​

          In a general sense, anthropology aims to explore humanity by examining the processes that have shaped the world and its creatures across space and time. Over the years, scholars have introduced new terms to explain these changes, only to later critique their limitations and potential harm. Race is one of these debated terms. Further complicating this debate is how race intersects with other topics like culture, power, and migration. As Raymond Williams observes, “Faced by this complex and still active history of the world, it is easy to react by selecting one ‘true’ or ‘proper’ or ‘scientific’ sense and dismissing other senses as loose or confused”(​​Williams 91). Though Williams discusses culture, this idea stands true when defining race. In anthropology's history, race was often interpreted through pseudoscientific beliefs, contributing to harmful social hierarchies. Pierre Bourdieu calls these “structured structures” (Bourdieu 1977) that constantly change and perpetuate themselves. As will be discussed, while science has debunked race as biological, it still exists in the social sense. With such scholars and works by Stuart Hall, Pierre Bourdieu, and Reni Eddo-Lodge, it is clear that race as a social reality continues to impact our societies, especially when it comes to migration and identity.
          The early foundations of anthropology were built on pseudoscientific beliefs that enabled societies to categorize people into hierarchical groups based on racial features. In the 1700s, Carl Linnaeus published Systema Naturae, where he introduced binomial nomenclature, the system for classifying organisms based on their features, and divided the natural world into three kingdoms: animal, plant, and mineral. He included humans in the animal kingdom and categorized them into racial groups with specific names such as “Europaeus albus (European white),” “Americanus rubescens (American reddish),” “Asiaticus fuscus (Asian tawny),” and “Africanus niger (African black)” (Linnaeus 34). At that time, society already placed significant emphasis on the hierarchy of the now-named animal kingdom, with most people viewing themselves as distinct from animals, which led many to reject this idea. In other words, they already believed to be above all other animals, given that they weren’t animals. It’s also important to note that Linnaeus wasn’t promoting racial hierarchies, but still influenced society's notions of ‘others’. Instead of classifying all humans under a single category, he divided them based on observable physical traits, or phenotype. In a later edition, Linnaeus went on to further classify these groups based on skin color, physical traits, behavior, manner of clothing, and form of government (The Linnean Society of London 2020). This inevitably led to the assumption that all humans must fall into certain categories of being. 
          Later, in Primitive Culture (1871), Edward Tylor, drawing on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, proposed that societies also evolve from ‘primitive’ to more ‘advanced’ cultures (Tylor 62). Taking on a lens from a Western perspective, he believed that groups of humans could ‘evolve’ into more Westen-like societies. Again, while Tylor did not explicitly discuss race, this hierarchical categorization of cultures reinforced European ideas of cultural superiority over non-Western societies. He establishes that Europe and America set the standard for the more advanced cultures. Through Darwin’s evolutionary lens, cultures that survive their primitive origins will continue progressing into more complex societies while losing their primitive roots (Tylor 62). However, it has been established that different groups will have complex societies and should not be placed on a linear path where the Western world is the most evolved. As Franz Boas argued, “...every culture develops its own complexity through unique historical and environmental factors” (Boas 1911), challenging the linear model of Western superiority. Together, Tylor and Linnaeus contributed to the creation of a world structurally divided by science into categories influenced by pseudoscientific beliefs. Recent studies, however, show race is not a biological reality like Linneaus and Tyler had made it seem. As the pioneer of Cultural Studies, Stuart Hall once put it, “Race is a cultural and historical, not biological, fact…”(Hall 45). 
          The Human Genome Project (2003) is one of these better-recognized organizations debunking race as a biological truth. Over 13 years, scientists gathered diverse groups of individuals and used advanced DNA sequencing technologies to map the human genome. In other words, these scientists analyzed the aspects of DNA that contribute to our genetics. In this process, as highlighted in a study published by the National Library of Science, they “... confirmed humans are 99.9% identical at the DNA level and there is no genetic basis for race.” Furthermore, the differences we observe are simply small genetic variations that contribute to the phenotype (what we see) and not distinct genetic markers that would contribute to the categorization of racial groups. Therefore, these preconceived notions of racial categorization based on flawed interpretations of 'science' should be dismantled. Human DNA is genetically the same, a person presenting one dominant phenotype could potentially have just as much in common genetically with someone with a completely different phenotype trait. However, as Daniel Trilling argues, “the idea of ‘whiteness’ continues to be used to make powerful distinctions between the primitive and the developed, the poor and the rich, foreign and native, seen and unseen” (Trilling 2019). Why is this? 
          As previously mentioned, Pierre Bourdieu establishes the concept of ‘structured structures’ arguing that, “the social world is a system of structured structures, that is to say, a system of relations that produces practices, and in turn, practices produce the structures” (Bourdieu 1977). Here, he attempts to explain how social hierarchies that still exist today, including race, are ingrained within our societies and influence individuals' perspectives without them necessarily realizing it. Bourdieu goes on to say that this sort of blindness in itself reinforces the structures that attempt to categorize and divide, keeping the powerful creators of these structures on top of the hierarchy.
          Today, discussions of race, migration, and multiculturalism exemplify this. De Haas critiques multiculturalism, suggesting, “Multiculturalism– in brief, the ideology or belief that it was a good thing if migrant groups maintain their language, religion, and culture was particularly adhered to by European governments who kept on denying that reality of permanent settlement for too long, in the false hope that migrants would one day go back to their origin countries…” (De Haas 174). De Haas shows how the structure of multiculturalism celebrates differences that are deeply rooted in existing racial and cultural categories, but at the same time stops migrants from fully assimilating. Given that De Haas had already argued assimilation would enable the migrant to fully integrate into society, he demonstrates how power dynamics work to stop it from happening. This echoes Bourdieu’s argument, that the structured hierarchy of governments employs multiculturalism to keep ‘others’ othered, reinforcing their power. The ‘other’ sees this as a place of celebrating differences, while continuing to fall at the bottom. However, it should be noted that multiculturalism also celebrates other cultures, which could allow the migrant to find a better connection within a new society. 
          In this context, Reni Eddo-Lodge emphasizes the importance of understanding structural racism through a different lens, stating, “Structural racism is dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of people with the same biases joining together to make up one organization, and acting accordingly” (Eddo-Lodge 2017). She argues that within a predominantly white workplace culture, individuals are pressured to conform to established expectations. Again, Bourdius's words ring true. In a place of racialized power like the workplace, individuals who are categorized as different based on their phenotype are coerced to participate and assimilate, while still being ‘othered’, an attempt to make everyone feel equal, while not achieving it at all. What’s different here is that they are aware of the damaging effects, and still, because the hierarchical structures are so powerful, they have little space to make a change. Notably, Eddo-Lodge asserts, “My blackness has been politicized against my will, because racism has given it meaning” (Eddo-Lodge 2017). This powerful statement depicts to the reader a very personal experience. Her words demonstrate how she still feels the effects of race and societal structures.
          In a social sense, race is a reality because of pre-existing hierarchical power structures established by earlier anthropologists, who categorized people based on the flawed pseudoscientific notion of distinct races. In the scientific sense, race is not a reality. It has been examined. It has been debunked but continues to be in conversation today because its destructive forms and roots persist. Scholars like Hall, Boas, Williams, and Bourdieu warned us long before of these destructive terms and societal structures. Society and its powerful hierarchy continue reinforcing these divisive structures without realizing it. De Haas’s critique of multiculturalism and Eddo Lodge’s example proves how race continues to exist socially. Race has been given a meaning. This is why it is important to find and question the root of definitions, especially in fields like anthropology where humans, their history, and their future are continuously discussed.
 

 

​