D&P Final Essay 1
Nina Aalders, 2777843
‘Race’ and racism are concepts that have been very present in the past years. It has been
inundated by the different meanings, cultural practices and political projects it has been
involved in, but is still present in our society. Racial classifications have persisted despite
them having been refuted by anthropologists and geneticists. But why do these things prove
that we need to study ‘diversity’ as a historical relationship between classifications and social
practices?
‘Race’ science is about the classification of people according to their ‘race’.
There are three dimensions to the classifications, namely (1) the descriptions or names we
give something, (2) the construction of what we classify according to its history and meaning,
and (3) its social interventions that contribute to the social infrastructures in society. These
classifications are based on the perception that there is no single fixed meaning or
classification, and that though these can be the collective representations of societies, we
should still study societies through their own categories, points of view and in relation to the
relevant time frame (Pels 2022) (Durkheim and Mauss, 1903) (Rivers, 1912) (Posel, 2001).
Durkheim and Mauss (1903) further argue that these classifications and descriptions all come
from social positions of people in the past, and that they influence how we understand social
processes and interventions today. Hacking (2005) adds that these classifications and ‘race’
still matter not because of what they describe, but because of their history and meaning in
social interventions today.
Furthermore, Durkheim & Mauss (1903: 87) talk about how scientific classifications changed
throughout their own history. A historical change took place in the cultural practices at the
time, where the classifications of ‘us versus them’ lessened. However, even though it was
used less, it still left behind an idea of classification, present in the persistence of racial
classifications today.
Racism has existed for a long time and still does now. DuBois (1994) tried and failed to get
‘race’ away from the biological and scientific basis, by introducing social constructivism.
This was to get people to believe that these classifications of people by their ‘race’ would
construct people’s identities. DuBois (1994) tried to introduce this perception through
historical change but failed to spread it, showing the persistence of racial classification (Pels,
2022: 13) (DuBois, 1994). By focusing on the historical changes instead of only looking at the
natural, the focus began to lie with culture, which included everything ‘race’ was not,
showcasing the nature-culture divide (Visweswaran, 1998).
Throughout history, the focus on different parts of ‘race’ has shifted depending on time and
place, but the red line through this was that it was often based on ‘common sense’ categories.
It combined history, socio-economic status, physical criteria and more. ‘Race’ can be based
on one or more of these categories depending on who uses it, turning these characteristics into
essential differences that give ‘race’ a timeless appearance (Wade, 2015) (M’charek, 2013),
though it started developing from the 14th to 18th century.
From the 14th to 18th century, ‘race’ began to emerge but was not yet very present in society.
However, during the 19th century, ‘race’ began to emerge as a central way of thinking in the
West, and became part of the sciences at the time. Especially during the ‘Golden Age’ of
Nina Aalders, 2777843
‘Race’ and racism are concepts that have been very present in the past years. It has been
inundated by the different meanings, cultural practices and political projects it has been
involved in, but is still present in our society. Racial classifications have persisted despite
them having been refuted by anthropologists and geneticists. But why do these things prove
that we need to study ‘diversity’ as a historical relationship between classifications and social
practices?
‘Race’ science is about the classification of people according to their ‘race’.
There are three dimensions to the classifications, namely (1) the descriptions or names we
give something, (2) the construction of what we classify according to its history and meaning,
and (3) its social interventions that contribute to the social infrastructures in society. These
classifications are based on the perception that there is no single fixed meaning or
classification, and that though these can be the collective representations of societies, we
should still study societies through their own categories, points of view and in relation to the
relevant time frame (Pels 2022) (Durkheim and Mauss, 1903) (Rivers, 1912) (Posel, 2001).
Durkheim and Mauss (1903) further argue that these classifications and descriptions all come
from social positions of people in the past, and that they influence how we understand social
processes and interventions today. Hacking (2005) adds that these classifications and ‘race’
still matter not because of what they describe, but because of their history and meaning in
social interventions today.
Furthermore, Durkheim & Mauss (1903: 87) talk about how scientific classifications changed
throughout their own history. A historical change took place in the cultural practices at the
time, where the classifications of ‘us versus them’ lessened. However, even though it was
used less, it still left behind an idea of classification, present in the persistence of racial
classifications today.
Racism has existed for a long time and still does now. DuBois (1994) tried and failed to get
‘race’ away from the biological and scientific basis, by introducing social constructivism.
This was to get people to believe that these classifications of people by their ‘race’ would
construct people’s identities. DuBois (1994) tried to introduce this perception through
historical change but failed to spread it, showing the persistence of racial classification (Pels,
2022: 13) (DuBois, 1994). By focusing on the historical changes instead of only looking at the
natural, the focus began to lie with culture, which included everything ‘race’ was not,
showcasing the nature-culture divide (Visweswaran, 1998).
Throughout history, the focus on different parts of ‘race’ has shifted depending on time and
place, but the red line through this was that it was often based on ‘common sense’ categories.
It combined history, socio-economic status, physical criteria and more. ‘Race’ can be based
on one or more of these categories depending on who uses it, turning these characteristics into
essential differences that give ‘race’ a timeless appearance (Wade, 2015) (M’charek, 2013),
though it started developing from the 14th to 18th century.
From the 14th to 18th century, ‘race’ began to emerge but was not yet very present in society.
However, during the 19th century, ‘race’ began to emerge as a central way of thinking in the
West, and became part of the sciences at the time. Especially during the ‘Golden Age’ of
