Science cannot tell us
Keith S. Taber (him/his…and White?)
An opinion piece in Education in Chemistry by Kristy Turner recently highlighted the potential bias that may lead to scholars being more likely to access, read and cite research from some parts of the world than others. This was actually an issue I was very aware of when a journal editor, as an international journal should aim to reflect research globally, but needs to apply common quality criteria.
This means that those working in contexts where there are no traditions of educational research, and limited resources to develop capacity, are at a disadvantage. I could think of one country where the journal received regular contributions, but which were almost always rejected (perhaps, always rejected?), as they simply did not amount to substantive accounts of research. These included well-intentioned, if sometimes quite convoluted, suggestions for mnemonic schemes to teach abstract conceptual subject matter, which offered absolutely no evidence that the proposed approach had ever been evaluated (if, indeed, ever applied). I was aware that any simple calculation of success rates in the journal would show that submissions from this particular national context had no chance of publication, and that few indeed ever got as far as referees 1. This might look like prejudice, even if it reflected application of the same quality criteria to all submissions. 2
On the other hand, the situation is slowly shifting. An excellent example is Turkey, which transformed from being a virtual non-participant in science education research publication to one of the most productive national sources of research published in the top journals, in just a couple of decades. I am aware of several other countries that are, if more slowly, supporting similar development in science education. So, the situation is complex: but Turner is absolutely right that we need to also be aware of a possible mind-set that assumes useful, quality research in science education will only be going on in a limited number of national contexts.
Being classified by the colour of my skin
But what really made me reflect on the piece was was not this important point, but that I was name-checked at the start of the article, along with a number of other educational research scholars, before Turner asked:
"What do these names have in common?
To start with they are all men and all White. More significantly, they all worked in the West (although some had collaborations further afield). This means that much of the education research we consume is produced from a Western perspective."
Turner, 2023
I am not sure I have ever seen myself called out in this public way as being "White", and I was not sure I was comfortable with being labelled in this way. For me, this was a mild discomfort – the kind that usefully leads one to reflect. By contrast, many people in this world experience being referred to by colour labels every day of their lives.
I readily identify as English, British and European, as simply a matter of fact: so, I suppose, 'Western' – guilty as charged. I have no qualms about being publicly labelled as a man. (Though I had no problem with being called 'Miss' by new secondary school students just moving up from primary schools where their class teacher had been 'Miss'. The pupils tended to be more embarrassed than me on these occasions – as was the tutee who once inadvertently called me 'Dad'. Yes, Tamsin, I still remember that.)
When I went to school, the world (at least as it was usually talked about) seemed simple in that regard. Humans came in two types – males and females. In my class in school there were boys and girls, and there was absolutely no ambiguity about this, and the difference was clearly marked: the boys wore shorts, the girls skirts or dresses. When I got to secondary school I studied metalwork and woodwork and technical drawing, whilst the girls studied their own subjects such as cookery. (Yes, I am that old.) Science dichotomised people into these classes of males and females (this was strictly known to be a simplification, but I do not recall any mention of other possibilities when I was a child), and there was a widely assumed perfect correlation with gender.
Of course, we now know this is utterly simplistic, and if such a regimented approach is imposed on people it is a burden that does not reflect the range of ways that people themselves experience their lives. It is now very common for people to attach their preferred pronouns to their web-pages and emails footers, and we appreciate that people have a right to self-identify in gender terms, and should not be assigned such an identify from the outside.
Original image by Krzysztof Niewolny from Pixabay
Should what is good for the goose also be good for the gander?
So, if we respect people's right to claim their own gender identity, what gives us the right to assign them to 'colour' categories? These categories were historically linked to what many scientists considered distinct varieties of human being – the different 'races'. That is, just as scientists might have recognised different varieties of a species, say different breeds of sheep, so there was considered to be a substantive and biologically justifiable basis for classifying people as members of different 'races'.
Those classifications were also not just seen as categorical, but often as ordinal – there were not only considered to be different races, but some of them were widely thought of (*) as more advanced, more civilised, perhaps even more evolved, than others; and it sometimes followed to many people that members of some races were of more inherent worth than others. (* At least, this was a common stance among people who self-identified as White!)
As is well known, this attitude led to many terrible events, and such bizarre notions as long-inhabited lands being 'discovered' by newcomers who therefore felt entitled to take possession of them: perhaps because they did not consider the inhabitants worthy of land and resource ownership; or perhaps because often the indigenous population took an attitude to the land and biota that it was not open to their ownership, but rather was sacred and deserving of being seen as in a form of relationship, rather than just being a source for exploitation. (That is, in many senses, the supposed 'more primitive' people had a more sophisticated and ecologically viable Worldview than those making the comparisons and seeing themselves as 'more civilised'.) That was one historical form of the 'Western perspective' that Tuner rightly warns about. 3
Science progresses: but not everyone keeps up
Science has moved on. We now know that, from a scientific perspective, there is only one human race. We all descend from early human ancestors that lived in Africa – so, for example, all of us in Britain are, if not ourselves migrants, ultimately the descendants of African migrants.
There are no strong categorical differences that allow us to form clear-cut classes of people (such as we can nearly dichotomise sex, even if we now realise that does not correlate to gender in a simple, direct way). Certainly, there are differences in populations that have long lived in different parts of the world: some groups are more likely to be lactose intolerant; more likely to suffer from, or be resistant to, specific diseases, and so forth. But these are statistical differences, not absolute ones.
An analogy for categorising people into 'races' based on physical characteristics (original image by Mote Oo Education from Pixabay)
To divide people into racial groups on that kind of basis makes as much sense as dichotomising adult people into males and females purely on height (i.e., the tallest 50% are male, by definition) simply because there is a statistical correlation between biological sex and adult height. Throughout human history, there has been social and genetic interchange between populations, and that is now more so than ever. We all have a mix of genes from a diverse range of ancestors – indeed most of us have few percent of genes that are considered Neanderthal. 4 So being 'White' is not simply a matter of genetics: any notion of a pure European genome is simply fantasy, akin to the deluded Nazi fantasies of Aryan blood lines. 5
Race is not a biological classification. Race is a social system of categorising people, not a scientific system. There are different races in the world only in a similar sense to how there are different styles of art or architecture in the world, or different modes of fashion (or styles of music, or genres of literature): because people have constructed such a system and imbued certain perceived differences with significance. But, there are not races in the world 'naturally' in the sense that there are different elements or different minerals out there for scientists to find. 6
The idea of several distinct human races can be seen as a historical scientific concept that was once given serious credence (just like phlogiston, or the luminiferous æther), but today should be seen as an alternative conception – a bit of folk-science that is actually a misconception.
Read about historical scientific conceptions
So, if I am seen as White, this is because I have certain physical characteristics that others perceive as being 'White' (i.e., physiognomy). Presumably skin colour is a primary factor, although I certainly do not have white skin (I have never seen anyone who actually looks white or black, and suspect this choice of labels is in part a reflection of the historical associations of these colours 7). I am basically a pink colour, although at certain times of year I go somewhat orange. I am not being flippant here – I am obviously of pale skin tone as would be associated with someone of European descent. But, again, we know that skin tone does not simply divide into a few clear categories: there is a whole spectrum out there, and most of us do not have entirely even pigmentation over all parts of the body, and/or are subject to some variation depending on environmental factors (and in England the average potential exposure to the Sun's rays in June is VERY different to in December!)
Now, I am not suggesting there might not be times when pointing out the colour of someone's skin might be useful – it might be very relevant in giving a description of a missing child or a mugger. But, Turner was not calling me White to help you recognise me, but to label me as someone associated with a 'Western' perspective. This of course is not a perfect correlation either. (I suspect that Rishi Sunak and Barack Obama would be widely considered to have Western perspectives).
'I hate the White man'
The musician Roy Harper wrote a song called 'I hate the white man' which appeared on his 1970 album 'Flat Baroque and Berserk'. He sings it live with real venom. When I first heard this song, it seemed strange to me, as here was a white man [sic, my label] singing how he hated the White man. It was heartfelt, but it seemed ironic. It did not occur to me that I was just assuming Roy was White because he looked white to me. (He is 'obviously' white, just as I, apparently, obviously am – that is, his skin tone is pinkish.) I never entertained another possibility: the notion that he should have the right not to identify with the people who's crimes he was singing about; that is, not to identify as a White man.
Roy Harper. He hates the white man.
(Image from Wikipedia, license: CC BY-SA 3.0)
So, should I be able to opt out of being put in an unscientific, racial category? Can I decline being White, and simply be a global citizen, a member of the human race, and so deserving the same level of respect and the same human rights as any other?
A dilemma
Of course it is not that easy. It is all very well someone like me refusing to self-identify with a racial label: there is still much discrimination and even targeted violence in many part of the world against people on racial grounds, and that would not be stopped by any personal self-identification of the victims. It is the perceptions of the abusers that matter in such situations, not how those on the receiving end see themselves. The Nazi's decided for themselves who was Jewish and so who deserved to be, say, removed from academic posts, or even incarcerated and exterminated, without regard to, for example, the victim's professed religion or record of Christian Church attendance.
Moreover, even if there are no strong genetic grounds to classify humans into a small number of 'races', the science of epigenetics is starting to reveal the cross-generational effects of extreme life-experiences (Meloni, 2019) such as slavery. The descendants of oppressed and impoverished people will continue to suffer relative to others for several generations. There may be no moral basis for asking children to pay for the 'sins of the fathers', but children of heavily sinned-against parents will still be at a disadvantage in life. That is not all about 'race': it might be about class, or the effects of war, but often racial identity (something with real effects, even if no scientific justification) can certainly be a factor.
If we do not identify with ethnic groups, then this makes monitoring of bias and discrimination difficult. How does an organisation know it is being equitable in relation to ethnic diversity, if no one chooses to self-identify with the traditionally majority, and/or privileged, groupings?
I think there is a genuine conundrum here. I look forward to the day when no rational person would see physiognomy as a useful basis for unscientifically classifying human beings, and, even if I am unlikely to live that long, hope we continue to move in that direction. But I understand why minority and oppressed groups find solidarity in such identification, and I appreciate the need for monitoring progress towards a fairer and more equitable society. So, Kristy, I fully understand why you call me 'White', even if I feel a little uneasy being labelled in that way.
Work cited:
- Meloni, M. (2019). Impressionable Biologies: From the archaeology of plasticity to the sociology of epigenetics. Routledge.
- Szöllösi-Janze, M. (2001). National Socialism and the sciences: reflections, conclusions and historical perspectives. In M. Szöllösi-Janze (Ed.), Science in the Third Reich (pp. 1-34). Berg.
- Turner, K. (2023). Taking a global view. Education in Chemistry, 60, p.40
Notes:
1 Submissions to a research journal normally undergo editorial screening, so that (unpaid, expert) referees are not asked to spend time evaluating material in peer review that is out of scope for the journal or clearly inadequate (e.g., an empirical study lacking a methodology section).
Read about submitting to a research journal
2 I did highlight this issue at the journals' editorial board. The journal itself could do little about solving the problem, but the wider community might find ways to support development of research capacity in contexts where science educators aspire to be publishing work in international research journals.
3 Without in any sense wishing to undermine the terrible consequences that followed from widely held perceptions of racial differences, this can be seen as part of the wider commonplace phenomenon of categorising humans into various groupings in ways that are then used to justify treating some people as less worthy of respect and rights as others – for example the torture and judicial murder of Catholics/Protestants by Protestants/Catholics in parts of Europe when, sometimes, different members of the same nuclear family were classified into different groups.
4 It is sometimes said that on average a person has about 2% of Neanderthal DNA. Given that all the biota on earth is considered to ultimately have a common descent it is of course not surprising that human beings share some genes with, say, chimpanzees, and for that matter, bananas. However, it is not considered humans have chimpanzee ancestors (or banana ancestors, of course) but rather the two species evolved from a common ancestor population.
The particular interest in Neanderthal genes (and genes from Denisovans) is that it is considered that extant human populations carry genes acquired from Neanderthals when the two different populations co-existed, not from some precursor species they both evolved from. Whilst this is still an area of active research, the findings are widely interpreted to suggests that humans sometimes interbred with Neanderthals.
5 The Nazis thought that the German Volk descended from a distinct, discrete race, the Aryans – and set up scientific research projects to explore and develop the idea. Some of the ideas involved seem incredible:
"…Himmler rejected the Darwinist theory of evolution for the Aryans, presenting instead phantasies, according to which their earthy existence was derived from living shoots conserved in the ice of outer space…"
Szöllösi-Janze, 2001
6 Failure to appreciate this leads to confused questions such as whether discrimination against Jews should be considered racism. From a scientific perspective there are no races, so ipso facto the Jews are not a race. However, this is besides the point: if Jewish people are discriminated against, abused, attacked etc., either because of their religion, or because they are perceived as being members of an identifiable social ('ethnic') group, then this is clearly wrong and to be condemned, regardless of the label used.
If a legal system puts a particular weight on criminal offences that are motivated by racism (so, for example, punishments for those convicted have a premium), then what counts as a race for those purposes needs to be defined within that (social, i.e., legal) system, as natural science can have no role in determining social groupings that have no scientific basis.
7 This was lampooned in 'Star Trek: Enterprise', where Andorian Thy'lek Shran adopts the nickname 'pink skin' for Enterprise's Captain Archer.
From the Paramount Network Television series Star Trek: Enterprise
