Race, Biology & Culture

My post reflects the articles written by Krieger, Frank, and Williams et al. These three articles focused on perceptions of discrimination as they relate to “racial” health disparities. Krieger argued that one’s perception of and exposure to racism adversely affects one’s health. However, it is also important to take into account one’s social class when studying one’s health.

Similarly, Frank argued that social indicators rather than racial indicators better explain health disparities. She explained that there are biological differences between people and between populations, but these differences are not racially patterned. Furthermore, health differences (such as diabetes and low infant birth weights predominantly seen in African American populations) involve interactions between both biological and social factors.

Lastly, Williams et al. found that higher levels of discrimination tend to be associated with higher levels of illness/health risk (both mental health and perceived physical health). They went through several important issues to consider when researching race and health disparities. Additionally, they explained it is important to consider how perceptions of discrimination adversely affect health. For instance, do perceptions simply lead to worsened emotional states; do they increase the chances of risky behaviors such as smoking or abusing alcohol; or do they play off of individual psychological or biological vulnerabilities. Williams et al. concluded by stating, “the persistence of racial inequalities in health must be understood in light of the persistence of racialized social structures that affect health status in multiple ways” (p.206).

Questions to consider:

1. In the Williams et al. article, do you think respondent’s self-reported measures of health accurately depict their actual health status? Or does this more accurately measure the respondent’s mental health status?
2. Do you agree with Krieger’s definition of race/ethnicity? In class, we define race and ethnicity as separate concepts. Why doesn’t Krieger do the same?
3. Do you agree with Krieger’s assertion that you can “never study human biology – or behavior – in the abstract” (p.195)?
4. Frank, like Krieger and Williams et al, used the term race/ethnicity. Do you think this is a factor of studying “racial” health disparities? In other words, when studying “racial” health disparities, is it unimportant to distinguish race from ethnicity?
5. Do you think the media (such as http://www.blackhealthcare.com/, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/africanamericanhealth.html) propagates the “myth” that racial health disparities are genetic rather than social/environmental? Or is access to this sort of information empowering?      

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449727,00.html

Going along with what Lina mentioned, Sansone’s later chapters begin to analyze the everyday behaviors of mostly young, black (or some sort of dark-skinned) Brazilians.  One of the most important aspects he touches upon is their exploration and use of cultural components which are deemed to be the property of blacks in another part of the world: music, dance and mannerisms of black Americans.  Sansone argues that it is this genre of music, imported from the US thanks to films, television and popular music, instead of white rock, that has captured the imagination of Brazilian blacks by virtue of being the product of a people that come from a similar social place.  It seems that the fact that fellow underprivileged, dark-skinned people are able to become a part of the lucrative culture industry is something that black Brazilians are aware of in a subconscious way.  Much like in the US, conspicuous consumption is also a very effective way of delineating economic differences, even within members of the same, broad working class.

A few questions to ponder:

1)  Sansone notes that most of his interviewees in Bahia and Rio insisted that the best part of the culture of which they were a part of and which they reproduced, was multi-racial and open to all groups.  How can they reconcile this narrative with the fact that whites (or other light-skinned people) formed a very small minority of the people Sansone observed?  Why did they adopt funk, hip hop and reggae, and not alternative or punk rock?

2)  What role does the celebration of miscegenation play in the creation of the discourse of Brazil (and other countries in Latin America) as a racial democracy?  Can the pervasiveness of these discourses serve as a smokescreen for continued material inequality based on race?

3)  Sansone points out something that I believe is too often overlooked in everyday discussions of popular black culture: its supposed antagonistic and oppositional qualities (baggy jeans, colorful clothes, particular speech entonations) to the mainstream are products of the disadvantaged social position in which they find themselves in.  Would these cultural norms and practices disappear if racial inequality itself disappears?  Is their elimination something that we should want and/or look forward to in the first place?  In other words, if economic disparities have created a vast array of cultural patterns for blacks in Brazil, the US and Europe, how would these patterns change as the never-ending quest to end economic inequality continues?

This week’s book brings a different perspective into our search for answers and understanding about race, culture and ethnicity. As we have discussed before these terms have various meanings and uses according to the place, country, and group of people using them. So this week we go for on an adventure to South America to look to Brazil for answers.

It is interesting that the Introduction of this book addresses some questions we discussed a couple of weeks before about “ethnicity.” “The term ‘ethnicity’ which had already become part of the popular jargon regarding migrants and their reception in Europe, was almost unheard of outside the academic world” (pg 1.) But today as mentioned in this same chapter,  this term has become a term that many use, recognize and associate, but still a term without a clear or concise definition. Sansone mentions that the term has been used to describe exotic cuisine, holidays, fashions, beauty products, “that is, ethnic has come to replace the term exotic, quaint, non-white or, simply, rare and different.” So can we really describe or attempt to replace ’race’ or the race concept with words that are not even clear in other places of the world other than the united States (not that in the US is any more clear) where “race” is very much present?

One of the approaches the author takes to start the “race” and “ethnicity” conversation surfaces this dilemma. Sansone’s method to start the conversation is described in page 21 (Chapter 1) where he describes from the beginning than in order to explore race and its relationship in Brazilian life he had to start by studying and defining race and its terminology. Also to take a closer look at economic and social aspects as well as location, history, generations, education (pg 89) and the evolution/change of these aspects through time. Are we convinced by his definitions? Does it help to start with this method? Do we see a clear difference between race in the United States and other places of the world? is his research and data sufficient for the conclusions and observations given by the author?

 Farther into the book in chapters 2 and 3 Sansone addresses globalization and its implications is Brazil and in Afro- culture and roots. Do we see globalization as “helping” ethnic revival in Brazil or even in other countries as the USA? What is the author’s take on globalization? do we agree/disagree? Do we realize how fast all these concepts and their effects in society really change? The following is a paragraph that speaks volumes about how lost we truly are with our identity, preferences, likes and dislikes; what we beleive is good, interesting, attractive or how we even measure those things, no matter what color, “race”, backgroun or “ethnicity” we may have…

“A New Black-Bahian Culture: Black Cultur as Youth Culture”                                                                        Nowadays in Bahia, generally speaking, young blacks construct their blackness largely by managing their physical appearance-by visible and sometimes dramatic attempts to subvert the stigma associated with black bodies. Bad hair is turned into Afro hair, and thick lips into sensual, more natural lips. The pejorative judgement of many lighter skinned Bahians that darker Bahians prefer flashy clothes and cannot dress in style is subverted by the creation of a new black look and fashion that borrows, in particular, from a reinterpretation of Africa, black North America, youth fashion in general, and the look of the malandro (the dandy Brazilian hustler). (pg 99)

Please post personal comments, observations, answers to some of the questions, maybe even your own questions and thoughts on the book. Have some ideas and comments ready to go for class.

Just thought I’d get the discussion started on this week’s readings…

These readings highlight the complexity of the race concept and the extent of its applicability in Latin American contexts. 

Synopses

Safa highlights the importance of changing ethnic demographics on perceptions of race.

Sheriff argues that the Brazilian ambiguous race classification system, which has traditionally been contrasted with the U.S. black/white hypodescent system, is in fact based on a black/white duality, with intermediate terms serving as social niceties.

Trouillot describes Haiti’s history of political tension and phenotypic discrimination between blacks and mulattoes, arguing that the perisistence of these groups despite overwhelming statistical odds for miscegenation is proof of prejudice.  ‘Even though color has never functioned alone, it has had an independent social value… it is a commodity in the game of inter- and intraclass alliances.  It has an exchange value that can be and is calculated…’.

Godreau argues that Puerto Ricans talk about race (or color) in a shifting linguistic pattern (‘slippery semantics’) which is highly dependent on context and defies binary black/white dichotomization.  He states that both U.S. and Latin race classification schemes co-exist and their use is highly context-specific.  Which meaning is to be ascribed depends on who says it, when, and how.

Gravlee asks to what extent there is a shared emic ethnic classification in the US and in other societies (within the societies themselves).  He finds that there is cultural consensus on color terms and what factors determine color in Southeastern Puerto Rico.  He advocates using new research methods to determine what the emic cultural boundaries of categories like race, color or ethnicity are.

Bordieu and argues that the U.S exercises hegemony over the intellectual world market, and in doing so masks and legitimizes U.S. racism, as well as exporting the concept around the world.  He says that imposition of the black/white system is not appropriate in places like Brazil.  Suggests that the ‘globalization of race’ results from the quasi-universalization of the US folk-concept of race as a result of the worldwide export of US scholarly categories.

French responds to Bordieu and Wacqant, arguing that their critique of the U.S./globalized race concept is improper, over the top and unquestioningly accommodating of national myths other than those of the U.S.

Concepts:

These readings show that the Latin American race concept cannot simply be characterized as a ‘continuum’ in stark contrast to the binary U.S. system.  They highlight a few difficulties with comparing race concepts between cultures, including:

1.       The concept of ‘race’ does not necessarily translate perfectly across cultures.  There is no word in Spanish that encapsulates the U.S. meaning of the word.  Both raza and color express different, but related concepts. 

2.       Racial terms can be employed differently in shifting social contexts.  They are not just referential, but pragmatic as well.

3.       Changing demographics, economics and politics potentially can cause shifts in how racial terms are employed

4.       The problematic power relationships between academics, classes, races that Bordieu highlighted, contribute to confusion or misrepresentation of the local situation.

Questions:

Do these articles shed light on how ‘race’ can be comparatively and cross-culturally studied?  Do they shed light on the nature of the differences between Latin American and U.S. conceptions and uses of race?  How do these readings contribute to an understanding of the shifting nature of race in the U.S. as well as Latin America?

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/racists-support-obama-061308

This just in from the UF Genetics Institute:

Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and leader of the Human Genome Project, will discuss “Genomics, Medicine and Society” at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 29, in the Health Professions, Nursing and Pharmacy auditorium, 101 S. Newell Drive. Faculty, students and staff are invited to attend the presentation, which keynotes Florida Genetics 2008, the annual symposium of the UF Genetics Institute. Collins is widely known for leading the enterprise that successfully mapped and sequenced the human genome, a project that many scientists say rivals the importance of the completion of the periodic table of elements. The Human Genome Project was started in 1990 and was fully completed in 2003. Analyses of the data have already contributed to a better understanding of genetic diseases and will continue for years. For more information about Florida Genetics 2008, please call 352-273-8100 or visit www.ufgi.ufl.edu

Yesterday’s New York Times published a story about a group of Harvard med students who have made a public website that decodes the DNA of participants who reveal their personal genome.

The article is troubling for a few reasons.  The point of the article is to raise questions about individual privacy.  In maintaining this as the focus, the author fails to speak of the complex causes of our ailments.  The first line of the article asks whether or not So-And-So is predisposed for heart disease, which we can infer will be known by looking at his genome.

Furthermore, there is this air of “secret knowledge” of the genome.  The med students say they want this knowledge to be public, and I believe, in taking that kind of a spin, greater authority is given to the idea that our genomes will have all the answers about our propensities for ease and dis-ease.

It also appears that the project will discuss many simple diseases–mono-or just more than mono-genetic diseases, like Breast Cancer, caused by BRCA1 or BRCA2.  This will reify the common understanding that our genes reveal all we need to know about health, and dislocate a person from the cultural matrix of causes.

Finally, there is duly troubling a one liner in the story about how phenotype will be made available on this website, which is no a common practice for obvious reasons, but the med students seem to argue that it is an important part of the puzzle in understanding physical health.  This is perhaps the most alarming part of the project in that, according to everything we read, it might almost appear like a Health Census that is based on our genes.  This will undoubtedly buttress folk categories about race, and then link them to health.

I’d be interested in hearing from any of the bio people in the class on whether or not the believe there is a purpose for listing phenotype.

There are a few common threads in all of these pieces that move last weeks discussion forward. The implication of the hypodescent rule, legal structures, and the census, and the uniqueness of racial classifications are in North America are some of these reoccurring themes. Davis examines the fluidity of racial categories in examining who is or is not black or white. In Davis’ article under the one drop rule, a person’s self-identification matters less than their ancestry. Davis agrees with Smedley about the exceptionalism of hypodescent to American racial classifications.

Kerr’s article looks at racial distinctions based on socio-economics and reflections of racial identities passed on from slavery. She explores the notion of “passing”. I had never before heard of the paper bag rule, had anyone else heard of this previous to reading this article? Kerr identifies an even further racial identification system that creates castes with in those identified as black. Kerr agrees with Semdley that racial classifications are deeply encoded into America.

Omi’s article focuses on the fluidity of race, and also how race is correlated to economics. He emphasizes the heterogeneity of groups lumped together as ethnically or racially similar. His article articulates the question does race consciousness mean racism? (245)If it does, how, and to what extent? And along these lines what is racism? He also states that race “is only give meaning in a social order structured by forms of inequality” (254) would you agree with this?

Rodriguez’s chapters examine the role of the US census in establishment of racial categories and thus racial thinking. I wonder how other countries conduct census and if they use racial or ethnic categories?

The AAA confirms the conclusions we reached in our last class that the categories of race and ethnicity often over lap, or are indistinguishable.

The ambiguity of race and the essentialist nature of these categories are proved problematic by these articles. Even though they are problematic they are historically driven and real to the experience of marginalized groups. They are structured with legal implications and these categories are often created by the law. These articles further articulate Smedley’s analysis of the historical presence of race and racism. I guess the rhetorical question is if race and racism are so historically embedded in North America, how can we overcome racism?  

This week’s articles dealt with the definition of race in the United States. This is a good continuum of last week’s discussion of the origins of race in this country. We can look back at some of the concepts put forth by Smedley and see how racial thinking has evolved over the last 150 years or so. Rodriguez’s discussion of the changes in the U.S. Census over time is a reflection of these shifting ideas and how the evolution of racial thinking is manifested in the wording of the questions. The AAA’s response to Directive 15 is proof that this debate remains unsolved and rages on.  

Kerr and Davis’s articles help show some insight into why this is such a complicated issue. In their articles, they address the complexity of where the color line falls or, to put it bluntly, ‘who’s black enough’ or can ‘pass for white’. Obviously, this is a pivotal question in this ongoing issue. They both address how methods of internal discrimination persist through folklore and how it may still be practiced today. With such an historic election only a couple of weeks, I feel this is a timely topic.  I’ve included links to a few videos that I found interesting. The first two of these address questions that have been raised in the last year or so regarding Senator Obama. The third one is an interesting example of the ‘One Drop’ rule discussed by Davis. 

Mrs. Obama: Blacks inferiority complex sabotaging Obama!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHzYl8Rg8C0&feature=related 

Is Barack Obama black enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VyDNug2WEI&feature=related 

One drop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2XMbAFNC9E&feature=related

The overwhelming consensus throughout the readings is that there is an undeniable fluidity and nebulous nature to the word race. To everyone and in every situation it means something different. There is at least one constant, however, that race, whether you feel it is a complete biological reality or a wholly cultural construction or somewhere in between, has an effect on life within the United States whether it be from something as seemingly innocuous as a census form question to intra-racial discrimination as outlined by Kerr in “ The Paper Bag Principle…”.

I’ll end with a few questions to consider for class.

What effect, if any, do you think intra-race discrimination within the black community is having on racial thinking as a whole in the U.S.? 

Taking into account the changes in the terminology in the U.S. Census over the past 150 years and the AAA response to Directive 15, are we making progress or just going in circles? 

Thinking back to the first class meeting, have your thoughts on what defines race changed over the last couple of months?

What sort of effect do you think the increasing heterogeneity of the United States will have on racism?

Do you feel that Anthropology is attempting to phase out the word race in favor of ethnicity in order to alleviate the negative connotations? If so, will this work? Are the two words interchangeable?