Recognizing Race: Whose Categories Are These Anyway?

Abstract

Comments on the discussion by L. Hirschfeld (see record 1999-10612-002) of the relationship between race as a category of mind and race as a category of power. The author is not persuaded by either the arguments or the evidence that Hirschfeld relies on to substantiate the claim that race is a "singular, unique category of the mind" because it is so "easy to think". It is somewhat more appealing to endorse Hirschfeld's nicely phrased surmise that "our cognitive architecture makes a political architecture possible". But of course the dynamic must also work in reverse, as Hirschfeld suggests when he notes that children "discover" race because their innate curiosity and experience in the world brings them into contact with their parents' (and no others'?) minds (politicized, encultured, and rife with race). Estroff finds the arguments and evidence unconvincing and unfinished. First, while one understands the necessity of abbreviating the report of research results and methods in an essay like this, it was impossible to assess the theoretical implications or power of Hirschfeld's findings because no information is provided about the size of the samples or their composition. Second Hirschfeld repeatedly overreaches what can be concluded from a few studies when he makes universally declarative statements. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).