connects historical context with contemporary realities. Though brief, Coates’ words elucidate the relationship between race in America and white supremacy. They also underscore why our society is often labeled as white supremacist and racist, regardless of individual kindness. Most importantly, Coates validates the experiences of marginalized communities: Black pride, Latinx pride, Indigenous pride, Asian pride, and so forth are not manifestations of racism.

Race represents the misconception that populations are biologically distinct, leading us to erroneously perceive social, political, and economic disparities associated with race as natural outcomes of biological differences. This belief hampers our efforts to alter the social and economic policies that perpetuate racial inequity. We must redefine our understanding of race from mere biological variation to a system of oppression. Only then will it become impossible to ignore, and "moving on" from our historical context will be interpreted as a commitment to actively reforming current social, environmental, educational, medical, and economic policies that sustain racism.

This is a flowchart that poses the question, "You said race, but are you actually talking about race?" It subsequently presents a series of inquiries to help clarify what race truly represents (a constructed system of unequal power and oppression) versus what it is not (biological variation, skin color, genes, ancestry, ethnicity).

1. Shay-Akil Mclean (@hood_biologist) employs the term race/ism to highlight their interconnectedness. I learned from Rachel Watkins that McLean is doing so "in the DuBoisian tradition."

Recommended Resources

The American Association of Biological Anthropologists (formerly AAPA) articulates this point effectively: https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/

“Skin Color is an Illusion” by Nina Jablonski:

“Colorism and White Latinx Privilege”:

This children's book succinctly covers the key concepts in this discussion while incorporating illustrations:

Our Skin: A First Conversation About Race (First Conversations)

Here is a link to Professor Agustín Fuentes’ explanation of what race is and is not: https://www.pbs.org/video/regional-voices-what-race-and-what-it-not-dr-agustin-fuentes/; and a YouTube version:

“A Conversation with Native Americans on Race”:

“Letter from a Region in My Mind” by James Baldwin:

James Baldwin: Letter from a Region in My Mind

“The Problem with Race-based Medicine” by Dorothy Roberts:

“How to Write About Africa” by Binyavanga Wainaina

(Note the dark sarcasm, which I’ve learned to highlight):

How to Write About Africa | Binyavanga Wainaina | Granta

“Ancestry Tests Pose a Threat to Our Social Fabric” by John Edward Terrell:

“Being Black in America Can Be Hazardous to Your Health” by Olga Khazan:

“Minor Feelings” by Cathy Park Hong:

“Ten Facts About Human Variation” by Jonathan Marks:

(This is a .pdf, 13 pages)

“Human Races are not like dog breeds: Refuting a racist analogy” by me and my colleagues (note the Glossary at the very bottom):

Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy

In 1956, evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane posed a question to anthropologists: "Are the biological differences…"

The author of this post, Holly Dunsworth, will be a panelist on our Zoom Panel on Tuesday, June 22nd.

Get info and tickets here!

Read more from The Good Men Project on Medium:

My 9-Year-Old Accidentally Explained Why His Mom Divorced Me

Does Divorce Hurt Men More Than it Hurts Women?

Maybe Your Love Life Sucks Because You Don’t Know What Love Is

This story was previously published on The Good Men Project.

About Holly Dunsworth

Holly Dunsworth, Ph.D. (Penn State) is a biological anthropologist at the University of Rhode Island, where she utilizes innovative teaching methods to challenge evolutionary misconceptions and outdated beliefs that students bring to college.