Aaron Hawkins responds to my earlier post on “race” and genetics (a post itself prompted by an exchange I had with Steve Sailer of the Human Biodiversity Institute), noting how “[…] there is no explicit mention of affirmative action” in my previous entries on race — the implication being that my failure to mention affirmative action by name weakens my position vis-a-vis racial identity politics, at least insofar as such things are made manifest in particular public policy initiatives. He then excerpts the following paragraph from my post as the “closest” I come to mentioning affirmative action programs specifically:

I agree with [Steve Sailer, founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute], and I've said as much in my comments, which is precisely why I take the position that "race" (as we conceive of it in the U.S.) is problematic, and that government-sponsored social programs that rely on faulty ideas of "race" are divisive and counterproductive; whereas forging a national identity (which is "real" in the sense that citizenship is a legal category -- not so slippery as "race") is a more socially beneficial identity goal -- provided we continue as a society to find workable ways to account for the most unfortunate of our citizens.

From this excerpt, Aaron observes:

I’m guessing ‘unfortunate’ in this context means ‘likely can’t get a cab, likely can get a beatdown or worse from the cops.’ Could be wrong about that too, though. And, I don’t know, ‘unfortunate’ makes it sound as if there were no decisions involved by anyone, and this is merely the regrettable state of the world. ‘Less fortunate’ and ‘disadvantaged’ sound even more euphemistic, though, not to mention carrying the implication that other folks are ‘more fortunate’ or ‘advantaged’, and we probably don’t want to go there.

[…] There’s also a comment from Steve Skubinna,* who write:

Most people in the US use the term race in a cultural sense, which is nonsensical. That's why people like Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and Thomas Sowell can be excoriated as "inauthentic." They express opinions different from those deemed appropriate for their "race" by self selected arbiters. Under the dead hand of PC doctrine, people are not permitted to be individuals, but are only valid when made undifferentiated bits of a large group identity. Anyone not accepting this is suffering from "false consciousness." Interesting how such enlightened, "liberal" thought discards any concept of individual worth in favor of group affiliation

No, I ain’t cut him off, there’s no period at the end of that.

And you people hear that? You’re not permitted to be individuals. No wonder the guy at the comics shop gave me a weird look yesterday. I wasn’t buying properly black books. Or maybe it’s the combination of non-black books that was the problem; wasn’t until I left that I realized I’d picked up TRANSMETROPOLITAN and The Whoopass Powerpuff Girls.

Several things. First, “unfortunate” is the term Mr. Sailer uses in his Reagan library speech, so I employed the same term in my response for consistency’s sake. Both Sailer and I use the term to indicate a general set of economic circumstances (the specifics of which could be determined later on). Second, unfortunate — far from making “it sound as if there were no decisions involved by anyone” and that the current state of American society “is merely the regrettable state of the world” — suggests just the opposite: that there have been innumerable decisions made over the years involving lots of people of every “race” and political stripe, and that these disparate actors and actions, taken together, have produced the state of today’s world. Characterizing our contemporary condition as “regrettable” is a matter of evaluative perspective, anyway (for instance, no one seriously doubts that as a society we’ve made enormous progress over the last century in addressing the problems of our underclass; which suggests that any expression of “regret” is offered relative to an as yet unrealized ideal) — though no one is suggesting that the argument can’t be forcefully made, or that it might not be true.

I didn’t mention affirmative action by name in the post Aaron cites, but I’ve mentioned on a number of occasions that I’m against the various “race”-based affirmative action programs our government either supports and/or upholds — though I’d be quick to point out that I’m not against the idea of affirmative action itself, under the right conditions and using more defensible criteria than “racial” designations based on faulty science.

Aaron cites two (pointedly ironic, I think) examples of what we’re supposed to think of as evidence that latent racism still permeates society — the Danny Glover-esque difficulty Blacks have in hailing cabs, and the likelihood of Blacks being mistreated by police. The ethnic makeup of cab drivers (how drivers refusing service to would-be Black fares break down by “race,” for instance) is not taken into account in this example; nor are the race of police officers, or the statistical likelihood of violence against any police officers (irrespective of race) operating in high-crime neighborhoods, considered as mitigating factors. But even were these two examples allowed as absolute proof of blatant, ongoing “racism,” Aaron seems to be missing my point — which is that the continued project of “racialism” may indeed be partly (even mostly) to blame for this racial divide (how do cab drivers or police officers, for instance, come to fear “Black” crime if not for the social programs which allow for the sorting of crimes by “race”? — a practice which continues to suggest an overdetermined causal connection between “race” and crime).

Aaron is likewise disingenuous in his critique of Steve’s comments. Steve is not saying that Aaron or anyone else is “not permitted” to be an “individual” under normal circumstances, only that specific aspects of active individualism are often selectively seized upon by vocal race demagogues in an effort to level charges of “inauthenticity” against those seen as breaking “cultural” ranks. In order to be inauthentic, of course, you have to be acting against something authentic — and it is the conditions of this authenticity that I am questioning (and hoping to dispel).

Tellingly, Aaron hints (in his above comic book examples) that his own individuality is evident through his interest in things not traditionally associated with Black culture; therefore, his individualism is directly tied to his resisting the categories of constructed “cultural” authenticity he implicitly admits exist. The question is, why do such things exist? No one is likely to argue that Aaron is resisting his “culture” by reading Power Puffs; but let him run for office as a Black Republican who comes out against race-based affirmative action, and we’ll see how long his “individualism” is permitted to stand by many of those on the political left.)

My contention is simple: because “race” doesn’t exist in the essentialistic way we promote the idea (however unwittingly) in this country, our only reason for continuing the racialist project must rest with our belief as a society that the project has social benefits. For my part, I believe that the social ills far outweigh the social benefits, and so I’d like to see us move beyond the faulty category of “race” as a first step toward addressing the more egregious social inequities evident in American society.

Meanwhile, in his response to my concerns with his position, Steve Sailer writes (via email):

Unfortunately, terms like ‘biological populations’ and ‘clusters’ don’t mean anything to patients or even to most doctors. The term they are familiar with is ‘race.’ The more information about racial differences in disease susceptibility and optimal treatment that is hidden away from people via euphemisms, the more will die.

Those who are scared of using the R-word, however, might consider compromise phrases like ‘ancestral groups’ or just plain ‘peoples.’ ‘Genealogical groups’ would be good, except that it is a neologism.

To these points, my reply is brief: “race” itself was once a “neologism,” and there’s no reason to believe that both doctors and patients — who Sailer admits don’t understand “race” correctly to begin with (in his Reagan Library speech, he notes that “[t]he way most Americans currently think about race tends to fall in between rigor and absurdity. The consensus American view is full of contradictions, obsolete ideas, and fantasies”) — couldn’t come to understand more precise terms such as “genealogical group” or “hereditary cluster” or “biological population” (descriptions based on geography, hereditary DNA of extended families, and dispersal patterns) to describe genetic conditions relevant to a patient’s medical health. To suggest that people will die as a result of the medical community’s adopting more precise (and less ideologically loaded) terms than “race” to describe what it is they are using as a diagnostic tool seems to me a bit shortsighted.

Mr. Sailer likewise writes:

Regarding the political benefits of claiming that ‘race does not exist,’ I think you are setting yourself up for a fall. Perhaps you’ve noted that racial preference supporters are tremendous enthusiasts for the No Races fad. Why is that? Largely because they think it will help them preserve racial preferences, as they’ve articulated at length. Who’s right — you or them? They have quite a track record at defending preferences, despite broad public opposition, so I’m not betting against them.

Here, Sailer is conflating two disparate groups — those who think there’s no such thing as racial essentialism (but who seek to rescue “race” as a category by reinscribing it as a “social construct,” often under the rubric of “culture”); and those (like me), who believe that race as a social construct relies on the same faulty essentialism as does, say, the “one drop rule” — and so would argue away “racial” categorizations on both social constructionist and essentialist grounds.

Generally, those who support racial preferences haven’t abandoned the idea of “race,” as Mr. Sailer seems to think. Instead, they’ve embraced the idea of race as a social construction, while abandoning the idea of racial essentialism.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to spend the rest of the day monitoring my eBay bids (I’m trying to win the Criterion Collection™ edition DVD of Kurosawa’s Rashomon.)

*Steve Skubbina’s comment was offered in reference to this post.