Musial 1
Alec Musial
10/31/13
Biological Determinism: Historical Context and the Present
Biological determinism is the radical notion that hypothesizes the fact that
biology and genetics alter the progress of a general system over a period of time. The
viewpoint of biological determinism emerges in the nineteenth century and becomes
institutionalized with the rise of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism manages to apply
Darwin’s theory of natural selection to coin the term “survival of the fittest” in order to
explain societies and races. In order to justify such a bold ideal, intellectuals supported
the pseudoscience of phrenology, the measuring of brains and skulks to obtain a value for
cranial capacity. The measuring of the most important human organ in the skull for
specific races would imply racial superiority or inferiority for certain groups. Moreover,
a justification for biological determinism has not only been provided through phrenology,
but via a common sense proposed by scholars Michael Omi and Howard Winant. They
argue with their formulated racial formation theory everybody is exposed to this common
sense on race without directly teaching it. A common sense of race has been composed
as a result of Adolf Hitler’s racist project that wrongly integrated biological determinism
to alter the social stratosphere of Nazi Germany. The impact of the Holocaust has
resulted in strong opinions from intellectuals on the topic of biological determinism with
an overwhelmingly negative and vindicated response. Remarkably, the heinous presence
of biological determinism is still felt in this country through a minority in academia and
has impacted current debates in the United States Census.
Biological determinism, as a result of Hitler’s ruthlessness, became an involved
racial paradigm with severe polarizing implications. Biological determinism is rooted in
Musial 2
erroneous claims supported by pseudoscience and rhetoric such as the statement that,
“Racial intermixture was seen as a sin against nature which would lead to the creation of
‘biological throwbacks’” (Omi and Winant, 15). Rising tensions in a desperate nation
created the perfect environment for such a radical position as the process of eugenics,
otherwise known as selective breeding for humans, which resulted in the attempt to
realize a master race for all of Europe. The movement of biological determinism
convinced Hitler to create the most infamous racist project to exterminate millions of
people, notably the Jews, through Einsatzgruppen units and subsequently with
concentration camps. Therefore, it is immediately evident that biological determinism is
a dangerously powerful idea that manifested itself in the wrong hands. Powerful ideas
create powerful responses and in this case, cultural racism and a minority in support for
biological determinism remained.
Although the theory of a cultural racism that stems from the need to justify racism
after the decline of biological determinism serves as a logical framework for a common
sense on race to remain and, therefore, comprises of the method as to which the majority
of intellectuals infect the public with racist ideals, biological determinism still has
garnered support as well. Common sense primarily involves the perception of race by the
general public and without racist projects devised by the government to compose this
common sense, academia manages to primarily maintain it through cultural racism.
Cultural racism is a form of racism grounded upon history; its methodology entails being
Eurocentric in the telling of historical events. Europe, according to this racial paradigm,
contains the most progressive societies and the primary focus drawn towards Europe
implies more significance to their innovations. The rate of development for Europe with
Musial 3
this paradigm is higher and, therefore, other societies can be considered inferior (Blaut).
This racial theory still exists today and, while subtle, has merit and serves as an agent for
people to have a common sense understanding of racism. But, at the same time, the
crusade against biological determinism continues as this pseudoscientific ideology has
support from established professors in the best universities in the country. The common
sense originally established by biological determinism in the preceding generations has
passed down to these intellectuals instead of being rejected and manifested through
cultural racism. Examples of modern supporters of biological determinism include Rose
McDermott of Brown University who states that a warrior gene exists that explains why
certain individuals act with more aggression and James Watson, the scientist famous for
the discovery of the double helix structure for DNA, maintains the view that the problems
presently felt by African nations are indicative of the innate inferiority of blacks
(Defending Steven J. Gould). Preposterous arguments such as these occasionally and
passionately come along by intellectuals that believe in this disgrace to actual scientific
thought. Such arguments, although not commonplace, clearly exist and have even
affected the perception of race from government officials debating issues of race on the
United States Census.
Biological determinism’s erroneous and archaic ideals even extended to the
sphere of public policy during the 2006 Census debates. While three of the speakers
presented similar arguments emphasizing the statistical usefulness of the Census for
policies in the United States, the fourth speaker, Mr. Connerly, had a radical perspective
on race adversely influenced by biological determinism. As a result, Connerly contends
that race should not even appear on the 2010 Census. Connerly writes, “Unless these
Musial 4
‘racial’ categories within our existing classification system have scientific validity –
something that is very much in dispute – I find them to be repugnant, ‘inhuman’ to use
the characterization of Nelson Mandela, and socially regressive for a nation that
proclaims as its creed ‘one nation, indivisible” (2009 Briefing Report [32] ). The
extended use of hyperbole by Connerly here demonstrates his need to convince his
audience of his position without reason, but with appeals to emotion; the more interesting
thing to note, however, is his claim that scientific validity of racism is still in dispute.
Connerly attempts to validate his views by referencing the concept of intellectuals, such
as McDermott and Watson, believing in biological determinism. Biological determinism
has its small minority of supporters, but it is alarming and noteworthy for an individual of
Connerly’s caliber to mention it at a government hearing and to have his radical opinion
shaped by the existence of another opposing radical ideal. Connerly’s statement could
affect data collecting for the Census for the decade if others on the committee bought into
his philosophy. Fortunately, none of the Commissioners engaged Mr. Connerly in
discourse on the issue and did not demand proof of such a bold statement; otherwise
biological determinism would have come into the forefront of the Census hearing instead
of having this underlying impact. But, even though all of the speakers other than
Connerly used a different form of common sense to have more logical debates on the
topic, the relic of biological determinism, the “five food groups” mentioned by Connerly,
still remains.
While Connerly directly addresses biological determinism as a problematic ideal
even for twenty first century America, the other speakers attempt to wrestle with
maintaining the lingering relic of biological determinism, underscored by the argument of
Musial 5
Kenneth Prewitt. Prewitt struggles to deal with the remnants of biological determinism
mentioning that, “the ‘five races of mankind’ lives on in the 21st century” (Prewitt).
Biological determinism survives in the shadow of catastrophic events such as the
Holocaust as well as in the discrimination of Negroes that fueled Americans for hundreds
of years. The archaic system of five races established by biological determinism is still
functioning albeit in a different context. The ever-changing dynamic of racial barriers in
American society has created more complex distinctions that have not been entirely
established by the government. Large institutions cannot quickly adapt to the beset
circumstances and, therefore, the government holds onto the concept of a limited amount
of races instead of balancing practicality with citizen individuality. Prewitt cites the fact,
“Much attention has been paid to the news that non-Hispanic white now account for less
than half of the births in the United States and that death now exceed births among nonHispanic whites” (Prewitt). Although this is an alarming statistic, it is one reliant on the
“five races” notion that has become the product of biological determinism in America for
government policy. Prewitt’s policies, in addition to that of other speakers, still maintain
the five-race system in an effort to prevent statistical ignorance, while still combatting its
implications for society. The government, at this stage, is trying to draw the fine line
between the old and new: common sense biological determinist vestiges and modern
adjustments to the established norm of having the five-race system.
Indeed, biological determinism’s heinous presence still has its remnants in
American society. Cultural racism has developed as a post World War II response to the
concept, a select few intellectuals support its principles, government officials
acknowledge the notion as a problem in the social and political spheres, and American
Musial 6
society’s five race ideal originated from biological determinism and impacts policies
moving forward. It is a mystery on how the powerful concept of biological superiority
affecting a general system can affect America in the subsequent years leading to the 2020
United States Census. Time will tell, but make no mistake, even though biological
determinism does not nearly have the influence it once had in the early twentieth century,
can potentially affect people’s perceptions of race and other factors moving forward.
Musial 7
Works Cited
Blaut, James M. “The Theory of Cultural Racism.” Antipode: A Radical Journal of
Geography 23 (1992): 289-299. Print.
“Defending Stephen Jay Gould’s Argument Against Biological Determinism.”
Blogs.scientificamerican.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 24, Jun. 2011.
Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States From the
1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge, 1994. Print.
Prewitt, Kenneth. “Fix the Census’ Archaic Racial Categories.” New York Times 21 Aug
2013. Print.
“Racial Categorization in the 2010 Census: A Briefing for the United States Commission
on Civil Rights held in Washington, DC, April 7, 2006.” Washington, DC: US
Commission on Civil Rights, 2009. Print.