THE PROBLEM OF RACE
In the present cultural conditions of mankind we observe, or
observed at least until very recent time, a cleavage of cultural
forms according to racial types. The contrast between European and
East Asiatic civilizations was striking, until the Japanese began to
introduce European patterns. Still greater appeared the contrasts
between Europeans, native Australians, African Negroes and American
Indians. It is, therefore, but natural that much thought has been given
to the problem of the interrelation between race and culture. Even
in Europe cultural differences between North Europeans and people of
the Mediterranean, between West and East Europeans are striking and
are correlated with differences in physical appearance. This explains
why numberless books and essays have been and are being written
based on the assumption that each race has its own mental character
determining its cultural or social behavior. In America particularly,
fears are being expressed of the effects of intermixture of races, of
a modification or deterioration of national {19} character on account
of the influx of new types into the population of our country, and
policies of controlling the growth of the population are being proposed
and laws based on these assumptions have been passed.
The differences of cultural outlook and of bodily appearance have given
rise to antagonisms that are rationalized as due to instinctive racial
antipathies.
There is little clarity in regard to the term “race.” When we speak
of racial characteristics we mean those traits that are determined by
heredity in each race and in which all members of the race participate.
Comparing Swedes and Negroes, lack of pigmentation of skin, eye
and hair are hereditary racial characteristics of the Swedes, deep
pigmentation of the Negro. The straight or wavy hair of the Swede, the
frizzly hair of the Negro, the narrowness and elevation of the nose
among the Swedes, its width and flatness among the Negroes, all these
are hereditary racial traits because practically all the Swedes and
Negroes participate in them.
In other respects it is not so easy to define racial traits.
Anatomists cannot with certainty differentiate between the brain of a
Swede and of a Negro. The brains of each group vary so much in form
that it is often difficult to say, if we have no other criteria,
whether a certain brain belongs to a Swede or to a Negro. {20}
The nearer two races are related the more traits they will have in
common. A knowledge of all the bodily traits of a particular individual
from Denmark does not enable us to identify him as a Dane. If he is
tall, blond, blue-eyed, long-headed and so on he might as well be a
Swede. We also find individuals of the same bodily form in Germany,
in France and we may even find them in Italy. Identification of an
individual as a member of a definite, local race is not possible.
Whenever these conditions prevail, we cannot speak of racial heredity.
In a strict sense racial heredity means that _all_ the members of the
race partake of certain traits,--such as the hair, pigmentation and
nose form of the Negro, as compared to the corresponding features
among the North European. All those forms that are peculiar to some
members of the race, not to all, are in no sense true hereditary racial
characteristics. The greater the number of individuals exhibiting
these traits the less is their racial significance. North Italians are
round-headed, Scandinavians long-headed. Still, so many different forms
are represented in either series, and other bodily forms are so much
alike that it would be impossible to claim that an individual selected
at random _must_ be a North Italian or a Scandinavian. Extreme forms in
which the local characteristics are most pronounced might be identified
with a fair degree of {21} probability, but intermediate forms might
belong to either group. The bodily traits of the two groups are not
racial characteristics in the strict sense of the term. Although it is
possible to describe the most common types of these groups by certain
metric and descriptive traits, not all the members of the groups
conform to them.
We are easily misled by general impressions. Most of the Swedes are
blond, blue-eyed, tall and long-headed. This causes us to formulate
in our minds the ideal of a Swede and we forget the variations that
occur in Scandinavia. If we talk of a Sicilian we think of a swarthy,
short person, with dark eyes and dark hair. Individuals differing from
this type are not in our mind when we think of a “typical” Sicilian.
The more uniform a people the more strongly are we impressed by the
“type.” Every country impresses us as inhabited by a certain type the
traits of which are determined by the most frequently occurring forms.
This, however, does not tell us anything in regard to its hereditary
composition and the range of its variations. The “type” is formed quite
subjectively on the basis of our everyday experience.
Suppose a Swede, from a region in which blondness, blue eyes, tall
stature prevail in almost the whole population, should visit Scotland
and express his experiences naïvely. He would say that there are
many individuals of Swedish type, but {22} that besides this another
type inhabits the country, of dark complexion, dark hair and eyes,
but tall and long-headed. The population would seem to represent two
types, not that biologically the proof would have been given of race
mixture; it would merely be an expression due to earlier experiences.
The unfamiliar type stands out as something new and the inclination
prevails to consider the new type as racially distinct. Conversely, a
Scotchman who visits Sweden would be struck by the similarity between
most Swedes and the blond Scotch, and he would say that there is a very
large number of the blond Scotch with whom he is familiar, without
reaching the conclusion that his own type is mixed.
We speak of racial types in a similar way. When we see American
Indians we recognize some as looking like Asiatics, others like East
Europeans, still others are said to be of a Jewish cast. We classify
the variety of forms according to our previous experiences and we are
inclined to consider the divergent forms that are well established in
our consciousness as pure types, particularly if they appear as extreme
forms.
Thus the North European blond and the Armenian with his high nose and
his remarkably high head, which is flat behind, appear as pure types.
Biologically speaking, this is an unjustifiable assumption. Extreme
forms are not pure racial {23} types. We do not know how much their
descendants may vary among themselves and what their ancestry may have
been. Even if it were shown that the extreme types were of homogeneous
descent, this would not prove that the intermediate types might not be
equally homogeneous.
It is well to remember that heredity means the transmission of
anatomical and functional characteristics from ancestors to offspring.
What we call nowadays a race of man consists of groups of individuals
in which descent from common ancestors cannot be proved.
All we know is that the children of a given family represent the
hereditarily transmitted qualities of their ancestors. Such a group of
brothers and sisters is called a fraternity.
Not all the members of a fraternity are alike. They scatter around
a certain middle value. If the typical distribution of forms in all
the groups of brothers and sisters that constitute the race were
alike, then we could talk of racial heredity, for each fraternity
would represent the racial characteristics. We cannot speak of racial
heredity if the fraternities are different, so that the distribution
of forms in one family is different from that found in another one.
In this case the fraternities represent distinctive hereditary family
lines. Actually in all the known races the single family lines as
represented by fraternities show a considerable {24} amount of
variation which indicates that the hereditary characteristics of the
families are not the same, a result that may be expected whenever the
ancestors have distinct heritable characteristics. In addition to this
we may observe that a fraternity found in one race may be duplicated
by another one in another race; in other words, that the hereditary
characteristics found in one race may not belong to it exclusively, but
may belong also to other races.
This may be illustrated by an extreme case. If I wish to know “the
type” of the New Yorker, I may not pick out any one particular family
and claim that it is a good representative of the type. I might happen
to select a family of pure English descent; and I might happen to
strike an Irish, Italian, Jewish, German, Armenian or Negro family.
All these types are so different and, if inbred, continue their
types so consistently that none of them can possibly be taken as a
representative New Yorker. Conditions in France are similar. I cannot
select at random a French family and consider its members as typical of
France. They may be blond Northwest Europeans, darker Central Europeans
or of Mediterranean type. In New York as well as in France the family
lines are so diverse that there is no racial unity and no racial
heredity.
Matters are different in old, inbred communities. {25} If a number
of families have intermarried for centuries without appreciable
addition of foreign blood they will all be closely related and the same
ancestral traits will appear in all the families. Brothers and sisters
in any one family may be quite unlike among themselves, but all the
family lines will have considerable likeness. It is much more feasible
to obtain an impression of the general character of the population
by examining a single family than in the preceding cases, and a few
families would give us a good picture of the whole race. Conditions
of this type prevail among the landowners in small European villages.
They are found in the high nobility of Europe and also among some
isolated tribes. The Eskimos of North Greenland, for instance, have
been isolated for centuries. Their number can never have exceeded a
few hundred. There are no rigid rules proscribing marriages between
relatives, so that we may expect that unions were largely dictated by
chance. The ancestors of the tribe were presumably a small number of
Eskimos who happened to settle there and whose blood flows in the veins
of all the members of the present generation. The people all bear a
considerable likeness, but unfortunately we do not know in how far the
family lines are alike.
We have information of this kind from one of the isolated Tennessee
valleys in which people have intermarried among themselves for a
century. The {26} family lines in this community are very much alike.
In cases of this kind it does not matter whether the ancestry is
homogeneous or belongs to quite distinct races. As long as there
is continued inbreeding the family lines will become alike. The
differences of racial descent will rather appear in the differences
between brothers and sisters, some of whom will lean towards one of the
ancestral strains, others to the other. The distribution of different
racial forms in all the various families will be the more the same,
the longer the inbreeding without selection continues. We have a few
examples of this kind. The Bastaards of South Africa, largely an old
mixture of Dutch and Hottentot, and the Chippewa of eastern Canada,
descendants of French and Indians, are inbred communities. Accordingly,
the family lines among them are quite similar, while the brothers and
sisters in each family differ strongly among themselves.
In modern society, particularly in cities, conditions are not favorable
to inbreeding. The larger the area inhabited by a people, the denser
and the more mobile the population, the less are the families inbred
and the more may we expect very diverse types of family lines.
The truth of this statement may readily be demonstrated.
Notwithstanding the apparent homogeneity of the Swedish nation, there
are many {27} different family lines represented. Many are “typical”
blond Swedes, but in other families dark hair and brown eyes are
hereditary. The range of hereditary forms is considerable.
It has been stated before that many individuals of Swedish types may be
duplicated in neighboring countries. The same is true of family lines.
It would not be difficult to find in Denmark, Germany, Holland or
northern France families that might apparently just as well be Swedes;
or in Sweden families that might as well be French or German.
In these cases hereditary characteristics are not “racially”
determined, but belong to family lines that occur in many “racial”
groups. Just as soon as family lines of the same form are found in a
number of racial groups the term “racial heredity” loses its meaning.
We can speak solely of “heredity in family lines.” The term “racial
heredity” presupposes a homogeneity of lines of descent in each race,
and a degree of difference of lines of descent in different races, that
do not exist.
In short, if we wish to discuss racial traits we have to recognize
that a great diversity of these occurs in every race and that they are
inherited not racially, but in family lines. Characteristics of this
type do not belong to the race as a whole.
Another important problem confronts us. We have seen that our
concept of types is based on {28} subjective experience. On account
of the preponderance of “typical” Swedes we are inclined to consider
all those of different type as not belonging to the racial type, as
foreign admixtures. There is a somewhat distinct type in Sweden in
the old mining districts which were first worked by Walloons and it
is more than probable that the greater darkness of complexion in this
region is due to the influence of Walloon blood. We are very ready to
explain every deviation from a type in this way. In many cases this
is undoubtedly correct, for intermingling of distinct types of people
has been going on for thousands of years; but we do not know to what
extent a type may vary when no admixture of foreign blood has occurred.
The experience of animal breeders proves that even with intensive
inbreeding of pure stock there always remains a considerable amount
of variation between individuals. We have no evidence to show to what
extent variations of this kind might develop in a pure human race and
it is not probable that satisfactory evidence will ever be forthcoming,
because we have no pure races. The history of the whole world shows
us mankind constantly on the move; people from eastern Asia coming
to Europe; those of western and central Asia invading southern Asia;
North Europeans sweeping over Mediterranean countries; Central Africans
extending their territories over almost the {29} whole of South Africa;
people from Alaska spreading to northern Mexico or vice versa; South
Americans settling almost over the whole eastern part of the continent
here and there,--in short, from earliest times on we have a picture of
continued movements, and with it of mixtures of diverse people.
It may well be that the lack of clean-cut geographical and biological
lines between the races of man is entirely due to these circumstances.
The conditions are quite like those found in the animal world. Local
races of remote districts may readily be recognized, but in many cases
they are united by intermediate forms.
We have seen that on account of the lack of sharp distinctions between
neighboring populations it happens that apparently identical family
lines occur in both, and that an individual in one may resemble in
bodily form an individual in another. Notwithstanding their resemblance
it can be demonstrated that they are functionally not by any means
equivalent, for when we compare their children they will be found to
revert more or less to the type of the population to which the parents
belong. To give an example: the Bohemians have, on the average, round
heads, the Swedes long heads. Nevertheless it is possible to find among
both populations parents that have the same head forms. The selected
group among the {30} Swedes will naturally be more round-headed than
the average Swede, and the selected Bohemians will be more long-headed
than the average Bohemians. The children of the selected group of
Swedes are found to be more long-headed than their parents, those of
the selected group of Bohemians more short-headed than their parents.
The cause of this is not difficult to understand. If we pick out
short-headed individuals among the Swedes, short-headedness may be an
individual nonhereditary trait. Furthermore the general run of their
relatives will be similar to the long-headed Swedish type and since
the form of the offspring depends not only upon the parent, but also
upon the characteristics of his whole family line, at least of his four
grandparents, a reversion to the general population may be expected.
The same is true among the Bohemians.
We must conclude that individuals of the same bodily appearance,
if sprung from populations of distinct type, are functionally not
the same. For this reason it is quite unjustifiable to select from
a population a certain type and claim that it is identical with the
corresponding type of another population. Each individual must be
studied as a member of the group from which he has sprung. We may not
assume that the round-headed or brunette individuals in Denmark are
identical with the corresponding forms from Switzerland. Even {31} if
no anatomical differences between two series of such individuals are
discernible they represent genetically distinctive strains. Identity
can occur in exceptional individuals only.
If we were to select a group of tall, blond Sicilians, men and women,
who marry among themselves, we must expect that their offspring in
later generations will revert more or less to the Sicilian type, and,
conversely, if we select a group of brunette, brown-eyed Swedes, their
offspring will revert more or less to the blond, blue-eyed Swedish type.
We have spoken so far only of the hereditary conditions of stable
races. We imply by the term racial heredity that the composition of
succeeding generations is identical. When one generation dies, the
next one is assumed to represent the same type of population. This can
be true only if random matings occur in each generation. If in the
first generation there was a random selection of mates, due to chance
only, the same condition must prevail in the following generations.
Any preferential mating, any selective change in group mortality or
fertility, or brought about by migration, must modify the genetic
composition of the group.
For these reasons none of our modern populations is stable from
a hereditary point of view. The heterogeneous family lines in a
population {32} that has originated through migration will gradually
become more homogeneous, if the descendants continue to reside in the
same spot. In our cities and mixed farming communities, on account
of changes in selective mating, constant changes in the hereditary
composition are going on, even after immigration has ceased. Local
inbreeding produces local types; avoidance of marriages between
near relatives favors increasing likeness of all the family lines
constituting the population; favored or proscribed cousin marriages
which are customary among many tribes establish separate family types
and increase in this sense the heterogeneity of the population.
Another question presents itself. We have considered only the
hereditary stability of genetic lines. We must ask ourselves also
whether environmental conditions exert an influence over races.
It is quite obvious that the forms of lower organisms are subject
to environmental influences. Plants taken from low altitudes to
high mountains develop short stems; leaves of semi-aquatic plants
growing under water have a form differing from the subaërial leaves.
Cultivated plants transform their stamens into petals. Plants may be
dwarfed or stimulated in their growth by appropriate treatment. Each
plant is so organized that it develops a certain form under given
environmental conditions. Microörganisms differ so much in different
{33} environmental settings that it is often difficult to establish
their specific identity.
The question arises whether the same kind of variability occurs in
higher organisms. The general impression is that their forms are
determined by heredity, not by environment. The young of a greyhound
is a greyhound, that of a shorthorn a shorthorn; that of a Norway rat
a Norway rat. The child of a European is European in type, that of a
Chinaman of Mongolic type, that of an African Negro a Negro.
Nevertheless detailed study shows that the form and size of the
body are not entirely shaped by heredity. Records of the stature of
European men that date back to the middle of the past century show
that in almost all countries the average statures have increased by
more than an inch. It is true, this is not a satisfactory proof of an
actual change, because improvement in public health has changed the
composition of the populations, and although it is not likely that
this should be the cause of an increase in stature, it is conceivable.
A better proof is found in the change of stature among descendants of
Europeans who settle in America. In this case it has been shown that
in many nationalities the children are taller than their own parents,
presumably on account of more favorable conditions of life.
It has also been observed that the forms of the {34} body are
influenced by occupation. The hand of a person who has to do heavy
manual labor differs from that of a musician who develops the
independence of all the muscles of his hand. The proportions and form
of the limbs are influenced by habitual posture and use. The legs of
the oriental who squats flat on the ground are somewhat modified by
this habit.
Other modifications cannot be explained by better nutrition or by the
use of the muscles. Forms of the head and face are not quite stable,
but are in some way influenced by the environment in which the people
live, so that after a migration into a new environment the child will
not be quite like the parent.
All the observed changes are slight and do not modify the essential
character of the hereditary forms. Still they are not negligible. We do
not know how great the modifications may be that ultimately result from
such changes, nor have we any evidence that the changes would persist
if the people were taken back to their old environment. Although a
Negro will never become a European, it is not impossible that some
of the minor differences between European populations may be due to
environment rather than to heredity.
So far we have discussed solely the anatomical forms of races with
a view of gaining a clearer understanding of what we mean by the
term race. {35} It may be well to repeat the principal result of our
discussion.
We have found that the term “racial heredity” is strictly applicable
only when all the individuals of a race participate in certain
anatomical features. In each race taken as a whole the family lines
differ considerably in their hereditary traits. The distribution of
family lines is such that a considerable number of lines similar or
even identical in one or many respects occur in contiguous territories.
The vague impression of “types,” abstracted from our everyday
experience, does not prove that these are biologically distinct
races, and the inference that various populations are composed of
individuals belonging to various races is subjectively intelligible,
objectively unproved. It is particularly not admissible to identify
types apparently identical that occur in populations of different
composition. Each individual can be understood only as a member of his
group.
These considerations seem necessary, because they clear up the
vagueness of the term “race” as usually applied. When we speak of
heredity we are ordinarily concerned with family lines, not with races.
The hereditary qualities of families constituting the most homogeneous
population differ very much among themselves and there is very little,
if anything, that these family lines have in common and they are not
sharply set off from {36} neighboring populations that may give a quite
distinctive impression.
The relation of racial types may be looked at in another way. It may
be granted that in closely related types the identification of an
individual as a member of each type cannot be made with any degree
of certainty. Nevertheless the distribution of individuals and of
family lines in the various races differs. When we select among the
Europeans a group with large brains, their frequency will be relatively
high, while among the Negroes the frequency of occurrence of the
corresponding group will be low. If, for instance, there are 50 per
cent of an European population who have a brain weight of more than,
let us say, 1500 grams, there may be only 20 per cent of Negroes of the
same class. Therefore 30 per cent of the large-brained Europeans cannot
be matched by any corresponding group of Negroes.
It is justifiable to compare races from this point of view, as long as
we avoid an application of our results to individuals.
On general biological grounds it is important to know whether any one
of the human races is, in regard to form or function, further removed
from the ancestral animal form than another, whether the races can be
arranged in an ascending series. Although we do not know the ancestral
form with any degree of certainty, some of its characteristics {37}
can be inferred by a comparison of the anatomical forms of man and
of the apes. Single traits can be brought into ascending series in
which the racial forms differ more and more from animal forms, but the
arrangement is a different one for each independent trait.
The ancestral form had a flat nose. Bushmen, Negroes and Australians
have flat, broad noses. Mongoloids, Europeans and particularly
Armenians have narrow, prominent noses. They are in this sense farthest
removed from the animal forms.
Apes have narrow lips. The lips of the Whites are thin, those of
many Mongoloid types are fuller. The Negroes have the thickest, most
excessively “human” lips.
The hair coat of apes is moderately strong. Among human races the
Australians, Europeans and a few scattered tribes among other races
have the amplest body hair; Mongols have the least.
Similar remarks may be made in regard to the forms of the foot, of the
spinal column, of the proportions of the limbs. The order of the degree
to which human races differ from animals is not the same in regard to
these traits.
Particular stress has been laid on the size of the brain, which also
differs in various races. Setting aside the pygmy Bushmen and other
very small races, the negroid races have smaller brains than the
Mongoloids, and these in general smaller ones {38} than the Europeans,
although some Mongoloid types, like the Eskimo, exceed in size of the
brain many European groups.
The brain in each race is very variable in size and the “overlapping”
of individuals in the races is marked. It is not possible to identify
an individual as a Negro or White according to the size and form of the
brain, but serially the Negro brain is less extremely human than that
of the White.
We are apt to identify the size of the brain with its functioning.
This is true to a limited extent only. Among the higher mammals the
proportionate size of the brain is larger in animals that have greater
intelligence; but size alone is not an adequate criterion. Complexity
of structure is much more important than mere size. Some birds have
brains much larger proportionately than those of the higher mammals
without evidencing superior intelligence.
The size of the brain is measured by its weight which does not depend
upon the nerve cells and fibers alone, but includes a large amount
of material that is not directly relevant for the functioning of the
central nervous system.
Superior intelligence in man is in a way related to size of the
brain. Microcephalic individuals whose brains remain considerably
under normal size are mentally defective, but an individual {39} with
an exceptionally large brain is not necessarily a genius. There are
many causes that affect the size of the brain. The larger the body,
the larger the brain. Therefore well-nourished people who have a
larger bulk of body than those poorly nourished have larger brains,
not because their brains are structurally more highly developed, but
because the larger bulk is a characteristic feature of the entire
bodily form. Eminent people belong generally to the better nourished
class and the cause of the greater brain is, therefore, uncertain.
The variation in the size of the brain of eminent men is also very
considerable, some falling way beneath the norm.
The real problem to be solved is the relation between the structure of
the brain and its function. The correlation between gross structure in
the races of man and function is so slight that no safe inferences may
be drawn on the basis of the slight differences between races which are
of such character that up to this time the racial identification of a
brain is impossible, except in so far as elongated and rounded heads,
high and low heads and similar gross forms may be distinguished which
do not seem to have any relation to minute structure or function. At
least it has never been proved to exist and it does not seem likely
that there is any kind of intimate relation.
The differences between races are so small that {40} they lie within
the narrow range in the limits of which all forms may function equally
well. We cannot say that the ratio of inadequate brains and nervous
systems, that function noticeably worse than the norm, is the same in
every race, nor that those of rare excellence are equally frequent. It
is not improbable that such differences may exist in the same way as we
find different ranges of adjustability in other organs.
Without further proof the serial arrangement in brain size cannot be
identified with a higher racial intelligence.
If the anatomical structure of the brain is a doubtful indication of
mental excellence, this is still more the case with differences in
other parts of the body. So far as we can judge the form of the foot
and the slight development of the calves of the Negro; the prominence
of his teeth and the size of his lips; the heaviness of the face of the
Mongol; or the difference in degree of pigmentation of the races have
no relation to mentality. At least every attempt to prove such relation
has failed.
In any attempt to place the human races in an evolutionary series we
must also remember that modern races are not wild but domesticated
forms. In regard to nutrition and artificial protection the mode of
life of man is like that of domesticated animals. The artificial
modification of food by {41} the use of fire and the invention of tools
were the steps that brought about the self-domestication of man. Both
belong to a very early period, to a time before the last extensive
glaciation of Europe. Man must be considered the oldest domesticated
form. The most characteristic features of human races bear evidence
of this. The loss of pigmentation in the blond, blue-eyed races; the
blackness of the hair of the Negro are traits that do not occur in
any wild mammal form. Exceptions are the blackness of the hair coat
of the black panther, of the black bear and of the subterranean mole.
The frizzliness of the Negro hair and the curliness of the hair of
other races, the long hair of the head do not occur in wild mammals.
The permanence rather than periodicity of the sexual functions and
of the female breast; the anomalies of sexual behavior are also
characteristics of domesticated animals. The kind of domestication of
man is like that of the animals raised by primitive tribes that do not
breed certain strains by selection. Nevertheless, forms differing from
the wild forms develop in their herds.
Some of the traits of man that might be considered as indicating a
lower evolutionary stage may as well be due to domestication. Reduction
or unusual lengthening of the face occur. The excessive reduction of
the face in some White types and the elongation of the mouth parts
of the {42} Negro may be due to this cause. It may be a secondary
development from an intermediate form. The brain of domesticated forms
is generally smaller than that of wild forms. In exceptional cases it
may be larger. Pygmy forms and giants develop in domestication. In
short, the “primitive traits” of races are not necessarily indications
of an early arrest. They may be later acquisitions stabilized in
domestication.
All this, however, has little to do with the biologically determined
mentality of races, which is often assumed to be the basis of social
behavior. Mental behavior is closely related to the physiological
functioning of the body and the problem may be formulated as an
investigation of the functioning of the body, in the widest sense of
the term “functioning.”
We have seen that the description of the anatomical traits of a
race in general terms involves a faulty generalization based on the
impression made by the majority of individuals. This is no less true
in regard to the functions, and particularly the mental functions,
of a population. Our characterization of the mentality of a people
is merely a conceptionalization of those traits that are found in a
large number of individuals and that are, for this reason, impressive.
In another population other traits impress themselves upon the mind
and are conceptionalized. This does not {43} prove that, if in a
third population both types are found, it is mixed in its functional
behavior. The objective value of generalizations of this type is not
self-evident, because they are merely the result of the subjective
construction of types, the wide variability of which is disregarded.
Actually the functions exhibited by a whole race can be defined as
hereditary even less than its anatomical traits, because individually
and in family lines the variations are so great that not all the
members of the race react alike.
When the body has completed its growth its features remain the same for
a considerable length of time,--until the changes due to old age set
in. It does not matter at what time we examine the body, the results
will always be nearly the same. Fluctuations of weight, of the amount
of fat, of muscle do occur, but these are comparatively slight, and
under normal conditions of health, nutrition and exercise insignificant
until senility sets in.
It is different with the functions of the body. The heart beat depends
upon transient conditions. In sleep it is slow; in waking, during
meals, during exercise more rapid. The range of the number of heart
beats for the individual is very wide. The condition of our digestive
tract depends upon the amount and kind of food present; our eyes act
differently in intense light and in darkness. The {44} variation in
the functions of an individual is considerable. Furthermore, the
individuals constituting a population do not all function in the
same way. Variability, which in regard to anatomical traits has only
one source, namely, the differences between individuals, has in
physiological functions an added source, the different behavior of
the individual at different times. It is, therefore, not surprising
that functionally the individuals composing a population exhibit a
considerable variability.
The average values expressing the functioning of various races living
under the same conditions are not the same, but the differences are not
great as compared to the variations that occur in each racial group.
Investigations of the functioning of the same sense organs of various
races, such as Whites, Indians, Filipinos and people of New Guinea,
indicate that their sensitiveness is very much the same. The popular
belief in an unusual keenness of eyesight or hearing of primitive
people is not corroborated by careful observations. The impression is
due to the training of their power of observation which is directed to
phenomena with which we are not familiar. Differences have been found
in the basal metabolism of Mongols and Whites and there are probably
differences in the functioning of the digestive tract and of the skin
between Whites and Negroes. Much remains to {45} be done in the study
of physiological functions of different races before we can determine
the quantitative differences between them.
The variability of many functions is well known. We referred before
to the heart beat. Let us imagine an individual who lives in New York
and leads a sedentary life without bodily exercise. Transport this
person to the high plateaus of the Bolivian Andes where he has to do
physical work. He will find difficulties for a while, but, if he is
healthy, he will finally become adjusted to the new conditions. His
normal heart beat, however, will have changed. His lungs also will act
differently in the rarefied air. It is the same individual who in the
new environment will exhibit a quantitatively different functioning of
the body.
We pointed out before that environmental conditions cause in general
but slight modifications of anatomical form. Their effect upon most
functions of the body is intense, as is the case in lower organisms
which are in bodily form subject to important modifications brought
about by the environment. The functions of the organs are adjustable to
different requirements. Every organ has--to use Dr. Meltzer’s term--a
margin of safety. Within limits it can function normally according
to environmental requirements. Even a partly disabled organ can be
sufficient for the needs {46} of the body. Inadequacy develops only
when these limits are exceeded. There are certain conditions that
are most favorable, but the loss of adequacy is very slight when the
conditions change within the margins of safety.
In most cases of the kind here referred to the environmental influence
acts upon different individuals in the same direction. If we bring two
organically different individuals into the same environment they may,
therefore, become alike in their functional responses and we may gain
the impression of a functional likeness of distinct anatomical forms
that is due to environment, not to their internal structure. Only in
those cases in which the environment acts with different intensity or
perhaps even in different directions upon the organism may we expect
increased unlikeness under the same environmental conditions. When, for
instance, for one individual the margin of safety is so narrow that the
environmental conditions are excessive, for another one so wide that
adequate adjustment is possible, the former will become sick, while the
other will remain healthy.
What is true of the physiological functioning of the body is still
more true of mental reactions. A simple example may illustrate this.
When we are asked to react to a stimulus, for instance by tapping in
response to a signal given by a bell, we {47} can establish a certain
basal or minimum time interval between signal and tapping which is
found when we are rested and concentrate our attention upon the signal.
As soon as we are tired and when our attention is distracted the time
increases. We may even become so much absorbed in other matters that
the signal will go unnoticed. Environmental conditions determine the
reaction time. The basal time for two individuals may differ quite
considerably, still under varying environmental conditions they will
react in the same way. If the conditions of life compel the one to
concentrate his attention while the other has never been required to
do so, they may react in the same way, although structurally they
represent different types.
In more complex mental and social phenomena this adjustment of
different types to a common standard is of frequent occurrence. The
pronunciation of individuals in a small community is so uniform that
an expert ear can identify the home of a person by his articulation.
Anatomically the forms of the mouth, inner nose and larynx of all the
individuals participating in this pronunciation vary considerably.
The mouth may be large or small, the tongue thin or thick, the palate
arched or flat. There are differences in the pitch of the voice and in
timbre. Still the dialect will be the same for all. The articulation
does not depend to {48} any considerable extent upon the form of the
mouth, but upon its use.
In all our everyday habits imitation of habits of the society to which
we belong exerts its influence over the functioning of our minds and
bodies and a degree of uniformity of thought and action is brought
about among individuals who differ considerably in structure.
It would not be justifiable to claim that bodily form has no relation
whatever to physiological or mental functioning. I do not believe
that Watson is right when he claims that the whole mental activities
of man are due to his individual experiences and that what is called
character or ability is due to outer conditions, not to organic
structure. It seems to me that this goes counter to the observation
of mental activities in the animal world as well as among men. The
mental activities of a family of idiots will not, even under the most
favorable conditions, equal those of a highly intelligent family,
and what is true in this extreme case must be true also when the
differences are less pronounced. Although it is never possible to
eliminate environmental influences that bring about similarity or
dissimilarity, it seems unreasonable to assume that in the mental
domain organically determined sameness of all individuals should
exist while in all other traits we do find differences; but we must
admit that the organic {49} differences are liable to be overlaid and
overshadowed by environmental influences.
Under these conditions it is well-nigh impossible to determine
with certainty the hereditary traits in mental behavior. In a
well-integrated society we find people of most diverse descent who all
react so much in the same way that it is impossible to tell from their
reactions alone to what race they belong. Individual differences and
those belonging to family lines occur in such a society, but among
healthy individuals these are so slightly correlated to bodily form
that an identification of an individual on the basis of his functions
as belonging to a family or race of definite hereditary functional
qualities is also impossible.
In this case, even more than in that of anatomical form, the range of
variation of hereditary lines constituting a “race” is so wide that
the same types of lines may be found in different races. While so
far as anatomical form is concerned Negroes and Whites have racially
hereditary traits, this is not true of function. The mental life of
each of the individuals constituting these races is so varied that from
its expression alone an individual cannot be assigned to the one or
the other. It is true that in regard to a few races, like the Bushmen
of South Africa, we have no evidence in regard to this point, and
we may suspend judgment, although {50} I do not anticipate that any
fundamental differences will be found.
So far as our experience goes we may safely say that in any given
race the differences between family lines are much greater than the
differences between races. It may happen that members of one family
line, extreme in form and function, are quite different from those of a
family line of the opposite extreme, although both belong to the same
race; while it may be very difficult to find individuals or family
lines in one racial type that may not be duplicated in a neighboring
type.
The assumption of fundamental, hereditary mental characteristics of
races is often based on an analogy with the mental traits of races of
domesticated animals. Certainly the mentality of the poodle dog is
quite different from that of the bulldog, or that of a race horse from
that of a dray horse.
This analogy is not well founded, because the races of domesticated
animals are comparable to family lines, not to human races. They are
developed by carefully controlled inbreeding. Their family lines are
uniform, those of man diverse. They are parallel to the family lines
that occur in all human races, which, however, do not become stabilized
on account of the lack of rigid inbreeding. In this respect human races
must be compared {51} to wild animals, not to selected, domesticated
breeds.
All these considerations are apparently contradicted by the results of
so-called intelligence tests which are intended to determine innate
intellectuality. Actually these tests show considerable differences not
only between individuals but also between racial and social groups.
The test is an expression of mental function. Like other functions the
responses to mental tests show overlapping of individuals belonging
to different groups and ordinarily it is not possible to assign an
individual to his proper group according to his response.
The test itself shows only that a task set to a person can be
performed by him more or less satisfactorily. That the result is
solely or primarily a result of organically determined intelligence
is an assumption that has to be proved. Defective individuals cannot
perform certain acts required in the tests. Within narrower limits of
performance we must ask in how far the structure of the organism, in
how far outer, environmental conditions may determine the result of the
test. Since all functions are strongly influenced by environment it is
likely that here also environmental influences may prevail and obscure
the structurally determined part of the reaction.
Let us illustrate this by an example. One of the {52} simplest tests
consists in the task of fitting blocks of various forms into holes
of corresponding forms. There are primitive people who devote much
time to decorative work in which fitting of forms plays an important
part. It may be appliqué work, mosaic, or stencil work. Others have
no experience whatever in the use of forms. We have no observations
on these people, but it seems more than likely that those who are
accustomed to handling varied forms and to recognize them, will
respond to the test with much greater ease than those who have no such
experience.
Dr. Klineberg has investigated the reactions to simple tests of various
races living under very different conditions. He found that all
races investigated by him respond under city conditions quickly and
inaccurately, that the same races in remote country districts react
slowly and more accurately. The hurry and pressure for efficiency of
city life result in a different attitude that has nothing to do with
innate intelligence, but is an effect of a cultural condition.
An experiment made in Germany, but based on entirely different sets
of tests, has had a similar result. Children belonging to different
types of schools were tested. The social groups attending elementary
schools and higher schools of various types differ in their cultural
attitudes. It is unlikely that they belong by descent to different
{53} racial groups. On the contrary, the population as a whole is
uniform. The responses in various schools were quite different. There
is no particular reason why we should assume a difference in organic
structure between the groups and it seems more likely that we are
dealing with the effects of cultural differentiation.
In all tests based on language the effect of the linguistic experience
of the subject plays an important part. Our whole sense experience is
classified according to linguistic principles and our thought is deeply
influenced by the classification of our experience. Often the scope of
a concept expressed by a word determines the current of our thought
and the categories which the grammatical form of the language compels
us to express keep certain types of modality or connection before our
minds. When language compels me to differentiate sharply between elder
and younger brother, between father’s brother and mother’s brother,
directions of thought that our vaguer terms permit will be excluded.
When the terms for son and brother’s son are not distinguished the
flow of thought may run in currents unexpected to us who differentiate
clearly between these terms. When a language states clearly in
every case the forms of objects, as round, long or flat; or the
instrumentality with which an action is done, as with the hand, with a
knife, with a point; or the source of {54} knowledge of a statement, as
observed, known by evidence or by hearsay, these forms may establish
lines of association. Comparison of reactions of individuals that speak
fundamentally distinct languages may, therefore, express the influence
of language upon the current of thought, not any innate difference in
the form of thought.
All these considerations cause us to doubt whether it is possible
to differentiate between environmental and organic determination of
responses, as soon as the environment of two individuals is different.
It is exceedingly difficult to secure an identical environment even
in our own culture. Every home, every street, every family group and
school has its own character which is difficult to evaluate. In large
masses of individuals we may assume a somewhat equal environmental
setting for a group in similar economic and social position, and
it is justifiable to assume in this case that the variability of
environmental influence is much restricted and that organically
determined differences between individuals appear more clearly.
Just as soon as we compare different social groups the relative
uniformity of social background disappears and, if we are dealing with
populations of the same descent, there is a strong probability that
differences in the type of responses are primarily due to the effect of
environment {55} rather than to organic differences between the groups.
The responses to tests may be based on recognition of sensory
impressions, on motor experience, such as the results of complex
movements; or on the use of acquired knowledge. All of these contain
experience. A city boy who has been brought up by reading, familiar
with the conveniences of city life, accustomed to the rush of traffic
and the watchfulness demanded on the streets has a general setting
entirely different from that of a boy brought up on a lonely farm, who
has had no contact with the machinery of modern city life. His sense
experience, motor habits and the currents of his thoughts differ from
those of the city boy.
Certainly in none of the tests that have ever been applied is
individual experience eliminated and I doubt that it can be done.
We must remember how we acquire the manner of acting and thinking.
From our earliest days we imitate the behavior of our environment and
our behavior in later years is determined by what we learn as infants
and children. The responses to any stimulus depend upon these early
habits. Individually it may be influenced by organic, hereditary
conditions. In the large mass of a population these vary. In a
homogeneous social group the experience gained in childhood is fairly
uniform, {56} so that its influence will be more marked than that of
organic structure.
The dilemma of the investigator appears clearly in the results of
mental tests taken on Negroes of Louisiana and Chicago. During the
World War the enlisted men belonging to the two groups were tested and
showed quite distinct responses. There is no very great difference in
the pigmentation of the two groups. Both are largely mulattoes. The
Northern Negroes passed the tests much more successfully than those
from the South. Chicago Negroes are accustomed to city surroundings.
They work with Whites and are accustomed to a certain degree of
equality, owing to similarity of occupation and constant contact. All
these are lacking among the Louisiana rural Negroes. It is gratuitous
to claim that a more energetic and intelligent group of Negroes has
migrated to the city and that the weak and unintelligent stay behind,
and to disregard the effect of social environment. We know that the
environment is distinct and that human behavior is strikingly modified
by it. We do not know that selection plays an important part in the
migration of the Southern Negro to Northern cities. It is quite
arbitrary to ascribe the difference in mental behavior solely to the
latter, doubtful cause and to disregard the former entirely. Those who
claim that there is an {57} organic difference must prove it by showing
the differences between the two groups before their migration.
Even if it were true that selection accounts for the differences in
the responses to tests among these two groups, it would not have any
bearing upon the problem of racial characteristics, for we should
have here merely a selection of better endowed individuals or family
lines, all belonging to the same race, a condition similar to the often
quoted, but never proved, result of the emigration from New England
to the West. The question would still remain, whether there is any
difference in racial composition in the two groups. So far as we know
the amount of Negro and White blood in the two groups is about the same.
Other tests intended to investigate differences between the mental
reactions of Negroes, Mulattoes and Whites due to the racial
composition of the groups are not convincing, because due caution
has not been taken to insure an equal social background. The study
of mental achievement of a socially uniform group undertaken by Dr.
Herskovits does not show any relation between the intensity of negroid
features and mental attainment. Up to this time none of the mental
tests gives us any insight into significant racial differences that
might not be adequately explained by the effect of social experience.
Even Dr. Woodworth’s observation {58} on the Filipino pygmies are not
convincing, because the cultural background of the groups tested is
unknown.
A critical examination of all studies of this type in which differences
between racial groups in regard to mental reactions are demonstrated,
leaves us in doubt whether the determining factor is cultural
experience or racial descent. We must emphasize again that differences
between selected groups of the same descent, such as between poor
orphan children, often of defective parentage, and of normal children;
and those between unselected groups of individuals representing various
races are phenomena quite distinct in character. In the former case
the results of tests may express differences in family lines. Similar
peculiarities might be found, although with much greater difficulty,
when comparing small inbred communities, for inbred communities are
liable to differ in social behavior. For large racial groups acceptable
proof of marked mental differences due to organic, not social, causes
has never been given.
Students of ethnology have always been so much impressed by the
general similarity of fundamental traits of human culture that they
have never found it necessary to take into account the racial descent
of a people when discussing its culture. This is true of all schools of
modern ethnology. Edward B. Tylor and Herbert Spencer in their studies
of {59} the evolution of culture, Adolf Bastian in his insistence on
the sameness of the fundamental forms of thought among all races,
Friedrich Ratzel, who followed the historical dissemination of cultural
forms,--they all have carried on their work without any regard to race.
The general experience of ethnology indicates that whatever differences
there may be between the great races are insignificant when considered
in their effect upon cultural life.
It does not matter from which point of view we consider culture, its
forms are not dependent upon race. In economic life and in regard
to the extent of their inventions the Eskimos, the Bushmen and the
Australians may well be compared. The position of the Magdalenian race,
which lived at the end of the ice age, is quite similar to that of
the Eskimo. On the other hand, the complexities of inventions and of
economic life of the Negroes of the Sudan, of the ancient Pueblos, of
our early European ancestors who used stone tools, and of the early
Chinese are comparable.
In the study of material culture we are constantly compelled to
compare similar inventions used by people of the most diverse descent.
Devices for throwing spears from Australia and America; armor from the
Pacific Islands and America; games of Africa and Asia; blowguns of
Malaysia {60} and South America; decorative designs from almost every
continent; musical instruments from Asia, the Pacific islands and
America; head rests from Africa and Melanesia; the beginning of the
art of writing in America and in the Old World; the use of the zero in
America, Asia and Europe; the use of bronze, of methods of firemaking,
from all parts of the world cannot be studied on the basis of their
distribution by races, but only by their geographical and historical
distribution, or as independent achievements, without any reference to
the bodily forms of the races using these inventions.
Other aspects of cultural life are perhaps still more impressive,
because they characterize the general cultural life more deeply than
inventions: the use of standards of value in Africa, America, Asia,
Europe and on the islands of the Pacific Ocean; analogous types of
family organization, such as small families, or extended sibs with
maternal or paternal succession; totemic ideas; avoidance of close
relatives; the exclusion of women from sacred ceremonials; the
formation of age societies; all these are found in fundamentally
similar forms among all races. In their study we are compelled to
disregard the racial position of the people we study, for similarities
and dissimilarities have no relation whatever to racial types.
It does not matter how the similar traits in {61} diverse races may
have originated, by diffusion or independent origin. They convince us
of the independence of race and culture because their distribution does
not follow racial lines.