Comment by bytelines | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bytelines | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Dr Morning's assertion is that "race is a social construct" is a minority position, and one that sociologists overemphasize.

This is very different from saying "race being a social construct is an idea of social justice ideology, not of science". She is arguing that the perceived consensus or widespread acceptance of the idea is wrong. You're asserting that "social justice [ideologists]" or sociologists (you seem to be using them interchangeably) themselves came up with the very idea.

We're 15 years later. Is it still a minority position? I honestly don't know. Based on OP, it seems like no, but maybe we're in the same position. But it was clearly never "an idea of social justice ideology, not of science"

> It wasn't a social construct, and its emergence as a recognized concept wasn't motivated by a desire to justify doing horrible things to people

So if our understanding of race was never a social construct, do tell what is the science behind this:

> Finally, I am of opinion that after all these numerous instances I have brought together of negroes of capacity, it would not be difficult to mention entire well-known provinces of Europe, from out of which you would not easily expect to obtain off-hand such good authors, poets, philosophers, and correspondents of the Paris Academy; and on the other hand, there is no so-called savage nation known under the sun which has so much distinguished itself by such examples of perfectibility and original capacity for scientific culture, and thereby attached itself so closely to the most civilized nations of the earth, as the Negro."

I'm not asserting, either, that reasoning around races was used to justify things before the act, but rather that by attributing ideas like "genetics explains people" carries historical consequences. Like that some genes are superior to others. I don't know how you can deny this took place in our history.

>>Dr Morning's assertion is that "race is a social construct" is a minority position, and one that sociologists overemphasize.

You're being disingenuous, in not fully describing Morning's assertion. The assertion, fully described, is that "race is a social construct" is a minority position, and one that sociologists claim is a universally held among scientists at large.

This is deeply mistaken claim by the sociologists, and to me it's evident why the consensus emerged within the sociology field around this erronuous belief: it's a manipulation tactic, to give the "race is a social contract" claim an appeal to scientific credibility.

And it worked! Only 15 years later, and the main scientific institutions are now arguing for a broad exorcism of the concept of race.

>>But it was clearly never "an idea of social justice ideology, not of science"

Given the following facts, I think there is a preponderance of evidence that it is an idea of social justice ideology, not science:

* the well-documented extreme-left wing bias of the sociology field

* the economic interests those with sociology degrees have - due to the occupations that sociology degrees are amenable to - to propagate left-wing political ideology and the government programs that are associated with it

* the lack of rigor in sociology, which makes it less scientific, and more political/ideological, than other scientific disciplines. This lack of rigor is reflected in the pervasiveness of the erronuous belief about "race is a social construct" in sociology field, that Morning references

* the until recent general rejection of the "race is a social construct" idea in the harder sciences for which race is relevant: biology and anthropology

The best explanation for the coincidence of all of these facts, is that "race is a social construct" originated in the left-wing grievance ideology promoted by the political left, and that the sociologists, due to their alignment with this ideology, created a dogmatic commitment to this belief in the other scientific disciplines, by linking the rejection of this belief with vices like racism.

>>that reasoning around races was used to justify things before the act, but rather that by attributing ideas like "genetics explains people" carries historical consequences.

The answer is not to pretend race doesn't exist and/or has no usefulness as a category. The attempt to extirpate race from the sciences, in an attempt to minimize racism, is just delusional utopianism, that in its neuroticism, totally ignores the collateral damage to various scientific frameworks, of such a drastic and far-reaching conceptual re-engineering.

To deny that race is a social construct by word salads full of "left-wing victim-hood" etc is even more deluded than your "the news is a union conspiracy" posts.

Using a lot of words to describe a complex reality != word salad, your disingenuous characterization notwithstanding.

And that "race is a social construct" idea is part of a victimhood narrative is totally obvious. See how the idea is nested here for instance:

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/6943461/race-social-construct...

>>Americans bought into this idea, too. Why was it so appealing? "Americans of European descent invented race during the era of the American Revolution as a way of resolving the contradiction between a natural right to freedom and the fact of slavery," historian Barbara J. Fields explained in a presentation to the producers of PBS's series Race: The Power of An Illusion (which is worth checking out for more detailed information on all this).

The journalists at Vox are fully unionized by the way.

Any way, this kind of victimhood/injustice framing is extremely common, and was even posited by the other commenter in this very discussion!

>>will you at least concede that race was a social construct? And that it predated our understanding of genetics and was used to, among other things, justify slavery, eugenics and other human misery?

But now you want to gaslight people into believing that this victimhood narrative isn't the main context in which the concept appears?

>>more deluded than your "the news is a union conspiracy" posts.

Your pithy response to my argument that unionized news staff have an economic interest in promoting left wing political ideas - when I've elaborated at length as to why I believe this is the case - suggests you're approaching this issue very emotionally, and not in a good faith attempt to open-mindedly explore what I'm saying to see if it's true.

I dont really have much to say about your political rant other than to point out the irony of some reality denying ideologist misrepresenting what people think or say being a central theme in your argument.

I have provided my evidence and rationale. If you can't handle providing a meaningful response to it, and resort to this low-effort dismissal, it says more about your confidence in your own argument than it does about my argument.

Oh you've provided much more than that lol

And this kind of snark further reinforces my point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com