Brief Summary:
Paul Taylor, in the later portion of Chapter Two, argues against the notion that the race concept is outdated and should be abandoned for alternative notions such as ethnicity, class, caste, and gender (to name a few).
Taylor begins his argument by distinguishing between race and ethnicity. He says, "'race' points to the body, 'ethnicity' points to culture" (54). He insists on the value of being explicit and clear about what we are actually referring to when we mention 'race' or 'ethnicity;' we should not simply group shared culture with appearance and ancestry. Granted, it is true that they are indeed often grouped together, but ethnicities are not always racialized (and vice versa).
Class is more striaghtforward, and simply has to do with social or economic status. Why do we need to keep the concept of race when we can simply refer to different classes of society?
As was done in the South not too long ago, we can simply say that there is the upper class (that will mean white) and the lower class (that will mean non-white). The counter to this is very obvious: each race has its rich, middle, and poor class. Each class has a variety of different races involved. Even though a certain class may be more representative of a certain race, one cannot say one class is absolutely one race (and vice versa).
Caste, as well, often seems to take the place of race in social discourse. Taylor says, "Caste is principally about hereditary hierarchies that are not indexed to the morphology of the body" (63). Caste is not about what you look like but rather what your family ties are. Castes have the possibility to be racialized.
What does Taylor think about gender? He thinks gender is "a matter of having, or of being supposed or predicted to have, the social and psychological features--the impulses, the social roles and location--that are appropriate for people of a certain sex" (63). Dominant conceptions of gender spread through various forms of media and form a "mainstream" conception of gender.
Taylor argues that "race is a mode in which gender is lived, and vice versa" (65). What he means is that races can be depicted in gendered terms (e.g. certain races can be described as being more feminine than others) and that certain gender ideals can be shown in racial terms (i.e. gendered indiviudals of different races, in lieu of being that race, are expected to represent a certain type of masculinty or femininity).
Taylor wants us to keep distinct vocabularies for distinct purposes. He feels "race" to be a term important and useful enough to be hung onto. We, as humans, are many things at the same time: a race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and class (to name a few among a cornucopia of other things).
Questions:
Should the term "race" be used in certain circumstances and not others? When is it positive for someone to reveal information about their race, when is it negative, and when is it simply unnecessary? This question could be extended further to include ethnicity, class, caste, and/or gender. To rephrase, how much is too much in regard to use of these terms in society today, and how much is too little? Is there an equilibrium?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There are several convincing arguments for why we should abandon the concept of race from our lexicon and worldview. Firstly, the field of biology, which is credited with creating the "rational" or "natural" basis for race, now has scientific proof that the concept is no longer viable. Physical traits commonly associated with our classical racial groups such as skin color, hair texture, and facial features exist on a continuum and are not effective or accurate ways of dividing or categorizing human beings. Furthermore, the physiological traits that were once thought to be genetically past down through the races and were used to justify hierarchical oppression are now seen has having no connection to other biological notions of race and they may not even be hereditary. If the very field that created the idea of race, or at least its "rational" basis, claims that the concept is no longer accurate, then it has no use for us and it should be abandoned.
Secondly, the concept of race is tied into a system that oppresses some racial groups and privileges others. If we want to eliminate those aspects of our society that directly lead to hierarchies of power and oppression then race is a good place to start. It seems like a very difficult task to keep the notion of race without its oppressive forces because they are inherent in the racial divisions themselves. If reform can't tackle these oppressive forces, then the concept of race must be abandoned or the system of oppression will continue.
Unfortunately, without the concept of race it is difficult to discuss past historical events that dealt with racial issues. If we abandon the notion of race, can we continue to have anti-discrimination laws or racial reparations such as affirmative action programs? Clearly there are social and political situations in which the concept of race is useful in our discourse. Time will tell whether we will continue to categorize people by race or if it will eventually be seen as a useless notion.
Post a Comment