“FORTUNATE DEVIATES”: a CULTURAL HISTORY of GIFTED CHILDREN, 1916-1965 By
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“FORTUNATE DEVIATES”: A CULTURAL HISTORY OF GIFTED CHILDREN, 1916-1965 by Nathan Sleeter A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of George Mason University in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy History Committee: ___________________________________________ Director ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Department Chairperson ___________________________________________ Program Director ___________________________________________ Dean, College of Humanities and Social Sciences Date: _____________________________________ Fall Semester 2017 George Mason University Fairfax, VA “Fortunate deviates”: A Cultural History of Gifted Children, 1916-1965 A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy at George Mason University by Nathan Sleeter Master of Arts George Mason University, 2012 Bachelor of Arts University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1999 Director: Michael O’Malley, Professor Department of History and Art History Fall Semester 2017 George Mason University Fairfax, VA Copyright 2017 Nathan Sleeter All Rights Reserved ii DEDICATION To Becky, Maddy, and Samantha iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Research is always a collaborative enterprise and as such I am deeply indebted to all the individuals who read any portion of this draft at any stage and provided feedback. First, my committee of Michael O’Malley, Sharon Leon, and Sam Lebovic consistently provided generous, thoughtful, and challenging feedback at multiple stages. Dr. Leon also organized a writers group of fellow PhD students including Erin Bush, Janelle Legg, Amanda Regan, Spencer Roberts, and Jeri Wieringa who assisted greatly with not only feedback but a much needed sense of community which provided encouragement during what can be an isolating experience. At earlier stages in my writing I also benefitted from the feedback of Dr. Jackie Beatty, Dr. Lindsey Bestebreurtje, Megan Brett, Dr. Jane Censer, John Garnett, Dr. Celeste Sharpe, and Beth Wolny among many others in George Mason history PhD program. This feedback improved my work considerably, but, of course, any errors or omissions are my own responsibility. I am also indebted to my co-workers, especially my supervisor Kelly Schrum, at the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media (RRCHNM) where I have worked since my doctoral program began. RRCHNM is a wonderfully challenging and supportive place to work and it has been energizing to be part of Roy Rosenzweig’s legacy of the democratization of historical scholarship. My hope is that this dissertation continues that tradition in some way. Finally, thank you to my family, my wife, Becky, and my daughters, Maddy and Samantha. Without their patience and support there is no way this project comes close to its inception let alone its completion. Thank you too to my parents, Mike and Lynn, for four decades of encouragement and support. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi Abstract ............................................................................................................................. vii Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Precious Resources: Lewis Terman and the Invention of the Gifted Child ...... 0 Chapter 2. “Aristocracy of excellence”: Leta Hollingworth and Gender-Blind Genius ..... 0 Chapter 3. “Statistical atrocities”: The Nature-Nurture Debate and the Transition away from IQ ................................................................................................................................ 0 Chapter 4. “For the best interests of the social order”: Martin Jenkins and the Creation of Race-Blind Giftedness ........................................................................................................ 0 Chapter 5. Division without Divisiveness: James Bryant Conant and the Cold War Nationalization of Gifted Children ..................................................................................... 0 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 0 References ........................................................................................................................... 9 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1 Birthplaces of Parents and Grandparents of Terman’s Gifted Subjects………..55 vi ABSTRACT “FORTUNATE DEVIATES”: A CULTURAL HISTORY OF GIFTED CHILDREN, 1916-1965 Nathan Sleeter, PhD George Mason University, 2017 Dissertation Director: Dr. Michael O’Malley While the origins of the “gifted child” are firmly rooted in the early twentieth century, the person imagined– that a youth from any background may rise through innate ability – echoes a longer history. This history of “self-made men” and the popular stories of Horatio Alger were similarly premised on the notion that an exceptional few exist among the many and through timely personal assistance and their own hard work could achieve far above their original station. I argue that the idea of the “gifted child” that emerged in the early twentieth century was a continuation of this Algeresque project of identifying and developing children – replacing the discerning wealthy benefactor with a systematic, “scientific” process that could claim to identify these innately intelligent children in an objective and efficient manner for the good of the nation. This new model mirrored in many aspects Frederick Taylor’s scientific management. While scholars have traditionally depicted the IQ test as a means to give scientific authority to racial and class hierarches, I maintain that the aura of objectivity – its criteria initially a neutral number vii on a test developed by scientific experts – had the effect of opening the door for gender- and race-blind claims to giftedness. The idea of the gifted child, then, promised to reconcile notions of democracy and hierarchy by developing the rare talented individual using an efficient and systematic method promoted by psychologist-experts. At the same time, the creation of a “gifted” group at the top of a mental hierarchy necessitated that individuals exist at the bottom – variously and historically classified as the “intellectually disabled,” “mentally retarded,” or the “feeble-minded.” At the same time, advocates frequently looked for ways to temper the cold Taylorite logic inherent in giftedness through sentimental, even Algeresque gestures toward their subjects – while at the same time proclaiming the necessity of efficiently developing the gifted for the national good. viii INTRODUCTION What does it mean to be a “gifted” child? Psychologist Guy Whipple first coined the term in 1919 to describe children who scored in the top percentile of Stanford-Binet intelligence test, the first IQ test.1 Interestingly, Lewis Terman, who not only developed the Stanford-Binet test but who arguably did the most to encourage popular and academic interest in these high IQ children, did not initially favor the term “gifted” instead preferring “superior.”2 This change in language is worth spending a moment to consider. “Gifted” seems to be a something of a retreat from “superior” – a slight shift in expectations from “definitely better” to “potentially better.” Additionally “gifted” implies – according to the anthropological literature on “the gift” – some sort of reciprocal 1 See Jennifer L. Jolly, "Guy M. Whipple." Gifted Child Today 30, no. 1, 2007, 55-57. James Borland, “The Construct of Giftedness,” The Peabody Journal of Education 72, no. 3 &4, 1997, 7; Guy Whipple, Classes for gifted children (Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company, 1919). 2 For example, in two works published in 1919 and 1920 Terman used “gifted” a total of fifteen times and “superior” 197 times. Beginning with a 1921 work, Suggestions for the Education And Training of Gifted Children, Terman used “gifted” fourteen times and “superior” only four. Thereafter Terman used primarily used gifted including in his 1926 longitudinal study of over one thousand high IQ children.. See Lewis. M. Terman, The Intelligence of School Children: How Children Differ in Ability, the use of Mental Tests in School Grading and the Proper Education of Exceptional Children, (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company, 1919); Terman, "The Use of Intelligence Tests in the Grading of School Children,” The Journal of Educational Research 1, no. 1 (1920): 20-32; Terman, Suggestions for the Education And Training of Gifted Children, (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1921). 1 relationship.3 Gift recipients are typically expected to give something in return at some later date. The word “gifted” had been used throughout the nineteenth century but not paired with “children.” An informal survey of nineteenth-century newspapers finds references to “gifted speakers,” “gifted singers,” and “gifted writers.” Women might be said to be “gifted” with grace or beauty. From these examples it is clear that “gifted” referred to an ability or quality that was already apparent or recognizable. Gifted speakers, singers, and writers were (and are) so called because they could speak, sing, and write well. By contrast, what the “gifted” child has been gifted with is a sort of general mental excellence