Outline at least three different understandings of ‘race’ as discussed during the course and
explain how these different understandings have shaped the world we live in today
Although it is now widely accepted that Biologically distinct ‘races’ do not exist, Gardner
(2009) highlights the impossibility of providing a distinct definition to ‘race’.
Understandingsmj of ‘race’ and the meanings ascribed to the concept have changed
throughout different historical contexts, and in order to grasp the ways in which these, often
conflicting, ideas, such as those of the enlightenment and of 19th century science, have shaped
the world we live in today, it is essential to understand from where they originated.
Early distinctions between different ‘races’ were not made in the sense of ‘black’ and ‘white’
but of ‘Christians’ and ‘Heathens’. Despite these definitions not being based on physical
differences, “From time immemorial, peoples have considered themselves as ‘the people’ and
all the rest as ‘others’…” (Pieterse 2001, p.17). The European expansion of the 15th century
brought up vague ideas of ‘race’ with the indigenous viewed as somehow unequal, but as
Banton (2008) notes, the main notions of ‘race’ appearing as early as the fifteenth and
sixteenth century were largely only referring to lines of decent; it would be Religious
symbolism that formed the basis for the main distinctions seen in the sixteenth century, with
‘white’ having connotations of purity and goodness, and ‘black’, the opposite (Gardner 2009).
These ideas preceded the later, pseudo-scientific meanings attributed to ‘race’.
The ‘Enlightenment’ period (1720-1820) can be seen as a pivotal moment in defining ‘race’;
the ideas of human classification according to distinct physical characteristics emerged, with
the attribution of social, intellectual and cultural characteristics to people of different ‘races’.
This was due to enlightenment thinkers being essentially concerned with a ‘wide-ranging
project of categorisation’ (Gardner 2009 p.14) and the rising popularity of scientifically
1
, measurable disciplines. Scientists of the Enlightenment era attempted to classify humans in
relation to geographical situation, with many basing their distinctions on the more visible,
physical differences such as skin colour, stature, and hair type. One such scientist, Linnaeus,
spearheaded researching this essentialist notion and in his Systema Narturae (1767) he named
five varieties of human species, each defined according to the possession of phenotypical
characteristics varying by place and by culture. Critiques of Linnaeus argue that the basis of
his doctrine is ethnocentric due to the focus on skin colour as a variation of humans and
fundamentally erroneous due to also having used cultural, anthropological differences as
markers of human variation (Ereshefsky 2001). Linnaeus’ model of classification was widely
accepted by the end of the 18th century, but “Unfortunately, the system’s outdated theoretical
assumptions under-mine its ability to provide accurate classifications.” (Ereshefsky 2001,
p.3). In the view put forward by Enlightenment thinkers such as Hume and Hegel, there was a
causal link between climate ‘phenotype’, intellectuality and the capacity for civilisation. They
held that ‘civilization at its highest form emanated from people that came from the temperate
zones of Europe and America’ (Gardner 2009, p.14). Physical appearance soon became a
marker of cultural development and an indicator of the parameters of societal advancement
(Eze, 1997). Similarly, for Kant, ‘race’ was based on the ‘invariably inherited’ characteristic
of skin colour (although not based on the ‘alternatively inherited’ characteristics such as hair
type) (Lovejoy, 1911, p.42).
A process that Hall (1992) argues to be central to the Enlightenment was the emergence of the
idea of distinguishing ‘The West’ from ‘The Rest’, an assumption that European society was
the most advanced, with the ‘Western’ man being the pinnacle of human success. Countries of
Western Europe developed a system of constructing anyone different that they encountered as
culturally inferior ‘others’, the representation of which involved negative and essentialist
ideologies. Roberts notes that ‘‘Modern’ history can be defined as the approach march to the
2
explain how these different understandings have shaped the world we live in today
Although it is now widely accepted that Biologically distinct ‘races’ do not exist, Gardner
(2009) highlights the impossibility of providing a distinct definition to ‘race’.
Understandingsmj of ‘race’ and the meanings ascribed to the concept have changed
throughout different historical contexts, and in order to grasp the ways in which these, often
conflicting, ideas, such as those of the enlightenment and of 19th century science, have shaped
the world we live in today, it is essential to understand from where they originated.
Early distinctions between different ‘races’ were not made in the sense of ‘black’ and ‘white’
but of ‘Christians’ and ‘Heathens’. Despite these definitions not being based on physical
differences, “From time immemorial, peoples have considered themselves as ‘the people’ and
all the rest as ‘others’…” (Pieterse 2001, p.17). The European expansion of the 15th century
brought up vague ideas of ‘race’ with the indigenous viewed as somehow unequal, but as
Banton (2008) notes, the main notions of ‘race’ appearing as early as the fifteenth and
sixteenth century were largely only referring to lines of decent; it would be Religious
symbolism that formed the basis for the main distinctions seen in the sixteenth century, with
‘white’ having connotations of purity and goodness, and ‘black’, the opposite (Gardner 2009).
These ideas preceded the later, pseudo-scientific meanings attributed to ‘race’.
The ‘Enlightenment’ period (1720-1820) can be seen as a pivotal moment in defining ‘race’;
the ideas of human classification according to distinct physical characteristics emerged, with
the attribution of social, intellectual and cultural characteristics to people of different ‘races’.
This was due to enlightenment thinkers being essentially concerned with a ‘wide-ranging
project of categorisation’ (Gardner 2009 p.14) and the rising popularity of scientifically
1
, measurable disciplines. Scientists of the Enlightenment era attempted to classify humans in
relation to geographical situation, with many basing their distinctions on the more visible,
physical differences such as skin colour, stature, and hair type. One such scientist, Linnaeus,
spearheaded researching this essentialist notion and in his Systema Narturae (1767) he named
five varieties of human species, each defined according to the possession of phenotypical
characteristics varying by place and by culture. Critiques of Linnaeus argue that the basis of
his doctrine is ethnocentric due to the focus on skin colour as a variation of humans and
fundamentally erroneous due to also having used cultural, anthropological differences as
markers of human variation (Ereshefsky 2001). Linnaeus’ model of classification was widely
accepted by the end of the 18th century, but “Unfortunately, the system’s outdated theoretical
assumptions under-mine its ability to provide accurate classifications.” (Ereshefsky 2001,
p.3). In the view put forward by Enlightenment thinkers such as Hume and Hegel, there was a
causal link between climate ‘phenotype’, intellectuality and the capacity for civilisation. They
held that ‘civilization at its highest form emanated from people that came from the temperate
zones of Europe and America’ (Gardner 2009, p.14). Physical appearance soon became a
marker of cultural development and an indicator of the parameters of societal advancement
(Eze, 1997). Similarly, for Kant, ‘race’ was based on the ‘invariably inherited’ characteristic
of skin colour (although not based on the ‘alternatively inherited’ characteristics such as hair
type) (Lovejoy, 1911, p.42).
A process that Hall (1992) argues to be central to the Enlightenment was the emergence of the
idea of distinguishing ‘The West’ from ‘The Rest’, an assumption that European society was
the most advanced, with the ‘Western’ man being the pinnacle of human success. Countries of
Western Europe developed a system of constructing anyone different that they encountered as
culturally inferior ‘others’, the representation of which involved negative and essentialist
ideologies. Roberts notes that ‘‘Modern’ history can be defined as the approach march to the
2
