William H. Tucker (1)

In The Science and Politics of Racial Research, William H. Tucker argues, “The scientific conflict over genetic differences between groups is now well into its second century. Unlike other, more traditional scientific controversies, in which the argument diminishes as new discoveries are made or as scientists with opposing views retire or die away, the bitter dispute over race has arisen anew in each generation, to be debated all over again in almost exactly the same terms but with a fervor that seems more theological than scientific” (pg. 4). He continues, “The question of genetic differences between races has arisen not out of purely scientific curiosity or the desire to find some important scientific truth or to solve some significant scientific problem but only because of the belief, explicit or unstated, that the answer has political consequences” (pg. 5). Further, “What began as the study of hereditary characteristics thus quickly burgeoned into a presumptuous field marked by immodest pronouncements on the limits of democracy, the necessity of racial segregation, the futility of education, the biological inevitability of vast socioeconomic disparities, and the necessity for controlling the birthrate of certain groups” (pg. 6). In this way, “although it has usually been the ideologues in these coalitions who have fired the shots, the scientists have furnished the ammunition with no reservations over its use” (pg. 8).
Looking at nineteenth century science, Tucker writes, “The difference in cranial capacity became just one of a number of anthropometric measures, unencumbered by theoretical baggage, that were extensively investigated both before and after emancipation, not so much to prove black inferiority but to identify its bodily manifestations. The presumptive inferiority of blacks became the basis of a search for associated morphological or anatomical signs; any characteristic on which blacks differed from the white standard of perfection was a likely candidate. Extensive overlap on many of these measurements was largely ignored in favor of an obsessive quest for differences, often relatively inconsequential ones, which could then be cited as profoundly significant” (pg. 22). Further, “Many of these anthropometric studies appeared during the period of intense dissatisfaction with Reconstruction, thus providing a welcome source of scientific justification for the politics of disfranchisement and segregation” (pg. 25). In examining eugenics and its founder, Francis Galton, Tucker admits that “undeniably, Galton made some scientific contributions,” but that “his scientific work remained subordinate to his social agenda, and he was consequently not even aware of his most important discovery” (pg. 52).
Turning to these social agendas, Tucker writes, “Shifting the domain of discourse away from politics provided a means to attain oppressive policies on the grounds that they were a scientific necessity. As such views came to dominate the movement, those progressives who had been attracted to eugenics as a strategy for human improvement became disenchanted and abandoned their interest in the concept” (pg. 55). In the focus on science, Tucker writes, “Science might open the door to paradise, but if many of the geneticists had their way, just as many would be kept out as invited in” (pg. 68). Even after Nazi atrocities came to light, eugenics continued to play a role in social programs. Tucker writes, “Programs of medical care, better food, and educational assistance for blacks and other minorities were justified only if they were genetically equal to whites. Underlying this claim was the logical extension of Social Darwinist thought that had unregretfully predicted – indeed, even relished – an imminent demise of the black race. This prognosis had scientifically precluded any social assistance to blacks on the grounds that it would artificially interfere with the natural termination appropriate for an inferior group” (pg. 180-181). He continues, “By the 1960s, however, it had long been evident that blacks were not going to succumb to the evolutionary struggle, and the contemporary eugenicists were horrified to see that government now intended to intervene on behalf of genetic inferiors: the War on Poverty would allow – perhaps even encourage – poor blacks, as well as less competent whites, to have larger families. Even if the oppressive measures of an earlier era were no longer acceptable, there was an enormous difference between tolerating the existence of inferiors and aiding in their proliferation” (pg. 181).
Tucker concludes, “Although the obsession with racial differences has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of human intellectual processes, it has performed continuing service as support for political policies – and not benign ones. The imprimatur of science has been offered to justify, first, slaver and, later, segregation, nativism, sociopolitical inequality, class subordination, poverty, and the general futility of social and economic reform. Indeed, during the past century the major ideological foundation for systematic oppression has shifted from religion to science, as the natural order has been invoked to rationalize inequalities previously sanctified by the divine order” (pg. 269-270).… (plus d'informations)