Until Darwin: Science & the Origins of Race

Repost: The Bounty of Species in a Single Scoop of Seafloor Mud

2012-01-24T20:16:00.000-05:00

Via Charles Darwin Trust

"If Darwin could have taken a scoop of seafloor mud he would have been able to compare it with a scoop of Cudham pond mud. A mere handful of seafloor mud may contain as many species as are found in a square meter of tropical rainforest."

Photo: The Bounty of Species in a Single Scoop of Seafloor Mud
www.wired.com

Repost: "Why Do Humans have Chins?"

2012-01-24T19:57:00.002-05:00

Blog post from the Smithsonian's Hominid Hunting blog on "Why do humans have chins?" The answers have been quite varied.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2012/01/why-do-humans-have-chins/

Blue Jays in Audubon Magazine

2012-01-23T15:33:00.000-05:00

"Slings and Arrows: Why Birders Love to Hate Blue Jays

They’re smart, spectacular, and vocally versatile, so is the species really so bad?

By Les Line/Illustration by Jason Holley

Published: September-October 2008"

http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/birds/slings-and-arrows-why-birders-love-hate-blue-jays?

New blog project: Cultural Studies - Introductory Essays

2012-01-20T20:18:00.001-05:00

New Project:

Cultural Studies - Introductory Essays

http://culturalstudieslectures.blogspot.com/

A new project, and one that brings some of my activities to a close. I have decided to write out my Cultural Studies lectures and put them online for my students. These will be written over the next few months and will no doubt be edited from time to time. My students have asked that I make my notes available, but that was always impractical and would no doubt be confusing, but in this form both present and past students (and other interested readers). These will not be the actual lectures, which of course changed and developed over the thirteen years I taught the class, but they will give some idea of the course and some reminders for those who sat through my through my class over the years. It is doubtful that I will teach on this subject again, as my interests have as is proper moved on to other subjects, such as the work derived from my research into Until Darwin.
Lecture One: On the Question “What is Cultural Studies?” is already up.

Below is from the the "About these lectures" page of the blog.

"We all fail in ourefforts to present the essentials of culture to our students.It remains for their genius to convert our failure into success"
Alfred North Whitehead

After over a decadeof teaching and lecturing on Cultural Studies, the realization that acertain rigidity had enveloped the course became an inescapableconclusion. This rigidity had occurred despite a good deal of effortto the contrary. These lectures were given from notes and in aextemporaneous manner, but even so what might have appeared to othersas improvisation became scripted by habit and repetition. For thisvery reason, the extemporaneous manner of delivery was not a longterm solution. As it turned out, nor was the constant revision ofthe syllabus in response to student interest as well as my ownchanging interests and interpretations. My writing these lecturesshows these efforts to have been, in the end, both a failure and asuccess. The remains of this work consists of a fairly impressivearchive of notes, fragments, and other materials steadily accumulatedamid the ruins of these remarks and revisions.

Now, one response tothis problem of authority would be to revolutionize one’s syllabusand lectures, but a condition of permanent revolution can not, forobvious reasons, be maintained by a finite person and besides, theselimited revolutions of necessity begin to take on a certain samenessas the encounters with this personal limit become increasinglyfrequent.

A different responseprovides the reasons for writing these lectures: one might embracethe view that perhaps one has said enough and that the many classesand talks had congealed into something that made sense even asCultural Studies itself experienced great changes with its acceptanceand institutionalization in American universities and cultureindustries. These changes were also found in miniature in theinstitutionalization of Cultural Studies at Pratt and directlyaffected the course.

Without a doubt theorientation of the course changed as well. After some years ofteaching about an “emerging field” of Cultural Studies, I thoughtit better to go back and look at the different disciplines, fields ofknowledge, schools, texts, authorities and politics that coalescedinto Cultural Studies. Gradually, the course moved toward tracingthe genealogy of Cultural Studies along with some limitedspeculations on its future in the academy. It must be said thatthis genealogy had to take into account the social changes that madepossible the movement of Cultural Studies from being marginalizedcritiques to being commonplace or even farcical term: witness theNew York Times “Style” section column titled “CulturalStudies” or the recent exchange in the Chronicle of Higher Educationover the status of Cultural Studies that managed to carry the air ofboth a graduate school debate and an argument at a funeral. All toooften, critique has given way to mere criticism. In terms ofeveryday life, we are in a historical moment that nicely bookendsCultural Studies between its origins in the social dislocations ofthe 20^th Century and those of the present. If it is truethat we have moved from Raymond Williams posing the question of thefuture of Cultural Studies to Hall’s eulogy on its theoreticallegacies, then there is ample justification for writing thesereflections in the form of lectures.

Because theselectures were presented as extemporaneous class talks, they variedfrom semester to semester and year to year. Those who attended thecourse in the early years will not recognize some aspects of thesesummary lectures, but much will seem familiar or at least make a bitmore sense of what you heard. And so the second justification forwriting down these lectures is to give students present and past theopportunity to revisit or have clarified points that might have beenmissed, unclear, or skipped due to the pressures of the classroom.

Of course, everyonewill notice the absence of any of the autobiographical referencesthat I might have made in class. Students from the class willimmediately understand the reason for this absence. For those otherI might refer you to the little essay “Against Autobiography” written for the student journal. Besides, there is never a reason togive your detractors words to use against you but at the same timeone must have an implicit trust of one’s students and so in printthere will be no autobiographical content. I have, however,attempted to retain as much as possible hints of the extemporaneousmode of presentation.

The third reason forwriting these lectures stems from the essential commitment ofCultural Studies to education as well as critique. It is the habitof professors to guard their lectures rather jealously, but this isantithetical to the history of Cultural Studies. Thus, the publicnature of these writings are a nod to the many interventions intoeducation that are found in such different locations as Adorno’sradio talks, Birmingham’s commitment to worker education, the labormovement, and the Center for Cultural Studies. Teaching the CulturalStudies course gave me the opportunity to interact with all of thefirst year students in the Cultural Studies/Critical & VisualStudies major in conjunction with my duties as Director/Coordinator. With our coming curricular changes, it is now appropriate that thestudents share a wider common experience.

Every semester, Ibegan by asserting that I have a particular view of the genealogy ofCultural Studies and that my view is not shared by everyone, evenamong my colleagues here at Pratt. I encouraged them to seek outother faculty to get their views on any questions or disagreements. Just as important, to take courses from a range of faculty especiallyin those areas such as Feminism that I could not adequately cover inthe short time allowed us, or ideas such as “postmodernism” whichI do not use. The goal of the course was never, however, to presentan established set of texts or to invent a new discipline. The goal,simply put, was to present students with sometimes difficultmaterials that call into question our usual assumptions and callengage them over the course of many years. Epicurus said that asteachers “we should not raise children,” by which he meant weshould not prepare our students for their subordination to authority.

The course endedwith students reading work by faculty at Pratt who are affiliatedwith Cultural Studies. Students enjoyed the opportunity to read thework of their own teachers. I was always surprised by the degree towhich students were excited by the assignment and would typicallyengage some of the most difficult work. The Fall 2011 question wasthe following:

Final Essay Question:
The final essay requires that you read Hall's essay on CulturalStudies and its Theoretical Legacies. Then you are to choose 2-3 examples of work by professorshere at Pratt and analyze them based upon Hall's critique of American cultural studies. Doesthe work of the faculty support Hall's contentions? Essays contributed by Pratt Faculty areon the course LMS site. The essays are by Professors Ivan Zatz, Lisabeth During, May Joseph, JonBeller, Suzanne Verderber, Michael Eng, Chris Vitale, Miriam Greenberg, etc. You maychose other works by faculty in the department as well, but the faculty member must be inthe School of Liberal Arts.

It should be theobligation of all senior faculty to teach at least one 1^stor 2^nd year class and these lectures fulfilled thatobligation. But for many years my interest in Cultural Studies hasbeen eclipsed by other specific work. The writing of these lecturesallows me to turn my attention to these other studies and courseswhile leaving behind this artifact from the accumulated debris.

BRBIII
New York City

New Facebook and Twitter sites for Until Darwin:

2012-01-20T16:20:00.001-05:00

New Facebook and Twitter sites for Until Darwin:

Like us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/UntilDarwin

and Twitter

@UntilDarwin https://twitter.com/#!/UntilDarwin

On the Genealogy of “Slave” --- Leverett (1844) and Partridge (1966)

2011-11-29T13:25:00.001-05:00


A bearded slave carries his master's shield and helm, 380–370 BC.

On the Genealogy of“Slave” --- Leverett (1844) and Partridge (1966)

While working on achapter Classical views of human variety that unfortunately did notappear in the final version of Until Darwin, there arose theneed to look into the origin of the word “slave.” A colleaguehad mentioned being told that the word meant a “protector,preserver or guard” who could be trusted to watch over the propertyof the master. I was not sure about this and so found that slaveis derived from Slav, while servant or servitudeis derived from servus. The Slavs happened to have beenenslaved by the Romans, but were not, one could say, “slavish.” Note below that Partridge mentions regarding “The OSI Slovene,a slave, lit ‘the speaker’ hence ‘intelligent person’ derivesfrom the OSI slovo, a word opp[osed] to the Germans, who werecalled ‘the mutes.’”

Varro, who remains asource despite his limitations, uses servos in the context ofthree buyers of slaves in Ephesus: “Sictres cum emerunr Ephesi singulos servos...”De Lingua Latina, VIII. 21.

Consider thiscomment by Ferdinand de Saussure from his Course in GeneralLinguistics [1906-1911] (Chicago: Open Court Classics, 1983, pg233.)

But it is doubtfulwhether information of this kind [i.e., on “the nature of the thecommon ethnicity” that is inferred from the “community oflanguage”] can be sought from the evidence provided by language,for the following reasons.

The first is theuncertainty of etymologies. Only gradually has it become apparenthow few are the words whose origins can be considered definitivelyknown. We are now much more cautious than formerly. An example ofthe temerity of the eariler days is the following. Latin servus(‘slave’) and suvare (‘keep, guard’) were – perhapsunjustifiably – assumed to be connected, and from this it wasinferred that the slave was originally someone who kept guard overthe house. In fact it is not even clear that suvareoriginally meant that.

______________________

A] servio(servus, is, ivi, and i itum,n.) to be a slave, serve in the capacity of a servant orslave... Also of things, ashouses, fields, etc. to be subject to certain servitudes,or to be the subject to any one in some respects. Alsofiguratively to serve for anything, to be serviceable or fit foranything, to be used for anything. Also to serve, show kindness, doa favor, be obliging, please, humor, gratify. Also to be at one'sservice.... Also to pay attention to, have regard to, take care ofanything, bestow pains upon, aim at... Also to conform or accommodateone's self to
B] Servitium--- slavery, servitude, bondage, serviceable

servus, orservos serving, ministering, bound to service, slavish,servile.... servus potenstatissubject to your power --- Also of house or lands, subject to certainservitudes, liable to certain burdens, or duties, of base tenure.

Leverett,F.P. 1844. A new and copious Lexicon of the Latin Languagecompiled chiefly from the Magnum TotiusLatinitatis Lexicon of Facciolati and Forcelliniand the German works of Schellerand Lueneman. Boston: J.H. Wilkins and R.B. Carter.

A water color byJean Baptiste Debret - www.slaveryimages.org

Slave (n,hence v with cpd enslave, whence enslavement) whencethe agent slaver, slavery, slavish; Slave Slavic – Slavonia,whence Slavonian (adg, hence n) and Slovonic --- Slovak(cf Czechoslovakian) and Slovene (n ,hence adj.)

1] Both slaveand Slave occur in ME as Sclane, sclave, and sclavne,Sclave, both from ML sclavus, Sclavus, that of “slave”arose as mainly from the fact that 'during the eastward expansion ofthe Germans in the Middle Ages the Slav populations were enslaved ordestroyed' (M. O'C. Walshe. 1952. AConcise German Etymological Dictionary, who aptly cfs,sem, the OE wealh a Celt, a slave:see Welsh) and much less, from the raids made by the Venetiansupon Slovonia during the Crusades (O. Blochand W. von Wartburg.1950) Dictionaire etymologicalde la langue francaise,2^nd edition). Cf MF-F esclave,and Slave, and late MHG slave and, as in G. sklave,a slave.

The OSI Slovene,a slave, lit 'the speaker' hence 'intelligent person' derives fromthe OSI slovo, a word opp to the Germans, who were called 'themutes.'

OE wealh astranger or foreigner (not of Saxon origin; from the land of theWealas—Celts, Britons, hence Wales and Welsh...

Servant
Serve
1) Behind all ofthese words stand Latin servus, ML servus,slave, adj hence n, and its derivative serutre,ML servire, to be a slave, (ut) to be a slave to, hence toserve. The Latin s and r seruu (ML serv---) answers tothe IE r *Swer--- which like *uer- (wer-), is a var of the IE*swer--, to be in the service of, perhaps to guard, but theoften alleged kinship between the Latin servus, a slaveand seruare, ML servare, to guard, to preserve, is farfrom being proved.
.....
5) seruus, MLservus, becomes OF-F serf, slave, hence, feudally, abonded servant, adopted by E, as in the OF-F deriviative servage,usually anglicized as serfage.

Partridge, Eric. 1966. Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English. New York: Macmillan Company.

Diversity, Culture, Theory, and Data: Science on Human Variety. --- B. Ricardo Brown and Christopher X J. Jensen --- SLAS Faculty Research Seminar.

2011-11-14T11:25:00.001-05:00

Diversity, Culture, Theory, and Data: Science on Human Variety.

B. Ricardo Brown and Christopher X J. Jensen

SLAS Faculty Research Seminar

Monday, November 7, 2011

[CLICK to enlarge any image.]

______________

UNTIL (AND A BIT AFTER)DARWIN

B. Ricardo Brown, Ph.D.

AssociateProfessor of Cultural Studies

SLAS Faculty SeminarSeries

November 7, 2011

While I waspreparing for this talk, I ran across a January 1894 letter byEngels. It is nice to come across an earlier text that speaksdirectly to something you are actively thinking about. This letteris one of many that he wrote attempting --- as he neared his end ---to explain what he understood by the term “economic relations”and their determinations. These determinations comprise, he wrote,“the entire technique of production,” its geographical setting,“and traditions and the remnants of earlier social orders thatsurvive “by force of inertia.”

[SLIDE]

“Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary,artistic, etc. development is based on economic development. But allthese react upon each other and also upon the economic basis. It isnot that the economic situation is cause, [or] solelyactive while everything else isonly passive effect. There is, rather interaction on the basis ofeconomic necessity which ultimatelyalways asserts itself... so it is not, as people here and thereconveniently imagine, that the economic situation produces anautomatic effect.” Engels to W. Borgius (London, January 25, 1894).

Ibring this up because Engels correspondent seems to have assertedthat the development of technique was dependent on the state ofscientific knowledge rather than social production. Engelsdisagreed, of course, and presented an approach that resembles theone I have taken in looking into the subject of human variety.

[SLIDE]

“If as you say, technique largelydepends on the state of science, science depends far more on thestate and therequirements of technique. If a society has a technical need, thathelps science forward more than ten universities. The whole ofhydrostatics (Torricelli, etc.) was called forth by the necessity forregulating the mountain streams of Italy in the Sixteenth andSeventeenth Centuries. We have known anything reasonable aboutelectricity only since its technical applicability was discovered. But unfortunately it has become the custom in Germany to write thehistory of the sciences as if they had fallen from the skies.”Engels, ibid.

I think that thisstatement, with a few tweaks here and there, resembles my ownapproach to the critique of what might be called the Sciences ofLife, but I came across this letter only recently.

Instead, I came tothis work via my dissertation on the concept of community insociological theory. While looking into that topic, I noticedintersecting topic: degeneracy and degeneration. Following back fromEugenics to early Natural History, it became clear that degeneracy isone moment in the history of an even more elaborate and complex setof scientific ideologies. Moreover, the ubiquity of degeneracy meantthat there were multiple discourses on it as well. However, it didseem that we can mark a divide between degeneracy in the works ofNaturalists such as Blumenbach and Buffon, and degeneracy as it laterappeared in the work of the Criminal Anthropologists and popularfollowers of Max Nordau. In the earlier Natural History, degeneracyserved as an explanation for variety, including human variety. Itmarked not so much decay or decline but instead deviation from thenorm of an original type. Later, degeneracy became the primary signof moral, physical, and social decay and disorganization.

It would beconvenient to be able to say that this break occurred because ofDarwin’s work. This is attractive and seemingly easy because muchof the work in Criminal Anthropology aligned with the many emerginginterpretations of Darwin. However, almost 15 years before Darwin’sOrigin, we find Marx writing in the Holy Family on theincreasingly popular view that crime and immorality are caused bydegeneracy. Marx is dismissive of this idea and expected thatnothing would come of it. In fact, despite Darwin degeneracy becamea powerful explanation for social disorder, while before his time,degeneracy was a powerful explanation for variety in nature, i. e.,for for the groupings we refer to as species and races.

And so to reallyunderstand degeneracy, one needed to examine a closely related areaof inquiry usually referred to as “the species question.”

[SLIDE]

What accounts forthe variety of nature? Are species fixed or do they change? Thespecies question animated Natural History until Darwin produced thedefinitive answer with his Origin of Species. Two aspectswere key for today, 1^st, the debate over the nature of aspecies and 2^nd the debate on the fixity of species, i.e., if species exist, then have they ever changed? This 2^ndconcern was in particular prompted by the gradual recognition of theimportance and meaning of fossils.

The question thatanimated Natural History would also be its undoing, relegatingNatural History to travel/literary excursions into the wild or to thedomain of amateurs such as birders. But even here Natural History’semphasis on the experienced amateur and the practice of observationcontinues. If the species question animated Natural History, it isgood to remember that this was a time when science looked verydifferent and when the scientific disciplines that we take forgranted were either new or had not yet emerged. Science itself wasorganized very differently, with amateurs and learned societiesserving a centers of learning and scientific exchange. In fact, theterm “scientist” was at this time a rather new one. Dating fromthe early 1830s and finally codified as one who “cultivates sciencein general” in 1840 by Whewell. [who Darwin quotes in the frontpiece of the Origin]

So remember thatunlike Chris’s part of this talk, science as you know it did notreally exist during the era I am discussing, not only was a differentquestion animating scientific inquiry, but also there was a verydifferent formation of scientific knowledge and ideologies. Ofcourse, the necessities of social production and the contradictionswhich followed from these social conflicts were rapidly creating theneed and desire for our science.

Looking at theperiod from which Darwin emerged and from which he was largely cutoff during the five year voyage of the Beagle,we find Natural History at its apex, with such luminaries asLinne, Blumenbach, Cuvier, Buffon, Lyell, but also figures likeThomas Jefferson and Samuel G. Morton, James Audubon and JohnBachman, and Louis Agassiz. We find that the species question hadbeen largely resolved by the naturalists on both sides of theAtlantic, but that those in the United States, referred to as theAmerican School, dominated the discussion of the species question. In the Natural History of Darwin’s time, humans were thought tohold the key to understanding variety in nature and thus to resolvingthe species question and disclosing the rational order that NaturalHistory had always sought. A decade before the publication of theOrigin of Species, Samuel Morton stated flatly that “thequestion of the origin of species is [a question of the origin] ofthe human species.” In the years between 1780 and 1859, thescientific theory known as polygenesis --- which held that humanswere divided into races and each race had a separate origin and fixedcharacteristics --- came to dominate the understanding of humanhistory. Advocated most vigorously by those in the American School,but widely accepted, the Polygenic theory of human origins wasacknowledge by proponents and opponents alike as a rational,scientific theory as well as a powerful justification for slavery. It was used against the abolitionists who had of course turned to theBiblical story of creation to stress a single origin, or themonogenesis of humans, in support of their cause.

So let me turn tomention how human variety was addressed within this debate over thespecies question and how Darwin came to intervene in this debate. Ina sense, I am saying Darwin’s Origin should be approachednot only as a great work of science and materialism, but also as oneof the great abolitionist works. Itis in relation to the prevailing Polygenic theory that we see the farreaching social effects of Darwin’s work and understand Darwin'slasting achievement as more than simply a new theory of nature. Itis in the dispute over the scientific validity of the Polygenictheory that Darwin places his own work ten years later in TheDescent of Man:

[SLIDE]

Whether primeval man, when hepossessed but a few arts, and those of the rudest kind, and when hispower of language was extremely imperfect, would have deserved to becalled man, must depend on the definition which we employ. In aseries of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature toman as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definitepoint where the term ‘man’ ought to be used. But this is a matterof very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter ofindifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated,or are ranked as species or subspecies; but the latter term appearsthe more appropriate. Finally, we may conclude that when theprinciple of evolution is generally accepted, as it surely will bebefore long, the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenistswill die a silent and unobserved death.

Source: Darwin, Charles. TheDescent of Man and Selection in Relation toSex, firstedition. London: John Murray, volumes 1 and 2, 1871,pp. 243–248; The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online,Cambridge University <http://darwin-online.org.uk/>(viewed April 9, 2008).

That the era of thePolygenic theory was also the era of slavery was hardly coincidental,as the polygenic theory cloaked slavery in the aegis of scientificrespectability. The apologists for Southern slavery did not have tolook only to Greek and Roman slavery for ideological justification. Now for many the rationality of Natural History itself underwrote therationality of slavery.

So for the rest ofmy talk I want to give you a sketch of the scientific study of humanvariety in the period before Darwin’s intervention into the speciesquestion.. I will have to leave off consideration of a couple ofthings that I wish I had the time to go over. It would be helpful tobe able to say more about ideas of human variety in classical andmedieval times. Pliny the Elder is particularly important in thisregard, as he had no concept of race and an expansive view of whatconstituted a human, as befits one in a vast Empire. It is alsodifficult to find Roman texts wherein any mention is made of thecolor of a person’s skin. It would be well to note in passing thataccording to Herodotus and Homer, the Persians and Trojans bothdrew on allies from as far away as India and Ethiopia. The lastgreat defenders of Troy’s walls were after all an Ethiopian kingand his troops. It would also be nice to delve into the contrastsbetween Aristotle on slavery and the body (a good soul displays agood body, a slave soul displays a slave body) and writers such asXenophon and Seneca, who found no essential difference between humansor between freemen and slaves, and the radical egalitarianism of theEpicureans.

Also, I can onlybriefly mention that Darwin’s supposed debt to Spencer and toMalthus is greatly exaggerated. Although the nickname the Beagle’screw gave him was “Philosopher,” Darwin’s had little interestin such matters. As he noted to Marx in thanking him for a gift of acopy of Capital, he really knew nothing about politicaleconomy his copy of Capital ultimately went unread. WithMalthus, Darwin takes a idea, the continual increase in populationand with it increasing scarcity, and makes it an agent for change innature, whereas the decidedly anti-Enlightenment Malthus used it toargue that nothing actually changes. Darwin stood Malthus on hishead just as he does Herbert Spencer, who wrote to Darwin that he didnot recognize his “survival of the fittest” or “evolution” asit appeared in Darwin. Darwin insisted that the phrase was ametaphor and used because of the popularity of Spencer’s work.¹*** He does not even use the phrase until the 5^th edition ofthe Origin of Species and even then at the insistence ofWallace thathe substitute the phrase “survival of the fittest” for “naturalselection” in any later editions of the Originof Species. Darwin wrote to Wallace of his belief that the term naturalselection “was of great advantage to bring into connection naturaland artificial selection.” Although Darwin agreed to use thephrase “survival of the fittest,” he would consistently couple itwith Natural Selection. He will also consistently refer to survivalof the fittest not as “a plain expression of fact,” but as “ametaphor for effectand change.” And so, despite his promise to use “survival of the fittest” inthe future, he wrote back to Wallace with characteristic irony:“Natural Selection has now been so largely used abroad and at home,that I doubt whether it could be given up, and with all its faults Ishould be sorry to see the attempt made. Whether it will be rejectedmust now depend on the survival of the fittest.”

Now,we can move own to the period just before the publication of theOrigin, aperiod that is dominated by polygenic theories of human originschampioned by American naturalists and physicians. The crowning workof the American School, Types of Mankind, by Josiah Nott andGeorge Gliddon, with a chapter by Darwin's nemesis, Louis Agassiz,epitomized the thinking regarding human origins in the time. Now formany Natural History itself underwrote the rationality of slavery,but the debate between mongenic and polygenic theories had been along one, beginning with Linne’s classification of Nature.

[SLIDE]

Thefirst place to begin in Natural History is with Linne’s Systemof Nature. As most of you know,Linne is often credited as being the first to classify humansas part of the natural world. Linne's first classification wasreplaced in his later editions by a far more detailed description ofthe varieties of human beings.

[SLIDE]

Butthe descriptions rely on Medieval ideas of the different“complextions” of Humans. Linne also retained remnants of theearlier prodigious humans described by Pliny the Elder in the 7^thbook of his Natural History..... and which persisted through theMiddle Ages and down to the modern era in our representations of theMonstrous Races.” The Wild Man (Homo ferus) the Conehead’s ofChina, etc. But the characteristics of each race are elaboratelydetailed anthropological notes and not only a matter of anatomicalcomparisons.

[SLIDE]

Linnemight have placed humans in nature, but Blumenbach gave us what werecognize as our conventional classification of human variety: FiveRaces, distinguished by continent, color and temperament. Blumenbach, I should note was a monogenist He believed in a commonorigin of all human varieties, and was quite progressive for his day. He owned what was perhaps the largest collection of African andBlack literature in Europe, which he used to rebut contemporariessuch as a fellow named Hegel, who believed that Africans were nottruly human and possessed no sense of self or culture. So it issomewhat ironic that his legacy is most profound in our continuationof his scheme of racial classification, rather than his opposition tothe belief in the intellectual inferiority of Africans. Notice twothat Blumenbach’s description of Caucasians is quite brief:Beautiful in form.

[SLIDE]

Thereis always a aesthetic dimension in these discussions, andBlumenbach’s classification was in opposition to those who wouldclassify humans based purely on aesthetic judgment, especiallyemploying the “facial angle,” and not anatomical andanthropological data.

[SLIDE]

Blumenbachalso coined the term Caucasian based upon his examination of a skullin is collection from the Caucuses Mountain region.

[SLIDE]

Wecan mention Lamarck, who had much influence on Darwin, but Lamarck’sideas on the transformation of species had at this time been eclipsedby the doctrine of the fixity of species supported by Cuvier and manyothers.

[SLIDE]

AndCuvier, gave us much, from his Animal Kingdom and work onfossils to his theory of cataclysmic revolutions of the Earth and thetheory of extinction. We also owe to him the strongest arguments forthe fixity of species in relation to human variety. Comparing aspecimen of the Sacred Ibis with mummified remains found in tombs anddepictions of the animal in temple drawings, Cuvier concluded thatthe species had not changed over the entire period of the presentera. Now the implications of Cuvier's research was profound, for itwas quickly pointed out that there were recognizable depictions ofNegroes in some of the same ancient drawings.

[SLIDE]

Itseemed that the Sacred Ibis had not changed and neither had theNegro. The estimated 6000 years since the Creation or the lastrevolution of the earth, was not long enough to account for thedifferences in species or for the general variety of nature. Cuvierargued that whenever one has no physical data, one must turn to theBiblical accounts and to archeology, especially Egyptian archeology. It was not lost on Cuvier and others that the polygenic theory alsocontradicted the biblical account of creation. The free scientificinquiry that the American School demanded had already set thepolygenic theory and religion on a collision course long beforeDarwin’s Origin.

Egyptwas a very popular subject during this time in America. GeorgeGliddon, who had served as an American Consul in Egypt, undertook aseries of popular and well attended lectures on Egyptian history andculture, during which an 800 foot long tapestry of scenes fromEgyptian life would scroll by behind him. He also unwrapped a mummyat the end of each nights lecture, which cause him some embarrassmentwhen one that he billed as a male prince turned out to be female. But more than just a showman, Gliddon was fascinated by the speciesquestion and human origins. While in Egypt he had read SamuelMorton’s the work on craniology and set to robbing Egyptian gravesand tombs for Morton's collection of crania, helping Morton amassedthe worlds largest collection of human crania, with over 700 skulls. Many of the skull depicted in Morton’s Crania Egyptia wereplundered by Gliddon.

[SLIDE]

Gliddonwas a character in real life and in fiction, appearing in Edgar AllenPoe’s “Conversation with a Mummy,” but Morton was perhapsAmerica’s first internationally recognized scientist. When LouisAgassiz came to the U.S., he first went to visit Morton, who he heldequal to Cuvier as a naturalist and scientist. With Morton’sstature came also the authority of the polygenic theory and theformation of “The American School.”

[SLIDE]

In1842 a reviewer of recent polygenic works asked: “In surveying theglobe in reference to the different appearances of mankind, the mostextraordinary diversities are apparent to the most superficialobserver. . . . Hence arises the question—Haveall these diverse races descended from a single stock?”

[SLIDE]

JosiahNott, who did pioneering work on Yellow Fever, lectured on thespecies question and wrote on the contradictions inherent in theBiblical account of creation. Either the world is quite a bit olderthan 6,000 years, giving time for the variation in humans to workitself out into its present races, or one would have to admit thateach race was created as it now is. In his estimation, only thepolygenic theory could reconcile the history of the Earth with theobvious and fixed differences in the races. Neither God nor Naturehad created men equal. Even Mulattoes were not proof that we werethe same species, for Mulattos became hybrids doomed to die off fromillness, increased sterility, and because mulatto women did not makegood mothers.

Itis often uncritically accepted that the ideas and concepts Darwinbrought together in The Origin of Species were in theair and merely part of the spirit of the age.

Well,yes and no. Was Darwin’s work the mere assembling and makingintelligible insights already available? What is certain is thatNatural History had reached a crisis amidst the disputes over fixity,variation, and classification.

[SLIDE]

Inthe midst of this crisis, the debate between the monogenists andpolygenists was a choice between two powerful explanations for humanvariety. Although certainly related to the debate over slavery, itwould be simplistic to think that the polygenic/monogenic debate wasbetween pro- and antislavery advocates who wanted to wrap themselvesin the veneer of scientific respectability.

[SLIDE]

The debate of one versusmany species went to the very core of the ethics of scientificinquiry. Supporters of slavery could be found on each side, as couldabolitionists. Those opposed to slavery included the polygenistGeorge Squire, who founded the short lived but significant New YorkAnthropological Society.

Supportersincluded John Bachman of Charleston, Audubon’s co-author[( Audubon, John James, and John,Bachman. TheQuadrupeds of North America,3 vols. New York: V. G. Audubon, 1851-54..)]

[SLIDE]

Bachmanwas the principle scientific opponent of the polygenic theory inAmerica and he and Morton carried on a long public debate. Bachmanwas an interesting fellow, too. He founded a liberal arts collegeNewberry College, had a church and school which welcomed both Blacksand Whites, ordained the first three Black Lutheran ministers inAmerica. Bachman's wife Maria painted many of the backgrounds,insects, and plants in Audubon's works. Their daughters marriedAudubon's sons and Audubon named several species for his friend, suchas the now extinct Bachman’s Warbler.

[SLIDE]

Healso owned 5 slaves, gave the prayer for the opening of theSecessionist S. C. legislature, and during the war wrote in thepopular press about the need to apply the knowledge of NaturalHistory to support the Southern cause.

By1850 the American School had succeeded in challenging the biblicalchronology of the history of the earth and its inhabitants. Freedfrom doctrine, the American School hailed a new era of “freescientific inquiry” into Nature in general, and human origins andracial variation in particular. It is precisely at this moment thatDarwin intervenes.

[SLIDE]

Nowif we turn to Darwin, we first note that

TheOriginof Speciesis structured as one continuous argument.It begins with an exposition on variation as it exists underdomestication, followed by an examination of variation without theintervention of humans. Instead of focusing on fixity, Darwin tookvariation and chance to be the norm. They are the central causes andessential products of the struggle for life. Natural selection isone basis of this of variability. In the struggle for existence, lifemaintains itself through variation.

Darwinargued instead that Nature permanently produces variety. Heproposed a new science arising from genealogy, morphology (thecomparative study of function, behavior, and environment),embryology, and the study of rudimentary organs. This is thestructure of TheOriginof Species thatreveals Darwin transvaluation of Natural History into the Science ofLife. Contraryto other naturalists of his time, he sees all living things notonly asbeingconnectedby descent, but also as being transformed over time.

Classification,then,is not about finding the order of the creator but about tracing thelines of descent:“Alltrue classification is genealogical, that community of descent is thehidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking, andnot some unknown plan of creation, or the enunciation of generalpropositions, and the mere putting together and separating objectsmore or less alike.”

[SLIDE]

Darwindid not engage in the active defense of his theory, leaving it tofriends like Thomas Huxley and Asa Gray to respond to the more heatedattacks. There were many reasons for his reticence, including hishealth, which had been severely compromised during the five-yearcircumnavigation of the Beagle.It was not known what caused his chronic illness and bouts of intensepain. Still, much of Darwin’s work was shaped by his Beaglevoyage. As we all know, he had begun the voyage something of a a believer infixity and creation, and by the end, he had already begun to sketchthe outlines of the theory. But he was always an opponent of slavery.

[SLIDE]

Darwinwas not the Beagle’snaturalist, but more the social companion for Captain Fitz-Roy.British naval commanders were drawn from the upper class, and it wasforbidden for them to socialize even with their own junior officers.It was a lonely life for a ship’s captain, made all the moreapparent by the suicide of the Beagle’sfirst captain while sheltering in a harbor near the Straits ofMagellan. Fitz-Roy took Darwin, even though the captain was concerned(given his interest in craniology) that the shape of Darwin’s nosesuggested that he was not up to the hardships of the voyage. Together they shared the cramped quarters of the ship for fiveyears—the limited size of which became even more pronounced whenthe two discovered their opposing views on slavery. Fitz-Roy held thecommon view that slavery was a necessary evil because of the inherentinferiority of the enslaved races. Slavery would ultimately civilizethe Negro, he argued, and introduce global trade that would makecolonialism and slavery unnecessary.

[SLIDE]

Helater founded the Met Office in the U.K and everyday we repeat aphrase he coined: the weather forecast.

InBrazil in1832,Darwinobserved slavery for himself, and his experiences never left him. His son Francis remembered that his father was often awakened bynightmares of his Brazilian experiences, and that his father wouldbecome enraged at the mere suggestion of an apology for slavery.Those who thought so, Darwin wrote, had never put themselves in theposition of the slave. He had begun the voyage as an ardent opponentof slavery and related how he was often told by others thatexperience in the slave countries would prove to him the inferiorityof the Negro. From Brazil he wrote to his sister that his experiencesin Brazil in particular only hardened his opposition to slavery.

[SLIDE]

Inthe years between Darwin’s return from the Beaglevoyage and the publication of his major works, a transformation wasoccurring in scientific knowledge. Physics and chemistry were alreadybecoming the provinces of specialists. The laboratory as well as thefield was becoming the locale for organizing the production ofscientific knowledge. The rapid foundation of new learnedassociations and societies reflected both the move towardspecialization and the speedier dissemination of results andtheories. Science had finally turned to thestudy life.Just one governing principle remained to be overthrown: the view ofhumanity as the apex of creation. In this regard, TheOriginof Speciesis a profound argument for human humility.

[SLIDE]

“Asall the organic beings, extinct and recent, which have ever lived onthis earth have to be classed together, and as all have beenconnected by the finest gradations, the best, or indeed, if ourcollections were nearly perfect, the only possible arrangement, wouldbe genealogical. Descent being on my view the hidden bond ofconnection which naturalists have been seeking under the term of thenatural system.”

TheGreat Chain of Being was transformed into the tree of genealogicalaffinities: “I believe this similelargely speaks the truth,” Darwin stated. The concluding paragraphdescribes a “tangled bank” teeming with life and the remains ofpast lives, all representing a dynamic and indeterminate Nature.

Darwinexecuted more than just a rhetorical maneuver with the naming of TheOriginof Species or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle forLife. Darwin chose to avoid the question of human origins because tomention it would have made his work a part of the monogenic-polygenicdebate. To make a break with that controversy, Darwin answered thespecies question by demanding that we consider humans to be just oneof an infinite variety of living animals, all of which were createdby the same processes that could still be seen at work. Therewas no reason to privilege humans as the special key to knowledge forany species couldanswer some or all of the questions of origins.

WithDarwin’s intervention into the monogenic/polygenic controversy, thefixed, closed systems of classification of natural history could nolonger adequately describe the world. The Earth had tobe seen as a planet where life “from so simple a beginning endlessforms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are beingevolved.” This, the last sentence of the book, is the only instancein TheOriginofSpecieswhere Darwin mentions evolution. [Itis significant that “evolved” is used in a passage whereDarwin juxtaposes the fixity of the law of gravity with the inindeterminate variation of descent with modification. Mostsimply put, Linnaeus may have placed humans in the fixed chart ofclassifications, but Darwin placed humans in the genealogical tree oflife; that is, directly in nature itself, and allowed that otherspecies could explain the origin of man.]Darwin’s work makes us just one of many species joined in life’sgreat but indeterminate struggle for existence “whilst this planethas gone cycling according to the fixed law of gravity.”

[SLIDE]

Weshould not think of Darwin’s intervention as the triumph of reasonover false science, for with the new theory came also new scientificideologies such as degeneracy as a hereditary taint and eugenics as ameans to free us from those taints. New forms of social controlwhich relied on new systems of classification appear but also neverquite left behind those of the past. These were not forms ofirrationality, and polygenesis was not a mere perversion of reason.In fact, polygenism constituted scientific reason in its era. Ourpresent everyday understanding of race and identity owe much to it inthe form of “traditions and remnants” and “by the force ofinertia.” And so too do the sciences of life such as biology andsociology insofar as they came in the late nineteenth and earlytwentieth centuries to buttress eugenics.

[SLIDE]

Toconclude, the end of Natural History came with the end of the disputebetween the monogenists and polygenists—and the polygenic theorywas turned on its head by Darwin’s account of a single common lineof descent shaped by natural selection and the conditions of life. Variation and chance became essential aspects of Nature.

Thatthe monogenic/polygenic debate has largely faded from history is whatDarwin hoped would be one of his notable achievements. That it hasnot completely disappeared but is instead constantly invoked not onlyin the sciences whenever they forget their own history, but also bythose who cling to notions of essential differences and unchangingidentities --- this sad fact of everyday life would no doubtdisappoint him.

_____________

1A letter we know about because its contents were preserved by Darwin’s friend and mentor the geologist Charles Lyell in the extensive set of notebooks on the species question he kept between 1855 and 1860.

SLAS Faculty Research Seminar: Diversity, Culture, Theory, and Data: Science on Human Variety. Monday, November 7th from 12:30-2:00.

2011-11-05T10:44:00.000-04:00

Please join us for this semester's faculty research seminar, which is being held on Monday, November 7th from 12:30-2:00 in Dekalb 206. This is a brown bag affair, so bring your lunch. We will provide coffee. Below you will find a description of the seminar. I hope to see you there.
Andrew W. Barnes, Ph.D.
Dean
School of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Pratt Institute
200 Willoughby Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11205
718.636.3570

Diversity, Culture, Theory, and Data: Science on Human Variety

B. Ricardo Brown and Christopher X J. Jensen

Human variety plays a pivotal role in history: how we interpret human diversity dictates what kind of society we construct. Over the last three hundred years, science has played an increasingly influential role in explaining and interpreting human variety. How has the rise of science influenced our conception of human variety? Does science shed light on the nature of our differences or simply legitimize prevailing cultural conceptions of difference? Through this talk, we will address these questions by considering the historical trajectory of how science conceptualizes human variety. Starting with the battle between the monogenists and the polygenists of the 18th and 19th centuries, Ric will describe how the cultural conflict over slavery was reflected in battles between scientific camps. He will discuss how prevailing culture influenced the questions scientists asked, the theories they posited, and the way they used data to validate these theories. Ric will explain how increasing access to information about the natural world -- paired with changes in the way science was pursued -- eventually led to the key insights of Charles Darwin, whose theories in large part displaced previous conceptions of human variety. Chris will then consider how post-Darwinian science has conceptualized human variety, beginning with eugenics and ending with the revolution in genomic technologies. Shifts in the culture of science and the culture in which science operates, as well as increased access to genetic data, have all transformed how we interpret human variety. Nonetheless, echos of past scientific shortcomings still reverberate through the present-day science of human genomics. The talk will conclude with the opportunity for the audience to discuss how present-day science influences our understanding of human variety.

The First Weather Forecast, August 1, 1861

2011-08-05T15:30:00.004-04:00

Click for Larger Image

150 years ago, on August 1, 1861, Admiral FitzRoy gave the world its first modern weather forecast as published in The Times. Robert FitzRoy, who was, of course, the Captain of the HMS Beagle who took Darwin along for the ride and who later led the meteorological department in the Board of Trade (now named the Met Office). There are many good resources on this and on FitzRoy himself, who was a fascinating figure in many ways. Despite their many differences, Darwin always wrote fondly of FitzRoy and considered him to have been an excellent Captain despite the general context of Royal Navy's "rum, sodomy, and the lash." He was prone to mood-swings and Darwin notes that nothing on deck or below escape his attention and reproach, though he was dedicated to his crew and to his goal that none be lost on their five year voyage. He was a supporter of slavery as a civilizing institution which would fade from the scene as the Africans and their descendents were adopted to civilized life. This was a common view amongst many of the British aristocracy at the time. Darwin's Abolitionist sentiments led to their having many arguments over slavery, with FitzRoy banishing Darwin from their quarters for a time. The rest of the crew would ask their "Philosopher" to not anger their Captain, because he was an even greater task-master the next day. As also fit a Royal Navy Captain of the time, FitzRoy was so reticent that when the Beagle finally arrived back in England, FitzRoy announced his marriage to his fiancee. Darwin writes that though they shared a tiny cabin and untold adventures during their five years together, FitzRoy had never mentioned that he was engaged.

Some websites about the first forecast:

The Met Office blog is a good place to start. Also look at the Met Office's history page as well.

The American Meteorological Society has a article by Randell S. Cerveny "Charles Darwin's Meteorological Observations aboard the HMS Beagle" (2005).

BBC - 23 Degrees: Helen Czerski's write up is nice and accessible. She notes that:
"In the end though, Fitzroy was given the most appropriate recognition possible. When the region that used to be known as Finisterre on the shipping forecast was renamed in 2002, they decided that it would be called Fitzroy. So now, four times a day on longwave radio, Fitzroy's name is broadcast to all shipping in the vicinity of the United Kingdom. Next time you hear "Trafalgar, Fitzroy, Sole, Lundy..." as you fall asleep, think of the man who started the journey towards the weather forecasts we all take for granted today."

FitzRoy's Barometer

BBC News: "Happy Birthday Weather Forecasts" a short report with some vintage images and recordings.

For Fitzroy's own writings, see John van Wyhe's The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online remains a premier resource where you will find:

FitzRoy, R. 1832. Extract of a Letter from Captain Fitz Roy, of H. M. Sloop Beagle, on the subject of the Abrolhos Bank. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 2: 315-316. Text A209

FitzRoy, R. 1836. Sketch of the Surveying Voyages of his Majesty's Ships Adventure and Beagle, 1825-1836. Commanded by Captains P. P. King, P. Stokes, and R. Fitz-Roy, Royal Navy. Journal of the Geological Society of London 6: 311-343. Text Image A73

FitzRoy, R. 1837. Extracts from the Diary of an Attempt to Ascend the River Santa Cruz, in Patagonia, with the boats of his Majesty's sloop Beagle. By Captain Robert Fitz Roy, R.N. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 7: 114-26. Text Image A74

FitzRoy, R. 1837. Notice of the Mountain Aconcagua in Chile. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 7: 143-144. Text A210

FitzRoy, R. 1839. Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty's Ships Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the southern shores of South America, and the Beagle's circumnavigation of the globe. Proceedings of the second expedition, 1831-36, under the command of Captain Robert Fitz-Roy, R.N. London: Henry Colburn. Text Image PDF F10.2

[FitzRoy, R.] 1839. Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty's Ships Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the southern shores of South America, and the Beagle's circumnavigation of the globe. Appendix to Volume II. London: Henry Colburn. Text Image PDF F10.2a

These last two sites are also invaluable for understanding Darwin's work, and his working and personal relationship with FitzRoy:

Darwin Correspondence Project

Voyage of the Beagle in Blog format

Comment II on “Gould versus Morton”: Morton’s Crania Collection in the Context of the Final Decades of Natural History, Part One.

2011-07-08T14:21:00.005-04:00

At the very beginning of his great Animal Kingdom, Cuvier puts Natural History into its intellectual context, a context that framed Samuel George Morton’s work. It was the moment of the what seemed to be the ascendance of Natural History, which seemed to be on the verge of decoding the design of nature and so the will of its supposed Designer. In other areas, philology and geosophy were demonstrating a connection between languages, populations, histories and territories. This was also a period of great foment for Natural Historians, a moment when geology and the recognition of fossils provoked rational and religious disputes and radical interpretations of the history of the earth and its inhabitants. The study of human variety stood as a central concern of the time, because it was believed that the variation of humans held the key to the variation across nature. At this time, the most popular means of understanding human behavior, and one endorsed by many scientists, were the various theories of phrenological studies. Psychology as we know it did not exist and the explanations for deviate behavior or madness were thought to be found in changes to the body of the person. This is not a strange idea. Aristotle argued in his Politics and in De Anima that the appearance of the body corresponded to the goodness of the soul and so one could see in the bodies of slaves their slavish nature, while the body of free man would be of necessity, beautiful. This distinction between freeman and slave was a essential aspect of government. The later pseudo-Aristotelian Secreta secretorum is another example, though in its case, the medieval author took care to note that the types of man described were never found in a pure form, and that the real purpose of the King’s knowledge of human varieties was to be able to determine who was speaking the truth. The story of these views is fascinating and too involved for even a long digression, but well worth exploring at a later time.

Secreta secretorum

To return to the Animal Kingdom, Cuvier presents three fields of inquiry into nature. Notably, Cuvier does not refer to science, but to his subject being instead the “Study of Nature.” Science and the pursuit of scientific inquiry today is something very different, and so the designation science and scientist would not have the meaning it does today. Cuvier, Morton, Audubon, Linneaus, Blumenbach, etc., were Naturalists engaged in the study of Nature. One would have to wait a few decades before the study of life emerge along with the scientists and social scientists engaged in its study. So Cuvier’s, and Natural History’s object was not life and the living world, but Nature and its history. This was no same change in outlook, as has been pointed out by Francois Jacob, Wrightman, Singer, Canguilhem, etc. That said, Cuvier’s three fields of Natural History correspond to three meanings that are given to Nature:

First, Nature refers to “qualities a being derives from birth.”

Second, Nature is used to describe “the entire mass of beings which compose the universe.”

Third, Nature is understood as “the laws which govern those beings [i. e., the “mass of beings”]. It is in this latter sense particularly that we usually personify Nature, and through respect, use its name for that of its Creator.”

The study of “these three relations” comes under the heading of “Physics [as opposed to metaphysics] or Natural Philosophy” under which we find:

A.] GENERAL PHYSICS --- which “examines abstractly each of the properties of those moveable and extended beings we call bodies.”

a1. Dynamics --- a special branch of General Physics which “considers bodies in mass, and proceeding from a very small number of experiments, determines mathematically the laws of equilibrium, and those of motion and its communication.” Dynamics is further divided into the fields of Statics, Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics, Mechanics, Optics, etc.

B.] CHEMISTRY --- the second branch of General Physics and devoted to how “elementary molecules” act on each other, combine, and separate, and reunited and how through experimentation we can understand changes in the “various circumstances” effect these actions. Dynamics, Cuvier wrote, “is purely a science of experiment and is irreducible to calculation.”

This being said, the study of an object or “body” can be undertaken from more than one perspective, as in the case with Heat or electricity, both of which can fall under Dynamics or Chemistry “according to the point of view in which they are being considered.”

Cuvier found a “ruling method” for these various branches of General Physics and Chemistry: they all begin by “isolating bodies, reducing them to their greatest simplicity,” they study their “properties” in isolation by either “reflection or experiment, and by observing or calculating the results, and finally, in generalizing and connecting the laws of these properties, so as to form codes, and, if it were possible, to refer them to one single principle into which they might all be resolved.”

Now C.] NATURAL HISTORY, which Cuvier wrote was synonymous with with “Particular Physics,” is a very different kind of study from General Physics and Chemistry. It is less about calculation and experimentation and is instead grounded in observation. Natural History sought to apply the Laws of General Physics “to the numerous and varied beings which exist in nature, in order to explain the phenomena which each of them presents.”

Were the practitioners of Natural History really different from the scientists of today in their approach to the rational study of the world? Well, of course the answer is yes and no. Yes, because they both recognized that observation, and hence the observer, were potential sources of error that make the discovery of general laws quite difficult. No, in that there were no scientists, and certainly no biologists as we know them today during Morton’s time. Nothing resembling the infrastructure and division of labor that characterizes contemporary science existed then. Naturalists communicated through societies, letters, and occasional monographs, though as the pursuit of naturalist studies became the domain of the wealthy amateur, the number of societies and publications steadily expanded. By the middle of the 19^th century, Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston stood as the centers for the study of nature in America, and were swiftly rising to international prominence as polygenism gained respectability in circles of naturalists and their societies, associations, and private research. In the midst of this rise of what came to be known as the American School, no one denied the relationship and antagonism between the study of nature, the church, and the institutions of slavery.

Morton as an “Objectivist”

It is correctly noted by both Lewis, DeGusta, et al. and by Gould that Morton’s distinguished himself from his contemporaries by his pursuit of empirical studies on human diversity. It is probably difficult to appreciate the degree to which Morton’s polygenism broke with the “sciences” of his day, such as phrenology, but one should not overstate the possibility of a break. Morton sought to put phrenological knowledge and polygenism on an empirical footing while supporting the Biblical account of creation. Morton was not trying to overcome Natural History, nor did he inadvertently inaugurate a “paradigm shift” in Natural History. The break would soon come with the publication of Darwin’s monogenist theory of life and variation.

Morton was well acquainted with the very popular phrenologist George Combe and Combe writes the afterword to Morton’s Crania Americana. Friendship, of course, does not establish the continuity between Morton and phrenological analysis, his measurements do. When known to him, Morton carefully notes individual biographical data that is keeping with phrenological and pathological analysis. He notes in the introduction to his Catalog of Crania that while variation was his principle interest, phrenological analysis was also important. Two of the crania in the collection are phrenologically marked and the Crania Americana contains extensive tables of phrenological measurements on each skull. The accuracy of Morton’s measurements would of course be rather inconsequential to the question of the scientific legitimacy of phrenology, however, but would perhaps further rehabilitate him in some eyes and for their own reasons. Few if any return to Morton’s collection seeking to vindicate phrenology, of course, but Morton at the time of writing the Crania Americana was doing his work comfortably within the domain of phrenology.

In the Crania Americana, Morton writes that

“I was from the beginning desirous to introduce into this work a brief chapter on phrenology; but conscious of my own inability to do justice to the subject, I applied to a professional friend to supply the deficiency. He engaged to do so, and commenced his task with great zeal; but ill health soon obliged him to abandon it, and to seek a distant and more genial climate. Under those circumstances, I resolved to complete the phrenological table, and omit the proposed essay altogether. Early in the present year, however, and just as my work was ready for press, Geo. Combe, Esq., the distinguished phrenologist, arrived in this country; and I seized the occasion to express my wants to that gentleman, who, with great zeal and promptness, agreed to furnish the desired essay, and actually placed the MS in my hands before he left the city.”

Morton wrote to his assistant John Phillips that “I am free to acknowledge that there is a singular harmony between the mental character of the Indian and his cranial developments, as explained by phrenology.” The quote comes from the first pages of Crania Americana. Here it is in its context:

My Dear Sir:—Having now completed a task which has cost me some years of toil and anxiety, it gives me great pleasure to record the many obligations I owe you in the prosecution of these inquiries. To your ingenuity I am almost wholly indebted for the means of obtaining the elaborate measurements appended to this work ; which, without your personal aid and untiring perseverance, would have remained in a great measure unaccomplished. It may, perhaps, be thought by some readers, that these details are unnecessarily minute, especially in the Phrenological Table; and again, others would have preferred a work conducted throughout on Phrenological principles. In this study I am yet a learner; and it appeared to me the wiser plan to present the facts unbiassed by theory, and let the reader draw his own conclusions. You and I have long admitted the fundamental principles of Phrenology, viz: That the brain is the organ of the mind, and that its different parts perform different functions : but we have been slow to acknowledge the details of Cranioscopy as taught by Dr, Gall, and supported and extended by subsequent observers. We have not, however, neglected this branch of inquiry, but have endeavored to examine it in connection with numerous facts, which can only be fully appreciated when they come to be compared with similar measurements derived from the other races of men. Yet I am free to acknowledge that there is a singular harmony between the mental character of the Indian, and his cranial developments as explained by Phrenology.
Morton to John S. Phillips, Esq., Crania Americana

A reviewer in the American Journal of Arts and Sciences also noted the continuity between Morton’s work and phrenology, actually noting that Morton’s empiricism owed its due to phrenology rather than representing a break with it. “Dr. Morton gives also measurements of particular regions of the brain as indicated by the skull; and in this portion of his work, the phrenologists alone can claim precedence of him.”

And further:

“We have adduced these proofs and authorities in support of the proposition that size [of the brain] influences power, because we conceive it to be a principle of fundamental importance in every investigation into the natural history of man, founded on the physiology of the brain; and also because in the hasty zeal of many of the opponents of phrenology, to undermine the discoveries of Dr. Gall, it has been denied with a boldness and pertinacity more allied to the spirit of contentious disputation, than to that of philosophical inquiry. Its importance in a dissertation on national crania is very apparent. One of the most singular features in the history of this continent is, that the aboriginal races, with few exceptions, have perished, or constantly receded, before the Anglo-Saxon race, and have in no instance either mingled with them as equals, or adapted their manners and civilization. These phenomena must have a cause; and can any inquiry be at once more interesting and philosophical than that which endeavors to ascertain whether the cause be connected with a difference in the brain between the native race and their conquering invaders? Farther, some few of the American families, the Auracanran, for instance, have successfully resisted the Europeans; and the question is important, whether in them the brain be in any respect superior to what it is in the tribes which have unsuccessfully resisted?

It is true that Dr. Gall’s fundamental principle, the size of the brain (other conditions being equal) is a measure of the power of mental manifestation, is directly involved in these inquiries; but we can discover no reason why it should not be put to the test of an extensive and accurate induction of facts. The unphilosophical prejudice that every proposition and fact in physiology must be neglected or opposed, because it bears on the vexed question of phrenology, has been too long indulged. The best interests of science require that it should be laid aside and we commend D. Morton, for having resolutely discarded it. He does not enter the field as a partisan, for or against Dr. Gall’s doctrines, but as a philosophical inquirer, and states candidly and fearlessly the results of his observations.”

Combe’s illustration of the phrenological measurement of the “great divisions of the faculties in the different regions of the brain.” p.16. American Journal of Science and Arts, No. 2, Vol. 38, p. 1-41

One of Morton's Phrenological Tables from Crania American

As with Cuvier, to whom Agassiz would later compare him, Morton sought to reconcile his polygenic views with the biblical accounts. The age of the earth was an issue in the riddle of human variation, but it was also a key. The Egyptian skulls were of interest not simply for comparisons of cranial capacity, but because Morton believed that they represented a group whose historical records date back to near the time of Creation. As with Cuvier, Morton would turn to the Biblical accounts of creation and flood to lend support to his views whenever the crania were not sufficient to demonstrate the separate creation of the races (see Cuvier's Memoire d’Ibis, appended to The Animal Kingdom) and especially his view that all the new world tribes were one race distinct from the Mongolian race, with the exception of the “Esquimaux.” But Morton also turned to a new and wildly popular field of Egpytology for support for his polygenist view that the races are fixed primordial forms. One can argue with Gould over his assertion that Morton was interested in measuring intelligence, but Morton also is clear that cranial capacity has a relationship to moral judgment. However one wants to interpret that view, it is certain that Morton believed in the fixity of species and that the races were separate species (see Morton Text I). Here are two immediately relevant passages from Meigs essay:

The extraordinary doctrine of a uniform American type of skull originated, as is well known, with the late Dr. Samuel George Morton. He was also the most enthusiastic and persistent advocate of this scientific dogma. A variety of circumstances combined to give unusual acceptance to his views. He began his craniographic researches two years after the completion of Blumenbach's Decades Craniorum, by accumulating what was then, as far as I can learn, the largest and most diversified collection of human skulls in the world. These he long and attentively studied, until he acquired the right to speak authoritatively concerning them. No one was in possession of so many native American crania as he, and so little interest was manifested in human craniography at that time, that but few if any persons ever examined his collection with the object of testing the validity of his conclusions. Moreover, prior to the publication of Crania Americana Dr. Morton had already acquired the double reputation of a naturalist and a physician, and for several years before his death occupied the most prominent, official position in the Academy of Natural Sciences. In view of these facts, it is not at all surprising that his opinions, instead of being controverted, as they now are, found ready adherents ; and that one of the most eminent of living naturalists should have employed them, as well established facts, in his attempt "to show that the boundaries, within which the different natural combinations of animals are known to be circumscribed upon the surface of our earth, coincide with the natural range of distinct types of man.''["Sketch of the Natural Provinces of the Animal World and their relation to the different Types of Man." by Louis Agassiz. See Types of Mankind, p. Iviii.]

Dr. Morton's last contribution (“Physical Type of the American Indians," in Schoolcraft's Information respecting the History, Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States. Part 2, p. 315. ) to craniographical science, which was published after his death, shows conclusively that his views respecting the homogeneity of the aboriginal American races had undergone no change whatever. In this paper he still maintains the doctrine of a uniform, cranial type for these races, with the same arguments and in language almost identical with that which he employed in his Inquiry ten years before. I make these references to his published opinions to show that Dr. Morton perseveringly inculcated this doctrine from the inception to the very close of his ethnological studies, comprising a period of about twenty-one years; that he was thoroughly convinced of its truthfulness, and regarded it as one of the best established and most readily demonstrable of all the conclusions at which he had arrived after a long and unwearied study of his cranial collection.
Meigs, J. Aitken, M.D. 1866. "Observations upon the Cranial Forms of the American Aborigines, based upon Specimens contained in the Collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia." Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, p. 198- 212

Meigis, whose work I will post as another document in the near future, notes the contemporary critiques of Morton’s views, critiques that indicate that Morton’s views were already being critiqued on the basis of his data and his conclusions, especially on the uniqueness and uniformity of the Native American crania --- it was contemporaneous with Emerson’s American Scholar proclamation of American exceptionalism, by the way.

Just as important, not all polygenists supported the Biblical account. For many the biblical account had already been overturned by the fossil record and by Lyell’s gradualism. Cuvier’s catastrophe theory was both under assault and being constantly modified. Those who clung to the Biblical accounts were more often monogenists who saw the “unity of humans” in terms of the Biblical stories of creation and deluge. Their monogenist views were often, though not always allied with the abolitionism of the churches. The unity of humans was a powerful anti-slavery argument, obviously. The notable exceptions to the linking of monogenism and abolitionism included Morton’s primary antagonist, the monogenist naturalist and Lutheran minister John Bachman of Charleston . Bachman was a scientific rival, not a religious one. He was a close friend and co-author with James Audubon. His wife, Maria Bachman, contributed her considerable talents to Audobon’s paintings. ( http://until-darwin.blogspot.com/2010/12/audubons-birds-and-some-often.html ; http://until-darwin.blogspot.com/2010/12/brief-additional-note-to-audubons-birds.html ; http://until-darwin.blogspot.com/2011/02/maria-martin-bachmans-sketches-and.html )

Bachman was noted for his innovations and social reforms during the decades leading up to emancipation and Civil War. He baptized free Blacks and allowed them into the congregation. The congregation remained segregated, as was its school, but by 1860, free Blacks constituted 35 percent of the congregation. Bachman trained and ordained the first three African-American Lutheran ministers, one of whom would become president of Wiberforce University and another the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia. Bachman opposed succession, but he supported what he termed “the institutions of South Carolina.” He recited the opening prayer of the secessionist session of the South Carolina legislature. His essay “The Duty of the Planter to his Family, to Society, and his Country” deplored profiteering and warned planters and manufacturers that “If you join the extortioners in high prices, you will effect our subjugation by your avarice, and bring destruction on our beloved Southland. We are all engaged in the same noble, patriotic, and Christian cause.” He declared the important role of Natural History in supplying the knowledge of nature and agriculture that would be essential for a Confederate victory and pledge to put his knowledge at the disposal of the Rebel cause. In the 1860 census, John and Maria Bachman are recorded as owning five slaves. ( "A Short Biography of John Bachman" http://until-darwin.blogspot.com/2011/07/short-biography-of-john-bachman-1790.html)

Naturalists such as Josiah Nott ( http://pratt.academia.edu/BRicardoBrown/Papers/250266/Josiah_Nott_2007_ ) used the polygenic theory to support both the institutions of Southern slavery and to further the freeing of inquiry from the influence of religious dogma. Morton was generally quite reluctant to even admit that his views might contradict the authority of religion, but his acolytes Josiah Nott and George Gliddon were not so shy about their ideological commitments and it is Gliddon to whom Morton dedicated his Crania aegyptiaca. After all, Gliddon had supplied many of the skulls either directly or indirectly through intermediaries and grave robbers while he and later his nephew served as American diplomats in Egypt.

So, Morton’s social milieu of the middle 19th Century was complex, and his reason's for collecting his data nd his interpretations of that data, like those of his rival Bachman take note of these complexities. Why else, indeed, would he have undertaken the collection and study of crania if it were not that the understanding of human variety had become a pressing problem of society and the rational administration of its populations?

While there is a continuity between Morton’s work and phrenological studies, it the connection would become strained over time as Morton moved away from the needing the umbrella of authority that phrenology then offered. And again, as noted in the previous comment, there are also deep fractures and breaks between Morton’s work and later work in criminal anthropology, eugenics, and intelligence testing. Gould overstates the degree of continuity between these, but the attempt to revise Morton as an objectivist also glosses over the degree to which the questions Morton sought the answer were asked within his specific social and intellectual milieu. It is a bit dodgy to maintain that the new study proves that Morton had NO interested in differences in intelligence between races of humans that he thought represented separate primordial forms. He certainly believed that the capacity of the cranium was correlated with mental and moral endowments as well as an indicator of the creation of humans as separate primordial forms. On the other hand, he certainly did not understand intelligence as we might today, and intelligence testing in relation to biological determinism in the late 2oth century was Gould's concern.

That Morton’s measurements were accurate is important, but so too is understanding the manner in which the collection was created and the purposes it was intended to serve. The discussion of which will be the subject of a later posting.

Previous Posts:
Comment I: The New York Times Article and Editorial. Comment I on "Morton vs Gould"

Document I: The "Gould versus Morton" Debate -- Text I: Samuel George Morton’s Description of his Collection of Crania

Document II: The "Gould versus Morton" Debate -- Text II: Some Passages from the MisMeasure of Man, 2nd edition on Morton, the Value and relation of Science to Society, Agassiz, and John Collins

References

Anonymous. c1840. Review of Morton's Crania Americana. American Journal of Science and Arts, No. 2, Vol. 38, p. 1-41

John Bachman
http://pratt.academia.edu/BRicardoBrown/Papers/250267/John_Bachman_2010_
http://until-darwin.blogspot.com/2011/07/short-biography-of-john-bachman-1790.html

http://until-darwin.blogspot.com/2010/12/audubons-birds-and-some-often.html

http://until-darwin.blogspot.com/2010/12/brief-additional-note-to-audubons-birds.html

http://until-darwin.blogspot.com/2011/02/maria-martin-bachmans-sketches-and.html

Josiah Nott
http://pratt.academia.edu/BRicardoBrown/Papers/250266/Josiah_Nott_2007_

Cuvier, Baron. The Animal Kingdom, arranged in conformity with its organization. New York: G. & C. & H. Carvill, 1832.

Meigis, J. Aitken, M. D. 1866. Observations upon the Cranial Forms of the American Aborigines, based upon Specimens contained in the Collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, p. 198- 212.

At a later time I'll compile a more complete bibliography, but it did not seem appropriate for a series of blog posts at this time. I also need the time to chase down the links to the appropriate digital copies of some of the works.

A Short Biography of John Bachman (1790-1874)

2011-07-07T00:50:00.001-04:00

Bachman, John (1790-1874)

This is a short biographical essay I wrote on John Bachman, who was one of the more important contemporary critics of Samuel George Morton and polygenism.

_______

Clergyman, educator, and naturalist, John Bachman was born in Rhinebeck, N. Y. on February 4, 1790. While a young student in Philadelphia, Bachman became acquainted with several noted naturalists such as Alexander von Humboldt and began a lifelong study of Natural History. During this same period, Bachman abandoned the study of law in favor of the Lutheran ministry and in 1814 began what would become his lifelong position as pastor of St. John's Church in Charleston, S. C. These events frame Bachman's important contributions to the great debates on Natural History and human origins. They would also determine his involvement in matters of education, secession, and the Civil War. John Bachman died in Charleston, S. C. on February 24, 1874.

Bachman spent 56 years as the pastor of St. John's. He was noted for his innovations and social reforms during the decades leading up to emancipation and Civil War. He baptized free Blacks and allowed them into the congregation. The congregation remained segregated, as was its school, but by 1860, free Blacks constituted 35 percent of the congregation. Bachman trained and ordained the first three African-American Lutheran ministers, one of whom would become president of Wiberforce University and another the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia. Bachman opposed succession, but he supported what he termed “the institutions of South Carolina.” He recited the opening prayer of the secessionist session of the South Carolina legislature. His essay “The Duty of the Planter to his Family, to Society, and his Country” deplored profiteering and warned planters and manufacturers that “If you join the extortioners in high prices, you will effect our subjugation by your avarice, and bring destruction on our beloved Southland. We are all engaged in the same noble, patriotic, and Christian cause.” In the 1860 census, Bachman is recorded as owning 4 slaves, and his wife Maria as owning one.

J. J. Audubon

Bachman's work was not only shaped by religion and politics. Natural History always held a special importance for him. For several years, he held a professorship at the College of Charleston and was a member of the elite “Circle of Naturalists”. The antebellum city had become one of the international centers of Natural History, attracting visit by the naturalists Louis Agassiz and John Audubon. A meeting on a Charleston street led to Bachman's close personal and working relationship with Audubon, including the marriage of two of his daughters to Audubon's sons. The pastor and the artist united over their shared love of Natural History, spending much time together collecting specimen along the Carolina coast and disputing their divergent manners, as the ascetic Bachman often admonished Audubon for his love of “gog and wine and snuff.”

Audubon readily acknowledged his debt to Bachman's talents as a naturalist. Bachman supplied much of the text for the collaboration on Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America. After Audubon's death in 1851, Bachman, together with Audubon's sons, published the final folio of the work in 1854. The Bachman house was a place of much intellectual and artistic furor. Maria Martin, who married Bachman after the death of her sister ---Bachman's first wife, Henrietta--- found in Audubon's friendship the opportunity to become an important, if now sadly overlooked, naturalist painter and illustrator. Many of the backgrounds which place Audubon's specimen in context were painted by Maria Martin. She also contributed the detailed entomological figures in the paintings. Audubon wrote of her that “Maria Martin with her superior talents assists us greatly in the way of drawing; the insects she has drawn are, perhaps, the best I've seen.”

In the same year as the publication of the final folio of Viviparous Quadrupeds, Bachman was drawn fully into the major dispute amongst pre-Darwinian naturalists: the origin of human diversity. The polygenic theory of human origins held that the “races” were actually separate species with independent origins. This theory was espoused by leading naturalists of the day, such as Samuel Morton and Louis Agassiz. It had gained near universal scientific consensus by the time that Josiah Nott and Gliddon published their summation of the theory in Types of Mankind. As the leading advocates of the polygenic theory, the so-called American School of Ethnology had achieved international recognition. Bachman remained staunchly committed to the view that all humans shared a common origin, or monogenesis. While most defenders of monogenism had based their views on religious feeling or scriptural authority, Bachman's opposition to the polygenic theory arose from his own scientific work and observations. He had already published an essay on “hybrid” (“mixed-race”) humans, arguing for a common human origin and he now critically reviewed the craniological work of Samuel Morton, the polygenism of Agassiz, and the popularizations of Nott and Gliddon.

The polygenic theory held sway until Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species, but John Bachman should be remembered as the most formidable adversary of polygenism. In the course of his defense of a single human origin, Bachman approached Darwin's views on the adaptation of species to changes in their environment. He was, however, prevented from realizing Darwin's insight by his belief in a Designer and a design of the natural world and so he refused to allow for the workings of chance in adaptation. As his opposition to polygenism was being condemned by other naturalists, Bachman continued an active life. Between 1856 and 1860, he helped found Newberry College in Newberry, S.C. and served as its first president. The publication of Origin brought an end to the polygenic theory, and Natural History was quickly replaced by biology, anthropology, and sociology. Bachman, like the dispute over the polygenic theory which figured so prominently in his scientific work, belonged to the passing era of Natural History.

The war years were difficult for Bachman. The blockades prevented normal scientific communication and no one could avoid the constant fighting in and around Charleston. In the midst of the war, Bachman published his last major essay, “Characteristics of Genera and Species, as Applicable to the Doctrine of Unity in the Human Race” but Darwin had already brought an end to the polygenic/monogenic dispute. Maria Martin died in 1863, and one of Bachman's sons was mortally wounded fighting for the Confederacy. Now, with Maria dead and Sherman's forces advancing on Charleston, Bachman fully realized his own pre-war warning about “the duties and dangers of the moment.” The new bell of his church was melted down for Confederate ammunition as the city came under attack in the final siege and capture of Charleston that left Bachman's church, school, and library in ruins. With them, much of Bachman's papers and collections, as well as Maria's sketches and paintings, were lost. Bachman attempted to flee to Newberry College, but while journeying there his party was detained by Union troopers. During the encounter, he was badly beaten and left with a paralyzed arm.

With the end of the Civil War, Bachman concentrated his efforts on his role as pastor of St. John's, retiring in 1871. Bachman had signed his essay to war profiteers as “Marcus Curtius,” the Roman hero who rode his horse into the abyss to save Rome from the chasm that had opened in the Forum. An alter was raised over the spot and it is appropriate that John Bachman, who was often called the “Old Roman” by his friends, was himself buried under the alter of his church. In his life and work, he personified many of the contradictions of his educated and religious contemporaries who promoted both social reform and the preservation of archaic institutions.

Charleston, S. C., 1865. The ruins of Bachman's church are in the background.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“On the Migration of the Birds of North America . Read before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Charleston, S.C. March 15th, 1833,” American Journal of Science 30 (1836).

Catalogue of Phænogmous Plants and Ferns native or naturalized, found Growing in the vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina (Charleston, S.C. 1834).

Observations on the Changes of Colour in Birds and Quadrupeds (Charleston, S.C., 1838).

The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America, with James Audubon (New York,1846).

An Investigation of the Cases of Hybridity in Animals on Record, considered in reference to the Unity of the Humans Species (Charleston, S.C., 1850).

The Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race, examined on the Principles of Science (Charleston, S.C. 1850).

“For the Courier [regarding the Unity of the Human Race],” The Charleston Courier May 28, 1850.

“Diversity of the Human Race,” Debow’s Southern and Western Review 10 (1851).

A Notice of the “Types of Mankind,” with an examination of the charges contained in the biography of Dr. Morton, published by Nott and Gliddon (Charleston, S.C. 1854).

“The Duty of the Planter to his Family, to Society, and his Country,” Charleston Daily Courier (March 25, 1862).

Characteristics of Genera and Species, as Applicable to the Doctrine of the Unity on the Human Race (Charleston, S.C., 1864)

Gossett, Thomas. Race: the History of an Idea in America (Dallas, 1963).
Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man, 2nd Edition (New York, 1999).
Stanton, William. The Leopard’s Spots: Scientific Attitudes Toward Race in America 1815-59 (Chicago, 1960).
Stephens, Lester D. Science, Race, and Religion in the American South: John Bachman and the Charleston Circle of Naturalists, 1815-1895 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 2000).

From ScienceNow -- ScienceShot: Darwin's Library, Just a Click Away

2011-06-27T17:44:00.003-04:00

The June issue of Science takes note of an important new resource on Darwin and Natural History. The online Biodiversity Heritage Library has made available digitized copies of 419 volumes from Darwin's personal library. Each work is reproduced with Darwin's marginalia, which is also transcribed for ease of reading.

This is a great new archive that nicely compliments these others:

**Cambridge University Darwin Project:
The Complete Works, Manuscrpts,
Works on Darwin, etc.
**Darwin Correspondence Project
**Voyage of the Beagle in Blog format
**Darwin's Home: Down House
**American Museum of Natural History:
Darwin Exhibition
**American Museum of Natural History:
Darwin Digital Library of Evolution
**Evolution of Evolution: 150 Years of Darwin's
On the Origin of Species
**The BBC's extensive Darwin Page
**BBC Slideshow of Darwin's Beagle Notebooks
**Melvyn Bragg's series of Darwin programs.
Check out the In Our Time audio archives as well.
** New York Times' Darwin page

The New York Times Article and Editorial. Comment I on "Morton vs Gould"

2011-06-25T18:06:00.012-04:00

In the study of life, all knowledge is provisional. Just as it is the establishment of laws fundamental to the sciences, so too is skepticism equally important to the sciences --- and those which aspire to be included in the sciences--- and the long struggle to free scientific rationality from dogma and ideology itself demonstrates that conclusions are subject to change and reinterpretation. This is in fact what the authors want to do with the essay under review: to alter our interpretation. To the extent that they succeed is in fact this same aspect of scientific rationality that both makes their work open to use in support of dogma and ideology, and makes it persuasive as well. Similarly, if we take the example of historical sociology, we find our understanding of the the past is provisional and interpretations change as well as the disciplining and division of labor in society change over time.
For example, would today often read a text on the urban poor like that of Morton’s contemporary, Henry Mayhew, who for his time would be considered a reformist journalist and advocate for the poor:

“As animals have their habit, so there is a large class of mankind which single cleverness is that of representing themselves as justly and naturally dependent on the assistance of others, who look paupers from their birth, who seek givers and forsake those who have given as naturally as a tree sends its roots into new soil and deserts the exhausted. It is the office of reason --- reason improved by experience --- to teach us not to waste our own interest and our resources on beings that will be content to live on our bounty, and will never return a moral profit to our charitable industry. The great opportunities or the mighty powers that heaven may have given us, it never meant to be lavished on mere human animals who eat, drink, and sleep, and whose only instinct is to find out a new caterer when the old one is exhausted.” (from The London Labour and the London Poor. New York: Penguin Classics, 1985:509.)

But of course, one must acknowledge that neither the search for laws nor radical skepticism have prevented many from asserting that their view of history is the one true history. Sextus Empiricus’ radical skepticism was geared towards preventing the acceptance of dogma as fact.

The PLoS Biology essay on Stephen Jay Gould and Samuel George Morton [Lewis JE, DeGusta D, Meyer MR, Monge JM, Mann AE, et al. (2011) The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias. PLoS Biol 9(6): e1001071. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071 ]

is to be understood from a number of perspectives, and this certainly leaves it open to narrow ideological readings. The range of these readings express the various commitments of its many readers and commentators.

The first place to turn is the article in the New York Times that announced the Lewis, DeGusta article.
“Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim” by Nicholas Wade

The New York Times Article

The headline of the article, which is not the responsibility of the Wade, is of course somewhat sensational. Gould and Lewis, DeGusta, et al. agree that Morton held views that today would be considered racists, though racialist is a better term. Lewis, DeGusta et al. are not attempting to dispute Morton’s racialism, but whether that scientific ideology caused Morton to inaccurately report the measurements of the crania in his collection. This is a very narrow question, which Gould believed to be current based upon his examination of Morton’s results, but that the authors of the new article believe to be not the case.

Much of the the Wade/NYTimes article is a largely accurate characterization and summary of Lewis, DeGusta, et al., except for a sentence that the new study “does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar.” In fact, Gould reputation as a scholar does not and never did rest on his essay and later chapter on Morton’s craniological studies. Much like his hero, Charles Darwin, Gould’s work as a naturalist was never divorced from his other work. Just as Darwin’s work was partly motivated by his anti-slavery convictions, so too was Gould compelled to use science as a basis for an intervention into the large political questions of his day. Gould was also a scientist who intervened into the history of science and its popular understanding, particularly in the arena of the public understanding and misunderstanding of Darwin’s work. The work The Mismeasure of Man falls into this group of popular political writings. It is a book about biological determinism and the then current political/popular debates over race as an explanation for intelligence. And popularizing and popularity are always something that one’s detractors will point towards as a sign of lack of scientific integrity. It is useful to compare Mismeasure with his more academic Ontegeny and Phylogeny (1978), wherein Morton is not mentioned, and his Structure of Evolutionary Thought, where again Morton does not appear. This can not help be raise a question concerning the centrality of the chapter on Morton to Gould’s body of work. We will save such notices and discussions until a later posting in this series.

Wade’s Summary of Lewis, DeGusta, et al.:

A. “Morton did not manipulate his data to support his preconceptions.”

B. The study is based on remeasuring half of the human crania in Morton’s collection (his collection contained examples of the crania of many non-human species as well).

C. Gould accuses Morton of omitting “subgroups to manipulate a groups overall score.... Gould himself also omitted subgroups in his own analysis and made various errors in his calculations. When these are corrected, the differences between the racial categories recognized by Morton are as he assigned them.” No mention is made in the Wade article of the conclusions that Morton drew from these results, i.e., that race could ve used to classify humans into fixed categories that result from different species or “Primordial organic form[s]” or each from a separate “primitive variety.” [Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia for September and October, 1849. See also Morton’s description of race from his Catalogue of Skulls of Man and Inferior Animals in the Collection of Samuel George Morton [http://until-darwin.blogspot.com/2011/06/gould-versus-morton-debate-text-i.html ]
To be sure, Lewis, DeGusta, et all. are clear that

“In reevaluating Morton and Gould, we do not dispute that racist views were unfortunately common in 19th-century science [PLoS FN6] or that bias has inappropriately influenced research in some cases [PLoS FN16]. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that modern human variation is generally continuous, rather than discrete or “racial,” and that most variation in modern humans is within, rather than between, populations [PLoS FN11],[PLoS FN17]. In particular, cranial capacity variation in human populations appears to be largely a function of climate, so, for example, the full range of average capacities is seen in Native American groups, as they historically occupied the full range of latitudes [PLoS FN18]. It is thus with substantial reluctance that we use various racial labels, but it is impossible to discuss Morton and Gould's work without using the terms they employed (Lewis, DeGusta, et al., 2011:2)

Regarding the final statement it is no doubt true that the collection of data and the analysis and interpretation of that data are intimately connected. So much so that the “racial labels” can not be avoided, though it is good to point out that Gould and Morton did not attach the same meaning and degree of fixity to those labels. The dispute then is over the accuracy of Morton’s measurements and the fairness of Gould characterizations that he based on his own analysis. The errors in Gould’s analysis are not shown in the article to be the result of conscious error or deliberate manipulation. Gould also did not accuse Morton of conscious error or deliberate manipulation.

D. “‘Ironically, Gould’s own analysis of Morton is likely the stronger example of a bias influencing results.’” A stronger example, but not a demonstration that bias does not influence scientific work, but rather an affirmation that scientific work can be biased, which might be he most ironic aspect of the so-called debate.

The author’s paragraph on Morton’s interpretation of his data was not mentioned in the Times article. No doubt, this was done in order to set up the inevitable journalistic trope of “two sides to every story.” We are presented with an ambiguous statement by Lewis regarding Gould’s integrity, but as it is obviously out of context, it is simply ambiguous.

The real contest is prefaced by the mention of an article by John S. Michael, who as an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania “Concluded that Morton’s results were ‘reasonably accurate’ with no clear sign of manipulation.” The reason this is mentioned is because it will be referred to in the concluding ‘exchange” between Philip Kitcher and Ralph L Holloway, the former having defended Gould in the matter of the Mitchel article, with the later being one of the authors of the study. The dispute is presented as being about the appropriateness of “prefer[ring] the measurements of an undergraduate to those of a professional paleontologist.” But as we know and as Gould himself states in the Mismeasure of Man and Lewis, DeGusta, et al. attest as well, Gould did not do any measurements of the skulls himself.

The mention of Michael’s work leads to the last question on “the new finding’s bearing on Dr. Gould’s reputation. Kitcher gives the first response: “Steve does not come off as a rogue but as someone who makes mistakes.”

The more biting, and volatile sentiment is left for last, from the co-author Ralph L Holloway

“an expert on human evolution at Columbia and a co-author of the new study, was less willing to give Dr. Gould benefit of the doubt. 'I just didn’t trust Gould,' he said. 'I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme. When the 1996 version of ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ came and he never even bothered to mention Michael’s study, I just felt he was a charlatan.'”

Regarding the rather extreme accusation that Gould was a charlatan, only time will tell but there seems to be little evidence for such a claim. Certainly, the idea that Gould was deliberately fraudulent in his work would demand a good deal more proof than a few computation errors, no matter what implications he took from the results of those errors. Certainly the same could be said for Morton. Or is it that Gould’s errors were errors of computation, while Morton’s were errors of interpretation?

Gould certainly seems to force the chapter on Morton into a work about biological determinism. However, it and the other early chapters of the work are presented as the historical backdrop for the then current debate on intelligence testing and social welfare policy. The focus of the book is not Gould’s belief in Morton’s errors. Morton simply provides one example of many and perhaps this is the basis for the erroneous presentation of Gould’s discussion of Morton as a key aspect of the Mismeasure of Man. Gould did his analysis of Morton’s data over the course of several weeks, and for the most part relied on Stanton’s wonderful book The Leopard’s Spots, for his discussion of Morton and polygenism. Likewise, Lewis, DeGusta, et al. also use Stanton’s book as their authority.

Gould’s larger error was not in seeing science as embedded in society, nor in missing his own computational errors, but in his attempt to establish a continuity between phrenology, Morton’s craniology, Lombroso’s criminal anthropology, and later theories of intelligence and the ranking of groups by intelligence testing. All of these he saw as examples of a biological determinism that could be found in both scientific research and in the social policies that arose from that scientific data. However, there are significant differences between these “wretched knowledges” (Neugebauer) and scientific ideologies (Canguilhem). Though Morton and the phrenologist Combes were good friends, Morton moved significantly away from phrenology by examining the capacity of the crania rather than its external characteristics. Morton’s work was undertaken before the transition from Natural History to Biology, and so Morton’s determinism is not really biological as it is based on the fixity of species. Lombroso’s theory of degeneration is a product of the post-Darwinian period and not directly derived from Buffon, for example, and owed little to Morton. Lombroso’s socialism also has little resemblance to Gould’s.

Measurement does provide some continuity, but one would expect measurement of some kind in any rational investigation. In each era, measurements are being taken, but of different things and for different reasons. In terms of the study of human variation, Gould's discussion does not go into detail about the social context as much as he more pursues the history of ideas, a pursuit that was common when Mismeasure of Man was published some thirty years ago.

As for responding to critics, Gould states in the revised 2nd edition that in terms of negative reviews “I firmly believe in not answering negative reviews, for nothing can so disorient an attacker as silence. But this was a bit too much [re: a negative review in The Public Interest that the first edition was, as he in part summarized as “politically motivated crap”], so I canvassed among friends. Both Noam Chomsky and Salvador Luria, great scholar and humanists, said essentially the same thing: never reply unless your attacker has floated a demonstrably false argument, which, if unanswered, might develop a ‘life of its own.’” (Mismeasure, 2nd edition, p.45).

On his own possible biases, Gould wrote that:

“We must identify preferences in order to constrain their influence on our work, but we do not go astray when we use such preferences to decide what subjects we wish to pursue. Life is short, and potential studies infinite. We have a much better chance of accomplishing something significant when we follow our passionate interests and work in areas of deepest personal meaning. Of course such a strategy increases dangers of prejudice, but the gain in dedication can overbalance any such worry, especially if we remain equally committed to the overarching general goal of fairness, and fiercely committed to constant vigilance and scrutiny of our personal biases” (Mismeasure, 2nd, p.37).

In the editorial the next day, the Times concluded that:

“The team expressed admiration for Dr. Gould’s body of work in staunch opposition to racism, but, in this case, it accused him of various errors and manipulations that supported his own hypothesis. “Ironically, Gould’s own analysis of Morton is likely the stronger example of a bias influencing results,” the team said. We wish Dr. Gould were here to defend himself. Right now it looks as though he proved his point, just not as he intended.”

In the caption for the photo accompanying the article above Wade's, neuro-scientist Nora D. Volkow, the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse is quoted as saying “Science and politics are intertwined.”

_________________

Canguilhem, Georges. 1988. Ideology and Rationality in the History of the Life Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man, 2nd Revised and expanded edition. 1996 [first edition 1981].

Lewis JE, DeGusta D, Meyer MR, Monge JM, Mann AE, et al. (2011) The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias. PLoS Biol 9(6): e1001071. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071 ]
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001071

Mayhew, Henry. The London Labour and the London Poor. New York: Penguin Classics, 1985:509.

New York Times. “Bias and the Beholder.” Wednesday, June 15, 2011.

New York Times. Profiles in Science: Nora D. Volkow, A General in the Drug War. New York Times, Tuesday, June 14, 2011, D1-D4.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14volkow.html?scp=2&sq=nora%20volkow&st=cse

Neugebauer, Otto. 1983. Astronomy and History: Selected Essays. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Stanton W (1960) The Leopard's Spots. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Wade, Nichlas. “Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim” New York Times, Tuesday, June 14, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=1&src=me

The Geography of Human Variety according to Blumenbach

The "Gould versus Morton" Debate -- Text II: Some Passages from the MisMeasure of Man, 2nd edition on Morton, the Value and relation of Science to Society, Agassiz, and John Collins

2011-06-16T00:45:00.022-04:00

This is a set of passages from Stephan Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, 2nd edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996. It is t is a companion post to the text from Samuel G. Morton.

On The Relations of Science and Society

“Yet the history of many scientific subjects is virtually free from such constraints of fact for two major reasons. First, some topics are invested with enormous social importance but blessed with very little reliable information. When the ratio of data to social impact is so low, a history of scientific attitudes may be little more than an oblique record of social change. The history of scientific views on race, for example, serves as a mirror of social movements (Provine, 1973). This mirror reflects in good times and bad, in periods of belief in equality and in eras of rampant racism. The death knell of the old eugenics in America was sounded more by Hitler’s particular use of once-favored arguments for sterilization and racial purification than by advances in genetic knowledge.

Second, many questions are formulated by scientists in such a restricted way that any legitimate answer can only validate a social preference. Much of the debate on racial differences in mental worth, for example, proceed upon the assumption that intelligence is a thing in the head. Until this notion was swept aside, no amount of data could dislodge a strong Western tradition of ordering related items into a progressive chain of being.

Science cannot escape its curious dialectic. Embedded in surrounding culture, it can, nonetheless, be a powerful agent for questioning and even overturning the assumptions that nurture it. Science can provide information to reduce the ration of data to social importance. Scientists can struggle to identify the cultural assumptions of their trade and to ask how answers might be formulated under different assertions. Scientists can propose creative theories that force startled colleagues to confront unquestioned procedures. But science’s potential as an instrument for identifying the cultural constraints upon it cannot be fully realized until scientists give up the twin myths of objectivity and inexorable march toward truth. One must, indeed, locate the beam in one’s own eye before interpreting correctly the pervasive motes in everybody else’s. The beams can then become facilitators, rather than impediments.”

Mismeasure of Man, 2^nd edition, 54-55.

Gould on Agassiz and Morton:

“Agassiz speculated freely and at length, but he amassed no data to support his polygenic theory. Morton, a Philadelphia patrician with two medical degrees --- one from fashionable Edinburgh --- provided the ‘facts’ that won worldwide respect for the ‘American School’ of polygeny.... Yet Morton gathered skulls neither for the dilettante’s motive of abstract interest nor the taxonomist’s zeal for complete representation. He had a hypothesis to test: that ranking of races could be established objectively by physical characteristics of the brain, particularly by its size.

Mismeasure of Man, 2^nd edition, p. 83.

Morton’s work and its later use:

“Morton published three major works on the sizes of human skulls --- his lavish, beautifully illustrated volume on American Indians, the Crania Americana of 1839; his studies of skulls from the Egyptian tombs, the Crania Egyptiaca of 1844; and the epitome of his collection in 1849. Each contained a table, summarizing his results on average skull volumes arranged by race.... [The tables] represent the major contribution of American polygeny to debates about racial ranking. They outlived the theory of separate creations and were reprinted during the nineteenth century as irrefutable, ‘hard’ data on the mental worth of human races.”

Mismeasure of Man, 2^nd edition, p. 85.

Gould’s brief against Morton’s work:

During the summer of 1977 I spent several years reanalyzing Morton’s data. (Morton, the self-styled objectivist, published all his raw information. We can infer with little doubt how he moved from raw measurements to summary tables.) In short, and to put it bluntly, Morton’s summaries are a patchwork of fudging and finagling in the clear interest of controlling a priori convictions. Yet--- and this is the most intriguing aspect of the case --- I find no evidence of conscious fraud; indeed, had Morton been a conscious fudger, he would not have published his data so openly.

Conscious fraud is probably rare in science. It is also not very interesting, for it tells us nothing about the nature of scientific activity. Liars, if discovered, are excommunicated; scientists declare that their profession has properly policed itself, and they return to work, mythology unimpaired, and objectively vindicated. The prevalence of Unconscious finagling, on the other hand, suggests a general conclusion about the context of science. For if scientists can be honestly self-deluded to Morton’s extent, then prior prejudice may be found anywhere, even in the basic of measuring bones and toting sums.

Mismeasure of Man, 2^nd edition, p. 88.

Gould on the quality of the illustrations in Morton’s work:

“The lithographs of this and the next figure were done by John Collins, a great scientific artist unfortunately unrecognized today.”

Mismeasure of Man, 2^nd edition, p. 90.