The Sociological and Biological Groupings of People - Case Study Example

Why Do Social Scientists Prefer the Term “Ethnicity” Over “Race”? In the post 9/11 world, a great debate has arisen as to whether it is politically correct to refer to the sociological and biological groupings of people from a certain country as a “race” or “ethnicity”. The accusations of racial profiling have associated the term “race” with a highly negative and controversial method by which people are defined by their physical features in relation to their actions in public more than anything else. It is because of the arguments pertaining to the use of the word “race” that social scientists were eventually forced to create a new word to connote the nationality groupings of a people. Hence the term “ethnicity”. This paper looks behind the deep issues involved in the rise of the term “ethnicity” and why social scientists now prefer to use the term “ethnicity” over “race”. Various data and irrefutable information will be presented coming from peer-reviewed journals, books, and appropriate websites in order to explain how the change from “race” to “ethnicity” took place over the course of time. A look into the history of the study of human race and its evolution will show that the concept of “race” is something that can trace its early roots to the European slave trade. The concept itself is the result of a scientific revolution that emerged during the time of European imperialism and colonization. Due to the influence of people from various parts of the world upon European culture and social conduct, Europeans began to suspect that there were marked differences in the physical, social, and cultural awareness of human groups. It became their opinion that some human beings from particular parts of the world were of a higher physical, social, and cultural background than the rest. Therefore, a division between the people must exist. This division was meant to connote the higher group of people from those deemed more inferior. The term “race” was then coined in order to create a semblance of control over the African slaves using a type of mind conditioning related to the term used to describe them or their “race”. With the widespread use of the term “race” across the globe, it became clear to social scientists that the term was used to define the real or imagined physical differences between people. The differences could be based upon visible and obvious differences such as skin color and physical appearance. Once a person is defined by his “race”, it then becomes his social identity which tends to influence social hierarchy and place him into a particular area from where her is not supposed to veer (Hargreaves, 1995). That is at least how early social scientists viewed the reasons behind using the term “race” to group people. All of the traits that they use to describe the people are all genetic in origin and were assumed to exist in all the people from that particular group. This concept is best understood using the Chinese “race” example. There is a belief that because a number of high profile Chinese nationals showed a prowess for Math and numbers on the world stage, then all the people from China must be good in Math and numbers. In this example. the Chinese are grouped by race not only by their physical features, but also their mental abilities, similar to the way that the Europeans classified their slaves during their imperial times. Such examples prove that the term “race” is used to unjustifiably control a group of people using unequal assignment of rights, privileges, and social roles. This unjust clustering of a nation's people is one of the main reasons that social scientists today no longer use the term “race” to group people (Crisler & McCreary, 2010). The term race, once viewed upon its historical context simply denotes a highly negative description of a people that is used to control them. A concept that is socially unacceptable in our modern times. Just as the Europeans were the first to use the term “race” in order to connote a particular group of people, they were also one of the first to advocate for its non-use in the description of a people. There are 2 reasons as seen by Hargreaves for the European move away from the use of the term race. The first is that the term has become heavily politicized in such a way that it has created a “moral opprobrium” with regards to the social standing of a person. However, studies by people such as Wilson (Cited in Hargreaves, 1995) have come to present empirical investigations have shown that any negative actions by a group of people has a more direct relation to social disadvantage rather than a physical concept as can be attributed in cases where “race” is used to describe a person. Which now leads us to the second reason that European social scientists prefer not to use the term “race” in describing a group of people. Very few of the European cities play host to foreign residents as is the case with the United States. Therefore to use the term “race” would be an antithesis since not enough of one group of people exist in a particular area to prove the basis of “race” groupings. These days, one will be hard pressed to find a social scientist willing to back up any of his social studies using data gleaned from a study of a “race” of people. Strong evidence now exists that biology belies racial distinctions. However, social scientists will still admit that racial distinctions allow for “biological differences” among people (Foster & Sharp, 2002). Although the biological differences exist, that is not to say that these differences can be used to perpetuate the idea of “racial” differences because the biological make up of a people does not directly relate to their physical appearance or social status. Having discussed the meaning of the word “race”, its history, and why social scientists have now shied away from using that particular term, a clear understanding now exists as to why the term “race” will eventually die a natural death in terms of the word being used to describe or profile a group of people from a shared background. Therefore, the emergence and use of the term “ethnicity” may now be discussed in relation to its role as the de-facto term used to describe a group of people from a shared background. “Race” was the term previously used by social scientists to describe a group of people living and under the control of the residents of a foreign land. It had all the markings of a negative word used to demean and control a group of people considered to be beneath the station in life of the original residents of the country. Such as the case with the Europeans and their African slaves. This was a notion that social scientists slowly came to realize was wrong because the standing of a person in society is mostly dictated by their social advantages or disadvantages in life. Therefore, people, even though they come from the same lineage of nationality (e.g. Italian, Mexican, Chinese), cannot be grouped together as a “race” since differences still exist between the them. However, by using the term “ethnicity” to describe a group of people from the same lineage of nationality, the group of people find an impressive number of similarities between themselves that they alone can share. This can be anything from a share or common culture, language, religion, norms, customs, practices and history. Having said that, the binding factor among these people becomes a consciousness of their common cultural bond. It is this special connecting factor among the people that becomes the basis of their “ethnicity” (Crossman, 2004). Social scientists have, over the decades, come to a more complete understanding of what binds people from a particular country together in a foreign land and it had very little to do with their “race” and instead, came from the direct influence of their shared, yet unique historical and social experiences once they settle into their new country (Bhopal, 2004). The experience of immigration and discrimination in their new country is what helps to create the identity of the group mainly because it is because of their “cultural” differences from the natives that separates them from the group. Therefore, physical and biological differences among a people, which were originally used to define “race” has become non-existent for modern social scientists. The term “ethnicity” became their description of choice mostly because the term allows for a broader range of affiliation based upon national origin, language, religion, and culture which allow the group to see itself more as a cultural unit in a foreign land more than anything else (Long, 2013) . As such, the term is less politically charged and debatable when compared to the use of the term “race” when describing a person or group of people. Using the term “ethnicity” was meant to help people differentiate between “race”, which is seen as a negative term meant to degrade a group of people, and “ethnicity, which is the shared cultural heritage of a people from the same region of the world regardless of their social and biological differences (Chrisler & McCreary, 2010). However, the term “race” is still out there for most of the world to use when describing a group of people. That is the reason why the terms “race” and “ethnicity” seem to have interchangeable usage in our current times. It is because of the confusion about the true meaning behind the words that some people have when using the terms that we must remember that the words are not synonyms. Each word describes a totally different social concept that social scientists have painstakingly worked hard to to develop (for “ethnicity”) and erase (for “race”). When social scientists coined the term “race” and then replaced it with the term “ethnicity”, they did not realize that they would be creating a world of confusion for most of the world in terms of delivering a clear understanding of what sets the two definitions apart. That is most likely why the public meaning and understanding of the two terms tend to be contradictory in nature (Braun, 2002). Yet somehow these two popular concepts manage to come together when needed in order to create a dominant understanding that “race” and “ethnicity” are both creations of society and are therefore not genetic in nature. It is this particular categorization problem between “race” and “ethnicity” that has called the attention of social scientists to the fact that there is a social significance to the usage of both terms. Having come to the conclusion that the term “ethnicity” works best for all their intents and purposes, the social scientists have agreed that although “race” is the term which is easier to see due to its physicality, the “ethnic” differences have a better chance of overcoming discrimination and prejudice over time. The use of the term “race”, although frowned upon by social scientists, continues to resist change because of its long term usage and much easier to define traits. The term “race” has a tendency to create strong negative impact upon a group of people, regardless of the people's ethnicity (Schaefer, 2014). That is because people have a tendency to stereotype people based upon their “ethnicity” as well, which makes it even more necessary for social scientists to promote and push for the proliferation of the term “ethnicity” rather than race. More importantly, social scientists now acknowledge the fact that interbreeding among various nationalities has created a new kind of human population that is not bound by the fixed boundaries between races. Therefore, the inherited traits of these mixed generations no longer produces an expected or predictable personality or physical traits for a person. Keeping that in mind, it becomes easier to understand why the social scientists have chosen to no longer define a person or people based upon the definition of a “race”. This is the explanation that is further supported by statements made by social scientist Michael Banton who, in 1967 explained that “ethnicity” has more to do with group identification while “race” is more geared towards the categorization of a people (cited in Eriksen, 2002). If one were to study anthropological publications starting from the 1960's onwards, one will notice that there seems to be more public acceptance towards the definition of the term “ethnicity”. The rise in the use of the term is based upon two reasons that are accepted by social scientists. The first reason, is that there is a change in our social world. This means that our modern society has found a way to get over the differences in physical characteristics of a person or group of people due to the rise of interracial marriages. By intermarrying, the racial differences become nullified in the eyes of society and produce a totally unique offspring that embodies the best of both races, thus creating an “ethnic” person instead. The second reason, has more to do with the social evolution of society. Since our world is constantly changing our way of thinking as a people also changes in consideration of social anthropology. Immigrants tend to move from one country to another, absorbing the best of other cultures and incorporating it into their own in order to create a distinct and unique “ethnicity”. As such, the hybrid culture creates a totally new kind of hyphenated nationality (e.g. Italian-American). Considering all of the above information, the reasons as to why social scientists have chosen to use the term “ethnicity” rather than “race” becomes abundantly clear. “Ethnicity” is what our modern social culture embodies, not “race”. The term is meant to connote the growth and acceptance within our communities of the changes in mindset and social understanding of one another. The world population now strives for equality and acceptance of all persons, regardless of their physical, genetic, or social differences. Therefore , the words used, the vocabulary of the 21st century must depict those changes and promote it as the norm of today. “Race” is a thing of the past. “Ethnicity” is what describes the world population at present. There is no more judgment among people. No one “ethnicity” is better than the other. There is no more slave mentality that requires one group of people to be subordinate to the other. There is only equality even in the face of physical and biological differences. And those are the reasons why, social scientists prefer to now use the term “ethnicity” rather than “race” when describing groups of people from a shared country and culture. It simply just makes more sense to do so. References Bhopal. R. (2004). Glossary of Terms Relating to Ethnicity and Race: For Reflection and Debate. J. Epidemiol Community Health. No. 54. p 441-445. Braun, L. (2002). Race, Ethnicity, and Health: Can Genetics Explain Disparities?. Project Muse. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. No. 2. p159-174. Chrisler, C. & McCreary, R. (2010). Handbook of Gender, Research in Psychology, Volume 1. New York: Springer. Crossman, A. (2014). Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. ( Available on-line ) Dee, Thomas. (2005). A Teacher Like Me: Does Race, Ethnicity, or Gender Matter?. The American Economic Review. No. 2. p. 158-165. Eriksen, T. (1993). Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives. London: Pluto Press ( Available on-line ) Foster, M. & Sharp, R. (2002). Race, Ethnicity, and Genomics: Social Classifications as Proxies of Biological Heterogeneity. Genome Research. No. 12. p. 884-850. Hargreaves, A. (1995). Immigration, 'Race', and Ethnicity in Contemporary France. UK: Taylor & Francis. Long, R. (2013). Racial and Ethnic Inequality. Social Problems. ( Available on-line ) Schaefer, R. (2014). Racial and Ethnic Inequality. Mc-Graw - Hill Answers. ( Available on-line ) Read More