In other words, sociologists consider that physical marks reflect not the objective reality, but subjective attitude. According to Robert Park (1964, pp. 237-239, 315), a racial mark has become the symbol of the suspense, in the ground of which has laid the sense of self-vulnerability. He writes that a sociologist is interested not in physical distinctions, differentiating one race from another, but in less evident lineaments of inner apprehensions. And physical distinctions are just the symbols of these inner apprehensions. Park claims that historical process in the issue is predetermined by the ideological factors, not by the biological ones. The more important is to realize what people believe in and look for, than to know who they are.
In other words modern sociologists, considering race as an artificial construct and one of means of creation and description the identity, emphasize that race remains to be rather important notion, which determines and legalizes social and political actions of people. At the same time they are sure that race is a product of racism, and not contrariwise. From this point of view groups, which are called racial, turn out to be racialised. It means that social, political, or economical state of these groups is described with the help of racial categories.
A lot of
A lot of scholars for decades have oppugned against scientific racism, which has tried to ground the idea of racial inequality. They have proved that human capabilities do not depend on the colour of the skin or type of eyes. One of the most outstanding representatives of this stream is Ashley Montague (1952), who from 1940s has insisted that race is just a scientific phantom. However a lot of scholars as before have considered race and ethnos as some biological reality, underestimating the paramount role of social factor.
Nonetheless some of these scholars have understood that race is rather social construct then the biological reality, and that the concept of race implicates relationship of dominance and submission. The development of genetic studies has approved that several different genes determine so-called 'racial marks'. This fact has originated the basis for the true scientific approach and has given a possibility to claim that there are no races, only clines (Livingstone, 1962). During last decades this approach has been widely accepted by majority of scholars.
During 1960 - 1980 it has been noticed some decline and loss of interest in studying the concept of race.
In the mean time we have to confess that unfortunately even in the twenty first century mankind failed to get rid of racism. Just the other way round during last decades of the twentieth century it has got the new, even more 'fastidious' forms. As a result it has become very difficult for scholars to define the notion of 'racism'. And what even worst is that modern racists make use of such uncertainty and declare themselves as intransigent fighters against racism. It should be said that contemporary criminal justice turned out to be just not ready to such metamorphoses of racism. Modern antiracists very often fall short of knowledge about its essence and history, and accordingly they do not take into consideration significant peculiarities, which can be very helpful in struggling against it. In fact antiracism time and again is based on the same prejudices