Prominent anthropologist C. Loring Brace claimed that "there is no such thing as a biological entity that warrants the term 'race.'" It is commonly accepted among many scientists that race, as a biological notion, simply does not exist. I willingly admit almost total ignorance in both the field of biology and in studies of race, but it occurs to me that the use of scientific facts to disprove conceptions of race, while commendable, may also be dangerous.
Many scientists agree that the degree of genetic variation between various populations is not much larger than the degree of genetic variation within one of those populations. What this effectively says is that, based in part on the probabilities of which genes may be found on which loci, there are not likely to be many more genetic differences between an African American living in Boston and a Caucasian living in Paris, than there are between two African Americans living in Boston. Thus, any perceived differences such as skin color, hair, etc. _ while they are certainly biological in that they must have been genetically determined _ account for an incredibly small percentage of differences among human populations, certainly not enough to justify the separation of humans into separate subcategories called "races."
Such research is commendable, certainly because the scientific inquiry to discover the truth seems to be a necessarily good thing. Granted, such inquiries must be made with the goal of discovering the truth _ not with the goal of disproving race. It wouldn't be an objective scientific inquiry in that case. But assuming current theories are true, and that race as a biological notion truly doesn't exist, then where is the danger, especially if the conclusions have been objectively and rationally arrived at?
It seems to me that the danger lies in an antipathy that might arise from the fact that such scientific findings may calm people into thinking that problems associated with issues of race have now been "fixed." In short, the negation of race as a scientific term risks negating it entirely; and if race doesn't exist, how are we to deal with problems associated with this entity that doesn't exist?
It's important to acknowledge that, no matter what science may argue, people still perceive that some groups look physically different from others. Further, potential problems with the use of racial categories lie not in the categories themselves, but in the value judgements almost inevitably associated with such categories.
Science alone cannot disprove race. This is in part because science uses something abstract (such as biology and genetics) to debunk something that is reinforced through the senses (such as perceptions of differences in hair, skin color, bone structure, etc.) It is not easy to tell a man that two things that he perceives as being physically different are, in reality, almost exactly the same. So it's not that the value judgements assigned to race are valid, but simply that the idea that different groups of people with different physical characteristics exist, is valid. And it's not necessarily realistic to expect people, with little or no background in the complexities of biology and genetics, to move easily beyond the essential perception that people do look different from one another.
So despite arguments by scientists that race doesn't exist, race from a social or political perspective cannot be so easily dismissed. Because the truth is this _ no matter what the claims of science, people will often believe and act upon what they perceive, regardless of how irrational or baseless it may seem. Science may attempt to show the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), for example, the inaccuracy of its beliefs. Undoubtedly, someone has already tried to do so. But I find it hard to believe that, given the scientific evidence, the most devout KKK members looked up to the scientists and exclaimed, "Well, if you've proven it scientifically, then I'll just have to stop this racist behavior right now!"
The point is that the denial of race cannot rest on the shoulders of science alone. It must rest not only on a scientific refutation, but also on a reconstruction of individual and group identities that may be currently based on race. Science alone cannot be expected to debunk race. In fact, if we leave it up to science, we risk ignoring the true social and political problems and inequalities that are often inherent in using race to define people. But if social and political changes accompany the scientific refutation, then races may not only be proven nonexistent, but may also be believed to be fictional.
