I am invisible; understand, simply because people refuse to see me. Like the bodiless heads you see sometimes in circus shows, it is as though I have been surrounded by mirrors of hard distorting glass. When they approach, me they see only my surroundings, themselves, or figments of their imagination – indeed, everything and anything except me (Ellison 1952).
Chapter two provides a history of how race is conceptualized in anthropology. This history is vital to understanding how science reinforced popular notions of the unequal humanity of people of African descent. Anthropologists continue to debate about the meanings of race and how it is utilized in the discipline. Knowledge of early stigmatization of people of African descent supplies information about the ability for stigma to mutate and become doxa.
In the 16th century England, race is used as a categorizing concept (e.g. breed,
species, kind, etc.…). As Europeans begin to explore the world, the definition of race changed. By the late 17th century, the concept of race is often employed to distinguish
between populations living in North America (Smedley and Smedley 2005). Over the next two hundred years, race becomes a popular topic whose relevance is solidified with African slavery. During the late 19th century, anthropologists are very active participants
in national discussions about race. Evolutionary Theories of Race
Evolutionary theorists, Morgan, Tylor, and Spencer, assert that human beings are “homogenous in nature” but can be ranked by assessing how civilized they are by comparing different populations to “the white race” (Risjord 2007). This argument is critical in two important respects, first by affirming a monogenist hypothesis; Tylor (1871) supports the theory of evolution. Second, Tylor’s (1871) assertion that despite a common
origin some humans advanced or evolved, while others are stuck on the evolutionary ladder; supports the popular opinion that “the white race is superior to non-white race’s (Risjord 2007). Physical anthropologist Jonathan Marks (2010) writes that 19th century
Darwinists doomed people of color for hundreds of years to sell evolution to people who had to be convinced that they shared a common ancestor with apes; by using non-white people as buffers between white people and apes.
Franz Boas and Race
In response to Tylor (Tylor), Franz Boas (Boas) directs reader’s attention to the “subjective valuation” of characteristics attributed to “civilization”. In 1896, Boas declares that it is impossible to objectively assess non-European people’s characteristics when you decide that European peoples’ characteristics are the most civilized. After Rudolph Virchow trains Boas to be a physical anthropologist; Boas conducts research supporting his theory that human biology is plastic (Caspari 2003). Boas (Boas) finds that the “American” environment is the significant factor to consider when accounting for physical differences between recent immigrants and their American born children. Boas’ (1912) concept of human plasticity is applied to modern anthropological understandings of human diversity or race. Over the next sixty odd years, race - from an anthropological perspective became a social/cultural construction.
In more recent history, race proves to be problematic for anthropology (Caspari 2003; Gravlee and Sweet 2008; Harrison 1998a; Harrison 1998b; Visweswaran 1998). As a discipline anthropology, is credited with informing racist science (e.g. (Coon 1962; Hooton 1939)) and debunking racist science (Board 1998; Boas 1896; Huxley, et al. 1938), American Anthropological Association’s race project, etc.… (Caspari 2003). This
conundrum leaves some anthropologists in a curious place. Within the discipline race is not a biological construct but a social/cultural construct; a biological illusion of sorts. Race in Anthropological Research
The idea that race as just a social construct - negates the importance of race as a phenomenon worthy of study is at the crux of several anthropologists’ arguments (Baker 1998b; Caspari 2003; Harrison 1995; Hartigan 2005; Mukhopadhyay and Moses 1997; Smedley and Smedley 2005; Visweswaran 1998). Understanding that race is not a biological marker of subspecies of human beings does not erase racism. Instead of stressing the effects of creating a world based on racial hierarchies or racism, some anthropologists take the stance that if race is no longer important than they will no longer discuss race (Gravlee and Sweet 2008; Harrison 1995; Mullings 2005; Smedley and Smedley 2005). Several anthropologists discuss the no - race stance that seems to dominate anthropology after the 1960s (Baker 1998b; Harrison 1995; Harrison 1998b; Harrison 2000; Mukhopadhyay and Moses 1997). Per Baker (Baker 1998b), population geneticists (in the 1970s) begin to recognize that stratifying human beings based on phenotypical differences is not scientifically sound. To decouple race and biology other terms like ethnicity or culture become popular in anthropological research (Baker 1998a) (Mukhopadhyay and Moses 1997) (Visweswaran 1998).
The shift from race to ethnicity and/or culture seems benign or harmless but often ignores structural realities of people’s lives. Physical anthropologist Alan Goodman and geneticist Richard Lewontin (1996), publicly acknowledge that there is more genetic variability within so-called races of human beings than between races of human beings (Baker 1998; Caspari 2003; Smedley and Smedley 2005) However Lewontin’s (1996)
book Biology as Ideology, is challenged by some genetic researchers. The no-race stance opens a space for in anthropology for colorblindness that per Harrison (2000) “ignores socially constructed notions and experiences of race that have been a part of the systems of oppression and domination with its sentiments, ideologies, practices, and material relationships (p.47)”.
Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s (1994) book The Bell Curve is critical to any discussion about race and science. Herrnstein and Murray’s (1994) book, provides (contested) opinions about the intellectual inferiority of people of African descent, when compared to Europeans, and Asians. Much of the anthropological focus on the lack of racial analysis references The Bell Curve (1994) as evidence of backward rather than forward movement with respect to North American perspectives about race in the 20th
century (Baker 1998; Harrison 1998a; Harrison 1995; Harrison 2000; Mukhopadhyay and Moses 1997; Smedley and Smedley 2005). Many anthropologists see The Bell Curve (1994) as impetus to engage in academic conversations about race and dispel notions of biological determinism perpetuated by Herrnstein and Murray’s book. Harrison (2000) and Baker (1998a) assert that Herrnstein and Murray’s appearances on popular news shows helps to perpetuate the intellectual inferiority of Blacks and Latinos; and are detrimental to federally funded programs whose mission is to increase equity for people of color. Despite scientists’ understanding that popular ideas about race are “intellectually bankrupt (Harrison 1995)” the public is not convinced – and continues to use phenotypical differences as evidence for stratified humanity (Baker 1998).
Many anthropologists argue that even though historical ideas about racial hierarchies can be refuted by science - the biological illusion of race has become a part
of North American culture. Not centering race in anthropological research creates opportunities for opinions rather than empirical evidence to dominate discussions about human variability (Baker 1998; Caspari 2003; Harrison 1998a; Harrison 1992; Harrison 1998b; Harrison 2000; Mullings 2005; Smedley and Smedley 2005). Increasing anthropological inquiry that focuses on race is necessary for a discipline that is holistic (Baker 1998; Caspari 2003; Harrison 1998a; Harrison 1992; Harrison 1998b; Harrison 2000; Mullings 2005; Smedley and Smedley 2005).
Race in Medical Anthropological Research
Clarence Gravlee and Elizabeth Sweet (2008) examine the use of terms race, racism, and ethnicity in the premiere journals dedicated to medical anthropological research, Medical Anthropology Quarterly (MAQ) and Medical Anthropology (MA). In a content analysis of articles published in MAQ and MA from 1977-2002, Gravlee and Sweet (2008) find that both journals publish articles that referenced race, ethnicity, and racism at a similar rate. MAQ is more than twice as likely as MA to publish articles that include the term African American. MAQ and MA increased the number of articles that reference race, racism, and ethnicity as the years progressed (Gravlee and Sweet 2008). There are two findings of critical importance to this research project, first compared to premiere journals from “neighboring disciplines (e. g. public health, nursing, epidemiology, etc.…)” MAQ and MA publish 25-45 % fewer articles that include the concepts race, racism, and ethnicity (Gravlee and Sweet 2008). Second, articles in MAQ and MA that include the terms race, racism, and ethnicity rarely define the concepts. Failing to define how or why racial terms are used conceals the authors intended meaning.
Current Debates in Anthropology: Race or Racism?
John Hartigan’s (2013) edited volume titled Anthropology of Race: Genes, Biology, and Culture enters current debates about race in anthropological research. The edited volume includes anthropologists who argued that race matters, race is complex, and race is best studied “in biosocial terms - as generated out of dynamic processes that span multiple domains (Hartigan 2013a:5)”. The tension or debate in anthropology focuses on whether the concept of race (as a biocultural phenomenon) or racism (as a system of exclusion based on a social construction) will be the primary concern of anthropologists (Harrison 1998a; Harrison 2000; Hartigan 2005; Hartigan 2006; Hartigan 2013a; Hartigan Jr 2008; Mullings 2005).
Genetic knowledge is evolving rapidly and includes research that challenges ideas that race is only a social construction (Hartigan Jr 2008) (Hartigan 2013) (Edwards 2003). Health research and more specifically, health disparity research focuses on the incidence and prevalence of disease in different populations or races of people. The focus of health disparity research is biological differences based on race. Although many researchers write about race as though it is a concept with a single definition - race remains a highly ambiguous often culturally defined variable (Hartigan 2013b; Hartigan Jr 2008). Pamela Sankar (2013), Linda Hunt and Nicole Truesdell (2013), discuss their findings that race as a variable is rarely defined and utilized in myriad ways in current genetic research. Hartigan (2013b) emphasizes that race is cross culturally variable so global analyses of race are encouraged to expand our understanding.
Mullings (2005) and Harrison ‘s (1998a; 2000), assert that anthropological focus on racism is critically important; and that disciplinary attention on race reinforces
biological determinism. As a discipline, anthropology has a history of reinforcing and dismantling, biological and cultural inferiority based on race (Caspari 2003; Harrison 1998a; Harrison 1995; Mullings 2005; Smedley and Smedley 2005). For scientists, empirical evidence is the required standard of proof, and it is difficult to prove that racism exists; without understanding all the paths that racism takes to negatively affect people’s lives. You cannot understand racism without understanding race and how people use race to further political/economic/social agendas (Koenig, et al. 2008; Whitmarsh and David 2010; Hartigan 2013).
Surprisingly, both sides of this debate about theorizing and analyzing race in anthropology agree that race should be a primary focus of anthropologists (Caspari 2003; Harrison 1998a; Harrison 1994; Harrison 1995; Harrison 1998b; Harrison 2000; Hartigan 2013a; Mukhopadhyay and Moses 1997; Smedley and Smedley 2005; Visweswaran 1998). As a holistic, four-field discipline with a biocultural foundation there are bound to be differences in opinion about the best way to understand the human condition. Debate fuels academic knowledge. The absence of discussions about race leads to perpetuating the colorblind ideology that dominates popular culture. Colorblindness suggests that we (as a nation) have achieved Martin Luther King’s dream and judge people based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin; while ignoring that we are a nation stratified by skin color (Bonilla-Silva 2013).
Contributors to Anthropology of Race: Genes, Biology, and Culture (Hartigan 2013), offer suggestions about ways to theorize race. Thinking bioculturally informs research by exploring micro/macro level factors that affect human beings (Hartigan 2013a). Striving to construct working definitions of race helps to standardize analyses,
and challenges research that does not operationalize race (Sankar 2003; Sankar 2006; Sankar and Cho 2002; Sankar, et al. 2004; Sankar and Kahn 2005). Health disparity research is necessary to understand myriad pathways of racism, and well suited for ethnographic studies that explore personal meanings and experiences (Dressler, et al. 2005; Gravlee 2009; Gravlee and Sweet 2008; Hartigan 2013; Hartigan 2013). Additionally, locating race in studies of environmental justice aids in understanding the agendas of “market forces (Hartigan 2013)” with the regard to consumption patterns. Finally, it is critical that ideas about race and racism are culturally informed and culturally variable (Hartigan 2013). Employing reflective analyses insures that researchers get out their own way by forcing them to acknowledge how their own issues surrounding race are clouding their research.
Health disparities research is dedicated to understanding varying incidence and prevalence of illness and disease among people. Former Surgeon General David Satcher (2004) finds that more than 83,000 African Americans deaths are attributed to health inequality every year. National Institutes of Health (NIH) earmarks millions of dollars for health disparity research every year. There is a resurgence in the debate about race – is race a “natural, biological concept (Krieger 2012)” or are the effects of racism responsible for health inequalities (Bamshad 2005; Dressler, et al. 2005; Krieger and Fee 1996).
Genetic research turns its gaze on the significance of population based disease (Lancaster 2006). Anthropologist Roger Lancaster (2006) warns against “bioreductivism” or the act of reducing all aspects of health to “what’s written in our genes”. Some researchers believe that many health disparities can be explained by understanding the
distribution of alleles in certain geographic populations (Foucault 1987), and (Krieger 2012). Is geographic population the new code for race? Gravlee and Sweet (2008) asserted,
Medical anthropologists are well positioned to make anthropology matter again. One striking element of recent debates in medicine and public health is how often clinicians and health researchers appeal to anthropologists for guidance on the meaning of race, often citing American Anthropological Association’s recent position statement…Such broad recognition is rare, a singular invitation to be relevant in solving a problem of theoretical and practical importance (2008:28).
My desire is to address how race is created, transmitted, and maintained by understanding what race means in African American women’s lives.