The Concept of Race

After reading the article, the main idea Saini wants to transmit is that "the concept of race and in particular the categories we use, are human inventions that make no scientific sense". That they are value-laden and socially constructed terminology (De Vrieze, 2019). This is related to what Douglas talks about in "Values in Social Sciences" where she discusses the role that values must play on science (Douglas, 2014). She defends that epistemic and cognitive values can play a role, but personal, social, moral, political, and religious values can create problems because they depend on factors like individual perspective, and therefore subjectivity or personal interests.

As a consequence of this, personal views and beliefs vary greatly and can differ because of cultural and social differences. In this case, the term "race" is socially-constructed and therefore it should not be considered or pretend to be scientific. And what can be worrying about this topic is the intervention of "direct roles"  normative part of values, what Douglas considers very problematic for science since they can affect negatively research and the outcome of it due to manipulation led by personal interests and beliefs, since direct roles make values determine the acceptance or rejection of a claim (Douglas, 2014).

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified writer

Proficient in: Race

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

But the problem is when this "fight for the truth" when addressing the racial discussion "if some races are superior to others, is biased by the ones why propose or study it. We must remember that the racial terminology is devised by those who have the control and power over the rest" that is white people in the racial case or men in the gender inequality discussion.

One important point Saini makes is that when Social Darwinism was applied, that is, the survival of the fittest proposed by Darwin but applied to humans, it was meant to explain why "some groups of people were destined to die out" (De Vrieze, 2019). And this was a moral shield that colonialism and imperialism used to justify its actions against oppressed and invaded cultures. So, when this kind of racial hierarchies' ideas are deeply woven into society, it is normal that science can be affected and it is worse if both are "governed" by those who defend those ideas or at least are latently believers of them.

What Saini detects is that, "taking on account the obvious differences between populations, some people seem to forget that the main source of variation between people is in the individual level" (De Vrieze, 2019). To some people their "personal belief makes them think that there might be statistical differences between groups". But even when that is not true, those differences can be "used to justify the inequality in the world". Saini says that it is kind of "will to truth": "if we just try hard enough, eventually we will find something" (De Vrieze, 2019). Here is where Douglas value-laden science enters the scene: the illegitimacy of the direct role (Douglas, 2014). Value-laden choices of topic or methodology must not predetermine or bias the outcomes of the study, that in this case is the main problem of studying racial science, but they often do. We cannot be sure that a scientific team will not "influence" the outcome or data to suit their personal beliefs. This scientific interference (Douglas, 2014) is what entails a great risk for science.

The illegitimacy role of values on racial science appears as there are always people who don't want things to change. Because of personal, individual, and social factors, they use the argument that "we are different just because we are different" (De Vrieze, 2019). That the "inequality that we see is not a product of historical or social factors, of bias or discrimination but it is just the way things are" (De Vrieze, 2019). But the important idea is what lies beneath this: the fear of losing their (or certain) privileges, the attempt to explain crimes and vicious acts (in the past or in the present) or even an attempt to get rid of an inferiority complex that leads to make others "in this case other "races", inferior for their own sake and benefit (to exploit or abuse them). Because humans tend to gather with similar people or groups, and because we need to be part of communities or identities. And Saini says that these (racial) categories that appear "often merely social, should not be "underlined", neither try to reflect them in nature to "explain differences or to underline identity" (De Vrieze, 2019). Some people think that by justifying something by nature, even if it is not true, something is immutable or even factual.

In conclusion, the term "race" is deeply embodied in our society and even in our institutions, because we have intertwined the terms culture, religion and race to a point that it is even a linguistic necessity (Topolski, 2018). But race means something, even if is not used in a discriminatory way. It is meaningful and value-laden as it explains or indicates something, cultural, social, physical, and religiously (Topolski, 2018). As Douglas defends, "language carries with it value inflection, and it can create distortions in our understanding because of confusions with original means" (Douglas, 2014). Even if today the term "race" is often benign and well-meaning "to indicate human categorization, it still has a discriminatory and racial connotation." And this racial terminology has become so powerful, that "we can't just consign scientific racism to the bad people" (De Vrieze, 2019), because everyone uses them, not only racist people. Even when instead of "race" scientist started using terms like "populations", people were (and still are) not used to it even between scientists' not only by "the kind of Nazi ones" (De Vrieze, 2019). For example, opponents to this complained about this change of terminology, by saying that this was limiting academic freedom. And this is an important debate. "Why should any avenue of inquiry be blocked for political reasons? Science should not be limited or censurable" (De Vrieze, 2019). But the fundamental issue here is that the term "race isn't real", Saini defends, and therefore the main premise is wrong. And more importantly, "racial science" is lost due to the impossibility of establishing a neutral methodology and value-ladenness scientific teams that leads to an objective and non-influenced research and outcome.