The Culture Of Religious Pluralism by Richard Wentz

Author:Richard Wentz [Wentz, Richard]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780813326443
Barnesnoble:
Publisher: Westview Press
Published: 1997-11-14T00:00:00+00:00

Race as Protest Against Modernity

According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, race is “any of the different varieties of mankind, distinguished by form of hair, color of skin and eyes, stature, bodily proportions, etc.” It is easy to see that this statement is no definition, if by “definition” we refer to a precise determination of the meaning of a word, a determination that does not lend itself to interpretation and argument. There are certainly varieties of humankind. People have different hair textures and colors. The shades of human skin vary. Hair texture and skin color seem to be the most reliable criteria for “racial” determination. When we move beyond these factors, however, the variables and the exceptions tend to render such determinations quite inadequate. Only when we associate eye color, stature, and (perhaps) bodily proportion with the more identifiable elements (hair texture and skin color) of “racial” determination can we refer with any reliability to eye color, stature, and bodily proportion as racial determinants. After all, brown eyes are found among Caucasians, Africans, and East and South Asians. Stature and bodily proportion appear to have little or no value in race determination, especially in the twentieth century when dietary factors can alter the human form among people in all parts of the globe. Watusis may be tall, but so are basketball players. There are short German Americans as well as short Japanese Americans and Italian Americans.

Even hair texture and skin color are not always effective racial determinants. It is interesting that Webster’s definition does not include nasal shape and the size and shape of the skull, unless, of course, those factors are subsumed under “bodily proportion”—in which case we might have preferred a term like “physiognomy.” There certainly are varieties of humankind in which skin color, hair texture, and facial contours play a role. Perhaps the dictionary should tell us that “race” is a term used to reckon the differences in skin color, hair texture, and facial contours that are evident among human beings. But would we not have to add more words to make the “working definition” effective? Might we not have to add to the phrase “that are evident among human beings” the qualifying phrase “when we regard them in collective fashion"? Once we decide that differentiating skin color, hair texture, and facial contours are necessary elements in our consideration of people as a group, then we may wish to use the word “race” to speak of them.

As the modern world developed its political, religious, and economic agenda, group identity became an important feature of public policy. “Races” had to be created so that certain “others” could be regarded as inferior and subject to the race that the leaders signified for themselves. It is important to acknowledge that the concept of “race” is, in effect, a human creation, a functional affair. The need to “classify,” to “reckon,” and to “signify” is a function of the modern demand to control data and satisfy utilitarian desires. If there is no classification, then there is no science, no technology, no business.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.