Details
Nothing to say, yet
Comment
Nothing to say, yet
Listen to Metaphysics of Race Podcast Recording by Carlos Ponce MP3 song. Metaphysics of Race Podcast Recording song from Carlos Ponce is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 26:08. This high-quality MP3 track has 1152 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 7 May 2023. Stream and download Metaphysics of Race Podcast Recording by Carlos Ponce for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
Carlos Ponte and Ryan Bell discuss the metaphysics of race in a podcast. They explore the concepts of metaphysical and social identities, natural and social kinds, and the three views on race: race naturalism, social constructionism, and eliminativism. They debate whether race is a social construct or a natural category, and discuss the implications of these views on society. Carlos leans towards social constructionism, while Ryan finds interest in both biological realism and social constructivism. They also touch on the relativity of race and the influence of culture on racial identity. Ultimately, they recognize the complexity of the topic and the ongoing debate surrounding race. Alright, so my name is Carlos Ponte. I'm a political science major. I'm a philosophy minor. This is a podcast regarding the metaphysics of race. Today we're going to be talking about the three views on race with some prior assertions, views on those three views on race. And with my partner here, we'll be discussing them. Please introduce yourselves. Hi, my name is Ryan, Ryan Bell. I am a geography major who is also a minor in philosophy. I believe I was selected to do this podcast. I had taken a couple philosophy courses, but specifically I took philosophy of race and identity with Lavelle Anderson last semester. And I feel like I have an adequate understanding of several views that were covered in the metaphysics class. Alright, great. So, before we start talking about three views on race, I would kind of like to have some prior assertions that we can talk about. So, there's the concept that we have both metaphysical and social ethical identities. Though, you know, metaphysical identity is just a question of the real essence and it's based in empiricism, while ethical or social identity is like something that we hold true through observations. Like lived experience. Yeah, yeah. So, the stuff that you talk about and see and socially experience is like part of your identity. Exactly, exactly. And so, we also have an important distinction between natural and social kinds. The natural kind is independent from human practices, you know, it's based on genetics, the biological. The social kind, of course, like what you just said, it's like, it's optional and it's very dependent on the human practice and the human condition. But yeah, so, can you talk about your experience with the three views on race? I'll explain and I'll say the names, but I want to hear what you have to say about it. Sure. Well, being exposed to the three views, in a class we started with race naturalism, which was through cons of the different human races, I think. He talked about the two divisions, the natural division and the scholastic division. He talked about the natural division being, thinking about the animal kingdom, if all humans are able to reproduce with each other, then there ought to be one type of human. So, it would be one human race, one human species because everyone is able to reproduce with each other, but he didn't find that to be right. He was like, oh, the scholastic division, which is just based on genetics and based on all that. And I hate that because cons sucks. There's four races and the white race is the liminal stem. This is the first race and every other race is from that, which is complete and utter nonsense. I would describe myself as a social constructionist because I think that is the closest to reality, which I think is true. Race not just being specifically genetics and skin color, but race being a more social understanding of goals and shared cultural activities, race as just who you can identify with. W.E.B. Du Bois, that was my guy when it came to defining race. I thought he had a really, really nuanced and realistic opinion. So, I kind of fall into the social constructionist. You know, honestly, we're roommates. And we did talk about a little bit of social constructivism. And I do find, you know, eliminativism, I also have a strong, weird way of trying to pronounce it. But I do like the idea that race is a biological category in some form or another. But it doesn't really matter. They're social kinds. Even though they can be natural kinds, they can also be social kinds. And obviously, that's not really a good way to put it. But I found it interesting because one of the arguments for biological realism is one of cladistics. So, there's this lady named Robin Andreassian. And this is a quote from a text called Hazel and Nat, where they talk about the metaphyseal race. And she says, Ancestor-descendant sequences of breeding populations are a group of such sequences that share a common origin. So, that's how she classifies a scientifically-based classification of race. Because cladistics is just like, she says, it's based on shared evolutionary histories and resultant common genetic profiles of individuals. Now, of course, as we can see from the argument from genetics, there's no real genetic differences between the races. We're all just human beings. And there's arguments for morphology and everything. But the main point of Robin Andreassian is that she is trying to link our differences through history. So, she'll talk about Mongolians. And she'll talk about Africans. And she'll say they have a certain genetic profile, not genetic in the sense of genetic sequences per se, but the type of human being you are. Well, I was just going to say on that, there was this curious thing that came up in a class of what is the actual usage of specifically looking at genetics. And a lot of people are like, oh, the medical field. But thinking about history and how different the histories are, wouldn't that mean, imagine a giant list of values of what, not race, but genetic history you could be. So, even if you were white and socially appeared as white, having different genetic values. So, like, oh, I'm W2B. But that being completely separate from the social metaphysical identity. Well, I have a question for you, then. Because I've thought about this a lot. Obviously, I'm a person of color. And so, all of my life, it has been social kind. I always believed everyone was a human being. Obviously, people of color, especially in the American context, are treated very differently. And so, it's not to me, personally. Somehow, it also feels that it's that kind of thing, that kind of reversal. It's like a positive feedback loop, where it's just people say things to you. And then, in turn, you say things back. And what people say to me, they're like, you're Mexican. You're not the same as me. And then, it's like me, as a Mexican, I'm like, well, I'm Mexican. You're not the same as me. Me thinking I'm a better human being because I'm more accepting. And somehow, I'm superior. And it's like, to me, it's like, obviously, when you talk about Anthony Apaya, you think about social constructivism. You think about how biological realism is invigorating racism. But also, how eliminativism is also hindering talks on race. When we say races aren't real, we're ignoring the problem. And we say, races aren't real. We're all just human beings. And you're like, but you're ignoring the actual problems here in America or anywhere in the world. And so, a part of me likes the social constructivist view. But I can't really get into it. Because I also think that genetic profiles are like, we look different. People look different. So, there is some sort of, realistically speaking, difference. But I have a question for you. Because you've talked about this a lot, regarding Lugar-Anderson's class. The idea that race travels. Race doesn't travel. Race doesn't travel. Yeah. Okay, yes. So, the eliminativist, it's like, race isn't real at all. And if you were to look at the entire globe, understandings of race are different. So, race in America is not race in South Africa, is not race in China. So, to make the sweeping claim that, okay, so if there is no definitive definition of race that the entire world uses, does that mean race isn't real? Or that understandings of race are different? And I feel like this is like social constructivist 101. It's like, no, no, no. Race is real. Race is real on the social level. Race is real in the experience of other people. But we construct it differently in different places. So, somebody who is black in Asia, they could be viewed completely like, you are black. But they travel to America, and it's like, oh, they're light-skinned here. Where it's like, well, you're mixed. It's like, okay, but you're black in Asia. Or like, there was this huge thing in Vietnam where it was like, after the Vietnam War, America and Vietnam, people who weren't Vietnamese, whether you were white or black, if you had a child with someone who was from Vietnam, they were labeled as, like, American. So, if you were white or black in Vietnam, you were American. And it was kind of like this... Well, for one thing, it's kind of a merge of nationality and race, which is, again, just kind of goes to show that race isn't real, real. It's like that talk we had earlier, which is completely off-topic. We talk about Arabs. They were like Arabic peoples. Historically, we're speaking about the nomads that were Arabic. And then suddenly, we say Arab, and we're like, Saudi Arabia? And they're like, I thought Arabic was a language, not necessarily a peoples. And then it suddenly becomes tied to nations. So it's like, well, what's an Arabic nation? Is it just all the Middle East, or is it just specific countries? I just saw a thing where this comedian looks completely white, is white, you could say, in America. But he's from Morocco. And he said, yeah, I'm Arab. And it's like, okay, there's this white guy who's speaking English, and he's Arab. It's like he's part of the Arab world, or Arabic-speaking world. But his whole bit was having to explain if he could use the N-word or not. Well, he was going to be like, no one's going to be like, he doesn't get the option to be like, you get to say the N-word, never. It was like, well, hold on, let's hear him out. Where is he from? No, yeah. No, I see. Yeah, I don't know. But it's weird, because what you were describing earlier is the argument for relativity. Relativity, quite literally. The first premise is that if races were natural kinds, there would be one correct system of race classification. The second premise is, there's no one correct system of race classification. The third and final conclusion is, therefore, races are not natural kinds. And it just cycles back into Robin Idrisian, that attempts to tackle this argument as false. And where she bases it completely on science. Because then the argument is that, the cladistics argument is, this is the most accurate classification for the races that we can have, historically and scientifically. It's not even based wholly in genetics, but rather in profiles. And so it becomes that, okay, what if there is one racial classification, but we're just using different languages? Whereas, I don't know, back in the 1700s, don't say, I'm indigenous. And now, I'm Mexican. Right. But it's like, we're talking about the same thing. Right, right, right. I see what you mean. There's an underlying natural kind of race, that even if we come to it with language in different kinds of languages, it's underneath language. Yes. What do you think about that? I'm curious. I think it's stupid. I think it's dumb. I think it's dumb. Because I think trying to divide humans into natural kinds just doesn't work. It doesn't work. Because like, do you think at least like racism? What do you mean? Where it's like, imagine a world, very thought experiment. Okay, alright. Where it's like, okay, let's imagine a world. Suddenly, racism is no longer a thing. Sure. There's no real consequence for natural kinds or biological. We're like, hey, you're just different than I am, but we're both human. Right, right, right. Do you think that would have a more of a basis? Do you think the social aspect of race talk, when we talk about race, hinders our understanding or what could be our different understanding on what race is? Yes. Yeah? I think that racism is built into the definition of race. I don't think they're separate at all. You've talked about that with Anderson, right? Yeah, absolutely. The idea of race talk. Yeah, race talk. So like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, specifically race talk comes from Paul Taylor. Yeah, yeah. Paul Taylor. And he was talking about how you have to do like this experimental philosophy where you kind of like, trying to understand race from solely this like philosophical way. Kind of trying to remove the lived experiences. But by doing that, you kind of realize like, well, you can't really. So the association there is that like race is a completely social thing. Because I think that the history of race as a natural kind itself is racist. Kant, who was like the guy who was like, well, maybe we should investigate this whole race thing. He was like, there's four races. He was like, there's the white man, which is the first race. He's like, there's the African man. There's, I think he called the yellow race. Everyone from Asia. And then he was like, and everyone else. And like, I guess that's just the way, like, the whole idea that the white race is the first race. One is not true. Two is racist. Three has informed the investigation of race for literally centuries. So the conception of race is racist, is my thought. But, you know, let's envision a world where, you know, people don't talk about race. This is an earlier version of humanity. You know, if you see somebody who is a different color as you, you know, what is your first thought? You know, these people are different or this person is also human and they look different. Or let's think about like, what if we just based race off of nose shape? Like, what if, like, that's a completely social thing that we could have done. We're like, these are the big nose people. These are the small nose people. These are the pointy nose people. It's like, I think it's just completely arbitrary. And the attempt to classify race is racist. And yet we are still living in a world where race is socially constructed. So that's why, so in my head I'm like, this has to be the social constructionist view than what we're living in. That's a pretty interesting idea when we talk about arbitrariness though. Like, suddenly we're put in a position where it's like, what's arbitrary? Even in the social constructionist view, where it's like, okay, let's give that race is a real social category. I don't know why I talked like, what's his name? Let's assume race is real in this. Okay. Let's say race is a social category. And we're saying, oh, it's, you know, all these different things. It's based on human practices. We can change it as seen historically even. But then we get to modern society. Let's reduce it to American society right now. Okay. Because the world is just too complex. Sure, yeah, yeah. But we look at what's arbitrary. And the whole thing about today is that we're always trying to identify ourselves in different kinds of ways. That's the very important distinction between natural kinds and social kinds. And another thing is called ethical kinds. But, you know, they intermingle. It's the same thing. We definitely intermingle. Definitely intermingle. And we, like, so, like, for me, I'm like, I'm Mexican. Most people call me Mexican-American because I was born here, raised here. Right. And so I'm going to ask you a question. Gotcha. It's a kind of Michael Jackson scenario. So let's say someone. Michael Jackson. So, like, let's say, because this is a real thought experiment. Yeah. Let's say someone is black. Okay. Physically they're black. Sure. And they change their skin color to white. Yes. And they claim, I am now a white man. Where necessarily would that fall? Are we going to talk about natural kinds and say, well, you're black. You were born black. Right. Or are we going to, like, say social kinds of what it's like? Well, if this is the way you identify, okay, fine. Right. Where does the line draw? Honestly, this is also very related to gender. We had these to talk about gender, but that's a different topic, so I won't talk about that. Yeah. Wait, I have an answer. Okay. Like, I think when it comes to, like, something like that, really the thing to look at is, like, culture, where it's, like, envision a, you know, what I think about is I think about, like, and this might come off as very offensive, but, like, envision a low-income black community, right? Okay. And there's a white family living in that black community. And some kid grows up in that community, so he's, like, speaking in AAVE or whatever, you know. He identifies with black culture, you can assume, right? And then he goes into, like, upper-middle-class white function, and he's speaking with, like, what we would say is, like, African-American vernacular English. And what would be the case there? It would be, like, all of these white people would be, like, why are you talking like you are black? Or it's, like, in your case, if you went to Mexico, and you're, like, around all these Spanish-speaking people with, like, this deep Mexican culture, would you be seen as American, or would you be seen as Mexican? It's, like, I don't know. No, I take great offense to that. No, I'm joking. I think it's entirely, like, culturally driven. Yeah, that's a very social constructivist answer. Yeah, thank you, Ryan. Yeah, no, that's a perfect response. It's obviously based on communal experiences. Honestly, though, I just think that, like, when we talk about race, it's so just, like, what's the word? Dragging, you know? Because, like, obviously there's, like, racist people and everything. But, like, when we try to, like, categorize race, it's so tricky. And so it's, like, a part of me does want to say, like, racists, they're not real. That's the whole, like, clash between social constructivists and eliminativists, where it's, like, social constructivists are almost progressive when they talk. Not to, like, get it in a political sense, but, like, just more so, like, open to, like, ideas regarding to the consequences of race. But eliminativists kind of want to skip towards the end and say, they're not real and we shouldn't care about them. Right. I think, okay, here's my take about eliminativism, is that it will eventually be the take. You think so? I think eventually it will be the take. Do you think it will take to that idea where it's, like, eventually, like, two million years down the line if the human race is still existing, and then we all kind of just, like, morph into, like, one race? I don't think, well, yes. But I don't think that it's going to take two million years. I think it will take to the point of artificial intelligence. It will be, like, I really think it's going to be, like, once we can decipher, once we're in a world where it's, like, humans versus artificial intelligence, humans are going to morph together. It's, like, really good game, Detroit become human. In that world, which takes place in 2050, which we're sort of on track to get to, racism is not super present because it's not becoming racism. It's becoming, like, prejudice towards artificial intelligence, which I think is going to be the point. But I do think to get there, you need a social constructionist take on race to eventually get to the limit. Take. Eliminavits. It's a tricky word. Yeah, it's really hard to say. Like Detroit became human. So I think eventually we are going to land on race isn't real, but we have to get there by acknowledging race. But there's this really good quote is to say, to stop creating bias on the accounts of race, we need to stop being biased by race. Or, you know, I messed up the quote. But basically saying, like, if you take the social constructionist view, you will always be socially constructing race, which is a criticism of the social constructionist view, is that, like, by recognizing race, you are always keeping race a real thing, which is something like, yeah, I guess that's kind of true. But I don't know. It's a conflict in the inner social constructionist that wants to, like, eliminate to skip to the end. Right, right, right, right. We can't skip to the end because we are living the consequences of race being real every day, where it's like if somebody is born into the world, they are immediately put into a category of race, and they can't always escape it because of, like, systematic things or lived experiences. You can't escape it. And maybe that will change, but I don't think that's something that will change purposefully. I think that will just be, like, an outcome that we'll have to live with eventually. Yeah. Okay. Well, to end things off, because it's been pretty long. I feel like I'm repeating myself. No, yeah, I mean, there's only so much you can say about race. It's hard to, like, get a very, like, not constructive, a very definite. It's hard to make a definition on race because it's different everywhere. Thank you, Ryan Bell. Yes, of course. Ryan Michael Bell. Yes. Thank you, Ryan Michael Bell. Thank you, Carlos Ponce Vasquez, or Carlos Ponce. Yeah, thank you for being on this podcast, man. You're welcome. Thank you for inviting me, sir. Okay.
