The case against B.f. Skinner
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)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anthropology Through the Looking-Glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins of Europe.Michael Herzfeld - 1987 - Cambridge University Press.
Questioning Scientific Faith in the Late Nineteenth Century.Frederick Gregory - 2008 - Zygon 43 (3):651-664.
Scientific Change as Political Action: Franz Boas and the Anthropology of Race.Mark Risjord - 2007 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 37 (1):24-45.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads61 ( #86,340 of 2,171,800 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #326,702 of 2,171,800 )
How can I increase my downloads?