From Types to Populations: A Century of Race, Physical Anthropology, and the American
Anthropological Association
Author(s): Rachel Caspari
Source: American Anthropologist, Vol. 105, No. 1, Special Issue: Biological Anthropology:
Historical Perspectives on Current Issues, Disciplinary Connections, and Future Directions (Mar.,
2003), pp. 65-76
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567314
Accessed: 03-12-2015 05:35 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
American Anthropological Association and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Anthropologist.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RACHEL CASPARI
FromTypesto Populations:A Centuryof Race,
PhysicalAnthropology,and the American
AnthropologicalAssociation
ABSTRACT Inthe1960s,U.S.physical
underwent
a periodofintrospection
thatmarked
a changefrom
theoldphysianthropology
calanthropology
thatwas largely
racebasedto thenewphysical
Washburn
and
others
for
over
a decade,
espousedby
anthropology,
whichincorporated
theevolutionary
ofthemodern
Whatactually
oftheraceconcepthave
biology
synthesis.
changed?Whatelements
beenrejected,
andwhatelements
havepersisted,
In
I
this
examine
boththescientific
article,
influencing
anthropology
physical
today?
and socialinfluences
on physical
thatcausedchangesintheraceconcept,inparticular
theinfluence
oftheAmerican
anthropology
Association.
Theraceconceptiscomplicated
butentailsthreeattributes:
cladistic
and biologiessentialism,
Anthropological
thinking,
caldeterminism.
Theseattributes
havenotallbeendiscarded;
whilebiological
determinism
anditssocialimplications
havebeenquestionedsincetheinception
ofthefield,essentialism
andtheconcomitant
ofpopulations
as cladespersists
as a legacyofthe
rendering
raceconcept.[Keywords:
race,essentialism,
physical
anthropology]
T
HE EVENTSSURROUNDING
THEPUBLICATION
of
CarletonCoon's TheOriginofRacesin 1962 reflected a major change in U.S. physicalanthropology.Coon
suggestedthatfivemajorracesof humansevolvedin parat fivedifferent
allel fromHomoerectus
timesand at different rates. He furthersuggestedthat each racial lineage
crossedthe sapiens"threshold"at different
timesin preand
that
the
of
time
each
had been
history implied
length
in the sapiensstatewas correlatedwith the level of "culturalachievement"of different
racial groups.Coon contended that Causcasoids and Mongoloids crossed this
thresholdconsiderablyearlierthanAfricans(Negroidsand
a claimthatclearly
Capoids) and Australians(Australoids),
had socialimplications.
Race had held immenseimportancewithinthe field
of physicalanthropologyduringthe time leading up to
the publicationof Coon's work.At the emergenceof the
subdiscipline,race was the major theoreticalfoundation
of anthropology;physicalanthropology
was virtuallysynonymouswiththe studyof race. In 1902, at the inception
of the AmericanAnthropological
Association(AAA),most
anthropologistsconsidered"race" to representthe way
the humanspecieswas internally
subdivided.Essentialism
was implicitin thisidea; a racewas thoughtto represent
a
naturalcategorywithunique featuresthatdefinedthe essenceof thatcategory.'It seemedobviousto manyanthroAMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 105(1):65-76.
pologiststhat thesebiological subdivisionscorresponded
to the social meaningsof race,a notionthatlinkedphysical and behavioralcharacteristics.
This link betweenthe
componentsof an essenceprovidedthe basis forthe biologicaldeterminism
prevalentin the racialthinkingof the
time.Throughoutthe 20th century,race also had an evolutionarycomponent.Raceswereeffectively
thoughtofas
clades. Different
essenceswere explainedas a productof
poorlyunderstoodevolutionaryprocesses,as exemplified
byCoon's notionofindependently
evolvingraciallineages.
The discourseCoon's book spawned contributedto
currentswithinthe fieldthatultimatelyforcedan end to
the old physical anthropologycenteredmainly on the
raceconceptand helpedusherin thenew physicalanthropology,espoused by SherryWashburn,which had been
developingthroughoutthe 1950s. The new anthropology
was eclectic(incorporating
varioussubjectsfromprimates
to genetics)and was an evolutionary
science,whose populationalapproacheswereincompatiblewiththe essentialismcentralto theraceconcept.TheOriginofRacesbrought
to a head the riftswithinphysicalanthropology
as a discipline, the tensionsbetweenthe subdisciplinesof anthropology,and discussionsabout the roleof anthropologyin
the publicarena.
The AAA'sreactionto thebookwas decisive.Washburn,
then presidentof the association, delivereda scathing
COPYRIGHT ? 2003,
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICALASSOCIATION
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66
AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March 2003
addressdenouncingthebook aroundthetimeof itspublicationat theAAAAnnualMeetingin Chicago on November 16, 1962. The publishedversion(Washburn1963) is
much less harsh,focusingon the limiteduse of race as a
valid object of studyand the lack of scientificsupportfor
Public denunciationof
any claims of racial inferiority.
Coon's ideas seemed necessary;segregationists
were alto
their
them
bolster
There
werea
readyusing
arguments.
of
from
the
scientific
variety responses
community.Statementson racewereissuedbyboththeAAAand theAmerican Associationof PhysicalAnthropologists
(AAPA).Several edited volumes appeared throughoutthe 1960s
critiquingthe race concept.In 1966, MargaretMead and
Theodosius Dobzhanskyorganizedan AmericanAssociation forthe Advancementof Science (AAAS)symposium
meantto deliverthe scientificvoice againsta popularracism based on "misinformation"
and "evil myths"about
race.As embodiedby itsorganizers,
the symposiumrepresentedan alliancebetweenBoasian culturalanthropology
and evolutionarybiology,includingdiverseperspectives
fromwithinanthropology,
genetics,ethnology,psychology, and sociology.With few exceptions,most anthropologists had become opposed to hereditarianclaims
about race and intelligence,
and manywerenow skeptical
of the race conceptitself.What became clearby the mid1960s was thatrace was no longera unifyingconceptin
mainstreamphysicalanthropology,
justas it had ceased to
be a unifyingconcept foranthropologyas a whole since
Boas's workon race a halfcenturyearlier.In physicalanthropology,race was now a divisiveconcept. Although
Washburnhad publishedhis ideas about the new anthropologyearlier,this periodmarkeda turningpoint in the
on the
discipline,withgreaterinstitutionalintrospection
race concept.Some have even arguedthat it markedthe
demiseof theraceconcept.
Severalfactorsinfluencedchangingviews about race
withinphysicalanthropologyduringthis time. First,social factorspromptedscientiststo challengeassumptions
ofbiologicaldeterminism
and intellectualinferiority
associatedwiththe race concept.The Holocaustin the 1930s
and 1940s and the controversy
school desegsurrounding
regationin the early1960s may have been the most importantexamples.Anothercomponentof social pressure
resultedfromthe relationshipbetweenanthropologyand
interestin raceand racialinequality,an ingovernmental
terestthat had promotedthe "racialization"of U.S. anthropologyin the firstplace. Second,the race conceptitselfwas challengedby thepopulationalprinciplesespoused
in the modernsynthesis;evolutionaryideas were incompatiblewith the essentialistfoundationsof the race conviewsofpopulationand clines,based
cept,and alternative
frompopulationgenetics,led
largelyon understandings
manyscholarsto considerrace an invalidtool forunderstandingbiologicalvariation.Finally,theevolutionofU.S.
fromitsemergenceas a subfieldto
physicalanthropology,
the presentday, has been influencedby its relationship
withthe restof anthropology-specifically,
four-field
an-
that
thropologyas embodiedby the AAA.It is interesting
as earlyas 1894, a quartercenturypriorto the emergence
of physicalanthropologyas a truesubdiscipline,Boas began to challengethe race concept. By the time physical
anthropologyclearlyemergedin the 1920s,Boas's followers held some of the mostpowerfulpositionswithinU.S.
anthropologyand were a dominant voice in the AAA.
Therefore,the racial physicalanthropologythat was rejectedin the 1960s developedwithina broaderanthropologicalcontextthathad been grapplingwiththe raceconcept foryears;partsofthatcommunityalreadyquestioned
overthe
race,and the AAAhad been involvedin struggles
issue of race betweenanthropologyand governmentpolicies and funding,as well as strugglesbetweenanthropologyand othersciences.The rejectionofrace in the 1960s
was not so new;itwas a partoftheheritageof physicalanthropologywithinU.S. anthropology.
This historysuggeststhatthe raceconcepthas no remaininglegacyin physicalanthropology.What actually
changed?Is the race conceptreallydead? What elements
of the race conceptstillpersistand influencephysicalanthropology
today?In thisarticle,I addressthesequestions,
themwithinthecontextofthe scientific
and
investigating
social influenceson mainstreamphysicalanthropology
thatwere a major forcein the evolutionof the race concept. I arguethatsome elementsof the raceconceptwere
in factrejected,but thatothersremain,subtlyinfluencing
ourviewsofwhatwe todayterm"populations."
THEATTRIBUTES
OF THERACECONCEPT
The race concept that was examined and rejectedby so
manyin the 1960s includesassumptionsabout the cause
and natureofgeographicand otherkindsofvariation.The
historybehind these assumptionshas helped createthe
conceptthatwe grapplewithtoday.Althoughforthe last
100 years the race concept has been thoughtabout in
terms,its most fundamentalelements
quasi-evolutionary
areessentialism,
These
clades,and biologicaldeterminism.
attributesare clearlyrelated,and all of them have informedthe theoriesabout human variationin physical
The raceconcepthas changed,yettheseatanthropology.
tributesof racehave not all changedtogether.While bioand its social implicationshave been
logicaldeterminism
questioned since the inceptionof the field,essentialism
and the concomitantrenderingof races as clades have
been less amenableto change.
Essentialism
The racesdefinedby the Westernrace conceptwerecodifiedby Linnaeus(1758) and by the definitive10thedition
ofSystemae
Naturae,in whichhe describedfivesubspecies
of humans,listingforeach typeboth the morphological
and behavioralcharacteristics
thatwereconsidereda part
of the essenceof the category.These wereimplicitly(and
explicitly)understoodto be partof theintrinsicbiologyof
the race. European prejudiceswere clearlyincorporated
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Caspari * Race:FromTypesto Populations 67
into Linnaean typologiesand taxonomiesintegralto the
naturalhistorytradition.Fromitsveryinception,the race
conceptembodiedboth essentialismand biologicaldeterminism.
In manycases thisessentialism(and the naturalhistorycontextto whichit applied) renderedthinkingabout
raceverysimilarto thinkingabout biologicalspecies.This
is exemplifiedin the polygenismso prevalentin the U.S.
and Frenchschools of thoughtthat dominatedmuch of
anthropologyforthe firsthalfof the 19th century(Brace
1982; Stanton1960; Stocking1968; Wolpoffand Caspari
1997).
Even afterthe widespreadacceptance of evolution
and manyelementsof Darwiniantheory,a formof polyscientists
genismcontinuedto thrivebecauseevolutionary
an
retained
essentialist(and racial) perspective.Taxonomiccategories,includingsubspecificones,continuedto
be conceptualizedas discretegroups,whiletheessencesof
the categorieswereexplainedas productsof separateevolutionaryhistories.Races,like speciescategories,weredepictedas brancheson an evolutionarytree,whose differences could now be explainedthroughtheirindependent
rates.
evolution,at different
Clades: EvolutionaryEssentialism
Conformingto the Darwiniannotionof the commondemodels
scentof all species,treemodelsbecameappropriate
fordiagrammingthe relationshipsbetweenspecies.After
splittingfroma common ancestor,two daughterspecies
difisolatedby definitionand represent
are reproductively
intuitiveessenferentbranchesof a phylogeny.Therefore,
tialismand older treemetaphorsdid not impede understandingof evolutionaryprocessesat the species level,
because the categoriesare discrete.However,the storyis
below the specieslevel,because branching
quite different
cannot accuratelyreflectrelationshipsbetween groups
thatexchangegenes.
The essentialistlink betweendepictingvariationbetweenspeciesand variationwithinthe humanspecieswas
nowherecleareror moreinfluentialthan in the worksof
ErnstHaeckel.Haeckelused evolutionarytreesbothto describetheplace ofhumansin thenaturalworldand therelationshipsof human races within the human species.
of
This had unfortunateimplicationsforunderstandings
human variation.As Linnaeantaxonomywas "evolutionized" and relationshipsamong taxa expressedin termsof
evolutionarytrees, human races, like species, became
branches(or twigs)on the tree,each with its own definable essence. This approach providedscientificexplanahuman groupswere effections forhuman differences;
could
tivelyspecieson a smallerscale, whose differences
be accountedforthroughindependentevolution.
Throughoutthe 19th and 20th centuries,the use of
phylogeniesto characterizehuman relationshipsin sociopolitical spheres provided the conceptual underpinTheyprovidedjusningsof Westernracialclassifications.
tificationfor"interracialcompetition"(Keith 1936), the
basisforclaimsof thebiologicalinferiority
of socialclasses,
and supported
social
institutions
fromslavery
unjust
ranging
to various eugenic policies and the applied biology of
Nazism (Gasman 1971; Stein 1988; Wolpoffand Caspari
1997).
The assumptionof monophylyimplicitin treemetaphorswas made explicitwiththe generalconcensusthat
treebranchesare clades,definedas monophyleticgroups.
A monophyleticgroupincludesan ancestraltaxon and all
its descendents;clearly,races are not monophyleticand
Yet treebranches
theirdepictionas cladesis inappropriate.
of
are theunderlying
race
as a naturalcaterepresentation
of
and
the
betweenraces.
evolutionary
gory,
relationships
This construction
underliesmuch of the thinkingpresent
the historyof U.S. physicalanthropology.
throughout
Biological Determinism
is implicitto the raceconcept,and
Biologicaldeterminism
it is this component that has been most ardentlyaddressedby the fieldbecause of its obvious social implications. In the 1960s, biological determinismwas a focal
school depointofimportantcurrentissues(in particular,
and
it
was
this
in
because
attribute
the
South),
segregation
was at thecenterofpoliticaldiscussionsthatmanyin the
anthropologicalcommunityof the 1960s foundit importantto address.
anthropologyembodied both a
Nineteenth-century
racial thinkingand evolutionismthat explainedcultural
variation.At the Turnof the Century,virtuallyall social
scientistswereevolutionists,holdingthe idea that primitive races and theirculturesrepresentedstagesin evolulengthson an evotionaryhistoryor branchesof different
tied
Different
scholars
tree.
biologyand culture
lutionary
were
moredeterministic
in
some
different
ways:
together
as
saw
than others,some
biology influencingcultural
change,otherslike Lewis HenryMorgan(1877, reprinted
in 1964), forexample,thoughtcultureaffectedbiological
changein the brain,in a Lamarckiansense. However,biolofculturaldifogywas usuallyconsideredthe determinant
as it was practicedthroughout
ferences.Anthropology,
much of the 19th century,was a singlebioculturaldiscipline,withrace linkingthe components.FranzBoas sevand while not
eredthisconnectionforU.S. anthropology,
all anthropologists
agreedwithhim,he and his followers
forceda kindof introspection-biological(racial)determicould no longerbe acceptedas
nismofculturaldifferences
a blanketassumptionin U.S. anthropology.
is nota necessarypartofracial
Biologicaldeterminism
be
and
can
rejectedwithoutthe rejectionofthe
typologies
thehistory
oftheAAA,
raceconceptas a whole.Throughout
the
validityof racial
many anthropologistsquestioned
of culturalcapacitieswithoutcompletelyredetermination
jectingthe race concept and its underlyingessentialism.
ofthe
in general,thebiologicaldeterminism
Nevertheless,
in
entrenched
race conceptwas deeply
anthropologyas a
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68
AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March2003
major assumptionof racial studies,and in Europe,racial
was a majorcomponentof anthropological
anthropology
thought.
U.S. PHYSICALANTHROPOLOGYIN THECONTEXTOF
THEAAA
In the UnitedStates,ironically,giventhe influenceof the
earlier"AmericanSchool," race had become somewhat
less importantthan in Europeananthropology.Becauseof
its emergencewithin(or in some cases beside) the broader
anthropologicaltraditionembodied after 1902 by the
moreof a
AAA,physicalanthropologyalwaysrepresented
strugglebetweenracial (i.e., those who focusedon race)
and nonracialelements--orshould I say "less-racial"elements,because the race conceptreallyunderlayall thinking about human variation.To some extent,the new
physicalanthropology
espousedby Washburnrepresented
a realliancewith the Boasian partsof anthropologythat
had questionedthe assumptionsof the race conceptsince
the 1890s.
Boas
The storyof racein U.S. anthropology(includingphysical
anthropology)cannot be discussedwithoutreviewingthe
roleof Boas and the AAA.This has been treatedby a large
numberof Boas scholars(to name a few:Cole 1999; Stocking 1968; Williams1996), and I onlybrieflyoutlinethese
relationshipshere to underscorethe professionaland politicaltensionsaffecting
as itemerged
physicalanthropology
as a subdiscipline.
Until the 1920s, there were reallyno U.S. degrees
awardedin what would be specifically
considered"physical anthropology."Nevertheless,
race and racial assumptionsstillplayedan important,
ifsecondary,
rolein anthropology.The fieldfocusedon NativeAmericanethnology
and archaeologyand was descriptive;
even while
therefore,
race may have been considereda cause of culturalvariation,itwas not emphasized.The pre-Darwinian
polygenist
AmericanSchoolofSamuelMortonhad no students,
and althe
Louis
though
polygenistzoologist
Agassiz produced
Fredrick
Ward Putnam,who had a fundamentalinfluence
on the developmentof anthropology
in the UnitedStates,
Putnam'sinterestwas archaeology,notrace.
As anthropologyemergedas a professionat the Turn
ofthe Century,a commitmentto NativeAmericanstudies
and theidea of professionalization
(i.e.,trainingin anthropologyratherthanrelateddisciplines,orworse,none at all)
was what held the earlyassociationtogether,in spiteof
earlydivisionsbetweenthe "Washingtonians"and "Boasians" along this veryline (Stocking1968). Boas was responsibleforthe four-field
trainingof manyearlyPh.D.s
in U.S. anthropology,even those fromoutside his home
institution(Columbia). Unlike the European model for
anthropology,Boas thought trainingin anthropology
should includeall subdisciplines,as did his own research.
At Harvard,Putnamconcentratedon archeology,the fo-
cus of most of the 15 Ph.D.s Harvardproducedbetween
1894-1919. Yet,manyofthesestudentsalso trainedunder
Boas in ethnology,linguistics,
and physicalanthropology
in the trainingof Har(Cole 1999). Boas was instrumental
vard studentssuch as RolandDixon (who was laterto become an influenceon EarnestHooton's racialthinking)as
well as his own famousdescendentsfromColumbia. By
would head every
1926, Boas's students(or sympathizers)
in thecountry(Stocking1968).
majordepartment
It is sometimesforgotten
that Boas was a practicing
physicalanthropologistearlyin his career,probablythe
onlyone trainingstudentsin theUnitedStatesat theTurn
of the Century.In 1894, Paul Topinard(the preeminent
Frenchanthropologistof his time,and studentof Broca)
wrote that Boas was "the man, the anthropologist,I
wishedforin the UnitedStates"(Stocking1968:166).
Boas receivedhis Ph.D. in physicsin 1881 butby that
time had become a geographer.Previouslyuntrainedin
he soughtguidancefromAdolphBastianin
anthropology,
and
ethnology
Rudolph Virchowin physicalanthropolbefore
ogy
leavingBerlinforBaffinIsland. Boas muchadmiredVirchow,who trainedhim in anthropometrics
(Cole
1999; Stocking1968). LikeVirchow,Boas was interested
in
physiologicalprocessesand never became a Darwinian
(i.e., selectionist),althoughhe did recognizecommondescentand humanevolutionary
to thenatural
relationships
world.Likemanyothersof his time,Boas had Lamarckian
ideas (see Wolpoffand Caspari 1997: ch. 8) and neverunderstoodselection.He acceptedtheviewof manyGerman
scientiststhat selectioncould only effectsmall changes
as Franz Weidenreichcalled them), not
(Kinkerlitzchen,
ones.
Moreover,and, perhaps,more importantly,
large
Boas consideredVirchow'smost significantlegacyto be
the organizationof the fieldin Germany,and, later,Boas
consciouslysoughtto be a similarfigurein U.S. anthropology(Stocking1968).
In the UnitedStates,Boas continuedto make contributionsto physicalanthropology,
whichhe recognized,as
did everyoneat the time,as racial studies.However,insteadof acceptingthe assumptionsofthe raceconcept,he
treatedthemas objectsofinquiry.He wound up rejecting
biological determinismratherearly in the game, and,
later,his workquestioned the validityof human types,
thus challengingthe essentialismat the core of the race
concept.However,he neverreallyrelinquishedessentialist
notions of major races-broad geographicentities-even
as he questionedthe validityof human typesforsmaller
racial categories,such as variousnationalities(e.g., "Nordics" or "Alpines").
His strongestcontributions
to physicalanthropology
werestatistical,
whichhe appliedto studiesofmetrichuman
variation.He was veryinterestedin the new biometrics
being advancedby FrancisGalton and KarlPearson,with
whom he corresponded,
and he developedhis own methods of analysisas well. A major outcomeof these studies
was his appreciationoftheimportanceofvariation,which
he used laterto critiquethe idea of racialtypes.This can
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Caspari * Race: FromTypesto Populations 69
be juxtaposedwith Hooton's use of Pearson'sbiometrics
yearslater,whichhe used less criticallyto delineateracial
types.Hooton influencedthe developmentofa race-based
physicalanthropologyin the UnitedStates;Boas and his
to itsdemise.
legacycontributed
By the time Boas came to Columbia in 1896, he was
deeply concerned with questions of race and had researchedproblemsof variationand change. He was alreadydevelopinghis ideas of relativism,sparkedby his
1884 expeditionto BaffinIsland,and by then had largely
rejectedthe idea that race determinedculturalachievement.As earlyas 1894, he explicitlyrejectedracialdeterminismof culture:"Historicaleventsappearto have been
much more potent in leading races to civilizationthan
theirfaculty,and it followsthatachievementsof racesdo
not warrantus to assume that one race is more highly
giftedthananother"(Boas 1894:303).
He thoughtphysicalanthropologywas importantin
historicalrelationships
understanding
amongpeoples,but
even acceptingraces as "real,"he recognizedthe importanceof environment
and historyas influenceson human
Boas was interestedin growthand
and
behavior.
biology
as
a
critical
partof physicalanthropology,
development
the
conditions
(environmentaland hereditary
especially
that
affectson growth)
influencedthe modificationofinheritedform.Priorto movingto Columbiain 1896, he initiateda studyof Worcesterschoolchildrenin which he
statisticallydemonstratedthe problems with inferring
longitudinal informationfrom cross-sectionalstudies
(and, thus,advocatedforlongitudinalstudiesin growth)
and emphasizedforthe firsttimethe importanceof variation in temposof growth.Thus, beforethe Turnof the
Century,he was lookingat human variationin nonracial
ways,more interestedin the impactof the environment
(includingculture)on biologythan the affectof biology
(race)on culture.
AmericanIndianracialissuesforthe
Boas investigated
BritishAssociationfor the Advancementof Science. He
looked for relationshipsbetween heredityand environbetweenreservation
mentunderlyingphysicaldifferences
Indians of the NorthPacific
and nonreservation-dwelling
Coast. He also looked at problemsof racialadmixturein
"half-blood"Indians,rejectingpolygenistassumptionsof
in racialhybrids.In these"mixed"popureducedfertility
variationin cranialproportions,
he
also
examined
lations,
he noted the distribufacial
breadths-where
including
tionwas bimodaland not normal.In theseand otherstudies, averagesdid not representthe "type."He laterundermined the conceptof "type,"questioningits meaning:If
the"type,"whatdid?Whatwas
averagesdid not represent
oftraits,not theconformawas thedistribution
of interest
tion to typesor the creationof new,intermediate
typesin
thatwas criticalto the race conthe case of interbreeding
cept. His mostfamousworkregardingracewas performed
between 1908-10 on head shape in U.S. immigrants,
funded (somewhat ironically)by the U.S. Immigration
Commission,which was seekinga scientificbasis to re-
strictimmigration.
In a studyof over 18,000 immigrants,
he found changes in head formthat underminedthe
dogmaof thestabilityof racialtypesand the Europeanfocus on head shape as a major indicatorof race. He could
not explainthe causes of change,althoughhe considered
themin some way "environmental"
and, as an empiricist,
that
what
was
argued
importantwas the documentation
of thechangeitself.Throughhis workon racialquestions,
Boas challengedboth biologicaldeterminism
and the nature of racial categories,two criticalcomponentsof the
race concept.These challengeswere a centralpartof anthropologicalthinkingin the U.S. beforeHooton started
producingPh.D.sin physicalanthropology.
"Racializing" PhysicalAnthropology
Both governmentaland privateforcespromotedthe renaissanceofthe "scienceof race"in U.S. anthropology
durWorld
War
counter
to
the
traditions
develI, running
ing
However,therewere
opingin muchof U.S. anthropology.
also tensionsbetween Boasians and other,at the time,
smallerfactionsof the AAAwho weresympathetic
to the
anthropologistsassociated with Washingtoninstitutions
thatuntilHooton
(Stocking1968). It mustbe remembered
startedproducingPh.D.s at Harvardin 1925,therewas no
specifictrainingin physicalanthropologyin the United
States.Only six U.S. Ph.D.s in physicalanthropologyhad
been awardedpriorto 1925-five of thesefromHarvard,
trainedby specialistsin otherdisciplines.Ales HrdliEka,
the founderofAmerican
in
Journal
ofPhysicalAnthropology
1918, and AAPAin 1928, had no studentsin his position
at theNationalMuseumofNaturalHistory.
Duringthe second decade of the 20th century,many
scholarswho claimedto representphysicalanthropology
were actually eugenicistsfrom other disciplines (that
claimed scientificsuperiority
to anthropology),
and some
wereverypowerfulin theU.S. scientific
politicalstructure.
Theseincludedmembersofthe GaltonSociety,whichwas
dedicatedto the studyof racialanthropology,
such as the
Fairfield
Osborn
(then
paleontologistHenry
presidentof
the AmericanMuseumof NaturalHistory),and the biologistsRaymondPearland JohnC. Merriman(head of the
NationalResearchCouncil [NRC]).Manyin the anthropologicalcommunitysaw themas a threat;theywereracial
deterministswith a political agenda, and the BoasiandominatedAAAdid not acceptthemas anthropologists.
Therewas clearlya need forphysicalanthropologists
trainedwithinanthropology.
This dearthbecame veryapwhen
the
National
Research
Councilsoughtto form
parent
an anthropology
whichwas to deal withphysicommittee,
cal anthropologyand eugenics.Aside fromHrdliekaand
Boas, therewerefewphysicalanthropologists
recognized
by the AAAto serve(Stocking1968). Madison Grantand
Charles Davenport,ardentracistsand eugenicists,founders of the Galton Societywith strongpoliticalagendas
and tiesto Washington,servedon the originalcommittee.
Whilethe AAArefusedto recognizeGrantor Davenportas
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70
AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March 2003
thereremainedenormouspressureon ananthropologists,
to
thropology "racialize,"both from the government,
which had become increasinglyinterestedin restricting
immigrationon racialgrounds,and fromthe eugenicinterestscontrollingothermajor fundingsources.Members
of the Galton Societyincluded the heads of institutions
thathad been (or potentiallycould be) importantsources
of anthropologicalfunding.By the 1920s, fundingincreasedforstudiesof race and racialpsychology.U.S. anthropologistsrespondedto this fundingincreaseand to
criticismsthat they neglected biology and the racial
makeupofthe U.S. byexpressingmoreinterestin physical
anthropology.Ironically,severalof Boas's students(e.g.,
Mead, Herskovitz,
Klineberg)werefundedby NRC fellowships in the biological sciences forworkthat supported
the culturalbasis forracial differences,
and Boas himself
these
sources
for
his
own
work
on race. Other
exploited
studentsof Boas, such as AlfredE. Kroeber(and Roland
Dixon), as well as more conservativenon-Boasian elements of the anthropologicalcommunity,also became
moreinterested
in physicalanthropology,
placingthe race
concept and eugenicsat the focus of the emergingnew
physicalanthropology.
Hooton
EarnestHooton was one of the mostinfluentialfiguresin
physicalanthropology(Giles 1999). He was a professorat
Harvardfrom1913 until his death in 1954 and was responsible fortrainingvirtuallyan entireacademic field,
spawningseveralgenerationsof studentswhen fewother
universities
offeredphysicalanthropologyas partof their
curricula.Hooton's Ph.D. (in 1911 fromWisconsin)was in
classics.He had littlebackgroundin anthropology,
and it
took some time to get his programoffthe ground,but
startingin 1926, a floodof Ph.D.s in physicalanthropology emergedfromHarvard.Withina fewyears,physical
and
anthropologywas a majorpartof U.S. anthropology,
this was reflectedin AAAmembershipand the developmentoftheAAPA.
Race studiescame to be the focusof Hooton's career,
but he formedhis ideas about race and physicalanthropologyin generalafterhe came to Harvard.His workwas
typologicaland manifested,like Haeckel's,as an "evolutionarypolygenism"(Wolpoffand Caspari1997). Hooton's
Harvardcolleague, Dixon, influencedhis views on race;
Hooton's 1931 classification
is verysimilarto Dixon's 1923
classification.
The polygenismof Hooton and Dixon was complicated,groundedin the beliefin once-pureracesthathad
separateevolutionaryhistories.Likemanyotherscientists
with fundamentallypolygenistideas, they understood
thatpresenthumanvariationcould not be accommodated
withina fewracial types.Hooton thoughtthat the complexity of human variation could be accounted for
betweenonce-pureprimaryracial
throughinterbreeding
groupsthatrelatively
recentlyunderwenta secondaryrace
formationstage and then a tertiary
stage--ineach stage,
ones. Thus,they
hybridracesformedfromthe preexisting
argued,pure racesexistedand persistedinto the present,
but secondaryand tertiary
racesformedmorerecentlyin
human evolutionthroughhybridization.
Hooton's views
were stillessentialist;he believedin "pure" races,but he
realizedthata fewracialtypescould not accountforreal
observablevariation.
Hooton'sthinkingabout racehad all the attributes
of
the race concept;he was an essentialist,
he explainedthe
essencewithevolutionary
branches,and he was a biological determinist
as is clearlyshown in his eugenicwriting
(Hooton 1937, 1939; Wolpoffand Caspari 1997). Given
this, Hooton's views on racismcould appear paradoxical
(Wolpoffand Caspari 1997). While he believed in races,
and even in "racialcharacter,"he was more active than
most membersof the academic communityin antiracist
activities,enteringinto a relationshipwith Boas that
Barkantermed"the frustrated
antiracistcampaignof an
odd anthropologicalcouple" (1988:182). Aftermany attemptsto mobilizethe academic communityagainstracism,Boas turnedto Hooton,who senta statementhe had
authoredto seven leading U.S. physicalanthropologists
outlininghis view on the stateof scientificknowledgeof
race differences.
Amongotherthings,he concludedthata
correlationbetweenphysicalfeaturesand mentalability
had not been demonstratedand that therewas insufficient scientificevidence to assign evolutionaryranksto
races.Only Hrdli6kawould sign it. In 1936, Hooton then
published his own "Plain Statementabout Race" in Science,speakingagainstthe racismunderlyingNazism. In
of attemptsto organ1940, as Hooton realizedthe futility
ize even the AAPAagainstracism,his studentWilliamW.
Howellsasked him what could be done. He replied:"Not
only has the horsebeen stolen,but thebarnhas also been
burnt"(Barkan1988:203).
It is hardto overestimate
theimportanceofHootonto
U.S. physicalanthropology.
Hooton'sthinkingon racewas
adoptedby some ofhis students,rejectedby others,but in
eithercase, it stronglyinfluencedsubsequentgenerations
of scholarsbecauseit limitedtheirunderstanding
ofdifferent ways of interpreting
intergrouprelationships.Even
studentssuch as Howells,who largelyrejectedHooton's
inherited
essentialist
views(Caspariand Wolpoff
polygenism,
1996; Wolpoffand Caspari 1997). For instance,Howells
was so conditionedby polygenicmodels that he did not
interpretFranz Weidenreich'spolycentricmodel of human evolutionas a network,
as it was originally
presented
(Weidenreich1946). Followingan initialexchangein the
American
Anthropologist
(AA) (Howells 1942; Weidenreich
1940), Howells describedWeidenreich'sideas as a polygenic tree (the "candelabra").Even afterdiagramsof the
trellisappeared (Weidenreich1946, 1947), Howells continuedto depictit as a candelabrain numeroussecondary
sourcesand textbooksthroughout
his career(e.g., Howells
1959,1993).Itmaybe thatHowellswasinpartreacting
tothe
polygenismof R. RugglesGates, a racistplant geneticist
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Caspari * Race:FromTypesto Populations 71
who derivedsupportfrombothHootonand Coon, thinking
Weidenreichsharedtheseviews(Gates 1944; Wolpoffand
disavowed
(1946) specifically
Caspari1997).ButWeidenreich
and the candelabraHowellsdescribed
Gates'spolygenism,
was actuallymore like Hooton's model,and not Weidenreich's."Tree-thinking"
permeatedphysicalanthropology;
likeHowell'sdepictionofWeidenreich's
mostscholars
trellis,
saw the"candelabra"as a reasonablesimplification
(perhaps
an oversimplification)
of a trellis,but one thatrepresented
thesameprocesses.Depictionsofgeneflowwereignored-a
legacyoftheraceconcept.
Hooton'sbrand
Nevertheless,
althoughveryinfluential,
of racesciencedid not permeatephysicalanthropologyin
the UnitedStatesforlong. It was nevertheoverwhelrhing
traditionthat it had been in Europe,and his students,
only a single generationlater,were responsiblefor the
new physical anthropologythat disavowed the importance of race. Washburn,the most well-knownamong
these,activelyrejectedthe racialthinkingofhis mentor;it
thatWashburn'sfirstjob was at Columis not surprising
influencedby
where
he joined those predominantly
bia,
the Boasians,includingAshleyMontagu.
While few of his studentsshared Hooton's eugenic
fervor,
manyof themcontinuedhis focuson race and human variation,at least fora while. Some, such as Stanley
Garn and Coon, focusedon problemsof race definition,
thenumberofdifferent
races,and problemsofraceformation(e.g., Brues1972; Coon et al. 1950; Garn1957, 1962).
and manyotherscontributedto discusThese researchers
sions about the numberof races-some recognizedhundreds,some onlya few.Authorssuch as Coon et al. (1950)
suggestedit was just a matterof resolution:Microraces
could be definedby a largernumberof traitsand representedsubdivisionsof broad major raceswhose constituents uniquelyshareda smallernumberof traits.Some of
natureof racialclassifithesestudiesimpliedthe arbitrary
cation.Coon et al. (1950) wroteon the potentialadaptive
significanceof racialtraits.HarryShapiro(1939) and Fred
Hulse (1962), also studentsof Hooton and interestedin
draquestioningthe stabilityof racialtraits,demonstrated
maticmorphologicalchangesin first-generation
Japanese
in Hawaii,similarto Boas's conclusionsearlier
immigrants
in the 20th century.Some students,such as WilliamSheldon in his famoussomatotypestudies,retainedHooton's
biological determinism(and in Sheldon's case expanded
on it); others,such as Coon, inheritedHooton's polygenism;stillothers,such as Washburn,rejectedHooton's
emphasis on race, turninginstead to the evolutionary
ideas underlyingthe modernsynthesisas the foundation
ofthenew physicalanthropology.
With the modernsynthesisof the 1940s, Hooton's
studentsalso facedthe need to bringevolutionarytheory
into theirstudies.They did this in different
ways. Coon
was a typologistwho never incorporatedpopulational
thinkinginto his perspective;however,he considered
himselfan evolutionist,
largelythroughhis interestin adof
aptation.He did not extendthis to an understanding
populationalprocesses,a focuson variationwithinpopulations,or on the fluidityof populations(Wolpoffand
came to be
Caspari1997). The new physicalanthropology
viewedas the studyof human evolution,not the description of human types. Some, like FrederickHulse, addressedthisby lookingat racesas evolutionaryepisodes,
viewingracesas largelyephemeral,causedbyevolutionary
processes.Washburnsoughtto developa new physicalanthropologywithoutrace,groundedin evolutionarybiologyand the populationalthinkingof the synthesis.Only
threeyears afterthe Princetonsymposiumthat marked
the "official"birthof the modernsynthesis,Washburn
and Dobzhanskyorganizedthe famous15thAnnualCold
SpringHarborSymposiumthatclarifiedthe evolutionary
In additionto
programof the new physicalanthropology.
a focus on human evolution and prehistory,the new
physicalanthropologyespoused ways that biology was
relevantto studiesof the human condition-thatbiology
A
withoutdeterminism.
and culturecould be interrelated
studied"populaofphysicalanthropologists
newgeneration
of intions"insteadof "races,"or studiedthe distribution
dividualtraitsin clinalstudies(Brace1964).
Ironically,Hooton himselfcontributedto the changthroughhis skillsas an
ingfocusofphysicalanthropology
educatorand his respectforhis students(Giles 1999). As
HarryShapiropointsout in Hooton's obituaryin the AA,
Hooton encourageddiversityof thoughtin his students.
He did not want to establisha "school" and "neverattemptedto establishintellectualascendancyover his students" (1954:1082). He encourageddissentingopinions,
tellingShapiro: "You know, none of my studentshave
been yesmen. ... ThankGod!" (Shapiro1954:1082). Hooton's studentsremaineddiverse,as theyestablishedphysiand museumsaroundthe
in universities
cal anthropology
the
and racialapmaintained
Some
polygenism
country.
were
while
others
of
their
advisor,
responsible,at
proaches
least in part,forwhat has been consideredthe demiseof
theraceconcept.
THEDEMISE OF THERACECONCEPT?
Public Science
The verypublicrejectionof raceby manyanthropologists
in the 1960s was one of a numberofresponses,beginning
in the 1930s,by the scientific
communityto racismin the
Furthermore,
thinkingabout the race conlargersociety.
with
the
had
evolved
itself
developmentof the modcept
ernsynthesisin biology,and the applicationof its principles to human variation and evolution (not only by
but also by the architectsof the synthesis
anthropologists
of its architects,especially Ernst
several
itself).Indeed,
Mayr (1982, 1991) and Dobzhansky(1944, 1962, 1963)
saw thepopulationalthinkingofthe synthesisand emergof populationgeneticsto be influential
ing understandings
weapons in a warwaged by scienceagainstpublic racism.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72
AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March2003
However,the reactionsparkedby Coon's publicationof
TheOriginofRaceswas also a responseto Coon's tacitalliance withracistsseekingto influencepublic policy(Jackson 2001).
as well as otherscientists,had
Some anthropologists,
been activein antiracismcampaignssincethe early1930s.
The abuses of biologyand anthropologythatwereat the
root of the eugenicsmovementand Nazi biopolicyproand evolupelledat leasta fewbiologists,anthropologists,
to presentscientific
tionistswitha sense of responsibility
argumentsthatwould underminethis"scientific"racism.
coaliThis is when Boas and Hooton formedtheirfruitless
an
within
for
antiracist
tionto generatesupport
campaign
U.S. academia. The BritishevolutionarybiologistJ. B. S.
Haldane spoke out against racismat the 1934 London
Meetingof the InternationalCongressof Anthropological
and EthnologicalSciences(ICAES),warninghis audience
againstthe abuse of sciencein supportof race theories.In
1935, respondingto risingracismin Europe,JulianHuxley
an important
and AlfredHaddon publishedWe Europeans,
antiracisttract.In additionto underminingbiologicaldeterminismand assumptionsof racial inferiority,
they
questionedthe veryexistenceof race and suggestedthat
ethnicgroupreplacethe termrace,a harbingerof Ashley
Montagu's1942 Man's MostDangerousMythand his 1950
UNESCO statementon race.
Montagu,who receivedhis Ph.D. withBoas at Columbia afterstudyinganatomywith G. Elliot Smithin Lonat the forefront
don, was theU.S. physicalanthropologist
of the public antiracismcampaign after the war. He
authorednumerouspopulararticlesand books,as well as
the firstUNESCO statementon race,which was verycontroversialbecause of his claim thatraces were a "myth,"
not because of his denunciationof notionsof differences
in racialcapacitiesforachievement.
In the 1960s,an even largergroupof scientistssought
to underminethe scientificracismused to supportopponentsof the civil rightsmovement.This reactionwas especiallystrongin the anthropologicalcommunity.Once
again, as in the days of Madison Grantand othertimes
the AAAfounditselfpittedagainst
throughoutitshistory,
groups seekingto influencepublic racial policy in the
name of science.CarletonPutnamand othersdirectlyattackedthe AAAas a left-wing
conspiracythatdeliberately
concealed the "truth"about race. Coon was squarelyin
the middle of all this (Jackson2001), contrathe mostly
(Coon 1981) depictionsof him as a purely
self-generated
scientist
whose work was misused by others
objective
withouthis approval(Shipman 1994). As the civil rights
movement became strongerand the Supreme Court
laws (activelyresistedin the South),
passed desegregation
Coon subtlyparticipatedin movementsmeantto undermine Boasian interpretations
of race. Coon was sympatheticto thesegregationist
cause.
Pamphletsand books such as Race and Reason(1962)
by CarletonPutnam(Coon's cousin) used Coon as scientificauthority.These publicationsconsciouslypittedthe
subdisciplinesof anthropologyagainsteach other,claiming that "scientific"anthropologists(like Coon) rejected
the dismissalof race and that theyhad evidenceof racial
inequalitythat made blacks undeservingof full citizenship. These writingshad wide circulation;theywerepublishedin newspapersthroughouttheSouth,and therewas
even a "PutnamLettersCommittee"dedicatedto raising
funds to publish the lettersin Northernnewspapers,
and were
where they appeared as paid advertisements
used as mass mailingsof segregationist
propaganda.MoreReason
was
even
and
Race
over,
requiredreadingin the
Louisiana public schools (Jackson2001)--evidence of its
prominencein the South.
AttacksfromPutnamand otherracistslikeHenryGarrett(1961) and Wesley George (1962) promptedresolutions on race fromboth the AAAin November1961 and
the AAPAin 1962. Froma pressreleaseon the 60th Annual Meetingof the AAA,GordonWilley,then president
ofthe AAA,called fora resolutionin responseto "publicaas a basisforsocial and
tionson raceand racialdifferences
that
used
"the
action"
name
political
'anthropology'and
in
science'
a
we
believe to be false
way
'anthropological
of our professionby personswho
and misrepresentative
are not recognizedby theAmericanAnthropological
Association as professionalanthropologists"(Jackson2001:
263). The resolutionpassedunanimously.
A fewmonthslater,the AAPApassed a resolutionintroducedby Stanley Garn that specificallycondemned
Race and Reasonand the misuse of science withinit. Followingtheresolution,Coon resignedfromthepresidency
of the AAPA,claimingthe resolutionwas inappropriate
and thatscientistsshouldkeep out ofthe integration
issue
even
Coon
was
active
behind
1981),
(Coon
though
very
the scenesof the segregationist
cause throughhis associationwithPutnamand others(Jackson2001).
Some of the authoritysegregationists
citedalso came
fromeugenicistswhose work (by the 1960s withoutthe
eugenicslabel) continuedto be fundedby Wycliffe
Draper,
founder of the Pioneer fund, and other like-minded
sources,whichtodaycontinuesto fundresearchmeantto
demonstratehuman inequality.This line of research,and
its financial foundation,representsa thread running
throughoutthe historyof U.S. anthropology(Lieberman
have embraced,but that
2001) thata fewanthropologists
the communityat largehas consistently
repudiatedsince
in
of
AAA.
the
the
the
AAArefusedto
as
Just
history
early
and
Grant
as
in spite
recognizeDavenport
anthropologists
oftheirinfluenceat thetime,boththe AAAand the AAPA
have continuedto denyanthropologicalidentityto their
intellectualdescendents.Liketheirpredecessors,
thesedescendentsalso claim they are estrangedfromthe field
because of the left-wing,
politicalcorrectnessof anthrouse
such
pologists.They
politicalclaims to deflectcriticismoftheirwork(Relethford
articles
2001). Nevertheless,
racial
continue
to
be
"demonstrating"
inequality
produced and fundedby incarnationsof the same foundationsthatsupportedsimilarworkthroughout
thecentury.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Caspari * Race:FromTypesto Populations 73
Public attentiontherefore
fosteredintrospectionand
discussionabout the validityof race withinphysicalanthropology;questionsabout the intellectualcapacitiesof
different
racialgroupswere addressed,as were questions
of the "reality"of race. Some individualsrejectedat least
some elementsof theraceconcept.However,thisrepudiation of the typeconceptwas more directlyinfluencedby
evolutionarybiology;because of evolutionaryand genetic
influences,the newergenerationof physicalanthropologists grew up thinkingabout human variationin ways
thatwerenot (at leastexplicitly)racial.
Genetics,Populations,and Clines
The need to confrontpublicmisrepresentations
ofscience
thatwereactivelyused in the 1960s fosteredalliancesbetween various elements that had foughtracism before
with some that had not-the architectsof the modern
synthesis,"mainstream"anthropologistsas represented
as represented
by the AAA,and physicalanthropologists
AAPA.
the
The
1966
AAAS
by
Mead-Dobzhanskysymposium represented
thisalliance,as did a numberofvolumes
on the studyofraceproducedat the time(e.g.,Mead et al.
1968; Montagu 1964) thatbroughttogetherworkfroma
varietyof disciplines.One way of attackingracismwas
(and is) througha focus on the inadequacy of the race
conceptforexplaininghumanvariation.Studiesof clines,
the geographicdistributionof individualmorphological
and genetic traits,were introducedand population replaced race as a focus of study.This was by no means
purelypolitical;it was a consequenceof the evolutionary
approachofthenew physicalanthropology.
As C. LoringBrace pointed out in 1964, races,and
even populations,are inadequateforthe studyof human
variation.Instead,he advocatedforthe studyof individual traits-thestudyoftheirdistribution
and the selection
thatcauses theirvariation.The studyof clinescame to replace race as a focus of analysis for many researchers.
FrankLivingstone,
in his 1962 articleon the nonexistence
of human races,eloquentlylays out whyraceor any subspecifictaxonomyis misleading:
aredifferThecausesofintraspecific
variation
biological
variation
andtoapplythe
entfrom
thoseofinterspecific
is notonly
termsubspecies
to anypartofsuchvariation
theexplanaorimpossible
buttendsto obscure
arbitrary
tionofthatvariation.
[1962:279]
He was a strongproponentof nonracialclinal studies,arguing,"thereare no races,onlyclines"(Livingstone1962:
279).
Others,however(e.g., Brues 1972), acceptedthe importanceof clines but arguedthat the biologyof groups
themselveswas also a valid targetof inquiry.With the
populational thinkingof the modern synthesis,which
formedthe basis of Washburn'snew physicalanthropology,populationsreplacedrace as the unit of study.What
did this mean? How did the studyof populationsdiffer
fromrace? Mayr himselfsuggeststhat the populational
thinkinghe developedhelped bringabout the demiseof
the race concept,as essentialismis the antithesisto Darwinian approachesto variation.By emphasizingintraspecificevolutionary
processes,populationalthinkingfocuses
on variationand the fluidity
betweenpopulations-on all
the processesthatreduceor increasevariationwithinand
betweenpopulations.An emphasison gene flowand its
the disrelationshipto otherevolutionaryforcesaffecting
tributionof differenttraitsacross populations is what
populationalthinkingis all about, and it underminedthe
race concept. The approach is verydifferent
fromthat
used to understandphyleticevolution,the focusof many
and when populationsare studied
scientists,
evolutionary
withtheoriesand methodsappropriateforphyleticanalyses, the workis no longerpopulational,but essentialist.
When thesetwo verydifferent
evolutionarydomainsare
confusedwithone another,populationsare treatedmuch
as racesonce were,and theworkdoes not represent
populationalthinking.
Therefore,despite the shiftin focus fromrace to
populationas a unit of study,populationalthinkingdoes
not necessarily
go hand-in-handwiththe studyofpopulations.Many 20th-century
whetherstudyanthropologists,
conceivedofpopuing genes (Boyd 1950) or morphology,
lation as just another term for race. They thoughtof
populationsas breedingpopulations,isolatedfromother
groups.Some recognizedthis implicitly,some explicitly.
Garn wrote,"the contemporaryapproach to race stems
frompopulation genetics,where a race is viewed as a
breedingpopulation,neithermore nor less" (1962:6). He
identifiedsmall"local races"likethe "Bushmen"ofSouth
Africaas moreor less isolatedbreedingpopulations(Garn
1962). In spite of Washburn's(1963) admonitionthat
racesor populationswereopen systems,populationswere
nevertheless
theexistconceptualizedas closed.Therefore,
ence of typeswas implicit,even ifthe scientific
focuswas
on theiradaptations.AsArmelagos,Carlson,and Van Gerven (1982) pointedout, manystudiesin skeletalbiology
and geneticscontinuedto employtypologicalmethodsto
typologicalends:the recognitionand delineationofpopulations.Theirconclusionin 1982 was thatwhetherusing
skeletalor genetictraits,many studiesof populationsare
justas typologicalas studiesofrace.
In spiteof the typologicalapproachof some genetic
studies,geneticshad a stronginfluenceon the changing
race concept, especiallythe population geneticsof the
modern synthesis.Population geneticiststhroughthe
yearshave providedcompellingevidenceforhumanunity.
In 1972, whenRichardC. Lewontinmade famoustheestimates of much more variationwithinthan betweenhuman groups,he was showingwhat populationgeneticists
like Dobzhanskyhad suspectedand said all along. While
Dobzhanskyargued that races were not a "myth,"and
that there were biological differencesbetween populations,he arguedfortheirfluidityand forthe conceptof
isolation by distance.More recently,Alan Templeton,a
geneticistwith anthropologicaltrainingwritingin the
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74
AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March 2003
pages of AA, looked at race froma geneticsperspective,
showingthat subspeciesdo not existin humansand emphasizingthattreemodelsdo not adequatelydescribehuman populationrelationships
(Templeton1998).
However,tree models have continued to thrive.As
discussedearlier,the polygenictreewas such a powerful
metaphorin the thinkingof the 1940s and 1950s that
as a tree.
Weidenreich'snetworkwas originallyinterpreted
to
influence
evoluThis historicbackgroundcontinues
tionarythinkingabout humanpopulationstoday.
Relationshipsbetweenpopulationsare still oftendepicted as branches on a tree,thereforeimplyinginterisolation
are due to reproductive
populationaldifferences
or
fromother groups.The magnitudeof that difference
the extentof the relationshipis sometimessaid to reflect
the length of time since the populations diverged.Althoughthisis appropriateforspecies(whichcannotinterbreed),and may even somewhataccuratelydepict intergroup relationships in species with marked genetic
betweengroups,branchingmodelsdo not dedistinctions
scribehuman relationships.Ironically,the geneticliteraTreesarecommonheutureis fullof suchrepresentations.
risticdevices used to depictvariationof geneticsystems.
at this level,
While treescan be valid forrepresentation
if the
relations
theyfailto accuratelypredictpopulation
gene divergencesare assumedto reflectthe relationships
betweenpopulations.Worldwideanalysisof different
genetic systemsshows that theyhave different
patternsof
variation-that is, their treeshave different
patternsof
In
the
same
and
coalescence.
samples,systems
branching
likemtDNAhave shallowcoalescencetimes,while others
likebeta-globinand HLA have much deeperones (Hawks
et al. 2000). Because of recombination,the historiesof
Each
geneseven withinthe same individualare different.
because gene historiesare not digene tree is different
rectlylinked togetherin population histories(Harding
2000; Hawkset al. 2000; Relethford
1998). Yet,in muchof
a treederivedfroma singlegenetic
the geneticliterature,
the historyofpopulations.
systemis assumedto represent
CONCLUSION
How did the raceconceptchangein the 1960s?Whatelementswerealtered?Can we reallycelebrateitsdemise?Of
the threeattributesof race discussed,biologicaldetermiof such traitsas intelligence,
nism,or racial determinism
has been most activelyaddressedsince the beginningsof
the AAA,and despitemisgivingson the partof some culturalanthropologists,
the physicalanthropologycommunitylargelyrejectsit today.Withthe growthof evolutionary psychologyand behavioralecology,theremay be a
resurgenceof emphasison the biological basis of behavioraltraits,but,forthe mostpart,these studiesrecognize
the difference
betweenevolutionaryfoundationsand biologicaldeterminism.
The link betweenbiological determinismand racial
determinismdepends on races being naturalcategories,
and physicalanthropologistsno longersupportthe notion that races are subspecies.The importanceof gene
flowand the fluidityof the speciesis recognizedeven by
forensicanthropologists
whose continueduse of typological and raciallycharged termsmakes them appear less
populationalthan theyoftenreallyare. However,in spite
of the rejectionof racesas subspecies,and a reluctanceto
use the term race,populations are oftenthoughtof in
much the same way that raceswere in the earlierliterature. Essentialismcontinues to influence conceptions
about humangroups,and thisis exemplified
by the use of
treesas metaphorsforhuman populationrelationshipsin
studiesof morphologicaland genetichumanvariation.Inclades are an enduringlegacyof racial anthrotraspecific
pologyand continueto informour thinkingabout populations.The raceconceptmaybe rejectedby anthropology,
but itsunderlyingracialthinking
persists.Physicalanthrono
races.
pologists longerstudy
Populationsare now studied, butnot all approachesto the studyofpopulationsare
populational.
RACHELCASPARI Department
of
ofAnthropology,
University
MI 48109-1382
Michigan,AnnArbor,
NOTES
I wouldliketothank
JimCalcagnoforinviting
Acknowledgments.
me to participate
in thissymposium
and inspiring
me to think
aboutraceandphysical
in thecontext
oftheAAA.I
anthropology
alsoappreciate
thehelpful
ofJimCalcagno,
comments
Katarzyna
and an anonymous
reviewer.
I especially
thankFran
Kaszycka,
Mascia-Lees
andtheeditorial
staff
oftheAAfortheir
excellent
sugandsupport.
gestions
1. Ultimately,
raceis a taxonomy
ofpeople.Itcategorizes
people
basedon socialfactors,
evenwhenthosefactors
arebelievedto
"natural
Becauseall taxonomies
represent
categories."
dependon
essentialism
is a critical
ofracialthinkessentializing,
component
is a product
ofthehuing.Today,somearguethatessentializing
manmind,suggesting
racialthinking
mayhavea psychological
tothisview,humanscreate
taxonomies
of
component.
According
thebiological,
worldin similar
social,and physical
ways,cross(Atran1990,1994;Hirschfeld
1996,1998).Thesetaxculturally
onomies
areknowledge
structures
thatallowinferences
tobemade
(beyondthe information
given)about constituent
categories.
Somecategories
aremoreinferentially
richthanothers,
allowing
toform
without
basis.Thesecategories
have
stereotypes
empirical
beentermed
"natural
tobe part
becausetheyarebelieved
kinds,"
ofthenatural
nothumanconstructions.
world-"real,"
"Natural
kinds"areproduced
mechdifferent
through
cognitive
anismsthatarespecific
to particular
domains(basedon different
mentalmodules).
"Natural
kinds"
thatreflect
thebiological
world
have been termed"livingkinds."Peoplelearn"livingkinds"
different
thanthoseused to learn
through
cognitive
processes
aboutinanimatethingsor the processesthatrelateto them.
Hirschfeld
haveargued
to
(1996,1998)andothers
that,inaddition
a cognitive
domainthatgoverns
humanshavea
"livingkinds,"
domainthatallowsthemto easilylearn"humankinds"
separate
andthecomplete
setoftraits
thatmakeuptheessence
ofa particular
kinds"
kind.These"human
aresocialcategories
thatareparticularly
to a culture;
ofthatculimportant
theyarethought
bymembers
turetobe intrinsic
toa person's
Justas biological
categoidentity.
riescarryinformation
abouttheessenceof a species(or a dog
abouttheessenceofa
breed),"humankinds"carryinformation
typeofperson-what
theyaresupposedto looklike,thinklike,
andactlike.Thefactthatmanymembers
ofa category
do notconformto thestereotype
does notdispelthestereotype.
"Human
kinds"aregroups
whosemembers
arebelieved
tosharesomefunda-
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Caspari * Race: FromTypesto Populations
of "humankinds"areconmentalessence.Becauseclassifications
reflections
ofidentity,
sideredfundamental
theymayhave greater
social meaningthan othercategoriesthat do not reflectthe essenceofa person.In U.S. society,presumedgeographicoriginand
phenotypicfeatures,widelyconsideredthe constituentcompoto identity
than
nentsof race,are consideredto be moreintrinsic
in Western
othercategorieslikeoccupationor religion.Therefore,
society,and globallyto some extentbecauseof culturalinterconnection,Westerndominance,and the legacies of colonialism,
"race"is a "humankind"and, therefore,
has a psychologicaldimensionsinceitis basedon thesamecognitivedomain.According
to this reasoning,we may be psychologically
disposedto racial
(1996) has said, thatracial
thinking.This suggests,as Hirschfeld
and the raceconceptare not one and the same;the race
thinking
conceptmay be a productof "mentation,"but racialthinkingis
culturaland psychological.
REFERENCESCITED
Armelagos,
GeorgeJ.,DavidS. Carlson,and DennisP. Van Gerven
ofSkeletal
1982 TheTheoretical
Foundations
andDevelopment
InHistory
ofAmerican
Physical
Biology.
Anthropology
ed.Pp.305-328.London:Academic
1930-1980.FrankSpencer,
Press.
Atran,Scott
1990 Cognitive
Foundation
ofNaturalHistory.
NewYork:CamPress.
bridgeUniversity
1994 CoreDomainsvs.Scientific
Theories:
EvidencefromSysInMappingtheMind.L.
tematics
andItza-Maya
FolkBiology.
Hirschfeld
andS.Gelman,eds.Pp.316-340.Cambridge:
CamPress.
bridgeUniversity
Barkan,Elazar
1988 Mobilizing
Scientists
againstNaziRacism,1933-1939.In
G.
Bones,Bodies,Behavior.
Essayson Biological
Anthropology.
W. StockingJr.,
ed.Pp.180-205.Madison:University
ofWisconsinPress.
Boas,Franz
1894 HumanFaculty
as Determined
ofthe
byRace.Proceedings
American
Association
fortheAdvancement
ofScience
43:301-327.
1974 TheShapingofAmerican
1883-1911:A
Anthropology,
FranzBoasReader.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Boyd,WilliamClouser
1950 GeneticsandtheRacesofMan.Boston:Little,
Brown.
Brace,C. Loring
towards
theUnderstanding
ofHu1964 ANonracialApproach
InTheConceptofRace.M. F.AshleyMontagu,
manDiversity.
ed.
Pp.103-152.NewYork:FreePress.
1982 TheRootsoftheRaceConceptinPhysical
In
Anthropology.
AHistory
ofAmerican
1930-1980.Frank
Physical
Anthropology
ed.Pp.11-29.London:AcademicPress.
Spencer,
Brues,Alice
1972 ModelsofClinesandRaces.American
ofPhysical
AnJournal
37:389-399.
thropology
Caspari,Rachel,and MilfordH. Wolpoff
1996 Coon andWeidenreich.
HumanEvolution11:203.
Cole, Douglas
1999 FranzBoas:TheEarlyYears,1858-1906.Seattle:University
ofWashington
Press.
Coon,CarletonS.
1939 TheRacesofEurope.NewYork:MacMillan.
1950 HumanRacesinRelation
toEnvironment
andCulture,
with
totheInfluence
ofCultureuponGenetic
SpecialReference
ColdSpring
HarborSymposium
ChangesinHumanEvolution.
on Quantitative
Biology15:247-258.
1962 TheOriginofRaces.NewYork:Knopf.
1965 TheLivingRacesofMan.NewYork:Knopf.
1981 Adventures
andDiscoveries.
TheAutobiography
ofCarleton
S. Coon. Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Coon,C. S., S. M. Garn,andJ.B. Birdsell
1950 Races:AStudyoftheProblems
ofRaceFormation
inMan.
IL:C. C. Thomas.
Springfield,
Dixon,RolandB.
1923 TheRacialHistory
ofMan.NewYork:Scribner.
75
Theodosius
Dobzhansky,
1944 On Speciesand RacesofLivingandFossilMan.American
ofPhysical
2:251-265.
Journal
Anthropology
1962 MankindEvolving:
oftheHumanSpecies.
TheEvolution
NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversity
Press.
1963 Possibility
ThatHomosapiens
EvolvedIndependently
5
TimesIsVanishingly
Small.Current
4:360-366.
Anthropology
Garn,StanleyM.
1957 RaceandEvolution.
American
59:218-224.
Anthropologist
1962 HumanRaces.Rev.edition.Springfield,
IL:C. C. Thomas.
Garrett,
HenryE.
1961 TheEqualitarian
inBiologyandMediDogma.Perspectives
cine4:480-484.
Gasman,Daniel
1971 TheScientific
ofNationalSocialism:
SocialDarwinOrigins
isminErnst
HaeckelandtheGermanMonistLeague.NewYork:
Elsevier.
Gates,R.Ruggles
1944 Phylogeny
andClassification
ofHominidsandAnthropoids.
ofPhysical
2:279-292.
AmericanJournal
Anthropology
George,WesleyC.
1962 TheBiologyoftheRaceProblem.
DC: National
Washington,
PutnamLetters
Committee.
Giles,Eugene
1999 Hooton,Earnest
Albert.In
American
NationalBiography,
vol. 11.Pp.147-149.John
A.GaratyandMarkC. Carnes,eds.
NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Haeckel,Ernst
1905 TheWondersofLife.NewYork:Harper.
Harding,RosalindM.
2000 Diversity,
NotDivergence.
GeneticHistory
ofModernHumans.8thCEPHAnnualConference,
Facultede MedicineLariboisiereSaint-Louis,
Paris,May,24-26,2000.TrendsinGenetics
16:381.
Hawks,John,KeithHunley,Sang-HeeLee,and MilfordH. Wolpoff
2000 Bottlenecks
andPleistocene
HumanEvolution.
MolecularBiologyandEvolution17:2-22.
LawrenceA.
Hirschfeld,
1996 RaceintheMaking:Cognition,
Culture
andtheChildsConstruction
ofHumanKinds.Cambridge,
MA:MITPress.
1998 Natural
Race,EssenceandTaxonomiesofHuAssumptions:
manKinds.SocialResearch
65(2):331-350.
LawrenceA.,and SusanA. Gelman,eds.
Hirschfeld,
1994 MappingtheMind:DomainSpecificity
inCognitionand
Culture.
NewYork:University
ofCambridge
Press.
Hooton,EarnestA.
1931 Upfrom
theApe.NewYork:MacMillan.
1936 PlainStatements
aboutRace.Science83:511-513.
1937 Apes,Men,andMorons.NewYork:G. P.Putnam.
1939 Twilight
ofMan.NewYork:G. P.Putnam.
Howells,WilliamW.
1942 FossilManandtheOriginofRaces.American
Anthropologist44:182-193.
1959 MankindintheMaking.GardenCity,NJ:Doubleday.
1993 Getting
Here.TheStory
ofHumanEvolution.
Washington,
DC: CompassPress.
S.
Hulse,Frederick
1962 Raceas an Evolutionary
Episode.American
Anthropologist
64:929-945.
C. Haddon
Huxley,JulianS.,and Alfred
1935 WeEuropeans:
ASurvey
of"Racial"Problems.
London:
Jonathan
Cape.
Jackson,
JohnP.,Jr.
2001 "InWaysUnacademical":
TheReception
ofCarletonS.
Coon'sTheOrigin
oftheHistory
ofBiology
Journal
ofRaces.
34:247-285.
Keith,Arthur
1936 History
fromCaves.ANewTheoryoftheOriginofModem
RacesofMankind.London:British
Association
PubSpeleological
lication.
RichardC.
Lewontin,
1972 TheApportionment
ofHumanDiversity.
BiolEvolutionary
ogy6:381-398.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76
AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March 2003
Leonard
Lieberman,
2001 How"Caucasoids"GotSuchBigHeadsandWhyThey
FromMortontoRushton.
Shrank:
Current
Anthropology
42:69-95.
Linnaeus,Carolus
1758 Systemae
Naturae.10thedition.Stockholm:
Laurentii
Salvii.
F. B.
Livingstone,
1962 On theNon-Existence
ofHumanRaces.Current
Anthropology3:279-381.
Mayr,Ernst
1982 TheGrowth
ofBiological
and
Evolution,
Thought:Diversity,
MA:BelknapPressofHarvard
Inheritance.
UniverCambridge,
sityPress.
1991 One LongArgument:
CharlesDarwinandtheGenesisof
ModernEvolutionary
MA:HarvardUniverThought.Cambridge,
sityPress.
TheodosiusDobzhansky,EthelTobach,and
Mead,Margaret,
RobertE. Light,eds.
1968 ScienceandtheConceptofRace.NewYork:ColumbiaUniPress.
versity
Montagu,Ashley
1942 Man'sMostDangerousMyth:TheFallacyofRace.NewYork:
Press.
ColumbiaUniversity
Montagu,Ashley,ed.
1964 TheConceptofRace.NewYork:FreePress.
Morgan,LewisHenry
MA:Harvard
Cambridge,
Society.
University
1964[1877] Ancient
Press.
Putnam,Carleton
1962 RaceandReason:AYankeeView.Washington,
DC: Public
Affairs
Press.
Relethford,
J.H.
1998 GeneticsofModemHumanOrigins
andDiversity.
Annual
27:1-23.
ReviewofAnthropology
2001 Commenton Lieberman,
L.How"Caucasoids"GotSuchBig
FromMortontoRushton.
HeadsandWhyTheyShrank:
Current
42:84-85.
Anthropology
Shapiro,H. L.
1939 Migration
andEnvironment.
NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
1954 Earnest
Albert
Hooton,1887-1954.American
Anthropologist56:1081-1084.
Shipman,Pat
1994 TheEvolution
ofRacism:HumanDifferences
andtheUse
andAbuseofScience.NewYork:SimonandSchuster.
Stanton,W.
1960 TheLeopard'sSpots:Scientific
Attitudes
towardRacein
America1815-59.Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
Stein,GeorgeJ.
1988 BiologicalScienceandtheRootsofNazism.American
Scientist76:50-58.
Stocking,
GeorgeW.,Jr.
1968 Race,Culture,
andEvolution:
ofAnEssayson theHistory
NewYork:FreePress.
thropology.
Templeton,AlanR.
1998 HumanRaces:AGeneticandEvolutionary
Perspective.
American
100:632-650.
Anthropologist
Washburn,SherwoodL.
65:521-532.
1963 TheStudyofRace.American
Anthropologist
Franz
Weidenreich,
Man.American
An1940 SomeProblems
DealingwithAncient
42(3):375-383.
thropologist
1946 Apes,Giants,andMan.Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
1947 FactsandSpeculations
theOriginofHomosapiConcerning
ens.American
49:187-203.
Anthropologist
Williams,VernonJ.,Jr.
1996 Rethinking
Race:FranzBoasandHisContemporaries.
LexPressofKentucky.
ington:University
M. H.,and R.Caspari
Wolpoff,
1997 RaceandHumanEvolution.
NewYork:SimonandSchuster.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 05:35:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions