Sunday, July 13, 2014

The Franz Boas you never knew


 
The anthropologist Franz Boas is remembered for moving the social sciences away from genetic determinism and toward environmental determinism. In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences ... and not just between individuals.

 
 
Most of us identify with certain great teachers of the past: Christ, Marx, Freud … Though long dead, they still influence us and we like to think that their teachings have come down to us intact. We know what they believed … or so we like to think. This raises a problem when we find discrepancies. Jesus was so humble that he resented being called good, since only God is truly good. But then ...

Often, however, the discrepancies remain unknown. They develop too gradually for the average person to notice and are most obvious to those who least want to point them out, i.e., the successors of the great teacher. Of course, the great teacher is no longer around to set things straight.

This has happened to many belief-systems. In my last post, I discussed how the real Sigmund Freud differed significantly from the one we know. The same is true for Franz Boas (1858-1942), whose school of anthropology is as much a product of his immediate disciples—Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict—as of Boas himself.

Today, Boas is remembered as the man who moved the social sciences away from genetic determinism and toward environmental determinism. His Wikipedia entry states:

Boas was one of the most prominent opponents of the then popular ideologies of scientific racism, the idea that race is a biological concept and that human behavior is best understood through the typology of biological characteristics. [...] Boas also worked to demonstrate that differences in human behavior are not primarily determined by innate biological dispositions, but are largely the result of cultural differences acquired through social learning.

In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences ... and not just between individuals. This is apparent in a speech he gave in 1894 under the title "Human Faculty as Determined by Race."

It does not seem probable that the minds of races which show variations in their anatomical structure should act in exactly the same manner. Differences of structure must be accompanied by differences of function, physiological as well as psychological; and, as we found clear evidence of difference in structure between the races, so we must anticipate that differences in mental characteristics will be found.  [...] As all structural differences are quantitative, we must expect to find mental differences to be of the same description, and as we found the variations in structure to overlap, so that many forms are common to individuals of all races, so we may expect that many individuals will not differ in regard to their faculty, while a statistical inquiry embracing the whole races would reveal certain differences. Furthermore, as certain anatomical traits are found to be hereditary in certain families and hence in tribes and perhaps even in peoples, in the same manner mental traits characterize certain families and may prevail among tribes. It seems, however, an impossible undertaking to separate in a satisfactory manner the social and the hereditary features. Galton's attempt to establish the laws of hereditary genius points out a way of treatment for these questions which will prove useful in so far as it opens a method of determining the influence of heredity upon mental qualities (Boas, 1974, p. 239)

We have shown that the anatomical evidence is such, that we may expect to find the races not equally gifted. While we have no right to consider one more ape-like than the other, the differences are such that some have probably greater mental vigor than others. The variations are, however, such that we may expect many individuals of all races to be equally gifted, while the number of men and women of higher ability will differ. (Boas, 1974, p. 242) 

 When discussing brain size, Boaz merely pointed to the overlap among racial groups:

We find that 50 per cent of all whites have a capacity of the skull greater than 1550 cc., while 27 per cent of the negroes and 32 per cent of the Melanesians have capacities above this value. We might, therefore, anticipate a lack of men of high genius, but should not anticipate any great lack of faculty among the great mass of negroes living among whites and enjoying the advantages of the leadership of the best men of that race. (Boas, 1974, pp. 233-234)

He did add that "mental ability certainly does not depend upon the size of the brain alone." He then argued, quoting an authority, that the encephalon and the cortex develop to a greater degree in whites, especially after puberty:

When we compare the capacity for education between the lower and higher races, we find that the great point of divergence is at adolescence and the inference is fairly good that we shall not find in the brains of the lower races the post-pubertal growth in the cortex to which I have just alluded. (Boas, 1974, p. 234)

Boas would return to this topic, such as in this 1908 speech on "Race Problems in America":

I do not believe that the negro is, in his physical and mental make-up, the same as the European. The anatomical differences are so great that corresponding mental differences are plausible. There may exist differences in character and in the direction of specific aptitudes. There is, however, no proof whatever that these differences signify any appreciable degree of inferiority of the negro, notwithstanding the slightly inferior size, and perhaps lesser complexity of structure, of his brain; for these racial differences are much less than the range of variation found in either race considered by itself. (Boas, 1974, pp. 328-329)

All of these remarks must be judged in context. Boaz was trying to stake out a reasonable middle ground in opposition to the view that human races differ not only in degree but also in kind. There is also little doubt about his opposition to racial discrimination, which he felt was holding back many capable African Americans.

But he did not feel that equality of opportunity would lead to equality of results. This was the middle ground he defended, and it is far removed from today's middle ground. The two don't even overlap. What happened between then and now?

Something critical seems to have happened in the late 1930s. When Boas prepared the second edition of The Mind of Primitive Man (1938), he removed his earlier racialist statements. The reason was likely geopolitical. As a Jewish American seeing the rise of Nazi Germany, he may have felt that the fight against anti-Semitism would require a united front against all forms of “racism”—a word just starting to enter common use and initially a synonym for Nazism.

Boas died in 1942 and the leadership of his school of anthropology fell to Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. With the end of the war, both of them wished to pursue and even escalate the fight against racism. Escalation was favored by several aspects of the postwar era: lingering fears of a revival of anti-Semitism, competition between the two power blocs for the hearts and minds of the Third World, and an almost utopian desire to rebuild society—be it through socialism, social democracy, or new liberalism … In all this, we are no longer in the realm of science, let alone anthropology. 

Boas had sought to strike a new balance between nature and nurture in the study of Man. The war intervened, however, and Boasian anthropology was conscripted to fight not only the Axis but also racism in any form. Today, three-quarters of a century later, we’re still fighting that war.
 

References


Boas, F. (1974). A Franz Boas Reader. The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911, G.W. Stocking Jr. (ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 

Wikipedia (2014). Franz Boas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

"...Most of us identify with certain great teachers of the past: Christ, Marx, Freud … .

Christ... Jewish
Marx... Jewish
Freud... Jewish

Is there a pattern here? Theological and/or relating to IQ distribution? Also, there's the Old Testament prophecy of a future Jewish leader, in whom "the Gentiles/nations" shall place their hope. These are the only 3 Jews in all history in whom large numbers of Gentiles place their hopes...

As for me and my house, we're going with Christ. The other 2 have been proved wrong too often.

Sean said...

Aristotle and Kant distinguished between rational beings (men) and emotional-led humankind (women). Darwin said something similar, and also related female emotive feeling to non European modes of thought. It's sex not race that is the primary genetic difference, and though sexual discrimination is does not get the same treatment, I would note that in the US Black men got the right to own property and vote long before white women did.

Mead and Benedict surely reacted against those casting sentiments about the proper place of women in an evolutionary model. For example, G. Stanley Hall: "She works by intuition and feeling; fear, anger, pity, love, and most of the emotions have a wider range and greater intensity. If she abandons her natural naïveté and takes up the burden of guiding and accounting for her life by consciousness, she is likely to lose more than she gains, according to the old saw that she who deliberates is lost. Secondary, tertiary, and quaternary sex qualities are developed far beyond her ken or that of science, in a way that the latter is only beginning to glimpse. While she needs tension that only the most advanced modern psychology sees to be sexual at root, we shall never know the true key to her nature until we understand, how the nest and the cradle are larger wombs; the home, a larger nest; the tribe, state, church, and school, larger homes and irradiations from it. Biological psychology already dreams of a new philosophy of sex which places the wife and mother at the heart of a new world and makes her the object of a new religion and almost of a new worship, that will give her reverent exemption from sex competition and reconsecrate her to the higher responsibilities of the human race, into the past and future of which the roots of her being penetrate; where the blind worship of mere mental illumination has no place; and where her real superiority to man will have free course and be glorified and the ideals of the old matriarchates again find embodiment in fit and due degree".
See here. Hall expressed fears about women getting higher education (see here) the year before Benedict went to Vassar. Those of a Darwinist bent were inevitably going to be seen as enemies by Benedict and Mead, and the other females instituting the feminisation of academe: " Many of the women who entered Columbia viewed themselves as feminists before the started to study anthropology".

It was the sex angle angle that was, and still is, decisive. Ask Larry Summers.

Luke Lea said...

I noticed that too when I reread some early Boas recently. I think I commented on it, too, can't remember where.

Anonymous said...

It's easy to understand how the traumatic events of the 1930s and 40s radicalized anti-racist discourse. But the truth is that, with the hindsight of the last 60 years, it's clear that Boas' original position was more defensible, both scientifically and morally.

One remains on firm factual ground so long as one argues for equality of opportunity on the basis that there are no "pure" races, that all populations overlap in both physical and mental attributes, and that both individual and collective achievement are the product of a complex interaction of environmental and hereditary influences. It's to Boas' great credit that, by stressing these points, he helped spur social reforms in America that were long overdue and that have surely made the country a better place.

On the other hand, to insist upon equality of outcome on the dubious premise that race is simply a "social construct" - as Boas' more strident successors chose to do - was to invite decades of head-banging and political polarization.

The assumption that disparate outcome = racism has by now become so entrenched that it's commonplace to hear pundits pontificate about the far higher incarceration rate of African Americans without making even cursory acknowledgment of the fact that African Americans commit violent crimes at a vastly higher per capita rate than whites or Asians.

This is one reason why people like Nicholas Wade find it so hard to get their point across that average differences between populations do not justify discrimination. The meaning of "discrimination" has become so distorted by the presumption that equality of outcome would exist in a truly fair world that anyone who casts doubt on this presumption is automatically construed as rationalizing injustice.

Anonymous said...

Obtaining positions of memetic authority generally requires conforming to some degree to established positions and discourse.

Sean said...

Second anon, in fairness it's not just race. Everything is held to be a "social construct" by the reigning thinkers like Slavoj Žižek (and Derrida).

Bruce said...

I keep seeing the assertion that Boaz committed academic fraud in his studies of skull shape/size. Is this true?

Sean said...

Christianity preached the absolute equality of humans. The Enlightenment cast doubt on it.

I would say Boas was a moderate doubter about significant racial differences and dead against any idea of subracial differences, which was quite reasonable in the last century, his sins in that skull study were not very great.

The main current defender of Boas "The prominence of women in american anthropology from it's beginnings as an academic discipline is obvious" See here. Virtually all women in American anthropology with a PhD were trained by Boas until 1928, he trained the overwhelming majority until the 40's. He got in on the ground floor of academic anthropology but I'm not sure how influential he was or could have been, anthropology didn't really influence policy anywhere. Here it says he stressed social causes of black subordination as early as 1907, his purported demonstration that verious skulls' shape were altering to a US type was in 1911.

"We know what they believed … or so we like to think."
It's pretty clear to me that the Nazis gave racial theories, the ones that suited them, credibility once they came to power, rather than the theories assisting them to power. The vast majority of racial hygienists in Germany at the time the Nazi party came to power had publicly identified with left wing politics (they were getting Rockefeller money) and had to leave their professional association when the Nazis came to power. Then the race hygienists brought their doctrines into line with the Nazis. The leading German physical anthropologist Franz Weidenreich was Jewish.

Hitler was an astoundingly gifted orator (peaking in the 20's) the French causing the Depression (by bankrupting Germany's largest bank) gave him his chance. Nothing much to do with anthropological ideas.

Benedict and the untenured (female) Gene Weltfish wrote a pamphlet in 1943 for the US army "The races of mankind " which pointedly mentioned that southern whites were inferior to northern blacks on the WW1 army recruitment test. It caused uproar, and was brought up as subversive as late as 1953, when it was one of the grounds for her being terminated from Columbia.

Sean said...

The New York Times Book Review criticized Benedict and Weltfish's 1948 adaptation of the race pamphlet, for presuming racial equality: “until much more is known about human genetics it will hardly be possible to lay down the law on heredity vs. environment in measuring racial capability.” See here

So the real information war was after WW2. I'm afraid I would have to say that battle comenced in earnest when public intellectuals like Richard Hofstadter (coined the phrase 'Social Darwinism') started to criticise huge swathes of mainstream American society. Hofstadter was very down on the midwest, the south, evangelicals (ie American protestants) farmers, any populists .. .he thought they were all proto fascists basically, and he drew on concepts from the Frankfurt School.

"REFLECTING the congruence between the Frankfurt School and contemporary postmodernism, the enormously influential postmodernist Michel Foucault stated, “If I had known about the Frankfurt School in time, I would have been saved a great deal of work. I would not have said a certain amount of nonsense and would not have taken so many false trails trying not to get lost, when the Frankfurt School had already cleared the way” (in Wiggershaus 1994, 4). Whereas the strategy of the Frankfurt School was to deconstruct universalist,
scientific thinking by the use of “critical reason,” postmodernism has opted for complete relativism and the lack of objective standards of any kind in the
interests of preventing any general theories of society or universally valid philosophical or moral systems".

I think the current thinking about openness to immigration is partly a result of a female perspective becoming incorporated into politics (that connection is very obvious in countries like Norway and Iceland) and partly due to suspicion of universally valid systems, especially any from white men.

As Derrida says "[The]white man takes his own mythology, Indo-European mythology, his own logos, that is, the mythos of his idiom, for the universal form of that he must still wish to call Reason".See here.

Ian said...

British public opinion surveys suggest there is little or no difference between men and women when it comes to opposition to immigration.

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-migration-determinants-attitudes