Adams Donovan M, Pilloud Marin A
Department of Anthropology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA,
Department of Anthropology/MS0096, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada, USA.
Hum Biol. 2021 Winter;93(1):9-32. doi: 10.13110/humanbiology.93.1.01.
The concept of race has a complex history in the field of biological anthropology. Despite increased recognition of the racist origins of the discipline, there remains little agreement about what the concept means, how it is used, or how it is discussed. This study presents the results of a survey of biological anthropologists to investigate the relationship of biological anthropologists with race and ancestry. The survey focuses on the areas of research, public engagement, and teaching as related to these concepts. Results indicate that a large majority of biological anthropologists agree that race (as a social not biological concept) is separate from ancestry. The majority of respondents agreed that ancestry categories should be based on geography (e.g., Asian, European, and African), and more anthropologists thought the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" were inappropriate ancestry categories. While most respondents felt that discussions of these terms were not matters of "political correctness," nearly a quarter of respondents suggested that concerns over the moral and ethical implications of research (e.g., photos, terminology, and ancestry) result in the silencing of anthropological research. Overwhelmingly, respondents felt that anthropologists have a responsibility to ensure the avoidance of misappropriation of their work by race science and by white nationalists/supremacists. Some differences in survey responses were found relating to respondents' subdiscipline, educational level, location, age, self-identified racial/ethnic categories, and gender. In regard to teaching, survey results indicate that these concepts are minimally covered in university classrooms. When taught, topics focus on the colonialist/racist history of anthropology, the presence of white privilege/supremacy, and racism. Based on the results of this survey, the authors argue for greater public engagement on these concepts, a standardized system of teaching race and ancestry, and a disciplinary conversation about practice and terminology. In this way, biological anthropologists can best place themselves to combat racism in a socially responsible way.
种族概念在生物人类学领域有着复杂的历史。尽管人们越来越认识到该学科的种族主义起源，但对于这个概念的含义、使用方式或讨论方式，仍然几乎没有达成共识。本研究展示了一项针对生物人类学家的调查结果，以探究生物人类学家与种族和血统的关系。该调查聚焦于与这些概念相关的研究领域、公众参与和教学领域。结果表明，绝大多数生物人类学家都认同种族（作为一个社会而非生物学概念）与血统是分开的。大多数受访者认为血统类别应基于地理因素（如亚洲、欧洲和非洲），并且更多的人类学家认为“西班牙裔”和“拉丁裔”这两个术语作为血统类别并不合适。虽然大多数受访者认为对这些术语的讨论并非“政治正确性”问题，但近四分之一的受访者表示，对研究的道德和伦理影响（如图像、术语和血统）的担忧导致了人类学研究的噤声。绝大多数受访者认为，人类学家有责任确保其工作不会被种族科学以及白人民族主义者/至上主义者滥用。调查结果在受访者的子学科、教育水平、所在地、年龄、自我认定的种族/族裔类别以及性别方面存在一些差异。在教学方面，调查结果表明，这些概念在大学课堂上很少被涉及。当涉及这些主题时，重点往往是人类学的殖民主义/种族主义历史、白人特权/至上主义的存在以及种族主义。基于这项调查的结果，作者主张就这些概念进行更多的公众参与、建立一个标准化的种族和血统教学体系，以及就实践和术语展开学科内讨论。通过这种方式，生物人类学家能够以对社会负责的方式更好地投身于反对种族主义的斗争中。
