As
a professor at Columbia, Franz Boas encountered the elite liberal culture of
the American Northeast, one example being Mary White Ovington, a founder of the
NAACP (Wikicommons)
Antiracism
has roots that go back to early Christianity and the assimilationist Roman and
Hellenistic empires. In its modern form, however, it is a much more recent
development, particularly in its special focus on relations between whites and
blacks and its emphasis on discrimination as the cause of any mental or
behavioral differences.
Modern
antiracism began in the early 1800s as a radical outgrowth of abolitionism,
reaching high levels of popular support in the mid-1800s, particularly in the
American Northeast, and then falling into decline due to growing interest in
Social Darwinism and increasing disillusionment with the aftermath of the Civil
War. By the 1920s, it really held sway only in the Northeast, and even
there it was losing ground.
This
situation changed dramatically in the 1930s. Antiracism revived and entered a
period of growth that would eventually go global. The anthropologist Franz Boas
played a key role through his own work and indirectly through the work of his
two protégés: Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict.
Yet
this was the old Boas, a man already in his seventies. The younger Boas had
thought differently, as seen in an 1894 speech he gave on "Human Faculty
as Determined by Race":
We find that the face of the negro as compared to the skull is larger than that of the American [Indian], whose face is in turn larger than that of the white. The lower portion of the face assumes larger dimensions. The alveolar arch is pushed forward and thus gains an appearance which reminds us of the higher apes. There is no denying that this feature is a most constant character of the black races and that it represents a type slightly nearer the animal than the European type. [...] We find here at least a few indications which tend to show that the white race differs more from the higher apes than the negro. But does this anatomical difference prove that their mental capacity is lower than that of the white? The probability that this may be the case is suggested by the anatomical facts, but they by themselves are no proof that such is the case. (Boas, 1974, p. 230)
We find that the face of the negro as compared to the skull is larger than that of the American [Indian], whose face is in turn larger than that of the white. The lower portion of the face assumes larger dimensions. The alveolar arch is pushed forward and thus gains an appearance which reminds us of the higher apes. There is no denying that this feature is a most constant character of the black races and that it represents a type slightly nearer the animal than the European type. [...] We find here at least a few indications which tend to show that the white race differs more from the higher apes than the negro. But does this anatomical difference prove that their mental capacity is lower than that of the white? The probability that this may be the case is suggested by the anatomical facts, but they by themselves are no proof that such is the case. (Boas, 1974, p. 230)
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. (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)
Boas
returned to this topic in a 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)
How
did his views on race evolve over the next twenty years? This evolution is
described by Williams (1996), who sees his views beginning to change at the
turn of the century. After getting tenure at Columbia University in 1899, he
became immersed in the elite liberal culture of the American northeast and
began to express his views on race accordingly. The onset of this change is
visible in 1905, when he penned an article for the first issue of The Crisis, the organ of the NAACP: “The
Negro and the Demands of Modern Life.” While pointing out that the average
negro brain was "smaller than that of other races" and that it was
"plausible that certain differences of form of brain exist," he
cautioned:
We
must remember that individually the correlation [...] is often overshadowed by
other causes, and that we find a considerable number of great men with slight
brain weight. [...] We may, therefore, expect less average ability and also, on
account of probable anatomical differences, somewhat different mental
tendencies. (Williams, 1996, p. 17)
The
same year, he wrote to a colleague, stressing "the desirability of
collecting more definite information in relation to certain traits of the Negro
race that seem of fundamental importance in determining the policy to be
pursued towards that race" (Williams, 1996, p. 18). In 1906, he sought
funding for such a project with two specific goals:
(1)
Is there an earlier arrest of mental and physical development in the Negro
child, as compared with the white child? And, if so, is this arrest due to
social causes or to anatomical and physiological conditions?
(2)
What is the position of the mulatto child and of the adult mulatto in relation
to the two races? Is he an intermediate type, or is there a tendency of
reversion towards either race? So that particularly gifted mulattoes have to be
considered as reversals of the white race. The question of the physical vigor
of the mulatto could be taken up at the same time. (Williams, 1996, p. 19)
His
tone was less even-handed in a private letter, written the same year:
You
may be aware that in my opinion the assumption seems justifiable that on the
average the mental capacity of the negro may be a little less than that of the
white, but that the capacities of the bulk of both races are on the same level.
(Williams, 1996, p. 19)
In
1911, Boas published the first edition of The
Mind of Primitive Man. It recycled most of his previous writings on race,
while emphasizing that race differences in mental makeup were statistical and
showed considerable overlap. In 1915, he continued in this direction when he
wrote a preface to Half A Man by Mary
White Ovington, one of the founders of the NAACP:
Many
students of anthropology recognize that no proof can be given of any material
inferiority of the Negro race; that without doubt the bulk of the individuals
composing the race are equal in mental aptitude to the bulk of our own people;
that, although their hereditary aptitude may lie in slightly different
directions, it is very improbable that the majority of individuals composing
the white race should possess greater ability than the Negro race. (Williams, 1996, pp. 22-23)
Nonetheless,
one finds little change from his earlier writings in his 1928 work Anthropology and Modern Life:
[...]
the distribution of individuals and of family lines in the various races
differs. When we select among the Europeans a group with large brains, their
frequency will be relatively high, while among the Negroes the frequency of
occurrence of the corresponding group will be low. If, for instance, there are
50 percent of a European population who have a brain weight of more than, let
us say 1,500 grams, there may be only 20 percent of Negroes of the same class.
Therefore, 30 percent of the large-brained Europeans cannot be matched by any
corresponding group of Negroes. (Williams, 1996, p. 35)
Conclusion
From
1900 to 1930, Boas seemed to become increasingly liberal in his views on race,
but this trend was hesitant at best and reflected, at least in part, a change
in the audience he was addressing. As a professor at Columbia, he was dealing
with a regional WASP culture that still preserved the radical abolitionism of
the previous century. A good example was Mary White Ovington, whose Unitarian
parents had been involved in the anti-slavery movement and who in 1910 helped
found the NAACP. Boas was also dealing with the city's growing African American
community and, through Ovington's contacts, wrote articles for the NAACP.
Finally, he was also dealing with the growing Jewish community, who identified
with antiracism partly out of self-interest and partly out of a desire to
assimilate into northeastern WASP culture.
Boas
didn't really change his mind on race until the 1930s. The cause is not hard to
pinpoint. When he died in 1942, an obituary mentioned his alarm over the threat
of Nazism:
Dr.
Boas, who had studied and written widely in all fields of anthropology devoted
most of his researches during the past few years to the study of the "race
question," especially so after the rise of the Nazis in Germany.
Discussing his efforts to disprove what he called "this Nordic
nonsense," Prof. Boas said upon his retirement from teaching in 1936 that
"with the present condition of the world, I consider the race question a
most important one. I will try to clean up some of the nonsense that is being
spread about race those days. I think the question is particularly important
for this country, too; as here also people are going crazy." (JTA, 1942)
Hitler's
rise to power created a sense of urgency among many academics, both Jewish and
non-Jewish, thereby convincing fence-sitters like Franz Boas to put aside their
doubts and take a more aggressive stand on race. Thus began the war on racism,
which foreshadowed the coming world conflict.
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.
Frost,
P. (2014). The Franz Boas you never knew, Evo
and Proud, July 13 http://evoandproud.blogspot.ca/2014/07/the-franz-boas-you-never-knew.html
JTA
(1942). Dr. Franz Boas, Debunker of Nazi Racial Theories, Dies in New York,
December 23 http://www.jta.org/1942/12/23/archive/dr-franz-boas-debunker-of-nazi-racial-theories-dies-in-new-york
Williams
Jr., V.J. (1996). Rethinking Race: Franz
Boas and His Contemporaries, University Press of Kentucky. https://books.google.ca/books?id=MKnIOfHNxXMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Rethinking+race+franz+boas&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=lTkcVcLqLs-OyATM-IGoCQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Rethinking%20race%20franz%20boas&f=false
It's an outrageous distortion of history to suggest Jews supported antiracism "out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture".
ReplyDeleteMost northeasterners, of any class, were never abolitionists (antislavery does not equal abolitionist), and even most abolitionists did not advocate anything approaching modern anti-racism.
No major constituency in America denied the existence of biological differences between blacks and whites when Boas immigrated, and advocating such views provided no quick path to social advancement (though obviously at a deeper level, Boas wished to target "anti-semitism").
As I replied to someone who picked this line up from you last time you tried peddling it: It would have been very strange indeed for a physical anthropologist in the 1890s to outright deny the existence of race or obvious racial differences. The important thing is the direction in which [Boas] differed from his contemporaries and his motivations for taking the stances he did. And, as Frost acknowledges, Boas's race-denialism grew more extreme over time. The continuation of this trend among his students after his death hardly gainsays the fundamental influence of Boas on the school of anthropology he founded.
Nor is there any indication Boas was eager to assimilate into American culture. According to Boas himself: "The background of my early thinking was a German home in which the ideals of the revolution of 1848 were a living force". Beyond his identity as a Jew, he continued to identify with Germany at least through World War I, writing letters to the editor that were hardly calculated to endear him to Americans and banning a returning soldier in uniform from his classroom.
After Boas retired, Columbia administrators appointed an outsider as his replacement: "Linton's appointment was a deliberate attempt to counteract the influence of Boas and his students in the department, who were seen by the conservative [Columbia president] Nicholas Murray Butler as dangerous radicals."
Nice article. I was aware of his earlier views and just assumed that the rise of the Nazi's was the reason he moderated them.
ReplyDeleteLuke,
ReplyDeleteNo, this is not a "nice article".