The Profession of the Color Blind: Sociocultural Anthropology and Racism in the 21st Century Author(s): Eugenia Shanklin

Reviewed work(s): Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 100, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 669-679 Published by: Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/682045 . Accessed: 14/11/2012 15:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley-Blackwell and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

EUGENLS SHANKLIN Department of Sociology and Anthropology The College of New Jersey Ewing, NJ 08628-0718

The Profession of the ColorBlind:1 Sociocultural Anthropology and Racismin the 21st Century
In this essay, I suggestthatAmericansociocultural anthropology has been a "colorblind"professionfor rlearly a half centuryandthat,as a discipline,we need to restoreandrefineourcolor perceptionsin orderto fight the supposedlyfixed opposition in Americansociety between"black" and"white"anddeal with the racistconsequencesof this folk opposition. In the firstsection,"HowAnthropology Became 'ColorBlind,"'I delineatethecircumstances underwhich anthropology becamethe "colorblind"profession.In the secondsection, "TeachingColorBlindness,"I discuss the tendency,in teaching socioculturalanthropology,to ignoreracismand its effects. In the final section, "Restoring Color Vision," I take up the questionsof what the professionneeds to do next to cope with racismand its consequences,emphasizingespecially the issue of group identities, how they are formulated, inculcated, and overcome, and proposing a Foucauldian model-following Foucault'slead in analyzingrelationsof biopowerandrace forformulating new ways of responding to and resistingthe inevitablerecastingsof racistideas. [race and racism, socioculturalanthropology,group identities, Foucault,Boas]

How Axlthropology Became"ColorBlind"

Anthropologydid not begin as a color blinddiscipline; instead, it originatedas a two-partstudy of the physical andmentaldimensionsof"human nature," variouslydefined. The first use of the termanthropologyin a disciplinarysense comes in an anonymousbook publishedin the fifteenth centuly; there, anthropologyconsisted of psychology, the "nature of the rationalsoul discoursed," and anatomy,"thestructure of thebodyof manrevealedin dissection"(quotedin Penniman[1935]1952:53;cf. Degler 1991; Lieberman 1968). Over the next few centuries, manywho would not have called themselvesanthropologists had a go at defining the propersubjectmatterof the new discipline.The studyof psychology was replacedby philosophyin Descartes's Meditations,Hume's Treatise ofHumanNature,andKant'sCritique of PureReason;by laws in Montesquieu'sSpiritofLaws; andby the "natural state"in Rousseau's Social Contract. The studyof "race" andphysicaldifferencesamonghumans replaced anatomy as the proper anthropological study in the writingsof Linnaeus,whin latereditions of SystemaNaturaedivided humansinto subspecies,of Blumenbach,who categorizedhumansaccordingto cranial features, and of Buffon, who studiedregional variations. The nineteenth century's intellectual ferment added new dimensions to the discussions:early renderings had assumeda single originfor humans(monogene-

sis), while those of thenineteenthcenturyelaborated endlessly on the multiple origins of various human races (polygenesis) andthe consequencesthereof.By 1853, six years beforethe publicationof Darwin's OntheOrigin of Species,Countde Gobineauhad addeda hierarchical dimension to the study of racial differences, proclaiming that there were "superior and inferiorraces, and that the majorityof races were incapableof civilization"(quoted in Penniman[1935]1952:84). In Europe, the science of "race" was establishedlong beforeanthropology foundits disciplinaryfeet, underthe aegis of E. B. Tylor's (1871) definitionof culture(with natureas residualcategory)as the properstudyof anthropologists. In the late 1800s, whenFranzBoas undertook theestablishment of the discipline of anthropologyin the United states,2therewere partisansfrom all sides of the political spectrum who could call themselves anthropologists. There were conservativezoologists like CharlesDavenport,who decriedthe interference of the governmentwith the "natural" outcomes of the Social Darwiniststruggle, or other devout eugenicists like Madison Grant, who believed that sterilizing the undesirableportions of the populationwould lead the nationto its perfected,golden future ---without malformation, retardation, poverty, immigrants,Jews, or skin-colordifferences.Therewere"anthroposociologists" like CarlosClosson,Herbert Spencer' s American"apostle,"who "interpreted all history as a racial strugglewhich produceda constantredistribution of

AmericanAnthropologist100(3):669-679. Copyrighti) 1999, AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

670

AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 100, NO. 3

* SEPTEMBER1998

the racialelementsof nationsaccordingto variouslaws of 'social selection' " (Clossen, quotedin Stocking1982:60; cf. Marks 1995). There were also prominent lay ideologues such as Andrew Carnegie,who wrote of an Anglo-American "master race" and assigned the "other" classes (immigrants andblacks)to permanent statusatthe bottomof the heap,doomed to die out, because"Theproportion of the colored to the white element necessarily grows less andless.... the conclusionseems unavoidable thatthecoloredracecannotholditsownnumerically against the whites andmustfall farther andfartherbehind . . . we can scarcely expect the hotter climate of the Southern States, in which the colored people live, to produceas hardy a race as that of the cooler States of the North" (Carnegie[l 886]1971:4>45; cf. Wall 1970:679). George Stocking has careful]y and instructivelyanalyzed Boas's interestin physical anthropology: he points out thatBoas "carried with him a residueof polygenistand evolutionaryassumption," butthattherewere otherdifficulties with "racial" theoryeven before Boas's influence began to grow, and notes that"physical anthropology around l900 had wandered far into a blind alley from which it was not really to emerge for anotherfifty years" (1968:163). Among the "pervasivedifElculties'' in racial theory was the breakdownof any and all definitions of race, a weaknessthatBoas attackedoften andvigorously in his writings.3 Boas introduced intothedisciplinehe was carefully craftinga dynamic point of view about racial classifications,one thatconcentrated on "testingconflicting theories of heredity and environment"(Stocking 1968:188) with the ultimateaim of sheddinglight on the problemsof the"earlyhistoryof mankind." Stockingalso pointsout that"ingeneral,muchof twentieth-centuryAmericananthropologymay be viewed as the workingout in time of variousimplicationsof Boas's own position"( l 974:17). Anothercommentator observes that Boas's "anti-racistlegacy stems as much from his ideas as from his actions to mobilize opinion among his peers and the public in favor of egalitarianism" (Barkan 1992:77).In carvingout a liberaldisciplineandsurrounding himself with those of a similar persuasion,Boas no doubtattracted studentswho were of the sameliberalpersuasion as he. He also impressedupon them the importance of a "dynamic" point of view in the study of races. Boas himselfwas not color blind,norwas the firstgenerationof his students.4 He was well awareof thefolk conception of race thatwas operatingin Americansociety at the time but he taughtthat "scientific models which are derivedfromfolk cultureshouldbe regarded with particular suspicion"(Moore 1981:37). Boas trainedhis studentsto renouncethe scientific concepts of race thatpersisted,to ignore the folk concepts of race thatexisted, andto work towardanegalitarian ideal in society. Accordingto ElazarBarkan,Boas's impacton the idea of racewas on threelevels: "the'expert,'whose scientiElc

work,theoreticalandempirical,shapedthe discipline;the 'professional,' as an active participantin the scientific community, . . . and the 'intellectual,' who participated directly in public and political discourse"(Barkan1992: 77-78). Boas's last words concernedthe need to combat racismby exposing it (Barkan1992:77), and some of his studentsfollowed throughon his aims but most of their criticismsof theraceconceptinvolved its nonexistenceas a biologically useful idea andlittle or no emphasison the study of the Americanfolk conceptionof race. Manyanthropologistsbehaved as scientific "experts," not as "intellectual[s] who participated in public and political discourse[s]"(Barkan1992:78). Both within Boas's lifetime and beyond, there were positive and negative responses to his ideas,5but by the time of his deathin 1942, sociocultural anthropology was thoroughlyprofessionalizedandwell on its way to being color blind, indifferentto the skin-colordifferences that areandwerethebasis of theAmerican"racial" (folk) classif1cation."Race"no longermatteredandif "race"could be demonstrated not to exist, thenracismwas anirrelevant responseto skin-colordifferences,one doomedby its own (scientific) inexactitude to fade away. This proposition helpedto ensurethatAmericananthropology won thebattle andlost the war. One positive response to Boas's thinking was the UNESCO Statement on Race,largely writtenby Boas's students and colleagues, Ashley Montagu, Theodosius Dobzhansky,L. C. Dunn, andOttoKlineberg.The Statement(Montagu1951; UNESCO 1952) defined the scientific community's oppositionto racial discriminationby repudiating threeideas:( l ) thatmentalcapacitiesforraces differed;(2) thathybridization producedbiological deteriorationof populationgroups;and (3) that nationaland religiousgroupswere in any sense biologicalpopulations. The fourthpremise advanced,that "racewas less a biological fact than a social myth,"was the most controversial at the time and,hadAmericananthropologists wished to explore this premise, they could have begun an intensive investigationof the folk conceptionsof raceextantin their own society and publicly critiquedthe racist ideas that pervaded institutional and legal thinking. Ruth Benedict, MargaretMead, and Ashley Montaguconcentratedon critiquingrace as a scientific concept in their writings,but the idea of raceas an Americanfolk concept went largely unchallengedand unexplored.Boas trained very few physical anthropologists,and the culturalanthropologistshe taughthada differentmandate:"salvage ethnography" andthe expansionof the field of ethnology or the studyof small-scale societies. It is ironicthata profession dedicated to exploring the nuances of the ideas people hold failed to deal with a major idea their own countrypeopleheld, the equationof race with skin color. The studyof small-scale societies provideda poor framework for investigating concepts of race, however, even

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BLIND OFTHECOLOR SHANKL1N/ PROFESSION

671

thoughthe societies themselveswere often subjectto racist policies. to bearon I believe thatthe scientif1cexpertisebrought the "scientific"aspects of the race concept was effective andthatthe idea of race as a scientific categoryhas virtupublic and ally disappeared from ongoing contemporary politicaldiscourses.But the folk ideaof raceas skincolor remainspowerful in our society and racism has become part of legislation and institutionsin ways that make it very difficultto extirpate.It is often said, "youcan't kill a bad idea," but seldom noticed that this proposition is wrong.Ether,alchemy, a flat earth,andeven some of the more overwroughttenets of creationismare quite dead.6 All were killed or renderedharrnlessby scientific advances in physics, chemistry,geography,and evolution. is notdeadandthatraThe factsthatthefolk ideaof "race" cism thrivesin our society are partly(but only partly,of to folcourse)attributable to thefailureof anthropologists low throughon Boas's example of public engagementin discourse and debate. The '9Os version of what race is even includesdenialof raceas a fact: similar operates inamanner Neither anillusion norafact,race by politiof meanings transfoImed to gender as a complex words, racemaybeafiction, inother calframeworks. Though Fiction that Stevens called aSupreme itremains what Wallace and bodyto putinplace,sustain, hasexploited thecoIporeal of inequality. [Gubar 1997:42] justify powerful systems

Teaching Color Blindness

I turnnow to the issue of teaching aboutrace and racoursesthat anthropology cism, especiallyin introductory reachthe largestnumberof college students.If race as a Supreme Fiction is at issue, how have anthropologists this folk dichotomyand to contributed to understanding clarifyingits consequencesfor a society thatproclaimsitself committedto egalitarianideals? We have moved a long way from the sixties and seventies, when most textbook authorsexplainedwhy race andracismwere not acceptableor scientificconcepts,to the eightiesandnineties whenseriousdiscussionsof raceorracismseemto be considered superfluous by most anthropology textbook authorsand editors. These changes have been carefully analyzed elsewhere recently (Lieberman et al. 1992; Mukhopadhyay andMoses 1997), andI, too, have spelled out some of the shiftsover the lastfew decadesin teaching these concepts in both physical and socioculturalanthropology (Shanklin 1994). ThereforeI will limit myself in this discussion to pointing out some of the "highs"and of race andracismin a few recent "lows"of the treatment culturalanthropologytextbooks.Two caveatshere:first, not all anthropologists use textbooks in introductory courses;andsecond,we do notknowhow manywho teach introductory courses automaticallyincludea segmenton race and racism. Another gap in our knowledge, in this

age, is what percentageof college stumultidisciplinary as partof theirdistribudentsareexposed to anthropology tion requirements,studentswho will never take another coursebutcould well be influencedby what anthropology they heard in the course about race and racism. Patsy Evans (personal communication)of the American AnthropologicalAssociationnotes thatwhile we are certain that, in 1997, there were 8,000 anthropology majors graduatedthroughoutthe country, we do not know the anthropology numberof studentswho take introductory and who might requirements as partof their distribution to raceandracism.7 learnfromus aboutnew approaches anthropolIn my own cursorysurveyof 11 introductory ogy textspublishedin severaleditionssince thelate '80s, I found the issue of racismdealt with in only a distinctmi's nority,4 outof the 11. Threeof the four MarvinHarris (1991), Conrad Kottak's (1987), and Serena Nanda's Anthropology. The (1984) have the same title: Culhxral fourthis James Peoples's Humanity:An Introductionto CulturalAnthropology.All four featurein-depthdiscussions of racism in Western industrialsocieties (Harris 1991:37-40, 46, 372-384; Kottak1987:321-325; Nanda 1984:17, 43-46, 25S258; Peoples 1988:9, 38-39, 4s42), and all point to recent studies that refute racist claims and explanationsfor poverty based on skin color and unequalabilities. Harris,for example, attributesthe rise of the "New Racism"in the 1980s in partto "thefact that Ronald Reagan's administrationsdevalued civil rights,encouragedresentmentagainstaffirmativeaction, by cuttingbackon critical andfosteredracialpolarization social programs"(1991:373) and goes on to explore a deeper level of sociocultural causation, that of the "markeddeteriorationin the economic prospects of the white majority"(1991:373). Others in this small group deal with differentissues, i.e., Peoples ( 1988:4>42) with whether blacks are naturalathletes and Nanda (1984: 43-48) with the predicates of biological determinism. of the topics of race and raMost scattertheirtreatments theirtexts, a techniquethatoffers several cism throughout opportunitiesto discuss racism's consequences in context. This allows the subjects of race and racism to be raised for classroom discussion and debate, somethingI insist on in an anthropologytext. Anothertext, one thatI adoptedfor classroomuse, Richley Crapo'sCulturalAnthropology,had in its firstedition( 1987) an extensive descriptionof bothevolutionandthenon-conceptof race.Its secondedition ( 1990), however,omittedthe chaptersthat dealt with evolution or race;in responseto my query,the publishersrespondedthat this was an "oversight."Few texts ignorethe issues entirely,butHaviland's(1987) text containsno indexentriesforrace,racism,orethnicity. Writersof the otherseven texts mostly contentedthemselves with an old-fashionedor faulty definitionof race, e.g., "A race refers to a group of people who share a greaterstatisticalfrequencyof genes and physical traits

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

672

1998 * VOL. 100, NO. 3 * SEPTEMBER ANTHROPOLOGIST AMERICAN

with one anotherthan they do with people outside the group"(Ferraro1992:5). Then, as the authorof this textAn AppliedPerspective, Anthropology: book, Cultural does, theymove on andnevermentionracismor its implion cationsfor modernsocieties. In his concludingchapter discusses the cultural the futureof anthropology,Ferraro survivalof indigenouspeoples, the studyof complex societies (readthe holistic study of small ethnic neighborhoods), and the greater utilization of anthropological knowledge,ending with the claim thathis text illustrates "how anthropologicalknowledge can be used to solve medicalpersonproblemsby architects,businesspersons, it is necesthink also I but Maybe, others]." nel . . . [and a contempoas mentioned saryto askwhy racismis never raryproblem,especially for indigenouspeoples or those in small ethnic neighborhoods,or whether anthropologists mighthave some knowledge thatcouldbe appliedto problemsaboutin-groupsandout-groups. contemporary Rosman and Rubel (1995:302-304) offer a brief dewhose definiscriptionof race as "aculturalconstruction andthensociety" to tion andform differs from society example an give to go on in my opinion outstandingly, are not designations racial which in of a society (Brazil) discussions into continue but they are, bipolar,as ourown of ethnicity. In anothertext, Emily Schultz and RobertLavenda's despite a glossary definition of Anthropology, Cultural raceas "a social groupingdefined by observablephysical featureswhich its memberspossess andjustifiedwithreference to biology" (1987:375), the word raceis used in several contexts with different meanings and without bothering to define it in the text, beyond noting that "Physicalanthropologistsinvented a series of elaborate of huto measuredifferentobservablefeatures techniques manpopulations-skin color, hairtype, bodytype,andso forth [in the hope of classifying] the world's people into unambiguousracial categories" (1987:375). They add used to identifyraces all dethat"Thetraitstraditionally pend on external, observable traits, such as skin color, which do not correlatewell with other physical and biological traits.The conceptof 'race' thereforedoes not reflect a fact of nature,butinsteadis a label inventedby humansthatpermitsus to sortpeople into groups"(1987:7). Later,however,they mentionraceandethnicityas involving criteriaof a biological and/orculturalnature(1987: 247) andthenthoroughlyconfoundearlierdiscussionsby usingclass, race,andethnicityas nearsynonyms,remarking that "the presence in a complex society of nonclass basedon raceorethnicitycomplicates,andmay groupings even contradict,a classification of people based on relative wealth,power,orprestige"( 1987:251). An even less illuminating discussion is providedby DanielBatesandFredPlog ( 1990:3 17)who, in theirindex entryforrace,referthereaderto ethnicityandlaterexplain that "referencesto race, as in 'racial equality' or 'racial

' arein factusuallyreferencesto ethnicity" discrimination, (1990:329-330). They proceed to discuss blacks and whites in several places (1990:332-333, 342-343) without furtherqualification,althoughthey do mentionAfrican Americansonce or twice. AnCultural MichaelC. HowardbeginsContemporary thropology (1989) by describingethnicity as a way of drawingwe-they distinctionsbut goes on to suggest that categorizationof humansaccordingto "physicalor racial began as early as prehistoriccave paintcharacteristics" ing and adds that"Theconceptof race, or categorization accordingto physicaltraits,is virtuallyuniversal,as is the belief thatthe featureschosen for purposesof categorization parallel differences in behavior"(1989:273). Race andethnicityareconflatedin thisdiscussionbutthe author does not say why he has done this, nor is enlightenment providedby the glossarydefinitionof race as "acategory (1989:455). basedon physicaltraits" These conflations and confusing discussions are disturbing, especially since most of these textbooks were publishedin the '90s, the samedecadein which werepublished Dinesh D'Souza's fulminationson the politics of Education, 1991), and race and sex on campus(Illaberal StudsTerkel's book Race: How Blacks and WhitesThink and Feel about the American Obsession (1992). While of the orithese authorshave verydifferentinterpretations gins of inequalityin oursociety, bothuse the blacklwhite dichotomyunselfconsciously,as do a host of others,e.g., The Bell Curve (Herrnsteinand Murray1994), The Alchemyof Race andRights(Williams1991), TwoNations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal (Hacker 1992), and ChainReaction: TheImpactof Race, Rights, and Taxeson AmericanPolitics (EdsallandEdsall 1991). to write itself determination Anthropology'sapparent discussions of the conout of one of the most important era seems perverseandbadly timed but, more temporary to the point in a discussionof teaching,students unless 's, Kottak's, Nanda's, or they have been exposed to Harris classroomdiscussions of Peoples's texts and/orthorough these subjects-probably have little occasion to assume thatanthropologyhas anythingusefulto say aboutrace or racism. Nor have we given our studentsdefenses against the racist charges they hear on campus, or any basis for confrontingracism. A majorconsequence of anthropolmay absorbthedisciogy' s color blindnessis thatstudents either pline's liberal proclivities without understanding proorcon, orthepoliticalimplicationsof a the arguments, particularstance. Imagine the authorsof some of these texts-excepting Hams, Kottak,Nanda, and Peoplesin a paneldiscussionof whateveris the askedto participate latestracisttract,say TheBellCurveor some of Rushton's betweenpenis size rantingsaboutthe (inverse)correlation and capacity for civilization. Which of them seems preparedto say more thanthatrace is an erroneousscientific Ina decadein which"ethnic conceptora gloss forethnicity?

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SHANKLIN/ PROFESSION OFTHECOLOR BLIND

673

cleansing" has become both a buzzword and a fact in widely separated partsof the world,the questionsremain: how to deal with race as a "Supreme Fiction"andwith racism as a fact or as partof theglobalorder? If anthropologyis going to contribute in the twentyfirstcentury-to the solutionof the race/racism problems thatplague our society now, attentionmust be paid to the political consequences of anthropology's color blind stance in the twentiethcentury.So far I have emphasized anthropology's- apparently scant attemptsat teaching concepts of race and ethnicityandnot directlydiscussed the political consequencesof this teaching.But thereare political consequencesandI will confine myself hereto a few commentson thoseconsequencesI believe to be most salientfor the twenty-f?st century. First, in textbook presentationsand in public discussions, both physical and cultural anthropologistshave been silent aboutthe discipline's own historyof collusion with the ethnocentrictenetsof Westerncolonialism, and, in these same contexts, we have largely failed to historicize anthropology'srole in the expansion of colonialism. A non-anthropologist, Richard Popkin,describesthe theoriesthatdevelopedin the wakeof Westernexpansion as being of two kinds:first,neutralscientificclaims about human origins, and second, claims of Caucasiansuperiority. Both, he points out, were developed to justify ChristianEuropeandominanceof the Third World and have caused an enormous toll in human suffering; they mustbe combatedby a thoroughgoing culturalrelativism and culturalpluralism,anduntilthis is done, Westernracism will continueto takeits toll (1974:152-153). RichardPerry,authorof Montgomery'sChildren,one of the first "postmodern" novels, suggests a differentaspect of the toll in humansufferingracismhas taken:
None of them, however, discussedwith theirchildren(some because they neverthoughtaboutit, othersbecausethey did) the fact ffiatthey were an Africanpeople and, throughlittle fault of theirown, were recentlydescendedfrom slaves. Nor were the childrenaware ffiatsocial scientists made a living demonstratingieir inferiority,or to what extent ffiey and theirparentsoperatedin ie nationalimaginationas the ultimate in the comic, and the darkest,most labyrinthine symbol of evil. [1984:12]

The "application of the theories"thatPopkindescribes took place in exactly these termsand some of the people who were "demonstrating the . . . inferiority"of others were anthropologists. Those of us in the professionknow the names andnotions of the people who were doing this, but how often and in what formatdo we tell our students aboutit? Writingaboutwhatanthropologists do in 1969 William Willis Jr.put the pointvery well: "anthropology has been the social science thatstudiesdominatedcolored peoples andtheirancestors living outsidetheboundaries of modern white societies" (1969:122). These ideas

do not informa single introductory anthropology text that has crossedmy desk, andone mustask, why not?Or,how andwhenwill such insightsbecomecommonplaces of the disciplinary literature?An excellent beginning is currently being made in the professionalliterature (Current Anthropology 1996;Harrison1995; Mukhopadhyay and Moses 1997), but this beginning must be translated into public discussions, as in the American Anthropological Association's (1997) recommendations about census categories,andthetranslations mustbe bothfrequently repeated and accessible to a general audience.The silence about anthropology'spast has encouragedand perpetuated disciplinaryconflations and confusions, but this is not its worst outcome. Our silence merely gives the impressionthatanthropologists don't know muchaboutrace orethnicity.Forthose of us of a liberalpersuasion, a worse outcomeis thatdenialof the existence of racehas become a rallyingcryforsegmentsof theextremeRight,who use it tojustifycuttingvarioussocial programs (cf. OmiandWinant 1994). Continuingto endorsethis idea of the nonexistenceof race (andconcomitantinconsequentiality of racism) makes us bedfellows with those who espouse the anti-egalitarian trendswe oppose. Rather thanteachingstudentsthatanthropology has always beenthe"scientific"or"apolitical" or"objective" or "neutral" studyof humansin all times andplacesefinitions offeredin manytexts today -a socially relevanthistoryof anthropology would be not only moreappropriate butconsiderably moreaccurate. Further, anhonestdiscussion in textbooks,not in specializedmonographs orin professionaljournals,of anthropology 's pasterrors andomissions, especially its failure to come to grips with racism, and the discipline's on-going efforts to redeemitself as a social science with a critical bent, might well serve as a guide for others in the social scientific community,not least of whomareourown students. Second,oursilence hascontributed to ourfailureto participate in the ongoing intellectual debates surrounding theconceptsof raceandracism,allowing us to passoverin silence the manykindsof racismandracistdiscoursesthat have flourishedin the past few decades. The manykinds of racism that abound in our world similarly unmentioned so far as I know in any introductory anthropology text mustbe pointedout to students.Here,DavidGoldberg's ideas are illuminatingas he talks abouta "rangeof racisms":
no single mode of resistanceto racism will succeedexhaustively. Racism's adaptiveresilienceentailsthatwe haveto respond wiffi sets of oppositions thatare found in andthrough praxisto be appropriate to each formracismassumes.Institutionally,overcomingapartheid must takeon formsdifferent fromoppositionto racistjurypracticesor discriminatory employment and housing practicesin the United States;ideologically, theappropriate kindsof responseto claimsof racial superiorityor inferiority will differ from those to racially

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

674

AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 100, NO. 3

* SEPTEMBER1998

interpreted cultural differences; andscientifically, critical attackon racistmetaphors andconcepts insinuated intostandard ffieoretical articulation willdiffer from theresponses appropriate to scientific ffieories supporting racist hypotheses. [1993:213-214] Third,anthropologists havecontinuedto teachdichotomous thinkintraditionalXmodern; civilized/primitive andhierarchical arrangements; for example, societies maybe ranked accordingto the"developmental level" of theirpolitical institutions(bands,tribes,states).These metaphorsandanalogiescontribute to the problem,to the assessmentof the "rightness" of Westerndominanceand Caucasian superiority.Nancy Stepan, discussing metaphorsto do withraceandgender,observesthat:"becausea metaphoror analogydoes not directlypresenta preexisting naturebut instead helps 'construct' that nature,the metaphor generatesdatathatconformto it, andaccommodates data that are in apparent contradictionto it, so that natureis seen throughthe metaphorandthe metaphorbecomes partof the logic of science itself3'(1990:51). This describesnot only the process by which "race"became a scientific category but also the processes by which dichotomous metaphorsand hierarchicallyarrangedcategories, long disputedby anthropologists in the classroom, nonetheless pervade the worldviews of those who deal with non-Westernnations- the World Bank, the IMS, andso on. Hadanthropologists takenan activepartin public debatesearly on, would anyone today use these terrns so unselfconsciously,so muchas if they werefacts andnot specious dichotomies imposed to make audiences feel morecomfortable,moreempathetictowardthose (needy) Others? Fourth,anthropologists must teach by example, by active engagementin public intellectualdiscourse.Participation in public debates entails considerablymore than denouncingthe scientific uselessness of race; it requires thatwe come to terrnswith the Americanfolk concept of race and whatBlack andWhitehave come to mean in our society todayandwhy.If we arecommittedto a post-racist society in the twenty-firstcentury,how else can we teach those tenetsto ouraudiences? Ourprofession's disdainfor popularizers mayhaveallowed us to stakeourclaim to being a "scientific"discipline,but it has also allowed a host of ill-inforrned popularizers to flourishandto speakas if in the nameof anthropology. We could begin by revising our textbooks to focus on and comment on the Black-Whiteopposition that mesmerizes our own society; we could continueby resuming ourplace as commentators on the national"obsession,"as Terkelcalls it, analyzingit in termsof its constitutivecomponentsand discussing,amongotherthings, the progress thathas been madein understanding how to avoid socializing childreninto these prejudices.To accomplishthese shifts, we mustrecastnot only ourintroductory textbooks but our disciplinaryteachingandthinkingaboutrace and

racism,removing these, as it were, from the graspof the "deadhandof custom"(ary discourse)andplacingthemin our own (postmodern) terms.It would help if we stopped obsessing aboutwhereandwhen the originsof racismare and left off universalizingthese speculationsinto statementsabout"racialdistinctions" havingbeencharacteristic of humans"sincethe beginning,"wheneverthatwas. It would help, too, if we talkedmoreaboutthe thingswe are supposedto be able to analyzesuperlatively-the relation betweencategorieslike race and culture as reflectedin mediaaccountsof, say, the O.J. Simpsontrial(whichEdmundson describes as only one of the recent "Gothic" eventsin whichraceis a majorelement [ 1997:178]), environmental racism,or the likely outcomesof the efforts of the SouthAfricanTruthandReconciliationCommission. Finally,we mustsituateour discussionsin the termsof the late-twentieth-century intellectualdebatesaboutrace and racisms and choose the kinds of resistanceand responsewe wish to practice.RogerSanjekobserves( 1994) thatanthropologists have contributed little to the ongoing discussions of race and that we must look elsewhere for guidanceto the thinkingaboutraceandracismthathasdevelopedin the last twentyyears.I believe, on the contrary, that anthropologyhas several sources of guidance for thinkingaboutraceandracismin new ways, including,as models, the honest discussions of fieldwork dilemmas thathave characterized so muchrecentprofessionalwriting, the recentanalysesof genderrelations,andthe excellent postmodern discussions of colonialism(to mentiona few importantsyntheses in these areaslifford and Marcus1986;ComaroffandComaroff1991;Rosaldoand Lamphere1974). We could do muchbetteras a discipline, in puttingforwardourown ideas aboutraceandracism,if we abandonedour snobbishnessaboutpopularizingand popularizersand set about the task of becomingcultural critics, bringingreasoned discussion and probingquestions to issues such as race and racism that continue to plagueoursociety.

RestoringColorVision
Beyond the suggestions profferedabove for textbook authors,restoringcolor vision to the professiondemands some few adjustments in ourcurrentthinkingandwriting aboutrace.Thoseadjustments arefew becausewe havealreadydonemostof theworkandtheadjustments wouldbe mainly a matter of changing emphasis. I will begin by looking at Foucault's ideas on race and racism and conclude by suggesting that anthropologistsrecast and restudysome of theinsightsalreadypresentin thefield's voluminous literature,especially as these ideas have now entered the public discourse. Foucault believed that "race," like sexuality,was a social construction belonging to a historicalmoment(Foucault[ 1976]1978:152; Stoler

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SHANKLIN /

PROFESSION OF THE COLOR BLIND

675

1995:2)andhis reasonfor developingthese ideas was unabashedlypolitical: Itseemstome. . . that therealpolitical task inasociety suchas oursis to criticize theworking of institutions whichappear to be bothneutral andindependent; to criticize themin sucha manner that thepolitical violence which hasalways exercised itselfobscurely through themwill be unmasked, so thatone canfightthem.[quoted inRabinow 1984:4] Foucaultshouldappealto anthropologists forotherreasons: first, as a "historianof the present,"his aims fit nicely with those of socioculturalanthropology, to record the ways in which people think, talk about, mold, and reshapecurrentideas. Second, like Boas, he was uninterested in theory,saying that"thetime for theoryhas not yet arrived" (quotedin Sheridan1980:215). Finally, he provides us with a way of analyzing new racisms and old, those being born and those which are yet to come and which must be analyzedcarefullyin the twenty-firstcenturyif it is not to be a rewriteof the twentieth,with all the attendantracial strife-a frameworkfor seeking out the "new,thatwhich is coming to birthin thepresent-a present that most of us are unable to see because we see it throughthe eyes of the past, or throughthe eyes of a 'future'thatis a projectionof the past, which amountsto the samething"(Sheridan1980:195). When volume 1 of TheHistory of Sexualitywas published in 1976, a sixth volume was projected,Population andRaces, which was to "examinethe way in which treatises, both theoreticaland practical,on the topics of both populationand race were linked to the history of what Foucault had called 'biopolitics' " (Gutting 1994:117). Foucault, who died in 1984, completed only three volumes,but we have the benefit of his preliminary thinking on race from a series of lectures he gave in 1976 at the College de France(Foucault1990) andfromAnn Stoler's recent book, Race and the Education of Desire (1995), which contains a careful analysis of the tapes of those mostly unpublishedlectures.Sexuality's "twin,"according to Foucault,was race,one of thetwo instruments of the state's "biologizing" power,andin his finallecture,he addressed"thebirthof state racism, thathistoricalmoment when biopowertransforms an earlierdiscourseinto state racism and provides its unique form"(Stoler 1995:56). Stolerhas writtencompellinglyaboutFoucault' s analysis of the emergence of state racism and I will follow her analysisclosely, even as I mustadumbrate it. Foucaultsaid thathis centralaim was to show how "in the West, a certaincritical,historical,andpoliticalanalysis of the state, of its institutions,and its mechanismsof power appearedin binaryterrns'(Foucault1990:68).To achieve this, he proposeda new form of historicalanalysis, conceiving of social relations in binary terms that emergewhen the stateuses racismas a "tacticin the internal fission of society into binaryoppositions,a means of

creating'biologized' internalenemies, againstwhom society mustdefenditself' (Stoler 1995:59). Here,Stolersays, Foucaulthas focused on the development "of an entirely new 'biologico-social racism'" predicatedon the notionthat"theotherraceis neitherone arrivedfrom somewhereelse, nor one which at a certain momenttriumphed anddominated,butinsteadone with a permanent presence,thatincessantlyinfiltratesthe social body that reproducesitself uninterruptedly within and out of the social fabric" (Stoler 1995:62). Foucaultcarried his analysis further,using Nazi Germanyas his example. He did not believe thatmodernracismbrokewith earlier forms: instead it was "thediscursive bricolagewhereby an older discourseof raceis 'recovered,' 'modified,' 'encased,' and 'encrusted'in new forms" (Stoler 1995:61). Foucaultdrewmost of his examples from the social wars of earliercenturiesanddiscourseson sovereignpowerbut he suggeststhat,in thenineteenthcentury,therewere subsequentforms of social war thatwere representedin two distinct"transcriptions": theElrst explicitly biological and the second sociological. The former, with its focus on anatomy and physiology, is the concern of physical anthropologists,but the latteris criticalto socioculturalunderstandings becauseit erases the notion of races,rewriting them as class struggle (Foucault 1990:54). Stoler pointsout thatFoucaultis not involved in the studyof successive meaningsof race,but with race as partof the discourseof power,withinwhichit is endlessly reconceived, redefined,andreconstrued. Although Foucault'sanalyticterllls are useful for formulatingouranalyses,I believe anthropologists in their role as culturalcritics have to go beyond these, especially when consideringissues in which blackand white are the operativeterms.For example, the U.S. media reportedthe O. J. Simpsoncase in termsof two (Gothic,adversarial)positions:a white story in which O.J. Simpson was a white man with a monstrousblack interior,and a black story in which O.J. Simpson was a black victim of monstrouswhite conspiracies(Edmundson1997). While these may be the terms used in media accounts and in courtrooms, an(adult)anthropological analysisshouldgo furtherthan these simplemindedfairy stories and deal with the realities of a tragic incident, in which spousal abuseandinsanejealousy,as well as the rulesof evidence, may have had roles to play. It is useless to say that the Simpson case "exposed"a vast racial divide we knew thatbefore the Simpsoncase and it is equally useless to conclude that blacks and whites are incapableof understandingone another. This case could have been a springboardfrom which it might have been learnedthatthe police make mistakesandthatwe must work to correctthat; or, we might have considered problems of on-going spousalabuseandconcludedthatwe mustworkatfinding better solutions to that problem. Instead, the general

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

676

AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 100, NO. 3

* SEPTEMBER1998

public is left with the media's "conclusion"that blacks andwhites areatodds with eachother. These arebeginning,not ending,points for sociocultural anthropology' s treatment of raceas it re-emergesin its differentfolllls in public discourse.Anthropologists have studied group behavior with excellent fieldwork techniques for almosta centurynow andfocused,perhapstoo long and too often, on the rules or on conformityto the rules. But there are other insights availablefrom the anthropological literature, insights about nonconformity, aboutpeople makinguptheirown mindsfortheirown reasons, and these are what I proposewe should now be focusing on. Two examples will suffice as illustration: the firstfromthe anthropological literature, the secondfroma best-sellingnovel, partof contenlporary publicdiscourse. At the end of his monograph, Knowing theGururumba (1965: 10>105), Philip Newmantells the story of a man namedDaBore,a Gururumba who didnot sharethe Gururumba belief in lightning balls. Lightning balls were soughtafterstorrns, duringwhich it appeared thatelectrical discharges from lightning strikinga tree would roll down the trunkinto the ground.TheGururumba dugholes aroundthe tree in the searchfor these objects(usuallydecomposed stone, wood or bone), which were supposedto guarantee to the finder excellent gardening results. DaBore,watchingthe digging one daywith Newman,observed that "There are no lightning balls," and walked away. Try as he might, Newman could not Elndanother way DaBore differed from his fellow Gururumba and he notes that in studies of culture,this example "serves us here as a reminderthatpeople see themselvesapartfrom the patternsof theircultureandto some extentmold those patternsto their own needs." It also reminds us that in every society there are people vvhodisagree with one or more of the society's deeply hekl beliefs andthatwe, as a profession,have not spentenougheffort tlying to delineate the bases of those disagreements, the clues thatmight allow us to discernwherethe disagreements areaptto lie, wheretheclues to the mechanicsof transformation areapt to be found. The second example is from Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain, a current best-selleraboutthe Civil War,andis includedin a dialoguebetweena Confederate deserterand a"wild"womanhe meets in thewoods.The womanasks: "What I want toknowis, wasitworth it,allthat fighting for thebigman's nigger?" "That's notthewayI sawit." "What' s theother way?" Shesaid, "I'vetraveled afairbitin thoselowcounties. Nigger-owning makes therichmanproud anduglyandit makes thepoormanmean. It'sa curselaidon theland. We'velita fireandnowit'sburning usdown.Godis goingto liberate niggers, andf1ghting to prevent it is against God.Didyouownany?" "No.Nothardly anybody Iknewdid." "Then what stirred youupenough forfighting anddying?"

"Fouryearsago I maybe could have told you. Now I don't know. I've hadall of it I want,though." "That'slackingsome as an answer." "Ireckonmanyof us foughtto driveoff invaders.Oneman I knewhadbeennorthto thebig cities, andhe saidit was every featureof such places thatwe were fighting to prevent.All I know is anyonethinkingthe Federalsare willing to die to set loose slaveshas got anoverly mercifulview of mankind." . . . andso he toldher whatwas in his heart.Theshamehe ielt now to thinkof his zeal in sixty-one to go off andfight the downtroddenmill workers of the Federal army. [Frazier 1997:217-218] Anthropologists have defined and identified binary oppositions in most of the cultures we have studied, but we have not paid much attention to the circumstances in which people deny or deliberately flout that learning, those moments in which individuals assert that there are too many shades of grey for them to be able to define clearly what is black and what is white, what is right and what is wrong. The start I propose begins with a closer look at the issue of overcoming binary oppositionsblacklwhite, Us/Them and how, once they are built into worldviews, they are overturned or subverted, by whom and for what reasons. Let us, in our classes and in our own contributions to the public debate, take black/white in our society as a trope a deliberate misstatement or overstatement of the facts and discuss this dichotomy as a fallacy, pointing to the pink;/brownreality that underlies it, as well as to the harmful social consequences of maintaining it. To do this we must continue the kind of teaching that anthropologists have long engaged in, the inculcating of dispassionate views of our own society, and we must disseminate those dispassionate views on a wider scale, aiming to introduce them to members of the society at large. We regularly teach our students what Doris Lessing (1987:4) calls "the ability to observe ourselves from other viewpoints." The first steps in restoring color vision have already been taken: one of its more successful forms is the growing influence of multiculturalism in contemporary society. To that trend, I would only add that anthropologists ought to be more concerned with debating the binary opposition between black and white, with showing that opposition for what it is a false dichotomy that nonetheless helps individuals to forrnulate their thoughts, that gives them unreal categories into which to cast their observations. The next steps must involve anthropologists in an effort to understand how to disseminate those dispassionate views more broadly. Two other popular novelists, one a South African writing about the issue of belief, the other an English woman writing about the mechanics of group identity, have raised these questions in the domain of public discourse. First, Doris Lessing from South Africa: Let us takewhat we know abouthow we functionin groups. People in groupswe now know are likely to behave in fairly

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SHANKLIN /

PROFESSIONOF THE COLOR BLIND

677

stereotypedways thatarepredictable. Yet when citizensjoin togetherto set up, let us say, a society for the protectionof the unicorn,they do not say, this organism we're setting up is likely to develop in one of severalways. Let us take this into accountandwatchhow we behaveso thatwe controlthe society and the society does not controlus. As anotherexample, the Left mightfind it useful to say somethinglike this, "Ithas been easily observablefor some time thatgroupslike oursalways split and then the two new groups become enemies eguippedwith leaderswho hurlabuseat each other.If we remainawareof ffiisapparently inbuiltdrivethatmakesgroups split and split again we may perhapsbehave less mechanically."[Lessing1987:2>21 ] Lessing continues with her wish for what we should be teaching the young: Perhapsit is not too muchto say thatin these violent timesthe kindest,wisest wish we have fortheyoungmustbe: "Wehope that your period of immersionin group lunacy, group selfrighteousness,will not coincide with some period of your country'shistorywhen you can put your murderous and stupid ideasintopractice.If you arelucky,you will emergemuch enlargedby yourexperienceof whatyou arecapableof in the way of bigotry and intolerance.You will understand absolutelyhow sanepeople, in periodsof publicinsanity,canmurder,destroy,lie, swearblackis white."[ 1987:30] Second, an English writer, speculating on the predicates of group identity: in Margaret Drabble's novel, The Gates ofIvory,the author asks, How long would it take,how muchsocial engineeringwould be requiredto convert a community of pacifist American Quakers into order-obeying anti-Semitic officers of the SchutzstaXel? Orthe SS into loyal membersof theRed Cross? Would therealways be a handfulwhich would refuseto convert?And wouldthey be heroesor villains?Why did the Germansso willinglykill theJews?Whydid the Italiansrefuseto kill Jews?Whichis moresurprising, the willingnessor therefusal?Was thecharismatic leadership of Pol Pot a socializing influence,bindingthe exploited peasantof Cambodiainto a purposefulsociety? Or was it a barbaric primitiveinfluence, deconstructingthe institutions of society and family into "pureunmitigatedsavagery,"into the killing fields of genocide? Is "good"group behaviourgeneratedand fosteredby "good"institutionsor are institutionsin themselves morally neutral?[1991:174 175] These bits and pieces are part of the public discourse about group identities and loyalties. How does one set about dissolving a haITnfulopposition? First, by recognizing it for what it is not black and white, but pink and brown, humanity's shades, not those of our monstrous creations; and then by taking steps to insure that the wider public understands not only the opposition's fallacious nature but its harmful consequences. Second, by insisting that scholars and the general public recognize the inconsistency between their own egalitarian ideals and their discriminatory institutions/acts. The task remains for anthropologists to take up these questions in serious comparative

ways, lest we find the next generationaskingnineteenthcenturyquestions(eugenics) andansweringwith twentyfirst-century technology (cloning). If we anthropologists do not want to see repeatedthe racist predicatesof the twentiethcentury,we must explain,clarify, and reiterate the non-racistideals we hopewill guidethefuture. In sum, then, thereis a lot of workto be done. Whether ourgoal is to restorecolor vision or,putaurally,to reintroduce an anthropological voice into contemporary conversationsaboutrace, the ways in which anthropologists can do so are clearly visible and available,either within our own disciplinaryboundariesoroutside them.It is simplya matterof choosing our forrnsof response and resistance andmakinga start. Notes
Acknowledgments.I am indebted to Eugene Cohen, Faye Harrison,Mary FIuber,LeonardLieberman,Alvin H. Schulman, Pauline Siegel, and Robert W. Sussman, both for their helpfulcommentsandtheirpatience. 1. My title is taken from Oliver Sacks's The Island of the ColorBlind (1997), a book I likedmorein prospectthanin fact, partly because my fantasy about an island culture devoid of color categories was destroyedearly on in the book since only 5%of theislandersof Pingelapareachromatopes. 2. GeorgeStockingpointsout that"As earlyas 1885, during his first visit to this country,Boas discussedhis scientific plans in a specifically organizational context. . . andlaterworkedout a broad-ranging plan for the developmentof Americananthropology, . . . which presupposedthe theoreticalorientationthat emergedin the courseof his critiqueof evolutionismin the early 1890s, which included a definite set of research priorities" (1968:28>281). 3. Apart from his critique of "racialformalism,"the two otherthrustsof Boas's workin physicalanthropology empirical studies of growth in schoolchildrenand studies of Native American populations (Stocking 1968:179, 172Ware sufficiently well known to allow passing over them without comment. 4. It is my impression that even though anthropologyhas long been considereda professionthatattracts "marginals," the discipline has not done much better in attractingstudents of otherskin-colorpersuasionsthan,say, historyor economics. In the list thatfollows, for example, where Boas's "students" are catalogued (listing some colleagues who were not students), only one is pointedout as a "Negro," andhe is Panamanian. According to CarletonPutnam,authorof a deeply anti-socialist, anti-Boasianbook (1967), Boas's studentswereRuthBenedict, IsadoreChein, K. B. Clark("aNegro"),TheodosiusDobzhansky, L. C. Dunn, Melville Herskovits,OttoKlineberg,Margaret Mead, Ashley Montagu, and Gene Weltfish. Putnam says of themthat"Evena cursoryinspectionof theirnamesandconnections suggestedthe natureof the [Jewishsocialist]forces acting on most of these individuals,andthe impressioncould be fortiEled by a review of some of theiractivities" ( I967:21). 5. Stockinghas describedthe organizingof the GaltonSociety of New Yorkin 1917-1 920: its founders,CharlesDavenport

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

678

AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 100, NO. 3

* SEPTEMBER 1998

andMadisonGrant,dedicatedthe Society to the studyof"racial anthropology" and noted that its membership"was to be confined to 'native' Americans who were anthropologically,socially, andpolitically 'sound' " (Stocking1968:289). 6. The fact that there are still believers in some of these as thefactthatsocietyas a whole propositions is not as important does not behave as if these were eternalverities,nordo theyentertherealmsof scientificdiscourse. 7. At my own college, which has neitheran anthropology majornor minor, the numberof those takingsociology or anthropology courses as partof their non-Westerndistribution requirements is 1W20% greaterthan the numberof sociology majorswho must take these courses as partof their majorrequirements.

References Cited
Association AmericanAnthropological 1997 Response to OMB Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standardsfor Federal Statistics and AdministrativeReporting,Executive Summary.Chronicleof HigherEducatlon, e ec. verslon. Barkan, Elazar 1992 The Retreatof ScientificRacism:ChangingConcepts of Race in Britainandthe UnitedStatesbetweenthe World UniversityPress. Wars.New York:Cambridge Bates,Daniel, andFredPlog 1990 Cultural Anthropology. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Carnegie,Andrew Democracy. New York: Charles [1886]1971 Triumphant Corporation. Scribner'sSons. New York:JohnsonReprint Clifford,James,andGeorgeE. Marcus,eds. 1986 WritingCulture:The Poetics and Politics of EthnogPress. raphy.Berkeley:Universityof California Comaroff,Jean,andJohnComaroff 1991 Of Revelation and Revolution. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. Crapo,RichleyH. 1990 Cultural Anthropology: Understanding Ourselves andOthers.2nd edition.Guilford,CT:Dushkin. Current Anthropology 1996 The EternalTriangle:Race, Class, and IQ. Reviews on The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Culture in AmericanLife 37:S 143-S 181. Degler,CarlN. 1991 In Searchof HumanNature:The Decline andRevival of Darwinism in American Social Thought.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Drabble,Margaret 1991 The Gatesof Ivory.USA: PenguinBooks. D'Souza, Dinesh andtheColPoliticalCorrectness 1991 IlliberalEducation: lege Experience.New York:FreePress. Edmundson, Mark 1997 Nightmareon Main Street:Angels, Sadomasochism, UniMA: Harvard and the Cultureof Gothic. Cambridge, versityPress.
. .

Edsall,ThomasByrne,andMaryD. Edsall 1991 Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on AmericanPolitics. New York:W. W. Norton & Company. Gary Ferraro, 1992 CulturalAnthropology:An Applied Perspective.St. Paul,MN: West. Foucault,Michel [1976]1978 The History of Sexuality, vol. 1. New York: VintageBooks, RandomHouse. 1990 Unpublishedlecturesat the College de France,1976. Frazier,Charles New York:AtlanticMonthlyPress. 1997 Cold Mountain. Goldberg,David Theo Philosophyand the Politics of Mean1993 Racist Culture: ing. Oxford:Blackwell. Gubar,Susan 1997 Racechanges:White Skin, Black Face in American Culture.New York:OxfordUniversityPress. Gutting,Gary,ed. 1994 The CambridgeCompanionto FOUCAULT. CamUniversityPress. bridge:Cambridge Hacker,Andrew 1992 Two Nations.New York:HarperCollins. Harris,Marvin 1991 Cultural Anthropology. 3rd edition. New York: ThomasY. Crowell. Faye V. Harrison, 1995 The PersistentPower of "Race"in the Culturaland Political Economy of Racism. AnnualReview of Anthropology 24:47-74. Haviland,WilliamA. 1987 CulturalAnthropology.5thedition.New York:Holt, RinehartandWinston. Richard J.,andCharlesMurray Herrnstein, 1994 The Bell Curve:Intelligence and Class Structurein AmericanLife. New York:FreePress. Howard,MichaelC. 1989 ContemporaryCulturalAnthropology. 3rd edition. Glenview, IL:Scott,Foresman. Kottak,Conrad 1987 CulturalAnthropology.4thedition. New York:Random House. Lessing, Doris 1987 PrisonsWe Chooseto Live Inside.New York:Harper andRow. Leonard Lieberman, 1968 The Debate Over Race: A Study in the Sociology of Knowledge.Phylon39:127-141. AliceL. Littlefield, Leonard, Raymond E. Hampton, Lieberman, andGlen Hallead 1992 Race in Biology and Anthropology:A Study of College Texts and Professors.Journalof Researchin Science Teaching29:301-321. Marks,Jonathan 1995 HumanBiodiversity:Genes, Race and History. New York:Aldine de Gruyter. Montagu,Ashley 1951 Statementon Race.New York:Schuman.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SHANKLIN /

PROFESSIONOF THE COLOR BLIND

679

Moore,JohnH. 1981 PlutocraticPerspectiveson Class and Intelligencein America.In Science and the Questionof HumanEquality. MargaretS. Collins, Irving W. Wainer,and TheodoreA. Bremner,eds. Pp.37-69. Boulder,CO:Westview Press. Mukhopadhyay, CarolC., andYolandaT. Moses 1997 Reestablishing "Race"in Anthropological Discourse. AmericanAnthropologist 99(3):517-533. Nanda,Serena 1984 CulturalAnthropology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Newman,PhilipL. 1965 Knowing the Gururumba. New York:Holt, Rinehart andWinston. Omi, Michael,andHowardWinant 1994 Racial Formationin the United States: 196s1990. London:Routledge. Penniman,T. K. [1935] 1952 A HundredYears of Anthropology.London: GeraldDuckworffi andCo. Peoples, JamesG. 1988 Humanity:An Introductionto CulturalAnthropology. St. Paul,MN: West Publishing. Perry,Richard 1984 Montgomery' s Children.San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Popkin,Richard H. 1974 The PhilosophicalBases of ModernRacism.In Philosophy andthe Civilizing Arts.CraigWaltonandJohnP. Anton,eds. Pp.12S165. Athens:Ohio UniversityPress. Putnam,Carleton 1967 RaceandReality. Washington,DC: PublicAffairsPress. Rabinow,Paul,ed. 1984 The FoucaultReader.New York:PantheonBooks. Rosaldo,Michele,andLouiseLamphere, eds. 1974 Woman,CultureandSociety. Stanford,CA: Stanford UniversityPress. Rosman,Abraham, andPaulaG. Rubel 1995 The Tapestryof Culture:An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. New York:McGraw-Hill. Rushton,J.Philippe 1995 Race, Evolutionand Behavior.New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Publishers. Sacks, Oliver 1997 The Islandof the ColorBlind and CycadIsland.New York:AlfredA. Knopf.

Sanjek,Roger 1994 The EnduringInequalitiesof Race. In Race. Steven Gregory and Roger Sanjek, eds. Pp. 1-17. New Brunswick, NJ:RutgersUniversityPress. Schultz,Emily, andRobertLavenda 1987 CulturalAnthropologyInstructor's Manual.St. Paul, MN: West. Shanklin,Eugenia 1994 Anthropology and Race. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth PublishingCompany. Sheridan,Alan 1980 Michel Foucault:The Will to Truth.London:Tavistock. Stepan,Nancy Leys 1990 Race and Gender:The Role of Analogy in Science.In Anatomyof Racism.David Theo Goldberg,ed. Pp. 38-57. Minneapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress. Stocking,GeorgeW., Jr. 1968 Race, Culture,andEvolution:Essays in theHistoryof Anthropology.New York:TheFreePress. 1974 A Franz Boas Reader. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stoler,AnnLaura 1995 Race andthe Educationof Desire:Foucault'sHistory of Sexuality and the Colonial Orderof Things. Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress. Terkel,Studs 1992 Race: How Blacks and WhitesThink and Feel about the AmericanObsession.New York:The New Press. Tylor,EdwardBurnett [1871]1958 Primitive Culture.New York: HarperTorch Books.
UNESCO

1952 Statementon Race. Paris:UNESCO. Wall,JosephFrazier 1970 Andrew Carnegie. New York: Oxford University Press. Williams,PatriciaJ. 1991 The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress. Willis, WilliamS., Jr. 1969 Skeletonsin the Anthropological Closet.In Reinventing Anthropology. Dell Hymes, ed. Pp. 121-152. New York:RandomHouse.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions