On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
> List,
>
> What nonsense is Prof. Sanderson talking about? The discussion on race? I
> found the suggestion that a rigorous refutation of racist assumptions
> (particular by someone who holds such assumptions) reduces to merely the
> elevated hormones of the participants to be insulting (although I
> understand that biologisms flow easily from people who assume as material
> fact the existence of biologically-based racial types).
>
> Such dismissive rhetoric strikes me as an attempt to skirt tough issues
> that have been raised on WSN.
>
> Sincerely,
> Andrew Austin
>
>
>
Dear Andrew and List,
I did not say that the debate on race reduces to merely the
elevated hormones of the participants. Nor did I suggest that the issue
is frivolous. The problem is the stridency of the participants, who
appear to want to kill one another, at least metaphorically. Violent
behavior has been linked to male hormones. The human species would not
have evolved without a generous dollop of male aggressiveness, but the
future of what is ambitiously called civilization depends on keeping such
aggressiveness on the shortest possible leash.
Now let me deal seriously with the issue of race. Homo sapiens is
not just a social animal. Homo sapiens is an animal. Biology and
sociology need each other. A sociology that ignores biology is just as
reductionist, I believe, as a biology that ignores sociology.
Okay. I cannot doubt that the people of the world differ
biologically in numberless ways, although the differences are far less
significant than the similarities. Is there such a thing as "race"?
Strictly speaking, no. Millennia of migrations and intermarriage have so
moiled the human gene pool that most of us are incredible mixtures of
types that were probably never "pure" in the first place. Nonetheless,
each of us has been constructed from a unique assortment of genes, in
which certain prehistoric strains of humankind tend to predominate. The
result is that we are of different hues and facial features and
susceptibilities to this or that disease and all the rest. Culture and
nurture are probably more responsible for human difference than our
various unique assortments of genes, but our understanding of the role of
the genetic is still in its scientific infancy. Sociologisms are easier
to defend than biologisms because we know a lot more about culture than we
know about the human genome.
Nevertheless, there is a perception of race among most late
20th-century human beings. Persons in the United States who have at least
some African ancestry call themselves blacks. Persons in Vietnam who have
at least some African or European ancestry (thanks to U.S. imperialism)
are perceived as significantly different from persons in Vietnam of East
Asian descent. Race is a fact of consciousness, and imagined or perceived
racial differences have mobilized millions of people to discriminate,
exploit, or struggle against millions of other people. As we enter the
next century, the world is profoundly divided between an elite of
preponderantly European and East Asian people ("white" and "yellow") and a
global proletariat of preponderantly Amerindian, African, and South Asian
people ("brown," "black," "red," and some "yellow"). This has an enormous
bearing on world-systems theory. It is a fact that most of the world's
capitalists are of European and East Asian descent and a fact of
consciousness that these capitalists identify with, and are identified
with, certain perceived racial groupings.
Of course there are plenty of other schisms in the world-system of
today. Schisms based on ethnicity (another mostly social construct), on
nationality, on gender, on religious creed, on sexual preference.
From my perspective, however, as a democratic socialist who
believes that the highest priority for humankind is to make the transition
from a politically divided and economically globalized capitalist
world-system to a socialist world republic that can prevent ecocide,
genocide, and enserfment, these schisms of race, gender, creed, and so
forth are largely beside the point. Foregrounding the schisms of race,
gender, and creed while ignoring or downplaying the schisms of class can
result in a war of all against all in which everybody loses except the
capitalists, who often make skillful use of these schisms to divide their
class enemies. Meanwhile the capitalist juggernaut rolls relentlessly on.
What to do? Declare an end to the politics of race, ethnicity,
nationality, creed, gender, and sexual preference. Concede that in the
final analysis, whatever differences there may be, whether biological or
sociocultural, we are all simply human beings. Build a world party of men
and women of all perceived "types." Summon all men, all women, all
blacks, all whites, all straights, all gays, all Americans, all Uzbeks,
all Buddhists, all Muslims to the struggle for a democratic socialist
world republic--a struggle that will automatically encompass and pursue
absolute equality of status and opportunity for all perceived "types" of
humankind. There is no place in socialism for racism, sexism, homophobia,
or intolerance of any kind. To replace class domination by race or gender
or creedal domination would be antithetical to the heart, soul, and mind
of socialism.
Yet we cannot reach this pinnacle without acknowledging that all
sorts of biological and sociocultural differences do exist and may
continue to exist among human beings, perhaps to the end of time. We
cannot build a socialist cosmopolis without as much knowledge as possible
of these differences and without as much sensitivity as possible to these
differences. Our goal is not homogenization but a global community of
peoples free from exploitation, injustice, and violence. The differences,
or at least many of them, will remain. And so they should.
Peace,
Warren
W. Warren Wagar
Dept. of History
Binghamton University
USA