| Chapter 2: | Asian American Identity: A Review |
Not surprisingly, since these early years, researchers have reiterated the idea that race is a social construction that has little to do with biological similarities (Smedley & Smedley, 2005; Winston & Kittles, 2005); however, these researchers do not argue that race should not be addressed within psychology as a discipline. Rather, we should be careful to avoid the pitfalls of allowing the use of scientific research to perpetuate the old racist paradigms, which have been repeatedly used to justify group differences in intelligence and behavioral traits (see, e.g., Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Rushton, 1995).
There are some researchers who feel that the use of the term race is inappropriate. Helms et al. (2005) have recently argued that race has little scientific meaning, has not been well-defined in the psychological literature, and yet, it has been studied extensively. The objection to the use of the term race has to do with its origins within the racial classification system, yet this classification itself does not promote the biological view of race, but allows us to identify the source and meaning it (race) has for individuals. Simply calling race something different, opting for terms such as panethnicity and ethnicity (see, e.g., Espiritu, 1992; Helms et al., 2005; Phinney, 1992), does not change the fact that race does exist (particularly because the United States Census continues to classify people into categories by race), and has very real social consequences for those who are categorized into such racial groups. The use of the term race in psychological studies in and of itself does not imply that one endorses the notion of race. Rather, the terminology explicitly highlights one’s lived experience as a racialized minority in the United States. Although an individual might subscribe to other types of social identities (e.g., ethnic-specific or panethnic identity), the concept of race is reified in the ways individuals go about their daily lives.