Sociological Theory 32(3)

Sociological Theory, September 2014: Volume 32, Issue 3

A Symposium on “The Genomic Challenge to the Social Construction of Race”

Does Genomics Challenge the Social Construction of Race?
Ann Morning

Shiao, Bode, Beyer, and Selvig argue that the theory of race as a social construct should be revisited in light of recent genetic research, which they interpret as demonstrating that human biological variation is patterned in “clinal classes” that are homologous to races. In this reply, I examine both their claims and the genetics literature they cite, concluding that not only does constructivist theory already accommodate the contemporary study of human biology, but few geneticists portray their work as bearing on race. Equally important, methods for statistically identifying DNA-based clusters within the human species are shaped by several design features that offer opportunities for the incorporation of cultural assumptions about difference. As a result, Shiao et al.’s theoretical distinction between social race and biological “clinal class” is empirically jeopardized by the fact that even our best attempts at objectively recording “natural” human groupings are socially conditioned.

Clines Without Classes: How to Make Sense of Human Variation
Joan H. Fujimura, Deborah A. Bolnick, Ramya Rajagopalan, Jay S. Kaufman, Richard C. Lewontin, Troy Duster, Pilar Ossorio, and Jonathan Marks

This article examines Shiao, Bode, Beyer, and Selvig’s (2012) arguments in their article “The Genomic Challenge to the Social Construction of Race” and finds that their claims are based on fundamentally flawed interpretations of current genetic research. We discuss current genomic and genetic knowledge about human biological variation to demonstrate why and how Shiao et al.’s recommendations for future sociological studies and social policy, based on their inadequate understanding of genomic methods and evidence, are similarly flawed and will lead sociology astray.

On Racial Speculation and Racial Science: A Response to Shiao et al.
Daniel Martinez HoSang

In June 2012, Sociological Theory published “The Genomic Challenge to the Social Construction of Race” by Jiannbin Lee Shiao, Thomas Bode, Amber Beyer, and Daniel Selvig. The article argues that “recent research on the human genome challenges the basic assumption that human races have no biological basis” (p. 68). The authors advance a “bounded nature” account of race to suggest that “biological ancestry” might lead to “different frequencies of personality and cognitive characteristics” by race (p. 83). In this response I investigate three propositions central to Shiao et al.’s argument: (1) the contention that contemporary genetics research has documented a biological basis to race, (2) the assertion that such research warrants inquiries into the way “biological ancestry” might “contribute to average group differences” by race (p. 83), and (3) the claim that there is no “essential characteristic” of their findings that might be complicit with biological racism.

Response to HoSang; Fujimura, Bolnick, Rajagopalan, Kaufman, Lewontin, Duster, Ossorio, and Marks; and Morning
Jiannbin Lee Shiao