Race-No deviation allowed from universalist orthodoxy

April 2012

My purpose in this website is to explore systemic defects that have sapped the capacity of public universities to address the most searing issues of our times.   Recently, as I was walking to a talk on Ludwig Wittgenstein, I stopped by the quad where there was an avid conversation between the student promoting libertarianism and his interlocutor;  it was intense, articulate and to me a pleasure to listen to.  The moderate (only to differentiate him from the libertarian) was probing, pointing out that the man's radical prescription only works in an ideal system that does not exist, and perhaps never did.  It was a conversation of focused intensity, that only ended as the moderate had to go to classes.

I asked the libertarian if he really knew the work of Fredrich Hayek, one of the founders of the underlying economics of libertarian thinking.  He showed me that the had the book, and that he had read the condensed version.  I asked him a few probing questions about it, that he could only guess the answers, which were correct, but by not reading the actual book, only a couple hundred pages, he wasn't sure.

Then I told him how happy I was to see the kind of vitality of the previous debate, and asked him how frequently it occurred.  His answer confirmed the pattern that was forming in my mind about the this university, and beyond,  "This was the only one in the week that we've been here.  Yeah, this was the best. "  The thousands of students who walked by every day, didn't have the interest or the inclination to engage this person who represents Representative Ron Paul,  the single figure in public life who is an actual radical, who prescribes changing our accepted values for something else.

Since there was virtually no engagement, neither this advocate nor any other student will be emotionally invested in understanding the limits to such change, why radical changes take a toll and are so easily dismissed, and the consequences of either road for society.

The evidence for my thinking was illustrated by the following exchange of emails with a professor I met at the conference.  Name is withheld per request.

--------------------------
Political Civility Conference
Friday, March 30, 2012 3:37 PM


Dear Dr.

I was the man in the audience who asked a few probing questions during the conference and I'm now writing an essay on the event from the view of someone not a part of the academic community.

If I recall, your talk was on the the broad subject of genetics, and how this has been viewed by science and medicine in recent history. Dr. Hamlin's has sent me the text of his keynote speech, and if available, I would appreciate access to your presentation.

You covered several issues that I have been interested in over the years. You alluded to this assertion, one that is considered a truism among scholars, that "Race is a social construct." While you did point out that this was controversial, I could not discern whether the truth of this statement was so accepted by the audience that no elaboration was required, or whether it is still controversial, even in the science studies department of UCSD.

The syntactic implication of the statement is that being a "human" construct means that it is inherently inconsistent with its mapping to objective reality, which is a conceptual distortion of what a scientific construct means. If this statement had used the the word "false", "political" or "hortatory" to replace "human" (which is an inherent aspect of all scientific constructs), it would have indicated that race is not based on objective reality. Yet, this has become the meaning of this statement.

You touched on some of the underlying causes of political incivility, yet they were not used as a starting point of understanding this country's political divisiveness. You presented a history that should be seen for what it is, one of the core elements underlying political incivility.

I would appreciate acknowledgement of receipt of this email

Regards

Al Rodbell
--------------------

Al,

I don't remember exactly what I said about the 'race is a social social
construct' argument, but I refer you to the first UNESCO statement on
race, in which Ashley Montagu says something to that effect.

If you want to know what I think about that, it's something along the
lines of 'There are different human races, but there's an infinite number
of different ways to define them. You could lump us all together, or split
us into the traditional three divisions of Asian, Caucasian and African,
or divide us into haplotypes, or create more and more fine subdivisions
almost to the individual level. Each one of these classifications carries
a different set of assumptions and implications with it, so I would say
that races exist, but not in the sense of having anything like objectively
definable boundaries. I assume that the same is true for species,
sub-species and varieties of all organisms, but what makes humans unique
is the way in which the classifications themselves have looping effects
that tend to self-reinforce, as in the case of laws banning intermarriage.
So not only is race not objectively definable, there's also no way of
escaping human values in our classification schemes, so scientists had
better pay attention to the social and political aspects.

I attach the bullet points of the talk.

Thanks for your interest!

Name Withheld
-----------------------------

I was gratified and encouraged by this response, so I elaborated my position

--------------------------------
Dr.

Let me thank your for your cordial response.

I just finished reading your notes on your presentation, which I understand you had to abbreviate due to time constraints. They were thoughtful and informative. I could concur with your explanation of your personal views on race.

But, I have to tell you, that when a comprehensive complex history as outlined in your notes is condensed, your audience will fill in the story by providing a narrative that you may not have intended. An audience brings its own values, along with what they feel is the consensus of the group. What I perceived, was the conference audience, including those who will be soon teaching students themselves, internalized the 1949 statement:

“For all practical social purposes ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth. … The unity of mankind from both the biological and social viewpoints is the main thing. To recognize this and to act accordingly is the first requirement of modern man.”“Lastly, biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood; for man is born with drives toward co-operation, and unless these drives are satisfied, men and nations alike fall ill.”


Many who hold this opinion do so with a vengeance, using this example from your notes, "American race theorist Carleton Coon as well as some of his German colleagues" I would suggest that being a "race theorist" is now considered highly pejorative to the general public and perhaps also to the audience at the conference. While you may not have meant to condemn Coon, in the context of current norms, you just may have.

In my view, to the degree that the very subject of race is verboten, science as carrier of the torch of the enlightenment, is the loser. Studying race morphs into racism, and few risk their career to challenge this trend. This subject is getting to the heart of one of the roots of virulent political divisiveness of our country, the subject of the conference.

Your final sentence is important: " there's also no way of
escaping human values in our classification schemes, so scientists had
better pay attention to the social and political aspects. "

Race is one of the central sources of the political divide of our country, with tragic reminders on todays front page, as reflected in the killing in Florida. You appear to have a well reasoned informed understanding of this broad subject, but I couldn't tell whether this is shared by your colleagues and, more importantly, those who are apprentices for such positions.

When the right wing reviles liberal academia for its avowal of this tenet, " The unity of mankind from both the biological and social viewpoints is the main thing. To recognize this and to act accordingly is the first requirement of modern man." The accusation is that objective science is being sacrificed to achieving this end, that indoctrination to this imperative has taken priority over research into painful truths of human differences. To the the degree that this is true, and the claim does have some validity, then Carlton Coon's admonition of its autocratic nature is valid, confirmed, in a way, by his professional banishment.

This is a major issue, one that should be engaged by universities such as UCSD. In the absence of any follow up, or documentation of the presentations that were made, I have started this website to extend the discussion that the conference began. Let me know if you have any objections to your email and notes being included.

Any suggestions you may have to advance the goals I have described would be greatly appreciated.

----------
The following response that I received was a change in tone, from a cordial interaction to a certain defensiveness, or rejection of my position that I felt was placing me among the Nazi racist apologists, or those who lend reasoned support for what is universally condemned.  It is just as possible that it was I who was overreacting, as this subject is so loaded that the very emotionality makes useful discourse difficult.   

------------
Al,

I've looked at your website, and I see that your target is liberal bias in academia. While I am all in favor of that line of inquiry, I'm afraid that I *did* mean to condemn Coon. The fact that you could take my last email to mean otherwise makes me very reluctant to grant you permission to quote me.

My position is that studies of human difference *cannot* be value-free, and so the values that inform them must be acknowledged, and had better be good ones. Coon's condemnation of Montagu's sentiments as akin to Nazi pseudoscience refused to acknowledge the very real ethical difference between fascism and universalism. The fact that he was joined in his condemnation by German geneticists who had contributed to fascist racial theory is, to me, a jaw-dropping irony.

When it comes to the study of human difference, I think of scientific freedom as similar to sexual freedom: an important value with equally important limitations. Indeed, some of the same issues of consent, reciprocity and vulnerability are at stake in, for example, scientific studies of Native American descent, hence the persistence of the metaphor of scientific rape. I know that this reveals my liberal bias, but I am prepared to argue for my position from first principles rather than just engage in the assumption that we all should share my values.

It is obscure to me how you connect these issues with the Trayvon Martin case.

Name Withheld

--------------
Dr.

I will honor your request not to post your words. (These are the words of the interchange, but the individual is not named)  If there is to be any closure of my effort, I may paraphrase our conversation, any inaccuracy of which you will have the opportunity to correct.

My last email mentioned the Trayvon Martin case only to illustrate the passion, and the intense feeling on both sides of the question. Here's where my being outside of the academic setting has value, as I know individuals, including one man with a Poly Sci. MA from Michigan and a Law Degree from Harvard, -on the short list of a Rhodes Scholarship-who feels that it was Martin who was to blame.

I doubt that you have many conversations with such people.

Yet, I have no difficulty in dissecting and prevailing in a debate with him on this. For clarity sake, I did not take your last email to mean that you supported Coon, as I carefully described my uncertainty of what your own sentiment was with these words: "While you may not have meant to condemn Coon, in the context of current norms, you just may have."

You may be familiar with this monograph “InWays Unacademical”: The Reception of Carleton S. Coon’s, The Origin of Races. It goes into extensive detail on the controversy between Coon and those who blamed him for the use that his work was put to by segregationists (The writer shares your conclusions) There's no value in our replaying this debate, which was also reprised a few decades later over "The Bell Curve."

I hope you appreciate how difficult it is to write about the subject of race, yet I also hope that you agree that it is worth doing, perhaps necessary; as the rancor across the political divide is only increasing as the underlying anger simmers. Those who disagree with, may I call it the academic consensus, do not just go away. They form political groups, from which one may run for President, and win-- and then get to appoint Supreme Court Justices who define the laws of our country. Don't think of this as a debate with me, which isn't worth your time, but as a window on those who don't express these views in settings where they will be not acceptable.

One thing you should be clear on, anything that I posit in this discussion is not the result of right wing indoctrination. After a decade of working, I spent several years doing graduate work in social psychology at Columbia, including courses at the school of public health, with some eminent scholars, where the skills and goals of objective value free science were inculcated. I happen to believe that this ethos is essential-- and this personal approach has allowed me to be respected by thoughtful people of both the left and the right among my circle of associates.

You are the first academic at UCSD who has engaged me in a dialog. It only makes sense to explore this if our discussion can be made public, used to expose others, mostly those who will become academics, to what is a rare articulated expression of sentiments that usually are expressed by very angry people in rather ugly ways.

Regards

Al

-----------

Hi Al,

Thanks for your thoughtful message.....  Believe me, I appreciate the difficulty of writing about race, and I'm with you 100% about the free and open dialog question.

But precisely because of the delicacy of the subject, matter, I would prefer not to 'go public' about this question, since I don't have the time to engage in as thoughtful a way as the topic deserves.

Cheers,

Name withheld
----------------
----------------

At this point I may attempt to continue this discussion off the record.  The reluctance of this professor can perhaps be explained by this excerpt form Wikipedia, by Physicist Lee Smolin, whom I have corresponded with on a different issue:
------
Some argue that modern tenure systems actually diminish academic freedom, forcing those seeking tenured positions to profess conformance to the same views (political and academic) as those awarding a tenured professorship. According to physicist Lee Smolin, "...it is practically career suicide for a young theoretical physicist not to join the field [of string theory]( AR note: Or science studies professor not to reject the reality of race )."[2] This may be even more so now that many universities require several years in non-tenure track positions (e.g. Visiting Assistant Professorships or Post-Doctoral Fellowships) before beginning the 5-6 year process preceding tenure.  
-----
Such realities of our university system have deep pervasive consequence that are largely invisible to those within this system.  The career incentives seem reasonable enough and by adhering to them, there is belonging--- along with the promise of attaining status in a respected institution that provides the potential to affect society.  As Smolin concludes and this exchange illustrates, gaining a position to implement these ideals requires repressing risk taking, and becomes a way of thinking that is internalized.   Thus, an institution that gained its respect, including the rare prerogative of Academic Freedom that allows transcending social norms, becomes without anyone noticing,  a perpetuater of such entrenched norms.

It's no wonder that virtually no students stop to debate politics

Politicization of Sexual Orientation

Psychosexual development is something that has been the province of those who investigated its cultural and biological correlates for decades.  Before it became the grist for a political movement, Sigmund Freud, in his earliest work understood the imperative of this inborn impulse, and tried to tease out some of the dynamics of the polymorphous perversity that he understood was our genetic heritage.  Freud explored this with the realization that such intrapsychic conflicts were not only ubiquitous, but inevitable, as were so much of human conflict, as sketched out in "Civilization and its discontents."

The process of politicization is a transformation of language from that which informs to that which energizes.  "Homosexual" or gay" is neutral, while "queer" or "fagot" is confrontational, fighting words.  Homophobe is the is the linguistic weapon of choice to categorize those who oppose gay equality, as it imputes a motivation that is other than rational, rather protecting the individual from his or her own impulses.   Ironically, it's use is an epithet that defines an individual by one dimension,  the very essence of what progressives so disdain in other contexts.  

Freud came to maturity during the apogee of the Austrian German intellectual Renascence,  when normalcy became understood as the acceptance of cultural norms, which were ways of a given society to cope with its stresses at a given moment in time.  Freud, and those who followed his ethos, if not his system, had no illusions that any society could be perfected to banish injustice or personal suffering.  The principle was that understanding, being open to why we act as we do could provide some barrier to the worst excesses of any culture.  Here is Freud's 1935 letter on this subject to a mother that began by pointing out great men who had been homosexual, that it is nothing to be ashamed of and continued:
-------
By asking me if I can help [your son], you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies, which are present in every homosexual; in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of treatment cannot be predicted.

What analysis can do for your son runs in a different line. If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains homosexual or gets changed.
--------

In the course of a few generations, this final paragraph of the founder of the intrapsychic understanding of human behavior, if spoken today would be castigated as hostile to homosexuals.   It is almost exactly what was expressed by Dr. Robert Spitizer that subjected him to such vocal criticism that he retracted this conclusion.......actually that is not what he did.   He apologized for the effect of a study supporting this that was flawed, while never retracting his conclusion that some people could have sexual orientation changed by therapy.  Neither Freud nor Spitzer were advocates of reparation psychotherapy, which has a completely different ethos and perspective from that of any form of therapy based on the loosest values of Freud and his followers.  By the time Spitzer did his research, the quest for understanding of homosexuality had gone the way of understanding racial differences, banished from academic discourse.  Spitzer used this religious based treatment only because it was all that was available to explore the effect of intervention on this personality attribute.  In the two professional generations between the writing of Freud's letter and the research by Spitizer, Homosexuality was transformed into the Gay movement, no longer a topic for anthropologists and biologists, but an issue for civil rights theorists and political operatives.

This is best illustrated in this excerpt from the American Psychological Association (APA) document, Sexual orientation and homosexuality:  What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?
-------------
All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.

Notice that although the broad subject is Sexual Orientation,  while dispelling the image of homosexuality being opprobrious, the guidance for therapists encountering those who seek help for psychosexual  conflicts only provides one choice, which is that conflict over sexual orientation should be resolved by accepting the non biologically congruent choice.  It closes the section with:

Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his same-sex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life.

There is no acknowledgement that ambiguity, that mixed sexual attractions can be dealt with other than by, in effect,  accepting that such impulses should be embraced.  This concluding paragraph is a pastiche of political correctness that ultimately says nothing substantive

Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to self-determination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.
----------------
Out of this verbiage (its carelessness of thought reflected in it's grammatical inconsistency) anything can be construed, yet the clear words as expressed by Freud,    "If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, (therapy)  may bring him or her harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains homosexual or gets changed" is conspicuously and blatantly not included as an option for this helping profession in the 21st century. How is a therapist to be "sensitive to a distressed person's sexual orientation" when that is the presenting conflict to be explored.   The only interpretation is that "sensitive to" is to be construed as not suggesting the shared journey of exploring  impulses, the conflicts and the options available to the individual.   "Sensitive to" in the context of politicization of homosexuality means  embracing the now common perception of homosexual impulses as being of the essence of the individual,  and forming a mindset that this is the inevitable identity based on other than the mutual exploration of the individual's best interests.

 When Robert Spitzer was instrumental in changing homosexuality from a personality disorder in the Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III of 1980, his goal was to specifically validate treatment for the conflicted individual suffering that Freud described, whatever the outcome of post therapy sexual orientation.  What he never intended to do, either in his paper on the minimal efficacy of reparative therapy of 2001, or his retraction of it in 2012, was to refute the statement of Sigmund Freud described here.  His initiative of the 1980 removal of homosexual as a personality disorder was never meant to deny that there were those who presented with a problem of homosexual impulses or activity who were amenable to resolving them in the direction of heterosexual identity.  Nor did Spitzer, any more than Freud, make a judgment of which was preferable, as such determination would resolve itself through the process of self discovery in psychotherapy.

The tone of this this current document referenced above by the American Psychological Association is clear,  that they condemn the therapy for homosexual impulses. There is no acknowledgement of Freud's conclusion, that homosexuality may be part of complex of maladaptive adjustments where the ultimate orientation of the client should be discovered rather than imposed.  Freud's message is that it is equally wrong to do therapy to reinforce homosexuality as it is to attempt to eliminate it.

In the politicization of this sexual activity over the last few decades what has been sacrificed is the interests of the suffering individual, which has no political agenda other than finding a life that fulfills his or her potentials.