Dogma
Early theories that promoted pseudoscientific theories about race and attempted to link physical traits with intellectual and moral capacities laid the groundwork for racial hierarchies and justifications for inequality that hold up institutional racism in 21st-century America. These concepts were used to rationalize and institutionalize discriminatory practices, embedding racial prejudices into legal, educational, and social systems. As a result, the legacy of these ideas continues to influence systemic disparities in areas such as education, employment, and criminal justice, demonstrating how historical misconceptions have enduringly reinforced and perpetuated institutional racism in modern society. By examining their contributions in chronological order, we can trace the evolution of scientific racism and understand how their ideas intersected, influenced broader scientific discourse, and perpetuated racial prejudices that continue to affect society today.
Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, laid the groundwork for systematic classification in biology through his early taxonomies, which categorized organisms based on their characteristics and functions. His classifications extended beyond the natural world into the realm of human societies, where he used his hierarchical system to justify social hierarchies, including slavery. Slavery in ancient Greece was a integral to the social and economic fabric of city-states like Athens and Sparta. Enslaved individuals, who could be acquired through war, debt, or birth, were considered property and performed a range of roles from domestic work to skilled labor and administrative duties. Unlike the later transatlantic slave trade, Greek slavery was not racially based but rather tied to social and economic circumstances. Slaves could sometimes gain their freedom, achieve a degree of social integration, and in some cases, even participate in civic life. Philosophically, figures like Aristotle justified slavery through the concept of natural slavery. Aristotle's notion of a natural order, where some individuals were deemed inherently suited to rule while others were destined to be ruled, provided a philosophical and pseudo-scientific rationale for the institution of slavery. This hierarchical thinking influenced subsequent scholars and scientists, embedding the idea of natural inequalities into intellectual traditions that shaped Western thought. Aristotle's taxonomies thus not only contributed to early biological sciences but also perpetuated social prejudices, impacting how later scientists and thinkers approached issues of race, class, and human capability.
Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish botanist, physician, and zoologist, is best known for his work Systema Naturae that laid he groundwork for biological classification and developed the modern system of naming organisms called binomial nomenclature. However, Linnaeus also applied his classification system to humans, dividing them into four varieties based on physical and behavioral traits: Homo sapiens europaeus (Europeans), Homo sapiens asiaticus (Asians), Homo sapiens americanus (Americans), and Homo sapiens afer (Africans).
Linnaeus' classification system, though foundational in biology, imposed a hierarchy that mirrored and reinforced contemporary European prejudices. By associating certain traits with particular races, Linnaeus’ work contributed to the pseudoscientific basis for racial hierarchies, laying the groundwork for future scientific racism.
Homo sapiens europaeus were described as “white, sanguine, and muscular.” The “europeans” were characterized as having gentle manners and being governed by laws. Homo sapiens asiaticus were depicted as “sallow, melancholy, and rigid.” These “Asians” were described as severe, haughty, and governed by opinions. Homo sapiens americanus were illustrated as “reddish, choleric, and erect.” “Native Americans” were considered obstinate, contented, and regulated by customs. Finally, Homo sapiens afer were described as “black, phlegmatic, and indulgent.” “Africans” were portrayed as crafty, indolent, and governed by caprice.
His descriptions included not only physical attributes but also behavioral traits, implying that these characteristics were inherent to each race. This system introduced a hierarchical framework that suggested certain races were superior to others based on these perceived traits. It laid the groundwork for future scientists and naturalists who sought to categorize human diversity. By creating distinct categories with associated characteristics, Linnaeus's system reinforced the idea that races could be scientifically and objectively differentiated. This notion was later expanded upon by other scientists, contributing to the development of scientific racism.
One of the significant impacts of Linnaeus’s classification was its influence on Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German physician and naturalist that expanded Linnaeus’s categories and introduced the concept of the "Caucasian" race, which he considered the most beautiful and thus the original human type. Blumenbach's work further entrenched the idea of a racial hierarchy, with Caucasians—people who just so happened to look like him—at the top. Blumenbach argued the skulls of people from the caucus mountains were the most beautiful and symmetrical and, therefore, the best. He also believed they were first. Blumenbach believed Noah’s arc actually landed not in Mesopotamia, but in the caucus mountains. He backed this idea with his reasoning that the white color was capable of turning into other color variations, which was not true for black skin or brown skin.
Linneaus also influenced scientists like Franz Joseph Gall and Georges Cuvier by providing a systematic framework for biological classification, which they would extend to the development of phrenology and comparative anatomy.
Franz Joseph Gall was an early 19th-century German physician and anatomist best known for developing the field of phrenology—a now-discredited pseudoscience that sought to link the shape and size of the skull with an individual's mental faculties and personality traits. Gall’s theories were built on the premise that different areas of the brain corresponded to specific psychological attributes, and that these traits could be inferred from the external shape of the skull. His work introduced the idea that the brain is divided into distinct regions responsible for various functions, which was a significant departure from the previously held view of a more undifferentiated brain.
Gall's phrenological ideas gained substantial popularity in the early 19th century and were initially embraced for their innovative approach to understanding human psychology. However, as the theory evolved, it began to be used to justify and reinforce existing social hierarchies and racial prejudices. Phrenologists claimed that differences in skull shape among different racial and ethnic groups reflected inherent differences in intelligence, moral character, and capabilities. This interpretation of phrenology was deeply flawed, as it was based on selective and often biased observations rather than rigorous scientific evidence.
The application of phrenology to scientific racism became particularly pronounced in the mid-19th century. Proponents of phrenology used it to support arguments for racial superiority and inferiority, contributing to the perpetuation of racial stereotypes and justifying discriminatory practices. By correlating certain cranial features with perceived traits of racial groups, phrenologists provided a pseudo-scientific veneer to racist ideologies, influencing public opinion and policy in ways that reinforced racial inequality and exclusion.
Working at the same time, Georges Cuvier was a French naturalist and zoologist, is widely recognized as the father of paleontology due to his groundbreaking work in the study of fossils and extinct species. However, Cuvier's contributions extended beyond paleontology and comparative anatomy; he also played a significant role in the development of scientific racism. Cuvier's ideas about human variation and race, particularly his anatomical studies of skulls, reinforced and perpetuated racial hierarchies that had profound and lasting impacts on both scientific thought and societal attitudes toward race.
Cuvier's most notable scientific achievements lie in his work on comparative anatomy and paleontology. He established the principle of the correlation of parts, which posited that an organism's anatomy was interdependent; thus, by examining one part of an organism, a scientist could infer the structure of other parts. This principle was revolutionary in the study of fossils, allowing Cuvier to reconstruct extinct species with remarkable accuracy. But, Cuvier's work in comparative anatomy also extended to human skulls. He believed that the shape and size of the skull could reveal significant information about an individual's intellectual and moral capacities. This idea became a cornerstone of craniometry, the measurement of skulls, which was later used to support racial classification and hierarchy.
In his studies of human skulls, Cuvier identified three primary racial groups based on physical characteristics:
Caucasians were described as having well-proportioned features, with a prominent forehead and rounded skull. Cuvier associated Caucasians with intelligence and cultural superiority.
Mongolians were haracterized by a flat face and high cheekbones. Cuvier saw Mongolians as possessing less intellectual capability than Caucasians.
Negroids were noted for their prognathous (projecting) jaw and smaller cranial capacity. Cuvier viewed Africans as the least developed in terms of intellectual and moral faculties.
These classifications were not merely descriptive but hierarchical, with Caucasians placed at the top, followed by Mongolians, and Africans at the bottom. Cuvier's anatomical studies provided a veneer of scientific legitimacy to these racial distinctions, reinforcing the idea that different races had inherent and immutable differences in intelligence and behavior.
Cuvier's work significantly influenced the development of scientific racism in the 19th century. His emphasis on anatomical differences among races lent credibility to the idea that these differences were not just superficial but indicative of deeper intellectual and moral disparities. This notion was eagerly adopted by other scientists and used to justify various forms of racial discrimination and inequality. One of the most notable figures influenced by Cuvier was Samuel Morton, an American physician and naturalist. Morton expanded on Cuvier's ideas in his craniometric studies, measuring the cranial capacities of different racial groups and concluding that Caucasians had the largest brains and were therefore the most intelligent. Morton's work provided a pseudoscientific basis for pro-slavery arguments in the United States, suggesting that Africans were naturally suited for servitude due to their alleged intellectual inferiority.
Samuel Morton, an American physician and natural scientist, is best known for his work in craniometry, the measurement of skulls. His Crania Americana (1839) and Crania Aegyptiaca (1844) sought to demonstrate the inherent differences between races through skull measurements. He collected and measured hundreds of skulls, concluding that Caucasians had the largest brains and were therefore intellectually superior to other races. Morton's work was heavily influenced by the racial classifications of Linnaeus and Cuvier, but he took their ideas further by attempting to quantify racial differences scientifically. His conclusions were used to justify slavery and racial discrimination in the United States, providing a veneer of scientific legitimacy to racist ideologies.
In this work, Morton measured the cranial capacities of skulls from various racial groups, including Native Americans, Africans, and Caucasians. He concluded that Caucasians had the largest cranial capacity, followed by Native Americans, and then Africans. Morton used these measurements to argue that there were inherent differences in intelligence and moral capacity among the races.
Morton's methodology involved measuring the internal volume of skulls by filling them with mustard seeds or lead shot and then measuring the volume of the material. This approach was fraught with methodological biases and inaccuracies. Modern analyses have shown that Morton's measurements were often inconsistent and biased towards producing results that aligned with his preconceived notions of racial hierarchy.
Morton's work had a significant impact on the development of scientific racism, providing what was considered empirical evidence to support racial hierarchies. His conclusions were eagerly adopted by proponents of slavery and segregation in the United States and elsewhere. The findings were used to justify slavery in the antebellum United States. Pro-slavery advocates argued that Morton's craniometric evidence demonstrated the intellectual inferiority of Africans, making them naturally suited for servitude. For instance, John C. Calhoun, a prominent pro-slavery politician, cited Morton's work to support his claims that African Americans were inherently inferior and that slavery was a natural and benevolent institution.
In his writings, Morton himself expressed views that aligned with the pro-slavery ideology. He argued that the differences in cranial capacity among races were evidence of distinct and immutable racial types, each suited for different roles in society. This pseudoscientific rationale provided a veneer of legitimacy to the institution of slavery and reinforced the social and economic order of the time.
Newspapers in the 19th century were a primary source of information for the public. Editors and writers who supported slavery often referenced Morton's work, either directly or indirectly, in articles that discussed race, intelligence, and social hierarchies. These articles helped to popularize the idea that Black people were biologically inferior and thus naturally suited for slavery. Pro-slavery newspapers frequently published editorials that cited scientific racism as evidence in support of their views. These pieces would reference the "scientific" findings of figures like Morton to argue that slavery was not only justified but beneficial for society.
Cartoons in newspapers and magazines often depicted Black people in a dehumanizing manner, reinforcing stereotypes of racial inferiority. While these cartoons did not always directly reference Morton's work, they were influenced by the same underlying ideas. The exaggerated physical features and depictions of supposed "savagery" were visual representations of the racial hierarchies that Morton and others claimed to have discovered. Some illustrations and political cartoons used visual allegories to represent the supposed scientific basis for racial differences. For example, images might depict different races as distinct species, with Black people shown as closer to apes than to humans, reflecting the dehumanizing rhetoric of scientific racism.
Some educational materials, particularly in the South, incorporated ideas from scientific racism into their discussions of race and history. This ensured that these ideas were passed on to the next generation, further entrenching them in American culture.
Morton's work also influenced the emerging fields of anthropology and ethnology, which sought to study and classify human cultures and societies. His emphasis on anatomical differences among races lent credibility to the idea that these differences were not merely superficial but indicative of deeper intellectual and moral disparities. The influence of Morton's work on scientific racism and racial policy can be illustrated through several historical examples:
The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 was one of the most infamous rulings in American history. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be considered citizens of the United States. While Morton's work was not directly cited in the decision, the racial ideologies it supported were deeply embedded in the arguments presented to the court.
The belief in the inherent inferiority of African Americans, as purportedly demonstrated by Morton's craniometric studies, underpinned the notion that they were not entitled to the same rights and protections as white citizens. The Dred Scott decision reinforced the legal and social systems of racial discrimination and segregation that persisted for more than a century.
Morton's classification of Native Americans as intellectually inferior to Europeans and Africans played a role in justifying the U.S. government's policies of removal and assimilation. The belief that Native Americans were inherently less capable and less civilized supported the rationale for their displacement from ancestral lands and the forced assimilation efforts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The idea that Native Americans were destined to vanish or assimilate into white society was bolstered by Morton's craniometric data, which suggested they were a "doomed race" incapable of sustaining their cultures and communities in the face of European expansion.
The legacy of Morton's work extended into the early 20th century, influencing the eugenics movement. Eugenicists believed in improving the human race through selective breeding and often cited craniometric and other pseudoscientific studies to support their goals. The idea that certain races were inherently superior and that others were biologically predisposed to inferiority underpinned many eugenics policies, including forced sterilizations and immigration restrictions.
For example, the Immigration Act of 1924, which severely restricted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe as well as Asia, was influenced by eugenicist arguments that these groups were genetically inferior. Morton's work, which categorized races based on perceived intellectual capacity, provided a pseudo-scientific foundation for these discriminatory policies.
Morton’s work also inspired Josiah Nott and George Gliddon, two American polygenists who drew heavily on Morton's work in their book Types of Mankind (1854). Josiah Not was a slave-owning doctor from Alabama who fancied himself a scientist. Nott and Gliddon argued that different races were separate species with distinct origins and capabilities. This stood in contrast to monogenism, the belief that all humans share a common ancestry. They used Morton's craniometric data and Cuvier's anatomical comparisons to support their claims of racial inequality and to argue against the idea of a common human ancestry. They expanded on these ideas to argue that races were separate species with distinct physical and intellectual capabilities. Their work provided a scientific justification for slavery and segregation in the United States, reinforcing the belief that racial hierarchies were natural and immutable.
So by the 1850s, there was a notion that whites and blacks constitute separate races, the former superior to the later. And there were some who beginning to argue that blacks and whites constituted different species. According to Nott and Gliddon’s Types of Mankind, “The African, no less than the Indian, is doomed to annihilation before the onward march of the Saxon element... The Indian has withered away and perished, and the Negro must follow in his footsteps.” This reflects Nott and Gliddon's beliefs in the inevitability of racial hierarchies and the supposed natural order of racial extinction and displacement, further entrenching the pseudoscientific justification for systemic racism and oppression.
Finally, Francis Galton, best known for his pioneering work in eugenics, a movement aimed at improving the genetic quality of the human population, applied statistical methods to the study of human traits. In this book, Hereditary Genius (1869), Galton argued that intelligence and other desirable traits were inherited and that society should encourage the reproduction of individuals with superior traits while discouraging those with inferior traits.
Galton's work on eugenics was influenced by earlier ideas of racial hierarchy and the belief in the heritability of intelligence and other traits. His theories provided a scientific framework for eugenics policies that sought to control human reproduction to improve the genetic quality of populations. These ideas had a profound impact on social policies in the United States and other countries, leading to forced sterilizations and other eugenics practices that disproportionately targeted marginalized groups.
Eugenic theories provided a pseudoscientific justification for segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, and forced sterilizations. Black people were disproportionately targeted by sterilization programs, especially in Southern states, as a means of reducing the population of those considered "undesirable." These programs were part of broader efforts to maintain white supremacy and control over the Black population. The legacy of eugenics also influenced public health policies, education, and social services, perpetuating systemic inequalities and hindering the social and economic progress of Black communities.
Then came Francis Boas.
From the time he was a kid growing up in a Jewish family in Germany in the mid-1800s, Boas always had his eyes set on the larger world. And at the time, the world was headed in a dangerous direction. European and American scientists were busy creating a whole new human classification system—a racial hierarchy based in pseudoscience that infected every part of academic and social life.
In 1883, Franz Boas embarked on a journey to explore the world, driven by a desire to deepen his understanding of classification systems and to eventually become a professor. His research took him to Baffin Island, where he aimed to study the Inuit people and learn how they managed to survive and navigate such a harsh and unforgiving environment.
However, as he sat in the midst of the brutal winter, Boas had a humbling realization—all the education he had acquired in Germany, including his doctorate, was of little use in this environment. To survive in such a place, he needed to know far more practical things—how to find food in a land where it was scarce, how to protect himself from frostbite, and how to perform essential tasks like harnessing a dog sled team. In that moment, Boas recognized that despite his academic achievements, he was as helpless as a child in this new context, completely ignorant of the skills necessary to endure the Arctic’s challenges.
He wrote in his diary: “I often ask myself what advantages our good society possesses over the savages. The more I see their customs, the more I realize that we have no right to look down upon them contemptuously. We should not censure them for their conventions and superstitions, since we highly educated people are relatively much worse.”
He had become convinced that all education is relative. All civilization is relative. All culture, in a way, is relative to a time and a place. What it means to be a full, mature adult, what it means to be smart, what genius is, depends on when you're asking about it, where you're asking about it, and the context you're asking about it in. His ideas were born of this very personal experience in realizing, in an intimate and profound way, how stupid he was once he was taken out of the context that was most familiar to him. And from that basic insight in the frozen north, in an Inuit village, he begins to develop what will become his signature contribution to the human sciences.
After his trip to the Arctic, Boas traveled further west, immigrating to the U.S. in 1886. There, he worked as a lecturer and editor and eventually as a professor and museum curator. And, within the walls of those museums, his doubt began to grow.
Toward the end of the 19th century, if you went into any museum in Europe and North America or took any class in geography or world history, you learn certain basic truths—that there were some racial types that were suited to conquer the world. They were fitter, more civilized, and more advanced. And there were certain racial types who were naturally more backward, who were suited to being servile, or to being colonized by the fitter types of humanity.
If you took a history class at most universities in the United States at the time, you would learn about the so-called march of civilization—how it spread out from ancient Greece and Rome, through overseas European colonialism, until jumping to the United States, which was going to take up its place as the most civilized world-conquering imperial power in the world. If you are white European, you would come out of the class thinking that, for white Americans in particular, your place in the firmament was scientifically established, that you were at the top of this historical scale, or hierarchy.
Because of this thinking, many white Europeans and Americans came to believe that certain races and certain societies were inherently and biologically superior. And for some people who considered themselves progressives, it led to a worldview in which you believed that, of course, people were ranked. But what made you a progressive was thinking that with enough education, with enough missionaries, with flush toilets, with modern technology, the backward peoples might be raised up to your own civilizational level. But, if you weren't a progressive, what you believed was that people were naturally stuck at the place that God or nature—the natural order of things—had placed them. And so, the best thing you could do was to structure your society, your economics, your political system, such that the unique talents—if you want to use that word—of people who were less capable than you could be used for the benefit of society.
And so you can see how justifications for enslavement or justifications for Jim Crow or justifications for keeping women out of positions of power all flowed from this idea that people come in pre-packaged natural varieties. All human development was leading inexorably to white America. But Boas was deeply skeptical of all that. Everything he was seeing was suggesting the opposite.
He wrote, “if we were to select the most intelligent, imaginative, energetic and emotionally stable third of mankind, all races would be present.”
He observed that museums like the Smithsonian often arranged their exhibits to present a linear narrative of human progress. For example, artifacts such as bone rattles or bows and arrows collected from around the world were typically displayed together in the same cabinet. This arrangement was based on the belief that using a bone rattle was a hallmark of a so-called "primitive" society—after all, a more "civilized" person would buy a professionally manufactured toy from a store for their child instead. But, Boas saw through this oversimplified categorization. He realized that the objects grouped together in these displays, which might appear identical to the museum curator, actually held vastly different meanings and purposes within their original cultures. One bone rattle might be used to summon a rain god, another to ward off snakes, and yet another to soothe a crying child. They were not the same object at all.
Boas understood that this failure to distinguish between the different cultural contexts of these artifacts was not a reflection of the cultures that created them, but rather of the culture of the museum curator—typically a white American—who imposed his own cultural assumptions onto these objects. An expert in any of the cultures from which these objects originated would immediately recognize that they were not the same, challenging the curator's simplistic view.
In 1900, Franz Boas had become a professor of anthropology at Columbia University—the first anthropology department in the Unied States. At this point, he was one of the only people openly opposing the popular ideas of racial science. His ideas were seen as fringe, as radical, as flying in the face of common sense. Because again, at the time, every museum, every textbook, every government policy was pushing in exactly the opposite direction. If you teach new generations, particularly of white Americans, that people who happen not to look like them are naturally inferior, you're creating the very reality that you believe you're simply describing. And Boas understood that very early on.
Despite his radical ideas, Congress invited Boas to participate in a study examining the impact of recent immigrants to the U.S., particularly those from Eastern and Southern Europe. They were concerned about whether these individuals, coming from different cultures, would negatively affect the country and whether their supposedly inferior genes would "contaminate" the population. The study required empirical evidence, and at the time, measuring head sizes was a popular scientific method used to demonstrate supposed differences between ethnicities and races. But, he concluded that it is impossible to categorize people definitively into ethnic or racial groups because there are no consistent physical measurements that every member of a racial or ethnic group shares. Today, we generally accept that race is a social construct, not a biological reality. However, at the time, the prevailing scientific consensus was that race was inherently biological and inheritable. Boas challenged this view by arguing that if you cannot identify a racial or ethnic essence through physical measurements, then attributing any other characteristics to race is baseless.
Unfortunately, after Boas submitted his report, it garnered little attention. Just over a decade later, the United States enacted a series of highly restrictive immigration laws that directly contradicted Boas’s findings. This illustrates the troubling nature of racially motivated policies, as these policies stem from a particular vision of common sense or nature, which was then reinforced by the science of that era. However, these policies also shaped realities that scientists would later observe and mistakenly attribute to natural differences.
Boas knew it wasn't nature. It was manmade, an illusion, a construct—something designed to reinforce the existing power structures between people. He understood the idea that when you're gazing at anything in the world, you're not gazing at a reality free of history. And he was right.
Every reality we encounter trails a history along behind it, and the scientific thing to do is begin to understand everything within its historical context—that the people you think of as primitive or backward haven't been stuck in the Stone Age forever. They, too, have histories. In fact, when American tourists go around the world and say things like, “I love to travel to London because it has so much history,” they are failing to notice that every place in the world has precisely the same amount of history, even their own back yard. And Boas understood that—that nobody is stuck outside of historical time.
But he also recognized that his own society had a history and a culture, complete with its own blind spots, totems, and unquestioned beliefs, such as the prevailing theory of race. He believed that living intelligently in the world required questioning all of these assumptions and using the tools of real science—scientific observation that is open-eyed and self-critical—to unpack one’s own prejudices. It wasn’t enough to simply apply scientific inquiry to describe the so-called "savagery" of people different from oneself; it was essential to turn that critical lens inward as well.
It would be foolish to believe the dominant white, Northern European, North American culture was always rational. You can't look open-eyed at the insanity of racial theory and believe it’s the result of rational observation. Boas’s important contribution was in breaking down the belief in one’s own specialness, challenging the assumption that these ideas were based on reason rather than prejudice.
His ideas challenge the assumption that societies perceived as advanced or culturally superior are inherently rational in their beliefs and actions, which can be see with the Nazis in Germany, who prided themselves on their supposed Aryan superiority and the rationality of their racial policies. Despite being a highly developed nation with a rich intellectual tradition, Germany under the Nazis embraced an ideology that was deeply irrational, grounded in pseudoscience and myth rather than reason. The belief in Aryan supremacy and the pursuit of a "pure" race, which led to the Holocaust and other atrocities, exemplifies how a society can convince itself of the rationality of ideas that are, in reality, profoundly flawed and dangerous. Boas’s warning about the dangers of uncritically accepting the supposed rationality of one’s own culture is directly applicable to Nazi Germany. The Nazi regime exploited existing prejudices and nationalistic fervor, promoting ideas of racial purity and superiority that went largely unchallenged within the society. The failure to question these beliefs, and the assumption that they were justified by "science" and tradition, allowed the Nazis to implement their genocidal policies with broad public support. The Holocaust and other war crimes committed by the Nazis serve as a tragic reminder of how a society can descend into irrationality and barbarism when its members fail to critically examine their cultural assumptions and the ideologies they embrace.
Boas’s idea also underscores how cultural blindness can lead to the acceptance of atrocities. In Nazi Germany, the majority of the population, believing in the rationality of their culture and its racial theories, either actively supported or passively accepted the regime’s brutal policies. This illustrates the danger of assuming that one’s own culture is always rational and just, as it can lead to the normalization of extreme and inhumane actions. The fact that Nazi racial ideology was presented as scientifically valid and rational—despite being based on deeply flawed premises—demonstrates how dangerous it is to equate cultural dominance with rationality. Boas’s insight calls for constant vigilance and self-criticism within any society to prevent such descent into irrationality.
The Nazis’ use of scientific racism to justify their policies is a prime example of how a dominant culture can misuse science to promote irrational and harmful ideas. Boas, who argued against the biological determinism that underpinned Nazi racial theories, exemplifies the importance of questioning the supposed rationality of cultural beliefs, especially when they are used to justify oppression and violence. Boas’s critique of the uncritical acceptance of cultural beliefs is relevant here, as the Nazis’ misuse of science was accepted by many in Germany as rational and legitimate, leading to catastrophic consequences.
Boas introduced ideas into American life that shape how we think about the world to this day. Race is a construct, culture is relative, Western civilization is not inherently greater. History is not linear, and neither is human progress. And all these ideas may not have won him a Nobel Prize or much love from mainstream academia in his own time, but they did attract a number of loyal followers.
People like Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, Zora Neale Hurston—groundbreaking anthropologists in their own right who would shape how we think about women, sexuality, race and gender—were drawn to Boas because his ideas gave them a new perspective on the world and how they fit into it.
This approach to cultural relativism in anthropology does not imply that all cultural practices are beyond critique or that moral judgments are forbidden. While cultural relativism emphasizes understanding and respecting cultures on their own terms, Boas and his students were also committed to taking principled stands against practices such as racism and eugenics. They believed that his scientific work, which challenged the notion of racial superiority, reinforced his moral convictions by showing that ethical judgments need not be rooted in the superiority of one’s own culture. This perspective allows for the acknowledgment of cultural differences while also upholding the idea that some moral principles, such as equality and human rights, transcend cultural boundaries.
What’s important is a critical awareness of the limitations and contingencies of one's own cultural and historical context. The hubris of assuming that one's society or values are inherently superior or divinely ordained is a well-documented driver of violence. This mindset is evident in the history of scientific racism, which falsely claimed that certain races were biologically superior to others. In the United States, scientific racism was used to justify and perpetuate slavery by promoting the idea that Black people were inherently inferior and thus suited for subjugation. Similarly, in Nazi Germany, the pseudoscientific beliefs in Aryan racial superiority fueled horrific policies and atrocities during the Holocaust. Both cases demonstrate how the uncritical acceptance of one's own cultural superiority, backed by flawed scientific theories, can lead to systemic oppression and violence. Recognizing and challenging these assumptions is crucial to preventing the repetition of such destructive patterns.
In modern day America, the dynamics of cultural superiority, similar to those seen in scientific racism, can be observed in the influence of certain groups, such as White Evangelicals, on societal and political discourse.
White Evangelicals often hold a view of moral and cultural superiority, which can manifest in their political and social agendas. This belief in their own cultural and religious values as divinely ordained can lead to the marginalization of those with different beliefs or lifestyles. For example, some White Evangelicals advocate for policies that restrict LGBTQ+ rights or challenge reproductive rights based on their religious convictions, framing their perspectives as not only morally superior but also as preserving a divinely sanctioned social order.
This sense of superiority has significant political implications. White Evangelicals have considerable influence in shaping policy and public opinion, often pushing for legislation that aligns with their values. Their impact can be seen in the support for laws that limit abortion access or in opposition to the expansion of civil rights protections for marginalized communities. This reflects a belief that their cultural and religious norms should be imposed on the broader society, often disregarding the principles of pluralism and equality.
There is also resistance among some White Evangelicals to cultural changes that challenge traditional norms. For instance, their opposition to critical race theory and the teaching of systemic racism in schools can be seen as an attempt to preserve a status quo that aligns with their worldview, often dismissing the realities of racial inequality and historical injustices.
This mirrors historical instances where perceived cultural or racial superiority justified harmful practices and policies. Just as scientific racism was used to justify slavery and the atrocities of the Holocaust, the belief in cultural or religious superiority today can lead to exclusionary and discriminatory practices. The underlying assumption is that one’s own cultural or moral framework is the correct or divinely endorsed standard, which can result in the oppression of those who are seen as different or inferior.
The belief in cultural or moral superiority, as exemplified by some White Evangelicals, continues to shape American society in ways that echo past justifications for systemic oppression. By challenging the validity and fairness of diverse cultural and moral perspectives, this mindset can contribute to contemporary forms of discrimination and inequality. Recognizing and addressing these dynamics is crucial for fostering a more inclusive and equitable society.
