Broca's anthropology(and much of contemporaryand subse- Littlefield,Lieberman, and Reynolds:REDEFINING RACE quent Frenchbiology [Boesiger 1980, Ruse 1981]) to the stress on thedynamics of evolutionary mechanism that has dominated byP.-A. GLOOR muchof biological science since the 1930s.That thedynamics of Ch.duVerger 2, CH-1008Prilly/Lausanne, Switzerland. 30 v 82 the changewere influenced by the emotion-ladensocial dimen- This is an informativeand usefulcontribution to the recent sions mentionedby Littlefieldet al. cannot be denied, but historyof physicalanthropology. The demiseof the conceptof aspects of basic sciencecannot be leftout of the picture.One race in Anglo-Americanstudies is a reality.The conceptis also could make a good case that the veryinstitutions they suggest on the decline,although to a lesserextent, in otherparts of the wereslow to accept the paradigmshift under discussion were world(see Schwidetzky1974, 1979). In my opinion,this is an also the places wherethe ethos of active researchled to the unfortunatetrend, scientifically as well as psychologically. demonstrationof the scientificevidence for the validityof the The authors have carefullyanalyzed various factors: the nontraditionalview. impactof new scientificdata, especiallyin genetics;the chang- I regretthat they have used the terms "splitters" and ing socioculturalcharacteristics of anthropologists;the fear "lumpers"to characterizethe adherentsto the two paradigms that studyinghuman races could be interpretedas condoning underconsideration. These two termshave long been used to racismand imperialism. designatethose who prefermore exclusiveand moreinclusive To the firstof thesethree factors another element might be approachesto dealingwith acceptable taxonomic categories. To added: thelack of disciplineof anthropologists,who have been use themin thepresent context is to guaranteethat the differ- unwillingto obeythe basic ruleof zoological opposing encesbetween the groups they are attemptingto deal withwill the use of synonyms.As a result,we have witnessedthe emer- be blurred.Calling them "categorizers" and "clinalists"would gence of fanciful"races" and of superfluousclassification have been greatlypreferable. In orthodoxtaxonomy, both systems.The wholething is thoroughlyconfusing for everyone. lumpers and splitters accept the existence of population The traditionaltaxonomy has been accused of being pre- categories.Their only argumentconcerns where to draw the Mendelian; it has also been said that its most widely used lines. Clines, however,"apply to characters,not to popula- parameters (height, cephalic index, eye color) have been tions" (Rogers 1954:126). In dealing with human variation, affectedby microevolutionary"secular" changes.In this con- clinalistsmaintain that lines should not be drawn at all and text,the new developmentsof humangenetics have givenrise that only when we trace the distributionand historyof each to doubtsand reassessments;they have also fosterednegative traitseparately in relationto the selectiveforces which control and defeatistattitudes (at least until the geneticistscome up themcan we reallybegin to understandthe natureof human with a new geographicaltaxonomy for the variationsin our biologicalvariation. ). One solutionfor the problemof a highfever is to break the thermometer.Similarly, physical anthropology is in a crisis, bySTANLEY M. GARN and forsome the remedyis to eliminatethe conceptof race Centerfor Human Growthand Development,University of (at least fromour vocabulary)altogether. Thus we have the Michigan,300 NorthIngalls Building,Ann Arbor,Mich. followingscenario: Palaeolithic "raciation" by naturalselection; 48109, U.S.A. 26 Iv 82 thenthe Neolithic, with its social selectionand increasedcross- breedingerasing the "raciation" process; then a unifiedhuman- Thereare threereasons the term"race" appearsless frequently ity withoutdistinct racial boundaries.But this is jumpingto in physicalanthropology textbooks now, but none of these is conclusions. the one imaginedby Littlefield,Lieberman, and Reynolds. Turningto the second and thirdfactors analyzed by the The firstreason is thatthe word "race" has been in supplanted authors,it is indeed true that anthropologistshave had to part by "ethnicgroup" and in part by "population."("Ethnic overcome many ethnocentristand colonialist biases. For group" was introducedas an exact replacementfor "race"; psychologicalreasons, we mustrepeat forcefully that the study "population,"of course, was borrowedfrom population genetics ofhuman races is distinctfrom the fallacious applications which and is appropriatelyambiguous.) sometimesfollow (Gloor 1980). Fear is a bad advisor.Replacing The second reason is that taxonomyhas become of less "race" withother words is an unnecessarymeasure; the sup- interestand concernto physicalanthropologists, as is true in pressionof a term leaves us with the facts of geographical the biologicalsciences in general.This decreasedemphasis on variability.In my opinion,this attitude does nothingto make taxonomyis evidentin the textsand bears mentioning. thingsclearer and onlyhelps feed racism instead of starvingit. The thirdreason is thatphysical anthropologists have found manynew directionsof interest,such as bone ,primate behavior,dental anthropology, demography, epidemiology, and human nutrition.These newerinterests are reflectedin con- byARTHUR R. JENSEN temporarytexts and especiallyin the several journals that Institute of Human Learning, Universityof California, physicalanthropologists support. Berkeley,Calif. 94720, U.S.A. 14 v 82 Whileit is truethat therehas been a greatexpansion in the The substantivecontents of textbooksused in the public numberof doctoraldegrees in physicalanthropology awarded schools,from the elementarythrough the highschool level, are by state-supportedinstitutions, it was never true that the controlledto somedegree by state legislaturesand local school privateuniversities produced an academic"elite." The graduate boards,usually on groundshaving nothing to do withobjective studentswere largely impecunious; they tended to come from scientificconsiderations. To my knowledge,college textbooks the state-supportedschools, and so did the professors.Little- do not sufferany such formallyexplicit and extrinsiccon- fieldet al. shouldnot confoundthe undergraduate students and straintson theircontents. At least in the case of sciencetext- the graduatestudents of such universitiesin theirthinking. books, then, one would expect the changes in the central The moral is that the historyof a conceptcannot be un- theoriesand conceptsseen in textbooksto be a resultof ad- ravelled simplyby settingundergraduate students to count vances in empiricalknowledge which force revision of previous words in textbooks.Even more to the point, it cannot be conceptionsor of new theoreticalformulations which provide a reconstructedby imaginingwhat doctoral students were like in moresatisfactory account of the existingknowledge or afforda the depression,the war years,the yearsof the GI Bill, or the morecomprehensive integration with other fields of study. McCarthyera. Yet the emphasisby Littlefield,Lieberman, and Reynoldsis

Vol. 23 * No. 6 * December1982 649

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 07:35:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions not on factorssuch as these,but on such scientificallyextrinsic to bringto lightother ways of making sense out of thedistribu- influencesas the social and familybackgrounds of those who tionsof variability. teach anthropologyand the characteristicsof the various The "demise"of race seems to me notfundamentally different collegeaudiences that enroll in anthropologycourses. It strikes fromthe "demise" of culturearea as an approach to under- me as surprisingthat Littlefield et al. seemto registerno alarm standingcultural variability. The culturearea concept gave at this state of affairs.Is such a reactionuncalled for when a groundto other analyticalstrategies as essentiallyhistorical fieldthat presumably strives for the statusof objectivescience questionswere replaced by questionsof process and adaptation. is shownto allow one ofits key conceptsto be waftedabout by Indeed,race is to biologicalvariety as culturearea is to cultural the play of social and ideologicalforces on the politicalscene variety,and I wonderif Littlefield,Lieberman, and Reynolds thatare not at all intrinsicallyrelated to the scientificelements regardthe shift away fromthe latter as anotherinstance of the of the argument?If centralconcepts in physicalanthropology "social managementof knowledge." can be pushed aroundby such nonscientificconsiderations as Thereis stillthe questionof timing.The authorscould agree those describedby Littlefieldet al., it would seem to be high with my interpretationand continueto hold that the full timefor those in thefield to take stockof its statusas objective forceof the evolutionaryblow struck when it did because science. I would say the same thingfor my own field (psy- physicalanthropology instruction was extendedfrom elite to chology) and, indeed, for all of the behavioral and human mass institutions.Perhaps, but in retrospectit appearsthat the sciences. transformationof the field was well under way before the Concepts in science,even if we would wish it, cannot be socializationof instructionbegan. As evidenceof thisI would importantlychanged or permanentlykilled offby ideological cite the publicationsof Angel (1948), Boyd (1950), Demerec edicts or by religious,political, or sbocialattitudes. Scientific (1951), and Washburn(1951). These publicationswere signals conceptschange only throughreplacement by new ones which of a basic change in outlook,and they came well beforethe moreclearly comprehend the objectively observable phenomena subject matter began to move out of the institutionsthe that gave rise to them,as oxidationreplaced phlogistonin authorsregard as elite. understandingthe phenomenaof combustion.The same kind CA* treatmentseems always to harden the differences of changecould conceivablyoccur for the conceptof race in broughtto light betweenauthors and commentators,but it our attemptto understandhuman variation,but so far there also offersan opportunityfor questions.I have two: (1) Do certainlyseems to be littleagreement that any suchscientifically the authorssee all of the many changesin the subject matter bona fideconceptual change has occurredin physicalanthro- of physicaltextbooks (during roughly the same period as the pologywith respect to race. treatmentof race was changing)as caused by the spreadfrom Probably the vicissitudesof the race concept are largely elite to mass institutions?and (2) What evidencewould they attributableto the fact that the concept,albeit in a taxo- regardas contradictoryto theirinterpretation? nomically unsophisticatedform, extends far beyond the boundariesof its scientificutility in physical anthropology. "Race" as conceivedin the prevailing"folk taxonomy" (as byTERESA LASKA-MIERZEJEWSKA Littlefieldet al. call it) has many educationally,socially, and Academyof Physical Education, Marymoncka34, 01-813 economicallyimportant correlates, and it is mostunlikely that Warsaw,Poland. 2 vi 82 such conspicuouscovariation of race, as popularlyperceived, In my opinion,the rejectionof the existenceof races or the and socially significantvariables will be ignored,whatever disappearanceof the termin textbookspublished since 1965 is anthropologistsmay say. I thinkthat the properresponse to indeeddue to influencesother than scientificevidence. This is this condition,by all behavioraland biologicalscientists, is to apparentfrom the coincidenceof the seriousrace conflictsin try to understand,by all of the objective scientificmeans theUnited States beginning in theearly 1960s with the increase available, the natureand causes of the observedcovariation in questioningof the scientificprinciple of dividingthe human between racial taxonomiesand socially significantforms of speciesinto races. In Poland, the meaningof races in reference behavior. to human beings became devaluated in the years 1939-45 throughHitlerite racism. Instead we use the term"variety" in application to the three main varieties,white, black, and byJACK KELSO yellow. In English-Americanversions the terms Euro- and Departmentof Anthropology,Campus Box 233, Universityof Afro-Americanhave appeared. Terminologyis, however,a Colorado,Boulder, Colo. 80309, U.S.A. 25 v 82 marginalmatter in the discussionof thisissue. As one who contributed2 of the 58 volumes-one who pre- It is true that physical anthropologyis unable to offera ferredto switchrather than fight-I can onlyagree that there widelyaccepted definitionof race and cannot indicate sharp may be deep meaningin the shiftfrom race to no race, but it boundariesbetween geographical races. Human races,however, did not seem that way at the timeand it does not seem that do exist in the formof populationsdiffering in the frequency way to me now. of appearanceof various genes in spite of the fact that they Race is onlyone ofmany topics that has gonefrom extensive have forcenturies inhabited the same territory,spoken the same to minimalcoverage in physicaltextbooks over the past few language,and professedthe same religion.The removalof the decades.Growth and development,anthropometry, somatology, term"race" fromtextbooks cannot eliminate the centuries-old somatotyping,and craniologycome readily to mindas illustra- justificationfor the existenceof races. The genetic factors tionsof subjectsthat share somewhat the same fateas race. In distinguishingpopulations are oftenenhanced by environmental myview, these changes, together with those the authors discuss conditionsthat allow membersof one race fullyto take ad- concerningrace, are symptomsof a basic shiftin theoutlook of vantage of their genetic potential in body dimensionsor physicalanthropologists (in thiscountry) on thesignificance of intellectualfeatures while members of anotherrace may do so humanbiological variability. I see the changein outlookas an to a lesser degree.This causes differentiationbetween races expressionof the impactof evolutionarytheory, which hit the that is sometimesassociated with a value judgment. The study of human variabilitywith full forcefor the firsttime existencein natureas a wholeof abundantvarieties of lifedoes afterWorld War II. The reason thismay be difficultto see is not justifythis type of evaluationof groups of peopleany more that cause and effectare separatedby nearly100 years.But the than the valuing of one colour of the rainbowmore highly racial approachto humanvariety was set firmlyin place well than the others. beforeDarwin and Wallace,and it tooka long time,especially The denial of the existenceof races is thereforea misunder- in the case of humanbiology, for the evolutionaryperspective standing.With the use of only a fewbody measurementsand

650 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 07:35:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions