Updated: 2025-08-09
Race is a complex concept that encompasses biological, social, and historical dimensions, with ongoing scientific and philosophical debates about its meaning and validity. Understanding race requires examining multiple perspectives from genetics, sociology, anthropology, and history.
The modern concept of race emerged during the Enlightenment period. The naturalist Buffon played a crucial role in forming the scientific concept of race in the 18th century, attempting to explain human physical variation through environmental factors and geographic distribution [8]. Over time, race became increasingly tied to hierarchical classifications that were used to justify colonialism and slavery.
Following World War II and the Holocaust, UNESCO led international efforts to change how race was understood, shifting from biological determinism toward recognizing race as primarily a social construct [5]. This represented a major turning point in how scientists and policymakers approached racial categories.
From a genetic standpoint, human populations do show patterns of genetic variation that correlate with geographic ancestry. Modern genomic research reveals that while humans share 99.9% of their DNA, the remaining variation is not randomly distributed but shows geographic clustering [2][6]. Some researchers argue this supports “race realism” - the view that racial categories correspond to meaningful biological divisions [3][9].
However, the biological significance of these patterns remains highly contested. The famous observation by geneticist Richard Lewontin that there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them has been influential, though some scientists have challenged this interpretation (known as “Lewontin’s fallacy”) by arguing that correlated variations across multiple genes can still identify distinct populations [9].
The dominant view in contemporary social sciences is that race is primarily a social construct rather than a biological reality [1][10]. This perspective emphasizes that:
Social psychologists study how racial categorization affects perception, prejudice, and discrimination, examining race as a powerful social reality that shapes lived experiences regardless of its biological basis [1].
The relationship between genetics and race remains contentious. Recent developments include:
Medical implications: AI systems can detect patient race from medical images like X-rays and CT scans with high accuracy, even when human experts cannot, raising questions about biological correlates of race in medicine [7].
Population genetics: Advanced genomic techniques can identify geographic ancestry with increasing precision, leading some to argue for the biological reality of race while others maintain these are continuous gradients rather than discrete categories [2][4][12].
Embryo selection technology: New reproductive technologies that screen embryos for polygenic traits have reignited debates about genetic differences between populations [11].
Many contemporary scholars advocate for a nuanced understanding that recognizes both biological variation and social construction [4][12]. This view acknowledges that:
The question “what is race” ultimately depends on the context - whether examining population genetics, addressing health disparities, understanding social inequality, or studying human history. Race operates simultaneously as a biological phenomenon (human genetic variation), a social construct (culturally defined categories), and a historical legacy (the product of colonialism and scientific racism).
Race and Racism - Handbook of Social Psychology - Presents race as primarily a social psychological construct with real social consequences
How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of “Race” - The New York Times - Discusses how modern genetics reveals geographic patterns in human variation while challenging traditional racial categories
The case for race realism - Aporia - Argues for the biological reality of racial categories based on genetic clustering
Developing: Debate on ‘Race’ and Genomics - Science & Justice Research Center - Examines ongoing scientific debates about race and genetics
Changing the concept of race: On UNESCO and cultural internationalism - Global Intellectual History - Historical analysis of UNESCO’s post-WWII efforts to redefine race
Chapter 5: The Genetics of Race - A Troublesome Inheritance - Controversial argument for genetic differences between racial groups
AI recognition of patient race in medical imaging: a modelling study - The Lancet Digital Health - Study showing AI can detect race from medical images
Race and Genealogy: Buffon and the Formation of the Concept of “Race” - Humana.Mente - Historical examination of how Buffon developed the scientific concept of race
Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy - BioEssays - Critique of Lewontin’s argument about within-group vs. between-group genetic variation
Race: a social destruction of a biological concept - Biology & Philosophy - Philosophical argument that race is socially constructed rather than biological
How Embryo Selection Technology exposes the Transferability Paradox - Discussion of how new reproductive technologies relate to population genetics
Current status: it’s complicated - Razib Khan - Nuanced perspective on the complexity of race from a population genetics viewpoint
Short answer Race is a social classification system that societies use to sort people into broad groups based on perceived ancestry and visible traits. It is socially real and consequential, but it is not a precise biological taxonomy. Human genetic variation is structured by geography and history, forming overlapping, fuzzy clusters and clines; these patterns only imperfectly align with everyday racial labels and are better described in terms of ancestry and populations than “races.” [1][2][9][10][12]
A fuller answer
Practical takeaways
References
The concept of “race” is complex and highly debated, with its definition varying significantly across disciplines like social science, biology, and philosophy. The provided sources show that there is no single, universally accepted definition. Instead, the meaning of race is best understood through the tension between two primary viewpoints: race as a social construct and race as a biological reality, with a modern synthesis emerging that acknowledges elements of both [12].
The most widely held view in the social sciences is that race is a social construct [1]. According to this perspective, race is not a fixed or essential biological category. Instead, it is an idea created by societies to categorize people, often based on superficial physical traits like skin color. These categories and their meanings are not universal; they change across different times and cultures [1, 5]. For example, the racial categories used in the 21st-century United States differ from those used in 19th-century Brazil or 18th-century France [8].
This viewpoint emphasizes that racial classifications were historically developed to create and enforce social hierarchies, most notably to justify colonialism, slavery, and other forms of inequality [1]. International bodies like UNESCO have historically promoted this view, attempting to dismantle the scientific basis for racism by defining race as a social myth rather than a biological fact [5].
In contrast to the purely social constructionist view, many geneticists and some philosophers argue that race, while a socially fraught term, is not biologically meaningless [2, 3, 6]. This perspective, sometimes called “race realism” or a population-based view, does not claim that there are distinct, pure, or essential racial types. Rather, it posits that due to different ancestral populations being geographically separated for long periods, they have evolved different patterns of genetic variation [6].
Modern genomics allows scientists to group individuals into clusters that strongly correlate with their continent of origin and, often, their self-identified race [2, 6]. This challenges the long-held belief, famously associated with Richard Lewontin, that since most genetic variation is within-population rather than between-populations, race is biologically insignificant. Geneticist A.W.F. Edwards critiqued this as “Lewontin’s Fallacy,” arguing that the correlations between different genes (not just their individual frequencies) provide enough information to classify individuals into ancestral groups with very high accuracy [9].
Further evidence for an underlying biological component comes from medicine and technology:
Many modern thinkers, including prominent geneticists, propose a synthesized view that bridges the social and biological perspectives [2, 10, 12]. In this framework:
Therefore, race can be seen as a “social destruction of a biological concept” [10], where genuine, if complex and overlapping, patterns of human biological diversity have been distorted by simplistic and politically-motivated social labels. The current consensus among many who study the topic is that the situation is “complicated” [12]. While old notions of pure, discrete races are scientifically defunct, the term “race” continues to be used as a proxy for the very real, and sometimes medically relevant, concept of ancestry or human population structure [2, 4].
Race is a multifaceted and highly contested concept that has evolved over time, encompassing biological, social, historical, and cultural dimensions. Historically, race has been used to categorize human populations based on perceived physical differences, such as skin color, facial features, and ancestry [8]. However, contemporary understandings often emphasize that race is primarily a social construct—a product of societal, political, and economic forces—rather than a strictly biological reality [1][10]. This view contrasts with arguments for “race realism,” which posit that race reflects meaningful biological differences among human populations [3][6]. Below, I outline the key perspectives on race, drawing from historical origins, biological and genetic evidence, social critiques, and ongoing debates. This synthesis highlights the tension between race as a lived social experience (e.g., influencing discrimination and identity) and its lack of clear boundaries in modern genetics [2].
The modern idea of race emerged in the 18th century, largely through the work of naturalists like Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, who classified humans into varieties or “races” based on geography, climate, and physical traits [8]. Buffon viewed these as mutable categories within a single human species, influenced by environmental factors, but his framework laid the groundwork for later hierarchical and pseudoscientific racial classifications, including those used to justify colonialism and slavery [5][8]. By the 19th and early 20th centuries, race was often treated as a fixed biological entity, tied to notions of superiority and inferiority, as seen in eugenics movements [6].
Post-World War II, international efforts, particularly by UNESCO, sought to dismantle these ideas. UNESCO’s 1950 Statement on Race declared that race is not a biological fact but a social myth, emphasizing human unity and the role of culture over genetics [5]. This shift aimed to combat racism by reframing race as a cultural and historical construct, influenced by global intellectual movements [5]. Despite this, the concept persists in various forms, often intertwined with nationalism and identity politics [5].
From a biological standpoint, some argue that race corresponds to real genetic differences among human populations. For instance, race realism posits that human races are akin to subspecies in other animals, with measurable variations in traits like intelligence, behavior, or disease susceptibility stemming from evolutionary adaptations to different environments [3][6]. Proponents cite evidence from genomics, such as patterns in human genetic diversity that align with continental ancestries (e.g., African, European, Asian) [3][9]. A key critique of anti-realist views comes from addressing “Lewontin’s fallacy,” which argues that while most genetic variation occurs within populations (about 85%), the remaining variation between populations is structured and biologically significant, allowing for racial classifications [9].
However, many geneticists challenge this, asserting that race lacks a firm biological basis because human genetic variation is clinal (gradual) rather than discrete [2][10]. David Reich, a prominent geneticist, explains that while genetics reveals average differences between populations (e.g., in lactose tolerance or sickle-cell anemia prevalence), these do not map neatly onto traditional racial categories, which are often arbitrary and oversimplified [2]. Reich warns against both denying differences (which could hinder medical research) and overinterpreting them to support racism [2]. Similarly, studies on human genetic diversity show that “races” are not natural kinds but social impositions on continuous biological variation, with no single gene or set of genes defining a race [10].
Advancements in genomics further complicate this. For example, AI models in medical imaging can predict a patient’s self-reported race with high accuracy from X-rays, even without explicit racial markers, suggesting subtle biological correlates [7]. Yet, this does not validate race as a biological category but highlights how social factors (e.g., healthcare disparities) may embed into biological data [7]. Embryo selection technologies also expose paradoxes: while parents might select for traits associated with certain ancestries, this relies on polygenic scores that vary more within than between groups, underscoring race’s fluidity [11].
A dominant view in social sciences is that race is a “social destruction of a biological concept”—a human invention that distorts underlying genetic diversity for social purposes [10]. This perspective, rooted in sociology and anthropology, argues that racial categories are created and maintained through power dynamics, such as colonialism, slavery, and segregation, rather than objective biology [1][4]. For instance, racial classifications have varied historically and geographically: someone considered “Black” in the U.S. might be “White” in Brazil, illustrating their arbitrariness [1].
Racism, as a system, reinforces these constructs, leading to real-world impacts like health disparities and discrimination [1]. Debates in genomics often highlight ethical concerns, such as how reifying race in research could perpetuate stereotypes, while ignoring it might overlook inequities [4]. Razib Khan notes the “complicated” status of race: it’s biologically fuzzy but socially potent, with genetics providing tools to deconstruct myths while revealing population structures [12].
The debate on race remains polarized. Proponents of race realism argue for acknowledging biological differences to advance fields like personalized medicine [3][6], while critics warn this revives harmful pseudoscience [4][10]. UNESCO’s influence has promoted anti-racist education, but challenges persist in genomics, where terms like “ancestry” are increasingly preferred over “race” to describe genetic clusters [2][4]. Ultimately, race’s meaning depends on context: biologically, it’s imprecise; socially, it’s a powerful force shaping identities and inequalities [1][12].
For accuracy, I’ve drawn on additional sources like the American Anthropological Association’s statement on race, which reinforces the social construct view [13], and a review from Nature Genetics on population genetics [14]. These align with the provided sources, emphasizing that while human populations differ genetically, race as traditionally conceived is not a valid scientific category.
Race is a complex social construct that categorizes humans into groups based on perceived physical characteristics, ancestry, and cultural attributes. While historically viewed as a biological classification system, modern science recognizes race as primarily a social and cultural concept rather than a valid biological taxonomy [1].
The modern concept of race emerged during the European Age of Exploration (15th-17th centuries) as Europeans encountered diverse populations worldwide. By the 18th century, scientists like Carl Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach attempted to classify humans into distinct racial categories based on physical features such as skin color, facial features, and hair texture [2]. These early classifications were often hierarchical and used to justify colonialism, slavery, and discrimination.
Contemporary genetics and anthropology demonstrate that race has no meaningful biological basis for dividing humanity into distinct groups [3]. Key scientific findings include:
Despite lacking biological validity, race remains a powerful social reality with profound consequences [5]. As a social construct, race:
The social construction of race varies across cultures and time periods. For example, racial categories in Brazil differ significantly from those in the United States, and individuals may be classified differently depending on social context [5].
Modern scholars distinguish between race as a flawed biological concept and its undeniable social significance [1]. While rejecting biological essentialism, researchers acknowledge that the social experience of race has real consequences for individuals and communities, including:
It’s important to distinguish race from related concepts:
Race is best understood as a social construct with no valid biological basis for categorizing humans into distinct groups. While genetic variations exist among populations, these differences are continuous and do not align with traditional racial categories. However, the social reality of race continues to have significant impacts on individuals and societies worldwide, making it crucial to address racial inequalities while recognizing the scientific invalidity of racial hierarchies.
[1] American Anthropological Association. “Statement on Race” (1998). The AAA emphasizes that race is a social construct rather than a biological reality, noting that human populations are not distinct, clearly demarcated groups. https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
[2] Smedley, Audrey and Brian D. Smedley. “Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview” (2018). The authors trace the historical development of race as a concept and argue it was created to justify social hierarchies and exploitation. https://www.routledge.com/Race-in-North-America-Origin-and-Evolution-of-a-Worldview/Smedley-Smedley/p/book/9780813350028
[3] National Human Genome Research Institute. “Race and Genetics FAQ” (2023). NHGRI explains that race is a social concept, not a scientific one, and that genetic variation doesn’t support racial classifications. https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Race
[4] Lewontin, Richard C. “The Apportionment of Human Diversity” (1972). Lewontin’s groundbreaking study demonstrated that most human genetic variation (85%) exists within populations rather than between racial groups. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14
[5] Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. “Racial Formation in the United States” (2014). The authors present race as a social construct that varies across time and place, shaped by political, economic, and social forces. https://www.routledge.com/Racial-Formation-in-the-United-States/Omi-Winant/p/book/9780415520980
Race is a way societies classify people into broad groups based on perceived physical traits (such as skin color, hair texture, facial features) and presumed ancestry. Most contemporary scholarship agrees that, in humans, race is not a biologically discrete or natural subdivision of our species; rather, it is a social construct that varies across time and place but has powerful, material consequences because institutions and everyday practices allocate resources, rights, and risk along racial lines [1][2][5][12].
What modern biology and genetics say
Social and historical dimensions
Law, policy, and official statistics
Consequences and why race still matters
How race differs from related terms
Key takeaways
Sources 1) American Association of Biological Anthropologists (AABA). AAPA Statement on Race and Racism (2019). View: Rejects biological race in humans; emphasizes that racism is real and produces inequality. URL: https://bioanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/
2) National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2023). Using Population Descriptors in Genetics and Genomics Research. View: Race is a social construct and a poor proxy for genetics; recommends using ancestry and context-specific variables, and reserving race for studying racism/inequity. URL: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26902/using-population-descriptors-in-genetics-and-genomics-research-a-new
3) Rosenberg, N. A., et al. (2002). Genetic Structure of Human Populations. Science. View: Detects statistical population structure that often aligns with geography, illustrating clustering without implying discrete biological races. URL: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1078311
4) Witherspoon, D. J., et al. (2007). Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations. PLoS Genetics. View: Most genetic variation is within populations; individuals can sometimes be classified by population, but overlap undercuts typological “race.” URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0030231
5) American Anthropological Association (AAA). Statement on “Race” (1998). View: Race is not a biologically grounded human classification but a social reality with historical and contemporary effects. URL: https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
6) U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (2024). Revisions to Statistical Policy Directive No. 15. View: Defines how U.S. agencies collect race/ethnicity data (administrative categories); adds Middle Eastern or North African and a combined question, underscoring that categories are policy tools. URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2024/03/28/revisions-to-omb-statistical-policy-directive-no-15-standards-for-maintaining-collecting-and-presenting-federal-data-on-race-and-ethnicity/
7) UNESCO (1969). Four Statements on the Race Question. View: International scientific consensus (mid-20th century) rejecting biological racism; emphasizes common humanity and overlapping variation. URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000128291
8) Inker, L. A., et al. (2021). New Creatinine- and Cystatin C–Based Equations to Estimate GFR without Race. New England Journal of Medicine. View: Clinical algorithm removed race adjustment; demonstrates movement away from race as a biological proxy in medicine. URL: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2102953
9) U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2021). Racism is a Serious Threat to the Public’s Health. View: Identifies racism as a fundamental driver of health inequities, not biological race. URL: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0408-racism-health.html
10) Royal, C. D. M., et al. (2010). Inferring Genetic Ancestry: Opportunities, Challenges, and Implications. New England Journal of Medicine. View: Distinguishes race from genetic ancestry; warns against conflating social categories with genetic differences. URL: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra0911564
11) Serre, D., & Pääbo, S. (2004). Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents. PLoS Biology. View: Shows clinal (gradient) patterns of human genetic diversity when sampling is geographically even, arguing against discrete races. URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020190
12) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2022). Race. View: Surveys philosophical positions (eliminativist, constructivist, biological realist) and supports the predominant social-constructionist view with attention to normative implications. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/
Race is a social construct, not a biological reality, used to categorize people into distinct groups based on a combination of physical characteristics, ancestry, cultural affiliation, and social status [1, 3]. While often mistaken as an innate and fixed biological concept, modern science has demonstrated that race has no genetic basis [2]. Instead, it is a powerful social idea that was historically created to establish and justify social hierarchies, and it continues to shape social structures, individual identities, and life experiences [4].
The understanding of race as a social construct means that its definition, the categories it includes, and its significance are created, maintained, and transformed by societies and their institutions [1]. This is evident in several ways:
For centuries, race was conceptualized as a biological reality, with each race possessing distinct, inherent traits. However, extensive research in genetics and biology has debunked this idea, known as biological essentialism.
The modern concept of race is a relatively recent invention, originating in the 15th and 16th centuries and solidifying during the Enlightenment in the 18th century [4]. It was developed by European thinkers and colonial powers to categorize the world’s peoples into a hierarchy.
This hierarchy placed white Europeans at the top, portraying them as intellectually, culturally, and morally superior. This framework served a crucial political and economic purpose: it was used to rationalize and justify European colonialism, the expropriation of Indigenous lands, and the enslavement of African people [4, 5]. By defining non-European peoples as inferior “races,” these violent and exploitative systems could be presented as part of a natural order. As historian Ibram X. Kendi argues, racist policies and practices created the idea of race to justify themselves, not the other way around [5].
Despite its lack of biological validity, race has profound and real-world consequences.
In conclusion, race is a fluid, man-made idea, not a fixed biological fact. It was created to distribute power and resources unequally and continues to function as a central organizing principle of society. Acknowledging race as a social construct is essential for understanding how these inequalities are created and maintained, and for working toward a more just and equitable world [3].
[https://www.asanet.org/about/governance-and-leadership/council/asa-statements/statement-race](https://www.asanet.org/about/governance-and-leadership/council/asa-statements/statement-race)[https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Social-Construct-of-Race](https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Social-Construct-of-Race)[https://bioanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-on-race-racism-2019/](https://bioanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-on-race-racism-2019/)[https://www.amazon.com/Race-North-America-Evolution-Worldview/dp/0813345543](https://www.amazon.com/Race-North-America-Evolution-Worldview/dp/0813345543)[https://www.ibramxkendi.com/how-to-be-an-antiracist](https://www.ibramxkendi.com/how-to-be-an-antiracist)Race is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been defined and redefined across disciplines, including biology, anthropology, sociology, and history. At its core, race refers to a system of categorizing human beings into groups based primarily on visible physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, facial features, and ancestry. However, contemporary scholarly consensus emphasizes that race is not a fixed biological reality but rather a social construct—a product of human invention shaped by historical, cultural, political, and economic forces [1][2]. This understanding contrasts with earlier pseudoscientific views that portrayed races as distinct biological subspecies, which have been largely debunked by modern genetics [3]. Below, I provide a comprehensive explanation, drawing on key perspectives and evidence.
From a biological standpoint, the concept of race lacks scientific validity. Human genetic variation is continuous and does not cluster neatly into discrete racial groups. Studies of the human genome reveal that there is more genetic diversity within so-called racial groups than between them. For instance, geneticist Richard Lewontin famously demonstrated in the 1970s that approximately 85% of human genetic variation occurs within populations traditionally labeled as races, while only about 6-10% occurs between them [3]. This means that two individuals from the same racial category (e.g., both classified as “Black”) could be more genetically dissimilar than two people from different categories (e.g., one “Black” and one “White”).
Modern genomics, including projects like the Human Genome Project, further supports this by showing that humans share 99.9% of their DNA, with variations influenced more by geography and environment than by rigid racial boundaries [2]. Traits commonly associated with race, such as skin color, are polygenic (controlled by multiple genes) and have evolved independently in different populations due to adaptations like protection from UV radiation [4]. Consequently, organizations like the American Association of Biological Anthropologists assert that race is “not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation” [1].
Sociologically, race is understood as a social invention created to justify hierarchies, power dynamics, and inequalities. It emerged prominently in the 16th-18th centuries during European colonialism, the transatlantic slave trade, and the expansion of empires. Europeans categorized people into racial groups to rationalize exploitation, such as deeming Africans as inferior to justify slavery or indigenous peoples as “savages” to legitimize land seizure [5]. This process involved not just physical traits but also invented cultural and moral attributes, often intertwined with concepts like ethnicity, nationality, and class.
In contemporary society, race functions as a lived reality that influences identity, opportunities, and experiences. For example, in the United States, racial categories on censuses (e.g., White, Black, Asian) are not biologically determined but are self-reported and evolve over time based on social norms—Irish and Italian immigrants were once not considered “White” but later were assimilated into that category [5]. Critical race theory, a framework in sociology and law, examines how race intersects with institutions like education, criminal justice, and healthcare, perpetuating disparities such as higher rates of incarceration among Black Americans or health inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic [6].
Globally, racial constructs vary: In Brazil, race is more fluid and based on a spectrum of skin tones (e.g., “pardo” or mixed), while in South Africa, apartheid-era categories like “Coloured” persist with social implications [4]. This variability underscores that race is not universal but context-dependent.
The invention of race has had profound consequences, including eugenics movements in the early 20th century, which led to forced sterilizations and Nazi ideologies [3]. Post-World War II, international bodies like UNESCO issued statements rejecting race as a biological basis for superiority, emphasizing instead that all humans belong to a single species, Homo sapiens [4]. Today, discussions of race often address racism—the systemic prejudice and discrimination based on racial categories—which persists despite biological evidence against race’s validity.
Efforts to dismantle racial myths include education and policy reforms, such as affirmative action to address historical inequities. However, debates continue: Some argue for “colorblind” approaches, while others advocate recognizing race to combat ongoing injustices [6].
One challenge is the confusion between race and related concepts like ethnicity (cultural heritage) or ancestry (genetic lineage). For instance, ancestry DNA tests can trace geographic origins but do not validate racial categories [2]. Additionally, in medicine, while race is sometimes used as a proxy for genetic risks (e.g., higher sickle cell anemia prevalence in African-descended populations), this can reinforce stereotypes if not handled carefully [3].
In summary, race is best understood as a social construct with no inherent biological basis, yet it profoundly shapes human societies. Recognizing this helps address inequalities and promotes a more equitable world. For further reading, consult the sources below, which provide foundational evidence and perspectives.
[1] American Anthropological Association. (1998). AAA Statement on Race. This source expresses the view that race is a social and cultural construct without biological foundation, emphasizing its role in power dynamics. https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
[2] Yudell, M., Roberts, D., DeSalle, R., & Tishkoff, S. (2016). “Taking race out of human genetics.” Science. The authors argue that race is a flawed and imprecise concept in genetics, advocating for its replacement with ancestry and population descriptors in scientific research. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac4951
[3] Lewontin, R. C. (1972). “The Apportionment of Human Diversity.” Evolutionary Biology. Lewontin presents empirical genetic data showing that racial classifications do not reflect true biological divisions, viewing race as a social myth. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14
[4] UNESCO. (1950). The Race Question. This statement rejects biological notions of racial superiority, framing race as a social construct influenced by history and culture. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000128291
[5] Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2014). Racial Formation in the United States. The authors describe race as a sociohistorical process of “racial formation,” created and transformed through political and cultural struggles. https://www.routledge.com/Racial-Formation-in-the-United-States/Omi-Winant/p/book/9780415520317
[6] Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. This work views race as a tool for maintaining systemic inequality, advocating for its critical examination to address racism. https://nyupress.org/9781479802760/critical-race-theory-third-edition/