journal article
LitStream Collection
Home
doi: 10.1002/ajpa.24208pmid: 33372273
The mainstream of American physical anthropology began as racist and eugenical science that defended slavery, restricted “non‐Nordic” immigration, and justified Jim Crow segregation. After World War II, the field became more anti‐racial than anti‐racist. It has continued as a study of natural influences on human variation and thus continues to evade the social histories of inequitable biological variation. Also reflecting its occupancy of white space, biological anthropology continues to deny its own racist history and marginalizes the contributions of Blacks. Critical disciplinary history and a shift toward biocultural studies might begin an anti‐racist human biology.
doi: 10.1002/ajpa.24162pmid: 33098091
Biological anthropology can, and should, matter in the Anthropocene. Biological anthropologists are interested in human biology and the human experience in a broader ecological, evolutionary, and phylogenetic context. We are interested in the material of the body, the history of the body, and interactions of diverse bodies, communities, ecologies, and evolutionary processes. However, the cultural realities of bodies, histories, communities, livelihoods, perceptions, and experiences are as central to the endeavor and inquiry of biological anthropology as are their material aspects. Biological anthropology is a constant dialectic between the cultural and the biological. In this essay, I argue that Biological Anthropology has much to offer, a history to contend with, and a future that matters. To illustrate this, I highlight theoretical and methodological issues in genomics, evolutionary theory and connect them to the study of Race and Racism to emphasize specific arenas where Biological Anthropology has a great capacity, and a strong obligation, to play a central role. However, Biological Anthropology also has substantive internal issues that hinder our ability to do the best possible science. If we are to live up to our potential and make a difference in the 21st century we need to ameliorate our structural shortcomings and expand our voice, and impact, in academic and public discourse. The goal of this perspective is to offer suggestions for moving us toward this goal.
Batai, Ken; Hooker, Stanley; Kittles, Rick A.
doi: 10.1002/ajpa.24144pmid: 32935870
Research to understand human genomic variation and its implications in health has great potential to contribute in the reduction of health disparities. Biological anthropology can play important roles in genomics and health disparities research using a biocultural approach. This paper argues that racial/ethnic categories should not be used as a surrogate for sociocultural factors or global genomic clusters in biomedical research or clinical settings, because of the high genetic heterogeneity that exists within traditional racial/ethnic groups. Genetic ancestry is used to show variation in ancestral genomic contributions to recently admixed populations in the United States, such as African Americans and Hispanic/Latino Americans. Genetic ancestry estimates are also used to examine the relationship between ancestry‐related biological and sociocultural factors affecting health disparities. To localize areas of genomes that contribute to health disparities, admixture mapping and genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) are often used. Recent GWAS have identified many genetic variants that are highly differentiated among human populations that are associated with disease risk. Some of these are population‐specific variants. Many of these variants may impact disease risk and help explain a portion of the difference in disease burden among racial/ethnic groups. Genetic ancestry is also of particular interest in precision medicine and disparities in drug efficacy and outcomes. By using genetic ancestry, we can learn about potential biological differences that may contribute to the heterogeneity observed across self‐reported racial groups.
doi: 10.1002/ajpa.24264pmid: 33675042
Human biological variation has historically been studied through the lens of racialization. Despite a general shift away from the use of overt racial terminologies, the underlying racialized frameworks used to describe and understand human variation still remain. Even in relatively recent anthropological and biomedical work, we can observe clear manifestations of such racial thinking. This paper shows how classification and valuation are two specific processes which facilitate racialization and hinder attempts to move beyond such frameworks. The bias induced by classification distorts descriptions of phenotypic variation in a way that erroneously portrays European populations as more variable than others. Implicit valuation occurs in tandem with classification and produces narratives of superiority/inferiority for certain phenotypic variants without an objective biological basis. The bias of racialization is a persistent impediment stemming from the inheritance of scientific knowledge developed under explicitly racial paradigms. It is also an internalized cognitive distortion cultivated through socialization in a world where racialization is inescapable. Though undeniably challenging, this does not present an insurmountable barrier, and this bias can be mitigated through the critical evaluation of past work, the active inclusion of marginalized perspectives, and the direct confrontation of institutional structures enforcing racialized paradigms.
Showing 1 to 10 of 21 Articles