Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||A century ago, a voice of British liberalism described the "Chinaman" as "an inferior race of malleable orientals."1 During the same years, anthropology became professionalized as a discipline, "intimately associated with the rise of raciology."2 Presented with the claims of nineteenth century racist anthropology, a rational person will ask two sorts of questions: What is the scientific status of the claims? What social or ideological needs do they serve? The questions are logically independent, but the second type of question naturally comes to the fore as scientific pretensions are undermined. The question of the scientific status of nineteenth century racist anthropology is no longer seriously at issue, and its social function is not difficult to perceive. If the "Chinaman" is malleable by nature, then what objection can there be to controls exercised by a superior race?|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Stein Haugom Olsen (2009). Criticism of Literature and Criticism of Culture. Ratio 22 (4):439-463.
Michael Herzfeld (1987). Anthropology Through the Looking-Glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins of Europe. Cambridge University Press.
Frederick Gregory (2008). Questioning Scientific Faith in the Late Nineteenth Century. Zygon 43 (3):651-664.
Mark Risjord (2007). Scientific Change as Political Action: Franz Boas and the Anthropology of Race. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 37 (1):24-45.
John Collins (2007). Meta-Scientific Eliminativism: A Reconsideration of Chomsky's Review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (4):625 - 658.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads58 ( #20,276 of 732,743 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 732,743 )
How can I increase my downloads?