Hello There, Guest!  
 Previous 1 10 11 12 13 14 40 Next   

[OBG] Nature of Race Full

"Following the end of the Second World War, the study of hereditary differences between both individuals and peoples was morally discredited, largely because it was associated with the more invidious policies of Nazi Germany. After the war, behavioralism, according to which intraspecifc behavioral differences were largely the product of environment and learning, became the dominant international perspective."

The war was used to justify a view that was already becoming dominant. In anthropology, the Boasian school had won out over the hereditarians by the late 1930s, both in academia and among the educated public through books like Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), Patterns of Culture (1934), and Race, Language, and Culture (1940). In psychology, behaviorism was already dominant:

"Behaviorism of one sort or another was an immensely popular research program or methodological commitment among students of behavior from about the second decade of the twentieth century through its middle decade, at least until the beginnings of the cognitive science revolution"
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/

"What I meant is that race and racial differences are not seen as that important"

I'm still not sure there's a difference. Pre-war hereditarians always acknowledged the importance of culture and upbringing. In some ways, present-day HBD writers are arguing for genetic influences where none were suspected before.

"Murray and Herrnstein focused on social class as did Clark."

Not exactly. Clark argued that class differences in fertility had the ultimate effect of changing the English gene pool (i.e., the lower classes were continually being replaced by downwardly mobile people from the middle class).

"I wasn't aware that Vincent Sarich actually did behavioral relate research"

You were listing people who had explored "the societal implications of behavioral population genetics." Vincent Sarich certainly qualifies, as would Linda Gottfredson.

"As for Cochran and Harpending, I mentioned, "and others"."

"Others" includes Mao Zedong, the mayor of Sioux Lookout, and my neighbour's cat. Seriously, it doesn't hurt to give people credit for the work they have done. In the past, I have unintentionally slighted people by not mentioning their contributions.
 Reply
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your input.

You said:

Quote:The war was used to justify a view that was already becoming dominant. In anthropology, the Boasian school had won out over the hereditarians by the late 1930s, both in academia and among the educated public through books like Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), Patterns of Culture (1934), Race, Language, and Culture (1940). In psychology, behaviorism was already dominant:

You seem to focus on the U.S.

What was the status of hereditaranism and racial hereditarianism internationally? I mean, can you give me a rough estimate of percent of expert acceptance by macro region (Continental Europe, Anglo-sphere, Latin America) for 1895-1920 and 1920 to 1945? I'm not sure that the U.S. or even the anglosphere is the best reference point.

I come across a number of claims like:

“Race psychology” claims to explain the characteristics, cultural abilities, and mental traits of nations and peoples by analysing their racial make-up. It postulates that these characteristics or mental traits are linked to races in a hereditary and naturally determined fashion and thus exist independently of “external”, social factors. From this perspective, the physical characteristics of people, in which traditional physical anthropology was predominantly interested, are taken merely as indicators of mental and intellectual qualities. For proponents of race psychology, the specific mental quality of a nation constitutes its identity; at the same time, mental differences constitute the essential differences between nations. Thus defined, race psychology formed the core of the scientific racism which dominated disciplines such as anthropology and psychology in the first half of the twentieth century" (Klautke, E. (2007). German" Race Psychology" and its implementations in central Europe: Egon von Eickstedt and Rudolf Hippius.)

Presumably Klautke means German "anthropology and psychology". I attached some papers from the same book concerning Eastern and Southern Europe.

I guess that I don't have a good idea of how popular, internationally speaking, the ideas were. So I am trying to stay vague -- We would agree that after WWII, behavioralism became internationally dominant, because the US+ USSR then became hegemonic.


Quote:"What I meant is that race and racial differences are not seen as that important"I'm still not sure there's a difference. Pre-war hereditarians always acknowledged the importance of culture and upbringing. In some ways, present-day HBD writers are arguing for genetic influences where none were suspected before.

I would guess that things were different in continental Europe.

I can add names. I think precisely zero people would feel slighted by my not mentioning them, though. And some might feel relieved.

.....

So what is it that we disagree with? Probably this paragraph:

"The outlook never gained a dominant place in science in general [Where?], though it did in national socialist Germany. Following the end of the Second World War, the study of hereditary differences between both individuals and peoples was morally discredited, largely because it was associated with the more invidious policies of Nazi Germany. After the war, behavioralism, according to which intraspecifc behavioral differences were largely the product of environment and learning, became the dominant international perspective [This seems correct]. Ethnic and racial differences were, in turn, seen as environmentally determined and/or as the product of discrimination."

"These analyses differ from raciological ones in a number of respects. For one, while seen as important, hereditary racial differences are viewed as having only modest contemporaneous and historical explanatory power. [Surely, though, HBDers don't believe that the fate of a nation is so dependent on racial compositions, that strict racial eugenics laws are needed; how can I change this to appropriately emphasize the degree of importance? Also, as with behavioral population genetics, the focus is broader than race differences. Generally the concern is with the differential distributions of behavioral traits across space and time (as in the case of dysgenics). For these authors, to the extent that race is sociologically significant it is insofar as races vary in societally important behavioral traits."


Attached Files
.pdf   EugenicsraceSouthcentralEurope.pdf (Size: 4.43 MB / Downloads: 749)
.pdf   Germanracepsychology.pdf (Size: 3.88 MB / Downloads: 311)
 Reply
"You seem to focus on the U.S. What was the status of hereditaranism and racial hereditarianism internationally?"

For better or for worse, the U.S. is the center of the current world-system. When an idea or ideology becomes dominant there, it eventually tends to become dominant elsewhere, partly because of the country's high level of cultural production (books, movies, cartoons, TV programs, etc.) and partly because people elsewhere see it as an example to follow. This is why the race concept has held up better in the former Eastern bloc; the iron curtain blocked the spread of American ways of thinking.

To answer your second question, American antiracism diffused most quickly into other English-speaking countries (Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, etc.). Even in those countries, there was considerable resistance. Australia, for instance, didn't abandon its "White Australia Policy" until 1966. In Western Europe, the picture is more variable. Italian anthropology did not convert to the Boasian school until the 1960s. In general, the 1960s and the 1970s were the period when antiracism became fully internalized.

The same could be said for the United States. For most Americans, the word "racism" did not enter popular use until the 1960s, and popular science books referred to the "races of Man" without quotation marks. It is simply not true that the end of WWII (opening of the death camps to public view, interviews with Holocaust survivors) had a traumatizing effect on the Western world, causing people everywhere to reject racial thinking in any form. That is a later reinterpretation of past events. Whenever I have talked with veterans, none saw the war as a "struggle against racism" and most did not even mention the Holocaust. Again, the war has been reinterpreted and given a new meaning.

I'm not arguing that nothing changed ideologically during WWII. There was much change, particularly among the university-trained elites. But this change was already under way before the war, and it continued long after -- with the biggest changes happening during the 1960s and 1970s. The importance of WWII was largely mythical; it became a morality play that gradually took over the mental space formerly occupied by religion.

"From this perspective, the physical characteristics of people, in which traditional physical anthropology was predominantly interested, are taken merely as indicators of mental and intellectual qualities."

This is silly. Can you point to a physical anthropologist who has made this claim? Has anyone argued, for instance, that the melanization of the skin has a direct impact on mental abilities? I'm not talking about correlations here. I'm talking about genetic linkage.

"I would guess that things were different in continental Europe."

Actually, before the war, hereditarianism was weaker in France than in the United States.

"We would agree that after WWII, behavioralism became internationally dominant, because the US+ USSR then became hegemonic."

You're talking like my doctor. "We're feeling much better now, aren't we?"

"After the war, behavioralism, according to which intraspecifc behavioral differences were largely the product of environment and learning, became the dominant international perspective"

It always was. No one has ever claimed that behavioral differences are largely hardwired. The Nazis did? Well, why did they insist so much on controlling the press, the schools, youth organizations, and the like? Why bother, if behavior is largely hardwired?
 Reply
Peter,

The disagreements seem trivial. If you withdraw approval of the paper on account of my adding the following, let me know:

Quote:Box 4.3. Raciology Versus HBD

In the late 19th and early 20th century, a number of researchers came to see race as a fundamental explanatory variable with regards to global variability in social development, past and present. From this perspective, races differed in traits which were "pregnant with power for weal or woe" on the "present fortunes and ultimate destinies" or peoples (Brinton, 1895). As a result, race quality was associated with social value since the "fate of peoples, tribes, and states depends to a decisive degree on the racial nature of their carriers." (Fischer (1927), quoted in Avdeyev (2007)). The perspective led to a philosophical system, sometimes called raciology, under which "all social, cultural, economic, and political phenomena of human history are explained by the influence of hereditary racial differences in peoples" Avdeyev (2007). The outlook never gained a dominant place in science internationally, though it did in some countries such as national socialist Germany. Following the end of the Second World War, the study of hereditary differences between both individuals and peoples was morally discredited, largely because it was associated with the more invidious policies of Nazi Germany. After the war, behavioralism, according to which genetic influences accounted for little intraspecifc behavioral variance became, internationally, the dominant scientific perspective. Ethnic and racial differences were, in turn, seen as environmentally determined and/or as the product of discrimination. Despite the predominance of behavioralism, interest in the hereditary differences between individuals remained. And the field of behavioral genetics as it is presently know was established in the early 1960s (Gottesman, 2008). During the 1970s to the mid-1990s there was a strong push from the academic left against this and related fields. Nonetheless, during this time behavioral genetics was able to establish the substantial heritability of inter-individual differences. The mounting evidence became so overwhelming that it led to the proposal of the first and second laws of behavioral genetics, according to which "All human behavioral traits are heritable" and "The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effects of genes" (Turkheimer, 2000).

In the early 1970s, the research program of behavioral population genetics was proposed by Lindzey and Thiessen (1970) as a corollary to behavioral genetics. The focus of field was to be global genetic variance in species' behavior. One of the modest goals of the program was to show that the then popular idea of "species-wide uniformity in behavioral adaptations" was untenable and that species were behaviorally polytypic. The scope of the field was to be pan-specific. Lindzey and Thiessen (1970), themselves, conducted their preliminary study on mice, but they made it clear that the research program would extend to humans. The field never took off. As in the case of Jarred Diamond's U.S. best selling book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (1997)", the fate of peoples and states continued to be seen as determined by macro-environmental factors. Such explanations could not account for persistent intrasocietal differences associated with race, though. To fill the gap, an inverted form of raciology (in Avdeyev's sense) evolved. According to this, social, cultural, economic, and political inequalities are explainable by systems of power and cultural oppression; the idea of race, in turn, is a manifestation of this system. Hosang (2014), a proponent of the position, recently articulated the view: "Constructionist theory also argues that race itself is an artifact of power, a historical legacy of colonial expansion, slavery, and mass violence that has shaped much of the past 500 years of world history. In these accounts, race does not form the basis for domination; domination forms the basis for race". Like its mirror image, (racial) constructionism (in Hosang's sense) is an expansive philosophical frame. It is both a way of researching the world and a value system, with (racial) constructionist generally valuing the social deconstruction of race.

Despite the predominance of the constructionist position, the societal implications of behavioral population genetics continued to be explored, for example, by Rushton (1995), Sarich and Miele (2004), Hart (2007), Weiss (2007), Cochrane and Harpending (2009), and Wade (2014). These and other authors have interpreted history and societal development partially through the lens of population and racial behavioral differences. In the 1990s, the term "Human Biodiversity" or "HBD" was adopted by writer Steve Sailer to describe this research. HBD was defined as the "study of biological differences among humans and their impact on society". These analyses differ from older raciological ones in a number of respects. For one, while seen as important, hereditary racial differences are viewed as having only moderate contemporaneous and historical explanatory power. Also, in accord with behavioral genetics, the focus is broader than racial differences. Generally, the concern is with the differential distribution of behavioral and other socially relevant traits both across space and time (as in the case of dysgenics) and within populations (as in the case of sex differences). For these authors, race is sociologically significant insofar as races vary in socially interesting traits.

To reply to some points of your:

Peter:
Quote:For better or for worse, the U.S. is the center of the current world-system. When an idea or ideology becomes dominant there, it eventually tends to become dominant elsewhere, partly because of the country's high level of cultural production (books, movies, cartoons, TV programs, etc.)

The US is now the center. In many fields, Germany was the center in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Was it in anthropology and psychology? It was at least a major center. This is why influential American anthropologists like Boas were German in nationality. So, when we talk about behavioral genetics, individual or populational, in the early 1900s, we shouldn't restrict focus to the US.

Peter:
Quote:I'm not arguing that nothing changed ideologically during WWII.

Again, you are taking a US-centric view. The fact that the US and USSR dominated after WWII was a major change. A center of academic and cultural influence which was more focused on heredity and racial differences was eliminated. It would be similar to if China and Russia, the major current buffers against end of history post-nationalism, both imploded in 2020. And I said: After 2020 post-nationalism became hegemonic. And you said, "well, no actually it was prior, because throughout the West..."

Quote:"From this perspective, the physical characteristics of people, in which traditional physical anthropology was predominantly interested, are taken merely as indicators of mental and intellectual qualities."

This is silly. Can you point to a physical anthropologist who has made this claim? Has anyone argued, for instance, that the melanization of the skin has a direct impact on mental abilities? I'm not talking about correlations here. I'm talking about genetic linkage.

This is an uncharitable reading on your part. I read it as:

[Differences in] the physical characteristics of people, in which traditional physical anthropology was predominantly interested, are taken [as indicators of differences of race which are taken merely as indicators of] mental and intellectual qualities."

Quote:"After the war, behavioralism, according to which intraspecifc behavioral differences were largely the product of environment and learning, became the dominant international perspective"

It always was. No one has ever claimed that behavioral differences are largely hardwired. The Nazis did? Well, why did they insist so much on controlling the press, the schools, youth organizations, and the like? Why bother, if behavior is largely hardwired?

More uncharitable reading. I changed this too:

"After the war, behavioralism, according to which genetic influences accounted for little intraspecifc behavioral variance became, internationally, the dominant scientific perspective."
 Reply
"If you withdraw approval of the paper on account of my adding the following, let me know"

I'll go along with whatever the others have to say. Here and there, you tend to exaggerate things.

"Again, you are taking a US-centric view. The fact that the US and USSR dominated after WWII was a major change."

One could argue that the U.S. was already the leading power before WWI. I would say it clearly was for the period under discussion (circa 1930 to the present).

Why do you write "behavioralism" and not "behaviorism"? If you're not referring to the behaviorist school of psychology, why not use the term "environmental determinism"?
 Reply
(2015-Apr-02, 19:14:39)Peter Frost Wrote: "If you withdraw approval of the paper on account of my adding the following, let me know"

I'll go along with whatever the others have to say. Here and there, you tend to exaggerate things.


I'll either delete the section completely or rework it. I think something should be said, though, about the more outlandish forms of "HBD" that existed in some regions from the 1880s to 1940s.
 Reply
(2015-Jan-30, 04:47:18)Chuck Wrote: I made the edits; also I changed two short sections, which are in red. Could you read them over.

...

I used a different translation of the Kant quote. It should be clearer.

Once you check over the last two changes, I think that we will be good here.


Section 3 :

With regard to your comment that I haven't replied to, I agree with the changes you have made. Generally, the entire section is a strong argumentation against the view that historic concepts of race must involve essentialism, either from the perspective of species realism or character essentialism. I'm curious to know whether (or how much) the guys who defend this view are aware of Kant, Buffon and Blumenbach. For what I've read, they don't cite them. Even among the defenders of the race concept, except John Baker's Race.

Quote:Linnaeus characterized the metaphysics of the systematics of his day, thusly: “Nature makes species and genus, culture makes varieties, art and nature makes classes and orders.”

I don't understand the above statement, especially the bold part. That's my only question; there's nothing else I want to ask here.
 Reply
Section 2 :

Remember, that you haven't replied to this comment :

(2015-Jan-18, 06:00:51)Meng Hu Wrote: One interrogation however concerns the section "II-A. Biological Race" and its subsection "A selection of Definitions of race from the 20th and 21st century" and specifically "2. Biological Anthropological". The four references you have cited seem not to describe the same idea. Or is it just me ?


Section 2 :

I re-read Section II-A, and I have always the same impression. It's frustating. 10 pages of history of race thinking, and I didn't understand what you want to show us (the underlying message). Apparently, it has something to do with the fact that today, thinkers employ the term race in relation to subspecies while centuries ago it meant either species or subspecies. First, this was mentioned only at the end of the entire section, the consequences of that conclusion being not even explicited, and I got lost at the middle of my reading, so I recommend that you explain the purpose of this section at the very beginning of this section. Your article, remember, is long, so it's not easy to stay focused if the intention of the author is not clearly expressed. Think about it if you want your readers to read what you wrote here. Most people would consider that 150 pages of reading is not very motivating, even if the content of your text is fascinating.

Quote:Others, such as Coyne (2012; 2014a; 2014b), define races as morphologically/genetically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry or which evolved differences because they once did.

I don't understand what's in bold.

Quote:In keeping with the etymology of the term “race” (e.g., mfr. razza “race, breed, lineage, family”) and with common usage in biology

This is probably a stupid question but what is mfr. razza ?

Quote:Alland’s argument is doubly strange because he would undoubtedly agree that there is a biological basis to the average differences in skin pigmentation between the “black”, “white”, and “Hispanic” groups. Anyone who recognizes differences in color must concede that a sociological understanding of race does not preclude genetic differences.

Good answer. Alland's argument (that there are no genetic group differences because "biological race" is not a real variable) was perfectly ridiculous, anyway. And the Simpson's (1961) quote earlier in your section 2 seems to me to be an appropriate answer one can make against Alland's affirmation that biological race is not a real variable. Your © "Sociological Race in the United States" is an excellent development of your idea that sociological race does not obscure our understanding of biological race given genetic clustering studies.

Quote:While these are races, insofar as they are natural divisions, races are more than these as races include natural divisions cut out of a continua.

Races are more than natural divisions because they are natural divisions cut out of a continua ? I'm not sure what you want to say, but I'm sure this sentence is not the best way to clarify the idea. Your idea was that cluster analysis is still meaningful despite genetic continuity. This sentence, in my opinion, doesn't add anything to our comprehension.
 Reply
(2015-Apr-03, 03:22:30)Meng Hu Wrote:
Quote:Linnaeus characterized the metaphysics of the systematics of his day, thusly: “Nature makes species and genus, culture makes varieties, art and nature makes classes and orders.”

I don't understand the above statement, especially the bold part. That's my only question; there's nothing else I want to ask here.


Linnaeus was a species realist + creationist. He believed that god created the world and with it species/genus. Therefore "classes and orders" and everything above did not index genealogical relationship, evolutionary history, or anything in the world. These categories were the product of people artfully grouping (art) sets of species/genus (nature) by coincidental general resemblance.
 Reply
Quote:Remember, that you haven't replied to this comment :

(2015-Jan-18, 06:00:51)Meng Hu Wrote: One interrogation however concerns the section "II-A. Biological Race" and its subsection "A selection of Definitions of race from the 20th and 21st century" and specifically "2. Biological Anthropological". The four references you have cited seem not to describe the same idea. Or is it just me ?


Which ones?

Quote:I re-read Section II-A, and I have always the same impression. It's frustating. 10 pages of history of race thinking, and I didn't understand what you want to show us (the underlying message). Apparently, it has something to do with the fact that today, thinkers employ the term race in relation to subspecies while centuries ago it meant either species or subspecies. First, this was mentioned only at the end of the entire section, the consequences of that conclusion being not even explicited, and I got lost at the middle of my reading, so I recommend that you explain the purpose of this section at the very beginning of this section.

That's pretty rough. I mean what do I say?

The section was called "The Genealogy of the Concept". The should explain it. It was about the origin of the concept. And it was written in reply to Frost's claim that I was making the race concept seem to sensible. Hmmm....

Quote:
Quote:Others, such as Coyne (2012; 2014a; 2014b), define races as morphologically/genetically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry or which evolved differences because they once did.

I don't understand what's in bold.

Human races often don't live together. Some East Asians, for example, live in France, while others live in Hong Kong. This doesn't make them not of the same race. Coyne clarifies that contemporaneous allopatry is not the issue. Historic is. Hence they are groups "]which evolved differences because they once [lived in allopatry].

Quote:
Quote:In keeping with the etymology of the term “race” (e.g., mfr. razza “race, breed, lineage, family”) and with common usage in biology

This is probably a stupid question but what is mfr. razza ?

mfr. = modern French

Quote:
Quote:While these are races, insofar as they are natural divisions, races are more than these as races include natural divisions cut out of a continua.

Races are more than natural divisions because they are natural divisions cut out of a continua ? I'm not sure what you want to say, but I'm sure this sentence is not the best way to clarify the idea. Your idea was that cluster analysis is still meaningful despite genetic continuity. This sentence, in my opinion, doesn't add anything to our comprehension.
[/quote]

No...my idea was that isolates are natural divisions, but they are not the only natural divisions -- regions cut out of a continuum are also races. I said:

While these [groups indexed by cluster analysis because there are discontinuities]
are races, insofar as they are natural divisions [i.e., sometimes cluster analysis programs produce nonsense results], races are more than these [discontinuous races] as races include natural divisions cut out of continua.
 Reply
 Previous 1 10 11 12 13 14 40 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)