This is Bridget
I read this book "The Wretched of the Earth"by Frantz Fanon for my Literary Approaches to Poverty class (sounds wonderfully uplifting, doesn't it?). Just as a little background, Frantz Fanon was a psychologist with a Freudian-style education, and was a Marxist who wrote this novel about decolonization in order to call for the necessity of revolution of colonized countries for them to receive the part of the wealth of the world that belonged to them because of years of exploitation and extermination of culture and identity.
The last section of the novel dealt with mental disorders that seemingly arise due to the traumatic experiences associated with colonial revolution for independence. This brought on the inclusion of some of the scientific theories that were, for the most part, accepted as true during that time regarding the brain. Right along with all of the other falsities that supposedly made colonization and exploitation of people "right", was the idea that it was supposedly proven that the cortex of Africans was actually smaller. Thus, the conclusion, stated with the finality and support of neuroscience, was that Africans were a subhuman race that was incapable of controlling its more animalistic tendencies. According to this scientific theory supporting Social Darwinism, their violence, their aggressiveness, can be explained by the color of their skin and "differences" in the formation of their brains.
When I read this I was quite obviously appalled. It is not that I have not read about crazy theories about physiognomy (how the characteristics of a face can tell about a person's actual character and behavior, even destiny) and other theories that claim to prove that racist beliefs are correct and necessary for human survival. It is just that I have never really read about a founded science, which is supposed to be entirely objective, being used to support an agenda. As a person interested in the sciences, I have been, in a way, naive about its purposes to advance society and understanding for all people. But to read that scientific conclusions, which were supposedly based in fact and data and experiments alone, could be so disgustingly warped was really scary. Science is such an extremely powerful tool; you add the fact that something is supported and proven by an experiment, facts, and data, and many people willingly believe that it is true, without further questioning. When this powerful persuasion is in the wrong hands it can precipitate incredibly dangerous and disheartening consequences.
Comments (2)
David Doobin responding to Bridget:
We were talking about this the other day in African American studies class. Many pseudo-scientific approaches have been taken to try to explain the differences in races, including as you mentioned physiognomy and phrenology (the study of the pattern of bumps on a person's scalp and associating them with generalized qualities).
In 1969 Arthur Jensen published a famous article in the Harvard Educational Review where he argued the the black-white test score gap was largely due to genetic causes. His argument was such: if the variations in whites in test scores was mostly due to genetic causes (which is really only part of the reason for the variation), and there is a large gap between blacks and whites on these tests, then the gap must be due to genetic inferiority of blacks. This paper caused many psychologists to begin searching for an alternate explanation to refute this paper.
While the test score gap between blacks and whites still exists in society, its causes are largely unknown and generally thought to concern the developmental environment that children are reared in.
Also, I read an article in the Economist a few months ago about a study that had just finished in which the scientists mapped the genomes of many members of various races and compared the genes based on the race of the person. They found that there were only about 40-50 genes that varied between races. Most of the variation in genes were for proteins associated with hair formation, followed by skin pigmentation proteins and then specialized metabolic proteins. Not surprisingly they didn't find any variation in any genes responsible for neurological development or function, and having only 40-50 genes varying between races is very insignificant considering how many genes there are in humans.
Posted by David Doobin | April 1, 2008 6:23 PM
Posted on April 1, 2008 18:23
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=488400&in_page_id=1770
Apparently Dr. James Watson, who has been spoken of so highly in class, made some similar comments. Among other things, he claimed that darker skin is the source of "Latin Lover" libido and, more recently, that whites are more intelligent than blacks. His comments, according to him, at least, have been misconstrued, but the premise he does not deny is that different geographical groups, independent of race, could have evolved differently. That isn't as controversial and is, in some ways, not unreasonable. It does no follow, though, at least by my perception, that a certain region would develop a more intelligent group of people; the smartest, by natural selection, would survive in every instance. If nothing else, this latest controversy appears to affirm, once again, that James D. Watson is not the most likable of people.
Posted by Jerzy Kessler | April 8, 2008 3:38 AM
Posted on April 8, 2008 03:38