In chapter 4 "Measuring Bodies," Gould introduces Ernst Haeckel recapitulation theory ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") which maintains that in growth an individual "passes through a series of stages representing adult ancestral forms in their correct order," essentially climbing "its own family tree." (143). Taken at the time Haeckel's theory provided the backbone for the legitimization of many preexisting theories of racism for thinkers such as Cope, Vogt, and Herbert Spencer. Thus the theory of recapitulation provided scientific and quantitative substantiation for theories of ranking and racial classification.
What I would like to draw attention to is Gould's statement that "as a justification of imperialism, recapitulation offered too much promise to remain sequestered in academic pronouncements" (147). With this statement, and the inclusion of Rudyard Kipling's famous poetic lines, Gould makes an important point that is not to be overlooked: no longer was the conviction that non-European races were inferior or childlike simply a bigoted adage, but now a scientifically justified truth. Haeckel's idea permeated not only the scientific community but the larger world of European politics and culture, and in doing so points up the inextricable relationship between science and culture. This is certainly not to say that the two are one in the same, but, as Gould says of Francis Galton's work, there is a constant push towards finding "new and ingenious ways to measure the relative worth of peoples," whether it be by asking men to"take up the white man's burden," or by measuring skulls to determine hereditary criminality (108). What is crucial to recognize here is how science, or pseudo-science, was used hand-in-hand with politics and culture to create and legitimize the social "other" during the nineteenth century.
So brilliant! I was just thinking about "Homage to Catalonia" and the references to imperialism were glaringly similar. "We have come to rid these savages of their unchristian ways!" The distinctiveness of an argument which is made in order to bolster one's own desires for superiority is often so badly flawed that one begins to wonder where logicians stood on these crucial arguments.
ReplyDelete