Race as a Biological Concept 281to reach agreement on the number of genes and precisely
which ones are the most important for defining races.
The second weakness in the biological definition of
race is that no one race has exclusive possession of any
particular variant of any gene or genes. In human terms,
the frequency of a trait like the type O blood group, for ex-
ample, may be high in one population and low in another,
but it is present in both. In other words, populations are
genetically “open,” meaning that genes flow between them.
Because populations are genetically open, no fixed racial
groups can exist. The only reproductive barriers that exist
for humans are the cultural rules some societies impose
regarding appropriate mates. As President Obama’s family
illustrates (Kenyan father and Euramerican mother, who,
incidentally, was an anthropologist), these social barriers
are changing.
Third, the biological definition of race does not ap-
ply to humans because the differences among individuals
and within a so-called racial population are greater than
the differences among populations. Evolutionary biolo-
gist Richard Lewontin demonstrated this through genetic
analyses in the 1970s. He compared the amount of ge-
netic variation within populations and among so-called
racial types, finding a mere 7 percent of human variation
existing among groups.^3 Instead, the vast majority of ge-
netic variation exists within groups. As the science writer
James Shreeve puts it, “most of what separates me geneti-
cally from a typical African or Eskimo also separates me
from another average American of European ancestry.”^4
This follows from the fact of genetic openness of races; no
one race has an exclusive claim to any particular form of a
gene or trait.
Considering the above, it is small wonder that most
anthropologists have abandoned the race concept as be-
ing of utility in understanding human biological varia-
tion. Instead, they have found it more productive to study
clines—the distribution and significance of single, specific,
genetically based characteristics and continuous traits re-
lated to adaptation (see Chapter 2). They examine human
variation within small breeding populations, the smallest
units in which evolutionary change occurs.or “Negroid” were at best mere statistical abstractions
about populations in which certain physical features ap-
peared in higher frequencies than in other populations; no
example of “pure” racial types could be found. These cat-
egories turned out to be neither definitive nor particularly
helpful. The visible traits were generally found to occur
not in abrupt shifts from population to population but in a
continuum that changed gradually, with few sharp breaks.
To compound the problem, one trait might change gradu-
ally over a north-south gradient, whereas another might
show a similar change from east to west. Human skin
color, for instance, becomes progressively darker as one
moves from northern Europe to Central Africa, whereas
blood type B becomes progressively more common as one
moves from western to eastern Europe.
Finally, there are many variations within each group,
and those within groups are often greater than those be-
tween groups. In Africa, the light-brown skin color of
someone from the Kalahari Desert might more closely
resemble that of a person from Southeast Asia than the
darkly pigmented person from southern Sudan who is
supposed to be of the same race.Race as a Biological Concept
To understand why the “racial” approach to human varia-
tion has been so unproductive and even damaging, we
must first understand the race concept in strictly biologi-
cal terms. In biology, a race is defined as a subspecies, or
a population of a species differing geographically, mor-
phologically, or genetically from other populations of the
same species.
As straightforward as such a definition may seem, it
has three very serious flaws. First, it is arbitrary; there is no
agreement on how many differences it takes to make a race.
For example, if one researcher emphasizes skin color while
another emphasizes blood group differences, they will not
classify people in the same way. Ultimately, it is impossibleFingerprint patterns of loops, whorls, and arches are genetically de-
termined. Grouping people on this basis would place most Europeans,
sub-Saharan Africans, and East Asians together as “loops.” Australian
Aborigines and the people of Mongolia would be together as “whorls.”
The Bushmen of southern African would be grouped as “arches.”© Laurence Dutton/Getty Images race In biology, a subspecies or a population of a species dif-
fering geographically, morphologically, or genetically from
other populations of the same species; not applicable to people
because the division of humans into discrete types does not rep-
resent the true nature of human biological variation. In some
societies, race is an important social category.(^3) Lewontin, R. C. (1972). The apportionment of human diversity. In
T. Dobzhansky, et al. (Eds.), Evolutionary biology (pp. 381–398). New York:
Plenum.
(^4) Shreeve, J. (1994). Terms of estrangement. Discover 15 (11), 60.