• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Perspectives on science >'Curious Kinks of the Human Mind': Cognition, Natural History, and the Concept of Race
【24h】

'Curious Kinks of the Human Mind': Cognition, Natural History, and the Concept of Race

机译：“人类心灵的好奇纽带”：认知，自然历史和种族概念

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

There has been a common presumption in debates surrounding social construction that to catch out some entity or category as so constructed is at the same time to condemn it. Thus Ian Hacking notes that 'a primary use of 'social construction' is for consciousness raising;' it is 'critical of the status quo.' Social constructionists generally move, Hacking argues, from the argument that a given entity or category X 'need not have existed,' to the view that '{w}e would be much better off if X were done away with, or at least radically transformed' (Hacking 1999, p. 6). On this line of thinking, every entity or category is expected either to be a real feature of the world, something left over when the world is carved at its joints, or it is to be exposed as constructed and by the same measure to be relegated to the scrap-heap along with phlogiston, the ether, and so on. But the category of 'race' seems to defy this dichotomy. Since the mid-20th century no mainstream scientist has considered race a biologically significant category; no scientist believes any longer that 'negroid', 'caucasoid' and so on represent real natural kinds, carve nature at its joints, and so on. For several decades it has been well established that there is as much genetic variation between two members of any supposed race, as between two members of supposedly distinct races (see in particular Lewontin 1972). This is not to say that there are no real differences, some of which are externally observable, between different human populations; it is only to say, in Lawrence Hirschfeld's words, that 'races as socially defined do not (even loosely) capture interesting clusters of these differences' (Hirsch-feld 1998, p. 4). And yet the category of race continues to be deployed in a vast number of contexts, and certainly not just by racists, but by ardent anti-racists as well, and by everyone in between. The history of race, then, is not like the history of phlogiston: an entity that is shown not to exist and that accordingly proceeds to go away. How are we to explain this difference? This is the principal question I would like to consider in the present article.
机译：在围绕社会建设的辩论中有一个共同的假设，即找出某个实体或类别，同时又要谴责这种实体或类别。因此，伊恩·哈金（Ian Hacking）指出，“社会建构”的主要用途是提高意识。这是“对现状的批评”。 Hacking认为，社会建构论者通常会从“不需要存在给定的实体或类别X”这一论点出发，转向“如果X消失了，或者至少从根本上消失了，则{{e} e会更好”。 （Hacking 1999，p.6）。按照这种思路，每个实体或类别都应该是世界的真实特征，是在世界被刻在关节处时遗留下来的东西，或者它是被构造时暴露出来的，并且以相同的方式被贬低。并与发火素，乙醚等一起废弃。但是“种族”一词似乎无视这种二分法。自20世纪中叶以来，没有主流科学家将种族视为具有生物学意义的类别。没有科学家再相信“正负”，“高加索”等代表真正的自然物种，在其关节处雕刻自然等等。几十年来，众所周知的是，任何一个假定的种族的两个成员之间，以及两个假定的不同种族的成员之间，都存在着尽可能多的遗传变异（特别是参见Lewontin 1972）。这并不是说不同人群之间没有真正的区别，其中有些是可以从外部观察到的。用劳伦斯·赫希菲尔德（Lawrence Hirschfeld）的话说，“按照社会的定义，种族并没有（甚至松散地）捕捉到这些差异的有趣集群”（Hirsch-feld 1998，第4页）。但是，种族类别仍在广泛的环境中使用，当然不仅是种族主义者，而且是热情的反种族主义者，以及中间的每个人。因此，种族的历史就不像火药的历史：显示为不存在的实体，其结果是消失了。我们如何解释这种差异？这是我在本文中要考虑的主要问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号