What is Racism?

Nobel laureate James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA helix, recently reported that he is “inherently gloomy” about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.”

He also noted that, while he hoped that all races were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true.”

How’s that for an incendiary remark?

Watson almost immediately retracted his comments, but not until he had created an uproar. The London Science Museum, for instance, cancelled Watson’s upcoming talk there, claiming that such talk was “beyond the point of acceptable debate.”

I believe that racism is immoral and that we, as a society, do well in censuring (though not necessarily censoring) racist remarks and hate speech.

Were Watson’s comments racist? It may seem that the obvious answer is yes. How could someone assert the essential inequality of the races without harboring racist or White Supremacist attitudes? Are not all people of good will committed to the principle of equality? Don’t his remarks fly in the face of the conviction that all men are created equal?

And, for all I know, Watson may lead a secret life as a sheet-wearing, cross-burning disciple of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

But is the belief in this sort of racial inequality necessarily the result of a harbored racism? I have no doubt that assertions such as Watson’s are, more often than not, indications of vice. One might be overly eager to draw unflattering conclusions about people one already disdains. When those conclusions fly in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, then a character defect is to blame. But the central question to be addressed is this: Does morality require a belief in the matter of fact equality of all races? I believe that it does not and, indeed, cannot.

What if, when all of the evidence was in, it became apparent that one race is, on average, more or less intelligent than other races? Would we be virtuous in blinding ourselves to this truth?

Our noble concern for moral equality has, I think, led us as a society into a great deal of confusion on such issues. Consider the controversial scientific discipline known as sociobiology, or, as it is sometimes called, evolutionary psychology. Sociobiologists claim that evolution explains much of human behavior and human psychology just as surely as it explains the behavior and emotional life of non-human animals. Some objections to sociobiology are scientific in nature. For instance, might sociobiologists be a bit too eager to find a genetic explanation for a widespread trait when some other, perhaps cultural, explanation is in order? Daniel Dennett observes that primitive tribesmen have, everywhere and always thrown their spears pointy end first. But there is no reason to posit a “pointy-end-first gene.” He’s likely right about this.

But sociobiology is often castigated for political reasons. It is said that if various behaviors that humans do in fact display are deemed natural features of human psychology that have been hard-wired in by our evolution, then those behaviors, whatever they are, would find sociobiological justification. Xenophobia, racism and male dominance, for instance, would be seen as normal and natural, despite politically correct efforts otherwise.

But surely this is an odd sort of objection to a project that purports to be an empirically based science? First, even if it were discovered that humans have a natural, inborn tendency to X, it need not follow that X is justified. I may be miserly and mean by nature, but it does not follow that my meanness is not a vice anymore than the discovery that I am genetically disposed to a given cancer is reason to encourage tumor growth.

More important, truth—-scientific or otherwise—-is not a wax nose that may be adjusted to fit our preferences. One is reminded of a fairly recent article in the satirical publication The Onion. The story documented protests from fundamentalists against the second law of thermodynamics. The complaint was that the notion that entropy is increasing is “depressing” and discourages an overall hopeful outlook. The humor was certainly not lost on The Onion’s delighted readers. Here, fundamentalist Christians were the butt of the joke. But there is a politically correct variety of fundamentalism that is equally ridiculous.

I can recall being told by one of my grade school teachers that it is wrong to make generalizations about people. And the lesson was given in the context of what is wrong with prejudice. I also recall wondering then why we should think up front that such generalizations are always wrong. For instance, on an earlier occasion, Watson was quoted as saying that there are “latin lovers” but you never hear of “English lovers.” His point was that, as a rule, those who live in the warmer Mediterranean climes have libidos to match, whereas it is mainly the upper lip that the Brits manage to keep stiff. Even if true, this would be consistent with our discovering that some Brits are amorous and some Spaniards prefer to sleep alone. (Similarly, Watson’s original remark regarding those of African descent, even if it were true, is compatible with, say, the brilliance of a Condoleeza Rice and the apparent doltishness of her boss.) My point here is that, possibly, some “sweeping generalizations” are simply true, regardless of any of our preferences.

Were a researcher to report that, after careful and extensive controlled experiments, he has concluded that, all other things equal, your average Swede is smarter than your average Norwegian, the proper response would be an assessment of the study in order to determine whether the conclusion was, in fact, borne out. We cannot know in advance, apriori, that such a claim is false. Nor have we reason to suppose that the researcher harbors dark thoughts about Norwegians or that the research was skewed by the personal vice of the researcher.

In her masterful Beast and Man, Mary Midgley observes that a commitment to equality does not entail a commitment to sameness. It’s an important point. In her hands, “equality” is a moral concept. To be committed to the moral equality of all people is to think that all persons are of equal moral worth and that their basic interests count equally. And this commitment stands whether or not there is “sameness” in merit or ability. The doctrine that all persons are created equal is decidedly not the suggestion that, at birth, each human being has a potential equal to that of every other human being. We needn’t, that is, assume that “newborn babies are what bear cubs were once supposed to be—indeterminate lumps of animal protoplasm, needing to be licked into shape by their elders,” as Midgley humorously puts it. Different predispositions and potentialities may be a part of our respective original equipment, and it is the role of the scientist, not the moral philosopher, to determine whether any of those differences correlate with, say, gender or ethnicity. (A myth of our day is that little boys and little girls are like Midgley’s “protoplasm” in that all gender specific predispositions are the product of nurture rather than nature. That is, boys are boys only because they were handed Tonka trucks to play with as tots, whereas the girls were given baby dolls. The myth has been an important plank in the modern feminist platform, and it is clear to my mind that it is ideologically-driven bad science.)

The point is even more important when we realize the difference between the two ways in which a person might be said to possess value. An employee is extrinsically or instrumentally valuable to a company insofar as she is loyal and industrious. A man is valuable as a citizen insofar as he abides by the laws, contributes to societal good, educates himself, votes and perhaps keeps his lawn free of dandelions. But the ultimate worth of the employee or the citizen as persons depends upon none of these things. On the traditional and, I think, correct view, persons are intrinsically valuable. Their worth is inherent in virtue of the fact that they are persons. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant expressed this idea by saying that persons have dignity as opposed to mere price or a sort of “market value. As such, it is possible for a person to be utterly lacking in extrinsic value while his intrinsic value is undiminished. There may well be useless people but there is no such thing as a worthless person, and this is precisely because worth is in no way a function of usefulness. Intelligent people possess no more inherent worth than stupid people.

I suggest that it is largely because we have lost sight of the notion of dignity, and the way in which it is disconnected from any and all forms of instrumental value, that we have blurred the notions of moral equality and matter-of-fact equality. We worry that worth is determined by performance, and are thus outraged when anyone suggests that some perform better than others. Here, our moral outrage is misplaced.

All persons of good will are committed to the dignity and moral equality of all humanity. All reasonable people are committed to pursuing truth, wherever it leads and however contrary to our predilections it may be.

As it happens, I think that Watson's assertions of ethnically based differences in intelligence is mistaken. But my thinking this is no indication--at least not primarily--of my moral character.

Muddle: More on racism

Submitted by Davids mom on Tue, 10/23/2007 - 4:18am.

If you were to ask me independently what racism amounts to, I would suggest that it is any attitude or action that gives preference to some individuals over others solely on the basis of race in cases where race is clearly morally irrelevant.

Your independent answer to what racism amounts to matches mine. . . and I assume is based on your personal experience – as is mine. Thank you for sharing a well thought out reaction to Watson’s comments. The Unabridged Dictionary gives this definition of racism:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

The definition of racism and the manifestation of racism, in my opinion, lead to two different paths of discussion. I certainly see the truth in the danger of making general statements about the culture, intelligence, etc., of a group of people. What this brings to mind is the appearance of ‘unconscious bias’ in our world. Individuals with a sound moral basis may harbor ‘unconscious bias’ that manifests itself as ‘racism’. A man of Watson’s intellect and knowledge – and possibly sound moral thought, could make a statement regarding the validity of a groups intelligence because of his own ‘unconscious bias’. In post Biblical times, Africa experienced colonization that was based on the ‘dictionary’ definition of ‘racism’. To say that the progress in Africa is lacking because of the lower intelligence of ‘black’ people is an unscientific statement. . and rather simplistic. To say that because some white employers find that some of their black employees are below standard because of the intelligence level of all black people is unscientific and simplistic.

What is your feeling about the manifestation of unconscious bias?

login to post comments

David's Mom: Racism

Submitted by muddle on Tue, 10/23/2007 - 8:01am.

I'm sure that many or most of us exhibit "unconscious bias" about lots of things, including classes of people. It's thus possible for genuinely good people to harbor attitudes that are essentially racist without realizing it. I knew a man who was an elder in a small country church in KY. He was, by then, elderly, had served in the war, been faithful to his wife, and was a beloved father and grandfather. He was a nice man. A good man. When invited to his home one Sunday afternoon, he showed me some work that had just been done on the house. "I had some ni%%ers come out and paint it, and I think they did a good job." I know that he did not consciously intend this as a term of derision, but I do not see how the word could have been used like that without a context in which blacks were systematically thought inferior.

And, in many ways, it is the unconscious bias that is the more harmful because it makes it possible for essentially good people to perpetuate injustice.

I also agree with you that the sorts of remarks that Watson made are "simplistic." They fail to take into account the role that culture can play in determining whether individuals realize their full potential. You may well find that, on average, members of a particular ethnic group or sub-culture (Appalachians?) do poorly or even behave badly. But to attribute this to genetics ("incest" in the case of the Appalachians) is much too quick. Because what you may also find is that the group in question is systematically disadvantaged. And it is possible, just possible that the explanation for that systematic disadvantage involves the actions--past or present--of some other, more advantaged, group. All of this is consistent with what we find, such as the occasional underprivileged inner-city young man who becomes a Harvard summa cum laude because he was simply too bright and gifted to be impeded even by a shoddy elementary and high school education or a vicious environment.

But I hope the main point of my original blog is not lost. Let me put it this way. Basically, I disagree with a substantial part of the dictionary definition of racism that you cite:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Why? Because it is in principle possible that we could discover empirically that there are "inherent differences among the races" that "determine cultural or individual achievement."
(Now, the stuff about "the right to rule others" is a different matter altogether.)

The definition implies that all people of good will are essentially committed to the "matter-of-fact" equality among the races. You and I agree that, probably people who deny this sort of equality are displaying their racist attitudes. But my point is that it is moral equality--equality of individual worth--that is essentially required by morality.

login to post comments

Muddle:

Submitted by Davids mom on Tue, 10/23/2007 - 9:25pm.

I had to smile as I read your reply. We have a very, very dear friend who stopped by one day after work - and was relaxed and said, "I've worked hard as a n... today". (He is 'white' - and still a dear friend.) He almost dropped to the floor when he realized what he had said - and how we might find his use of the term offensive. We did - but we also realize that he, like us, have 'unconscious bias' in our otherwise 'good hearts'. I think what I'm committed to - and most others that I've talked with - is a commitment to an equal opportunity for all races. From my moral understanding - we all have been given different 'talents' or 'gifts' - which have nothing to do with our race, gender, or sexual preference. Circumstances mold a Michael Vic or a Condoleeza Rice. Race and gender cannot to be used as the sole basis for judging either one of these human beings.

Unfortunately, many citizens in our country and citizens around the world look for simplistic answers to complex problems. I feel it is a moral responsibility to value each human - as we would want to be valued. There are inherent differences among brothers and sisters - and yes there are inherent differences among the races. I believe these differences are due to how individuals react to the circumstances of their surroundings. In our 'unconscious bias' mode, we find it easy to make general statements about individuals based on their race and gender. We often feel comfortable in doing this - because it is based on a 'popular' belief. People who have a sound moral base are often conflicted because of the manifestation of 'unconscious bias' within themselves - once they become aware of the bias. It is then that they look for ways to justify a 'bias'. What do you think?

login to post comments

Muddle: racism

Submitted by Nitpickers on Sun, 10/21/2007 - 2:27pm.

I carefully read your long treatise above, but I still don't know what racism is!
Here is how I see it: Any human has the same value in that they have a right to live, and to compete for the best life they can muster.
This may sometimes mean that they live as groups of like heritages. For instance, there are tribes in Borneo yet who would be better off to gradually assimilate with other heritages rather than suddenly all crowd in and expect preferential treatment from another heritage.

As to intelligence, this of course has to be individualistic and not generalized for most things. Picking Scientists out of that Borneo tribe as opposed to MIT graduates, might be an example of an exception, unless a member of the tribe was at MIT!

Higher crime rates and poor schools among some groups is a factor caused by heritage, discrimination, and too many poorly raised people gathered together in one place, such that when a child is born, he gets little guidance and encouragement to assimilate.
It need not be said that there are pockets of majority groups who have similar problems.
The snaggle, black-toothed hillbilly who marries his cousin has problems also.

login to post comments

Dollar: Racism

Submitted by muddle on Sun, 10/21/2007 - 3:00pm.

Well, yes, after I had written and submitted the thought occurred to me that I never clearly pin down what racism is though some might take my title to be promising as much.

I talk about what racism is not--or at least is not necessarily.

But I do also distinguish between two sorts of "equality"--moral and "matter-of-fact" and I argue that (1) All people of good will are committed to moral equality and (2) moral equality does not entail or depend upon matter-of-fact equality. Perhaps I force my reader to read between the lines here, but should they do so they would see that racism involves a violation of the dictates of moral equality.

I wrote anything at all simply because of the story involving James Watson. If you were to ask me independently what racism amounts to, I would suggest that it is any attitude or action that gives preference to some individuals over others solely on the basis of race in cases where race is clearly morally irrelevant.

The other thing that I didn't mention is that, having seen pictures of the 79-year-old Watson, I am convinced that he is the model for Homer Simpson's boss, Montgomery Burns.

login to post comments