Is Culturism the New Racism?

Is culturism the cure for racism?

• Race is a deeply flawed classification system. It suggests you can stereotype peoples behaviors based on their phenotypes, which for the most part you really can't. And it suggests people behaviors are somehow fixed by their phenotypes, making it a useless form of critique.  Culture on the other hand classifies peoples behavior based on ... how they behave. This makes sense. And because It's natural, and more-or-less acceptable, for cultures to give rise to counter-cultures, this suggests that peoples behavior is not fixed, but changeable. Perhaps that is why counter-cultures (as a type of critique) are generally more acceptable than racism, because their effect is not only to criticize, but also to persuade. So, while racism is a flawed system of stereotyping and useless in the sense that it can't bring about change (people can't change their race), would "culturism" be a sensible system of stereotyping because it draws its stereotypes from the very property it's stereotyping, and useful because it can promote change?

• Answer:

  While I wouldn't say that classification of people on the basis of their culture would "cure" racism, I think it is a valid (though on a larger scale impractical) form of classification (not discrimination). To truly answer this question however, I find it necessary to discuss to concepts of race, culture and their relationship, as well as racism and culturism (which is not yet an official word in the English language, though one can liken it to xenophobia. The two of them are not synonymous however.) The Concept of Race The American Heritage Dictionary defines race as follows: http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=race&submit.x=56&submit.y=27 1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them. 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the Celtic race. 3. A genealogical line; a lineage..... (For full definition, see the aforementioned link) Definitions 1. and 2. are of relevance here. It is evident that race is an inherent quality - i.e. something which is not acquired, but inherited, unlike culture which is not inherited, but acquired. In other words, a person has no choice as to which race he/she belongs, but does have a choice as to the culture which he/she acquires. The definition being self explanatory, I shall not further elaborate on it. The Concept of Culture The relevant definition of culture as from The American Heritage Dictionary is definition 1. (c) which states: http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=culture&submit.x=41&submit.y=29 c. The set of predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize a group or organization: This includes the beliefs, attitudes, way of life, art, and customs that are shared and accepted by people in a particular society. Culture is not something which is inherited. It is something which is acquired by imbibition of the values specific to the culture in question, by the person from his/her youth. In other words, culture refers to a learned pattern of behavior and responses to different situations. For e.g. in most Western Countries, looking someone in the eye is the norm, while communicating with the person. In Asian cultures such as the Chinese culture, looking someone directly in the eye is considered rude (traditionally.) The responses are different for the same situation - i.e. face to face communication. Most people inadvertently acquire the culture of the society into which they're born. Some people consciously discard the culture of the society into which they were born, in favor of a different culture, though most people who reject the culture of the society they live in, and yet live in the same society are subject to scorn, ridicule and contempt. Since in a majority of the world, people associate the most with people of the same race as they are, it is only evident that culture and race can be coterminous. I'll discuss this in greater detail in the subsequent section. The relationship between race and culture Racial stereotypes stem from the very fact that people of a certain group of society tend to behave like other like members of society, race being one such category of similar likeness. Race and culture, I've observed are largely intertwined. This is because of the association of people of a race to a larger extent with people of the same race. Even in the United States, which is branded as a multicultural society, a melting pot, racial association is not absent. For example, a large section of society expects people to marry within their own race. Even today, how often do you see places where there white guys hang out in "hoods"? Would they even be accepted? No. How often do you see a lone black guy with a group of only white guys or girls? Not too often though perhaps more prevalent than the former. Even to this day, inter-racial couples or in some cases even association is frowned upon. People like to associate with people of the same race in many scenarios. There are instances where black people have claimed that they feel uncomfortable being the only black person around, because they can't associate with another, this stems from a deep rooted belief that race and culture are associated closely, which is not fully wrong. The reason behind this association is the latent belief that people of the same race share the same culture. This is not entirely wrong, since people with similar heritage do have similar cultures. Racism defined, and distinguished from Aversion and Prejudice There is however a distinction between racism, and mere aversion or prejudice. I've explained this in an earlier answer of mine, the link to which is: I have quoted the relevant part of the same here, which part I've also quoted in other answers of mine pertaining to the same topic, such as: There, I had stated as follows: There is a difference between racism, prejudice and mere aversion. The line separating these three is so thin that the three terms often seem to overlap; and are often used interchangeably in common parlance. However, they are not the same. There is no consensus as to the definition of racism, but it is clear that on a relative scale, racism would be of the highest degree, prejudice next and mere aversion the lowest degree. Aversion is a mere dislike towards members of a certain race. It usually does not stem from perceived superiority/inferiority of one race w.r.t another, but is merely a general dislike for a certain race. Some sociologists however consider aversion simpliciter to constitute racism - they refer to it as aversive racism (this term was coined by Kovel and popularized by Dovidio and Gaertner) while others feel that it lacks an overt element and therefore is not racism. Prejudice stems from an aversion - it is a predisposed negative evaluation - a set of adverse preconceived notions w.r.t a certain race. It too is not overt, and might or might not include a perceived superiority of one race w.r.t. another. It lacks an overt element as well. Racism contains aversion, prejudice as well as an overt manifestation of both - typically in the form of discrimination. Unlike aversion which is usually entirely subconscious, i.e. implicit, and prejudice which is predominantly subconscious and partly conscious, racism is entirely conscious - i.e. explicit. Racism always stems from the feeling that one race is innately, superior to another race, and consequently preferential treatment towards the perceived superior race and discriminatory treatment towards the perceived inferior race is warranted and perhaps even necessary. Racism usually but not necessarily entails hatred towards the inferior race. Now to address the specific question of the OP: So, while racism is a flawed system of stereotyping and useless in the sense that it can't bring about change (people can't change their race), would "culturism" be a sensible system of stereotyping because it draws its stereotypes from the very property it's stereotyping, and useful because it can promote change? As I said, it is a sensible way of categorizing. I dislike some cultures of the world, and perhaps harbor very strong negative feelings towards them, but there is no practical way of ascertaining a person's culture from appearances. Speech to a very less extent can be an indicator, but the best way to know a person's culture is to get to know a person well, which is time consuming. Race based classification on the other hand is not. Though race based classification is not universally correct, it is swift and from my experience so far, many stereotypes have some basis of fact, are not products of conjecture. My personal approach is this: I don't care which race a person belongs to, but if he/she exhibits certain values/cultural characteristics I abhor, I shall act accordingly. Though I'm not a huge proponent of stereotyping, I have observed that stereotypes can hold true in many cases, and it's safer to keep a rebuttable presumption of the stereotype, than disregard stereotypes completely. I think I've addressed the issue adequately.