From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 06:23:56 MDT
About 150 years ago there existed a respectable stratum of the
western intellectual world that deeply believed in the basic
inferiority of certain classes and races of Man. Operationally,
I would say, this belief translated into conjectures of the
following sort.
Given two men from different classes or races, a man from a more
advanced or superior race or class would be found on almost
every occasion to be more capable at any given activity,
all other things being equal. That is, compensating for age,
health, and training, the "superior" man would invariably have
an edge. This followed from the perception of (1) different
races of man being less or further advanced than others (2)
that within each race better strains of individuals had been
formed up into classes that, on balance, reflected their innate
capabilities.
At first, careful thinkers were influenced by Darwin's theories,
which would seem to lend credence to the idea that indeed some
races were further evolved than others. Presently, however,
in the late 19th century, too many instances arose wherein the
supposed great advantages of race and breeding were found to
be evidently miniscule. How else to explain the undeniable
presence of genius among the "disadvantaged" races, and how
else to explain that once culture and technology were accounted
for (e.g. the emergence of Japan and its ability to defeat
Russia in a war), very little "innate superiority" could any
longer be discerned? Moreover, it became obvious that the
"lower" classes in advanced industrial nations such as Great
Britain contained many highly intelligent and capable people.
More remarkably (at least from this 19th century viewpoint),
vanishingly little difference appeared to even lie in
gender! When examined objectively, few traces of male
superiority could be found; on most tasks women who received
the proper training were the equal of their male counterparts,
and for each of those areas where men were indeed obviously
superior, a different area could be found that reflected
women's innate strengths.
In addition, it became quite clear that there had all along
been a vested interest in the West for retaining the status
quo. Researchers in the West attempting to come to grips
with these issues, such as Francis Galton, were very often
from an upper social class, and it seemed quite natural to
them that the simplest explanation for their status was that
their own nations, classes, and races really were born
superior. It therefore required an open mind in the late
19th century to realize the tremendous effects of culture,
training, history, and tradition on these questions, and to
see that the alleged superiority of white upper class males
didn't exist.
Both the inaccuracy of the former view and its extreme
unfairness provoked a strong counter-reaction. By the early
20th century a contrary dogma had arisen, most notably
in the field of anthropology: all races and classes of
human beings were innately absolutely equal, and it was
even unscientific to question this. So the conservatives
of the time, motivated in part by wishing to justify
their privileged positions (be it by nation, race, or class)
were drawn to the older side of the debate, while the more
radical or revolutionary elements gravitated towards the
newer side, which also bolstered their egalitarian social
reforms agenda (including communism and socialism).
By the late 20th century, both sides to this ancient debate
were still recognizable, but both had moderated their stands.
The "liberal" or "left" side had mostly prevailed; the
conservatives of the late 20th century, excepting a racist
fringe, no longer claimed there to be an innate superiority
of one class or race over another. (America's victories in
the World Wars had helped ensure the spread of the egalitarian
and democratic values that had been present from the earliest
days of the U.S.) Instead, the conservatives exerted their
efforts merely in arresting further socialism.
For the conservatives, then, while all races and classes were
admitted to be of the same worth and capability, the same was
not admitted of differing cultures and traditions. They
continue to claim that Western societies are superior by
virtue of a number of traditions and practices that compose
western civilization, and that equality among nations will
occur when, and only when, all nations have adopted certain
principles equally.
On the liberal side, less change has occurred since the early
days of the 20th century. The absolute principle of the innate
total equality of all human beings (excepting obvious
infirmities) is still held by most liberals and leftists to
such a degree that the efforts of psychologist's to discern the
tiniest differences in race, class, and gender provoke hostility.
(This hostility is an exact mirror image of that at the close of
the 19th century among the privileged elites of the West who saw
their assumptions about the innate superiority of white upper
class males being challenged and refuted.)
One sees that in many cases such as this, there are *reasons*
that the extreme positions and reactions of each side are *extreme*,
and that the final historical judgment (about which we can of course
only guess now) probably lies somewhere between. There are two
main reasons why "extremes" are usually wrong. One is that they
usually represent a distillation or abstraction of principle and
often, therefore, aren't adequate to deal with the complexities
of the real world. The other is that if a small fragment of the
world's people strongly embrace a certain dogmatic position, then
there must be some explanation of why the majority did not
perceive as they did, and quite often this explanation is faulty.
Lee
P.S. If you found this little essay at all accurate, then
note nowhere did I refer to a certain "s-word", a horribly
overblown and nearly useless concept that has unfortunately
come to replace *truth* and *knowledge* for many.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:00 MST