Race is a social construct insofar as the concept has to be defined as a sociological phenomenon understood by an identifiable group of people. It cannot be reduced to a sequence of genetic material or biological matter, which has been the folly of Social Darwinism. People are born into a “Race” and they sometimes change “Races” by their own volition, which is loosely similar to how some people may change “Genders” at well. But whereas changes involving the latter oftentimes required more medical procedures, the changing former has tended to involve the legal process. To put another way, one’s affiliation to a given “Race” is usually decided by bureaucrats, and that may or may not involve legal documentation like a Birth Certificate, a Passport, or a Marriage Certificate. Thus, any notion of fusing different “Races” into a larger one has consistently been some kind of Nationalist project in one form or another. The real philosophical issue here is whether such a social construct should be allowed to develop naturally as a sociological phenomenon or artificially as part of some governmental initiative.
Consider the example of contemporary American attitudes toward Race in the early 21st century, which in itself was influenced by those which came from the late 20th century. Those contemporary American attitudes were not entirely shaped by the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, they were influenced by the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, specifically the Office of Management and Budget, which is responsible for helping Congress determine the Federal Budget each Fiscal Year.
When an American asks somebody about their Race, that person usually responds with either “White,” “Black,” “Hispanic or Latino,” “American Indian and Alaskan Native,” or “Asian and Pacific Islander.” The categorization of such a question finds its origins in “OMB Directive No. 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting.” Personally, the justification for the categorization, apart from enforcing the Civil Rights Act, has to be budgetary. It is not too difficult to imagine the statistical data being used to draft proposed legislation to allocate Federal funding toward, for instance, a Grant or a Subsidy.
The problem with OMB definitions of Race is that those categories are too broad, yet too imprecise at understanding the concept. A Russian immigrant from one of the Eastern European Soviet Republics in the Soviet Union may be considered “White,” but a Russian Brazilian immigrant descended from Soviet emigrants to Brazil is considered “Hispanic.” It gets even more interesting if said Russian immigrant also has family members living in São Paulo and Rostov-on-Don. Here, the usage of “Non-Hispanic White” and “White Hispanic” becomes a question of whether somebody comes from the Spanish-speaking world, regardless of ancestral origin. If found to be necessary for Congress, it is not too difficult to imagine a precedent where OMB is applying a comparable methodology to Yugoslavian immigrants (people identifying as “Yugoslavs” and “Non-Yugoslav Croats” or “Non-Yugoslav Serbs”) or Czechoslovakian immigrants (people identifying as “Czechoslovaks” and “Non-Czechoslovak Czechs, Slovaks, Germans or Poles”).
The categorization of Americans into different “Races” invented by OMB does not necessarily have to be budgetary. Depending on how one interprets this information, one may be inclined to either view it as evidence of “Institutional Racism” or “Identity Politics” so that a large swath of Americans does not have any interests beyond those of preconceived “Races.” The moment someone begins to entertain oneself as being one of this “Races,” it becomes feasible to also engage in Lobbying Groups that operate along those lines. Such organizations may operate out of a university campus or an office building somewhere in Washington DC. It may even be possible to foster antagonisms like a kind of divide-and-rule strategy to keep the American people from voting in their interests beyond the boundaries of Race.
Something appeared to have been at play in the recent Presidential Election. It is significant that the second Trump Presidency was made possible because Americans were willing to vote, for lack of any other viable political alternative, more of the same. But this “more of the same” is in hindsight a deviation from a Democratic-Republican trend of certain Americans voting for the Democratic Party on grounds of Identity Politics. Economic life in America has gotten so terrible that Americans, regardless of which OMB-designated “Race” they identify themselves with, they are willing to gamble on a second Trump Presidency if it means that things will be slightly different.
The moment an American ceases to think about Race along the lines of those set by OMB and more along those of the Census Bureau, which views ancestral heritage as more decisive, all that rhetoric about a “White” monolith suddenly losing its majority status loses its relevance. For the definition of “Whiteness” has consistently been known for centuries as how well somebody conforms to the prevailing Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture and ethos. Never mind the obscure historical fact from the Library of Congress that 1-in-3 Americans, at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, had ancestral ties to the German-speaking world.
Conversely, the rhetoric about a “Melting Pot” deserves to be recontextualized as a “Cultural Fertilization,” a “Brain Drain” of both the worst and the best youths from the rest of the world by having them emigrate to America. In a world where birthrates are increasing, like in the 19th and 20th centuries, not many people from outside America would take notice. When they do, they just turn a blind eye to it until their own government notices. The same is also true in the late 18th century, where the need to bring the knowledge, skills and abilities of Europeans to America was seen by the Federalist Party as necessary to promoting the economic (and by extension, political) independence of the Union. But in a world that is presided by the Jeffersonian Empire of Liberty, where birthrates are decreasing, and where nations are now competing to attract people within 14-35 age demographic from just about anywhere, the “Melting Pot” can be recontextualized as a form of expropriation.
There is another reason why the Melting Pot continues to stay relevant in the American consciousness besides the Empire of Liberty. The image of racially diverse communities of Totalities coalescing into the National Community of a larger Totality just happens to be the America described in The Federalist Papers. There is an American Idea that continues to govern the Union. It is enshrined in the Constitution and personified by the Federal Government. Here, one’s encounter with Americaness is defined by one’s relation to Americanism, namely the belief that there should be a Union of States somewhere on the North American continent. America may be separated from everything that goes on in the Eurasian landmass by two Oceans, but it should still be considered an important member of any conception of world order.
But a healthy dose of skepticism is just as important. America, because of its geopolitical position in the world and distance from the Eurasian landmass, cannot and should not be the sole master of any particular world order. For at what point does rhetoric about a “Nation of Immigrants living in a Land of Opportunity” become a “Nation of Mercenaries fighting in a Land of Opportunists?” At what cost to America and the rest of the world?
We find these questions at play with regard to Technology, Immigration, and the interfaces between the two as Foreign Policy issues. The concept of America as a “Nation of Mercenaries fighting in a Land of Opportunists” becomes apparent when Technology or technical patents and personnel become especially important to the Jeffersonians in order to perpetuate their Empire of Liberty. Technology divorced from the Constitution takes greater precedence over whether said Technology is constitutional and can be held accountable by the American people vis-a-vis the Federal Government. It is unsurprising to find out that the Federal Government is still struggling to keep up with Technology. It coincides with the Federal Government’s determination to promote skilled immigration and subsequent concerns over mass surveillance and the loss of personal privacy in the Digital Realm due to the proliferation of “Surveillance Capitalism.”
On the other hand, it coincides with the potential conflict of interest which emerge from having one foot in America and the other in Eurasia. That idealized world order of an America coexisting with a “German Reich,” a “Soviet Union,” a “People’s Republic of China” and an “Imperial Japan” is a very instructive one because the same nations are just as important today as they were in 1941. How much cultural, social, economic, political, and philosophical influence should the “German Reich,” “Soviet Union,” “People’s Republic of China” or “Imperial Japan” have on the American National Consciousness? How about the “British Empire” and the “European Colonial Empires,” “Falangist Spain,” “Fascist Italy,” “Peronist Argentina,” “Tito’s Yugoslavia,” the “Kuomintang in Taiwan,” “Bolivarian Venezuela,” “Juche Korea,” “Castro’s Cuba,” “Kemalist Turkey,” the “House of Saud,” the “Ayatollah’s Iran” or the “States of Israel and Palestine?” Should America pivot heavily in one direction, or should it stay neutral and let sensible minds prevail?
Categories: Philosophy
The Fourth Estate 
Leave a comment