杏吧原创

HERE we have the opposite ends of thinking on genetics, intelligence and behaviour. Steven Fraser has brought together a bunch of powerful essays to refute last year鈥檚 infamous The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, by the late Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The Bell Curve appeared to equal measures of outrage, for its legitimisation of racial and ethnic inequalities and gloomy outlook on social policy, and praise, for confronting dangerous liberalism and political correctness. Phillipe Rushton, on the other hand, shares much ground with Herrnstein and Murray. Race, Evolution and Behaviour is a most indecent book, intellectually insulting and morally repugnant: a case of strong politics driving weak science.

Whether The Bell Curve was lambasted for being 鈥�845 pages of provocation with footnotes鈥� (Time) or praised for its 鈥淛effersonian vision鈥� (Forbes), it was not ignored. The book delivered a gloomy prescription for social policy. It synthesises new-right politics with sociobiology blaming class and 鈥渞ace鈥� inequalities on natural differences in IQ and fears about 鈥渄ysgenesis鈥� 鈥� the term coined for the process by which those with low IQs, the 鈥渃ognitively challenged鈥�, outbreed the 鈥渃ognitive elite鈥�, thus 鈥渄umbing鈥� America.

Stephen Jay Gould鈥檚 essay opens the batting for the opposing camp. He is highly critical of the assumptions that underlie The Bell Curve, particularly the assertion that 鈥渋ntelligence must be depictable as a single number (Spearman鈥檚 鈥済鈥�), capable of ranking people in linear order, genetically based, and effectively immutable鈥�. Meanwhile, Judis describes the dysgenesis hypothesis as 鈥渁 combination of bigotry and of metaphysics where, in philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein鈥檚 phrase, 鈥榣anguage goes on holiday'鈥�.

Howard Gardner鈥檚 essay describes his own finding that, far from intelligence being a single attribute, it has multiple aspects. The association between lQ and other variables remains weak, as even Herrnstein and Murray have admitted. To construct a vision of hopelessness on such dubious evidence, the critics say, turns this book into a manifesto for new-right ideology.

Gardner criticises the book鈥檚 soft science and neglect of alternative explanations. Using Herrnstein and Murray鈥檚 own figures, he notes that perhaps 90 per cent of the factors explaining social status differences are not connected with IQ. 鈥淎nd since close to half of one鈥檚 IQ is due to factors unrelated to heredity, well over 90 per cent of one鈥檚 fate does not lie in one鈥檚 genes. Inherited IQ is at most a paper airplane, not a smoking gun.鈥� Similar concerns are expressed in essays by Nisbet, Rosen, Lane and Ratmos.

Jacqueline Jones draws convincing and frightening parallels between the themes expressed in The Bell Curve and previous justifications for slavery, eugenics, segregation and 鈥渇ears for the future of the US鈥�.

Although on the whole I enjoyed this book, I have reservations. Uneven in style and content, it ranges between scholarly critique and journalistic outrage. Some essays are too short for the authors to develop their arguments adequately. The overlap between chapters is considerable and irritating. I also wonder whom Fraser鈥檚 collection benefits most, those who oppose the outrageous extravagances of new-right ideology dressed up as science or, by giving a dubious enterprise attention, the authors and publishers of The Bell Curve.

Rushton, the author of Race, Evolution and Behaviour, was given prominence by Herrnstein and Murray in The Bell Curve. According to Rosen and Lane in The Bell Curve Wars, Rushton summarised his views on black/white differences thus: 鈥淓ven if you take things like athletic ability or sexuality 鈥� not to reinforce stereotypes 鈥� but it鈥檚 a trade off, more brains or more penis. You can鈥檛 have everything.鈥� For the Martians among readers, supposedly, whites have the former, blacks the latter. Rushton takes 334 pages to consider racial differences between 鈥淢ongoloids鈥�, 鈥淐aucasoids鈥� and 鈥淣egroids鈥�. He is aware that his beliefs are controversial but, 鈥減ersuaded by data that the races do differ, genetically, in the mechanism underlying their behaviour鈥�, is compelled to pursue this in aid of 鈥渢he Darwinian revolution鈥�.

The 13 chapters cover the genetic basis of character traits, genetic similarity theory, brain size and intelligence, differences in maturation and personality, sexuality, the divergent evolutionary paths of the three 鈥渞aces鈥� 鈥� his so-called r-k theory. Rushton鈥檚 thesis is simple: genes and evolution are the predominant shapers of racial differences. And although environment or culture are important, he claims, they are also determined by genetic differences.

Rushton proposes a hierarchy of 鈥渞aces鈥� across a range of attributes and behaviours, in which 鈥淢ongoloid鈥� and 鈥淐aucasoid鈥� are at the top, 鈥淣egroid鈥� at the bottom. For example, on marital stability in the US, he ranks from best to worst 鈥淥rientals鈥�, 鈥渨hite鈥� and 鈥渂lack鈥�. On sexual and reproductive behaviour, compared to 鈥淢ongoloids鈥� and 鈥淐aucasoids鈥�, he says 鈥淣egroids鈥� have heightened sexual activity, are younger when they first have intercourse, have larger penises and vaginas, increased sex hormonal activity, and enhanced secondary sexual characteristics such as larger breasts and buttocks. He believes that these factors, combined with black women producing more eggs and black men more sperm, lead to increased fertility, poorer parenting and sexually-transmitted diseases.

The Caucasoid have larger brains and advanced social organisation (they have been 鈥渒 selected鈥�), the Negroid, greater sexual drive and fecundity (鈥渞 selected鈥�). His data show uncanny consistency and have earned him eulogies from Jensen, Eysenck and others. Jensen proclaims: 鈥淭o shun this essential message of his work is to reject scientific coherence.鈥�

In an attempt to justify his ideas, Rushton quotes Pascal on the condemnation by the Church of the Copernican hypothesis that the Earth orbited the Sun: 鈥淚f the earth moves, a decree from Rome cannot stop it.鈥� But Rushton is no Copernicus. Instead, his orrery is crafted out of marshmallow, collapsing as soon as you confront it.

The scientific coherence that Jensen praises has been cultivated by Rushton through not allowing his theories to be tainted by opposing evidence. The ploy of 鈥渃onfronting鈥� his critics, and there are many, in the penultimate chapter gives only a veneer of objectivity without affecting his theory based on the 鈥渆vidence鈥� of earlier chapters. On the whole, he does not address the serious critics of his work, including Steven Rose, Flynn, and Weissmann. Considering his insistence that black people have made no contribution to civilisation, his neglect of the work of Bernal (The Black Athena) is remarkable.

Rushton鈥檚 racial categories hide more than they reveal. The poverty of his thesis is apparent when one compares the histories, behaviours, lifestyles, economies, reproductive practices and the social norms of, for example, South Asians and the British (both 鈥淐aucasoids鈥�), or those of the Japanese, American Indians and Aboriginals (鈥淢ongoloids鈥�). Equally absurd are his arguments about the biological basis of sexual behaviour. The differences between South Asians and white Europeans, in terms of premarital sex, cohabitation, birth of children outside marriage, the system for making marriage choices, and divorce rates, are far greater than those between 鈥淐aucasoids鈥� and 鈥淣egroids鈥�.

Predictably, Rushton also makes an unconvincing attempt to present racism as 鈥渘atural鈥� 鈥� hijacking Richard Dawkins鈥檚 idea of the selfish gene. Inconvenient evidence is ignored, such as the racist abuse of the kind of arguments he puts forward, as shown in Edward Larson鈥檚 Sex, Race and Science (Johns Hopkins, 1995) and William Tucker鈥檚 The Science and Politics of Racial Research (University of Illinois Press, 1994). That Rushton鈥檚 鈥渆vidence鈥� so closely mirrors racial stereotypes of group differences speaks volumes for his politics without advancing science an inch.