PHILOSOPHY - Race: Racial Ontology #2 (Naturalist Theories of Race)

TL;DR

Naturalist theories view race as defined by physical properties.

Transcript

Hello, my name is David Miguel Gray and I'm an assistant professor of philosophy at Colgate University. Is race 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 discuss three general problems that make giving any a... Read More

Key Insights

• Naturalist theories of race suggest that racial properties are physical, existing independently of human decisions and actions.
• The concept of race, when viewed through a naturalist lens, implies that races can be studied and understood through natural sciences.
• Older views of racial naturalism proposed inheritable natural essences, often placing races in hierarchical systems, but these are now largely discredited.
• Contemporary naturalist theories focus on shared natural properties, rejecting intellectual, moral, or behavioral attributions based on race.
• One modern approach defines races as reproductively isolated breeding populations, shaped by geographic or social factors.
• Defining race through ancestral relations can lead to challenges like infinite regress, requiring alternative explanations using phenotypic or genotypic properties.
• Phenotypic properties relate to observable traits, while genotypic properties involve genetic similarities, which may not result in visible similarities.
• The discussion of naturalist theories sets the stage for exploring social theories of race, which will be addressed in the next part of the series.

Questions & Answers

Q: What is the main idea behind naturalist theories of race?

Naturalist theories of race propose that racial properties are inherently physical, existing independently of human actions or decisions. This perspective allows for the study of race through natural sciences, suggesting that races can be understood as biological entities with specific physical characteristics.

Q: How do naturalist theories of race differ from older views?

Older views of racial naturalism often involved hierarchical systems, where races were differentiated based on inheritable natural essences and associated with intellectual, moral, or behavioral traits. Contemporary naturalist theories reject these ideas, focusing instead on shared natural properties without attributing such traits to races.

Q: What role do reproductively isolated breeding populations play in defining race?

Reproductively isolated breeding populations are used in naturalist theories to define race by highlighting groups that are either geographically or socially isolated. This isolation can shape natural properties, providing a framework for understanding race through ancestral relations and phenotypic or genotypic similarities.

Q: What challenges arise when defining race through ancestral relations?

Defining race through ancestral relations can lead to infinite regress, where the explanation of racial membership is continuously pushed back through generations. This requires alternative explanations, such as focusing on shared phenotypic or genotypic properties, to provide a more definitive understanding of race.

Q: How do phenotypic and genotypic properties relate to race?

Phenotypic properties refer to observable traits shared by members of a reproductively isolated breeding population, while genotypic properties involve genetic similarities. Although genotypic similarities do not necessarily result in phenotypic similarities, they offer a basis for understanding race in naturalist terms.

Q: What is the significance of the new biology of race in naturalist theories?

The new biology of race in naturalist theories focuses on identifying natural properties common to most members of a race without attributing intellectual, moral, or behavioral characteristics. This approach contrasts with older views and reflects a shift towards understanding race through biological and genetic factors.

Q: What are some criticisms of naturalist accounts of race?

Critics of naturalist accounts argue that these theories may oversimplify the complex nature of race by focusing solely on physical properties. They also highlight the challenges of addressing issues like infinite regress and the limitations of defining race through biological factors alone, without considering social influences.

Q: What will be discussed in the next part of the series?

The next part of the series will explore social theories of race, contrasting with the naturalist perspective. Social theories focus on how race is constructed through human actions, decisions, and societal influences, offering an alternative understanding of racial ontology that accounts for the social dimensions of race.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• This video is the second in a series exploring racial ontology, focusing on naturalist theories of race. It examines how race can be defined through physical properties, independent of human actions, and discusses the implications of this view.

• Naturalist theories propose that races exist as physical properties, allowing for scientific investigation. These theories reject older hierarchical views and instead focus on shared natural properties without attributing intellectual or moral traits to races.

• The concept of reproductively isolated breeding populations is introduced as a way to define race in naturalist terms, considering both geographic and social factors. Challenges such as infinite regress in defining race through ancestry are also discussed.