Race Differences in Ethnocentrism

by Edward Dutton

  So, these differences in the level of ethnocentrism — at both the individual and group level — have long been observed, but what are their causes? What are the environmental and genetic factors which mean that some people are so much more ethnocentric than others? And are there different explanations for the same levels of ethnocentrism between different people and different groups? In this study, we will attempt a comprehensive examination of this area in order to answer these important questions.

  4. Outline

  In Chapter Two we will discuss the concepts of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ and show that both can reasonably be accepted as valid scientific categories.

  In Chapter Three, we will examine the nature of ‘intelligence’ and specifically evidence of population differences in intelligence. Examining the concept of ‘intelligence’ is necessary at this early point because it has been strongly criticised and impacts a number of dimensions of the discussion which follows. We show that the concept of intelligence is valid, IQ tests are reliable, and that we can reasonably accept that there are population differences in average intelligence.

  In Chapter Four, we will define ‘ethnocentrism’ and look at ‘ethnicity’ in this light. We will argue in favour of what is known as the ‘sociobiological’ model of ethnocentrism and the nature of ethnicity, in contrast to the ‘constructivist’ model, which is more widely accepted in sociology and in anthropology. ‘Sociobiology’ is effectively what is now more widely termed ‘evolutionary psychology’. Evolutionary psychology is the attempt to understand human behaviour from an evolutionary perspective. Proponents argue that human behaviour can be comprehended by examining evolved adaptations to the ancestral environment, and that behaviours that are common to all cultures are likely to reflect psychological adaptations. Certain psychological adaptations provided an evolutionary advantage, the adaptations spread, and, accordingly, only those descended from people with these adaptations are alive today. Of course, some psychological adaptations were less advantageous than others or advantageous only in certain environments or only in certain periods, so there is some population variance in psychological adaptations. Evolutionary psychologists argue that humans are best understood as an advanced ape, that the human brain is a physical organ subject to evolution like any other, that human nature is innate and that human behaviour is a product of this innate human nature reacting to a given environment. A large body of evidence has been presented in favour of this perspective (see Wilson, 1975). As we will see, evolutionary psychological explanations, when compared to purely environmental ones, explain the most, leave fewer questions unanswered and can be grounded in science and thus logic. The alternatives leave questions unanswered, explain less and involve significant assumptions.

  In Chapter Five, we will present further evidence of the validity of sociobiological model of ethnocentrism. We will present all of the growing body of evidence in favour of Genetic Similarity Theory (e.g. Rushton, 2005); that is that people tend to associate with people who are genetically the most similar to them because so doing indirectly passes on more of their genes. We will argue that this theory helps to explain why people are prepared to fight for their ethnic group. The ethnic group is merely an extended genetic family and so, in certain contexts, it makes genetic sense to make sacrifices for the good of that family.

  Having established our key models, we will turn to trying to understand why certain races are more ethnocentric than others. In Chapter Six, we will look at the evidence for there being an ‘ethnocentric personality’ and show that it is not persuasive. We will also examine a number of computer simulations which show that the more ethnocentric group will always ultimately triumph over the less ethnocentric group in the battle for group survival, all else being equal. Accordingly, this helps to explain why ethnocentrism would be selected for at the group level and it helps us to explain why certain groups are more ethnocentric than others. If what we will call group selection is more intense, then ethnocentrism will tend to be stronger. In order to test why there are group differences in the level of ethnocentrism, we will present data from the World Values Survey which can be seen as measures of positive and negative ethnocentrism at the country level. We will show that, at the group level, positive and negative ethnocentrism are unrelated and are thus underpinned by very different factors.

  In Chapters Seven and Eight we focus on establishing key reasons why Northeast Asians, Arabs, Africans and Jews tend to be more ethnocentric than Europeans, despite these being relatively unrelated groups. In examining this, we show that a fast ‘Life History Strategy’ — evolution to an unstable environment — is associated with negative ethnocentrism, through looking at genetic polymorphisms. We will also see that high levels of cousin marriage are associated with both negative and positive ethnocentrism. High levels of religiousness are associated with ethnocentrism in general, while a slow ‘Life History Strategy’ is associated with aspects of positive ethnocentrism. We will see that both cousin marriage and religiousness can be seen as ways of promoting positive ethnocentrism without sacrificing aggressiveness to outsiders. We will argue that Europeans have developed a specific evolutionary strategy — where ethnocentrism has been sacrificed in favour of genius.

  In Chapter Nine, we look at a number of other factors which may explain why the comparative ethnocentrism of different races or ethnic groups may vary across time. We show that stress — as manifested in environments which are poor or with high mortality — is associated with elevated ethnocentrism. The younger a country’s population is, we find, the more ethnocentric it is; the lower the national IQ of the country is the more ethnocentric it is, and less intelligent people tend to be more ethnocentric, for reasons we will discuss.

  In Chapter Ten, we speculate on possible causes of the decline in ethnocentrism in Western countries and argue that it may be a function of early industrialization and consequent dysgenics, the build-up of mutant genes in the population due to the extreme weakening of Natural Selection. In the pre-industrial world, we were under conditions of Natural Selection, in which only the fittest survived. This meant that only those who had very few mutant genes survived, those who were optimally adapted to the environment. As Natural Selection weakened, more and more people with mutant genes — who would not have survived under Natural Selection — survived and procreated, as did maladaptive ideas such as atheism and thus low ethnocentrism. We will show that having such ideas (mutations of the mind) is correlated with evidence of physical mutations, demonstrating that the ideas are likely underpinned by mutant genes whose carriers would not have previously survived to pass on their genes. The West had a strong head start in this process, further helping to explain its low levels of ethnocentrism. Finally, in Chapter Eleven, we summarise our findings and present what we regard as the most fundamental factors behind group differences in ethnocentrism.

  Chapter Two

  What Is ‘Race’?

  1. Introduction

  The term ‘ethnicity’ or ‘ethny’ is obviously at the centre of our analysis and, accordingly, we need to clarify precisely what we mean by it. There are different ways of defining the word ‘ethnicity’. In common parlance, it is often conflated with the concept of ‘race’. Thus, minority groups in Western societies who are conspicuously physically different from the majority are termed ‘ethnic minorities’. Accordingly, in the UK, ‘blacks’ and ‘Asians’ are described as ‘ethnic minorities’.

  This conflation of the words ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race’ is problematic because we may as well reject one of the two words, if they mean exactly the same thing. Indeed, the pressure exerted by ideologies such as Multiculturalism and Political Correctness — including advocates’ view that there is no such thing as ‘race’ or that it is merely a cultural construct — has led to the word ‘ethnic’ being used as a synonym for ‘race’ in academic research. This has been done either to avoid potential criticism or simply to avoid a lengthy digres
sion in order to defend the concept of ‘race’ from its critics. In defining ‘ethnicity’ we must clearly distinguish it from ‘race’, though there is no scientific reason to dismiss the concept of ‘race’. As such, we first need to define the word ‘race’, such that we can distinguish it from ‘ethnicity’. We will also examine race differences in ethnocentrism in this study. In this chapter, we will, therefore, define the concept of ‘race’ and rebut the various criticisms of it.5

  2. What Is Race?

  ‘Race’ is employed to refer to what in the animal world would be a subspecies: a breeding population separated from another of the same species long enough to be noticeably evolved to a different environment but not long enough to be unable to have fertile offspring with the other group. In other words, a race is a breeding population that differs genetically from other such populations as a result of geographical isolation, cultural separation, and endogamy, and which shows patterns of genotypic frequency for a number of inter-correlated characteristics compared with other breeding populations. The most obvious manifestations of these differences are observable differences in physical appearance and physical and mental characteristics which correlate together. These indicate that it is useful, following the scientific desire to be able to make correct predictions about the world, to divide humans into racial categories in much the same way that we might divide any other particular animal species into subspecies. As with any category, ‘race’ creates groups on the borders that do not fit neatly into one of two categories. Geographical contact zones may develop many thousands of years after races have separated and lead to racial hybrids. These hybrids, depending on the degree of admixture, have intermediate genes frequencies in relation to the two parent races and, if the hybrid subsequently becomes geographically and culturally separated from the parent races, a case may develop for terming it a separate race. These racial hybrids are known as clines.

  The concept of ‘race’ is a scientific category because the essence of a scientific category is that it allows correct predictions to be made, and this is certainly the case with regard to ‘race’. In evolutionary biology, it is a general principle that when two different populations of the same species become geographically isolated from one another, such that they cease to interbreed, then they develop into different subspecies. Subspecies are adapted to different ecologies and thus differ, to varying degrees, in their physical appearance and behaviour. Subspecies are also known as varieties, strains, or simply as breeds. There are four interrelated processes through which different races or subspecies evolve:

  1. Founder Effect. A particular population splits, with part of the population migrating to a new place. As they stop interbreeding, the two populations gradually become increasingly genetically differentiated, especially if the number of founders is small and the population remains isolated.

  2. Genetic Drift Effect. Gene frequencies change over time as a matter of chance. As this effect is extended over a long period, it can lead to increasing differences between races.

  3. Mutation Effect. Individual genes can take many different forms. The most well-known distinction is between the ‘long form’ and the ‘short form’ of certain genes, but there are many further possible distinctions. Genes come in pairs of alleles, with one allele inherited from each parent. Variants of genes are known, therefore, as alleles. When alleles are passed from parent to child, sometimes the process of copying the genetic information goes awry, leading to a mutation or in other words to a new allele. The Mutation Effect is when new alleles appear by chance in some populations and are highly advantageous for survival and reproduction in that population’s particular environment. When this happens the allele in question spreads through the population. An advantageous mutant allele may appear in one racial population but not in another. This leads to genetic differences between the two populations.

  4. Adaptation Effect. When one population moves to a new environment, alleles which were not especially advantageous in the old environment may become advantageous in terms of survival and reproduction and will thus begin to be selected for. Accordingly, they will spread throughout the population.

  In addition, subspecies can be artificially developed when a particular species is domesticated by another species. The most obvious examples can be seen in the various breeds of domestic dog, all of which have been deliberately engineered by humans to have certain physical and behavioural characteristics which render them useful in specific sets of circumstances or which simply make them friendly and aesthetically pleasing pets. The existence of separate races, usually termed subspecies, is uncontroversial when discussing non-human animals. Thus, if Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is accepted, it should be likewise uncontroversial to assert that humans include distinct subspecies or races. As Baker (1974) has noted, there are a number of subspecies among our closest relatives, the chimpanzees. Each is slightly different because they have evolved in somewhat unique environments in line with the process previously outlined. The true chimpanzee is indigenous to West Africa, Guinea, and Nigeria; the bald chimpanzee lives in Cameroon and Gabon; the pygmy chimpanzee is found in the north and central areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo; while the Schweinfurth chimpanzee is found in the north-eastern regions of the same country. Each of these races differs in terms of physical appearance, distribution of blood groups, and even in terms of the kinds of cries they employ. Baker (1974) also examines similar differences between breeds of gorilla.

  The human breeding of dogs is, of course, well known. Domestic dogs of different breeds can, in most cases, produce fertile offspring, thus conforming to the generally accepted definition of species (though it should be appreciated that the use of the word species does not always conform to this rule). Nevertheless, domestic dogs differ significantly in physical appearance, temperament (both of which are bred for specific purposes), and intelligence (used here to mean the ability to solve cognitively demanding problems at speed). For example, Coren (1994) observes that the most intelligent breeds of domestic dog include Border Collies (the most intelligent), Poodles, and Golden Retrievers. These dogs understand new commands after fewer than five repetitions and obey commands 95% of the time or higher. The least intelligent breeds require more than 80 repetitions to understand a new command and obey commands less than 30% of the time. These relatively unintelligent dogs include Basset Hounds, Pekingese, and Bulldogs.6

  Evidently, race is useful among non-human animals because dividing these animals up into races permits correct predictions to be made about their physical and mental abilities, a finding which is of practical use when dealing with them or even in terms of keeping them alive. However, before looking at these differences among humans, we will examine the history of the concept of race as well as the criticisms which have been levelled against it.

  3. Taxonomies of Races

  Anthropologists began to systematically classify human races in middle of the eighteenth century, though an awareness of them can be found much further into history. Baker (1974, p. 12) presents an historical summary which indicates an awareness of racial differences in antiquity. When the Indo-Afghans began to penetrate into northern India in around 1500 BC, it was seemingly an awareness of hereditary racial differences which led to their establishment of what would later become the Hindu caste system, a system which was originally divided in terms of colour; the Hindi word for ‘caste’ (‘Varna’) literally meaning ‘colour’. In the Old Testament, three separate ethnic groups are supposed to have sprung from the three sons of Noah (Genesis 10). As such, we seem to see evidence of the idea that different racial groups are distinct extended families. Many other examples of what we might cautiously call ‘awareness of racial differences’ might be provided, such as Pope Gregory I (540–604) seeing Anglo-Saxon slave boys at the marketplace in Rome and observing how distinct they looked from his own people, something recorded by the Venerable Bede in around 731 (Bede, 1890). However, it is unclear, in many cases, whether they underst
ood these differences to be hereditary.

  Moving forward in time, in 1684, French physician Francois Bernier (1625–1688) published his Nouvelle division de la terre par les différentes espèces ou races d’hommes qui l’habitent (New Division of Earth by the Different Species or Races of Men that Inhabit It; Bernier, 1684). He divided the world into four races, distinguished by a variety of inter-correlated factors including skin colour, facial type, cranial profile, and hair type and colour, which he understood to be hereditary qualities. He argued that there were four ‘species’:

  1. The European, North African, South Asian, and Native American (which he saw as essentially one species);

  2. The Asian;

  3. The Sub-Saharan African;

  4. The Lapp.

  However, a more influential taxonomy of races was published by Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778) in the year 1758 in the form of his book Systema Naturae (Linnaeus, 1758). He argued that there were four races: Europaeus (Europeans), Afer (Black Africans), Asiaticus (Asians), and Americanus (Native Americans). He described these races mainly in terms of physical differences, not limited to skin colour. In 1776, German physician Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840) argued that there should be a fifth race. Accordingly, he divided between Caucasian (white), Mongolian (yellow), Ethiopian (black), American (red), and Malayan (brown). These categories were developed through the observation that different morphological features clustered together with skin pigmentation. Thus, he noted that the Europeans had white skin, straight hair, and narrow noses; the Sub-Saharan Africans had black skin, frizzy hair, and wide noses; the Mongolians (Northeast Asians) had black hair, yellowish skin, and flattened noses; the Native Americans had reddish skin and beaky noses; and the Malaysians had brown skin (Blumenbach, 1828). In addition, a variety of eighteenth-century philosophers including Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), David Hume (1711–1776), and Voltaire (1694–1778) presented relatively detailed descriptions of apparent inter-correlated physical and mental racial differences, arguing that these appeared to be passed from one generation to the next (Baker, Chapter 1). Towards the end of the eighteenth century, an increasing level of quantitative rigor was being added to racial classifications. The Dutch anatomist Petrus Camper (1722–1789) introduced the ‘facial line’, setting up a skull in the horizontal and then measuring the angle and distance from the most protruding part of the skull to the least. In this regard, he noted that the skull of the Sub-Saharan African was more sloping than that of the European, while the skull of the chimpanzee was more sloping still.