Gould starts the chapter by stating “Evoluntionary theory swept away the creationist rug that had supported the intense debate between monogenists and polygenists, but it has satisfied both sides by presenting an even better rationale for their shared racism.” (pp 105). This Statement bridges the gap nicely between the ranking of intelligence in a hierarchical and unilinear mode before evolutionary theory was introduced and after. This suggests that the theory of evolution made it possible for scientists to produce an innate ordered hierarchy of species, with, of course, white males occupying the uppermost position. In this way evolutionary theory provided the groundwork for a lot of hierarchical structures of the human species.
Next it is important to understand Galton’s idea that everything can be quantified. Galton dabbled in such studies as attempting to quantify: efficacy of prayer, beauty, boredom, and inheritance of intelligence. As Gould so eloquently put it; “Quantification was Galton’s God” (pp108). The idea that anything can be quantified and abstracted as long as the right types of measurements were taken also became one of the basic ideas to contribute to the abstract study of human intelligence.
Taken together, evolutionary theory and the quantification of abstract entities, would imply that you could in fact quantify intelligence, and arrange into a hierarchical schema that reflects higher beings and their subordinates. In this way Gould is laying the foundation for the “purely” scientific study of human intelligence. However again returning to the social context within which science is practiced, science can be used “not to generate new theories, but to illustrate a priori conclusions” (pp106). In other words science will still be used to reproduce the hierarchical social structure of a society, because the researcher is still looking at how the data fits into HIS own preconceived notions about the way that the world works.
Gould then utilizes two examples, Robert Bennett Bean and Paul Broca, to illustrate this point.
Bean studied the relationship between race and the size of the genu and splenium, or front and back of the brain. He operated under the assumption that intelligence was seated in the front of the brain, and therefore that a larger frontal portion of the brain would reflect a higher degree of intelligence. And much to his surprise it showed (insert sarcastic tone) that the white race was more intelligent that the black race. Bean also went on to describe how this was reflected in the general mannerisms of the black race; they are affectionate, emotional, etc. However Franklin P. Mall suspected that this was incorrect, and conducted the same study with one key difference, he did not know the race of the skulls until after the measurements had been taken. Mall’s conclusion was the brains of whites and blacks were in fact the same. What can be learned from this example is that as Gould stated earlier “objectivity must be operationally defined as fir treatment of data, not absence of preference” (pp36). This case shows that even though Mall may have indeed been a product of his time, which I have no doubt he upheld a certain degree of racism, that by treating the data fairly the true patterns can be reflected. However, by this time it was too late because Bean had published his finding in popular journals, and it had become just another “purely” scientific statement about the inferiority of blacks in comparison to whites. This again reflects the social consequences of science and the need for scientist to truly treat the data fairly; otherwise false claims can be made to the social hierarchy of society.
Paul Broca engaged in the study of Brain mass, however, notably Broca also was actively engaged in the criticism of his peers for not remaining objective. Broca appeared to be a master of explaining away specimens that did not fit into his pattern of observation, and again this can be looked at as fitting the data to the theory rather than using the data to formulate a new theory. Broca was elective in the attributes and specimens that he chose to study, whenever one did not show what he expected he disregarded it and started anew, or explained it away, such as was the case of the Germans, large brained criminals, and small brained “men of eminence”. By giving scientific explanations for such anomalies Broca was able to solidify his position among science and “prove” that any and all patterns fit nicely into his theory. The issues that arise within this context are much the same as in the Bean scenario, if the argument appears scientific than it must be and society will take it for what it is at face value.
The dangers of operating under these pretenses is that the researcher potentially may cause harm to the subject that is being studied, this truly becomes a question of ethics. While it is not deliberate in all cases, however for the Bean case it is suspected to be deliberate, we have to really consider the real ramifications of the work scientists do. We must really consider the goal of the researcher, whether it is truly a venture aimed at the acquisition of knowledge, or is there a socio-political agenda.
Questions:
Gould brings up the point that women, races (other than white), and lower class groups have all been lumped into a standard analogous group, all fitting the same criteria for occupying lower rungs on the ladder of social hierarchy.
In what ways has this been perpetuated within our society today?
What are the real social ramifications of science that operate under these pretenses?
Can we ever achieve a science that is rid of this set of biases against women, different races, or lower social classes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can we ever achieve a science that is rid of this set of bias against women, different races, or lower social classes?
ReplyDeleteI believe we are well on our way to ridding science of the more noticeable biases against women, race and, at least to some extent, class, but if Gould tells us anything in his book it is that other biases will find their way in. Ongoing major scientific research is most certainly plagued with bias which will not be rectified until it is far enough removed from the present that we can evaluate it retrospectively. The more overt biases that Gould focuses on, and obvious ones like race and gender, are much less likely to be found because the field is so full of those ready to snipe plagued studies without prejudice (a good thing I think). Class bias will prove far more difficult for the same reasons that I discussed in my comment on the previous chapter. It seems inevitable with our current state of government that individuals in the upper class will not reap the benefits more than those of the middle and lower class due to a relative lack of agency.