Scholars of all colors agree today that "race" is a cultural construct -- that as a way of classifying people by color it has no biological justification. Our American dilemma is not "race" per se, but our history of treating "race" as a marker of intelligence or full citizenship. PNS Gregory Stephens, a doctoral candidate at the University of California-San Diego, writes widely on issues of race and culture.

During our latest "racial" crisis, North Americans are being warned that we must have "a national conversation about race" lest we become another Bosnia. All advocates of "multiracial democracy" desire that dialogue. But we will never move beyond the blame game until we define what we mean by race.

"Race" has become a hall of mirrors in which we have lost our way. As we hurtle ahead with our eyes glued to the rear-view mirror, we need at least to know what we're looking at.

For centuries, Europeans used the term "race" to denote peoples who spoke the same language ("la raza" in Spanish). Today scholars of all colors agree that "race" is a cultural construct. The Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement earlier this year that "race has no biological justification." There is more genetic variation within one "race" than between "racial" groups.

Decrying "racial" groupings is nothing new. In 1785 German philosopher Johann Herder criticized the term "races," since "Complexions run into each other." In 1848 black abolitionist Henry Highland Garnet observed: "Skillful men ... are perplexed in deciding where to draw the line between the Negro and the Anglo-Saxon."

The problem is that we don't have a language to replace the language of race. Many intellectuals pledge allegiance to a nonracial position, but then talk about "race" as if it were a genetic essence. The mass media omits even this ritual disclaimer. During the fallout over the O.J. Simpson acquittal, I encountered not one instance where "race" was acknowledged to be a problematic, if not artificial, category.

To say that "race" is a cultural construct is to distinguish between culture and phenotype. Phenotypes, or superficial features such as blue eyes and kinky hair, can be passed on genetically. But cultures and belief systems must be passed on through other means.

As a cultural philosophy, "race" functions as group education. It is not inherited directly, through the body, but acquired indirectly, through music and dance, literature and religion, etc. Affinity for such cultural systems is a learned language; none of these languages is created and consumed solely among one phenotype or color. That is why it is not unusual to find urban Asian youth who move and talk in ways we think of as "black," or why black artists can excel at opera or Shakespeare.

Our American dilemma is not "race" per se, but our history of treating "race" as a marker of intelligence or full citizenship and our efforts to find a way to move beyond discriminatory "racial formations."

In a multi-"racial" society one has "to learn the complexities of everything and its opposite being true," South African writer Breyten Breytenbach observes. This both/and approach is hard to sell to a nation accustomed to thinking in either-or, black-versus-white terms. But it is the only way to find our way out of the racial hall of mirrors.

I would suggest four starting points as complex truths for a dialogue about "race":

*Racism is still a problem, a cancer which can only be brought into remission through a collective effort.

*Though its immediate historical roots are primarily in white supremacy, contemporary racism comes in all colors.

*While some people underestimate racism's impact, others overplay it. Those who downplay racism often do so to avoid responsibility.

*Our future cannot be written in black and white. Asians and Latinos will soon be a majority in California, and mixed-"race" people will, in the long run, be our biggest "majority."

Our main conflict now is not between racists and anti-racists. It is between those who are invested in using "race" as a political tool, and those who argue for a transracial society. It is between those who believe race colors everything, and those who feel it is a secondary factor. It is a struggle between those who insist we must base our social policy on "race," and those who argue that we cannot solve the problems of "race" with the language of race.

Nelson Mandela has made "multicultural democracy" a cornerstone of post-apartheid South Africa, but he also speaks of a "non-racial democracy." His language suggests two strategies: in the short run, a "multiracial" democracy acknowledges our racialized past, and points to a near future in which commonality and difference can coexist. But in the long run, only a "nonracial" democracy would allow us to learn to judge each other by the same set of standards.