The Dialectics of Racism - Why the Idea that Race is a Social Construct is Almost Certainly Wrong

The current view of ethnicity and race is no more than an overreaction to the views commonly held up to the 1940s

Until the end of the Second World War, most people in the West held the view that the different human races were almost like different breeds of an animal, with the white Caucasians seen as the pedigrees, the highest and finest example of humanity. It was seen as natural and right that the best type of white Europeans should rule other, and lesser, races. This kind of bellicose and aggressive racism, fuelled by a chauvinist enthusiasm for white, Christian and European heritage, culminated in the Holocaust, when millions of people were murdered because they belonged to supposedly ‘inferior’ races. The awful events of the Holocaust brought into focus, and caused many people to think about, other forms of systematic racial prejudice being practiced throughout the world, which included of course the segregation of black people in the United States, where it was enforced with lynching and other violent actions. From the 1940s onward, acceptance of another and opposing doctrine grew slowly in the years following the end of the Second World War, due in large part to the effect of the Holocaust. This new doctrine was the antithesis of any kind of scientific racism, and held that there were in fact no differences at all between different human races, in character, disposition or intelligence.

The German philosopher Hegel wrote that, ‘History is mind clothing itself with the form of events’ (Hegel, 1896). By this, he meant that ideologies, religions, political theories and so on play themselves out on the world stage by the actions of those who support them. We might note at this point that Karl Marx thought that the case was precisely opposite and that in fact it was the actions of men and women which produced the ideas; not the other way round (Marx, 1970). Both men though subscribed in different ways to a dialectical view of history, which might help those of us who are now struggling to make sense of what seems to be an ideology running counter to all the available evidence, but which never-the-less has a powerful grip upon anybody with any pretensions to being thought of as progressive and humane.

The idea of dialectics is a simple one, similar in some ways to the syllogism in logic. This entails putting together two ideas and seeing a third one emerge, by implication, from the first two; one which includes features of both the original statements. For instance, in its simplest form a syllogism might run like this,

All men die

Smith is a man

Therefore, Smith will die

When one political system, religion or philosophy becomes strongly entrenched in a society, a movement often emerges which is in direct opposition to the existing ideology on almost every point. Dictatorships bring forth demand for free elections, religious intolerance creates demands for freedom of conscience and so on. When these opposites clash, there often develops a new system which incorporates the best parts of both the old way of seeing the world and the radical notions which sought to overthrow this world-view (Macrone, 1994). The process is seldom smooth and often lengthy. It is rare for an absolutist monarchy, say, to be transformed overnight into a liberal democracy. Invariably, there are intermediate stages, some of which are likely to be at least as bad as the original system which has been cast down and overthrown. In technical terms, the original ideas, methods or system are known as the ‘thesis’, the opposing set of beliefs as the ‘antithesis’ and the resulting new arrangement which eventually emerges and incorporates, it is to be hoped, the best parts of both, the ‘synthesis’. This idea may be new to some readers and a real-life instance of how it works might be helpful.

Between 1625 and 1649 England was ruled by the increasingly autocratic King Charles I. A firm believer in the Divine right of kings, he had no use for anything which smacked of democracy. On the scaffold, moments before he was executed by having his head chopped off, the king explained with great succinctness his own view of government;

I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having

of Government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most

their own. It is not for having a share in Government, Sir, that is nothing

pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things.

(Carlton, 1983)

It is not to be wondered at that the movement which overthrew the king and sent him to his death, should have been opposed on principle to all kings and subsequently declared the country to be a republic. Here we see perfectly two ideas clashing, one against the other, with the rebellion and armed resistance eventually developing into what is today known as the English Civil War. It might have been thought that simply replacing the autocratic monarchy with a more moderate system, a constitutional monarchy perhaps, might have been better than killing the king and instituting a harsh republic, but that is not how things generally work. First, there would be a battle between those who represented the opposing theories and when one was triumphant, it would rule the roost; at least for a spell. However, within a few years, the antithesis gave way to a synthesis of the two sides which had championed very different ideas. The republic would pass away and a King would once again rule the land, although stripped of much of his power and authority. The best parts of the Royalist and Parliamentarian ideologies had been retained and most of the extreme parts of both abandoned. The new regime of Charles II could be thought to be a happy compromise between the worst excesses of his father, Charles I, and the more fanatical parties of the republican cause.

The case of England after its civil war in the seventeenth century has been examined for the light which it sheds on all such dialectical processes in history. It is very germane to our examination of racism, for we are currently at that point following the victory of an ideology which has seemingly vanquished the old ways of thinking, at which the flaws and shortcomings of the new theory are becoming increasingly apparent. Professor David Reich, of the Department of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, describes the ‘implausible orthodoxy’ (Reich, 2018) to which some adherents of the new dogma are clinging. This is the dogma which holds that race is essentially an optical illusion and that all humans are equally endowed with such qualities as cognitive ability. By which it may perhaps be inferred that the modern idea that race is a social construct has passed its zenith and is beginning its slow, but inexorable decline.

Historically, we would expect that disillusion would by now be setting in about what at first appeared to be a peerless and wonderful set of beliefs and some people, while admitting that the old way of thinking had many bad consequences, will be feeling that perhaps we have been too hasty in ditching every aspect of the previous theories about race. Such a reaction would be quite natural. Returning to the aftermath of the English Civil War, we observe that once the exultation at the fall of the king and the adoption of a new system which precluded any need for a hereditary monarch had abated a little, the disadvantages of the new social order began to reveal themselves. Those who thought ridding themselves of a monarch would usher in a golden age soon found that they were greatly mistaken. The new ruling doctrine made their lives irksome in different ways. After a few years, the good points of the old regime began recommending themselves. Not that anybody wanted a return to the absolutist rule of the executed king, but they certainly wished to be able to celebrate Christmas again in traditional style. It was such sentiments which led to the Restoration, which was felt to be an improvement on both Cromwell’s rule and that of Charles I. In short, the synthesis had been arrived at.

It may seem that this has been a circuitous way of approaching matters, but it was necessary to demonstrate that it is not always helpful to describe things in terms of right and wrong, virtuous or wicked, foolish or wise. Most systems have sensible aspects, mingled with misguided aims; just as they contain good and bad parts, along with a mixture of all kinds of other things. Rejecting any religion, political system or way of life almost invariably entails throwing out a lot which is worthwhile in the process. It was only after the people of England had been persuaded to see their king killed and the whole idea of any sort of monarch abandoned that they realised that actually, some aspects of a monarchy are quite pleasant and useful.

We are now at, or perhaps a little past, the peak of the triumphalist claim that the new equalitarian dogma has trounced racism and led to more enlightened societies in Britain, America and other nations of the Western world. This attitude might be summed up as, ‘Racism was wicked and wrong, the new way of thinking about race is wise and good. We know better than all those people in the old days’. However, all is not well with the foundations of the doctrine which has replaced the old notions of racism. The next few years are likely to see cracks appearing in the equalitarian doctrine to which so many of us now pay lip service. It might be as well to prepare for that day and ask ourselves what we are to do if, or perhaps when, it becomes glaringly and unavoidably obvious that there are very real and fundamental differences between the behaviour and cognitive abilities of ethnic groups. This day cannot be long delayed, for even the most respected academics are beginning to hint that the scientific consensus is changing.

In 2015 the British science magazine Nature described David Reich of the Harvard Medical School as one of the ‘10 people who matter’ in all fields of science (Nature, 2015). His special area of expertise is ancient DNA. One particular piece of work in which Reich was involved was the discovery that ethnic origins are without doubt a factor in the prevalence of prostate cancer among African Americans. Reich’s book Who We Are and How We Got Here, which was published in 2018, contains some startling admissions hidden away in the accounts of Neanderthal DNA and the different genomes associated with various ethnic groups. In the chapter entitled The Genomics of Race and Identity, Reich has this to say;

I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries about

differences among populations may be misused to justify racism. But it is

precisely because of this sympathy that I am worried that people who deny the

possibility of substantial biological differences among populations across a

range of traits are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one which

will not survive the onslaught of science.

(Reich, 2018)

Reich goes on to discuss, among other things, work which shows a very strong link between certain genes and the likelihood of a person studying at university. The implication is very plain. Just as some sequences of genes can indicate clearly a predisposition towards cancer of the prostate, so too can others show a propensity for academic achievement. This is a stunning challenge to the orthodox position of those who insist that race and ethnicity are merely skin-deep.

Although he did not spell out the case explicitly, it was plain to see what Reich was hinting at. He mentions within a few pages both the genetic propensity of African Americans towards cancer of the prostate and also the work on predicting academic achievement by examining genes. It is no great leap to wonder if those stretches of genetic coding which enable us to make accurate predictions about who goes to university might be more common in some ethnic groups than others. This is such a shocking speculation, that it is little wonder that Reich draws up short from connecting the dots on that particular line of thinking.

It is extremely unlikely that a man like David Reich is advocating discrimination against any group based upon ethnicity or race. He is, after all, a Jew, and who should know better than the Jews the possible end-game when once we begin discriminating against members of certain ethnicities? It is obvious though that neither is he wholeheartedly in favour of the modern dogma about race. Rather, he is seeking a synthesis between these two extreme ways of thinking. He is opposed to racial prejudice, but is also aware that there are real and inherited differences between different groups. This is a bind in which many people, scientists and the laity both, are increasingly finding themselves. Like Reich, they are hoping to find a middle ground which may safely be claimed. This is likely to prove no easy task.

We looked earlier at the idea of the dialectic, that is to say combining the best features of two opposing theories so that they are incorporated into a new way of seeing the world. The English Civil War was used to illustrate the point. Another helpful analogy might be the modern problem of reconciling the theory of General relativity with that of quantum theory and so producing a quantum theory of gravity. Einstein’s ideas on gravity work very well on the scale of stars and galaxies, but when we come down to activity at the level of sub-atomic particles, then it is quantum theory which explains their behaviour, rather than relativity. It is not that either General Relativity or quantum theory are wrong; more that a synthesis of the two is required (Hawking & Mlodinow, 2010).

Quantum theory might be helpful when we consider new ways to think about ethnicity and race, because the element of uncertainty and unpredictability is present to no small degree in both topics. Up to now, ideas on race have tended to be absolute and although this may be reassuring and allow us to adopt a simple framework, it probably does not correspond to the real world. There are no discrete and entirely separate and distinct races, which might enable us to say definite things about either black people from Africa or white Europeans. From such a perspective, we might be able to take it for granted that every black person is on a different and lower level than every white person. This is a wrongheaded view of reality, but one which is easy to grasp. The modern view may be every bit as false and misleading, by which we mean a view of race where all ethnicities are placed in the same category and there are no essential differences between a black African and a person from Europe or East Asia. This too provides a sense of certainty, for we are as likely to meet an extremely intelligent person from any of those ethnic groups as any other. All are equal and we do not need to bother our heads about race any more. This too, is almost without doubt an incorrect way of looking at the matter.

How can quantum theory aid in understanding the reality of racial differences? Both rely upon statistics to interpret the world and in both cases, the results are messy and do not at first sight appear to be at all satisfying. If we take a radioactive element like uranium, we know that individual atoms will decay and turn into lead. For a given quantity of uranium-238, half the atoms will decay over the course of 4.5 billion years. For radium-226, the figure is 1600 years (Vergara, 1980). This is known as the half-life of the element. It is, for reasons into which we need not go, impossible to predict the time at which any individual atom will decay in this way. All we can say with confidence is that if we look at 100 atoms of radium-226, then within 1600 years, 50 of them will have turned into radon gas. We can’t guess which ones. That’s just how the quantum world is.

How on earth, some readers might perhaps be asking themselves, can this process have anything at all to do with ethnicity and race? The connection is statistics, which means that we are unjustified in making any statements or drawing any conclusions about anybody of any ethnicity until we have actually conducted examinations and tests. We can only think in terms of percentages and proportions. The old-style racists who thought that all black people were inferior in intelligence to all white people were of course foolish and incorrect. There are black people whose IQ is greater than almost every person one is ever likely to meet; men and women with great minds who tower above the average intellect. There are also Chinese people who are more dull-witted than almost any black African one will meet. These two facts alone dispose of the scientific racism which enjoyed a vogue in the nineteenth century and even lingered on well into the twentieth.

What then of the equalitarian doctrine, which holds that there are no inherent differences between one ethnicity and another, especially in relation to intellectual ability? The old perspective, that held by supposedly scientific racists in the nineteenth century and for a more than half of the twentieth century as well, was that black people and white people were entirely different and there was little or no overlap between these two discrete categories. People of East Asian origin were similarly placed in their own, separate classification. This idea about intelligence as it relates to races is show below. Black people and white are in entirely separate categories.

This was, after all, the essence of racism. Different races were, well, different! We know now without the shadow of a doubt that there are no pure races and, with one or two exceptions, no such thing as ethnic groups which are entirely separate in their lineage from any other human population. This indisputable fact has led to the present take on race, which is that instead of various circles each containing one ‘race’, with its own characteristics and level of intelligence, we should instead imagine one circle and placed within it the names of all human ethnicities and populations. This, in keeping with prevailing dogma is how we should best view humanity, with all racial groups equally capable and of equal potential.

The equalitarian perspective seems to many overly optimistic. Perhaps we can think of a third way of seeing how things really are. Imagine, if you will, three circles, each representing one of the traditional and separate races; one for white Europeans, one for black Africans and a third for people of East Asian heritage. Now try and visualise placing those circles almost on top of each other, but overlapping slightly. An attempt to represent this visually may be seen below.

In this new version of the world, ethnic groups would mostly be similar and fall into the average range in all respects, but there would be outliers in which those of exceptional ability intellectually or in some aspect of character, would exceed the average and ‘stick out’, as it were. This is an interesting idea, because such a way of thinking about humanity would enable us to make predictions about how these differences might manifest themselves in the real world. This new way of looking at things might be a scientific hypothesis, which would be testable and the results of which could be compared to the real world. Considering a specific instance will make this easier to understand.

Let us take the case of intelligence and imagine that we have a circle for those of European ancestry, people who look white. Most are of average intelligence, but some will be decidedly slow. We can indicate this by shading a small section on the far left of the circle. A few people will also be of superior intelligence and we can, in the same way, show this by shading a little of the right-hand side of the circle. This is a little bit like the bell curve which measuring the intelligence of any group of people will produce. Now suppose that we do the same thing for two other circles, one for people of African heritage and another for those whose ancestry lies in East Asia. Imagine too, that these circles are transparent, a little like the slides used in a projector, and can be laid on top of each other without one obscuring the other. Now finally let us place the circle for those of East Asian background very slightly to the right of that we have made for white Europeans and that the circle for people whose families had their origin in Africa would be a little to the left of both the others. What would we see and what would be the implications?

We can see that most people of all ethnicities are found in the central portions of the circles, where those of average intelligence are to be found. At the extremes of high intelligence, found at the right-hand edge, it will be seen that there are likely to be more people of East Asian ancestry than there are those whose heritage is European. The people of African origin lag behind a little, which is to say that there are those whose IQ is tremendously high, but they are less common than among those of the other ethnicities. The position is reversed for those of very low intelligence. It will immediately be seen that this arrangement reproduces the situation which we actually see in the world, rather than being a free creation of the mind, undertaken with the intention of proving this point or that. If we look at the ethnicity of those offered places at the University of Oxford, Britain’s most prestigious educational establishment, one sees at once that every year hundreds of undergraduates of East Asian origin are admitted together with a very small number whose families originally came from Africa.

There appears to be a similar correspondence in the least prestigious British universities, that is to say those which habitually rank very low down in the league tables compiled by various newspapers and magazines. Those with very high numbers of black students, such as the University of East London, scrape along at a place or two from the very bottom of such tables, while the fewer black students, the higher up the charts are the establishments (Thomas, 2021).

Looking at the statistics for children with learning difficulties will show a similar discrepancy, although this time the positions are reversed, with East Asians under-represented and black students greatly over-represented. This is of course something which may be tested in the real world. It is more than simply a philosophical exercise in dialectics; we are able to use this new concept, or way of looking at the world, to make predictions about what we are likely to see. It might be proved or disproved by examining evidence.

Readers must bear in mind of course that this is a highly simplified version of what we actually see in the world. Most black Americans, to give one example, have inherited between 15 and 20% of their genes from white Europeans. There are of course more than three main ethnicities in the world as well, but this schematic diagram is intended merely to convey a principle, rather than to be regarded as providing a wholly accurate representation of the state of affairs which we find in the world.

What evidence might cause us to adopt or discard the synthesis suggested above? Two disciplines aid us in understanding what might really be going on; archaeology and genetics. The reason for this is that until fairly recently ideas about human origins tended to support the equalitarians. Things have now changed and we know enough to sketch out a possible scheme which might explain some of the things at which we have looked in this book. In a future essay, I shall outline a scenario which is at the very least plausible. It might even provide a blueprint for resolving the current antagonism between anti-racists and the scientists whose findings undermine the popular modern notion of race as a social construct.

Carlton, Charles (1983) Charles I: The Personal Monarch, London: Routledge

Hawking, Stephen: Mlodinow, Leonard (2010) The Grand Design, London: Bantam Press.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedric (1896) Philosophy of Right, London: G. Bell.

Macrone, Michael (1994) A Little Knowledge, New York: Cader Books.

Marx, Karl (1970) The German Ideology, London: Lawrence & Wishart.

Reich, David (2018) Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past: Who We are and How We Got Here, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thomas, Zoe (2021) The Times Good University Guide 2022: Where to go and what to study, London: Times Books.

Vergara, William C. (1980) Science in Everyday Life, New York: Harper & Row.

---