On Fri, 2 May 2003, Ian Murray wrote:
> It's not irrelevant. It just goes to show how much cultural work needs to
> be done in order create a world where biological facts trump and render
> extinct the performativity/facticity of harmful social superstitions. To
> say the use of biological facts cannot trump social prejudices and
> superstitions is refuted by the history of medicine and the inroads
> evolutionary theory has made thus far on societies. To be sure, science is
> not sufficient, but it is vitally necessary for defeating race
> talk/behavior.
>
> Ian
Curious claim. Many societies in human history had no concept of race and thus no racial discrimination. In general, they did not have science. So science isn't "vitally necessary" for doing away with race.
Granted, in our society, science is an effective basis for legitimate authority and, to put it bluntly, propaganda. People in our society are impressed by "scientists have reported" arguments. In that sense, the biological and social science research is an effective rhetorical tool to undermine race. However, the science is not a necessary tool.
--And let's face it: many people in our society simply ignore scientific ideas and research that challenge their preexisting beliefs (cognitive dissonance theory again!). Science isn't going to get us very far in creating a society without race.
Miles