The Journal of Primary Prevention, Vol. 17, No. L 1996

The Psychological Origins of the White Male Patriarchy George W. Albee 1,2

A white male patriarchy developed in England as the British empire grew, expanding its colonial exploitation around the world. A rational explanation was required to explain how a small number of men deserved to control this enormous and growing wealth. With Darwin's theory of evolution (survival of the fittest), Galton's studies of genius (rich and successful men were related to each other) and Spencer's insight that natural selection in human societies was Nature's way of getting rid of bad stock and preserving the best, the theory took shape. The theory was imported to America where it flourishes. Psychologists provided evidence to support the ideas of the ruling class: intelligence, mental disorders, crime and the addictions are all due to bad genes and bad brains. The defect model occupies the center of the stage. There is no need to act to remove injustice, sexism, racism, homophobia--the causes of distress are not social, they are internal, personal defects. Drugs will reduce the symptoms while the search goes on for the internal defects. KEY WORDS: Social Darwinism; patriarchy; class bias; prejudice.

The Faulty genes-Super genes position in education, psychology and psychiatry has lasted for well over a century. It was early stated in Galton's (1869) publication Hereditary Genius. Subsequently, enthusiastic popular eugenics movements aimed at "improving the race" followed in England and America. The social consequences of this genetic viewpoint continue down the present time. Galton was greatly influenced by his cousin Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) and both were influenced by the Reverend 1Professor Emeritus, University of Vermont, and Courtesy Professor, Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida. 2Address correspondence to George W. Albee, 7517 Longboat Drive North, Longboat Key, FL 34228. 75 © 1996HumanSciencesPress, Inc.

76

Albee

Malthus' (1826) essay on population. (Darwin subsequently accepted Galton's arguments about human trait inheritance.) Galton was also influenced by his contemporary Herbert Spencer, who himself was strongly indebted to Darwin. Spencer (1972) formulated a complex theory of the evolution of a society, and of societies, that later came to be known as "Social Darwinism". It had a great impact on biological and psychological thought in mid-Victorian England and an unprecedented later influence in the United States. Social Darwinism strongly supported unbridled capitalism--let the strong and fittest survive and the weak perish. Social welfare programs, it was argued, can only interfere with natural selection, to the detriment of humankind. It takes no profound scholarship to demonstrate how much the political and social context determined the theories of these England scholars, nor do we need a laborious search for clues to explain their enormous popularity among the upper classes and industrial entrepreneurs. The midVictorian era began with the opening of the Crystal Palace by Queen Victoria in 1851. (This was also a latter year of the great Irish famine, resulting from the potato blight, during which the British government turned its back on millions of starving Irish peasants, evicting the victims from their simple homes and refusing to open warehouses bulging with grain belonging to wealthy absentee landowners. Adam Smith's law of supply and demand could not be violated.) The Irish peasants starved in great numbers or came to America. For the next 25 years, Britain continued to enjoy great industrial prosperity. Darwin's argument for evolution was hotly debated by religious and scientific leaders, but it was clearly supported by data, and also was so supportive of British manufacturing's success in competition, and as justification for the exploitation of her colonies, that it was widely accepted. Darwin (1860) much influenced by his observations of the breeding of domestic animals, strongly opposed measures to save the weak by allowing them to breed and thereby causing degeneration of the race. The evolutionists, including Darwin, rank ordered the "Races of Mankind" on a scale that ranged from the Caucasians (Nordics) at the top, to the Blacks (Hottentots) and other Aborigines at the bottom. Galton had concluded that the negro race (sic) is distinctly inferior because: (1) it has produced so few men of high achievement, (2) fewer men of significantly above average achievement, (3) the traveler to the native countries "almost invariably holds his own in their presence" and (4) the number of "halfwitted men" is quite large both among Negro servants in America and those Galton met in Africa. He placed the Australian aborigine type even below the African Negro. Galton also argued that women were intellectually inferior. Spencer (1897) agreed.

Psychological Origins of Patriarchy

77

At mid-century England's foreign trade was larger than that of France, Germany, and Italy combined and nearly four times that of the United States. The British navy ruled the oceans, and the standard of living of a majority of her people improved steadily. While there still were large numbers of British unskilled workers barely above the level of starvation, working long hours, for poor pay, under the most dismal conditions, there was a rapidly growing English middle class enjoying the growing prosperity and optimism of the age. Government interfered very little with individual enterprise and industrial competition. Britain's power on the high seas led to the steady expansion of her colonial empire, to the subjugation of darker skinned people, to the cold-hearted exploitation of her colonies in Africa, Asia, and around the world. As Marx and Engels (1936) had pointed out the ruling ideas of the society, (especially the belief in the constitutional inferiority of the dusky and brunette races, and the inferiority of women) clearly supported the White Male Ruling Class. Gradually trade union activity spread from the skilled trades to the unskilled working class in England, and the last decade of the century saw a wave of strikes. Toward the end of the century, "universal" suffrage (for men only) also was achieved and the political parties began competing for the votes of the working men. Compulsory universal education began with the Education Act of 1870 and free basic education followed. All of these developments led to a climate among the British elite that was receptive, nay hungry, for those ideas and ideologies that stressed natural selection of the fittest, social evolution through survival of the most competent, and the hereditary origin of those talents that led to the seats of power and responsibility. Both Spencer's and Galton's theories had become immensely popular. After all, how else to account for the fact that a small number of well-educated rich men on a foggy little island in the middle of the North Sea had long controlled more than half of the world's commerce and ruled an empire that stretched in all directions, around the earth. What could justify the fact that subjugated colonial peoples were tirelessly exploited by their British masters, and British blue collar and day laborers worked under the most exploitative and dangerous conditions? Ideologies were needed that proclaimed the scientific correctness of free competition, that argued against any support aimed at relieving the squalid and unhealthy living conditions of the exploited working poor and colonial masses. "Innate superiority" explained to powerful upper-class men why they should enjoy the unbelievable affluence that resulted from widespread exploitation. It was supported by the view that everyone rose to their proper position through the operation of genetic endowment. Those who failed to rise were deficient in their supply of the proper genes. Social Darwinism could not help but be favored by the white male elite upper class. (The

78

Albee

parallel to Calvinism has been shown: the saved and the damned has been preordained (Albee, 1982).) At the same time, ominous rumblings were developing from the exploited masses of the world. Uprisings of workers were occurring in other countries, and unionization and strikes were beginning to exact their toll in England. Marx and Engles (1859) had warned: ' ~ spectre is haunting Europe." Socialists were criticizing the established order. The Fabian Society had been founded by British intellectuals in 1854. The Fabians favored gradualism over revolution, but their message was still a threat. Redistribute power. As the 20th century began to unfold, and Queen Victoria died, a new era of strife and turmoil appeared. Conservatives were desperate to preserve the old social order. In America, the Power Elite, that had long looked to England for intellectual leadership, absorbed the writings of Herbert Spencer, who continued to be read and whose message even increased in popularity. The expansion of the power of the industrial Robber Barons came later in America than in England and an ideology was required to sustain the rapacious exploitation of workers, and especially of the millions of immigrants, that occurred in the United States. The exploitation of these immigrants who arrived, in turn, from Ireland, Scandinavia, Russia and Eastern Europe, Southern Italy, and, of course, the continued exploitation of Blacks and women, could be justified only with the acceptance of the Social Darwinism that Spencer described as naturally lawful and scientific. And there was the ever-present danger of an uprising of the masses, leading to a proletarian revolution of the sort that nearly had occurred in Germany, and that had succeeded in Russia (the threat of the "Bolsheviks."). Threats to the status quo continued to fuel the eugenics movement, engaging the support of significant numbers of social scientists, including especially psychologists. Eugenics theories were widely popular. They stressed the genetic basis of success in acquiring wealth and power and also of causing poverty and early death. Eugenicists (like psychologist Karl Pearson who occupied the Chair of Eugenics endowed by Galton at the University of London) viewed with alarm the higher birth rate of the poor and advocated "the removal" of the unfit--genetic paupers, imbeciles, and criminals--to reduce the future burden of their offspring on society (Pearson, 1904). Blum (1978) says: General acceptance of Darwin's controversial theory, however, undermined traditional religious beliefs and created a need for new legitimating explanations. Into this void stepped Spencer, Galton, and other theorists, who took the older religious idea of predestination and adorned it with a new, scientific vocabulary. No longer were economic successes or failures preordained by God; they were predestined by differences in the complexity of individuals' nervous systems. Thus, eugenics, being an offshoot of Social Darwinism, would occasionally be referred to as 'scientific capitalism' (p. 35).

Psychological Origins of Patriarchy

79

Blum points out that Spencer was not the first academic to develop the idea of biological predestination. He awards some credit to Cesare Lombroso, who wrote during the 1870s from his post as Professor of Legal Medicine at the University of Turin in Italy. Lombroso (1876/1912) believed criminality to be hereditary and he sought to distinguish the physical traits of murderers, thieves, and rapists through examination of their facial features and head shapes. He believed that criminals were physically similar to non-European races (especially Negroes and Mongols) and even to wild animals. Interestingly, a group of retardates (now called Down's Syndrome) were originally called "Mongolian Idiots"--the explanation being that they were throwbacks (atavistic retrogression) to the more primitive Oriental race! Galton had made a major effort at trying to measure mental abilities, as did James McKean Cattell who had studied with him. Neither was particularly successful, although Galton concluded, from his efforts, that women were intellectually inferior to men in nearly every respect. He also decided that the Black race was lowest of all, although the scientific evidence he used to reach this conclusion was almost non-existent. Galton invented the method of studying identical twins and comparing them with fraternal twins and ordinary siblings. This further convinced him of the utmost importance of genetic factors. Galton's intellectual successor, Karl Pearson, developed the technique of using teachers' ratings of children's intellectual capacity and, using his newly developed coefficient of correlation, found correlations of approximately .50 in ability between siblings, and between parents and children. Correlations of .50 turned up in a wide variety of measurements. Pearson's reputation grew, and he increasingly reported to the public that heredity was responsible for approximately nine-tenths of human mental ability. He extended his research into many other areas including health and illness and reported a correlation of .50 between parents and children in the inheritance of tuberculosis. He concluded that this illness was also the result of a specific genetic character. He helped lead a fight against those who wanted to improve sanitary conditions to reduce the incidence of tuberculosis. He attributed the gradual decline in tuberculosis to resistance acquired through the process of natural selection. (For a discussion see Pastore, 1949; also Blum, 1978). Pearson (1925) also did a controlled study that compared Russian and Polish Jewish children with Gentile children in London. He found the Jewish children inferior intellectually and in a number of other ways including the fact that they were reported to be "dirtier". When critics pointed out that the Jewish children might be dirty because they lived in slums, Pearson argued that the reason they lived in slums was that they were intellectually and innately incapable of living elsewhere. He

80

Albee

was a fit heir for Galton's mantle. He argued against allowing further Russian Jews to immigrate to England because of their general low intelligence. The development of the Binet intelligence test and its widespread use in America resulted in "scientific proof" that test performance was highly correlated with social class and economic position, with education, and with latitude of European origin. American psychologists insisted (as did psychologists in England) that the tests measured innate mental capacity, native inborn potential, thus giving further scientific support for the genetic basis of the class structure and for the danger that the great Lumpenproletariat was a threat in America as it was in England to average national intelligence because of the high birth rate of the poor and the low birth rate of the affluent. Spencer (see Schwendinger and Schwendinger, 1974) argued for an inverse relationship between growth of the nervous system and growth of the reproductive system that compete for the same nutrients. Clearly the poor become more sexually active and the educated less so. A similar view has recently been expressed by the psychiatrist who directed the major governmental mental health agency. He said it was probably not a mistake to call the inner city a jungle and he proposed genetic research on inner city males who, like male monkeys were oversexed and over aggressive. In England and in the United States the science of genetics, and courses in eugenics, were increasingly popular. In part this was because faculties and students in the private universities largely were drawn from the upper social strata that would be expected to favor such theories, but also because major philanthropies supported the eugenics movement. Andrew Carnegie, for example, was a great admirer of the work of Herbert Spencer and the Carnegie Institution supported eugenics research. In England eugenics laboratories had long been established. Galton was awarded honorary degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge, and was knighted in 1909. When he died in 1933 he left 5000 pounds to endow at University College, London, a Chair in Genetics that was first occupied by Karl Pearson. In Pearson's subsequent biography of Galton, the latter was described as pushing eugenics with an evangelical zeal. It was not simply a scientific inquiry, but a way of saving humankind from the great unwashed masses and from the socialists. One of the great developers of the British colonial empire was Cecil Rhodes, described by Baltzell (1964, p. 136) as "that most rabid of racialists" who dreamed of forming a Nordic secret society, organized like Loyola's Jesuits, devoted to world domination. Cecil Rhodes had succeeded in seizing control of the diamond mines in South Africa and he went on to exploit much of Africa for the British Empire. Rhodes got complete control over diamonds. He dreamed that "between 2,000 and 3,000 Nordic gentle-

Psychological Origins of Patriarchy

81

men in the prime of life and mathematically selected" should run the world. He founded the Rhodes Scholarship Association, that originally selected as its members only men from the "Nordic Races" to come to Oxford University. (See Baltzell, pp. 136-137). In the United States, the eminent biologist Charles Davenport (1911) carried on the eugenics battle although he took a somewhat more Mendelian approach than had Galton or Pearson. Until World War I there was considerable disagreement between the British and American schools on the exact mechanics of heredity, although there was no disagreement about the eugenic implications of the data. It was the invention of intelligence tests that provided crucial measurements to give scientific answers to support the eugenics argument. (In developing intelligence tests, Alfred Binet had argued that intelligence was not fixed and that there were techniques for improving the performance of children with low scores. But this kind of argument carried little weight with the IQ testers in England and America who held that IQ was fixed for life.) A vital link between British and American psychology occurred in the person of William McDougall. (Like Galton--and Darwin for that matt e r - h e had traveled as a young man to remote areas of the world and had observed the "primitive savages" who lived there.) He was recruited in 1920 to head the Psychology Department at Harvard University. He arrived from England with a reputation as a major social and political conservative who defended the political-social status quo as scientifically correct. As an English eugenicist he had argued that there was danger that the social changes occurring in England would favor the uncontrolled reproduction of the inferior classes. He argued that the increased taxes on the wealthy, the increase in charity work, the cheapness of bread, the free milk and food for schoolchildren and the availability of common education, medical care, and public housing, all would result in a reduction in infant mortality, allowing poor stock to survive. This would lead inevitably, he feared, to society's degeneration because of interference with the process of natural selection. Britain's power and influence were declining, he opined, because it was becoming more democratic. McDougall was intrigued with Fascism and, according to Pastore (1944), he wrote an "Open Letter to the Emperor of Japan" expressing his admiration for that nation's disciplined and stratified political structure. He favored the "British race" over all others, of course, because of its predominantly Nordic blood and he expressed strong anti-Semitic statements, damning psychoanalysis as "a Jewish science." McDougall was convinced that he had become more popular in his writings because he argued that psychology might save the world from disaster. He argued that psychology could have better preserved British influence in China and India if it had only been more widely heeded

82

Albee

in the councils of power. His hereditarian bias and political conservatism were reflected in his doctrine of innate instincts contained in his book Introduction to Social Psychology (1921) (that went through 20 editions). His formulation of the importance of instincts was clearly related to his support of the eugenics movements. Not only was intelligence inherited, but also nearly all behavior is based on underlying innate emotional structures. The acquisitive instinct explained the effort to accumulate wealth in more advanced civilizations, and the instincts of curiosity, of pugnacity, etc., were used to explain both individual and national behavior. It is clear that the eugenicists were aware of the political implications of their views. They regarded as their ideological enemies those persons who stressed environmental explanations of behavior. They saw that an emphasis on environmental factors as the cause of poverty could lead to efforts at social change and even to revolution. John Locke's (1806), notion of the infant mind as a tabula rasa was particularly threatening. McDougall pointed out that the tabula rasa notion was consistent with political liberalism. John Locke had recognized the existence of some inborn behavioral tendencies among persons but his philosophy encouraged efforts at social reform...and so his views were regarded as dangerous by eugenicists. Even more dangerous, of course, were the ideas of Karl Marx. It would be hard to imagine more clear-cut differences of opinion than those of Marx and McDougall. McDougall believed that class inequalities were a result of inborn differences in intellectual ability and differences in types and strength of instinct. Marx believed that class inequalities were a result of exploitation of the workers by the owners of the instruments of production and that social class position determined personality. Marx taught a dialectical materialism and McDougall argued vehemently against materialism and against social change. Pastore (1949) concludes: McDougall's hereditarian point of view, practically absolute proscription of environmental factors, his denial of the materialities of the world, his applications and justifications of his ideas, were consequences of his desire to see society remain unchanged. (p. 152).

A number of leading American psychologists were committed to the hereditarian (and eugenic) position. APP~s first president G. Stanley Hall (1924) wrote: The peril of democracy is that it has aroused so large a body of hopes that are utterly unrealizable....Ranks and classes are inherited in human nature. Perhaps Goddard's dream will come true, and each must accept the rating that consigns him his true and just place in the hierarchy of the world's work (p. 466).

G. Stanley Hall's name has been associated with many honors, particularly in 1992, the Hundredth Anniversary of his founding of the American Psychological Association (APA). Hall was largely responsible for this

Psychological Origins of Patriarchy

83

organization and his name is well known to psychologists. He organized the group of academic men that became the first members of the new APA in 1892. He was later founder and first President of Clark University. He invited Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, and other distinguished European psychoanalysts, to come to Clark for the first public presentation of psychoanalytic theory to an academic audience. The American Psychological Association honors Hall each year with a series of "distinguished annual lectures" bearing his name. It should not go unnoticed that Hall was a most vocal opponent of equality in education for women. He argued strenuously against co-education. At the American Academy of Medicine Hall (1907) said, "It [co-education] violates a custom so universal that it seems to express a h u m a n fundamental instinct... Girls... are attracted to c o m m o n knowledge which all share, to convention, are more influenced by fashion, more imitative and lack the boy's intense need to know, be, do something distinctive that develops and emphasizes his individuality. To be thrown on their own personal resources in sports, in the classroom, in nature study and elementary brings out the best in a boy, but either confuses or strains a girl.

He also argued against equal pay for teachers of boys and of girls. Those who teach boys should be paid more, he argued. He actively opposed admitting women to the study of medicine, arguing that their menstrual difficulties and penchant for hysteria made them incompetent to be doctors. M. Carey Thomas, President of Bryn Mawr College for 28 years (from 1894 to 1922) was highly critical of Hall's book Adolescence. She said: "I have never chanced ... upon a book that seems to degrade me in my w o m a n h o o d as the seventh and seventeenth chapters on women and w o m e n ' s education of President G. Stanley Hall." (1979)

The American intellectual apologists for the status quo had more to explain, perhaps than had their British counterparts. For 200 years Americans had been murdering Native Americans, breaking treaties, and stealing their land. American folk heroes had been leading expeditions against the "Indians," often resulting in the decimation or destruction of whole groups. "Indian fighters" were presented as heroes in the Pop culture of the day. Everyone knew that "the only good Injun is a dead Injun" and few voices were raised in protest. America also had the institution of slavery to rationalize. Albert Deutsch (1949) reviewed the "scientific evidence" of the anatomical and mental peculiarities of "Negro persons". Deutsch also reported on the attempt of the sixth United States Census in 1840 to count all insane persons and all idiots. The Census tables revealed an interesting phenomenon. The rate of idiocy and lunacy among "free Negroes" was reported to be some 11 times higher than it was among "Negroes who were slaves." In Maine, for example, every 14th Negro was said to be af-

84

Albee

flicted with insanity or a mental defect. In contrast, in Louisiana, where slavery was fmnly established, only one Negro in 4310 was afflicted! Southern Senator John C. Calhoun spoke eloquently, interpreting these data, on the floor of the Senate: Here is proof of the necessity of slavery. The African is incapable of self care and sinks into lunacy under the burden of freedom. It is a mercy to him to give him a guardianship and protection from mental death. (see Deutsch, 1949, p. 473).

Edward Jarvis, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, who had studied the 1840 census while bedfast with a broken leg, found many discrepancies in the data and questioned the accuracy of figures about Negroes and insanity. But his corrections and criticisms were ignored. As he predicted, the error found its way into the mass media and into the psychiatric literature. The American Journal of Insanity in 1851 asked: "Who would believe, without the fact in black and white, before his eyes, that every 14th colored person in the State of Maine is an idiot or lunatic?" (italics in original; cited in Deutsch, 1944, p. 478). This is an example of what statisticians call a Type 1 Error, asserting as truth a statement that is clearly false, (rejecting the Null hypothesis when it should be accepted.) Such errors often are printed, reprinted, and quoted endlessly in both the popular and the "scientific" literature. One of McDougall's favored English students at Oxford, Cyril Burt, had been guided by him into investigating class differences in intelligence in order to fill "this great gap in the eugenicist argument." McDougall had succeeded the first psychologist (Stout) at Oxford and had arranged small experimental facilities in the physiology department. This contact with McDougall was crucial in Burt's development and played a major role in his decision to take up psychology (see Hearnshaw, 1979, p. 11). Often he was McDougall's sole student and they would work steadily together. McDougall gave Burt a project on standardizing psychological tests that got him acquainted with Karl Pearson and led to a further meeting with Galton and to his first contact with Spearman. In 1908, Burt was appointed lecturer in experimental psychology and assistant lecturer in physiology at the University of Liverpool. He spent the next five years there and was greatly influenced by Sherrington, a renowned physiologist who encouraged him in the study of psychology. Burt became a popular and inspiring lecturer and, as Hearnshaw (1981, p. 6) points out, the central thread of his research in Liverpool, and subsequently in London, was the topic of intelligence, "innate, general, cognitive ability" as he defined it. He was persistent in preserving the Galtonian tradition at University College, London. Pearson, his predecessor at University College, had focused research on intelligence and Galton had long interested himself

Psychological Origins of Patriarchy

85

with this work of the College. Clearly it was a setting in which Burt could flourish. Spencer had already defined intelligence as the major factor permitting organisms to adapt to their environment and Galton had proclaimed intelligence to be hereditary. Obviously concern about the excessive breeding and survival of poor stock, and the restricted breeding of the gifted, made eugenics proposals high on the scientific agenda. Burt's formulation of the concept of "innate, cognitive ability" was one "which he was prepared to defend against all opposition, rather than a tentative hypothesis to be refuted, if possible, by empirical tests. It is hard not to feel that almost from the first Burt showed an excessive assurance of the finality and correctness of his conclusions. The evidence for the innateness of intelligence he regarded at a very early age as 'conclusive'"(see Hearnshaw, 1979, p. 49). As the years passed, Burt began developing what Hearnshaw later described as a "delusional system" in which slowly but certainly he claimed that is was he, rather than Spearman, who had developed factor analysis. He began writing and publishing letters under false names to his own journal, and while doubt about his claims was widespread, most potential critics remained silent because of his eminence. As Hearnshaw, (p. 227) points out, "Burt's reputation survived his lifetime." Shortly before he died the American Psychological Association gave him the Edward Lee Thorndike Award, the first time to a foreigner. His Thorndike Award Address was his last major work and was published posthumously in the American Psychologist (1972). In the last years of his life he was involved more and more in extremist controversy. He blamed progressive education for a decline in academic standards in English schools, and he felt picked upon by the Labor educationists who, he said, were all out to build what they called a classless society. His work on the intelligence of twins reared apart was a major influence in educational psychology. Over many years he "proved" the importance of genes over environment by measuring the intelligence of a larger and larger group of identical twins reared apart. The realization and proof that his empirical data were unsound was first made by Kamin (1973) in talks at Princeton and later in an address Kamin gave to the Eastern Psychological Association. The whole story is told in Hearnshaw's biography of Burt and in Kamin's book The Science and Politics of IQ (1974). It is clear that Burt's identical twin evidence was largely fabricated over the years. He was convinced in advance of the dominance of genes and merely created evidence to support this position. His "scientific data" greatly influenced the whole system of British education and was widely quoted in American studies and elsewhere. In America, Princeton and Yale Universities, during the last decade of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th, were primarily es-

86

Albee

tablishments for White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) upper class male students. (The College of New Jersey had changed its name to the more patrician-sounding Princeton in the 1890s and was indeed a stronghold of the patricians. Its faculty was a faculty of gentlemen scholars.) At Yale, William Graham Sumner, one of the founders of American sociology, taught Social Darwinism and laissez-faire economics. As Baltzell (1964) pointed out, it was Sumner's sociology that "...reinforced several generations of Yale men's faith in themselves as well as in their wealthy fathers who had sent them there..." (p. 13). Some of Sumner's scientific conclusions about the nature of society: Competition is a law of nature. Nature is entirely neutral; she submits to him who most energetically and resolutely assails her. She grants her rewards to the fittest, therefore, without regard to other considerations of any kind...such is the system of nature. If we do not like it, and if we try to amend it, there is only one way in which we can do it. We can take from the better and give to the worse...let it be understood that we cannot go outside the alternative: liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; non-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members. (see Baltzell, 1964).

Many early American psychologists were politically conservative and biased in favor of an hereditary explanation of human behavior. Pastore (1949) did a careful analysis of the published writings of British and American scientists and showed a significant relationship in nearly every case between their attitudes on the nature-nurture question and their political orientation (Watson was an exception and Edward Lee Thorndike, an early investigator of learning, became increasingly conservative over the years and increasingly inclined toward the importance of hereditary factors in behavior.) One of the leading American geneticists was Charles B. Davenport (1911), who published on eugenics. He searched for Mendelian evidence in families with regard not only to intellectual but to emotional, mental and physical conditions. He believed personality traits like sincerity, stinginess, seclusiveness, truthfulness, are all determined by hereditary factors (see Pastore, 1949, pp. 56-67). Davenport also insisted that feeblemindedness, dementia praecox, and other mental illnesses were genetically determined and that environment was of little or no importance in these conditions. Clearly the most dramatic example of the biases of American psychologists was their interpretation of intelligence test data derived from the testing of soldiers during World War I. Brigham (1923) summarized the Army test findings in a book for which APA President Robert Yerkes wrote a most flattering Forward. Brigham concluded that the intelligence test evidence demonstrated clearly that American soldiers of "Nordic origin" were

Psychological Origins of Patriarchy

87

superior to persons of '~klpine origin" who in turn were superior to persons of "Mediterranean origin". And of course he found Black soldiers to be mostly defective and sub-human. Brigham (1923) says: "We must face the possibility of racial admixture here that is infinitely worse than that favored by any European country today, for we are incorporating the negro (sic) into our racial stock, while all of Europe is comparatively free from this taint...the decline of American intelligence will be more rapid...owing to the presence here of the negro." (pp. 209-210).

In fairness, seven years later in the Psychological Review (pp. 158-165), Brigham (1930) acknowledged that he had been wrong in his interpretation of nationality and racial differences in I.Q. as stated in his 1923 book. Following a fairly technical discussion of test theory and a review of criticisms of the Army test data by Spearman and by Kelley, Brigham concluded: '9~s this method [of deriving a combined scale from several tests] was used by the writer in his earlier analysis of the Army tests as applied to samples of foreign born in the draft, that study with its entire hypothetical superstructure of racial differences collapses completely." (p. 164). The last paragraph of Brigham's article says: This review has summarized some of the more recent test findings which show groups may not be made with existing tests, and which show in particular, that one of the most pretentious of these comparative racial studies--the writer's own--was without foundation. (p. 164).

Beginning in 1881 there had been a massive pogrom aimed at Jews under the new Russian Tsar Alexander III who sought to drive a third of the Jews out of Russia, to convert another third to Christianity, and to starve the last third to death. From 1882 until 1914 about two million Jewish immigrants arrived in the United States from Russia. The Protestant Establishment became increasingly anti-Semitic in the early decades of the 20th century. While the American upper class had always been White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP), it had allowed a few Jews, mostly educated German Jews, to be accepted in the business world (but not in the private clubs, the country clubs, nor the Establishment's day schools and universities). A leading Episcopalian and industrialist, J. P. Morgan, observed that it was possible to do business with anyone, but that one could only sail with a gentleman. A typical wealthy WASP community, like Tuxedo Park, New York, was surrounded by an eight-foot fence; the local club was staffed with imported English servants, and English-style cottages were sold only to the WASP elite. From these exclusive suburbs to the exclusive men's clubs in the city the elite WASP male basecamps were established and maintained through gentlemen's agreements to exclude Jews. It had been during the year 1882 that many of America's richest and most powerful industrialists had come to Delmonico's Restaurant in New

88

~bee

York to hear the Englishman Herbert Spencer expound his theory of Social Darwinism. Spencer returned often thereafter to be honored by the WASP Establishment. Boards of Trustees of Universities were almost completely composed of WASPs, and Jews and other non-WASPs and women were not accepted as faculty members. By proving that the Anglo-Saxon male was justly the ruler of the world, through lawful natural processes of competition and natural selection, the upper class establishment, in both England and the United States, had discovered effective reasons for excluding non-WASPS from power or from the roads to power. This process is discussed in elaborate and convincing detail by Baltzell (1964). But the Establishment faced growing opposition. Two women, one American and one English, did much to undermine the hereditary explanations of social class. Interestingly, it was a niece of Herbert Spencer, Beatrice Potter (later married to Sidney Webb), who had ventured into the London slums in 1833. Her horror at living conditions there led her and her husband to form the Fabian Society. That same year Jane Addams, the recent recipient of a generous inheritance from her father, visited the poverty stricken East-end of London. Later Addams (1902, p. 3) wrote: "Nothing among the beggars of Southern Italy or among the salt-miners of Austria carried with it the same conviction of human wretchedness which was conveyed by this momentary glimpse of an East end street." The settlement house movement began in England and was quickly imported into the United States. Settlement houses offered help and support to the poor immigrants. The first settlement house was Toynbee Hail, founded in the East-end of London in 1884. Later, in 1889, Jane Addams opened Hull House in the slums of Chicago. The Henry Street Settlement on the lower East side of Manhattan was established by Lillian Wald in the last decade of the 19th century. Many sons and daughters of the elite upper classes went to work in these settlement houses in the center of the cities, some paying room and board for the privilege of learning for themselves the plight of the poverty stricken. Many of these volunteers later became leaders in the social work profession and involved themselves in efforts at social change. According to Baltzell (1964, p. 160) it was Lillian Wald who first interested Eleanor Roosevelt in social work. New liberal theories of the social causes of poverty and distress led to the Social Gospel Movement during the early years of the 20th century. Harry Hopkins, a social worker, became one of the principal advisers to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Historian Charles Beard and philosopher-educator-psychologist John Dewey both worked for a time at Hull House in Chicago. An emerging new social science began to appear that opposed the hereditary position about social class and that stressed the necessity of social change. One of

Psychological Origins of Patriarchy

89

the few psychologists heavily involved in this movement was John Dewey. He wrote hundreds of articles and 30 books expounding his philosophy of pragmatism and his evolutionary environmentalism, that had a dramatic effect on the development of the new social science. What Dewey did in philosophy and psychology, Franz Boas did in cultural anthropology. These two scientists' works were aimed directly at disproving racist theories of genetic superiority and inferiority. Boas' students, and disciples, especially Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict and Otto Klineberg, further popularized ideas about the importance of cultural determinants of personality. The WASP establishment struck back in the years following World War I. Madison Grant (1919) wrote The Passing of the Great Race and the Second International Congress of Eugenics met in New York. Harvard psychologist William McDougall, (1929) asked Is America Safe for Democracy? that warned again against the mongrelization of the Nordic civilization. During the early days of the Harding administration, the Congress passed laws restricting immigration, and subsequent legislation set quotas based on the number of ethnics enumerated in the old 1890 census. Henry Ford's newspaper began printing his articles of virulent anti-Semitism. Ford directed some of his hostility to Bernard Baruch, a Jew, a leading public figure and Presidential advisor. Baltzell (1964) quotes a letter that Fiorella H. LaGuardia received after he had criticized something done by President Herbert Hoover. Hoover wrote: It seems to me, a R E P U B L I C A N , that you are a little out of your class, in presuming to criticize the President. It strikes me as impudence. You should go back where you belong and advise Mussolini how to make good honest citizens in Italy. The Italians are preponderantly our murderers and boot-leggers...like a lot of other foreign spawn, you do not appreciate the country which supports and tolerates you. (p. 30).

One of the most outspokenly racist psychologists was Henry E. Garrett, another President of the American Psychological Association. After his retirement from the Department of Psychology at Columbia University where he was Chair for 16 years, and a faculty member for more than 30 years, he became a pamphleteer in the interest of right-wing groups opposing desegregation of the races. Garrett identified Franz Boas, Professor of Anthropology at Columbia University for 37 years, as being the "father of the equalitarian movement." Another Columbia University psychologist, Otto Klineberg, a disciple of Boas, further contributed to this equalitarian position. Garrett says: There is considerable evidence that Boas' devotion to the equalitarian dogma in his later years was motivated, at least in part, by strong political and ideological convictions. It is hard to document this. Suffice it to say that several of Boas' colleagues have been charged with Communist sympathies and one (Welfish) was dropped from Columbia ostensively for tenure (sic) reasons (Undated pamphlet, a., p. 14).

90

Albee

Garrett dearly deserves the label "racist." For example, he says: The white Southerner has always looked after the Negro--given him work, fed him, nursed him when sick, and gotten him out of jail when drunk. Several perceptive Northerners have remarked to me that the paternalism of the White Southerner was a kind of personal social security system for the Negro--far more humane than the government welfare bureau (Undated pamphlet, b., p.7).

Garrett also explained segregation as essential to avoid the evil of miscegenation. He says: Unless some social barriers had been erected, and if miscegenation had been general, the South would have degenerated into a Puerto Rico, its material destroyed by war, and its European heritage ruined by Mongrelism (Undated pamphlet, b., p. 8).

Garrett explained that Negroes in Richmond, Virginia, often worked in the tobacco factories and this caused them to get dirty which was the reason they were required to ride in a designated part of the streetcar on returning from work. (He does not explain why this segregation also applied to the majority of Blacks who did not work in the tobacco factories.) He points out that the Communists and their allies oppose segregation, favor equalitarianism, and have influenced others, including faculty members from colleges and universities, who indoctrinate their students and force them to parrot the equalitarian arguments. All of this is supported by the "Northern Press", Garrett says. It is clear that, to Garrett, there was a Communistic origin to equalitarianism. He says: It is certain that the Communists have aided in the acceptance and spread of equalitarianism although the extent and method of their help is difficult to assess. Equalitarianism is good Marxist doctrine, not likely to change with gyrations in the Kremlin line. Moreover, the forceful application of the dogma foments tension and bitterness, on which the Communists thrive. Communists and their front-men have served the cause of equalitarianism well: in government, entertainment, radio, the press, and television (Undated pamphlet, pp. 23-24).

In his undated pamphlet (Race and Intelligence), Garrett quotes Carleton Coon, a past president of the American Anthropological Association, who had advanced the notion that "the Negro race" is farther down the scale of evolution than the other four major races, perhaps by as much as 200,000 years. Coon said the Negro brain weighs less than the white and has less complicated fissures. The frontal lobes are less well developed. Also, Black frontal lobes are "lazier" and the structure of the Negro brain leads to more sensory and motor skills. Indeed, according to Coon's view, the more rapid development of the Negro baby parallels the more rapid growth of the chimpanzee infant. Garrett says, "In general, intelligence is greater in species which develop more slowly.... All of this evidence shows the average Negro to be biologically immature, vis ~ vis the White; his brain

Psychological Origins of Patriarchy

91

is less well developed, his rate of growth rapid at first, then greatly retarded" (p. 3). Finally, Garrett cites the clear-cut evidence of the heritability of intelligence from Cyril Burt's work in England on identical and fraternal twins and he cites approvingly Burt's report that 90% of differences in intelligence are due to heredity. He credits Arthur Jensen with rediscovering this fact. The same pamphlet cites the work of Hans Eysenck and David Fulker who reported that "Intelligence is about 4/5ths nature and 1/5 nurture" based on their "newly-completed studies of thousands of individuals in the British Isles, the U.S., and Scandinavia" (p. 2 of Garrett's undated pamphlet, b. commenting on Race and Intelligence). It has been suggested frequently that the ethnocentric and racist views of the early 20th century psychologists were a reflection of their contemporary culture. But these views are not dead. Eysenck (1971) begins his book The IQ Argument: Race, Intelligence and Education with a plea for scientific objectivity, asking that we look at "the relevant facts, with as little interpretation as possible" (p. ii) and he points to the desperate need for more and better research. He expresses his regret that the National Academy of Sciences in the United States did not respond to the annual requests of Nobelist William Shockley for research into racial differences in intelligence, but he does not mention the appalling racist statements that have made Shockley notorious. Eysenck also sadly regrets the "failure" of Head Start (p. iii). He confesses that he does not like the facts, but as a scientist he must do his duty to stick to data. He begins his book with a touching story about the time, in his youth, when he was boxing a "Negro" and had the experience of hitting his opponent in the head, thereby hurting his own hand, but not his opponent's head. After this little racist story, he continues his plea for neutrality toward scientific findings. Later he does suggest the possibility that '~aanerican Negroes may be the descendants of a highly selected sample of African Negroes less bright than the total group" (p. 43). (The less intelligent ones were unable to avoid capture and the bright ones got away.) But selective factors did not only operate for the capture of African slaves. He says: It is known that many other groups came to the U.S.A. due to pressures which made them very poor samples of the original populations. Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese, as well as Greeks, are examples where the less able, less intelligent, were forced through circumstances to emigrate, and where their American progeny showed significantly lower IQ's than would have been shown by random sampling of the original population. (p. 43)

He does not document this remarkable statement with any "scientific data" or references. He also shares his perception that the Irish today are

92

Albee

less intelligent than the English. The reason: their immigration showed an opposite tendency: "It was the more intelligent members of these groups who emigrated to the U.S.A., leaving their less intelligent brethren behind" (p. 43). (He does not explain why the children of these more intelligent immigrant Irish scored as low in public schools as the children of the less intelligent Italians! Nor does he mention the Great Famine in Ireland that sent a million uneducated Irish peasants to America.) Eysenck argues that he is not a racist. Indeed, as evidence in support of his claim to objectivity on racial matters, he points out that it should be possible to find a group of white people who interbreed and who have a different gene pool separate from the rest of the white race, resulting in lower average intelligence. It is worth listening carefully: As an example, take the Irish. Here is a well defined, interbreeding population, isolated on an island, and thus removed from most sources of outbreeding, and certainly subject to historical processes which might be expected to have drawn away, over many centuries, the most able and adventurous of its citizens to foreign countries. Under these circumstances (which in some ways are the opposite of those attending the selection of Negroes for shipment to the U.S.A. and their subsequent fate) we might expect a distinctly lower IQ level among the remaining Irish than would be found in other countries not subject to this particular selection process. Facts seem to confirm these hypotheses; McNamara found the Irish to have IQs which were not very different from those observed in American Negroes, and far below comparable English samples. (p. 123)

So much for his scientific objectivity! Were the starving Irish peasants who fled the famine in the 1840's and 1850's the brightest and most able? (He does not explain how the inhabitants of a nearby island--English, Welsh, Scots--escaped the intellectual fate of the Irish). It should come as no surprise that Eysenck also believes fervently in genetic determinants of personality and of neurotic and psychotic conditions. He (1971) referred with admiration and respect to "the scholarly, extensive and very reliable summary published by Audrey M. Shuey" (p. 83) on inferior black IQ test performance. Scientist Eysenck can find no fault with Shuey's (1958/1966) book "on any factual statement." Further, in contrast to many clear studies to the contrary, he finds no evidence that the race of the examiner has any effect on black-white I.Q. test results. He also comes to the conclusion that there are none but relatively minor differences in the quality of the schools attended by different racial groups in the United States! He proposed a definitive study in which a large sample of Blacks would be classified according to serological and morphological factors that indicate the degree of genetic "whiteness" making sure that all of the people in the samples looked equally "Negroid." Giving these people intelligence tests would allow the determination of whether there

Psychological Origins of Patriarchy

93

is a correlation between genetic whiteness and intelligence as would be predicted from the alleged intellectual superiority of the white genes. Since Eysenck's book was written, Scarr and her colleagues (Scarr, Pakstis, Katz, & Barker, 1977) have actually done the study. She demonstrated that the amount of African ancestry as measured by blood group alleles (that were, incidentally, found to correlate highly with skin color) did not correlate "with any measures of intellectual performance in the black sample" (p. 86). It would be interesting to hear Eysenck's comments on the results of a study he suggested, with results he did not anticipate. It is interesting that a recently deceased Professor of Psychology at Harvard University lashed out against the press, news magazines, and television for their support of environmental explanations of race differences in intelligence and their silence about the arguments of the hereditarians. The late R.J. Herrnstein (1982) wrote an article "IQ Testing and the Media" in the Atlantic Monthly. Herrnstein was especially incensed at the antipathy toward IQ tests that he saw in the mass media. His treatment of the Burt deception (Burt's deliberate creation of data supporting his unshakable belief in the heritability of intelligence, his use of articles and letters that he himself wrote but to which he signed fictitious names, his public attacks on progressive education, etc.) was itself revealing. Herrnstein said that a Science article suggested that Burt's data "revealed traces of deliberate fraud" (p. 70), and that The New York Times and other news media reported the Burt story "repeatedly." Herrnstein said that psychometricians had stopped accepting Burt's data following inconsistencies "first noted in a 1974 article by Arthur Jensen" (p. 70). For Herrnstein to credit Jensen with exposing Burt was ludicrous. Princeton psychologist Leon Kamin had been the first to call attention to serious discrepancies and impossible statistical conclusions in Burt's studies before Jensen's 1974 article. In a speech at the Eastern Psychological Association (in 1973) and later in his book published in 1974, Kamin demonstrated much more than "traces of deliberate fraud" (Herrnstein's expression). Herrnstein dismissed the importance of the Burt deception because, he argues, if (sic) Burt invented his data, he was smart enough to make it conform to "many studies beyond suspicion that support Burt's arguments on behalf of the hereditarian position" (p. 70). Herrnstein went on to criticize a study by Heber called "The Milwaukee Project" that reported significant improvements in the IQ of Black children who had been subjected to massive social and cognitive interventions in the Heber laboratory from shortly after birth until they entered school. Heber (1978) reported that these children, when compared with a control group of inner city Black children not subject to similar interventions, developed IQs in the superior range. Herrnstein began his discussion of the

94

Mbee

Heber study with an ad hominem argument, detailing Heber's conviction for diverting federal funds from his research to his own use, and concludes his criticism by arguing that "no scientific account has been published" (p. 71) by Heber. This latter statement was inaccurate, because Heber presented a lengthy paper on his research at the Second Vermont Conference on the Primary Prevention of Psychopathology and it subsequently appeared in the volume based on that conference (see Forgays, 1978) published by the University Press of New England. The criticism of Herrnstein that Heber's study "never appeared in a refereed scientific journal" was muted by its availability for scientific scrutiny in the conference volume. Also relevant in this context is the well-designed and carefully reported study by the High/Scope Perry group (see Schweinhart and Weikart, 1988) showing the long term positive consequences of early pre-school educational intervention with high-risk inner city children. It is clear that Herrnstein was convinced of the hereditarian position. He said, "In the technical literature, a virtual unanimity reigns: most of the variation among individual IQs is due to variation in genes" (p. 72). Indeed, the unanimity was only in his own mind. In a carefully balanced article examining race, family environment and IQ tests, Scarr and Weinberg (1976), report on a careful study of the IQ's of Black infants adopted by white families. They say, "The major findings of the study support the view that the social environment plays a dominant role in determining the average IQ level of black children...." (p. 739) In another study which she conducted with several colleagues, Scarr et al. (1977) showed that "having more or less African ancestry was not related to how one scored on cognitive tests...a strong genetic difference hypothesis cannot account for this result" (p. 334). (The point here is that having more "Black genes" and fewer "White genes" should lead to lower scores on IQ tests, and vice versa, according to the hereditarians, but such findings are not supported by her data). If unanimity means that everyone agrees, then Herrnstein was wrong. Scarr (1978) says "The implication of this difference between race and social class for intellectual achievements is that there are more likely to be genetic differences in IQ scores between social classes than racial groups" (p. 333). Clearly, Scarr finds class differences in IQ more important than racial differences. Another dissenter that makes invalid Herrnstein's statement about unanimity is Professor James Flynn of the University of Otago, New Zealand. In his book Race, IQ and Jensen, Flynn (1980) does a careful examination of the research based on reports of identical twins reared apart. He looks at each study with care, points to flaws in the research designs, recomputes statistics, and concludes that the results are ambiguous and not trustworthy.

Psychological Origins of Patriarchy

95

Herrnstein's conclusion was that few journalists are committed to telling the truth about testing because, in his own view, countless editors and reporters favor an environmental explanation of intelligence test performance. This conclusion is most curious, particularly in view of the willingness of this same group of editors and reporters repeatedly to blame mental illness on genetic and biological factors (rather than environmental stresses) in the absence of compelling evidence. Another explanation is much simpler. The mass media emphasizes stories most likely to interest their readers because the basic purpose of the mass media is to maximize the audience for their advertisements. The recent book The Bell Curve by Hernstein and Murray (1994) continues to find inferior intelligence in the African-American "race". The folly of treating persons with dark skin and specific hair characteristics as a unique race and homogenous for genetics is exposed elsewhere in this volume as is the faulty use of biased data.

SUMMARY The archival record clearly supports the view that the political biases of psychologists are strongly tied to their choice between nature and nurture explanations of the origins of social class differences in intelligence test performance and rates of mental disorders, and especially of ethnic, racial and gender differences. The record is clear that political conservatives strongly favor genetic and biological explanations of differences between the economically advantaged upper classes and the lower class groups. If differences are innate and organic then no social change is likely to reduce differences. On the other hand, if the clear-cut relationships between social class and such variables as morbidity, mortality, educational achievement, crime, mental disorders and other indices of social pathology are caused by the variations of degrees of pathology in the social environment then social changes will reduce these differences.

REFERENCES Addams, J. (1902). Democracy and social ethics. NY: Macmillan. Albee, G. W. (1982). The politics of nature and nurture. American Jouranl of Community Psychology, 10, 1, 1-36. BaltzeU, E. D. (1964). The protestant establishment: Aristocracy and caste in America. New York: Random House. Blum, J. M. (1978). Pseudoscience and mental ability. New York: Monthly Review Press. Brigham, C. C. (1923). A study of American intelligence. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

96

Albee

Brigham, C. C. (1930). Intelligence tests of immigrant groups. Psychological Review, 165. Burr, C. (1966). The genetic determination of differences in intelligence: A study of monozygotic twins reared together and apart. British Journal of Psychology, 57, 137-153. Burt, C. (1972). Inhei'itance of general intelligence. American Psychologist, 27, 175-190. Darwin, C, (1859), The origin of species and the descent of man. London: Murray. Darwin, C. (1860). The preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. New York: D. Appleton. Davenport, C. B. (1911). HerediO~in relation to eugenics. New York: H. Holt and Co. Deutsch, A. (1949). The mentally ill in America. New York: Columbia University Press. Eysenck, H, J. (1971). The IQ argument: Race intelligence and education. New York: The Library Press. Flynn, J. R. (1980). Race, IQ and Jensen. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Forgays, D. (Ed.) (1978). Primary Prevention of Psychopathology: Environmental Influences. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England. Galton, E (1869/1914). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan. Galton, E (1889). Natural inheritance. London: Macmillan. Garrett, H. E. (undated pamphlet, a.). Desegregation:fact and hokum. Richmond, VA., Patrick Henry Press. Garrett, H. E. (undated pamphlet, b.). Race, a reply to Race and intelligence: a scientific evaluation by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. Washington, D.C.: National Putnam Letters Committee. Grant, M. (1919). The passing of the great race, (revised edition). New York: Scribner. Hall, G. S. (1907). Youth: its education, regimen, and hygiene. New York: D. Appleton and Co. Hall, G. S. (1923). Life and confessions of a psychologist. New York: D. Appleton and Co. Hearnshaw, L. (1979). Cyril Burr, Psychologist. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Vintage Books Edition, 1981. Heber, E R. (1978). Sociocultural retardation: A longitudinal study. In D.G. Forgays, (Ed.) Environmental influences and strategies in primary prevention. Hanover, N. H.: The University Press of New England. Herrnstein, R. J. (1973). LQ. in the meritocracy. Boston: Little, Brown. Herrnstein, R. J. (1982). 1.0. testing and the media. The Atlantic Monthly, 249-50, pp. 68-74. Herrnstein, R. J. and Murray, C. A. (1994). The bell curve: intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press. Jarvis, E. (1855/1971). Idiocy and Lunacy in Massachusetts: Report of the Commission on Lunacy, 1855. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Originally published by Wm. White, Boston, 1855.) Kamin, L. (1973). Heredity, intelligence, politics and psychology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Kamin, L. (1974). The science and politics ofl.Q. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (Distributed by Halstead Press Division of John Wiley and Sons, Inc.) Locke, J. (1806). An essay concerning human understanding. 2nd American edition. Boston, MA: Thomas and Andrews. Lombroso, C. (1912). Crime: its causes and remedies. Montclair, N.J.: Montclair. (Originally published 1876). Malthus, T. R. (1826). Essay on the principle of population. London: J. Murray. Marx, K. and Engels, E (1859/1936). The manifesto of the communist party. Section II. In Karl Marx, Selected works (Vol. 1). New York: International Publishers. McDougaU, W. (1921) An introduction to social psychology, 14th Edition. Boston: J. W. Luce & Co. McDougall, W. (1929). Modern materialism and emergent evolution. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. Pastore, N. (1949). The nature-nurture controversy. New York: Columbia University Press. Pearson, K. (1904). On the laws of inheritance in man. Biometrica, 3, 131-190.

Psychological Origins of Patriarchy

97

Pearson, IC (1925). Problem of alien immigration into Great Britain illustrated by an examination of Russian and Polish Jewish children. Annals of Eugenics, 1, 5-127. Scarr, S. (1975). From evolution to Larry P., or what shall we do about IQ tests? Intelligence, 2, 325-342. Scarf, S. & Weinberg, R. A. (1976). IQ test performance of black children adopted by white families. American Psychologist, 31, 726-739. Scarr, S., Pakstis, A. J., Katz, S. H., & Barker, W. B. (1977). The absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population. Human Genetics, 39, 69-86. Scarf, S.•(1978). From evolution to Larry P., or what shall we do about I.Q. tests? Intelligence, 2, 325-342. Scarr, S. (1981). Race, social class, and individual differences in IQ. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates. Schweinhart, L J. & Weikart, D. R (1988). The High/Scope Perry Preschool program. In R. H. Price, E. L Cowen, R. R Lorian, & J. Ramos-McKay (Eds.) 14 ounces of prevention: A casebook for practitioners, (pp. 9-23). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Schwendinger, H. & Schwendinger, J. (1974). The sociologists of the chair. New York: Basic Books. Spencer, H. (1872). On social evolution; selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Spencer, H. (1894). A plea for liberty: an argument against socialism and socialist legislation. Introductory lecture. London: J. Murray. Spencer, H. (1897). Principles of psychology. New York: D. Appleton. Thomas, M. C. (1979). The making of a feminist: early journals and letters of M. Carey Thomas. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.