
From Savage to : Anthropology and the Construction of Race, 1896-1954
Author(s): Lee D. Baker (Author)
- Publisher: University of California Press
- Publication Date: 23 Nov. 1998
- Language: English
- Print length: 339 pages
- ISBN-10: 0520211685
- ISBN-13: 9780520211681
Book Description
Baker paints a vivid picture of the relationships between specific African American and white scholars, who orchestrated a paradigm shift within the social sciences from ideas based on Social Darwinism to those based on cultural relativism. He demonstrates that the greatest impact on the way the law codifies racial differences has been made by organizations such as the NAACP, which skillfully appropriated the new social science to exploit the politics of the Cold War.
Editorial Reviews
Review
"
From Savage to Negro is more than a historic academic discourse on race and anthropology. It is truly a remarkable elucidation of the construction of race in anthropology and its influence in American politics and must be read."-- "Black Scholar: Journal of Black Studies and Research""Through its interrogation of anthropological and political discourses about race and racial formation,
From Savage to Negro topples historical myths about the nation's legacy of state-sanctioned segregation and racial difference."-- "Nation""With care and precision, Baker shows how by the mid-20th century, African American intellectuals and leaders selectively appropriated anthropology--specifically, the work of Franz Boas--in their efforts to affirm notions of racial equality. Thus,
From Savage to Negro documents the paradoxically liberating and normalizing potentiality of anthropological thought."-- "History of Anthropology Review"From the Author
The major question I ask is, what role did anthropology play-- as a science-- in shaping notions of race in the U.S.? I look specifically at how anthropological ideas were used by people in the media, U.S. Congress, and Supreme Court. As well, I explore how these changed over time. The book covers the first half of the twentieth century, which is bound by two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions that codified a significant shift in U.S. race relations. In 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson upheld racial segregation and put forth the doctrine known as separate but equal, which allowed racially segregated public facilities. In 1954 the Brown v. Board of Education decision essentially overturned the separate but equal doctrine and the Supreme Court began to mandate racial desegregation. This shift in the legal significance of racial categories coincided with a significant shift in anthropology, which provided scientific validation for first one, and then the other, interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In 1896, Social Darwinist thought informed the anthropological discourse on race and offered scientific validation to proponents of racial inferiority. By 1954, however, cultural relativism informed the anthropological discourse on race and provided scientific support for champions of racial equality.
Historically, there has been a certain "resonance," if you will, between laws regarding race passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, ideas about race articulated in the mass media, and the studies about race published by scientists. These institutions share specific notions about race that converge, are sometimes linked, and often influence one and other. Researching, theorizing, and classifying racial groups has always been the province of anthropology.
More specifically, the context from which turn-of-the-century constructs of race emerged such as industrialization, poll taxes, public lynchings, unsafe working conditions, and Jim Crow segregation also gave rise to a professional anthropology that espoused racial inferiority and, consequently, supported and validated the status quo. Three decades later, the socio-political movements that contested racial inequality such as the Great Migration, the rise of the NAACP, the Harlem Renaissance, the African American alliance with the Democratic party, and the struggle for desegregation all contributed to the rise of a new paradigm in anthropology that espoused, and in turn quickened the struggle for, racial equality.
From its inception, anthropology has been the science that takes the explanation of race and culture as its central charge. Anthropological explanations of race and culture have changed in step with larger social transformations. These explanations have not been left idol in an ivory tower. Anthropological explanations of racial categories have been incorporated by and articulated within the machinery that construct racial categories. In other words, the anthropological discourse on race has been appropriated by such people as those who write the legislation that shapes public policy, as well those who write the popular magazine articles that shapes public opinion.
Science and law continue to be important sites where the construct of race is transformed. By understanding the linkages between science and law in the past, we I hope the reader can better understand how and why race and racism is structured in American society today. I also try to help people better understand how the once-formidable authority of university scholars has somewhat waned and is being eclipsed by high-paid operatives at partisan organizations like the American Enterprise Institute (i.e. Why books like The Bell Curve and The End of Racism get so much attention).
I have attempted to explore the relationship and linkages between the shifting discourse on race within anthropology and racial constructs undergoing transformation in the U.S. One of my goals was to explore how anthropologists and the texts they produce contribute to the various dynamics involved in the formation of the racial category used for African Americans. I focus on the first half of the twentieth century because ideas about racial inferiority were supplanted by notions of racial equality in law, science, and public opinion--each arena played off and reinforced the other. Anthropology also matured as a discipline during these years and was affected by these changes yet helped to effect these changes. Simply put, I have integrated the history of anthropology and the history of the African American experience, and by doing so I have revealed intersections and linkages that have not been considered previously.
The historical narrative I weave includes an outline of the complicated relationship between Franz Boas, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Booker T. Washington between 1900 and1910. I also write an interesting chapter on the relationship between anthropologists at Columbia University during the 1920s and the intellectuals of the Harlem Renaissance. My favorite chapters, however, document the way Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund carefully deployed certain aspects of anthropology to bolster specific points in the briefs they used to end segregation, but then deployed sociology to bolster other points.
I teach anthropology and African American studies at Columbia University
From the Back Cover
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
From Savage to Negro
By Lee D. Baker
University of California Press
Copyright © 1998 Lee D. Baker
All right reserved.
ISBN: 9780520211681
Introduction
Race in the United States is at once an utter illusion and a material reality, a fiction and a "scientific" fact. It is a political wedge and a unifying force. It is structured by legislation yet destabilized by judicial fiat, shaped by public opinion but also configured by academic consensus. Though historically contingent, it is constantly being transformed. The history and reality of race and racism in the United States force individuals to negotiate daily between the ideological pillars of democracy—justice, freedom, and equality—and stark racial inequality. Whether one looks to Alexis de Tocqueville or Studs Terkel, this negotiation is recognized as a fundamental character of U.S. society—what Terkel calls "the American obsession."
In the United States, people use "commonsense" racial categories every day to identify strangers and social situations or to help form their own identities. Racial categories are often seen as "natural" or as having some inherent biological component. But some have understood for decades that categories of race in the United States have little to do with natural history and a great deal to do with social and political history.
Although they often seem immutable, racial categories are always in flux; indeed, sometimes they change rapidly. Racial categories are produced and reproduced ideologically and culturally: they are constructed. In turn, these categories structure the access of specific groups to opportunities and resources. Complex political, economic, and cultural processes on a global scale produce various racial constructs that vary during particular periods in history from solid and generally accepted totenuous and vigorously contested. The dynamics of this variation will become clearer as this narrative unfolds.
Since the founding of the Union, contests over what racial groups in the United States signify have been political enterprises. Though dating to the colonial period, the politics of race was woven into the Constitution and continues to dominate American culture and politics. As with most political endeavors in the United States, various individuals, groups, and coalitions simultaneously wield power, marshal authority, and sway public opinion. The construction of race is no different. No political party, interest group, or scientific organization has itself structured racial inequality. Although various interests worked in concert, the structuring of racial inequality was not orchestrated. Yet ideas about race are articulated in ways that reinforce legal, social, and economic relations among groups.
Historically, there has been a certain "resonance" between laws regarding race passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, ideas about race articulated in the mass media, and studies on race published by scientists. These institutions share specific notions about race that converge, are sometimes linked, and often influence one another. Researching, theorizing, and classifying racial groups has always been the province of anthropology.
In this book I explore the relationships and linkages between the shifting discourse on race within anthropology and the racial constructs undergoing transformation in the United States. One of my goals is to explore how anthropologists and the texts they produce contribute to the various dynamics involved in the formation of the racial category used for African Americans. I focus on the first half of the twentieth century because ideas about racial inferiority were supplanted by notions of racial equality in law, science, and public opinion; each arena played off and reinforced the other. Anthropology also matured as a discipline during these years and was affected by these changes, yet it helped to effect them. Simply put, I integrate the history of anthropology and the history of the African American experience, and by doing so I reveal intersections and linkages that have not been considered previously.
The first half of the twentieth century is bounded by two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions concerning the Fourteenth Amendment. Each codified a significant shift in U.S. race relations. In 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson upheld racial segregation and put forth the doctrine known as separate but equal, which allowed unequal segregated public facilities. In 1954 the Brown v. Board of Education decision essentially overturnedthe separate-but-equal doctrine, and the Supreme Court began to mandate racial desegregation. This shift in the legal significance of racial categories coincided with a striking shift in anthropology, which provided scientific validation for first one, and then the other, interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In 1896 Social Darwinist thought informed anthropological writings on race and offered scientific validation to proponents of racial hierarchies. By 1954, however, cultural relativism informed the anthropological research on race and culture and provided scientific support for champions of racial equality.
The relationship between the anthropological discourse on race and the prevailing racial construct has been close and often reciprocal. The processes that construct race have also helped to shape the field of anthropology; anthropology, in turn, has helped to shape various racial constructs. The social context from which turn-of-the-century constructs of race emerged—industrialization, poll taxes, public lynchings, unsafe working conditions, and Jim Crow segregation—at the same time gave rise to a professional anthropology that espoused racial inferiority and, as a consequence, supported and validated the status quo. Three decades later, social and political movements like the Great Migration, the rise of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Harlem Renaissance, the African American alliance with the Democratic Party, and the struggle for desegregation all contributed to the rise of a new paradigm in anthropology that espoused, and in turn quickened the struggle for, racial equality.
Between 1896 and 1954 anthropology played an integral role in helping to change the meaning and structure of race for African Americans. Although one can never adequately document all facets of how racial categories transform, one can identify how the justices on the Supreme Court incorporate changing scientific ideas about race in their various interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The variance of the Supreme Court's interpretations of the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is perhaps the best barometer of race relations and the changing significance of race in the United States.1
Since its inception in the eighteenth century, American anthropology has been the science that takes the explanation of race and culture as its central charge. Anthropological explanations of race and culture have changed in step with larger social transformations. These explanations have not been left idle in an ivory tower but have become an active part of the social machinery that constructs racial categories, and that machinery has helped sustain the discipline of anthropology.
The anthropological discourse on race feeds into the larger discourses out of which it is itself constructed. For example, lawmakers have used anthropology to write legislation that shapes public policy, and journalists have used it to produce media that...
Wow! eBook


