Flashback Friday.
Social and biological scientists agree that race and ethnicity are social constructions, not biological categories. The US government, nonetheless, has an official position on what categories are “real.” You can find them on the Census:
These categories, however real they may seem, are actually the product of a long process. Over time, the official US racial categories have changed in response to politics, economics, conflict, and more. Here’s some highlights.
In the year of the first Census, 1790, the race question looked very different than it does today:
Free white males
Free white females
All other free persons (included Native Americans who paid taxes and free blacks)
And slaves
By 1870 slavery is illegal and the government was newly concerned with keeping track of two new kinds of people: “mulattos” (or people with both black and white ancestors) and Indians:
White
Black
Mulatto
Indian (Native Americans)
Between 1850 and 1870 6.5 million Europeans had immigrated and 60,000 Chinese. Chinese and Japanese were added for the 1880 Census.
By 1890, the U.S. government with obsessed with race-mixing. The race question looked like this:
White
Black (3/4th or more “black blood”)
Mulatto (3/8th to 5/8th “black blood”)
Quadroons (1/4th “black blood”)
Octoroons (1/8th or any trace of “black blood”)
Indian
Chinese
Japanese
This year was the only year to include such fine-tuned mixed-race categories, however, because it turned out it wasn’t easy to figure out how to categorize people.
In the next 50 years, the government added and deleted racial categories. There were 10 in 1930 (including “Mexican” and “Hindu”) and 11 in 1940 (introducing “Hawaiian” and “Part Hawaiian”). In 1970, they added the “origin of descent” question that we still see today. So people are first asked whether they are “Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish” and then asked to choose a race.
You might immediately think, “But what do these words even mean?” And you’d be right to ask. “Spanish” refers to Spain; “Latino” refers to Latin America; and “Hispanic” is a totally made up word that was originally designed to mean “people who speak Spanish.”
Part of the reason we have the “Hispanic” ethnicity question is because Mexican Americans fought for it. They thought it would be advantageous to be categorized as “white” and, so, they fought for an ethnicity category instead of a racial one.
Funny story: The US once included “South American” as a category in the “origin of descent” question. That year, over a million residents southern U.S. states, like Alabama and Mississippi checked that box.
2000 was the first year that respondents were allowed to choose more than one race. They considered a couple other changes for that year, but decided against them. Native Hawaiians had been agitating to be considered Native Americans in order to get access to the rights and resources that the US government has promised Native Americans on the mainland. The government considered it for 2000, but decided “no.” And whether or not Arab American should be considered a unique race or an ethnicity was also discussed for that year. They decided to continue to instruct such individuals to choose “white.”
The changing categories in the Census show us that racial and ethnic categories are political categories. They are chosen by government officials who are responding not to biological realities, but to immigration, war, prejudice, and social movements.
This post originally appeared in 2010.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 54
Philip Cohen — March 29, 2010
If I'm not misremembering, till 1950 or so, Census takers just eye-balled people to determine race, or only asked if they weren't sure. Self reporting was a big difference.
Caravelle — March 29, 2010
Considering those people who talk about identifying as "Confederate American" on the census... the "South American" story is hilarious !
Nia — March 29, 2010
Spaniards hate to be considered Hispanic / Latinos by the US Government, partly because it is inacurate to consider us Latinos and partly because they fear the information will be used to institutionalise racism against Spaniards living or travelling in the USA.
R — March 29, 2010
This is fascinating stuff. I've been reading the documents on the selected questions for the 2011 UK census and the reasonings behind their choices for the ethnic group section make interesting reading. Can't seem to link directly but the pdfs can be found via http://www.ons.gov.uk/census
What's wierder (to me) is that the ethnic group question was only added to the UK census in 1991.
Marina — March 29, 2010
Being a second generation Mexican-American I was somewhat distraught when I came across question 9. I found that separating the Hispanic/Latino/Spanish as an ethnic group and all others as a race was problematic because I do not identify as white, black, etc. To solve my dilemma I wrote "mestiza" in the "Other" category but I think this speaks volumes about the constructions of race and ethnicity. I wonder how many other folks had issues with these questions when filling out this form.
MPS — March 29, 2010
"The changing categories in the U.S. Census show us that racial and ethnic categories are political categories. They are chosen by government officials who are responding not to biological realities, but to immigration, war, prejudice, and social movements."
And that's the point, right? As a sociologist, don't you prefer data that differentiates according to the dominant perception of race / ethnicity of a given society / culture, as opposed to some other division?
We could divide "white" and "black" into dozens of categories. But would you, as social scientists, really care? The only value in this would be to verify the assumption that, for the most part, the effects of race in America dominantly see people as "white" or "black," and don't distinguish the finer details of ancestry.
CHR — March 29, 2010
As a German, who for obvious reasons is accustomed to frown upon the sociologically and biologically empty term 'race' (or 'rasse') to categorize human diversity, I have always wondered how in the US in many cases 'race' (and also the specific racial taxonomy) seems to be considered functionally descriptive and thus neutral.
Sebastián Lalaurette — March 29, 2010
"Social and biological scientists agree that race and ethicity are social constructions, not biological categories."
So they say that, for example, being black is a social construction?
"The changing categories in the U.S. Census show us that racial and ethnic categories are political categories. They are chosen by government officials who are responding not to biological realities"
Because social and biological scientists are telling you that there are no such biological realities, so what can you do anyway? What would be the alternative?
Nia — March 29, 2010
Sebastián, yes, being black is a social construction. The Americans who are normally called "black" in the USA are normally of mixed race, but Americans themselves only call themselves "mixed race" when it's an issue that their parents are of different races. Obama is not "black" in colour (he's brown), and not black racially (he's 50% African, black, 50% European, white). In the Caribbean or Brazil, he'd be called mulatto, and socially, it would matter.
The alternative would be to admit once and for all that race and ethnicity are just about as scientifically and biologically relevant as nationality, for example. That is, not at all. I hope that one day, people's race will seem as ridiculous as a way to classify them as "national character".
Sebastián Lalaurette — March 29, 2010
Not if you want to account for the uniformization of culture and other issues that have everything to do with race and ethnicity. What you are proposing would dilute the perception of those phenomena, and I find it surprising that any social scientist would want something like that.
Erasing ethnicities from government documents will not end racism, but will take away valuable data sociologists and other specialists can use to talk about very profound and important societal issues. I'd say losing information is never a good strategy.
Having said that, I see you have a point, and a good one. Maybe my previous comment was too "black and white" (pun intended, and lame).
Sara P- — March 29, 2010
Hola and greetings from Madrid,
>>"Spanish” refers to Spain; “Latino” refers to Latin America; and “Hispanic” is a totally made up word that was originally designed to mean “people who speak Spanish.<<
Source? As a commenter noted above, some Spaniard-Americans hate to be called Hispanic/Latino. I have also met Spaniards (in Spain, not the US) who consider themselves Latino without a second thought, because they consider "Latino" to refer to people who claim their "heritage" in countries that have Latin-based languages (usually including Spain, Italy, Portugal, and sometimes France.
I guess that is just one more shred of evidence that race/ethnicity is subjective and constructed.
Andrew Timleck — March 29, 2010
Don't call it political when the larger category of your critique IS 'the social'. I mean politics ARE social and hence the construction of the names, if it is a power play, is social as well FIRST, political second. To put political first seems to divert attention from your point (some people consider politics to be separate from, erroneously, the social, is my point - don't give them fuel when that isn't your intent.
Now, to be fair - SINCE the construction of categories is social (a la Berger and Luckmann) then the Census MAY deserve credit for *recognizing* this an RE-introducing the category 'Negro' for those who self-identify as such. Now, of course perhaps they did so with surreptitious intent of undermining African American/Black identity and power, but I don't think so. BTW... most of the people working there have come out of soc demography no, lol?
Andrew Timleck, PhDc Soc UMD-CP
Andrew Timleck — March 29, 2010
A final comment about comments to Sebastian...
I don't think categories are irrelevant - see on this particular subject - use of the census and identity a great quick read and research by Mary Waters - "Ethnic Options" - google books has a preview here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=u0g4EG0NCg4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=ethnic+options&ei=GAOxS6u1BYSMNufJxccM&cd=1
Categories are likely to persist as they serve - socially, psychological and politically - "useful" purposes. We can't possibly function, socially or cognitively, with their elimination. We need them to enhance predictability in our social interactions and as we navigate our understandings of self and identity (Goffman, Stryker, Burke, Hochschild, etc.)
To answer Sebastian's question directly then would be to allow people to write in [i]whatever they wanted[/i] in that space that asked them their race and ethnicity - that would address the author's (of this blog) concerns and observations about the political - it would be a political act to declare one's self "Tranny" for example. But keep in mind it WOULDN'T change the social reality that the categories that your choose FROM are pre-formed, largely, by the social structure its - enter stage left Michel Foucault and Dorothy Smith - holding hands.
And Sebastian's point is ALSO important when he notes that the elimination of categories is a problem because it also would erase political opportunities for those seeking change; without categories like "Queer", "The Black Panthers", hell, even "Teabaggers" there COULD NOT BE social change.
So I think the blogger's comments here are directed at the right idea but maybe you could flesh them out more to explain why categories should go away - even nationalist ones. "It's a postmodern world and categories don't matter anymore" (Baudrillard, Appadurai, Castells, Barbara Kruger etc. - choose your theorist) but it just doesn't wash with the reality we inhabit. Deconstruction is a possibility, but not the spiral of infinite regress - that's not an answer either....
Sebastián Lalaurette — March 29, 2010
An interesting point of view, indeed. Thanks for the link, I'll check it.
tashana — March 29, 2010
I have a question! What does the U.S. government use the information for, other than "The United States identifies itself as #% this, #% that", etc.? I ask because I have had people swear that the entire race section is stupid because it's a social construction, so there's no point in filling it out correctly because otherwise you're just perpetuating the ideas of separate races. They say they will put "HUMAN" under "Other."
Would you guys suggest doing that? Or can I trust that the US government understands that these are social constructions and that gathering this type of information is to help further the long path towards equal opportunity?
I'm really conflicted ):
Bill Mc — March 29, 2010
I think the French government does not include racial/ethnic categorisation in its census in the spirit of 'republicanism'. Consequently ethnic minorities who might consider themselves to be discriminated against in terms of poor housing and unemployment lack the emprical data to support their case.
Andrew Timleck — March 29, 2010
As a "sociologist" right this **very** minute I'm using race, class, education etc. in a spatial research study for my phd, and hence the data comes from the census, so that I can *debunk* myths about inner city communities as not being engaged in making their spaces more liveable, that they somehow don't share the same ethics of engagement as "better off", "white" etc. spaces.
I think that putting things like "human" down is up to you - it's definitely a thing where you get to put your politics out there. Personally I think energies put into changing or protesting the categories **before** they are in play might be more effective, but that's just my politic on that kind of action - have at it.
I think it's important to recognize (and as a Canadian frankly we're not, as a culture, bred on this "distrust of government" that people here are, and what "government" will do with our "information") that when you say things like "can I trust that the US government understands that these are social constructions" I would say "no" - but there are **people** who work IN the government that do. Not all researchers are dicks, trying to warp the world, elide truth, obscure the possible. There are plenty who use data and research for good stuff - it's to those people I would recognize in need of data of this kind. And it IS used to determine simple crap like road allocation, funding for schools etc. "Jacking" you census by completing it with incorrect, or indecipherable, uncodeable responses is political - but it *can* be you shooting you and where you live in the foot at the same time.
Kate — March 30, 2010
I work in health research, and we frequently use Census racial/ethnic data to try to measure disparities in health treatments and outcomes.
As much as I'd like to ignore race as a socially created construct, it has very real world consequences, and we can't begin to address those consequences unless we can measure them.
Eve — March 30, 2010
Interesting that there is no section for South Asian groups. Shouldn't "races" be fine-tuned according to recent studies of the ethnic breakdown of the country?
I find it annoying that "white" doesn't appear to be interesting enough to break down into tiny pieces. At the very least, can't we get a bar where we can subdivide ourselves, like they allow for Asians etc.? This really speaks to the assumption that people are either "white" or "other." If you're white, you're white, and if you're anything else, you have to specify exactly how you differ from the supposed normal. Maybe next census, people can just write it in themselves and those numbers can be used to fine-tune future censuses.
Eve — March 30, 2010
Or, we can just not care so much about race. I'm sure there are far more interesting questions they could be asking.
fuzzy — March 30, 2010
Or you can get bored, select both genders and mark race as "other." In the other, write "human".......
Cecelia — April 3, 2010
I'm just glad that I was able to write in my tribe since we (Native Americans) are 1% of the US population. If people in my community fill out the census this can positively affect my family and relatives in many ways. Having numbers help to address issues in all communities where there is a Native population is a good thing. Otherwise, without information we have no services or other resources in the communities we live in.
Mixed Race Studies » Scholarly Perspectives on Mixed-Race » The Census and the Social Construction of Race — April 8, 2010
[...] The Census and the Social Construction of Race [...]
Playing Ourselves « Turning Into the Present — June 8, 2010
[...] too. Dr. Lisa Wade, for example, notes that the way the U.S. Census has categorized races has changed dramatically over the years. Alexandre [...]
Brandice — April 10, 2011
GcMvc4 Cool! That's a clever way of looking at it!
The Census and the Social Construction of Race » Sociological Images | Getgln's Blog — May 13, 2011
[...] Show original This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Race and Censuses from Around the World » Sociological Images LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
The Census and the Social Construction of Race » Sociological Images « Mixed American Life — October 31, 2012
[...] Show original Rate this:Share this:TwitterFacebookPinterestTumblrGoogle +1MoreStumbleUponLinkedInRedditDiggEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]
Checking the ‘Race’ Boxes | Racism is A White Problem — February 19, 2013
[...] stops over the voluntary ethnicity section. I know that these categories have changed over time (the boxes used to say ‘free’ or ‘slave’ or ‘mulatto’) and reflect a global system of white [...]
How Census Data Collection Changed Race in America — May 8, 2013
[...] also the “U.S. Census and the Social Construction of Race” and “Race and Censuses From Around the World.” To look at the questionnaires and [...]
drdanj — July 3, 2013
The categories are designed to maintain the status quo power structure of whiteness. Most recent change in Hispanic: Makes perfect sense. Divide and conquer the group, capture those who choose to identify as "White" who then split affinity with those who do not and vote with the power class. It is very simple.
Cora Potter — January 27, 2014
I've started referring to myself as "Appalachian and Oregonian". My background is mixed, and while my outward appearance most people would assume is white, I do have black and native american ancestors and the ethnic dna of my person reflects their histories as well. But, even beyond that, there really is an Appalachian ethnicity and experience that is much different than what most people assume of an average "white" american.
From Appearance to Identity: How Census Data Collection Changed Race in America - RasTafari TV™ | 24/7 Strictly Conscious Multimedia Network — August 10, 2014
[…] also the “U.S. Census and the Social Construction of Race” and “Race and Censuses From Around the World.” To look at the questionnaires and their […]
Biracial 101: The 4 Biracial Identities | Empathic Medicine — May 26, 2015
[…] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/03/29/the-census-and-the-social-construction-of-race/ […]
Andy The Nerd — October 2, 2015
Those options in 1790... the gender binary is so white.
kafkette — October 2, 2015
the answer to this is very simple, and even peaceful.
go to the bottom box where it says 'some other race. print race' and carefully print
h u m a n
i've been doing this for years. if enough people also do so, we might actually get somewhere— at least in this small corner of life.
The US Census and the social construction of race – Sociological Images | diversity | equity | inclusion — April 14, 2016
[…] Read on here: The US Census and the social construction of race – Sociological Images […]
Cathy — March 29, 2020
Meanwhile, as the census increases a lot of people will require jobs. Consider some tips for getting govt jobs https://www.viraltrench.com/sarkari-naukri/
John Moore III — April 26, 2020
Okay, I think we can all agree that the fact that any Latin American ethnicity isn’t considered to be an official race is messed up. Plus, “American Indian” isn’t a THING. It’s Native American - Indian is just a racist term used by stupid colonizers. Plus, the fact that we are still using the word negro. WTF? This is just plain offensive.
John Moore III — April 26, 2020
Not only that, but why are all the races the names of a region, but we randomly have white. White isn’t a race, it would be European or American. This is just another example of subliminal racism!
Shanta Brown — November 12, 2020
The US Census and the Social Construction of Race is an article that demonstrates how the U. S. official racial categories have changed in response to politics, economics, immigratiion,prejudice and social movements according to regulations government officials set forth by U. S. officiall toi remind all races that they could only cvhoose one race.
Shanta Brown — November 12, 2020
The US Census and the Social Construction of Race is an article that demonstrates how the U. S. official racial categories have changed in response to politics, economics, immigratiion,prejudice and social movements according to regulations government set forth by officials to remind all races that they could only choose one race. for their identity..
Racoe — July 15, 2021
We generally end the night with some karaoke some place on the island. The before I know it, they have told their companions and there are six families that come paddle.
website
Bargain — July 21, 2021
Vegetation and landscaping can upload coloration, texture and even perfume to your property. Begin designing your own landscape with the aid of surfing garden images that will help you get a few concept for the layout, design, decor and vegetation.
website
student — February 1, 2023
survey of jazz moment
student 2 — January 28, 2024
survey of jazz moment frfr