ANT 101: Introduction to Sociocultural Anthropology
Spring 2004, M,W,F 8:30 — 9:20, Chambers 2084
Prof. Eriberto P. Lozada Jr. Office Hours: M, W, F 10:30 – 11:30 am
Office: Carnegie 01 T, Th 10:00 – 11:15 am or by appointment
Telephone: 704-894-2035 Email: erlozada@davidson.edu
Web: http://www.davidson.edu/personal/erlozada
Lecture Notes, 16 February 2004
Race: Physiological or Cultural Construct?
What is race?
• Race: (definition from biological sciences): “reproductively isolated population evolving
into a new species” – not applicable to contemporary human populations
• see Diamond article (think about questions on first page of article) for more on biological
perspective
• however, the idea of race (whatever anthropologists or academics say) is a powerful idea
in many different cultures (not just America)
Early ideas of race in anthropology:
• monogenesis vs. polygenesis: issue of single vs. multiple origins of human species.
Polygenists saw other “races” as different species.
• why craniometry? physiological explanations for variety in human intelligence; large
skull, smarter person
• From Paul Broca, a leading craniometrist:
“A prognathous (forward-jutting) face, more or less black color of the skin, wooly hair and
intellectual and social inferiority are often associated, while more or less white skin, straight hair
and an orthognathous (straight) face are the ordinary equipment of the highest groups in the
human series … A group with black skin, wooly hair, and a prognathous face has never been
able to raise itself spontaneously to civilization (from Gould, p. 83-84)
• Gould’s points:
1. Scientific racists and sexists often confine their label of inferiority to a single
disadvantaged group; but race, sex, and class go together, and each acts as a
surrogate for the others.
2. Prior prejudice, not copious numerical documentation, dictates conclusions.
3. Numbers and graphs do not gain authority from increasing precision of
measurement, sample size, or complexity in manipulation.
4. Craniometry was not just a plaything of academicians, a subject confined to
technical journals. Conclusions flooded the popular press. Once entrenched, they
often embarked on a life of their own … (p. 80-82)
