Race, Biology & Culture

Racism ala Flight of the Conchords

The article I mentioned last week by Kuzawa & Sweet is now posted to the website. I also noticed that there was no link to the Krieger & Davey Smith article. You may have found the article on your own already, but if not, it’s there now. I apologize for making these updates later than promised, but I hope you’ll make time to read the Kuzawa & Sweet article — it’s essential reading.

If you get hooked by Kuzawa & Sweet’s article, you may also want to check out the following article, which will appear in the same issue of Am J Hum Biol:

Jasienska, G. (2008). Low birth weight of contemporary African Americans: An intergenerational effect of slavery? Am J Hum Biol, in press.

The readings for this week focus on the role of the social impact and restrictions on people of different social races that manifest in their biology. The articles are based on Life History Theory which generally states that the timing of life events (birth, age at menarche, death) are played out in the balance of finite time and energy allocation to the differing biological functions for either survival or fertility. Essentially, energy must be allocated between maintenance and reproduction, taking into account how long life is expected to last and the amount of insult in terms of disease and stress the body will take throughout life.

Barker (2004) examines the link between adult health and well-being and fetal growth and infant development. Based on fetal origins hypothesis, which is that constrained energy and nutrition due to maternal health before and after gestation is the framework for increased disease risk later in life, Barker’s work shows three different reasons for decreased well being in low birthweight infants and childhood growth rate: decreased number of cells in key organs, setting of hormones and metabolism for life, and smaller people are more vulnerable to environmental stressors later in life. Through the establishment of a restricted use of resources during development, the individual creates a template for continued responses throughout life. This response is due to the use the allocation of energy to survival and later reproduction at the expense of maintenance, thus allowing for increased disease later in life.

Does the fetal origins hypothesis make sense in terms of growth and development processes? Does it provide an accurate means by which to explain the Lamarckian implications of the fetal origins hypothesis? Is there another mechanism(s) that may describe the same outcomes? How does adult plasticity in adaptation to environment play into the fetal origins hypothesis?

Worthman and Kuzara (2005) examine how life history theory can be used to explain the differences in hormone levels at different times of development. While Barker (2004) does not emphasize hormones levels, that is the focus of Worthman and Kuzara (2005). Through examining cortisol levels, which is considered to be the “traffic cop of resource partitioning” for short and long term demands (p.99), they show how cortisol levels are responsive to the maternal levels and act as a barrier to insults from the mother’s body. This is based on the hypotheses of the Expectable Environment of Rearing (EER) and the Expectable Environment of Gestation (EEG). Fetal development and fetal programming are considered one in the same by the authors, since development establishes regulatory levels of hormones for life, and largely reflects the EEG rather than insult or pathology.

The authors state that changes which increase immediate survivability and incur long term detrimental costs are selectively favored. Why would that be the case?

Are the EEG and EER useful concepts? What, if anything, can they tell us anything about fetal development and changes in health later in life?

Kreiger and Davey Smith (2004) take a different perspective on how culture can become biology. By going in a more theoretical direction, they explain how “embodiment” should be the basis studying health inequalities, specifically within social epidemiology. Embodiment is the move from the Cartesian body/mind or culture/nature duality to a realization that there is a feedback loop between the two, with constant adjustment of one to the other. They then use several examples of how things like low lightweight, age at menarche, adult height, and the impact of childhood abuse reflect differences in maternal health and resources during gestation and early childhood, as well as differences in reaction to stressors later in life. As the authors so aptly note, the body does not partition experiences, such as age, gender, ethnicity, residence, etc.

What does this mean about studying disease and differences among groups, ethnicities, and races? How would this approach help or be detrimental to the study of how “Race becomes Biology”?

I will write brief synopses of the Dressler et al, Geronimus et al and Gravlee et al articles followed by a few questions to stimulate discussion.

Dressler et al basically set the foundation for the overall theme of this week:  disparities in health in given populations based on race, ethnicity, skin color.  They identify five major theoretical models in the existing public health literature that are concerned with explaining health disparities based on race.  It should be noted that there is a consensus among all five paradigms of the existence of inequality in mortality, disease, low birth weight and other markers of well-being among races, the differences lie in the explanations each model offers.  Model 1)  Racial-Genetic Model:  This model states that genetic characteristics that people of West African descent share make them more susceptible to certain conditions.  Others attribute the passage from Africa to the Americas and the subsequent experience with slavery for this.  Model 2) Health-Behavior Model:  This model states that particular behaviors such as low physical activity, smoking, drinking and unhealthy food consumption are more prevalent among African Americans and explain health disparities.  Model 3) Socio-Economic Status Model:  The lower level of SES among blacks when compared to whites (and not race itself) are thought to be responsible for health differences in this model.  Model 4) Psychosocial Stress Model:  Highlights the experiences that blacks must live through in a racist society and how these in turn create higher rates of particular illnesses.  Model 5) Structural-Constructivist Model: Focuses on how racially-based social structures create patterns of inequality where those who are at the bottom receive the brunt of these disparities.  The authors then point out that health research should employ models 4 and 5 more often and express concern at the prevalence of ideologies stemming from model 1.

Gravlee et al, looked at skin pigmentation and social classification and examined their relationships with blood pressure in Puerto Rico.  By selecting three culturally constructed categories: blanco, trigueno and negro, the authors sought to explain whether a relationship between these and rates of blood pressure existed.  They found that people classified as negro and who had average to above average SES had higher rates of blood pressure.  Those that were trigueno (and who, it is assumed, have an intermediate amount of skin pigmentation compared to blancos and negros) did not have different rates of blood pressure than blancos.  From a structural and psychosocial stress model, the authors conclude that the social implications of skin color (a biological phenomenon) can affect another biological condition, blood pressure.

In a similar study, Geronimus et al looked at the whether black Americans experienced faster rates of health deterioration when compared to whites.  These rates were measured by looking at the level of physiological burdens produced by stress (called allostatic load scores).  The authors found that blacks as a whole, and black women in particular, had higher allostatic load scores even when controling for social class.  Once again, structural and psychosocial factors, which victimize African Americans, are likely to be the causes of these differences.

A few questions:

1)  We touched upon this in class earlier in the semester and Dressler et al do as well, but why do you think racial-genetic explanations are so popular when explaining health disparities?  What about the health-behavior model?  Is the idea of the ”irresponsible black man/woman” a cause of this?

2) Aside from blood pressure, low birth weight and heart disease, what other illnesses can be attributed to structural factors?  What about AIDS?  Cancer?

My post reflects the articles written by Krieger, Frank, and Williams et al. These three articles focused on perceptions of discrimination as they relate to “racial” health disparities. Krieger argued that one’s perception of and exposure to racism adversely affects one’s health. However, it is also important to take into account one’s social class when studying one’s health.

Similarly, Frank argued that social indicators rather than racial indicators better explain health disparities. She explained that there are biological differences between people and between populations, but these differences are not racially patterned. Furthermore, health differences (such as diabetes and low infant birth weights predominantly seen in African American populations) involve interactions between both biological and social factors.

Lastly, Williams et al. found that higher levels of discrimination tend to be associated with higher levels of illness/health risk (both mental health and perceived physical health). They went through several important issues to consider when researching race and health disparities. Additionally, they explained it is important to consider how perceptions of discrimination adversely affect health. For instance, do perceptions simply lead to worsened emotional states; do they increase the chances of risky behaviors such as smoking or abusing alcohol; or do they play off of individual psychological or biological vulnerabilities. Williams et al. concluded by stating, “the persistence of racial inequalities in health must be understood in light of the persistence of racialized social structures that affect health status in multiple ways” (p.206).

Questions to consider:

1. In the Williams et al. article, do you think respondent’s self-reported measures of health accurately depict their actual health status? Or does this more accurately measure the respondent’s mental health status?
2. Do you agree with Krieger’s definition of race/ethnicity? In class, we define race and ethnicity as separate concepts. Why doesn’t Krieger do the same?
3. Do you agree with Krieger’s assertion that you can “never study human biology – or behavior – in the abstract” (p.195)?
4. Frank, like Krieger and Williams et al, used the term race/ethnicity. Do you think this is a factor of studying “racial” health disparities? In other words, when studying “racial” health disparities, is it unimportant to distinguish race from ethnicity?
5. Do you think the media (such as http://www.blackhealthcare.com/, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/africanamericanhealth.html) propagates the “myth” that racial health disparities are genetic rather than social/environmental? Or is access to this sort of information empowering?      

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449727,00.html

Going along with what Lina mentioned, Sansone’s later chapters begin to analyze the everyday behaviors of mostly young, black (or some sort of dark-skinned) Brazilians.  One of the most important aspects he touches upon is their exploration and use of cultural components which are deemed to be the property of blacks in another part of the world: music, dance and mannerisms of black Americans.  Sansone argues that it is this genre of music, imported from the US thanks to films, television and popular music, instead of white rock, that has captured the imagination of Brazilian blacks by virtue of being the product of a people that come from a similar social place.  It seems that the fact that fellow underprivileged, dark-skinned people are able to become a part of the lucrative culture industry is something that black Brazilians are aware of in a subconscious way.  Much like in the US, conspicuous consumption is also a very effective way of delineating economic differences, even within members of the same, broad working class.

A few questions to ponder:

1)  Sansone notes that most of his interviewees in Bahia and Rio insisted that the best part of the culture of which they were a part of and which they reproduced, was multi-racial and open to all groups.  How can they reconcile this narrative with the fact that whites (or other light-skinned people) formed a very small minority of the people Sansone observed?  Why did they adopt funk, hip hop and reggae, and not alternative or punk rock?

2)  What role does the celebration of miscegenation play in the creation of the discourse of Brazil (and other countries in Latin America) as a racial democracy?  Can the pervasiveness of these discourses serve as a smokescreen for continued material inequality based on race?

3)  Sansone points out something that I believe is too often overlooked in everyday discussions of popular black culture: its supposed antagonistic and oppositional qualities (baggy jeans, colorful clothes, particular speech entonations) to the mainstream are products of the disadvantaged social position in which they find themselves in.  Would these cultural norms and practices disappear if racial inequality itself disappears?  Is their elimination something that we should want and/or look forward to in the first place?  In other words, if economic disparities have created a vast array of cultural patterns for blacks in Brazil, the US and Europe, how would these patterns change as the never-ending quest to end economic inequality continues?

This week’s book brings a different perspective into our search for answers and understanding about race, culture and ethnicity. As we have discussed before these terms have various meanings and uses according to the place, country, and group of people using them. So this week we go for on an adventure to South America to look to Brazil for answers.

It is interesting that the Introduction of this book addresses some questions we discussed a couple of weeks before about “ethnicity.” “The term ‘ethnicity’ which had already become part of the popular jargon regarding migrants and their reception in Europe, was almost unheard of outside the academic world” (pg 1.) But today as mentioned in this same chapter,  this term has become a term that many use, recognize and associate, but still a term without a clear or concise definition. Sansone mentions that the term has been used to describe exotic cuisine, holidays, fashions, beauty products, “that is, ethnic has come to replace the term exotic, quaint, non-white or, simply, rare and different.” So can we really describe or attempt to replace ’race’ or the race concept with words that are not even clear in other places of the world other than the united States (not that in the US is any more clear) where “race” is very much present?

One of the approaches the author takes to start the “race” and “ethnicity” conversation surfaces this dilemma. Sansone’s method to start the conversation is described in page 21 (Chapter 1) where he describes from the beginning than in order to explore race and its relationship in Brazilian life he had to start by studying and defining race and its terminology. Also to take a closer look at economic and social aspects as well as location, history, generations, education (pg 89) and the evolution/change of these aspects through time. Are we convinced by his definitions? Does it help to start with this method? Do we see a clear difference between race in the United States and other places of the world? is his research and data sufficient for the conclusions and observations given by the author?

 Farther into the book in chapters 2 and 3 Sansone addresses globalization and its implications is Brazil and in Afro- culture and roots. Do we see globalization as “helping” ethnic revival in Brazil or even in other countries as the USA? What is the author’s take on globalization? do we agree/disagree? Do we realize how fast all these concepts and their effects in society really change? The following is a paragraph that speaks volumes about how lost we truly are with our identity, preferences, likes and dislikes; what we beleive is good, interesting, attractive or how we even measure those things, no matter what color, “race”, backgroun or “ethnicity” we may have…

“A New Black-Bahian Culture: Black Cultur as Youth Culture”                                                                        Nowadays in Bahia, generally speaking, young blacks construct their blackness largely by managing their physical appearance-by visible and sometimes dramatic attempts to subvert the stigma associated with black bodies. Bad hair is turned into Afro hair, and thick lips into sensual, more natural lips. The pejorative judgement of many lighter skinned Bahians that darker Bahians prefer flashy clothes and cannot dress in style is subverted by the creation of a new black look and fashion that borrows, in particular, from a reinterpretation of Africa, black North America, youth fashion in general, and the look of the malandro (the dandy Brazilian hustler). (pg 99)

Please post personal comments, observations, answers to some of the questions, maybe even your own questions and thoughts on the book. Have some ideas and comments ready to go for class.

Just thought I’d get the discussion started on this week’s readings…

These readings highlight the complexity of the race concept and the extent of its applicability in Latin American contexts. 

Synopses

Safa highlights the importance of changing ethnic demographics on perceptions of race.

Sheriff argues that the Brazilian ambiguous race classification system, which has traditionally been contrasted with the U.S. black/white hypodescent system, is in fact based on a black/white duality, with intermediate terms serving as social niceties.

Trouillot describes Haiti’s history of political tension and phenotypic discrimination between blacks and mulattoes, arguing that the perisistence of these groups despite overwhelming statistical odds for miscegenation is proof of prejudice.  ‘Even though color has never functioned alone, it has had an independent social value… it is a commodity in the game of inter- and intraclass alliances.  It has an exchange value that can be and is calculated…’.

Godreau argues that Puerto Ricans talk about race (or color) in a shifting linguistic pattern (‘slippery semantics’) which is highly dependent on context and defies binary black/white dichotomization.  He states that both U.S. and Latin race classification schemes co-exist and their use is highly context-specific.  Which meaning is to be ascribed depends on who says it, when, and how.

Gravlee asks to what extent there is a shared emic ethnic classification in the US and in other societies (within the societies themselves).  He finds that there is cultural consensus on color terms and what factors determine color in Southeastern Puerto Rico.  He advocates using new research methods to determine what the emic cultural boundaries of categories like race, color or ethnicity are.

Bordieu and argues that the U.S exercises hegemony over the intellectual world market, and in doing so masks and legitimizes U.S. racism, as well as exporting the concept around the world.  He says that imposition of the black/white system is not appropriate in places like Brazil.  Suggests that the ‘globalization of race’ results from the quasi-universalization of the US folk-concept of race as a result of the worldwide export of US scholarly categories.

French responds to Bordieu and Wacqant, arguing that their critique of the U.S./globalized race concept is improper, over the top and unquestioningly accommodating of national myths other than those of the U.S.

Concepts:

These readings show that the Latin American race concept cannot simply be characterized as a ‘continuum’ in stark contrast to the binary U.S. system.  They highlight a few difficulties with comparing race concepts between cultures, including:

1.       The concept of ‘race’ does not necessarily translate perfectly across cultures.  There is no word in Spanish that encapsulates the U.S. meaning of the word.  Both raza and color express different, but related concepts. 

2.       Racial terms can be employed differently in shifting social contexts.  They are not just referential, but pragmatic as well.

3.       Changing demographics, economics and politics potentially can cause shifts in how racial terms are employed

4.       The problematic power relationships between academics, classes, races that Bordieu highlighted, contribute to confusion or misrepresentation of the local situation.

Questions:

Do these articles shed light on how ‘race’ can be comparatively and cross-culturally studied?  Do they shed light on the nature of the differences between Latin American and U.S. conceptions and uses of race?  How do these readings contribute to an understanding of the shifting nature of race in the U.S. as well as Latin America?

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/racists-support-obama-061308