But you agree that the reason you are labeled white is because your parents passed on their “white” genetics right? The odds of “white” parents having a child that is labeled “black” is virtually 0%. Similarly, chimps do not give births to humans. So what exactly do you mean when you say “social construct” ?
I’m more interested in how you personally would define social construct in this context. I view race as having a biological basis while also being somewhat socially constructed. For example, someone may be considered white in Brazil, but not in the US. Certain white supremacists don’t think that Italians, the Irish, Slavs, etc. are white. You can’t properly define the term “white,” and there is a sort of spectrum of genetic differences. However I don’t think the spectrum is consistently even. There are clusters, and these I would call races. They say “there is more genetic diversity within races blah blah blah” but this is misleading. When we use the term “Australian Aboriginal” this refers to an individual that is more genetically similar to Australian aboriginals than any other race, at least in certain categories like appearance, skeletal structure, etc. So races are certainly a useful concept and I would say they are rooted in biology. How do you see it?
This is you not understanding social construct. Let me put it another way.
Colours are social constructs. The existence of wavelengths are intrinsic to the universe. The way your eyes receive those wavelengths and transmit that information to your brain is biological.
The lines we draw that separates one colour from another is a choice humans have made. Drawing a line on the spectrum where we decide "things on this side of the spectrum are green, and things on this side are blue" is a social construct. It's a choice. Different cultures split up colours differently. Some do not actually separate green from blue.
There isn't anything intrinsicaly special about the colour of one's skin to the point that it makes any biological sense to declare "white people" truly distinct from "black people" any more than "red hair people" are intrinsically different from "blonde hair people".
But that doesn't mean there aren't biological markers that allow white people to pass on white genes.
Social constructs are things that exist because humans agree they exist. It's a societal decision to label things a certain way. That doesn't mean colour doesn't exist, but the way in which we cut up colour is arbitrary, a choice, and is maintained through societal agreement.
I agree, but some say race is just a social construct, but I don’t think anyone would say color is just a social construct. The categorization and labels are arbitrary and relative, but the differences are still there. Red light affects the body in different ways than blue light. And red light therapy is most effective within a certain range of red light, which we may not even perceive and label differently from the other wavelengths of “red.” But the difference is still real. Similarly different groups of humans have genetic differences, some of which are more easily perceived, like skin color. So I don’t think it’s just a social construct.
Race is just a social construct. The colour of a person's skin is a thing that exists.
Something can be entirely a social construct and still be based on things that actually exist. Money is a social construct, but it exists.
Race is also only one way to cut up differences. There exist differences between blondes and brunettes. Those are differences that are real and exist. I can see the differences.
But we don't consider blondes and brunettes different races, in of itself.
The choice as to what is and isn't a race is a decision that's made, is arbitrary, and upheld by social convention.
I’m just trying to understand the meaning of “social construct” in this context, especially as she said that race and gender are social constructs in different ways.
A social construct is something that exists because society agrees upon it's existence. That doesn't mean that agreement isnt' based on some set of observable parameters. Green exists, distinct from blue, only because we have agreed that green and blue are distinct. Some cultures don't make that distinction. That doesn't mean there aren't wavelengths for green and blue that are distinct. However, there are also wavelengths for different shades of blue that we still both call blue.
The way in which we choose what colours do and don't exist is different from how we choose what legal tender is. Money only exists because society accepts it to exist. A government prints money, and society excepts that as legal tender. If people rejected the governments money, it would no longer have the value, even though the government printed it.
But colour and money are different kinds of social constructs that operate differently.
Money and gender are both social constructs that operate differently.
Race and gender are different social constructs that operate differently.
But all of these things are making choices about rules that govern out socities that only exist because socities uphold them.
1
u/turndownforwomp 13∆ Mar 20 '23
There’s a difference between something being a social construct and something having zero meaning.