Ok so question, twitter, is the following the story of biological racial science *per those sympathetic to its present incarnation* - so no need to @ me explaining why its present incarnation is bunk, that's not what I am looking for in this thread....
-
Show this thread
-
So way back when (early 18th/late 17th?) people come up w/ empirical theories about sources and consequences of human racial diversity. The details of this - like basically any biological theorising from this era - are no longer plausible, but this is recognisable proto-science.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Gradually this develops into a research programme in 19th century anthropology. Alas a lot of frank nonsense is mixed in, and it fit all too neatly into explanations as to why the people generating the theory are actually the master race who should be in control of all the stuff.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
In early 20th century sociologists and anthropologists complain that theory doesn't match facts, and the political projects it was associated with are discredited. European bourgeois no better at being distant masters than anyone else is + a racial genocide in European heartland.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
A new project is thus begun - even if the old theory failed, some of the correlations the old theorists were noticing still exist (say, in mortality rates, or education outcomes); how are we to explain them? Sociologists try social constructivist theories with varying success.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
But by the late 20th century two things get in the way of this: (1) explaining heritability - a lot of misunderstanding about what heritability is in popular discourse, it doesn't necessitate a biological explanation, but biology does provide one way and something is needed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
(2) genetic clustering tracks intuitive racial categories, awkward for social constructivism. [[+ awkward for modern proponent to admit, but surely factor that biotheories receive persistent funding and support from racists in broader culture even while in scientific wilderness]]
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
So modern biological theory of race must avoid the hubris (nothing in social science has explanatory power that was ascribed to race) and ties to mass murder, while seeing what can be built upon new basis in modern genetics. Normal science would consist in explaining heritability
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Ok I'm done, that's what I reckon is a self-understanding that would make sense to, and is endorsable by, a modern proponent of biological theories of race (well the ones who ain't Nazis! I presume they're not much interested anyway). How'd I do?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @lastpositivist
I suspect that many (most?) such people will *think* of themselves and of science more generally as outside history in some important sense. The result being that the history will not be part of their self-understanding at all. "Just following the data." Or some such.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Maybe in general, but I think that's hard to maintain in this case, as one is frequently going to have the history of racial science thrown in one's face as (1) part of a pessimistic meta-induction and (2) part of a political argument against funding it. One has to say something.
-
-
Replying to @lastpositivist
I guess I don't think any of that manages to actually break through to self-understanding. ... Is that too pessimistic or not pessimistic enough?
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.