Critique of race as a biology

In a 2,000 words , answer one of the following questions:

Question 1:
Geneticists’ claims, such as `Race [as an imperfect proxy or a holding place for genetic variation] is not meaningless, but it is biologically imperfect’ (Jorde 2004, as cited in Sankar 2008: 274), are the basis for Sociology’s reignited critique of race as biology. However, it is argued that this `critique of race as a biology can only be justified if one believes that a revival of oldstyle, scientific racism is a genuine possibility’ (Skinner 2007: 938). Discuss [1] the plausibility of this argument and [2] the potential consequences of said revival for governing ethnically diverse societies, such as Australia.

Question 2:
At the core of transnationalism is the existence of social fields that [1] have crossnational character, and [2] intimately link migrants’ homelands and their new diasporic locations (Patterson 2006:1891). Considering the crossnational character of these fields, the agents (migrants) maintain close social proximity despite the geographical/spatial distance. Focusing on a transnational (migrant) group of your choice, critically discuss the following statement: `tangibility of the interactions in the geographic regions are exclusive evidence to claim that the closer the agents, groups, institutions are to each other (in geographical terms) the more common properties they share’.

 Question 3:
Losing faith in the unifying force of civic nationalism, conservative critics of the multicultural policy deemed it as leading towards `cleaving’ of Australian society fostered by transnational identities formation (James 2006) and ultimately tribalism (Blainey cited in Dunn 2005). Hence, at the dawn of the 21st century, Australian policy makers have welcomed the return of integration to policy rhetoric (Jakubowicz 2008). Under what sorts of circumstances may ethnic belonging and civicnational belonging come into conflict consequently undermining the unifying force of civic nationalism?