[lbo-talk] Race

[andie nachgeborenen]

Miles, we almost certainly cannot change people's mindss abour race with science education. For that we need a combination of a change in social relations and propaganda, underpinned by a common experience of cross-racial struggle agsint common enemies. (Of course one might say atht the education provided by that struggle is practical or applied science.)  But Charles' point was quite different. It concerned how we know the truth about races, namely that they're not a biological reality. This is a different question from how certain people feel about race or anything else. Scientific justification is an objective notion, not a subjective feeling of great confidence. There may be nonscientific kinds of knowledge -- but not with respect to a biological question. The only acceptable answer to the questions, Do races have biological reality?, is a scientific one.  jks

BrownBingb at aol.com wrote:
From: Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu>


> > CB: Yes, but,  but for the scientific refutations, how would we know that
> > race is an invalid biological concept ?
>

There are many bases for the certainty of claims; science is only
one of those bases, even in an industrialized society like the U.S.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the
claim that angels exist, but about 75% of adults in our society
are certain they exist!  Tradition, family, mass media, peer
pressure all play significant roles in the social production
of certainties like (for many Americans) race, homosexuality,
and angels (to cite a strange trilogy).

All I'm saying is this: there are many ways to skin the
ideological cat.  Science is one possible tool.  But as the
example of angels demonstrates, people can believe anything
with certainty, as long as the idea is represented as an
obvious certainty in a network of ongoing social relations.
--And so with racial categories or the lack thereof.

Miles

^^^^^^^^
CB: Actually , I am not disagreeing with you that scientific arguments are not _sufficient_ to dissuade many people from racist thinking.  I am disagreeing with you that scientific arguments are not _necessary_ for winning the overall battle.  As it turns out I use "necessary" and "sufficient"  in the strict logical sense here.  Scientific refutations are necessary but not enough in themselves. 

More specifically , I am thinking that a core group of anti-racists in the overall struggle against racism are Marxists and other leftists who do accept science as a privileged method for truth and certainty finding and belief formation. In other words, I am not saying that biological arguments are the only way to skin the ideological cat on racism. However , they are a critical way for those with a materalist world outlook, and those with a materialist or scientific world outlook are an important minority sector of the potential anti-racist majority. Those with a materialist world outlook are not confined to making only biological arguments, but can use several methods in combination in efforts to persuade others.  

Of course, the groups who are victims of racism don't need to be persuaded much. So, they constitute another core group.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20030504/f6243a8c/attachment.htm>