Grace Budrys in her book, Unequal Health: How Inequality Contributes to Health or Illness, methodically argues that race is a vital factor affecting a person’s health through her epidemiological analysis of United States (US) statistics. She first introduces her argument by breaking down the five competing definitions of race: biological, cultural, ethnic, national, and socioeconomic. She then works her way towards the grim US statistics about Black homicides and proves that Blacks do suffer disproportionally health wise. Her line of reasoning coincides with the idea of race as a social construct woven into the very fabric of the US. To this date, race still remains an important factor in US health, one that that will continue for years to come.
The first three approaches of biology, culture, and ethnicity to race have rightfully been discounted as they all mimic old 19th and 20th century beliefs of genetic superiority or inferiority by each providing their own specific spin to it. For example biological racism has often been used to label Jewish people as inferior due to the prevalence of certain genetic diseases and the structure of their noses. Both notions are equally ridiculous. Genetic diseases are frequently passed down by genetic carriers in all races rather than those with active the phenotype.[1] Nose measurements are physical characteristics that may or may not be present and have no influence on a person’s behavior. Humans are all Homo sapiens regardless of their differences. The cultural explanation of race is based off recognized differences in language, religion, and customs. However, this characterization is also plagued with issues, especially for those with mixed characteristics. What would an Arabic speaking, Christian that follows the traditions and customs of the state of Israel be classified as? They could be categorized as an Arab for the color of their skin, Christian for their religion, or Jewish for having Israeli citizenship. The push for race to be defined by ethnicity attempts to diversify on the cultural definition by providing more categories for people to fall into. Unfortunately, it runs into many of the same problems that the cultural definition runs into.
The last two definitions of race, as a nation or socioeconomic status, are more closer to current present day realities. While Budrys completely discredits race as nation or as she calls it, “tribe based on religious identification,” the nation approach towards race would be more akin to in-group, out-group dynamics that often naturally appear within a population.[2] This approach and the socioeconomic model are both correct, but Budrys relies on the socioeconomic model to press her argument.
Ultimately, Budrys defines race as a social construct that serves as a proxy for social standing. She uses this logic and reverses it; by using socioeconomic status as an indicator of race she proves that race plays a pivotal role in health. In chapter 5 she presents the homicide rates for Black males between 15 – 24 years old, showing that they die at 10 times the rate of white non-Hispanic males.[3] Here the standard racial explanation is that the high mortality of young Black males is a result of poor behavior (expected from those of lower status). However, Budrys is prepared with an excellent rebuttal, the high death rate for Black male infants.[4] Clearly there must be some sort of force at play beside behavior for the mortality of Black male infants to be almost 3 times the rate of other races. On the other hand, race also demonstrates unique health traits in Asians. In both terms of homicides and accidental deaths, Asians were the lowest number. Race is also closely tied to the socioeconomic model. Although Budrys does not mention an average salary, Asians are making a higher salary than other races. They also have a greater number of college graduates.[5] The close correlation between race and socioeconomic factors demonstrates a significant impact on health as indicated by the massive disparity between Blacks and Asians.
Disparities in socioeconomic status, as indicated through the factors of homicides and accidental deaths, connect back to the health information presented by Budry’s earlier in Chapter 4 of Unequal Health. The chart reveals that Asians in general have some of the lowest disease rates across the board, while Black males suffer from the highest rates of cancer, stroke, homicide, and HIV.[6] The disparity is so readily apparent that it is undeniable. In the US, health is correlated to socioeconomic status, which in turn is, to an extent, determined by race.
Race is a social construct that on its own has no meaning until it is applied to a societal context. The US is a distinctive society where is race is taken into account by both privately and officially. In this societal context, the meaning of race has evolved from one of biological difference to one economic class. Socioeconomic class is heavily correlated to various health conditions and it is through this correlation that Budrys proves race impacts health.
[1] Phenotype = Outer appearance or characteristics as a result of a certain genetic combination of genes.
[2] Grace Budrys, Unequal Health: How Inequality Contributes to Health or Illness (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017) 48.
[3] Budrys, 55.
[4] Budrys, 55-56.
[5] Li, Diyi, and Cory Koedel. "Representation and Salary Gaps by Race-Ethnicity and Gender at Selective Public Universities." Educational Researcher 46, no. 7 (2017): 343-54.
[6] Budrys, 47.
No comments:
Post a Comment