Friday, 26 May 2017

Making Raciology: Myths and Methods

Making Raciology:  Myths and Methods

Raciology:  Why Nazi Germany Promoted Notions of “Race” and Why They Persist

"Raciology" is defined by Merriam Webster's dictionary as the "study of human races".

The Oxford Living Dictionaries denire “raciology” as “The characteristics of a race or races of humankind…”

The term “raciology” derives from the Italian root word “razza”, meaning “race”, and the Greek suffix “logy”, meaning the study of a science.

The earliest known use of the term raciology was in 1920s, in The Glasgow Herald.  

Later, on April 5, 1938, New Zealand’s The Evening Post announced, on page 13, the formation of a “Colonialization Institute”, Germany’s “Hope for the Future”, where white male students would be prepared in the “theory and practice” of “raciology”.

New Zealand’s “Evening Post” further reported in 1938, “The Third Reich’s concentrated propaganda has attracted general attention to the Deutsche Kolonial Schule. [German Colonization Institute], Germany’s only school for the training of future men colonialists…”

“An expert or student in the study of raciology” is referred to as a “raciologist”, a term whose earliest known use was in the 1930s, during the Nazi Germany.

Raciology, ss the suffix “ology” denotes, was intended to be an area of scientific study.  One of the topics comprising “raciology” is the  debate over whether “race” exists at all as a matter of biological science.  

The college sociology text, “Race in our Times:  The Essentials” says with regard to “race” that, based on the US Department of Energy’s Human Genome Project’s complete mapping of the human DNA genome, there is no basis in genetic science to believe that “race” exists at all.,+no+consistent+patterns+of+genes+across+the+human+genome+exist+to+distinguish+one+race+from+another.+There+also+is+no+genetic+basis+for+divisions+of+human+ethnicity.+People+who+have+lived+in+the+same+geographic+region+for+many+generations+may+have+some+alleles+in+common,+but+no+allele+will+be+found+in+all+members+of+one+population+and+in+no+members+of+any+other.&source=bl&ots=04421UAkkB&sig=SLQYHXXjZ_jfkFcve226XAMu5wU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvrs3cqeDTAhWJ2SYKHWmbDXsQ6AEIJjAD

The Sociology text “Our Hatred: How We Raise Our Bullies” highlights the same Human Genome Project scientific findings when addressing raciology.,+no+consistent+patterns+of+genes+across+the+human+genome+exist+to+distinguish+one+race+from+another.+There+also+is+no+genetic+basis+for+divisions+of+human+ethnicity.+People+who+have+lived+in+the+same+geographic+region+for+many+generations+may+have+some+alleles+in+common,+but+no+allele+will+be+found+in+all+members+of+one+population+and+in+no+members+of+any+other.&source=bl&ots=FnQQIajmHR&sig=iNkIKH5-zkvUD8FqIvTnSve6m0Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvrs3cqeDTAhWJ2SYKHWmbDXsQ6AEIIzAC

The text, “We the People, Servants of Deception: Reconsidering Social Reality”, quotes the US Department of Energy’s Genome Project in stating unequivocally that with respect to raciology, as a matter of biological science, “race does not exist.,+no+consistent+patterns+of+genes+across+the+human+genome+exist+to+distinguish+one+race+from+another.+There+also+is+no+genetic+basis+for+divisions+of+human+ethnicity.+People+who+have+lived+in+the+same+geographic+region+for+many+generations+may+have+some+alleles+in+common,+but+no+allele+will+be+found+in+all+members+of+one+population+and+in+no+members+of+any+other.&source=bl&ots=bYApJ5SFS4&sig=iUyXpJQkWXel8c-DrrE7TaJ498o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvrs3cqeDTAhWJ2SYKHWmbDXsQ6AEIIDAB

Still, raciology -- the study of “race” and and theories of “race” -- clearly does exist and has, with this name -- raciology -- since at least the 1920s and during Germany’s Third Reich.

Raciology is the branch of science that studies concepts of “race”, “racial” and “racism”, whether premised on the existence of studying “race”; or premised on the need or desirability of studying concepts of “racism”; or premised on both belief in biological “race” and sociological “racism”.  

Some texts and popular media distinguish between these two distinct concepts -- biological and “social construct “race” -- when discussing them, but most do not.

They seem either unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge any distinction between the two, using “race” and “racial” as synonymous with “skin color”.

Raciology since its beginnings has suffered from a defect of terminology that renders statements about and studies of “race” inherently ambiguous:  The term “race” is used referring to the belief that their are inherent and dramatic biological and other fundamental differences between humans that can be inferred based on skin color and other superficial characteristics visible to the human eye.  This is called “biological race”.

The term “race” is also variously used to refer to the study of beliefs in and the consequences and ramifications of beliefs in biological “race”, but while not necessarily endorsing belief biological “race” itself.

The term “race” is also claimed by those -- of various and oppositional political ideologies -- who believe that biological race exists and has sociopolitical ramifications in society for the past, present and future.

Raciology’s first and perhaps insurmountable challenge is to disambiguate the scientifically disproved and scientifically discredited biological “race” from the sociologically documented “social construct of ‘race’ “, all while using the same, identical word to refer to at least three distinct, opposing and variously mutually exclusive concepts and underlying ideologies.

All schools of raciologist thought -- the racists and the “anti-racists” -- insist that the continued use of the term “race” is essential and indispensable to socio-political progress with respect to “race”.

In “The Social Construct of Race”, raciologist Ian F. Haney López says, “Despite the pervasive influence of race in our lives and in US law, a review of articles by judges and legal academics reveals a startling fact:  few seem to know what “race” is and is not.”

Despite that declaration that “race”, whatever it be, is inherently confused and confusing, Haney López goes on to define “race” in his own way and use the term throughout his discussion:

He says, “In this essay, I define “race” as a vast group of people loosely bound together by historically contingent, socially significant elements of their morphology and/or ancestry...Race is neither an essence nor an illusion but rather an ongoing, contradictory, self-reinforcing, plastic process subject to macro-forces of social and political struggle and micro-effects of daily decisions.  As used here, the referents of terms like Black and White are social groups, not genetically distinct branches of humankind.  (Emphasis added.)

Layman raciologists at the white supremacist website Stormfront, in a discussion of “What Defines Race?”, by contrast, say biological “race” does exist and can be identified by “nose” and “lips”, “skull shape, “ancestral origins”, “nostrils”, “6 shaped noses”, “Jews hunched over” and “I know it when I see it.”

The tome “Racing Research, Researching Race:  Methodological Dilemmas in Critical Race Studies”, authored by dozens of prominent Critical Race Studies scholars, says, “There are those who argue that just to acknowledge “race” is to perpetuate the biological myth of “race.  But this is to confuse the biological with the social.”

The dichotomy between biological “race” and sociological “race” is, perhaps, an inherent and potentially insuperable stumbling block in the study of raciology.  The same term, “race”, is used to refer to both biological race (which DNA scientists say does not exist) and the sociological study and practice of color and origin-based differentiation and discrimination, which do exist.  

The use of the same term, “race”, to signify something that scientifically does not exist and something entirely different but related that sociologically does exist creates perpetual terminological ambiguity and dialectical confusion.  

When the word “race” is used, the great care and knowledge of the work of raciologists is required to determine whether the user of the word refers to biological “race” or its near opposite, “sociological race”, or both simultaneously.  

Although this ambiguity is, at times, resolved by using other terminology to denote “race” in its sociological sense, many scholars of sociological raciology steadfastly refuse to utilize disambiguating terminological alternatives to the words “race”, “racism” and “racist” such as
‘group of people loosely bound together by skin color, and/or morphology and/or skin-color-associated ideology and/or ancestry’, which is Haney López definition of “race”, paraphrased for concision.

Raciology has been field of study for very nearly a century, biological race was disproved over a decade ago, yet a growing debate builds as to whether the “racial” ideation, emotion and behavior that comprise “racism”, when extreme enough to be debilitating, can constitute an illness.

Atty. Francis Lloyd Holland, a USA-born African American lawyer and political activist who has observed color-associated phenomena in twenty-two countries, has studied raciology in e.g. the United States, France, Brazil, Haiti, and now the Dominican Republic.  

“Controversial African American blogger”

Atty. Francis Lloyd Holland argues that “...although the sociological “race” concept can stay, still the word “race” itself must be conclusively abandoned.”
Is “Racism” a Mental Ilness?

Atty. Holland, who conceived the term “Afrosphere” and was a founding member of the 1990’s international Afrospear group of Black bloggers, proposes that “color arousal” (otherwise known “racism”) is actually a potentially debilitating psychiatric illness as well as a sociopolitical scourge.

Atty. Holland proposes that an entirely new terminology is needed to disambiguate the belief in biological “race” from the study of sociological ”race” before e.g. medical screening, diagnosis and treatment for what he calls Extreme Color Aroused Disorder (ECAD) can commence.

The concept has growing support in the medical community, anecdotal examples and scholarly studies demonstrating that people of all skin colors can develop extreme color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior.

Employees’ and corporate systemic color aroused ideation, emotion and behavior cost US corporations hundreds of millions of dollars each year in civil discrimination judgments, litigation, lost clients and lost productivity.

Harvard Medical School Professor of Psychiatry Alvin F. Poussaint, M.D. and Chicago Bell have come to the same conclusion.  They urge the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to include this illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V) of the APA.!po=3.33333

In a 2002 article published in the Western Journal of Medicine, entitled “Is Extreme Racism a Mental Illness?”,  Poussaint argues that:  “The psychiatric profession's primary index for diagnosing psychiatric symptoms, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), does not include racism, prejudice, or bigotry in its text or index.1 Therefore, there is currently no support for including extreme racism under any diagnostic category. This leads psychiatrists to think that it cannot and should not be treated in their patients.”!po=3.33333

Supporting Dr. Poussaint’s case is the reality that until and unless “racism” is considered to be a mental illness, medical insurers will not pay for screening, diagnosis or treatment for a condition that many believe is pervasive.

For example, a 2015 New York Times article reports, “In a 2013 Psychology Today article, Williams wrote that “much research has been conducted on the social, economic and political effects of racism, but little research recognizes the psychological effects of racism on people of color.” Williams now studies the link between racism and post-traumatic stress disorder, which is known as race-based traumatic stress injury, or the emotional distress a person may feel after encountering racial harassment or hostility.”

Atty. Holland proposes that human beings can be conditioned by their culture to have ideation, emotion and behavior that are aroused by the knowledge and perception of their and others’ skin color.  Atty. Holland has proposed that this phenomenon be conceived of and studied as sociological, political and psychiatric “color arousal”.    

The scientific study of human response to color (and in many contexts unrelated to skin color) offer a wide variety of scientific terms, such as “color”, that are relevant to raciology.  For example, one color arousal text explains that: “Color is light and light is energy. Scientists have found that actual physiological changes take place in human beings when they are exposed to certain colors. Colors can stimulate, excite, depress, tranquilize, increase appetite and create a feeling of warmth or coolness. This is known as chromodynamics.”

It is undeniable that raciology cannot exist without color and human  chromodynamic emotion, ideation and behavior.  Theories of “race: and :”racism” are theories of human chromodynamics.

In spite of alternatives to the words “race” and “racism” within raciology, persistent ambiguity and confusion between divergent and mutually exclusive meanings of the term “race” challenge professional raciologists to distinguish in their use of the word “race” between biological “race and “social construct” race and both combined.  

One word with multiple opposite meanings cannot practicably be disambiguated in the same field of endeavor, even with immense effort.

The advent of computer science and advances in physics have made it possible for the general public to refer to colors (including skin colors) with scientific precision, based in “quantum chromodynamics” -- the study by physicists of the color spectrum.

Many raciologists, nonetheless reject the word “color”, instead remaining committed to the term “race” as a virtual synonym for color, while scientists studying the perception of skin color in humans refer to “color” simply as “color”.

This rather obvious but intensely controversial solution resolves the ambiguity between disproved biological “race” and the psychiatric, cultural and socio-political ramifications of differences in skin color and associated color arousal.

Raciology as a scientific and sociological field has expanded beyond concepts of uniquely (and discredited) biological race to include skin color-associated discoveries in behavioral, medical and genetic science, involving the biological processes of perception of color and color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior aroused by perception of skin color.  

Political organizations practicing political color-associated politics and cited by national newspapers are increasingly disambiguating biological “race” by using the term “color” in the names of their organizations, for example “The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), “Color of Change”

Meanwhile, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which studies race and raciology in the USA, identifies two new political groups explicitly focused on skin color:  “White Lives Matter, a racist response to the civil rights movement Black Lives Matter, is a neo-Nazi group that is growing into a movement as more and more white supremacist groups take up its slogans and tactics.”

Raciology includes but is not limited to "the study of human races" and the study of concepts of race and racism and their effects in and upon individuals, groups and society.

Raciology is, further, the study of "racism" and the study of any ideation, emotion or behavior that is aroused by or elicited by race or racism.  

Raciology is, still further, the scientific study of the societal ramifications, results and consequences that can be scientifically associated with race and racism.

Raciology includes the precise and data-driven meta analysis of the ramifications of the use, usage and linguistic salience of the terms "race" and "racism" in media, academia and government as well as for-profit and nonprofit corporations, popular culture and transnational dialectics.

Raciology further includes the study of societal, transcultural and transnational vocabulary and concepts used to describe, study and "unpack" race and racism, whether in scholarly, erudite, popular or slang usage.

Within raciology is the scientific study of the discipline of Critical Race Studies as an academic area, yet raciology is the macro research and analysis of all schools of all human thought, cognition, emotion and behavior associated with race and racism.

A dictionary of raciology would include all of the terms, scholarly, academic, colloquial and slang used to define, describe, conceptualize and analyze race and racism

Encyclopedias of applied linguistics that address raciology include The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.  

Such encyclopedias address all human thought and conceptions regarding race and racism, including the origins of the concept of race, the etymology of the word "race", and all intellectual currents, concepts and schools of thought about race and racism in the context of societies past and present.

No comments: