Struggling In Quicksand: The Unique Problem of Racial Conflicts

There are few social issues so incendiary, so divisive, and so uniquely difficult to resolve as those involving race. Race is generally defined as a human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. However, theories of race are unfounded. There is no genetic evidence that races exist. Social differences between so-called races are often differences in class, religion and culture, which are termed racial characteristics because they generally coincide with a group, but often this coincidence can be explained through many other factors. Race is also often confused with ethnicity, which is the sentiment of loyalty towards a distinctive population, cultural group or territorial area. The term is complex and easily misunderstood because it has both cultural and ‘racial’ overtones. The members of ethnic groups are often seen, correctly or incorrectly, as having descended from common ancestors, and the groups are thus thought of as extended kinship groups- in other words, seen as members of the same race. More importantly, ethnicity is a form of cultural identity, and operates at a deep and emotional level. An ethnic culture encompasses values, traditions, and practices, but crucially, also gives a people a common identity and a sense of distinctiveness, most easily realised by focusing upon origins, descent and appearance. Thus, although ethnicity is merely incidental to race, with different ethnic groups found in what is considered to be a single race (for example, the different ethnic groups within the Chinese), or could even by definition span more than one race, it usually is confused with race. Even though race is defined merely by genetic differences, and ethnicity mainly by social characteristics, they are often use interchangeably. In order to resolve racial conflicts, one has to not only untangle a web of related and similar issues, but also recognise that race does not exist. Thus, race is a uniquely difficult issue to resolve because the very discussion of race propagate the idea of race and increases its currency. Only when the concept of race is removed entirely from human consciousness will the issue truly be laid to rest.

Theories of race rely on two basic assumptions- firstly, that there are fundamental genetic differences between peoples of the world. In other words, racial differences are real and meaningful. However, this assumption has been proven to be untrue by geneticists and biologists, who have found no evidence to support this. For example, Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure Of Man (1981) or Lewontin, Rose and Kamin’s book Not In Our Genes (1984) both point out that there is ample biological evidence to show that breeding within a certain population will, over time, replicate certain features but will not alter the fundamental genetic makeup of a human. Yet the idea of race continues to be propagated daily in the media and the government. One needs only to open a newspaper to read of people or ideas defined in racial terms- for example, a newspaper in the United States of America would talk of Black political leaders, Native American interest groups, or Asian-American literature. Similarly, governments promote ‘affirmative action’ programs (to use the American term) that purport to raise the lot of disadvantaged races by reserving jobs or places in higher education for them- the ‘Bumiputera’ (Sons of the Soil) policy in Malaysia that required Malay ownership of companies and reserved places in universities for Malays being the most pervasive and far-reaching policy of its kind in the world (Its creator, Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, recently called even this policy a failure and has started to dismantle it). Another common example would be how governments breakdown their populations by race or descent in their censes. Yet if the idea of race itself is flawed- if race does not exist- then one must ask how and why we are all so preoccupied with it today.

The idea of race continues to defy reality and infect the minds of people everywhere because it is an ideology, a way of thinking that explains the world and aids us in our daily life. Much as a belief that people will stop at a red light or that punching a ballot will lead to your vote being counted in a democratic election, race is a neat short-hand explanation that enables us to live without needing to truly understand. As Barbara Jeanne Fields argues, race is an ideology, a way of thinking: it is “the descriptive vocabulary of day-to-day existence, through which people make rough sense of the social reality that they live and create from day-to-day. It is the language of consciousness that suits the particular way in which people deal with their fellows” (110). Thus, in her example of America and its treatment of African-Americans, race became a way of justifying the slavery of a group of people in a land where the ideals of equality, freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is enshrined. What started out as a strictly commercial arrangement- African slaves were cheaper economically and easier to deal with politically than White slaves- became racial in order to justify its continued existence. In the modern day, we often mentally associate race with economic, cultural, religious, and moral differences, mentally assigning different races with different stereotypes- African-Americans as intellectually inferior but physically superior, Arabs as fanatical Muslims, Malays as a genial and easily content- because such perceptions not only allow us to quickly navigate through the world. Yet all too often, because we come to expect such behaviour, such beliefs become self-affirming, because we unconsciously seek out evidence to confirm our beliefs to reassure ourselves that nothing has changed with our comfortable picture with the world. Ideas of race become self-affirming, and any attempt to deal with it is ill fated because the attempt gives it life and currency.

The second assumption behind theories of race is that the genetic differences between people are reflected in cultural, intellectual, and or moral differences, making them politically and/or socially significant. While it is undeniable that deep and divisive cultural, intellectual, and or moral differences do exist between different groups of people, we often associate these differences with race when in fact they are differences in class, religion or ethnicity.

It is true that certain ‘racial’ groups, as a whole, occupy different places on the economic spectrum. For example, in the 1990 census in the United States of America, it was found that Blacks had a median income of US$19, 758, people of Hispanic origin had a median income of US$24, 156, and Whites had a median income of US$31, 672. Following Goldthorpe’s commonly used class scheme, which relates employment to class, 18.1% of Blacks and 14.1% of Hispanics worked in managerial or professional positions, compared with 28.5% of Whites, while 30.4% of Blacks and 40.9% of Hispanics work in manual positions compared with 27.4% of Whites (see table 1). Whites are overwhelmingly in higher social classes than Blacks or Hispanics. There is a well-established line of analysis that already explains the differences in terms of pre-existing socio-economic positions, negating the need for any explanation based on fictitious racial differences. Given that the Blacks were brought into the country as slaves and face economic and social discrimination based on race even up to today, it is not surprising that they continue to be economically disadvantaged today. Many people of Hispanic descent are immigrants from a poorer country who came to establish a better life for themselves in a new country. It stands to reason they would not emigrate if they were already rich and comfortable in their old country. New immigrants to a country generally face structural barriers to assimilation and as a result remain racially distinct and thus susceptible to racial stereotyping, a problem which takes several generations to begin resolving(Crouch 288-9; Welch and Studlar 538). Despite the facts, races continue to be associated with stereotypes, leading to the drawing or unwarranted conclusions. If Blacks or Hispanics are economically inferior, then perhaps it is because they are intellectually inferior, goes a clumsy but common sophistry.

Occupation	Black	Hispanic	White
Managerial or Professional	18.1%	14.1%	28.5%
Technical, Sales or Administrative Support	29.4%	25.8%	32.6%
Service	22.1%	19.2%	11.5%
Manual (skilled or unskilled)	30.4%	40.9%	27.4%

Table 1: Different occupations by race in America, 1990 (US Census)

This ridiculous idea belies the facts. There is nothing genetically programmed about class, language, religion or culture, and people’s behavious tends to become similar when we control for such factors. In a landmark study, Verba, Schlozman, Brady and Nie found that the political participation levels among different races were unequal entirely because of unequal access to resources derived from economic or social institutions, and that “differences among the three [racial] groups with respect to participation can be attributed almost entirely to the unequal political resources at their disposal rather than to rational abstentation” (494). Thus, in an activity in which the method of participation is standard and independent from class, religion or other social factors, the level or participation tends to be the same when we control for unequal access.

Attempts have been made to address the problem of economic inequality among races, and they have failed. Returning to Dr Mahathir’s ambitious attempt at affirmative action, despite a large decline in poverty, a vast increase in Gross Domestic Product and across the board raise in real incomes, the disparity between the income levels between the races has, apart from one or two years, steadily increased in the years between 1971, the start of the Malaysian New Economic Plan, and 1999, the year for which most recent statistics are available (Roslan). Clearly, attempts to solve the problem along racial lines have not worked.

In conclusion, race is a unique problem in that its existence is predicated upon our efforts to rid ourselves of it, and like quicksand, the more we struggle the more we sink deeper into our belief that it is real. What we term as ‘race’ today is a social construct that is perpetuated in many ways by our very efforts to solve problems that we associated with it. Its existence as a political issue is also largely due to its capacity to generate simple and convenient explanations and solutions, and for those who wield it to harness personal and social insecurities to political ends. It is also often confused with issues of ethnicity- culture, religion and language-, and of class. We must address problems along these lines and not along race in order to resolve them. Unlike other problems, race cannot be solved by directly addressing it. Only by purging ourselves of the notion of race will conflicts involving race finally be resolved.

Works Cited

Crouch, Colin. “Nations, Cultures and Ethnicities”. Social Change in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999: 283-308.

Fields, Barbara Jeanne. “Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America”. New Left Review 181 (1990): 95-118.

Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1996.

Lewontin, Richard C., Stephen Rose, Leon Kamin. Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature. New York: Random House, 1985.

Roslan, A.H. “Income Inequality, Poverty and Developmental Policy in Malaysia”. Centre D’economie du Développement website. http://ced.montesquieu.u-bordeaux.fr/SBROSLAN.pdf

United States of America. Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of Population: Social and Economic Characteristics of the United States. Washington: GPO, 1991.

Verba, et. al. “Race, Ethnicity and Political Resources: Participation In The United States”. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 23 Issue 4 (Oct 1993): 453-497

Welch, Susan, and Donley T. Studlar. “The Impact of Race On Political Behaviour In Britain”. British Journal of Political Science. Vol. 15, Issue 4 (Oct 1985): 528-539.