The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Frost Archive
From Nazi Germany to Middletown: Ratcheting Up the War on Racism
Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), much more than Franz Boas, would define the aims of Boasian anthropology for postwar America.

Email This Page to Someone


 Remember My Information



=>
"Ruth Benedict" by World Telegram staff photographer - Library of Congress. New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c14649. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.
"Ruth Benedict" by World Telegram staff photographer - Library of Congress. New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c14649. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

When Franz Boas died in 1942, the leadership of his school of anthropology passed to Ruth Benedict and not to Margaret Mead. This was partly because Benedict was the older of the two and partly because her book Patterns of Culture (1934) had already assumed a key role in defining Boasian anthropology.

The word “define” may surprise some readers. Wasn’t Boas a Boasian? Not really. For most of his life he believed that human populations differ innately in their mental makeup. He was a liberal on race issues only in the sense that he considered these differences to be statistical and, hence, no excuse for systematic discrimination. Every population has capable individuals who should be given a chance to rise to the limits of their potential.

He changed his mind very late in life when external events convinced him of the need to fight “racism,” at that time a synonym for extreme nationalism in general and Nazism in particular. In 1938, he removed earlier racialist statements from his second edition of The Mind of Primitive Man, and the next year Ruth Benedict wrote Race: Science and Politics to show that racism was more than a Nazi aberration, being in fact an ingrained feature of American life. Both of them saw the coming European conflict as part of a larger war.

This is one reason why the war on racism did not end in 1945. Other reasons included a fear that extreme nationalism would lead to a second Hitler and a Third World War. How and why was never clear, but the fear was real. The two power blocs were also competing for the hearts and minds of emerging nations in Asia and Africa, and in this competition the West felt handicapped. How could it win while defining itself as white and Christian? The West thus redefined itself in universal terms and became just as committed as the Eastern bloc to converting the world to its way of life. Finally, the rhetoric of postwar reconstruction reached into all areas of life, even in countries like the U.S. that had emerged unscathed from the conflict. This cultural reconstruction was a logical outcome of the Second World War, which had discredited not just Nazism but also nationalism in general, thereby leaving only right-wing globalism or left-wing globalism. Ironically, this cultural change was weaker in the communist world, where people would remain more conservative in their forms of sociality.

Ruth Benedict backed this change. She felt that America should stop favoring a specific cultural tradition and instead use its educational system to promote diversity. To bring this about, she had to reassure people that a journey through such uncharted waters would not founder on the shoals of unchanging human nature. This fear had been addressed in Patterns of Culture (1934). Inspired by Pavlov’s research on conditioned reflexes, she argued that people are conditioned by their culture to think, feel, and behave in a particular way. This pattern assumes over time such a rigid form that even a student of anthropology will assume it to be innate:

He does not reckon with the fact of other social arrangements where all the factors, it may be, are differently arranged. He does not reckon, that is, with cultural conditioning. He sees the trait he is studying as having known and inevitable manifestations, and he projects these as absolute because they are all the materials he has to think with. He identifies local attitudes of the 1930’s with Human Nature […] (Benedict, 1989, p. 9)

She argued that such behavioral traits cannot be innate, since they assume different patterns in different human populations and in different time periods of a single population. Our potential for social change is thus greater than what we imagine, being limited only by the range of behavior that exists across all societies. Because we underestimate this potential, we resist social change on the grounds that it would violate a nonexistent human nature:

The resistance is in large measure a result of our misunderstanding of cultural conventions, and especially an exaltation of those that happen to belong to our nation and decade. A very little acquaintance with other conventions, and a knowledge of how various these may be, would do much to promote a rational social order. (Benedict, 1989, p. 10)

In contradistinction to Boas, who believed that human populations differ innately in various mental and behavioral traits, she argued that cultural evolution had long ago replaced genetic evolution:

Man is not committed in detail by his biological constitution to any particular variety of behaviour. The great diversity of social solutions that man has worked out in different cultures in regard to mating, for example, or trade, are all equally possible on the basis of his original endowment. Culture is not a biologically transmitted complex. (Benedict, 1989, p. 14)

In short, humans have turned the tables on evolution. Instead of being changed by their environment via natural selection, they redesign it with the tools provided by their culture. To a large degree, humans create their own environment:

The human animal does not, like the bear, grow himself a polar coat in order to adapt himself, after many generations, to the Arctic. He learns to sew himself a coat and put up a snow house. From all we can learn of the history of intelligence in pre-human as well as human societies, this plasticity has been the soil in which human progress began and in which it has maintained itself. [...] The human cultural heritage, for better or for worse, is not biologically transmitted. (Benedict, 1989, p. 14)

Since human nature is everywhere the same, whatever works in any other culture ought to work in America’s, and this greater diversity should pose no serious problem. This argument would eventually be topped off by American can-doism: if other cultures can cope with some diversity, we can do even better!

Much more deviation is allowed to the individual in some cultures than in others, and those in which much is allowed cannot be shown to suffer from their peculiarity. It is probable that social orders of the future will carry this tolerance and encouragement of individual difference much further than any cultures of which we have experience. (Benedict, 1989, p. 273)

Such social change would be resisted by Middletown—originally a pseudonym for Muncie, Indiana in two sociological studies, and later a synonym for whitebread small-town America.

The American tendency at the present time leans so far to the opposite extreme that it is not easy for us to picture the changes that such an attitude would bring about. Middletown is a typical example of our usual urban fear of seeming in however slight an act different from our neighbours. Eccentricity is more feared than parasitism. Every sacrifice of time and tranquillity is made in order that no one in the family may have any taint of nonconformity attached to him. Children in school make their great tragedies out of not wearing a certain kind of stockings, not joining a certain dancing-class, not driving a certain car. The fear of being different is the dominating motivation recorded in Middletown. (Benedict, 1989, p. 273)

Conclusion

Ruth Benedict wrote well, so well that any flaws are easily missed. Much of her reasoning revolved around the concept of cultural conditioning. Just as a dog will salivate on hearing the tinkling of a bell, if associated with food, so people will come to respond unthinkingly and in the same way to a situation that occurs over and over again. Such behavior may seem innate, yet it isn’t. This part of her reasoning is true, but it is also true that natural selection tends to hardwire any recurring behavioral response. Mental plasticity has a downside, particularly the risks of responding incorrectly to a situation when one is still learning. It’s better to get things right the first time. In sum, conditioned reflexes and innate reflexes both have their place, and one doesn’t preclude the other … for either dogs or humans.

Benedict seems on firmer ground in saying that humans are uniquely able to change the world around themselves. Instead of having to adapt biologically to our environment, we can invent ways to make it adapt to us. It’s this manmade environment—our culture—that does the evolving, not our genes. This view used to be widely accepted in anthropology and has been proven false only recently. We now know that cultural evolution actually caused genetic evolution to accelerate. At least 7% of the human genome has changed over the last 40,000 years, and most of that change seems to be squeezed into the last 10,000, when the pace of genetic change was more than a hundred-fold higher (Hawks et al., 2007). By that time, humans were no longer adapting to new physical environments; they were adapting to new cultural environments. Far from slowing down genetic evolution, culture has speeded it up by greatly diversifying the range of circumstances we must adapt to.

Benedict was right in foreseeing a time when tolerance would become a virtue. Yet, strangely enough, Middletown America is no more tolerant today than it was in her time. Americans are simply obeying a new set of rules, whose first commandment is now “Thou shalt not be intolerant.” People are still fearful of being different from their neighbours. It’s just that the fears have another basis. People are still insulted for being different. It’s just that the insults have changed. “Filthy pervert” has given way to “Dirty homophobe.” Mistrust of the stranger has been replaced by mistrust of those who are not inclusive. Pierre-André Taguieff has described this new conformity in France:

[...] over the last thirty years of the 20th century, the word “racism” became an insult in everyday language (“racist!” “dirty racist!”), an insult derived from the racist insult par excellence (“dirty nigger!”, “dirty Jew!”), and given a symbolic illegitimating power as strong as the political insult “fascist!” or “dirty fascist!”. To say an individual is “racist” is to stigmatize him, to assign him to a heinous category, and to abuse him verbally [...] The “racist” individual is thus expelled from the realm of common humanity and excluded from the circle of humans who are deemed respectable by virtue of their intrinsic worth. Through a symbolic act that antiracist sociologists denounce as a way of “racializing” the Other, the “racist” is in turn and in return categorized as an “unworthy” being, indeed as an “unworthy” being par excellence. For, as people say, what can be worse than racism? (Taguieff, 2013, p. 1528)

It’s hard to believe that the sin of racism did not yet exist in Ruth Benedict’s day. The word itself was just starting to enter common use. At most, there was a growing movement for people to be more tolerant, and even that movement was very limited in its aims. “Tolerance” had a much less radical meaning.

Interestingly, Benedict did touch on the reason for Middletown’s intolerance. In her book, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946), she explained that human cultures enforce social rules by means of shame or guilt. You feel ashamed if your wrongdoing is seen by another person. In contrast, you feel guilty even if nobody else has seen it, or even if you merely think about doing wrong. Although all humans have some capacity for both shame and guilt, the relative importance of one or the other varies considerably among individuals and among human populations. “Shame cultures” greatly outnumber “guilt cultures,” which are essentially limited to societies of Northwest European origin, like Middletown.

But how does a guilt culture survive? If a few individuals feel no guilt as long as no one is looking, they will have an edge over those who do. Over time, they will proliferate at the expense of the guilt-prone, and the guilt culture will become a shame culture. It seems that this outcome does not happen because the guilt-prone are always looking for signs of deviancy in other individuals, however trifling it may seem. We have here the “broken windows” theory of law enforcement: if a person tends to break any rule, however minor, he or she will likely break a major one, since the psychological barrier against wrongdoing is similar in both cases. The guilt-prone will judge such people to be morally worthless and will ultimately expel them from the community. Intolerance is the price we pay for the efficiency of a guilt culture.

Today, this mechanism has been turned upon itself. The new social rule—intolerance of intolerance—will, over the not so long term, dissolve the mental makeup that makes a guilt culture possible. Benedict did not foresee this outcome in her own time. Middletown was too set in its ways, too monolithic, too well entrenched. At most, one could hope for a little more leeway for the socially deviant. A few bohemians here, a few oddballs there …

Ruth Benedict saw Middletown as a difficult case, particularly its extreme guilt culture, and she drew on the language of education and psychotherapy to frame this difficulty in terms of long-term treatment:

[…] there can be no reasonable doubt that one of the most effective ways in which to deal with the staggering burden of psychopathic tragedies in America at the present time is by means of an educational program which fosters tolerance in society and a kind of self-respect and independence that is foreign to Middletown and our urban traditions. (Benedict, 1989, pp. 273-274)

They [the Puritans] were the voice of God. Yet to a modern observer it is they, not the confused and tormented women they put to death as witches, who were the psychoneurotics of Puritan New England. A sense of guilt as extreme as they portrayed and demanded both in their own conversion experiences and in those of their converts is found in a slightly saner civilization only in institutions for mental diseases. (Benedict, 1989, p. 276)

By the time of her death in 1948, Boasian anthropology had become fully mobilized for the war on racism. This mobilization had begun in response to the rise of Nazi Germany but was soon extended to a much larger enemy that included America itself, as seen in the increasingly radical meanings of “racism” and “tolerance.” Only a determined, long-term effort would bring this enemy to heel.

References

Benedict, R. (1989 [1934]). Patterns of Culture, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Benedict, R. (2005 [1946]). The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Patterns of Japanese Culture, First Mariner Books.

Hawks, J., E.T. Wang, G.M. Cochran, H.C. Harpending, & R.K. Moyzis. (2007). Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 104, 20753-20758.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2410101/


(Reprinted from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 

21 Comments to "From Nazi Germany to Middletown: Ratcheting Up the War on Racism"

Commenters to Skip
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Sean
    says:
         Show Comment

    The psychology rings true. However, Benedict was a New Yorker critiquing Indiana, just as Richard Hofstadter, who saw McCarthy as a possible American Hitler, thought McCarthyism was a product of Wisconsin farmer populism. They saw themselves as living in a highly conservative society, yet almost all the intelligentsia were Marxists of some sort, and Marxists had been very early anti-racists. If there had been no Hitler anti racism would not have happened in the same way, but if guilt is a hereditary propensity it is dubious to say we would not be in the same position by now.

    • Replies:
    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Threecranes
    says:
         Show Comment

    I’ve lived and worked with midwestern country-dwellers. They are highly tolerant of quirky people. Think about Mayberry or the Beverly Hillbillies. Not one person in either set was normal. Truth be known, every individual I met was quirky in some way.

    As Sean says well, this type of shallow analysis is unfortunately all we can expect from New York intellectuals who are two steps removed from their subjects.

    Let me offer a first hand example of this kind of observation. I spent two months aboard a Japanese trawler fishing in the Bering Sea as a U. S. government observer/biologist. As anyone who has lived aboard a ship knows, there are few secrets. I came to know the crew pretty well, and they me. After dinner we took turns singing karaoke (long before it became mainstream). Drank together, bathed in their wonderful Japanese type hot-tubs together, slung fish together, spied on one another and so on. They farted with abandon and laughed uproariously, grunted, yelled, gesticulated, massaged one another’s sore muscles and put little hot cups on each other’s backs to draw out toxins, took turns scrubbing one another’s backs–all of this out in the open, communally in a perfectly natural way.

    Back on land, months later I met a woman on University campus who informed me that she was doing her graduate thesis on the Japanese.

    “Oh really, what about?”

    “On how reserved they are. They are very formal people.”

    “Reserved? In my experience, they’re quite at ease with their bodies, touching one-another, dropping their guard by singing (sometimes quite emotionally) in front of one another and so on….”

    “Oh no, you’re wrong. My professor is an expert and he said that the Japanese are very reserved people.”

    “But I lived with them on board ship and that’s sort of a microcosm and what I saw were people very informal, relaxed and accepting of the naturalness of their bodily functions.”

    “Well, you can’t generalize. A ship is not a microcosm, it’s what we call a ‘small sample’”

    And so on. So her reading trumped my first hand experience.

    How did Lincoln put it? (paraphrased) “Your Honor, I cannot let my opponent’s ignorance, however grand it is, out weigh my knowledge, however small it is.”

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    Threecranes: You were on a ship. There’s a real cameraderie that comes from shared efforts–it’s why union men would fight so hard for each other.

    I mean, culture is important, but so is the situation, and I suspect you’d have similar experiences on ships from most countries.

    I am sympathetic to your attempts to defend the Japanese guys, though–the academic world is a nasty, sociopathic place.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. syon
    says:
         Show Comment

    “When Boas retired in 1937, most of his students considered Ruth Benedict to be the obvious choice for the head of the anthropology department. However, the administration of Columbia was not as progressive in its attitude towards female professionals as Boas had been, and the university President Nicholas Murray Butler was eager to curb the influence of the Boasians whom he considered to be political radicals. Instead, Ralph Linton, one of Boas’ former students, a WWI veteran, and a fierce critic of Benedict’s “Culture and Personality” approach was named head of the department.[14] Benedict was understandably insulted by Linton’s appointment and the Columbia department was divided between the two rival figures of Linton and Benedict, both accomplished anthropologists with influential publications, neither of whom ever mentioned the work of the other.”

    (WIKIPEDIA)

    Linton:

    “He was admitted to a Ph.D. program at Columbia University thereafter, but did not become close to Franz Boas, the doyen of anthropology in that era. When America entered World War I, Linton enlisted and served in France in the 1917-1919 saw him serving in Battery D, 149th Field Artillery, 42nd2 (Rainbow) Division. Linton served as a corporal and saw battle at the trenches, experiencing first hand a German gas attack. Linton’s military experience would be a major influence on his subsequent work. One of his first published articles was “Totemism and the A.E.F.” (Published in American Anthropologist vol. 26:294-300)”, in which he argued that the way in which military units often identified with their symbols could be considered a kind of totemism.[2]

    His military fervor probably did not do anything to improve his relation with the pacifist Franz Boas, who abhorred all displays of nationalism or jingoism. An anecdote has it that Linton was rebuked by Boas when he appeared in class in his military uniform.[3] Whatever the cause, shortly after his return to the United States, he transferred from Columbia to Harvard, where he studied with Earnest Hooton, Alfred Tozzer, and Roland Dixon.”

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. syon
    says:
         Show Comment

    An interesting tidbit about Margaret Mead:

    “An Anglican Christian, she played a considerable part in the drafting of the 1979 American Episcopal Book of Common Prayer.”

    (WIKIPEDIA)

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. B&B
    says:
         Show Comment

    Real Japan isn’t the formalised corporate world or its education system, its the culture of construction workers, pachinko players and Yankii.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Right. Wealthy countries in the Middle East don’t seem to feel guilty about treating their migrant workers like slaves.

    Maybe the 4 top causes of the rise of multi-culturalism would be:

    1. The predisposition to guilt cultures.

    2. The reaction to Nazism.

    3. Gender equality: Women entering the workforce in WW2 combined with birth control liberalizing social mores accelerated the rise of women’s influence, pushing the average temperament to the left.

    4. Inevitable globalism: Advances in shipping and communications technology made the world a smaller place. Racialism was an impediment to capitalism. Capitalists are still pushing for open borders today.

    • Replies:
    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Sean
    says:
         Show Comment

    From what someone was telling me today. Germans obey rules without much supervision (people never cross the road without a signal, no one checking tickets on the underground ect). So maybe I was exaggerating about hereditary guilt inevitably leading to a certain type of politics, because Germans show signs of having abundant self-monitoring guilt and Germany today is as far as can be from the Nazi outlook that dominated there. You would have to say that international rivalries, the effectiveness of particular politicians, and the internal situation of Germany have much to do with which particular ethos gets established. The position of a country in the world and whether it is threatened by other states, the attitude of business elites, the level of urbanisation and organised mass political party system probably have a big influence, it’s a multi-level thing.

    There is the element of nothing succeeds like success, everyone copies American values because America says its success stemmed from its values. Peter seems to be saying that guilt is a group adaptation for greater collective efficiency, whatever the values. The Germans are still extremely efficient despite completely altering values.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    “The Germans are still extremely efficient despite completely altering values.”

    I’d argue the Germans are still German, just a different kind of German. Remember, there were liberal and communist parties as well through 1933–the Nazis never got a majority. Of course, once they held power, nobody was going to stand up to them or they’d wind up as soap. Just like Massachusetts liberals and Alabama rednecks are both Americans–just different kinds. Any reasonably sized country contains multitudes, as Whitman would say.

    • Replies:
    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Honest John
    says:
         Show Comment

    In short, humans have turned the tables on evolution. Instead of being changed by their environment via natural selection, they redesign it with the tools provided by their culture. To a large degree, humans create their own environment

    Who can argue with that. Without question our intellectual prowess has overtaken our biological prowess at advancing our place in the universe. The problem is, what Ruth Benedict fostered, was a returned to biological prowess – she killed the intellectual golden goose that brought us this wonderful advancing culture. Her cohorts are killing the culture that has given us freedom and longer lives. What today is celebrated in Benedict’s elitist intellectual culture is biological diversity not intellectual diversity. In today’s social sciences biological diversity is studied (i.e., race, tribe, and sex) not the great Western Christian classical and philosophical ideas that got us to where we were.

    One hundred percent for sure not everyone was included in the advancing intellectual culture. Our job is to include ever more people in that advancing culture – not separate people into biological antagonistic groups – pushing humanity backwards.

    • Replies:
    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Sean
    says:
         Show Comment

    I still think Germans tend to pull together. Their current environmental policy is insanely ambitious; combining green power with getting rid of nuclear power completely. Once an idea becomes official ideology in Germany, no one will go against it.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Peter Frost
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    “What today is celebrated in Benedict’s elitist intellectual culture is biological diversity not intellectual diversity”

    Neither is celebrated, at least not at any university I’ve seen. You’re confusing means and ends.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Peter Frost
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    “Who can argue with that.”

    I would. And I did.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Sean
    says:
         Show Comment

    I am the captain of my soul. Good thing too!

    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Stogumber
    says:
         Show Comment

    From a German point of view:
    Benedict was read by some ethnologists in the thirties, but mostly from the late fifties to the seventies.

    She never was seen as a political and a controversial author, unlike Margaret Mead. (Germans hat no ideas about the soul of the Japanese, neither positive nor negative.)

    German reviewers saw her in fact as a follower of the German tradition – a tradition which had started with Johann Gottfried Herder and had its most actual representant in Leo Frobenius (then the leading German ethnologist w.r.t to Africa). In this tradition cultures were seen as holistic beings and identified with “the soul of a people”. Also, cultures were treated as of equal value.

    Some reviewers believed that Benedict was influenced by those German authors – I don’t know if that’s right.

    The nature-nurture problem was, in fact, no problem in Germany at that time. Just the conservative biologists and anthropologists (Portmann, Gehlen) had emphasized that man distinguished himself from animals by his lack of innate “instincts”, and that man had compensated this lack by inventing “institutions”. So the central point of debate in after-war-Germany was the importance of human “institutions”- which were fiercely attacked by Adorno and fiercely defended by Gehlen.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Peter Frost
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    Ruth Benedict was not alone in believing that cultural evolution had replaced genetic evolution in our species. In a sense, this view had become inevitable with the collapse of hereditarian thinking in the 1935-1945 period. Moreover, by the mid-1800s genetic evolution had come to a standstill (or had even begun to go into reverse) at the very time when cultural change was increasing exponentially. People fell into the view that cultural evolution had always outpaced genetic evolution and always will.

    Benedict was influenced by German authors, either directly through her own readings or indirectly through Boas. In fact, cultural relativism was a German idea (which arose among conservative nationalist Germans in reaction to the universalism of the French revolution). In general, German authors had considerable influence in American academia before the Second World War.

    I agree with your final point. Today, we associate environmental determinism with the Left and genetic determinism with the Right. This wasn’t always the case, and even today it isn’t everywhere the case. Many conservative traditionalists tend to focus on environmental determinism because they take genetic determinism for granted.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. jtberger
    says:
         Show Comment

    ww2 was a fight between the Marxists and the defenders of Western civilization.
    And the Marxists won…..simple as that.
    We in the West adopted the moderate wing of Marxism called Social Democracy. We have all become social Marxists…. having rejected only the more extreme forms of economic Marxism.
    Even a quick over view of the literature pertaining to the heritability of intelligence will quickly reveal that all of the main opponents of the heritability position are all Marxists. ….and interestingly almost all non Christians.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. jtberger
    says:
         Show Comment

    There is only one fundamental cause of all 4 of the above….and none have much to do with capitalism. In a word it is Marxism. they won the war and we all now believe what we are told….regardless of how much it conflicts with the real world.
    Regardless of our ability to shape our environments…. we still are, and for some time at least will be , prisoners of our genes. In the past humans were also regulated by natural selection. But such is no longer the case. Now the most intelligent members of society spend much of their time and money assisting the least capable members of the human race…. all over the world.
    No one can deny that with each passing day the average IQ of the general population is declining.
    there has always been a huge positive correlation between the upper classes and intelligence. This very concept is a fundamental enemy of Marxism. The idea that most of what we are has been determined by the environment rather than our genes has come to permeate and pervade every facet of our social beliefs. the Bolshevics had the idea that they could by changing society change human nature and make the “communist man”. Those follies are still very much alive and well in the world today. Only the Moslems have resisted. could it be that they might inherit the world of tomorrow. Their beliefs certainly have much more in common with those of our ancestors ( 2 and 3 hundred years ago ) than we do today.
    A very famous man once said…. The primary task of the politician is to bring all human activity into accord with the laws of nature. Mein Kampf … Murphy translation March 1939. You won’t find it in the fraudulent Mannheim edition brought out in 1943 by the USA as part of the war propaganda effort. … the one found in every library and bookstore.

    • Replies:
    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. The next year Ruth Benedict wrote Race: Science and Politics to show that racism was more than a Nazi aberration, being in fact an ingrained feature of American life. Both of them saw the coming European conflict as part of a larger war. This is one reason why the war on racism did not end in 1945. <

    Agreed. In this Frost is correct. Racism did correlate with Nazism and Boas and Benedict moved to take action. It is correct to point out that Benedict correctly diagnosed racism as more than a Nazi aberration, but was in fact a common feature of white America. In fact, some German propaganda during WW2 specifically charged Americans with hypocrisy for being anti-nazi, noting that the brutalities of white Jim Crow were not that far off from their own anti-jewish action. Germans were just more efficient and open about it- and willing to bring racism to its logical conclusion- liquidation of the targeted "Other."

    She argued that such behavioral traits cannot be innate, since they assume different patterns in different human populations and in different time periods of a single population.
    Benedict is correct here because she was aware that the notion of “innate” characteristics could be reverse applied to white people. Indeed the Allied refrain against Germans as special brute beasts of cruelty and violence could well be applied to whites in general- Exhibit A being Nazism, but also lesser manifestations like racist American violence and practices.

    Middletown is a typical example of our usual urban fear of seeming in however slight an act different from our neighbours. Eccentricity is more feared than parasitism. Every sacrifice of time and tranquillity is made in order that no one in the family may have any taint of nonconformity attached to him. Children in school make their great tragedies out of not wearing a certain kind of stockings, not joining a certain dancing-class, not driving a certain car. The fear of being different is the dominating motivation recorded in Middletown. (Benedict, 1989, p. 273)

    In this Benedict is correct- and it has nothing to do with “political correctness.” Long before “political correctness” became in vogue “Middleton” was often seen as conformist, falling in line with the dictates of government leaders. William Whyte’s famous “Organization Man” (1956) argued against this stifling conformism long before political correctness gained ascendancy. Likewise white feminists like Bella Abzug filled pages with complaints against the conformity and me-tooism of white middle class life. Such critiques were already in place long before Civil Rights became popular or liberal college professors gained power. In short, Middletown has had issues with conformity long BEFORE PC campus police gained their high profile, or “the liberal media” supposedly rode triumphant.

    natural selection tends to hardwire any recurring behavioral response.
    Agreed in part, but it is also true that a particular behavioral response may have little to do with natural selection.

    Middletown America is no more tolerant today than it was in her time. Americans are simply obeying a new set of rules, whose first commandment is now “Thou shalt not be intolerant.” People are still fearful of being different from their neighbours. It’s just that the fears have another basis. People are still insulted for being different.

    Actually Middletown America is much more tolerant than in the past, when you could be physically assaulted or murdered for being the wrong color in the wrong place, or were denied business licenses by Irish political machines that controlled such licenses. In many ways, white America has cleaned up some negatives. The rules of political correctness are primarily in force in certain political correct venues like college campuses and were designed and enforced by high IQ white liberals. Middletown is rolling along quite nicely. Whites have learned to suppress their worse OPEN racism, but that does not mean they no longer dislike blacks and other minorities. Some Whites today are just LESS OPEN about it.

    To say an individual is “racist” is to stigmatize him, to assign him to a heinous category, and to abuse him verbally [...] The “racist” individual is thus expelled from the realm of common humanity and excluded from the circle of humans who are deemed respectable by virtue of their intrinsic worth. Through a symbolic act that antiracist sociologists denounce as a way of “racializing” the Other, the “racist” is in turn and in return categorized as an “unworthy” being, indeed as an “unworthy” being par excellence. For, as people say, what can be worse than racism?

    Overstated by Taguieff. While the club of “racism” has been used by high IQ white liberals to enforce a version of conformity in certain venues where they hold power, the impact of a charge of “racism” is less than earth-shattering. For one thing it often translates into mere rhetoric. Argue with someone, call them “racist”. Big deal. Al Sharpton’s charges of “racism” in various incidents has hardly reduced white America to frightened children cowering at the sound of the word. In fact, white America has not at all been “muzzled” by charges of racism. There is a massive torrent of books, articles, media, web content etc that shows quite the opposite, and this is nothing new. Back in the Reagan era there was a torrent of books, articles, popular talk show hosts like Limbaugh and conservative think tanks railing against liberalism and political correctness. Today that torrenthas expanded especially on the web. Far from being fearful white America has aggressively confronted charges of racism and accusers.

    Ruth Benedict saw Middletown as a difficult case, particularly its extreme guilt culture, and she drew on the language of education and psychotherapy to frame this difficulty in terms of long-term treatment
    Indeed but Middletown’s “extreme guilt culture” is not the product of anti-racism but such things as the conformism and me-tooism so prevalent during Ww2, and white religious traditions that promoted a deep culture of guilt. Such patterns were ALREADY in place before the significant rise of civil rights, political correctness, etc.

    By the time of her death in 1948, Boasian anthropology had become fully mobilized for the war on racism. This mobilization had begun in response to the rise of Nazi Germany but was soon extended to a much larger enemy that included America itself, as seen in the increasingly radical meanings of “racism” and “tolerance.”

    This is debatable. Boaist anthropology never really engaged in a “war on racism.” Yes there were strong anti-racist elements but this does not constitute a war. What is missing here is the fact that the added data access after WW2 exposed numerous dubious, distorted and falsified constructs in anthropology like the dubious “racial” schemata of Carelton Coons. Tings like the “Hamitic Hypothsis”, or the artificial pigeonholing of complex data into simplistic “race models” and narratives simply could not stand up to critical scrutiny. Such scrutiny expanded after WW2. This is one of the primary reasons Boasim also expanded. It is not simply a matter of “political correctness” – that catchall explanation used by many. This is itself a simplistic meme that obscures the rickety nature of long accepted truths and methodologies in anthropology, whether it be alleged “wandering Caucasoids” sweeping into Africa to allegedly bring the natives civilization (See numerous critiques by well known anthropologist CL Brace) or attempting to bash complex archaeological and anthropological data into shaky and ever multiplying race categories. By the end of WW2, a lot of asserted “truths” were exposed as mere assertions resting on shaky methodology and assumptions.

    This mobilization had begun in response to the rise of Nazi Germany but was soon extended to a much larger enemy that included America itself, as seen in the increasingly radical meanings of “racism” and “tolerance.”

    This is partially true as regards radical high IQ whites in certain PC venues where they hold power. But there was never any mobilization against America itself. In fact white America gained handsomely from the increased postwar calls for more racial tolerance. For one, as credible scholars show, (Dudziak 2011-Cold War Civil Rights) such calls were an integral part of the US winning the Cold War against stinging Soviet propaganda thrusts on America’s racial hypocrisy- purporting to be fighting for democracy abroad, when it refused to guarantee democracy at home for those citizens who happened to be black. This is why even conservatives like Ike ordered his Little Rock Desegregation actions and other civil rights measures of his admin to be broadcast in numerous languages on Voice Of America and other international PR organs. Ike took such pains with a mere internal American matter in response to often accurate Soviet reports of American hypocrisy, demonstrating that white America was attempting to clean up its own house. I

    Likewise the administration of Kennedy was repeatedly embarrassed by racist white realtors, restaurant owners, hotel proprietors who pushed around Third World diplomats when they attempted to do normal business in the self-styled leader of the “Free World.” President Kennedy himself made a personal appeal to Maryland civic leaders to cease and desist from segregation and other racist practices in motels, hotels and restaurants to bring an end to ugly diplomatic incidents with representatives of countries where military and economic concessions were sought (Klarman 1994). In short white America moved to clean up some of its act out of self-interest.

    White America also benefited psychologically by the concealment of its dirty linen. Middletown or white America always wants to look good, to not be seen as the open, snarling racist beast that was white Nazism. Minimal effort on civil rights (how big of a concession was it to let some black guy eat a hamburger 2 tables down?) demonstrated “something was being done” but as Ike himself pointed out- such actions would not affect “the hearts of minds” of white people. Ike was right in part. white America’s “hearts and minds” may be far from changed. It had to clean up certain OPEN abuses to maintain its self-image of virtue, but deep down old hatreds remain. Benedict seemed to understand this when she spoke of “the psychopathic tragedies in America.”

    What Benedict failed to forsee or forecast, is that much of White America, or Middletown (there are exceptions) would become good or increasingly skilled at covering its racism, and would still pursue racist outcomes using what appeared to be neutral non-racist methods. Thus real estate agents for decades no longer posted openly racist ads, but would quietly steer “undesirable” minorities to lesser property. White city councils would no longer send forth police to attack negroes who failed to leave “sundown towns” at night, but became more sophisticated- keeping them out by a subtle web of zoning controls and regulations that reduced the supply of housing (minimum lot sizes, rent controls etc). Conservative libertarians like Thomas Sowell and Walter WIlliams have long pointed out such patters and their works are studded with examples. Benedict called for education to overcome ingrained white prejudices. She failed to forecast that a day would come when whites themselves would enthusiastically call for education- using it as self-serving cover to benefit themselves. Hence mostly white teachers unions retain an iron grip on urban education- white people get paid in the name of “education” and “social justice.”

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. he problem is, what Ruth Benedict fostered, was a returned to biological prowess – she killed the intellectual golden goose that brought us this wonderful advancing culture. Her cohorts are killing the culture that has given us freedom and longer lives. What today is celebrated in Benedict’s elitist intellectual culture is biological diversity not intellectual diversity. In today’s social sciences biological diversity is studied (i.e., race, tribe, and sex) not the great Western Christian classical and philosophical ideas that got us to where we were.

    Frost actually argues against some of this.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. If Marx hadn’t written his book, societies would still have needed to find the right balance between capital and labor as capitalism increasingly took over from feudalism. Scandinavians and New England liberals like Ruth Benedict would still have socialist concern for the poor, just as Christians had helped the poor for centuries before. Even ancient Rome had workers’ rights legislation.

    Similarly, the idea of “racism” is said to have been created by Trotsky, but it was created long before by Christians when dealing with Native Americans and British colonialism.

    Muslim nations have low academic scores even when wealthy. That’s the inverse of NE Asian nations, which have high academic scores even when poor. 2 and 3 hundred years ago, Europe was the global center of enlightenment and science.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My Information
 Email Replies to my Comment

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS