Although racial discrimination poses a devastating instrument of oppression, social work texts lack a clear and consistent definition of race. The solution lies in according race the status of an “actor version” concept, while exploring the origins and variations of race ideas using “scientific observer version” explanations. This distinction provides the means for determining the sources of harmful race ideas, an indispensable first step in combating them. Using recent teaching materials, we can emphasize our common humanity to promote social justice without sacrificing our recognition of the damage inflicted by racial ideas.
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION poses one of the most devastating forms of oppression in the modern era. The systematic exploitation and abuse of whole populations by other groups more powerful and different in appearance have pockmarked human history since the European mercantilist ventures of the 1500s. Depredations carried out under the banner of racism (i.e., discrimination against a group based on its assumed physical differences) are stunning in their scale, and the problem of racism persists in the United States and other countries today.
Confusion About Race in Social Work Textbooks and Reference Works
Despite the importance of race as an issue in human affairs, social work literature lacks consensus on its treatment of race. Definitions vary widely — or do not appear at all. The task of defining “what social workers read” is complicated by the broad scope of social work inquiry and the plethora of approaches in the field (Thyer, 2002). The issue at hand concerns how we define a critical concept in our field for teaching; therefore, this study focuses on selected social work textbooks and reference works that students consult for definitive statements. The sample also includes sources from the selected model course outlines compiled under the auspices of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE; Smith, Gabriel, Lott, & Hirano, 2000).
Even this cursory examination reveals a dismaying inconsistency in social work’s treatment of race. We can discern three approaches to race in the social work literature: (1) variations on lay (or “folk”) definitions and assumptions regarding race, sometimes with qualifications; (2) use of the term without any definition, or equivocation by simply mentioning disagreements about definition; and (3) explicit rejection of the concept of race. The latter may base its rejection on advances in scientific understanding or rely on a social constructivist critique. Another approach, in a few cases, calls for substituting ethnicity for race.
Replicating Lay Definitions of Race
One major social work reference, the fifth edition of The Social Work Dictionary, preserves popular assumptions in its definition of race. This resource defines race as “[t]he major subdivisions of the human species whose distinguishing characteristics are genetically transmitted,” but adds that there are “myriad” ways of dividing races (Barker, 2003, p. 357). Two textbooks for social work subfields also present definitions of race compatible with popular notions. Generalist Social Work Practice by Miley, O’Melia, and DuBois tells us that “[r]ace refers to physical characteristics, with special attention to skin color and facial features” (2007, p. 68). Dale, Smith, Norlin, and Chess state that race is a “biological fact,” but one that “changes as society changes,” and suggests that “racial mixing” has altered “the biological distinctions between races” (2005, p. 86).
Omitting a Definition or Perpetuating Ambiguity
There is no entry for race in the latest edition of the Encyclopedia of Social Work (Mizrahi & Davis, 2008), nor is there a race entry in the 1997 supplement to the previous edition (Edwards, Colby, Garcia, McRoy, & Videka-Sherman, 1997). The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Work defines race as “a word which has been used in an essentialist way as a biological, social and cultural construct to classify and distinguish one group of people from another, by using criteria such as skin colour, language and customary behaviour.” The entry goes on to note that the word has “contested” meanings, with “modern geneticists” claiming that the term has no basis as a biological category for human beings. The entry’s authors abdicate responsibility for defining the term: “The aim is not to provide a definitive set of words of explanation [for race and racism], but to reflect something of the contested and shifting meanings of the terms” (Burke & Harrison, 2000, p. 282). Nor does a definition of race inform “Gender, Ethnicity, and Race Matters,” the chapter devoted to discussing race-related research issues in the Handbook of Social Work Research Methods (Rodgers-Farmer & Potocky-Tripoldi, 2001).
Several texts use the word race only as a stepping-stone to discussing racism, leaving popular assumptions intact. None of the contributions to the 1999 Ewalt, Fortune, Poole, and Witkin collection, Multicultural Issues in Social Work: Practice and Research, provides a definition of race, but one writer defines racism as “the belief that one’s own race is superior to another” (Spencer, 1999, p. 152). Similarly, the Jacobs and Bowles compilation Ethnicity and Race: Critical Concepts in Social Work (1988) does not offer a definition of race, despite the book’s title. One of its chapters, however, offers a definition of racism as “a cultural ideology that espouses the view that one race of people is inherently superior to another race of people” (Williams, 1988, p. 170).
Rejecting the Race Concept
Publications in the third category reject the race concept, either by applying present-day thinking in science or by criticizing race as a “socially constructed” idea. James Green’s Cultural Awareness in 
the Human Services: A MultiEthnic Approach states unequivocally: “[Race] has no standing of any kind as a scientific concept” (1999, p. 10). The most thorough critique appears in Michael Winkelman’s Ethnic Sensitivity in Social Work (1999). Citing an impressive array of scientific studies beginning with Franz Boas’ classic work, the author systematically attacks race as “the notion of a group with unique and common biological traits which exclusively differentiate them from other biological groups” (p. 110). He concludes that the belief in races is anything but benign because it lacks a scientific basis; instead, it provides ammunition to racism “because it prejudicially imputes to people and groups inherent characteristics and qualities” (p. 116). The Jose B. Ashford and Craig Winston LeCroy textbook for HBSE courses also states that the word race is bereft of meaning in the biology of human variation, and provides a concise explanation. The authors distinguish a “sociological” definition of race (2010, p. 172). Wynetta Devore and Elfriede Schlesinger’s Ethnic-Sensitive Social Work Practice (1999) also provides a comprehensive treatment of race. After reviewing both its inadequacy as a scientific concept and the immense damage wrought by its application, the authors note the problem of the term’s “constant common use” (p. 28). Their own solution is to avoid the word “as much as possible” (Devore & Schlesinger, 1999, p. 29).
Those who reject the race concept by labeling it a “social construction” regard race as a fabricated category inspired by a set of social and political agendas that are agreed on by negotiation or “discourse.” Ronald Taylor’s 1997 overview of race in the social sciences for social workers identifies this treatment as “increasingly dominant” (p. 290). John Longres’ HBSE textbook also suggests regarding race as a “social construction of reality,” but his treatment avoids taking a stand on “whether the concept of race should be rejected” (2000, p. 101). Similarly, Eileen Gambrill’s 2006 Social Work Practice labels race a social construction (p. 38). The Gina Miranda Samuels contribution to Our Diverse Society, a 2006 National Association of Social Workers publication, presents race “as a social construct, but one that continues to operate in the United States as real and primarily biological” (2006, p. 38). Another way of rejecting race proposes substituting it with the term ethnic group. A few social work writers have found this option appealing (Davis & Proctor, 1989; Devore & Schlesinger, 1999).
Bio: Dr. Samuel Kataoka Coleman Coleman is an anthropologist who applies his academic specialty to issues in social work. He received his PhD in Anthropology and Certificate of The East Asian Institute in 1978. Among his publications are books on Japanese family planning and the social organization of biomedical research in Japan. Coleman expanded his professional specialization to include social work, with an emphasis on older adults and families. He received his MSW from California State University Long Beach (CSULB) in 2002. He currently teaches in the Department of Asian and Asian-American Studies at CSULB.
Editors Note: USARiseUp.com acquired written permission to publish this paper from the Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Winter 2011). © 2011, Council on Social Work Education, Inc. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.5175/JSWE.2011.200900086
To read the entire paper click here and download the PDF version for free.
Comments
I have a hard time believing
I have a hard time believing that people reject the concept of race. That is not to say that I don't believe there are people who act this way, it is just that I don't understand how one would think that race is a "fabricated category inspired by a set of social and political agendas." I think that sometimes we do lack a clear definition of race, but my understanding of race is parallel to that of the Blackwell Encyclopedia. I see race as a biological, social, and cultural construct. I also agree that race is a sometimes necessary means of classifying/ distinguishing a group of people. We are all on this planet and are all humans, but our differences make us interesting. I think the criteria that is used to help supplement definitions of race is where problems arise. I understand that we can distinguish one group of people from another by their skin color and language, because this seems very basic. However, as I state this I begin to think about the infinite amount of racial mixing that has happened and how this complicates a clear-cut definition of race. I do not see this as a problem though, because I think it is amazing to look at how cultures have evolved due to the racial ambiguities that racial mixing causes. The criteria mentioned about customary behavior is where I see problems with classifying and defining race. I believe that this category is where racial profiling and stereotyping gains power and negative influence on society.
R.A.C.E.
Race has always been something that is hard to put a finger on. Every offered definition has been picked apart by researchers and race experts. The term is gray. I believe it will never really have a universal understanding because it is ever-changing. As far as picking apart the Sociology texts, I will reiterate that this word has never had a universal understanding. In fact, I would make the argument that it cannot. Race is understood in different ways because of its personal meanings. The words very nature is foggy. It only causes confusion, and what we do when we face that confusion is what allows to either grasp the concept or be lost in the mist of society. Understanding and acknowledging this confusion, I believe is what the true goal is behind making a "universal" definition. When we define something we attach things that are most likely to occur, not that ALWAYS occur. This misconception is what creates the smog and blinds the uneducated passer by.
Race
It is also hard for me to believe that the idea of race is rejected by some people. I believe race is a very real thing, and it’s how we view race that is the problem. As other users said, our differences are what make us unique. If we were all the same, then there would be no individuality or self-expression. Race should be viewed as a good thing, and something that makes us unique from others. When we view all races as equal, but still unique, then the problem of racism doesn’t come into play. I believe that the word “race” should be put into Encyclopedias, and we should come up with a universal definition of the word. This is the hard part: everyone has to agree on what the definition should be. This might seem impossible, but if we are able to agree on where we stand on race and express our opinions, racism will become almost nonexistent in the future
Man-Made Concept
I believe race is more of a man made concept rather than just a simple word with a definition. I believe race is just our way of excluding ourselves from one another as a people. Not saying it doesn't exist because it does, considering the fact that it has been incorporated in our culture just solidifies my point. When you think of race typically people see color which we all do so I feel no one should deny it. It has been put in our school textbooks and implanted in all of us. We are very self-conscious about ourselves and its not our fault personally but its almost impossible to change it. However, instead of trying to change it and deny it we should just embrace it and realize what is going on and maybe we won't have confusion and issues such as this.
Race Made By Man
I don't have to much to say, except race is always going to be there and it has been there from the beginning. I feel that some people sometimes take it out of concept. You cant just get rid of the word race because the meaning of it will always be there.
Race will always be there.
Race will always be there. It is a key part of the history of most cultures. I say that race is permanent also because of the examples of racism that can be seen elsewhere in the world. In South Africa, the hutus and tutsis masacred eachother. In many cases, they had to see and ID card to identify between races. This just shows that racism can and will exist between people who can't even distinguish themselves from eachother.
Continuous
Race is something that will be here as long as everyone lives. From what I believe we are all one race, but we all have our uniqueness that makes us different. I think if others would step out of their boundary for once and learn something new about another culture, the world wouldn't be as bad as it is now. But race has many definitioins and I believe the world bases each culture on that. It should just have one set definitions, so others won't be defined as this or that.
Who I A.
Race is a human made concept. It is also who we are biologically and socially. These two ideas can coexist at the same time. To say I have never experienced racism would be a lie. The problem is here. The slander and demeaning of different races is so difficult to eliminate because of the systems around us that reinforce it. To me, this includes family, music, and the media. I can accept it. It's what makes us unique and different.