Volume 52 1943 > Volume 52, No. 1 > Race, caste and class, by Ernest Beaglehole, p 1-11
RACE, CASTE AND CLASS1
IF ANY excuse is needed at the present time for a consideration of the problems of race one need only consider the following quotation taken almost at random from one of the most influential and important books of our age. The author writes: “All that we admire on this earth—science, art, technical skill and invention—is the creative product of only a small number of nations and originally perhaps, of one single race, the Aryan. All this culture depends on them for its very existence. If they are ruined they carry with them all the beauty of this earth into the grave.” The author of this quotation is a certain Adolf Hilter. Although there is no such race as an Aryan race, Hitler is now bending his best energies and those of the peoples whom he controls to the task of putting into practice his theory of race superiority.
Hitler is not alone in his views on the nature of race. Gobineau had propounded as far back as 1853 the thesis that “inequality of races is sufficient to explain the entire enchainment of the destinies of peoples.” And Madison Grant writing in 1927 but echoed Gobineau when he preached the doctrine that if the great Nordic race “with its capacity for leadership and fighting should ultimately pass, with it would pass that which we call civilization. It would be succeeded by a bastardized and unstable population where worth and merit would have no right to leadership and among which a new and darker age would blot out our inheritance.” Numerous imitators, propounders and popularisers of this doctrine of race superiority have written millions of words in the last decade to persuade the world of its truth. It is given a new slant in the Asia for the Asiatics crusade of the Japanese, though here the superior race is believed to be Mongoloid and not Nordic. And even in times of great crisis when the democracies are hard pressed, it may be noted that one of the major contestants in the struggle, the United States of America, takes time out to emphasise the conception of race superiority. The American Red Cross, in consultation with the Surgeons General of the U.S. Army and the Navy and with the stated approval of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy has recently published the statement that, while donations of blood would continue to be accepted from coloured as well as from white people, “the blood would be processed separately so that those receiving transfusions may be given plasma from blood of their own race.”2 There is of course no detectable biological or other difference between white blood and negro blood. There is however a doctrine of race superiority that must apparently be preserved among the democracies as well as among their enemies.- 2
It is of first importance therefore that we make up our minds about this concept of race. What does the concept mean? Is the concept of any value in the study of human biology and human variability? What are the facts when we come to the study of man's social life? How far is race of value as an explanatory tool or conceptualization in the field of the social sciences? These are questions about which both biologist and social scientist should be reasonably clear if the amount of pseudo-science and quackery in this world is ever to be appreciably lessened.
First of all then, what meaning, if any, can be given to the concept of race when it is applied to human affairs? Some students of the problem—Huxley and Haddon would be good exponents of this view—oppressed with the overtones of emotion, mysticism and misapprehension that surround like an enveloping muffler the term race, prefer to avoid using the term altogether. These scientists suggest substituting the terms “ethnic group” or “people” for what is ordinarily meant by race.3 Apart from the difficulty of finding satisfactory adjectival forms for these words the proposal to substitute new names has considerable merit if for no other reason than that of enabling us to approach racial problems with minds free from ancient, half-forgotten, emotionally begotten misconceptions. It would appear however that substitution removes neither the difficulty nor the necessity for definition. We have to define ethnic group just as much as we have to define race and in this definition the same problems of fact and correspondence with reality are sure to arise.
It would seem therefore that whatever name the biologist and physical anthropologist give to the concept, some working concept is necessary to tie together the facts that constitute the major premise in any broad study of the biological bases of human variability. Biologically speaking, man does seem to constitute a species. Thus race or ethnic group applies in the first instance to the group that makes up the human species. It is when we try to limit too exactly for taxonomic purposes that the facts of human differentiation often prove to be appallingly out of step with our classificatory baggage of sub-races, stocks, breeds, and types.
The trouble is, one supposes, that man is the oldest domesticated animal. He is not directly dependent on any environment. He has proved himself incorrigibly ingenious at adapting himself to many extreme environments, and to all sorts of shades and kinds between the extremes. He has exercised considerable control over his own mating arrangements and over his own fertility. The result is on the one hand a terrific human variability increased by an incredible amount of inter-mixing, blending, and hybridization; and on the other hand, an occasional stabilization of physical type in the past due to the isolation of peoples behind impenetrable geographical barriers. We have to recognize a situation then in which there has been continuously at work in the past a double process of enlargement and contraction—a sort of systole and diastole in human affairs with the result that the human species has become at once extremely complex and at the same time broken up into numerous smaller physically defined groupings of people. The factors that have been most important in producing these changes have been the interacting processes of race mixture, selection and environmental pressure.- 3
It is perhaps worth while to say something about the influence of each of these processes in order to remind ourselves of the problems involved. Race mixture could conceivably produce a pure strain of human beings if it were continued through many generations of in-breeding and the selection of recessive Mendelian characters. While this is possible with fruit-flies and rats and guinea pigs, it is impossible with man for many reasons—the impossibility of complete isolation, the fact that man is, genetically considered, very complex, and the fact that his Mendelian characters are not always compensating. Thus intermixture alone does not always produce a blend, although of course it does produce new combinations, and these combinations may at times become fixed through the operation of selection. Incidentally the question as to whether intermixture is harmful or desirable, biologically and socially, is open to discussion. The scientific evidence for the evaluation of some kinds of intermixture is still in the controversial stage. The social results of intermixture depend almost entirely on the ends desired and the racial myths of a people. In Hawaii, for instance, where race prejudice directed towards the mixture is slight, Chinese-Hawaiian marriages have been approved and the offspring have been able to profit by the educational and social opportunities open to them. In New Zealand both Pakeha4 and to a degree the Maori have a prejudice against Maori-Chinese intermixture and therefore the result, though genetically presumably similar to the Chinese-Hawaiian mixture, is socially undesirable. The lot of the Eurasian in India is too well known to demand documentation.
Selection is the second process making for stability of racial forms. It operates in various ways in the life of man. Sexual selection, depending on culturally-determined standards of beauty, has probably always been of importance. Warfare and celibacy have tended to withdraw certain genetic strains from the general population—warfare perhaps more in the past than it does today.5 Class and caste stratifications in a stable population, together with differential fertility-rates between these social strata, may also have been influential in putting a brake on the genetic effects of intermixture. Finally when we consider mobile emigrating populations, as for example, migration of European or Mongoloid peoples to the United States during the past century, then this migration seems to operate with selected racial strains so that the emigrants are of a special physical type not necessarily representative of the stay-at-home population. This type of selective migration has effects not only on the racial composition of the new population into which the migrants can ultimately be expected to be absorbed, but also on the home population from which the migrants have been withdrawn.6
Environmental influences on the racial forms of man are probably as old as man himself. They have become more pronounced in our modern civilization with its technological inventions and its ever-increasing knowledge of nutrition, vitamins, minerals and other chemical food components that have made it possible for many of us to - 4 eat more and better foods. The resulting somatic response has been largely in the form of an increase of stature. Harvard students for instance, exceed the stature of their fathers by one and one-third inches. Both exceed the stature of their grandfathers. Stature-increases are also apparent when comparisons are made between the populations of some of the British Dominions and the population of the British Isles with which, of course, the Dominion populations are genetically connected. In other parts of the world and in other historical periods stature-decreases under environmental influences have been just as pronounced.7
Other physical features may alter as well as stature. Head-form changes are the best known of these. The now classic studies of Boas on the head-form of East European emigrants to the United States show that whereas the cephalic index of the migrants is 0.830, that of their children is 0.814, while that of their grandchildren is only 0.787. This is a very clear instance of progressive brachycephalization which is probably due to environmental factors only. Other instances of this process in the past, notably in Southern Germany and in Bohemia in the Middle Ages, may have been complicated by minor influences exerted by selection, obscure migrations, and direct Mendelian changes. Shapiro has recently documented a series of physical changes among two generations of Japanese in Hawaii as compared with their relatives in Japan which again suggest a pronounced influence exerted by environmental and cultural influences on physical structure. It may also be noted that along with these physical changes affecting the migrant to a new environment there is a sort of adaptation in the cultural sphere as well so that successive generations approach more nearly to the norms of their new culture in such matters as crime-rates, mental disease-rates, and the like.8
We come back now to our beginning, the concept of race. Human genetic stocks have from the earliest times been subjected to a series of processes, some of them at certain periods operating to increase human variability, others of them at other periods functioning in such manner as to produce a relative stability of physical type. Hence it has been and is convenient for the human biologist to work with the conceptualization of race as a tool or hypothesis for ordering these factors of human variation and human stability. By race then, the biologist means a group of people, an ethnic group if you will, possessing in common a large majority of its physical traits. Such a group, as a result of isolation, defines more distinctively the number of its common characteristics and spreads them more evenly through the group. But insofar as isolation is rarely complete and is never eternal, only relative, an ethnic group is always to a greater or lesser extent in a state of flux. It is only by viewing such a group at a cross-section of time that it gives the illusion of being static. Classifications of race made on the basis of cross-sectional views often present a fictional clarity—fictional because only arbitrarily is it for the most part possible to separate one race from another. When however historical perspective is added, classification can be built on an understanding of how the present has grown out of the past. - 5 Classification will then be a much more complex matter, but at least it will be more realistic.
There is no purpose to be served here in surveying the various criteria that have been used for classifying races, nor in enumerating the various classificatory schemes that have been developed to encompass the manifold varieties of the human physical stock.9 These topics are of interest to the human biologist or to the physical anthropologist when he is concentrating attention on the ordering of those human biological relationships which are his special field of study. In the present context, however, it is more appropriate to pass to a consideration of another type of problem which is of considerable methodological and practical interest to all those concerned with the wider and more complex questions of human social relationships.
In passing from the biological to the social realm the initial point to be emphasized is that we come up against a new set of facts which are of greater complexity and therefore harder to order. As we study the three orders of nature, the physical, the biological, the social (or better, the socio-psychological) we pass from one ordering of facts to another which progressively increases in hierarchical complexity. As one writer, Ralph Linton, phrases the matter in his book The Study of Man: it has taken us some two thousand years to uncover the secrets of the atom; it will take us much longer—with even perhaps a few Dark Ages thrown in for good measure—at the other end of the scale to anatomize and thoroughly understand the structure and functioning of man's social life. Depending on one's philosophy of life one may feel that this sort of view is either profoundly pessimistic or incautiously optimistic. The biologist and the social scientist, both of whom have absorbed pretty completely the historical point of view (more so even than the historian himself), will not be too pessimistic about the progress of the social sciences. Rather, both will feel the need for caution and the necessity of moving slowly if progress in knowledge is to be firmly founded.
This leads to the second point. It can be made, a bit crudely perhaps but with approximate accuracy, by suggesting that a concept which has proved its instrumental value in biology is not necessarily a useful concept in the social sciences. Biological concepts and biological analogies have at times been quite fashionable in the social sciences. The idea of organism for instance, or the concept of evolution, which presumably have clear definition in biology have in the past been applied somewhat uncritically to the ordering of social data. The search for evolutionary stages in the development of society has been unsuccessful. The attempt to explain all social conflict on the basis of the survival of the fittest has proved too simple an approach and has often neglected the preliminary definition of what constitutes the “fittest” in the social and moral life of man. Similarly the concept of society or of a particular social group as an organism or as an organic whole has not proved particularly illuminating. The concept has a certain analogical value provided one remembers that the logical role of an analogy is not to prove a generalization, but more modestly, merely to suggest a possible generalization that must be established on other evidence.- 6
A further example would be the concept of race. Here the lesson is clear. In the past and in the present attempts to conceptualize particular types of human social relations in terms of race relations have resulted in obscurantism and a befogging of a far from simple problem rather than its clarification or at least delimitation. What the uncritical application of race to the social relations of culturally different ethnic groups means can be stated quite simply. It generally implies the notion of differences, both social and psychological, as being determined by heredity and therefore fixed and unalterable; it implies the notion also of these differences being a matter of immutable superiority and unbreakable inferiority; this means finally, in the field of social action that the allegedly superior race finds for itself rather easily a divinely-ordained biological sanction to lead, command, order, and control a group of allegedly inferior, subservient, made-by-heredity-to-be-commanded slave races.
The development of the social sciences, particularly the great strides made in the recent past through the application of sociological and anthropological techniques to the study of contemporary pre-literate and civilized societies, shows that these notions are bizarre, even nightmarish, at best thoroughly unscientific. Take for instance, this idea that races differ in mentality, that some are hereditarily superior while others are just as fixedly inferior. Psychologists and sociologists have tested and measured the mental capacities of different ethnic groups without so far discovering any inherent differences that cannot plausibly be accounted for by the imperfections of the measuring instruments and the extreme variations in the socially inherited nature of man's culture. Skull capacities of different peoples have also been measured but there are more differences in the size of the skull within races than between races. In any case there are no significant correlations between the size of the skull or the weight of the brain and the amount of intelligence a person possesses.10 Finally to account for differences between superior cultures and inferior cultures (allowing for the moment that the terms superior and inferior make sense when applied to cultures—though this is not necessarily true) on the basis of biologically inherited racial differences is to overlook entirely the point that inventions and the diffusion of ideas, beliefs, and practices, play the major role in culture development. No appreciable biological change has occurred in the nature of man in the past ten or fifteen thousand years. Yet it is a commonplace observation of sociology that man's culture has changed almost out of all recognition in this, biologically considered, short span of years. One would be unscientific if one said that there are no inherited mental differences between races. What one may say with some scientific assurance is that such differences have not been proved. Even should they at some future time be definitely established on the bases of a faultless scientific evidence, it is difficult to see how they can ever play as important a functional role in man's social life as differences which are culturally determined.
The point should now be clear that for the social scientist the concept of race is of little, if any, value in understanding the contact between peoples, whether this contact is cooperative or competitive.11 The facts of race-prejudice, however, are plainly to be observed in many parts of the world. The social scientist finds that these prejudices are based on assumptions of a fictional race-superiority; he finds that - 7 they are really cultural prejudices based on deeper underlying conflicts over economic and religious matters which revolve round surface issues of tastes and manners and customs. He finds that physical differences between peoples act as symbols of these cultural conflicts and therefore are used because of their high visibility—whether skin-colour, eye-shape, hair-form, body-odour, face-form—as emotionally charged conductors of race-attitudes. Avoiding then the concept of race, the social scientist has to determine what is the best way of considering those relations between peoples of different cultural backgrounds that have in the past been crudely and mistakenly lumped together under the term “race relations.”
When one passes in review such typical examples of the contact of widely separated ethnic groups as one finds in India between English and Indian, in the United States of America between Negro and White or between American Indian and White, in New Zealand between Maori and Pakeha (white Europeans), one finds that the kind of general relationship-pattern governing the contacts varies. In some cases the relationship appears to be of a caste-nature; in other cases it more nearly approximates to a formalized set of class-relations. Consider first caste-relationship. By the term caste the social scientist refers to a hierarchical ordering of the social structure involving superordinate and subordinate stratum groupings; membership of each group is the result of being born into the group; movement and intermarriage between groups is forbidden; access to privilege and power values in the society is a function of stratum membership. A classic example is the caste system of India where five principal castes (including the group known as Outcastes) are divided and subdivided into hundreds of sub-castes and where one's occupation and status in the community are determined largely by hereditarily determined caste-membership.
If we apply this concept of caste to the relations between Negroes and Whites in the United States, it is evident that these relations are pretty well covered by this concept. To be more accurate, however, one has to describe Negro-White relations as caste-like. The Whites are the superior caste, the Negroes the inferior group. Negroid physical features are the sign and badge of inferior caste-membership. Because of their fair skin colour, some Negroes may pass into the ranks of the superior caste, but few do this, and always at a fairly high psychological cost. The privileges and values of American society are divided according to caste-membership. Thus Negroes and Whites, specially in the South where the caste rules are particularly strict, do not associate on terms of equality. There is a tapu on intermarriage. Relations of intimacy are forbidden. Separate restaurants, churches, theatres, schools, seats in trams, carriages in trains, hotels and the like, are provided for Negroes. Negro schools are poorer, Negro teachers worse paid than White schools and White teachers. Economic benefits for the superior caste flow from this arrangement. Generally the Negroes perform in the South most of the monotonous, - 8 ill-paid, manual labour. No matter how low the Whites sink in the economic scale of their own caste, they may always expect deference and respect from Negroes. The Whites may also expect sexual privileges in that a White man may have intimate relations with a Negro woman, but the reverse relationship is considered one of the most shocking of all crimes.
In one important respect Negro and White relations differ from the classic caste-system. Both the Negro and the White castes are open castes in the sense that there is the possibility of rising and falling within each caste-group. There is, in other words, class-mobility so that Negroes may rise within their own caste through their own efforts and opportunities. Therefore some Negroes are able to aspire to, and to achieve, higher class-status than some Whites. This sort of class-mobility, therefore, serves to temper the somewhat extreme austerity of a purely caste system. Even so, the Negro-White caste-system serves as an over-all pattern to which relations between the two groups must conform. Attitudes, ways of thinking, of feeling, and of acting, are all defined by caste-membership. Hence what is popularly thought of as “race-relations” is seen to follow, much more exactly, the pattern of caste-relations.12
Some social scientists find that it is sufficient to view all cultural relations between ethnic groups in terms of caste-relations in order to effect real and significant clarification of the problems involved.13 It would appear, however, that more clarification still can be achieved when we become more sensitized to the actualities of culturally determined group-relations. This additional clarification is the result of realizing that some at least of these group-relations are more accurately defined in terms of class-relations and not caste-relations. The American Indian-White situation in the United States is more nearly class-defined than caste-defined. Many of the ethnic group-relations in Hawaii—between Whites and Hawaiians for instance or between Chinese and Hawaiians—are also class-patterned rather than caste-patterned. Similarly in New Zealand it would be doing extreme violence to the facts to consider the attitudes governing the relations between Maori and Pakeha (Whites) as fixed by a caste-structure. They are more nearly the outcome of the development of a still somewhat amorphous, but nonetheless very real class-structuring of New Zealand society.
The factors determining a class-system may be roughly set down as these: the society is hierarchically ordered; upward mobility from one stratum to the next is permissible; downward mobility is possible but is not praised; intermarriage between different class-members is not forbidden by the customs of the society though often disapproved by members of the higher classes and conversely approved of by lower class members (intermarriage thus becomes an instrument of mobility); members of each class display a relative homogeneity of attitudes, ideas, beliefs, and practices—a class-consciousness, as the - 9 phrase is used; membership in a particular class is fixed by an interacting complex of factors of which income or wealth is one, but not the only or necessarily the most important factor. In sum, a class-membership is made up of the people who possess a sufficient identity of common interests to entertain each other, talk intimately to each other, and marry each other. That New Zealand society is class-structed in the sense in which the term has just been used will be made evident from any examination of our own social experiences. Owing to the extreme backwardness of modern scientific social studies in New Zealand—perhaps more exactly, owing to their absence—the social scientist is unable yet to define empirically the number of social classes in New Zealand, the relative numerical membership of each, the relative roles that tradition, family line, occupation, income and wealth have played in the past and are playing today in determining class-membership, the relative stabilization or fluidity of social classes, the role that various institutions play—church-membership for instance, secondary school attended, a University degree—in symbolizing class or would-be class-membership; the influence of many other social factors. By comparison with English society New Zealand class-lines are not so strictly or so overtly defined. One who is sensitized to class-symbolism, however, will find plenty to remark on when he views New Zealand from this particular angle.
It is also important to note that ancient Maori society and also the more or less elastically defined modern Maori society are both class-determined. Pre-European Maori society was saved from being a caste-society—the almost divine chiefs at the top of the structure, the commoner and then the slave at the bottom—by the influence of the idea of the common descent of tribesmen from an eponymous ancestor. It was in fact a fairly strictly determined class-society. Today the elements of class, but not of caste, have survived with a greater or less tenacity in different parts of New Zealand. By reference to genealogical data the well-informed Maori of middle years and above is able to place himself and all Maori whom he meets on hierarchical strata which determine mutual attitudes of equality, or deference and respect. For the Maori today the matter is further complicated by the influence of European ideas of wealth. This wealth is derived from rents or from occupation, and these may give the Maori two class-definitions; one in Maori eyes and another, not necessarily coincident, in European eyes.
The position therefore today in New Zealand is this: that each of the two major ethnic groups orders itself on a relatively well-defined class-system. What prevents the classes turning into castes is the fact that intermarriage is allowed under the ideology of equality of ethnic groups. The key point that defines the problem of culturally determined group relations is firstly, the fact that Maori classes and White classes do not coincide; and secondly, as far as White practice is concerned—and the term practice needs to be emphasized because in many cases, if not in most, there is a gap between ideology and practice—there is a tendency to rank most Maori in a group equivalent in status to that of the lowest-class White group.
The actual phrasing or weighting of this lower class ascription doubtless varies in various parts of New Zealand. The stereotype depends to some degree on the economic status of the Maori group with which the Pakeha comes into contact (the general economic level, the presence or absence of one or more wealthy Maori families), on the - 10 relative proportions of Maori and Pakeha in particular districts, on the kind of population-contacts made (whether urban, rural or small country town), on the presence or absence of informed or educated Maori leadership—on these and possibly other factors as well. Whatever the relative enphasis however, a preliminary exploration of Maori-Pakeha cultural contacts suggests the value of this sort of hypothesis in laying bare the realities of these contacts.
It is not possible to outline the evidence for the hypothesis in this context. As an indication of this evidence one might mention the problem of understanding what is really involved today in Maori-Pakeha intermarriage. A superficial view will be content with Census returns. These indicate the extent to which intermarriage has gone on in the past and is continuing today. Not in any detail however, but only by rough estimates of the number of mixed bloods among the total Maori population. When we ask who is marrying whom—mixed blood females with other mixed bloods?, mixed blood males with Pakeha?, with Maori?, Maori males and females with Pakeha males and females—and from what social class or classes the Pakeha partner comes, the Census preserves an uninformative silence. Yet these details, and many others, are just those that are needed for the delimitation of the problem.14 Lacking such evidence for New Zealand as a whole, one is forced back onto the specific local areas of relatively close Maori-Pakeha contact with which one may have some limited acquaintance.
Taking one of these local areas as an instance—in this case a North Island west coast community—one finds that at the present time most of the contemporary intermarriages that are contracted are between mixed blood males and females on the one hand and between Pakeha males and mixed blood females on the other hand. Marriages between Pakeha females and mixed or full Maori males occur but are exceptional. Looking at the social class-membership of the Pakeha partners one finds that these are uniformly lower or lowest class. The Pakeha males marrying mixed blood Maori females are lower class males (unskilled or semi-skilled occupations). The Pakeha females marrying mixed or full blood Maori males are either lower class or else females downward mobile from the lower middle class to the lower class. The point to be emphasized therefore is that the intermarriage occurring in this community is not just “any kind of intermarriage” but is definitely patterned in such fashion that mixed blood intermarriages and marriages of lower class Pakeha males (or rarely, females) with mixed blood Maori females constitute the present rule. Phrased in terms of social structure, intermarriage is apparently approaching the norm of lower-class endogamy.
This is just the roughest outline of what is happening, expressed with no refinements. It may be noted, however, that to a question designed to test opinion on intermarriage, a common answer from middle class student women living in a large urban area is typified by the following statement:- 11
“In theory I don't think I have any objection to marrying a Maori. But that's in theory only. The trouble in practice is that I haven't seen nor am I likely to meet any educated Maori. The Maori men and girls I see around the streets are all so obviously low class. You see them at nights hanging around the cheap dance-halls, looking disreputable and sometimes acting in a way that appears quite shocking to me. Could I think of marrying into that class of people? The answer for me is No. As long as city life attracts the low-class Maori, intermarriage is quite out of the question for a city-bred girl like myself.”
There is no feeling for a colour-bar in statements of this sort. There is, however, a very real feeling for class-differences on the side of the Pakeha. It is around these social class-attitudes that the Maori-Pakeha group relations tend to be polarized within the limited areas already mentioned.
As a matter of record, though it is impossible to give details here, social relations in the small semi-rural community are so complex that they do not fit easily even into the mould of class-relations. Taking social visiting as an example, some few, really very few, Pakeha visit, or are visited by, Maori friends of equivalent or slightly lower social class; most of the Pakeha families are at best indifferent, at worst prejudiced against the Maori in the community. The local Pakeha come to the Maori meeting-house whenever groups of visitors are entertained by the Maori, but the Pakeha admit they are bored by the proceedings and regard them more in the light of good cheap commercial advertising for the community. Almost no cases are on record of local Maori or Pakeha exchanging close confidential or intimate beliefs or conversations with a member of the opposite ethnic group. Eating together in the intimacies of a family group is non-existent as between Maori and Pakeha, even of approximately the same social class. The point therefore is that although intermarriage is permissive and can be culturally defined by appeal to social structure, the wider context of social relations does not fit neatly into a class-concept. In certain aspects these relations take on a faint shadow of caste, in others they are more nearly class-structured, in others still they are “betwix and between”. Doubtless a new concept needs to be abstracted in order to shape the facts. But this is a job for another time when all the evidence may be properly marshalled and presented in logical arrangement.
In summary of the discussion of this paper one may say that the concept of race is a conceptual tool for the physical anthropologist and the human biologist. For the social scientist the concept is one to be avoided. To understand what are popularly known as race-relations the social scientist needs to work with the concepts of caste and class-relations if he is to clarify his analyses and determine accurately what social processes are involved in the culturally phrased contacts of ethnic groups.
1 A paper read before the Wellington Branch, Royal Society of New Zealand, August 26, 1942.
2 The facts are documented in Psychiatry (1924) 5: 97–98. The protest against this ruling by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples is given in the New Republic (1942) 106:150.
3 Huxley, Julian and Haddon, Alfred C., We Europeans (1939 Penguin edition), pp. 7–8, 90–91, 138–140.
4 “Pakeha”—a term commonly used in New Zealand and applied to all those of British and European descent as opposed to those of Maori ancestry.
5 The genetic influences of war have recently been summarized by Pearl, Raymond. Some Biological Considerations about War, American Journal of Sociology (1941) 46: 487–503.
6 The European material bearing on this point is summarized by Coon, Carleton S., The Races of Europe, New York, 1939, 7–9. For the data on the Mongoloid peoples (Japanese), see Shapiro, Harry L., Migration and Environment, New York, 1939.
7 See Coon, op. cit., 10–11.
8 The material of which the above paragraph is a summary will be found in Coon, op. cit., 10; Shapiro, op. cit.; Klineberg, Otto, Race Differences, New York, 1935, pp. 232–235, 249–250. In the sociological field the classic study in this connection is of course that of Thomas, W. I. and Znaniecki, F., The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, 2 vols., New York, 1927.
9 Various race-classifications are discussed in the following books: Kroeber, Alfred L., Anthropology, New York, 1923, pp. 34–57; Boas, F., General Authropology, New York, 1938, pp. 95–123; Coon, op. cit., pp. 241–296.
10 The evidence is admirably surveyed in Klineberg, op. cit., pp. 73–92, 152–210.
11 To illustrate the point with examples from the history of western Europe: the Noman Conquest of England, the Roman Conquest of France, the brilliance of Rome from the fourth to the first centuries B.C., the achievements of Italy from the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries A.D. and again during the Italian Revival of the nineteenth century—all these resulted in profound social, political, and cultural changes, but racial causes and racial effects were almost negligible. In other words the contact and conflict of new ideas and institutional forms, not the infusion of new or better blood, were responsible for the changes that occurred. For a summary see Ginsberg, Morris, National Character, British Journal of Psychology (1942) 32, 196–204.
12 The best references for further study of Negro-White relations are the various reports of the American Youth Commission's study of Negro youth published recently by the American Council on Education and Dollard's book on Caste and Class in a Southern Town, New Haven, 1937. A brief study of the very similar situation in South Africa is given in a paper by R. F. Alfred Hoernle: Education in a Racial-Caste Society. The New Era (1942) 23: 93–95.
13 This limitation of “race-relations” to caste-relations is exemplified in the two following critiques of race: Humphrey, Norman D., American Race and Caste. Psychiatry (1941) 4:159–160; Ashley Montagu, M. F., Race, Caste and Scientific Method. Psychiatry (1941) 4:337–338.
14 The theoretical problems involved in this approach are worked out by Merton, Robert K., Intermarriage and the Social Structure. Psychiatry (1941) 4:361–374. “Among the more prosy aspects of intermarriage,” Merton writes, “is the role of the social structure. Rates and patterns of intermarriage are closely related to cultural orientations, standardized distributions of income and symbols of status. The conflicts and accomodations of mates from socially disparate groups are partly understandable in terms of this environing structure.” Ibid., 361.