Social Constructionist Theory On Race And Ethnicity
Advocates of Realism theory contend race and ethnicity are truths that contribute to an over arching make-up that equals an innate social identity. The rudimentary proponents of an individual’s identity must then suffice as pragmatic and permanent from birth. Subsequently, when humans build relations perceivable features allow us to understand similarities and disparities. According to Realists, no two individuals are the same and therefore the ensuing natural propensity creates categories for placing individuals; people can then identify as “us” versus “them”. By maintaining groups based on both ancestral background and perceived phenotypic attributes, Realists conclude humans should foster collective sentiments of multiculturalism and diversity.
…show more content…
The assumptions held by the majority establish ideas that become habituated and even institutionalized in practice, ultimately creating the parameters for social inequality. One residing misconception among many individuals is the idea of varied gene structure between races. John Macionis (2010) in his book, Social Problems, observes there is more genetic variation between members of the same race than between races (III, 69). If human beings are more similar than once thought racial categories become obsolete even impractical. Likewise, ethnicity was once thought to be a permanent aspect similar to a physical feature. However, Mary Waters (1990) offers tangible evidence suggesting ethnicity is not primordial rather situational and capricious. Younger generations of Americans will be unclear of their ethnicity. Later down the line this ambiguity can lead people to shift ethnicities as such was the case in the 1980 ancestry data (II, 20). Within one generation a noticeable percentage of the American population altered their ethnicity in order to simplify (II, 36). Ethnicity’s lack of permanence and subjectivity deviates from a practical, logical way of categorizing people. Rumbaut (2009) would assert these social constructs, primarily race, act as a direct link toward a predetermined placement in class ranking (1). Lumping diverse groups into a catchall category creates the negative ramification of minorities against a majority. The only purpose of Race then allows people to determine which side they belong too. As seen with the integration of Hispanics into the “white” race, the US census adopted another category “non-Hispanic white” (5). This furthered the belief that the Latinos officially incorporated into the white population would not receive the benefits or label of a pure, white race. While pigments of the imagination, race
The assumptions held by the majority establish ideas that become habituated and even institutionalized in practice, ultimately creating the parameters for social inequality. One residing misconception among many individuals is the idea of varied gene structure between races. John Macionis (2010) in his book, Social Problems, observes there is more genetic variation between members of the same race than between races (III, 69). If human beings are more similar than once thought racial categories become obsolete even impractical. Likewise, ethnicity was once thought to be a permanent aspect similar to a physical feature. However, Mary Waters (1990) offers tangible evidence suggesting ethnicity is not primordial rather situational and capricious. Younger generations of Americans will be unclear of their ethnicity. Later down the line this ambiguity can lead people to shift ethnicities as such was the case in the 1980 ancestry data (II, 20). Within one generation a noticeable percentage of the American population altered their ethnicity in order to simplify (II, 36). Ethnicity’s lack of permanence and subjectivity deviates from a practical, logical way of categorizing people. Rumbaut (2009) would assert these social constructs, primarily race, act as a direct link toward a predetermined placement in class ranking (1). Lumping diverse groups into a catchall category creates the negative ramification of minorities against a majority. The only purpose of Race then allows people to determine which side they belong too. As seen with the integration of Hispanics into the “white” race, the US census adopted another category “non-Hispanic white” (5). This furthered the belief that the Latinos officially incorporated into the white population would not receive the benefits or label of a pure, white race. While pigments of the imagination, race