Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Race, then and now: 1918 revisited

2018; Wiley; Volume: 165; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/ajpa.23417

1096-8644

Rachel Caspari,

Forensic and Genetic Research

In 2009, the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (AJPA) published a special issue, "Race Reconciled" (Edgar & Hunley, 2009). There was a diversity of opinions expressed in the volume, but one thing was clear: in 2009 there were still discussions in biological anthropology about whether race exists, the patterning of human geographic variation, and the relationship between social and biological race. For that volume, I contributed a historical paper, "1918: Three perspectives on race and human variation," in which I examined race within the structure of physical anthropology at the time of the founding of the journal. The contributions of Aleš Hrdlička, Earnest Hooton and Franz Boas, all of whom published in Volume 1 of the AJPA, were shown to reflect different aspects of the race concept and different views of geographic variation, even as they represented different institutions within American anthropology. A major point was that modern views of race, especially in the work of Boas, were presaged in these pages a century ago.1 What follows is a revision of Caspari (2009), included because of its relevance to the 100-year anniversary of the journal. The history and analysis of race in Volume 1 of the AJPA remains much the same as in the original piece. However, in the current version, as a Centennial Perspective, I share my views on how and why the acceptance of the race concept has changed in biological anthropology over the last century. I see it as driven by four major factors: recognition of scientific racism and the social responsibility of scientists, the examination of the phylogenetic assumption underlying the race concept, recognition of the power of essentialism, and a new focus on the biological dimensions of social race. Race was a core concept in biological anthropology for much of the last century, so entrenched in the culture of the discipline, and that of society, that its suppositions went unexamined. It was, and sometimes continues to be, conflated with the obvious existence of geographic variation. Yet, as part of a taxonomic system, "race" carries phylogenetic assumptions about the causes of variation. Even more problematic, race is both a biological and social taxonomy. Folk taxonomies are created by all human cultures, but usually there are different knowledge structures for the "natural" and social worlds (Hirschfeld, 1996; Hirschfeld & Gelman, 1994; Prentice & Miller, 2007). The Western race concept conflates the two (Caspari, 2010), so that stereotypes and other presumed behavioral differences between races are easily believed to be part of the biology of the group, and socially defined races are also believed to be "natural categories." Despite the social dimensions of racial categories, the hallmark of the Western race concept is that races are believed to be components of a biological taxonomy. From the inception of the race concept as part of the18th-century natural-history tradition (Linnaeus, 1758), both physical and behavioral characteristics were incorporated into racial taxonomy (Blakey, 1999; Marks, 1995). The categories were typological constructs that listed physical features such as skin color, behavioral features such as industriousness and intelligence, and even clothing, as part of the essence of the type. Therefore, essentialism, the idea that all entities have a set of static, defining characteristics intrinsic to their identities, lies at the core of the race concept. Biological determinism often does as well, since presumed variation in behavioral traits, such as intelligence, were often defining characteristics of the racial types, a reflection of their taxonomic (biological) status.2 Thus, the taxonomic units and their essences, with both physical and behavioral components believed by many to be stable and unchanging, were defined by science as natural groups, even as they were expressions of a stratified social system. Although the Western race concept originally applied to large continental groups (geographic races) believed to be subspecies, racial thinking also extended to smaller groups that were lower in the taxonomic hierarchy. These included nations or perceived regional "types," such as the "Nordic" or "Mediterranean" races described in the early 20th century. There was considerable debate in the 19th and 20th centuries about the number of races and types and their place in the hierarchy (Coon, 1939; Coon, Garn, & Birdsell, 1950). The Western race concept is not only characterized by essentialism and biological determinism; theories about the origin of races have also been a core component of the race concept. All have involved some degree of isolation (the amount of time varies with the theory) to explain the origin and maintenance of the essence of racial categories. Races were conceived of as genealogical entities, and since the mid-19th century and the widespread acceptance of common descent, as branches (or twigs) on evolutionary trees. As reflections of phylogeny, trees are the common way in which taxonomic hierarchies are depicted, and they express how types can exist. The branches necessarily depict isolated groups, and provide an explanation for the concordance of physical and behavioral traits that are believed to make up race. Trees have been used to show relationships between large continental races and small, local populations, and have also been used to express inequality. Racial thinking and its concomitant branching models were widely accepted well into the 20th century, so that the alternative view—that of a "network" depicting the evolution of the human species as interconnected groups—was largely ignored, or misinterpreted (Wolpoff & Caspari, 1997). Therefore, the race concept carries an assumption about the nature and cause of geographic variation—namely, that it is phylogenetic in origin. The presumed differences between racial groups are explained through isolation; it is assumed that phylogenetic trees (genealogical or evolutionary trees) accurately model the relationships among races. The three components of the race concept discussed above, essentialism, biological determinism and phylogeny, are all expressed in the first volume of the AJPA. In 1918, and through the ensuing century, the race concept strongly influenced the science of human geographic variation. Yet, interestingly, race and geographic variation were treated differently by Hrdlička, Hooton and Boas, a reflection of their schools of thought and their positions in the political structure of American anthropology. A century ago, Aleš Hrdlička (1869–1943), the Czech born Head of the Division of Physical Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution, founded the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (AJPA), then the organ of the short-lived Committee on Anthropology of the National Research Council (NRC). [See Little, this volume.] The membership of this committee was controversial, comprising only two physical anthropologists and including powerful representatives of the eugenics movement from other disciplines such as Madison Grant and Charles Davenport, who advocated for an applied racial anthropology along the lines of that practiced in Europe (Kevles, 1985). An explicit focus on "the science of race" had not been a major constituent of mainstream anthropology in the United States since the polygenist American School of the early and mid-19th century (Brace, 2005; Stanton, 1960). However, during World War I, both governmental and private forces promoted the renaissance of race science in American anthropology, running counter to the traditions developing in much of the field (Stocking, 1968). The American Anthropological Association (AAA), representing the discipline, had been founded in 1902, and was dominated by Franz Boas (1858–1942) and his students, who practiced a culture-based four-field approach to anthropology. Boas had been challenging the race concept since the 1890s, and his faction and others within the anthropological community largely focused on Native American language, culture, and archeology. While racial assumptions were clearly embedded in much of this research, prior to World War I race itself was not the primary focus of American anthropology (Caspari, 2003). To some extent, this period saw a fight for the soul of physical anthropology, and how it would be shaped as a profession. There were tensions between two major factions. One faction, the so-called "Washingtonians,"3 included Hrdlička; the other faction centered on Boas, then a professor at Columbia. The Washingtonians, influenced by older traditions of the 19th century (including European racial anthropology in the case of Hrdlička), had an uneasy relationship with the "Boasians," whose philosophy was derived in large part from the liberal German monogenist tradition. The two groups had an interconnected history, and while the AJPA was founded by "Washingtonians," the emerging field it represented was quite different from much of European physical anthropology because of its position within the broader, and often more progressive, American anthropological community (Caspari, 2003). The AJPA, and the idea of physical anthropology in the US as a distinct sub-discipline, had its roots in the Washington faction; yet the Boasians, representing American anthropology as a whole, were equally important to development of the sub-field. Although he is commonly considered the "father" of four-field anthropology, Boas' own work included many ground-breaking studies in physical anthropology (Jantz & Spencer, 1997), and while few of his own doctoral students (Isabel Gordon Carter, Marcus Goldstein, Ashley Montagu) focused on physical anthropology,4 he contributed to the four-field training of many of the early PhDs in anthropology from several institutions. These included Roland Dixon, from Harvard (a student of Frederic Putnam), who would influence Earnest Hooton later on. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, physical anthropology developed within the context of this uniquely American four-field tradition and therefore the Boasian influence on the development of biological anthropology within anthropology was profound (Caspari, 2003). Because of Boas' influence, race has always been challenged in American anthropology, and the field focused more on the processes underlying human variation than it would have otherwise. By 1918, Boas had been on the faculty at Columbia for 20 years; however, he had long-standing ties with (and resentments against) Washington. With primary appointments in New York, he was also affiliated with the Bureau of American Ethnology as a philologist until 1902 when Holmes5 became director. Boas was also instrumental in changing the character of the American Anthropologist in 1898 (then the organ of the Anthropological Society of Washington), from one with a more 19th century orientation to a newer approach that reflected Boas and his students (Stocking, 1968).6 The founding of the AAA in 1902 wrested power from the Washingtonians, rendering them a minority in the Association. The acrimony generated with these changes continued to affect relationships between Washington and New York anthropologists even in 1918 (Stocking, 1960, 1968). It was in this highly charged political environment that physical anthropology came into being as a distinct discipline in the United States. Its emergence had been the longstanding goal of Aleš Hrdlička, who came to the National Museum in 1903 to head the newly created Division of Physical Anthropology, the first specific position in physical anthropology in the country. He hoped to create an Institute of Physical Anthropology, along the lines of the Société d'Anthropologie de Paris (1860), and the École d'Anthropologie (1874), both founded by Paul Broca, and collectively informally called Broca's Institute (Spencer, 1981, 1997). Hrdlička, who immigrated to the United States with his family in 1881, trained in medicine in New York, but also studied in France with Paul Topinard, Broca's disciple, bringing back to the US many of the "precepts and traditions of the French School" (Shapiro, 1959, p. 377). The French School, founded on polygenist principles, had a decidedly racial focus (Brace, 2005); a major element of Topinard's work involved the identification and categorization of racial groups (Ferembach, 1997). So, while Hrdlička did not practice "race science" per se, he was strongly influenced by a tradition steeped in racial thinking. Hrdlička had no students in his position at the National Museum, but his legacies include the journal and the association, the role of physical anthropology at the Smithsonian, and his vision of physical anthropology as a discipline (Spencer, 1981). The formation of the National Research Council in 1916 provided him with an opportunity to realize his ambitions. The National Research Council was formed to involve science in the military preparations for the war. Charles D. Walcott, Secretary of the Smithsonian, was an organizer of the Council, and recruited Holmes, who was then the Head Curator of Anthropology at the Museum, and Hrdlička, Curator of the Division of Physical Anthropology, to serve on the Committee on Anthropology of the NRC, formed in 1917. Holmes chaired the committee; Hrdlička was secretary. It included only a few anthropologists, in part reflecting the fact that there were few physical anthropologists trained to meet the objectives of the committee. These objectives mostly involved collecting physical data from Army recruits (Holmes, 1918). In 1918 physical anthropology in the US was truly a fledgling discipline, and most of its practitioners, such as Hrdlička, were trained in medicine, not anthropology (Spencer, 1997). It was not until Earnest A. Hooton (1887–1954) started producing PhDs at Harvard in 1925 that there was specific training in physical anthropology in the United States (Shapiro, 1954, 1959). Only six American PhDs in physical anthropology had been awarded prior to 1925—five of these from Harvard—trained by specialists in other disciplines. Hooton's influence on the discipline cannot be overstated; over the course of his career he advised 28 students, who from academic positions at universities across the country shaped the field we know (Giles, 1997; Shapiro, 1954). Many practicing American physical anthropologists can trace their intellectual ancestry to Hooton at Harvard. Hooton was asked to serve on the Committee on Anthropology. He was then a young anthropologist who had been at Harvard for <5 years, and he joined Hrdlička as one of only two physical anthropologists on the Committee. Boas was not asked to serve, despite the fact that he was perhaps the best-known anthropologist in the country and a practicing physical anthropologist. This is not surprising since he was opposed to the war7 and he and Walcott did not like each other. Additionally, it is likely that the executive committee of the NRC knew that Boas objected to the Committee's eugenic agenda. The composition of the Committee on Anthropology was controversial and angered the Boasian dominated AAA, not only because of the dearth of anthropologists on it, but also because of the eugenicists appointed to it (Stocking, 1968). The executive committee of the NRC vetoed all proposed lists of members brought forth by Holmes and Hrdlička until Charles Davenport and Madison Grant were named to the committee. Davenport and Grant were founders of the Galton Society,8 which was dedicated to the study of racial anthropology (Kevles, 1985; Paul, 1998). The Galton Society's membership included powerful members of the scientific community, such as paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn (then president of the American Museum of Natural History), biologist Raymond Pearl, and geologist John C. Merriam (head of the National Research Council). But, despite the mission of the society, most members were not anthropologists. Thus (much to the chagrin of the anthropologists of the AAA), during the second decade of the century, many workers who claimed to represent physical anthropology were actually eugenicists from other disciplines and some were very powerful in the American scientific political structure. The AJPA, founded as the organ of the Committee on Anthropology of the National Research Council, conveyed the Committee's original recommendations in its inaugural issue (Holmes, 1918). In addition to advocating for a National Anthropometric Survey (to be undertaken under the auspices of the Smithsonian in cooperation with the Bureau of Immigration, the Department of War and other agencies), its recommendations pertained to the application of physical anthropology to the war effort. Chief among the accomplishments of the Committee's first year were a set of recommendations, well received by the NRC. These included the regulation of methods of measurement of military recruits and the modification of some of the physical requirements for service, given the more diverse body of recruits; for instance, it was argued that prohibitions against cranial deformity should be relaxed since scaphocephaly was supposedly common in the "American Negro" (Holmes, 1918). The committee also put forth recommendations to take advantage of the multiracial backgrounds of recruits, including "advanced anthropometric work" at a number of the "concentration camps" where more detailed racial data could be obtained.9 The formation of the NRC and the Committee on Anthropology represented an opportunity for Hrdlička to start the journal as part of his commitment to developing physical anthropology as a separate discipline in the United States. The journal was his highest priority among the goals of the Committee. Although its official function was as the organ of the COA, Hrdlička (1918) emphasized that the AJPA was an outgrowth of the work of the Division of Physical Anthropology at the National Museum, implying that its scope and importance transcended the goals of the NRC. However, as an organ of the NRC, social relevance was a priority, and this relevance was racial and eugenic. Hrdlička actively solicited articles for Volume 1 from the Eugenics Research Association, and in his prospectus for the journal he argued that it would help eugenic policies including the regulation of immigration and "all other endeavors safeguarding the physical status of man in this country" (Spiro, 2009, p. 287). There was real danger of the journal becoming a venue for the "hereditarians" and physical anthropology primarily a eugenic enterprise. Madison Grant, a powerful voice on the COA, was tapped to be an associate editor of the journal. Fortuitously, for the history of the association and the journal, and, one could argue, for American biological anthropology, Grant and Hrdlička had a falling out, and by the time the first issue of the AJPA was published, Hrdlička had replaced Grant with Boas, Kroeber and Donaldson on the editorial board (Spiro, 2009). These were the Boasians that Grant hated; moreover, Hrdlička convinced a reluctant Boas to write a scathing review of the second edition of The Passing of the Great Race for the AJPA in 1918, Boas, (1918b). This was personal revenge; the rift between Hrdlička and Grant had nothing to do with ideology or Grant's questionable scholarship, but rather with competing interests between the two men (Spiro, 2009).10 Grant had interfered with Hrdlička's ambitions for the journal, and Hrdlička retaliated with the removal of Grant and the appointment of Boasians to the editorial board. Thus, from its inception, the AJPA was influenced by Boasian four-field anthropology and critiques of biological determinism and the type concept were a part of the discourse. Multiple perspectives on race were expressed in the first volume of the AJPA, which reflect ideas about the relationship between biological determinism and race and assumptions about processes that underlie the race concept. Most importantly, alternative approaches to the study of human variation were already expressed in 1918. Despite subsequent understandings based on the modern synthesis and the growth of genetics, the fundamentals of the modern discussions of race were already planted in 1918. The first volume of the AJPA reflects many dimensions of the race concept, exemplified in the contributions of the three most influential physical anthropologists of the period, Hrdlička, Hooton, and Boas, who shaped the modern discipline. The papers they contributed in 1918 reflect fundamental issues that physical anthropology grappled with throughout the century—issues of what race is as a biological concept and its relevance to society. Hrdlička's conception of racial anthropology as an applied science, of potential use to the eugenics movement and the war effort, represents issues that haunt the discipline even today. In Volume I, Hooton and Boas both present detailed studies involving biological variation and "racial" affinities: Hooton's contribution exemplifies taxonomic assumptions of race, while Boas presents a non-racial approach to variation and tests the concordance of racial features and other assumptions of the type concept. Thus, at the inception of the AJPA, there were very different views of race. Largely because of its connection with four-field American anthropology, the challenge to race evident in 1918 was already a part of an on-going American tradition. "The actual birth of a new science may be counted from the commencement of substantial research work in the new field, which in due time is followed by differentiation of concepts, advanced organization of forces and plans, standardization of procedures, and a gradual development of regular instruction and means of publication."(Hrdlička, 1918b, p. 134) "nothing could have been more effective than the presence… of a race whose identity, composition, and origin were problems that …interested the whole thinking world…added the fact that the white man's contact with the Indian in North America was becoming extensive, and the need to know the race better physically as well as otherwise, was felt with growing intensity." (Hrdlička, 1918b, p. 134) He also acknowledged the importance of European racial thinking in the development of American anthropology; however, it is clear that he, like other anthropologists in the US, saw Native American studies as paramount. Reflecting his interest in the peopling of the New World (i.e., the number of "races" represented), Hrdlička reviewed the contributions of Samuel Morton (1839, 1848) and other contributors to the American School, without discussing Morton's polygenism.11 He focused almost exclusively on Morton's data regarding Native Americans from Crania Americana (1839), although he was interested in later conclusions that they all belonged to the same race, quoting Morton: "From Cape Horn to Canada, from ocean to ocean they present a common type of physical organization, and a not less remarkable similarity of moral and mental endowments" (Morton, 1848, cited in Hrdlička, 1918b, p. 144). He considered Morton the "Father of American Anthropology" (albeit a father with no progeny), emphasizing the importance of Morton's methods and of the Morton collection.12 Hrdlička's history is detailed, with a focus on data collection and methodology; he gives the complete bibliographies of virtually every contributor to the literature. However, with the exception of the peopling of the Americas, no theory is discussed. In 1918, there was pressure on American anthropology to broaden its scope to include racial issues of interest to contemporary society, and Hrdlička's contribution to the inaugural issue of the AJPA stressed the importance of physical anthropology as an applied science. Hrdlička was promoting a discipline of use to the general public; as Blakey (1987) points out, Hrdlička sought to address social issues through racial biology. In the first pages of the journal, he defined the scope and aims of physical anthropology in America, a field he summarized as "the study of racial anatomy, physiology and pathology" (1918a, p. 4). Hrdlička emphasized the importance of the comparative approach to understanding human variation as anthropology's unique purview (rendering it different from anatomy, physiology, and other aspects of human biology) and listed among the aims of physical anthropology (which also included increasing knowledge of the non-human primates and human phylogeny) the comparative study of the races of man, which was important not only for the advancement of knowledge, but for applied reasons as well. "The paramount scientific object of Physical Anthropology is the gradual completion, in collaboration with the anatomist, the physiologist and the chemist, of the study of the normal white man living under normal conditions….Such knowledge of the white race is eventually indispensable for anthropological comparisons" (1918a, p. 18). Hrdlička saw a critical function of physical anthropology to be the study of the "more primitive human races and their subdivisions," an area he saw as lacking: "What has already been accomplished in this field have been…the primary…steps; in fact we have not emerged here far above the stage of amateurism. In not a single instance can we say that we possess even a fairly complete record of any of the colored peoples" (Hrdlička, 1918a, p. 19). These racial goals of physical anthropology were therefore mostly descriptive; it was important to understand the biological make-up of racial groups, a description of racial categories themselves. But, application was just as important. "Finally, the ultimate aim of Physical Anthropology is that it may…show the tendencies of the actual and future evolution of man, and aid in its possible regulation and improvement….The growing science of eugenics will essentially become applied anthropology….Progress in this direction stipulates…the necessity of perceiving and formulating the true goals of mankind, physical and intellectual, for the two are inseparable, and then working toward their realization." (1918a, p. 21) Hrdlička ended his contribution to the first issue with the importance of conducting national anthropometric surveys, a goal of the Committee on Anthropology, as done in other countries, which provide data to "serve as an index of progress, stagnation, or deterioration of and within the nations and thus afford indications of vital importance to agencies for eugenics and for legislation" (1918a, p. 23). Davenport and Grant couldn't have agreed more. It is clear that the applied physical anthropology of 1918 was based on an assumption of biological determinism and the link between biological and social conceptions of race. "The modern Icelander is a quasi-Norwegian, justly proud of his old home. His race is completely free from any taint of Skraelling, Inuit, or Mongoloid blood." However, "Here and there but rarely, a flat dark face, oblique eyes and long black horsehair, show that a wife has been taken from the land." Hooton concluded that while race mixture between Eskimos and Icelanders was possible, it was more probable that the similarities were shared physiological responses due their "fish and flesh" diets and the habitual chewing of very tough food. He thought that all of the traits were a consequence of the same stress: pressure directed mesially in the process of mastication. "Race" was used in multiple ways in the paper. In the broadest sense, Hooton used "race" to refer to continental groups, such as European or American races. He also used "race" also to refer to the European taxonomy of Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans, a classification largely based on head shape. In addition, he referred to his specific comparative samples as different races, including Italians, Libyans, and Southern California Indians, who he described in terms of head shape and other typological features. Moreover, Hooton referred to distinctions between the "primitive" and "civilized races" when discussing physical and behavioral features shared due to cultural similarities, such as relaxed selection on mastication in "civilized races." Therefore, "races" were categories that could occur at any level in a subspecific hierarchical classification. The 1918 paper reflected Hooton's meaning of race and the kind of science he practiced. During this phase of his career, he was primarily interested in skeletal biology and the assessment of racial history from skeletal remains (Giles, 1997). His work was descriptive and he provided ordinal and categorical data for his samples, giving means and ranges for metric features and percentages of various expressions of discrete variables. Patterns of variation were not focused on; while Hooton briefly discussed "correlation" between traits by reporting the percentage of the samples that display combinations of features, he neither used a biometric approach to correlation (as did Boas in the same volume) nor addressed the significance of correlation. Nor did he address his interest in the correlation between traits. Presumably, concordance could support both a racial explanation of shared traits and the common adaptation conclusion that Hooton reached. Hooton's approach was inductive; he concludes that the features were functional because they were not racial, as suggested by his comparisons. "During the Miocene period …certain of the progressive Dryopithecus genera took to the ground in several parts of the anthropoid zone. Some of these….were the progenitors of the lines leading to the present day races of man." (Hooton, 1931, pp. 572–573). Hooton's subsequent 1931 phylogenetic classification of race is very similar to that of his Harvard colleague, Roland Dixon, published in 1923. He may also have been influenced by Sir Arthur Keith, who expressed polygenic views somewhat later (Kei