PHILOSOPHY - Race: Racial Ontology #2 (Naturalist Theories of Race)
Summary
TLDRIn this philosophical discourse, David Miguel Gray explores naturalist theories of race, suggesting that racial properties are physical, existing independently of human constructs. He contrasts this with social theories, where race is a human-made concept. Gray discusses the 'new biology of race,' which posits that while races have natural properties, these do not determine intellectual or moral characteristics. He introduces the concept of reproductively isolated breeding populations as a way to define race, considering both phenotypic and genotypic similarities. The video challenges viewers to consider how these naturalist views address the domain, expertise, and mismatch problems in racial ontology.
Takeaways
- 🎓 David Miguel Gray, an assistant professor of philosophy at Colgate University, introduces part two of a series on racial ontology, focusing on naturalist theories of race.
- 🌿 Naturalism in the context of race is the belief that racial properties are physical properties, as opposed to social properties that depend on human actions and decisions.
- 🔍 The script contrasts naturalist views with the idea that races are created by people, which will be explored in part three of the series.
- 📚 Historically, racial naturalism was associated with the belief in natural essences or inheritable properties that placed races in a hierarchical system, but these views are not scientifically supported today.
- 🔬 The 'new biology of race' suggests that races have natural properties common to most members, without attributing intellectual, moral, or behavioral characteristics to these properties.
- 🌱 Reproductively isolated breeding populations are proposed as a way to define race, where members of a group can sexually reproduce but are isolated from other groups, either geographically or by social barriers.
- 👪 The concept of ancestral relations is used to explain race membership, where if both parents belong to a race, their offspring also belong to that race, but this can lead to questions about mixed-race individuals.
- 🔄 The script points out the infinite regress problem in explaining race membership through ancestry, as the explanation keeps being pushed back a generation.
- 🔄 Two potential solutions to the infinite regress problem are proposed: sharing observable phenotypic properties or sharing genetic properties within a reproductively isolated breeding population.
- 📖 The script recommends readings by Michael Udel, Dorothy Roberts, Robert DeSalle, Sarah Tishkoff, and Alan Templeton for further understanding of the topic.
- 🤔 The discussion invites further contemplation on how naturalist accounts of race can address the domain problem, the expertise and deference problem, and the mismatch problem outlined in the first part of the series.
Q & A
What is the main focus of the second part of the series on racial ontology?
-The main focus is on examining naturalist theories of race, which propose that racial properties are physical properties of the natural world.
What does naturalism entail in the context of race?
-In the context of race, naturalism suggests that racial properties are physical and can be investigated and discovered by natural scientists, independent of human actions or decision-making.
What is the difference between natural properties and social properties as discussed in the script?
-Natural properties are those that are not dependent on human actions or decisions, like the limestone of the Great Sphinx of Giza. Social properties, on the other hand, are dependent on human acts and decisions, such as the statue's shape into a Sphinx.
What is meant by 'reproductively isolated breeding populations' in the script?
-Reproductively isolated breeding populations refer to groups of the same species that live in the same place and can sexually reproduce, but do not interbreed with other groups due to geographical or social barriers.
How does the concept of ancestral relations play a role in defining race according to the naturalist view presented?
-Ancestral relations are used to define race by considering if one's parents are both of a particular race, then the offspring is also of that race, assuming a shared genetic or phenotypic heritage.
What are the two options given to explain what makes someone a member of a race in the naturalist account?
-The two options are: 1) sharing simple phenotypic or observable properties specific to other members of one's reproductively isolated breeding population, or 2) sharing similar genotypic or genetic properties.
What problem arises when trying to define race using ancestral relations and reproductively isolated breeding populations?
-The problem of infinite regress arises, as the explanation of what makes someone a member of a race is pushed back a generation each time the question is asked, without a clear starting point.
What are some of the older views on racial naturalism that the script mentions are not currently held for scientific reasons?
-Older views included the idea that races have natural essences or shared observable natural properties that place them into a hierarchical system based on physical, behavioral, intellectual, and moral characteristics.
Who are some of the authors recommended for further reading on the topic of race and genetics?
-The authors recommended are Michael Udel, Dorothy Roberts, Robert DeSalle, Sarah Tishkoff, and Alan Templeton.
What is the 'new biology of race' as mentioned in the script?
-The 'new biology of race' refers to the view that races have natural properties common to most members of that race, but these properties do not imply any intellectual, moral, or behavioral characteristics.
What are the potential problems that a naturalist account of race must address according to the script?
-A naturalist account of race must address the domain problem, the expertise and deference problem, and the mismatch problem, which were outlined in the first video of the series.
Outlines
🔬 Introduction to Naturalist Theories of Race
David Miguel Gray, an assistant professor of philosophy at Colgate University, introduces the concept of naturalist theories of race. He explains that naturalism is the belief that properties within a domain of investigation, such as physical properties, are inherent in the natural world. In the context of race, naturalism suggests that racial properties are physical and can be investigated and discovered by natural scientists. Gray contrasts this with social properties, which are dependent on human actions and decisions. He discusses the historical view of race as having natural essences or shared properties that place races in a hierarchical system, but notes that modern perspectives, referred to as the 'new biology of race,' do not associate racial properties with intellectual, moral, or behavioral characteristics. Instead, races are seen as potentially defined by reproductively isolated breeding populations, which can be influenced by geographical or social factors.
🌐 Defining Race Through Ancestral Relations and Reproductive Isolation
The second paragraph delves into how races might be defined using ancestral relations and reproductively isolated breeding populations. Gray explains that these populations are groups of the same species that can sexually reproduce but are isolated due to geographical or social barriers. He discusses the concept of defining race through ancestry, where an individual's race is determined by their parents' race. However, this approach presents challenges, such as what to classify offspring when parents are of different races or the infinite regress problem of explaining what makes someone a member of a race. To address these issues, Gray suggests two options: one based on shared phenotypic properties and the other on genotypic or genetic similarities. He concludes by encouraging further thought on how these naturalist views can address the domain problem, expertise and deference problem, and mismatch problem introduced in the first video of the series.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Naturalism
💡Racial Ontology
💡Domain Problem
💡Expertise and Deference Problem
💡Mismatch Problem
💡Physical Properties
💡Social Properties
💡Reproductively Isolated Breeding Populations
💡Genotypic Properties
💡Phenotypic Properties
💡Ancestral Relations
Highlights
Introduction to part two of a series on racial ontology, focusing on naturalist theories of race.
Definition of naturalism as the view that properties within a domain of investigation are physical properties.
Explanation of how naturalism applies to race, suggesting racial properties are physical.
Contrast between natural properties and social properties, with examples.
The idea that races exist independently of human actions, as per naturalist views.
Overview of the historical association of race with natural properties and the concept of racial hierarchy.
Critique of old racial biology and the shift towards the new biology of race.
Description of the new biology of race, which does not link racial properties to intellectual or moral characteristics.
Discussion on the potential natural properties that could define race, such as reproductively isolated breeding populations.
Explanation of reproductively isolated breeding populations and their potential role in defining race.
Challenges with defining race through ancestral relations and the infinite regress problem.
Proposal of using phenotypic or genotypic similarities to define race within reproductively isolated breeding populations.
Recommendations for further reading on the topic, including works by Michael Udell, Dorothy Roberts, and others.
Anticipation of part three, which will discuss social theories of race.
Invitation for the audience to consider how the naturalist account of race can address the domain, expertise, and mismatch problems.
Transcripts
hello my name is David Miguel gray and
I'm an assistant professor of philosophy
at Colgate University is Reis something
we can fully explain in terms of the
natural world around us welcome to part
two of the four part series on racial
ontology a guide for the perplexed in
the first part we discussed three
general problems that make giving any
kind of race difficult
those were the domain problem the
expertise and deference problem and the
mismatch problem for part two of this
series I want to look at a particular
set of theories that we can call
naturalist theories of race while the
term naturalism is used in many
different ways we can think of
naturalism as the view that properties
within a particular domain of
investigation our physical properties
for instance there are lots of domains
of inquiry where we may believe in
non-physical properties you might
believe in numbers which are a kind of
abstract object is they aren't located
in space or time or you might think that
moral properties like the wrongness of
pushing someone in front of a car is a
non physical property that is if we look
at all the physical stuff involved in
pushing someone in front of a car for
example the car the person the act of
pushing you might think that the rymus
is not among those physical parts if one
were to be a naturalist about moral
properties they might claim that the
moral properties are among the physical
parts believing that difficult debate on
moral naturalism aside we can say that
to be a naturalist about race is to say
that racial properties just are physical
properties if you are wondering what
aside from physical properties racial
properties could be one possible
alternative is that racial properties
are social properties social properties
are those that are dependent on human
acts and decisions while properties that
we consider physical thought to be
independent of human acts and decisions
take an example of an object like the
Great Sphinx of Giza
the property of being made of limestone
is a natural property the statue
limestone isn't something that is the
result of human actions or
decision-making however the fact that
this object is a statue isn't a natural
property someone decided to shape the
limestone into a couch into Sphinx so
what's the upshot of thinking of races
as being composed of natural properties
well that means that races exist
independently of any human actions or
decision-making processes races are
something in the world that natural
scientists can investigate and discover
the opposing view would be that races
are created by people which will be the
topic of the third video so now we have
an idea of both of what it means to
think of races in terms of natural
properties as well as what that view can
be contrasted with this leads us to the
question which natural properties for
the naturalist there are a lot of
different accounts of what race could be
before the 20th century when Ray seemed
to be studied primarily by natural
historians the following features were
associated with racial naturalism one
races have either natural essences or
some set of observable natural
properties that are shared by all or
most members of that race to these
natural properties our inheritable three
these natural properties place races
into a hierarchical system where they
can be differentiated in terms of
physical behavioral intellectual and
moral characteristics I'm not going to
spend any time on these older views as
they aren't currently held for any
scientific reason nowadays the only pop
up infrequently among those who have a
limited and/or motivated understanding
of biological properties if you would
like to read more about this I'd highly
recommend Michael udel Dorothy Roberts
Robert de sel and Sarah Tishkoff
taking race out of genetics net blocks
how heritability misleads about race and
Alan Templeton's biological races in
humans this leads us to what some
philosophers like Josh Glasgow have
called the new biology of race
unlike the old biology of race the new
biology holds that races have natural
properties that are common to most
members of that race these natural
properties give us no reason to think
that any intellectual moral or
behavioral characteristics can be
attributed to races in virtue of shared
natural properties while there are many
possible accounts of which natural
properties could be used to define race
when approached that is gained a
following is to think of races as
partially defined or caused by
reproductively isolated breeding
populations what's that well a
population is a group of the same
species that live in the same place what
makes the population of breeding
population is that members of this group
can induce sexually reproduce however
there are a few things that could make
breeding population reproductively
isolated one way is that the breeding
population is geographically cut off
from other breeding populations of their
own species for instance you can imagine
a group of people cut off from others
because they live on an island or are
separated by mountains deserts in this
case geographic properties of our world
would shape our natural properties
another way a breeding population could
be reproductively isolated is that even
though a population is located together
and could interbreed portions of that
population don't interbreed with other
portions for instance if there were
cultural taboos about subgroups of
wealthy or short individuals breeding
with subgroups of poor or tall
individuals respectively those subgroups
could be reproductively isolated even if
they live in the same location in this
case social elements of our world would
shape our natural properties so that's
what reproductively isolated breeding
populations are but how might they be
used to define race one way is that we
can often define race in terms of
ancestral relations for instance if
someone is of a particular race let's
call it race X we can explain conditions
for that individual being of that race
if one's parents are both of race X then
one is also of race X now you might see
a couple of problems here
first what happens when one parent is of
racex but another parent is of race why
in this case we might have to say that
the offspring are either a new race say
race Z or don't have a race as they are
the product of non isolated breeding
populations second even if one's parents
are both members of race X what makes
them members of that race the answer is
that their parents were also of race X
but now we are often an infinite regress
the explanation of what makes someone a
member of a race is not answered which
is pushed back a generation each time
that question gets asked we need an
explanation that stops the infinite
regress one of two answers is normally
given here one option is to say that
one's the ancestor is a member of race X
and virtue of sharing simple phenotypic
or observable properties specific to
other members of one's reproductively
isolated breeding population the second
option is to say that one's ancestor is
a member of race X in virtue of sharing
similar genotypic or genetic properties
specific to other members of one's
reproductively isolated breeding
population given that much of our
genetic makeup plays no direct role in
our observable traits the genotypic
similarities would not necessarily mean
that raises have phenotypic similarities
so the cows I just sketched which make
use of ancestral relations among
reproductively isolated breeding
populations and either genotypic or
phenotypic properties is one way to
develop a naturalist account of race for
now I'll leave it to you to think about
how such a view can deal with the
problems I outlined in the first video
the domain problem the expertise and
deference problem and the mismatch
problem I should note that in an attempt
to be quite inclusive of a variety of
naturalist theories I've not specified
the different ways this account can be
developed in order to respond to various
concerns for three accounts that make
use of the naturalist ideas sketched
here see Philip pitchers race ethnicity
biology and culture Robyn Andrea sins
the meaning of race folk conception in
the knee biology of race and Quay Shawn
Spencer's around
solution to the race problem and for an
attack on naturalistic counts see Joshua
glass goes on the new biology of race in
part 3 we'll discuss social theories of
race
Browse More Related Video
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)