Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
doi:10.1093/leobaeck/ybt015
* I was greatly helped by Mitchell Ash, Steven Aschheim, Margit Berner, Lorraine Daston, Eric
Ehrenreich, Uwe Hossfeld, Veronika Lipphardt, Paul Mendes-Flohr, Gabi Motzkin, Martin Ritter,
Dirk Rupnow, Hans-Walter Schmul, Eugene Sheppard, Andrew Shryock, Alexander von Schwerin,
and Danny Trom. I am particularly indebted to Sander Gilman and Ezra Mendelsohn for critical
remarks on an earlier version of this article. I wish to thank Irene Tschurin for her diligent assistance
in locating and reviewing relevant materials.
1
Hans-Walter Schmuhl, Grenzuberschreitungen: Das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut fur Anthropologie, menschliche
Erblehre und Eugenik 1927-1945, Gottingen 2005, pp. 301-302. I was rst drawn to expressions of
tension between older forms of knowledge and new constraints when, searching for publications
from the National-Socialist period unavailable in Israeli libraries, I discovered that many
unquestionably racist texts were reprinted in the 1950s and 1960s. Re-publication followed a certain
set of unstated criteria that were themselves the result of a dynamic form of negotiation. Works that
explicitly supported Hitler, National Socialist doctrine and policy, and antisemitism were not
reprinted. In many cases the relevant statements, particularly in the preface, were removed without
an indication of the omission. For discussion see Gerhard Kaiser, Mathias Krell, Ausblenden,
Versachlichen, Uberschreiben. Diskursives Vergangenheitsmanagement in der Sprach-und
Literaturwissenschaft in Deutschland nach 1945, in Bernd Weisbrod (ed.), Akademische
Vergangenheitspolitik: Beitrage zur Wissenschaftskultur der Nachkriegszeit, Gottingen 2002, pp. 190-214.
Examples of writers discussed in this article include: Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss, Als Beduine unter
Beduinen, Freiburg: 1954 originally published with the same title in Freiburg 1933; idem., Umgang mit
Arabern des Ostens, Nuremberg 1949, which is identical with Araber, Nuremberg 1943. Both appeared
in the series Umgang mit Vo lkern. Hans F.K. Gunther, Platon, als, Huter des Lebens: Platons Zucht- und
Erziehungsgedanken und deren Bedeutung fur die Gegenwart, Babenberg, 1966 which rst appeared in 1928
and was republished in 1935; idem., Formen und Urgeschichte der Ehe: Die Formen der Ehe, Familie und
Verwandtschaft, Gottingen 1951, originally published 1940.. Egon von Eickstedt, Die Forschung am
Menschen, 3 vols. Vol. II, Stuttgart 1940. [1962]. Other examples include Arnold Gehlen, Der Mensch:
seine Natur und seine Stellung in der Welt, Berlin 1940, republished (with important omissions) in
numerous editions after 1945. Cf. Der Mensch: seine Natur und seine Stellung in der Welt, Bonn 1950.
Another example is Erich Rothacker, Probleme der Kulturanthropologie, Stuttgart 1942. Republished
with modications as Probleme der Kulturanthropologie, Bonn 1948. Eugen Fischers Rehobother Bastarden
(1912) was republished up to 1961.
All translations from foreign sources are the authors own.
The Author (2013). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Leo Baeck Institute.
All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
In the library catalogue in The Berlin Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology,
Human Genetics, and Eugenics, founded in 1927, we nd six categories of humans.
Five of the six categories are geographical, while Judentum (meaning both Jewry
and Judaism) constitutes the sixth.1 Such categorization reects the belief of many
German scientists and scholars (non-Jewish as well as Jewish) in the rst half of the
twentieth century that Jews were a racially dened population and Judaism
fundamentally a racial phenomenon. The question with which this paper is
concerned is: did German scientists and scholars continue to hold this belief after
the Second World War?
196
Amos Morris-Reich
Uta Gerhardt, Soziologie der Stunde Null. Zur Gesellschaftskonzeption des amerikanischen Besatzungsregimes in
Deutschland 1944^1945/6, Frankfurt am Main 2005.
3
Writing on the biology of the Jews outside Germany ourished in English (and Hebrew) in the 1950s.
For a historical overview see Nurit Kirsh, Population Genetics in Israel in the 1950s: The
Unconscious Internalization of Ideology, in Isis 94 (2003), pp. 631-655.
4
See in particular Rita Chin, Heide Fehrenbach, Geo Eley, Atina Grossmann (eds.), After the Nazi
Racial State: Dierence and Democracy in Germany and Europe, Ann Arbor 2009.
5
I am closer to the interpretation developed by Andrew Zimmermann, Anthropology and Antihumanism in
Imperial Germany, Chicago 2001. For a recent expression of the view of a paradigmatic shift and the
rise of racial determinism see Andrew D. Evans, Anthropology at War: World War I and the Science of
Race in Germany, Chicago 2010; Sheila Faith Weiss, The Nazi Symbiosis: Human Genetics and Politics in the
Third Reich, Chicago 2010.
6
Uwe Hofeld, Geschichte der biologischen Anthropologie in Deutschland: Von den Anfangen bis in die
Nachkriegszeit, Stuttgart 2005, pp. 367-368. Discussion of the history of the discipline in the National
This is a question more easily asked than answered because, on several registers, it
runs up against complex historical and methodological diculties that concern the
changing relationship between science, Rasse (race), and antisemitism after 1945.
Historians acknowledge that, while the idea of Stunde Null does not reect
historical reality in any simple sense, it is an important West German cultural
construct nonetheless.2 The structural tension that stands at the basis of the
following is the fact that there was no Stunde Null in the sciences of race, but there
was something that came close to it with regard to references to Jews therein.3
Whereas the role of Rasse for understanding German history in the rst half of the
twentieth century is widely acknowledged, it is only now emerging as a category of
analysis for the study of the second half,4 and to unpack the relationship between
the science of race and references to Jews in this latter period necessitates
recognizing the changing status of race in public discourse and within science, the
changing relationship between racial sciences and the political sphere, and the
redenition of the relationship between sciences of race and antisemitism. But
attempting to bring together these dierent variables involves introducing ^ at
least to some extent ^ contradictory and even objectionable assumptions.
One necessary starting point for any attempt to answer the question posited above
must be recognition of the fact that the crimes of National Socialist Germany were
motivated and justied by means of antisemitic ideas of Rasse. One consequence of
this was that aspects of the history of science were identied after the war as in fact
belonging to wider structures of the history of politics, violence, and genocide. But
there is now also a growing body of literature that shows that the history of various
branches of race, such as genetics and physical anthropology, from the turn of the
twentieth century and in both the Weimar and National Socialist periods, was in
fact integral to that of science.5 Thus, to analyze post-1945 developments means to
extend this perspective further into the history of science.
Such an extension, however, must engage with particularities specic to West
German culture, without attention to which the analysis of individual cases
remains opaque. Most probably because after 1945 the sciences of race became
associated with the National Socialist regime and its racial policies, individual
scientists were motivated to attempt to generate distance from that past.6 Maybe
197
Socialist period was generally avoided. See Benoit Massin, Anthropologie und Humangenetik im
Nationalsozialismus
oder:
Wie
schreiben
deutsche
Wissenschaftler
ihre
eigene
Wissenschaftsgeschichte?, in Heidrun Kaupen-Haas, Christian Saller (eds.), Wissenschaftlicher
Rassismus. Analysen einer Kontinuitat in den Human-und Naturwissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main 1999, p. 17.
7
See Dirk Rupnow, Veronika Lipphardt, Jens Thiel, Christina Wessely (eds.), Pseudowissenschaft:
Konzeptionen von Nichtwissenschaftlichkeit in der Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Frankfurt am Main 2008.
8
Hofeld, pp. 422-424.
9
See Rita Chin, Heide Fehrenbach, Introduction: Whats Race Got to Do With It? Postwar German
History in Context, in After the Nazi Racial State, p. 3.
10
Mitchell G. Ash, Wissenschaft und Politik als Ressourcen fur einander, in Rudiger vom Bruch,
Brigitte Kaderas (eds.), Wissenschaften und Wissenschaftspolitik. Bestandsaufnahme zu Formationen, Bruchen
und Kontinuitaten im Deutschland des 20. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart 2002, pp. 32-51.
the most important characteristic of West German history of science, at least in our
context, concerns the emergence of an opposition between legitimate sciences of
race (genetics, physical anthropology) and pseudoscientic ideologies of race ^
Rassenkunde.7
While necessary for an understanding of developments after the war, this
opposition does not reect the status of the respective elds of knowledge before
1945. Furthermore, while related to them it nevertheless also diers from our
contemporary views; for if human genetics is viewed today as a valid science,
physical anthropology, which according to the binary specic to West Germany
now fell on the side of science, has today lost much of its former credibility.
Furthermore, from early in the second half of the twentieth century onwards, most
historians and historians of science viewed races not as simple biological entities
but as constructs that always involved non-biological considerations. The writers
addressed in this article, however, were committed to the scientic validity of the
idea of race and viewed the 1950 United Nations declaration denying the scientic
status of race as politically motivated.
Whereas in the academic discourse there was a great deal of conceptual, personal,
and institutional continuity with the period before 1945,8 after the war the term
Rasse virtually disappeared from the public German lexicon.9 The social and
political signicance of the sciences that dealt with race changed dramatically
after 1945 also because science and politics no longer served as mutual resources
for each other with regard to race.10
In the recongured interface between society, science, and race, statements about
Jews were redened as political and as potentially or latently antisemitic.
The immediate consequence of this situation was the destabilization of discussion of
Jews, up to then an integral component of the scientic discourse of race, by authors
who wished to be taken as partaking in legitimate science or serious scholarship.
The structural nucleus of this article concerns the consequence of this discrepancy
between, on the one hand, the classication that constitutes the general discourse,
and, on the other, thetaboothat constrains discussion of a particular object.
Once this structure is grasped numerous varieties of tension begin to surface in
dierent cases, ranging from the almost complete disappearance of references to
Jews, through their re-encoding by way of linguistic or photographic materials,
198
Amos Morris-Reich
11
The analytical framework of Mary Douglas can stabilize the object of our discussion. Douglas
established taboo as always dependent on classicatory schemes and the denition of an object or a
thing, for instance to be classied as belonging to a certain class or diverging from it is always a
by-product of a systematic ordering and classication of matter. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger:
An Analysis of the Concept of Pollution and Taboo, London 2002, p. 44. For an attempt to study this
culture in terms of latency see Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Nach 1945: Latenz als Ursprung der Gegenwart,
Frankfurt 2012.
12
I do not know of literature on taboo within science. On classication cf. Emma C. Spary, Utopias
Garden: French Natural History from Old Regime to Revolution, Chicago 2000; Brian W. Ogilvie, The
Science of Describing: Natural History in Renaissance Europe, Chicago 2006, in particular pp. 215-229. On
classication from a science studies perspective, see Georey C. Bowker, Susan Leigh Star, Sorting
Things Out: Classication and Its Consequences, Cambridge 1999, pp. 195-225.
13
For parallels with the eld of history see Gadi Algazis work on Otto Brunner: Herrengewalt und Gewalt
der Herren im spaten Mittelalter: Herrschaft, Gegenseitigkeit und Sprachgebrauch, Frankfurt^New York 1996.
199
14
On his scientically antisemitic writings prior to and during the National Socialist period and his
work with Mengele, see Eric Ehrenreich,Otmar von Verschuer and the scientic Legitimization of
Nazi Anti-Jewish Policy, in Holocaust and Genocide Studies 21 (1) 2007, pp. 57-58. Von Verschuer
mentions Jews briey in his Genetik des Menschen: Lehrbuch der Humangenetik, Munich^ Berlin 1959, p.
237, as well his comments on the frailty of Jews to tuberculosis, based on research he conducted
during the National Socialist period, p. 263. And in a similar vein Erblehre vom Menschen, in idem
et al., Der Mensch und seine Stellung im Naturganzen, Konstanz 1965, p. 101. In the bibliography made in
his honour his publications on Jews were removed, see Ehrenreich, p. 67.
15
Yael Hashiloni-Dolev has provided us with a comprehensive sociological analysis of the study of
reproductive genetics in Israel and Germany. While she notes the gigantic repression of the history
of genetics in Germany from 1945 up to the 1970s, her analysis focuses primarily on German society
from the 1990s, which she characterizes as one deeply aware of its murderous past. What we lack,
therefore, is a description of the process of change. Yael Hashiloni-Dolev, A Life (Un)Worthy of
Living: Reproductive Genetics in Israel and Germany, Dordrecht 2007, p. 27. Anne Cotterbrune, Die
Westdeutsche Humangenetik auf dem Weg zu ihrer universitaren Institutionalisierung nach 1945 ^
Zwischen Neuausrichtung und Kontinuitat, in Das Heidelberger Institut fur Humangenetik: Vorgeschichte
und Ausbau Festschrift zum 50-jahrigenJubilaum in (1961-2012), Heidelberg 2012, p. 32.
16
For recent studies on Vogel see in particular the rst articles in Cotterbrune and Eckart. On Vogels
early work for Nachtsheim, together with a German Jewish remigrant from Palestine, Walther
Hirsch, see Alexander von Schwerin, A stranger in Germany: the pediatrician Walter Hirsch and
population genetics in West Berlin, unpublished manuscript presented at the conference The Study of
Jewish Biological Dierence After 1945, in Berlin, October 2012.
Against the foil of the complete removal of Jews from discussion among the rst
generation of geneticists whose career continued into the postwar era ^ as
exemplied by Otmar von Verschuer14 ^ my account focuses on a prominent
member of the younger generation, FriedrichVogel (1925-2006), and his attempt to
remove antisemitic signiers from human genetics as part of its scientic
rehabilitation.15
Born in Berlin in1925,Vogel grew up during the National Socialist period and was
drafted into the German army immediately upon graduation from school. After
his release from an Allied prison in 1946 he took up the study of medicine. Several
of his obituarists noted that the choice of genetics for his doctoral dissertation and
eld of research was considered a brave move, given the disciplines tainted
reputation from the National Socialist period. He completed his dissertation at
the Max Planck Institute for comparative hereditary Biology and hereditary
Pathology in Berlin-Dahlem under the supervision of Hans Nachtsheim.
Nachtsheim was considered at the time as arguably the only prominent human
geneticist untainted by collaboration with the National Socialist regime. In 1957
Vogel passed his habilitation and, in 1962, was appointed director of the newly
founded Institute of Human Genetics and Anthropology in Heidelberg.
Two sets of, to some extent, contradictory facts serve as the matrices of the
following discussion.16 The rst is that, despite the dierence between human
genetics and physical anthropology institutionally, methodologically, or
semantically deep into the 1960s (with the introduction of molecular genetics), it is
practically impossible to completely separate the study of Erblehre (heredity),
human genetics, and physical anthropology. Institutionally, methodologically, and
200
Amos Morris-Reich
17
201
23
Alex Bein,The Jewish Parasite: Notes on the Semantics of the Jewish Problem, with special reference
to Germany, in LBI Year Book, vol. 9 (1964), pp. 3-40.
Vogel, pp. 666-667.
25
Ibid., p. 667-668.
26
Friedrich Vogel, Peter Propping, Ist unser Schicksal mitgeboren?Moderne Vererbungsforschung und menschliche
Psyche [Is our Destiny Born with Us? Modern Study of Heredity and Human Psychology], Berlin 1981. The
book appeared with a publisher whose owners, the non-Jewish Siedler and the Jewish Severin, were
persecuted by the National Socialists. For a comprehensive account of Jewish intelligence, see
Sander L. Gilman, Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence, Lincoln 1996.
Brock interprets the term mitgeboren in the title as a semantic shift away from angeboren and as an
expression of an attempt to move away from a determinist interpretation of genes to a humanistic
one. Brock, p. 141.
27
Vogel, Propping, p. 115.Vogel cites his Jewish colleague Walter Hirsch as evidence. See von Schwering,
A Stranger in Germany, p. 11.
28
Ibid., p.118.
29
Ibid.,p. 119.
24
later.23 It seems clear that Vogel believes he is taking a critical stance towards
antisemitism. But his use of the word Wirtsvolk carries with it antisemitic
connotations. Was he unaware of these? Is it, perhaps, that the scientic language
at his disposal is still saturated in antisemitic overtones? Or is his stance, after all,
more ambivalent than the later historian wants to believe in that Vogel meant to
imply that it is good that Jews are no longer hosted on what is for them foreign
European soil? Vogel also cites Fritz Lenz, a National Socialist geneticist, as an
authority.24 In the same vein, he denies that racial mixture has negative genetic
eects on the ospring of acreative race,25 but on sociological grounds he accepts
the view that racially mixed marriages are destined to misery and anguish.
In his 1981book, co-authored with his student Peter Propping (born 1942), Jewish
IQ is treated in greater detail.26 The context is again supposed genetically based
racial dierences in IQ,27 especially with regard to the percentage of Nobel Prize
laureates. While Jews were dispersed throughout the world the book argues, based
on the classication of Jews as a racially or biologically dened group, they
remained genetically isolated because of religious decrees, and therefore IQ
dierences can be viewed as genetically embedded.28 Vogel mentions certain
factors, such as the Jews urban character, the laws prohibiting them from owning
land or working manually, their concentration in commerce which reinforces their
business acumen and adaptability, as well as their respect for and appreciation of
learning and knowledge. Generation after generation they suered murderous
persecution at the hands of the Christians, he writes, and the more intelligent
among them survived, according to Vogel, because they were protected by their
communities.29 While their value is here inverted, Vogels discussion is still
dependent on a set of antisemitic beliefs and motifs.
In 1986 Vogel and Karl Sperling organized the International Congress of Human
Genetics in Berlin, the rst international meeting of human geneticists in postwar
Germany. This event, particularly Vogels moving welcome address, was
considered the beginning of the disciplines coming to terms with its past. But an
even sharper illustration of the transformation in German human genetics
from Fischer and von Verschuer to Vogel appears in the latters book Human
202
Amos Morris-Reich
Friedrich Vogel, Arno G. Motulsky (eds.), Human GeneticsProblems and Approaches, Heidelberg 1997.
Ibid., p. 18.
32
Ibid., p. 19.
33
Michael. R. Speicher, Stylianos E. Antonarakis, Arno. G. Motulsky (eds.), Human GeneticsProblems
and Approaches, Heidelberg 2010.
34
Ibid., p. 230.
35
Ibid. p. 229.
36
Ibid., pp. 290, 432, 505.
37
Ibid., pp. 577-578.
38
Ibid., pp. 706-707.
31
203
39
40
biological notions of race.39 With the introduction of the West German opposition
between racial science and racial ideology, Rassenkunde became the epitome of the
latter and Hans F.K. Gunther, the most prominent racial writer of the 1920s and
the 1930s, and unquestionably the most inuential writer addressed in this article,
became the personication of the racial ideologue.
In his mammoth study on the racial characteristics of the Jews, Rassenkunde des
judischen Volkes (1930), Gunther developed the idea that the Jews were a mongrelpeople, an anti-race that had developed following a long process of Gegenauslese
(counter-selection), with potentially devastating consequences for the natural
order of humanity.40 But in terms of the history of scientic classication Gunters
inuential denitions persisted, for they were the basis of physical anthropology.
Gunthers postwar writings show how, in an attempt to regain scholarly legitimacy,
he shifted his focus from race to religiosity and, in a partially transformed
intellectual context, came to displace his former antisemitic tropes and signiers.
Gunther was not tried in Nuremberg, but nevertheless as Himmlers teacher and
as a close associate of Rosenberg, belonged to a small group of writers that was
denitely linked to National Socialism. He spent three years in an internment
camp, but was released after it was decided that, although he had been a member
of the National Socialist establishment, as a mere Mitlaufer (bystander) he had not
initiated or perpetrated its criminal acts.
While his ideas remained basically the same, signicant transformations did
occur in Gunthers choice of topics, style of writing, and use of visual images. His
writing between 1922 and 1945 had been based on a xed denition of race, and
while race permeates his postwar work, it does so dierently. He no longer
trumpets his denition of race. But when he analyzes the religious attitudes of
Indo-Europeans ^ the subject of a 1963 work ^ his racial denitions are still visible
between the lines. Some of the older key terms, such as race and Nordic are
present, but their frequency and visibility is reduced. Race, in eect, recedes to the
subtext.
Identied now as the personication of the racial ideologue, his attempt to
republish his book, Platon als Huter des Lebens encountered opposition.41 Gunther
decided to temporarily publish under a pseudonym and shifted the perspective of
his studies from race to religiosity. In 1952, and under the name of Heinrich
Ackermann, he published a two-volume study entitled Jesus: seine Botschaft und deren
Aufnahme im Abendland,42 and in 1963, under his real name, the study on
204
Amos Morris-Reich
43
Hans F.K. Gunther, Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, transl. byVivian Bird in collaboration with
Roger Pearson, Uckeld 2001.
44
See Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, Princeton
2008.
45
Gunther, p. 30.
46
In the National Socialist period Gunther would not cite a Jewish scholar as an authority. The
discussion on the ethnic, racial, and religious dierences between Judean and Galilean Jewry/
Judaism of that period is still a major theme in contemporary scholarship. Cf. Sean Freyne, Galilee
and Gospel, Gottingen 2000.
47
Gunther, p. 72.
48
Ibid., p. 88.
49
Ibid., p. 139.
50
Ibid., pp. 136-137.
51
Ibid., pp. 152-165.
205
54
206
Amos Morris-Reich
59
Eickstedt is quoted and discussed in Britta Lange,AfterMath: Anthropological Data from Prisonerof-War Camps in Reinhard Johler, Christian Marchetti, Monique Scheer (eds.), Doing Anthropology
in Wartime and War Zones:World War I and the Cultural Sciences in Europe, Bielefeld 2010, pp. 319-320.
60
Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt, Ausgewahlte Lichtbilder zur Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes, Begleitheft,
2nd edn. 1933, p. 19. Christopher M. Hutton, Race and the Third Reich: Linguistics, Racial Anthropology
and Genetics in the Dialectic of Volk, Cambridge 2005, pp. 149-150, 159-160.
61
Quoted in Massin, Anthropologie und Humangenetik im Nationalsozialismus, p. 14.
207
62
I return to the tacit re-introduction of discussion of Jews through older photographs later in this
section. Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt, Ursprung und Entfaltung der Seele: Entwurf und System einer
psychologischen Anthropologie, Stuttgart 1963. See Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss, Rasse und Seele. Munich
1933, pp. 78-81.
63
See Eickstedt, n. 2111 on pp. 2466-2467
64
Ibid., p. 1657 and p. 2256.
65
Ilse Schwidetzky, Einfuhrung in die Vo lkerbiologie, Stuttgart 1950. Eickstedt, Die Forschung.
66
See Hofeld, Geschichte der biologischen Anthropologie in Deutschland, p. 406.
67
Egon von Eickstedt (ed.), with the assistance of Gunther Holtz and Ilse Schwidetzky, Ausgewahlte
Lichtbilder zur Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes. Erlauterungen, Stuttgart 1933, pp. 12, 15, 19-22.
68
Jakob Michelsen, Ilse Schwidetzky, in Ingo Haar, Michael Fahlbusch (eds.), Handbuch der vo lkischen
Wissenschaften, Munich 2008, pp. 634-638.
and Knuman, with whom such statements resurface. Eickstedt also makes no
direct mention of Jews in his truly out of the ordinary book of 1963.62 This book of
over 2500 pages brings together physical anthropology with Heideggers
phenomenology and Einsteins physics (footnoting together Georg Simmel and
Hans F.K. Gunther,63 among many others). The closest he gets to mention Jews is
the reproduction of two photographs of Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss to capture
distinct racial essences in movements.64 The latter, which Clauss claims is an Arab
woman, is designated Armenider Erlo sungstypus, which encompassed the Jewish
type in Felix von Luschans classication.
Neither Eickstedt nor Schwidetzky altered their racial beliefs after 1945, but
certain important semantic changes are visible. The term race was replaced by
Vo lkerbiologie (population biology) until the early 1960s. Eickstedt re-titled the
revised, enlarged edition of Racial Study and Racial History of Humanity as Forschung
am Menschen (Research on Man). The Journal of Racial Studies was rechristened
Homo in 1949 and became the ocial journal of the German Anthropological
Association.65 Less than two decades after the end of the Second World War,
however, Schwidetzky announced that the time was ripe to re-address the problem
of human races with Neue Rassenkunde (new racial studies).66
Under Eickstedts supervision in Breslau, in 1934 Schwidetzky completed her
dissertation on the Polish national movement in Upper Silesia between 1825 and
1914, and was granted a habilitation in 1937 for her treatise on the ancient Slavs.
Schwidetzky frequently contributed articles to Eickstedts journal Rassenkunde.67
When Eicksted left for Mainz, he invited her to work with him. In 1961 she
succeeded her mentor as head of the Anthropological Institute, gaining wide
recognition in the following years. Schwidetzky published in the English-language
journal The Mankind Quarterly and other journals considered racist at the time. As
one of the most prominent female academics in West Germany, she was seen as the
matriarch of German physical anthropology. Only in 1980, on the eve of being
granted an academic award in France, did controversy erupt and student protests
break out over her aliation with the National Socialist Party.68
Benoit Massin criticizes Schwidetzkys history of racial studies for its blatant
falsications regarding the disciplines role in the National Socialist period,
especially concerning her own institutes legal-anthropological involvement in the
racial evaluation of individuals. Particularly interesting in our context is
208
Amos Morris-Reich
69
Ilse Schwidetzky, Grundzuge der Vo lkerbiologie, Stuttgart 1950. The historical book of physical
anthropology criticized by Massin is Ilse Schwidetzy with I. Spiegel-Rosing, Maus und Schlange.
Untersuchungen zur Lage der deutschen Anthropologie, Munich 1992.
70
Ibid., p. 68.
71
Ibid., p. 108.
72
Ibid., pp. 276-282.
73
Viktor V. Bunak, Rassengeschichte Osteuropas, in Ilse Schwidetzky (ed.), Rassengeschichte der
Menschheit: Europa II: Ost- und Nordeuropa, Munich^Vienna 1976, pp. 50, 52. D. Ferembach, Histoire
raciale du Sahara septentrional, in Ilse Schwidetzky (ed.), Rassengeschichte der Menschheit Afrika I:
Nord-und Mittelafrika, Munich^Vienna 1975, pp.164-165. Ilse Schwidetzky, Rassengeschichte von
Deutschland, in Ilse Schwidetzky (ed.), Rassengeschichte der Menschheit: Europa V: Schweiz, Deutschland,
Belgien und Luxemburg, Niederlande, Munich^Vienna 1976, pp. 92-93.
74
Wolfram Bernhard, A
sien IV: Sudwestasien, in Ilse Schwidetzky (ed.), Rassengeschichte der Menschheit,
Munich 1993, pp. 147-177.
Schwidetzkys discussion of Jews in her 1950 book Grundzuge derVo lkerbiologie.69 Here
she focuses on the analysis of wandering as a biological phenomenon
(Wanderbiologie), mentioning Jews numerous times, for example, in discussion of the
Babylonian Exile,70 and in her assessment that a number three or four times bigger
than the current population size of the Jews has been assimilated by their
Wirtsvo lkern.71 She also discusses the extinction of peoples, claiming that the
selection processes introduced with the Europeanization of the world brought
about the extinction of some peoples but led to an increase in the numbers of
others.72 Hence, while including Jews within her account of wider biological
tendencies, she is careful to avoid mention of their more recent historical fate.
Even more interesting for our purposes, however, are decisions made with regard
to the representation of Jews in the series Rassengeschichte der Menschheit (The Racial
History of Humanity), an extension of Eickstedts project, which Schwidetzky
founded, edited, and to which she contributed.The multi-volume series in German,
English and French was generally arranged geographically according to nation
states. In most of the countries covered ^ including those in Western Europe and
the Americas-Jews were omitted from discussion and passed over as a distinct
racial category. Nonetheless, in three cases they were mentioned as a separate subpopulation: Tunisia, Ukraine, and Germany.73 In the case of Tunisia, the article
notes that Jews arrived in 1492 and lived there until the establishment of the State
of Israel. The article on the Ukraine was based on older statistics in which Jews
were separately classied. The statistical table was reproduced, but Jews were not
discussed in the body of the text. This moment exemplies precisely what in this
paper is termed asmall tension.
Schwidetzky briey discussed the Jews in her essay on Germany. She did so
indirectly, noting their absence, in a brief paragraph that dealt with the
evolutionary tendencies of selection, admitting that the impact of the Jewish
peoples annihilation on the German psyche was still unknown. In this way she
alluded toJewish racial dierence while eschewing its direct discussion.
The most comprehensive discussion on the Jews in this series is in the section
dealing with the State of Israel, which appears in Wolfram Bernhards 1993 volume
on Southwest Asia.74 The account begins after the Second World War and claims
209
that, following the establishment of the State of Israel, many Jews not only from
Europe but also from Middle Eastern countries back-wandered [zuruckgewandert]
to Palestine, where today they make up the majority.75 Bernhard emphasized the
dierence between the majority of Jews in Israel, who arrived after 1948 from the
various diasporas, and the minority, whose presence there has remained unbroken
since Biblical times.76 Bernhard provides a racial map in which Israels population
is marked Juden.
The decision not to discussJews in Europe or the United States but to discussJews in
Israel was not an object of explicit reection. Rather, it ensued from a covert form
of negotiation that concerned the boundaries of the discussion of Jewish racial
dierence and rendered certain objects legitimate and others taboo.
We have no direct evidence as to whether an editorial decision was made with
regard to the representation of the Jews in the series as a whole and it seems likely
75
Unlike the term zuruckgekehrt (returned), the term zuruckgewandert does not have Zionist connotations
but rather connotes The wandering Jew, p. 149.
76
Ibid., p. 174.
210
Amos Morris-Reich
77
Egon von Eickstedt, Die Rassischen Grundlagen des deutschen Volkes, Cologne 1939, pp. 28-31. The Jews,
according to Eickstedt, arrived far earlier than the Gypsies, in fact before Germany was
germanized. But the two peoples are described as accommodated (beherbergt) by host-peoples
(Wirtsvo lker). The Jews are characterized as merciless (mitleidslos) and vindictive (rachsuchtig) p. 30.
Their poisonous destructive spirituality (zersetzende Geistigkeit) and their underlying alien form
(Andersartigkeit) create constant tensions and disharmonies. Eickstedt concluded this section stating
that it is only natural and healthy that all defensive measures against this threatening force should
be taken and with full force (mit aller Kraft), p. 31.
78
Cf. A. Buhan,Europa, in Georg Buschan (ed.), Illustrierte Vo lkerkunde, Stuttgart 1910, p. 346.
79
See Jaroslav Suchy, Die Zigeuner, in Karl Saller (ed.), Australien, Indochina-Indopakistan, Die Zigeuner,
Munich^Vienna 1968, pp. 185-191.
80
Rainer Knuman, Vergleichende Biologie des Menschen. Ein Lehrbuch der Anthropologie und Humangenetik,
Frankfurt am Main 1996, p. 429. For mention of the protests, see Alte Lehre zementiert, in Der
Spiegel no. 20 (12 May 1997), p. 218.
that it was negotiated tacitly. Either way, Jews no longer appeared as a single metageographical category. If they were discussed, then it was either through the State
of Israel or as a sub-group dispersed among local populations. Importantly, the
discussion of Israel remained linked to historical records, and avoided antisemitic
tropes or Eickstedts and Gunthers older characterizations.
The eect of the taboo on the classication of the Jews may be appreciated
negatively when compared to a similar case: Gypsies. In a 1939 publication,
Eickstedt ended his discussion of the German people with two Fremdvo lker (the
literal translation two alien peoples or nations, does not carry the weight of the
original German): Gypsies and Jews.77 While at the exact moment of time in which
this statement was made it had dramatic political implications, scientically it was
by no means novel.78 While the Sinti and Roma were systematically persecuted
during the National Socialist period, the postwar taboo was not extended to their
discussion. Hence after 1945, based on Eickstedts same classication system and
the alleged presence of Indo-Afghanistan and Iran-Afghanistan admixtures, the
discussion on European Gypsies was relegated to a non-European volume in the
series where they appeared as a separate class alongside Australian Aborigines and
the Asiatic population of Indo-China.79
Rainer Knumans second edition (1988) of his 1980 textbook provides the last
instance, in this genealogy, of themes, beliefs, or signiers that for most of the
period after 1945 were unstated. A short passage, in particular, sparked a public
controversy, which began with student protests in Hamburg and reached the
national press. In comparison with the earlier opposition that Gunther had met,
physical anthropology had only now fallen into disrepute.80
This passage included several antisemitic tropes and signiers (adverse selection,
parasitism, fundamental non-European dierence, and responsibility for being
objects of hate) and a specicallyWest German frame of discussion (the opposition
between science and ideology in respect to his discipline, underscoring what he
sees asJewsalleged superior intelligence). But from the perspective of the history of
taboo and classication an even more interesting aspect is found in Knumans use
of photographs.
211
Amos Morris-Reich
212
213
At the end of all three editions of his book (1980, 1988, and 1996) is a series of
photographs of racial types together with titles. Knuman did not divulge the
original contexts of the photographs and many clearly stem from an existing
repertoire. Tucked away within the series of photographs is one particular image,
that of a bearded man, which is entitled Armenider aus Kurdistan (Armenoid type
from Kurdistan), but is in fact of a Jew from Jerusalem.81 Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss,
who took the photograph in Jerusalem, described his subject as a Jewish carrier
from Kurdistan, Redemption type, Middle Eastern race.82
81
Knuman (ed.) 1980 p. 433; idem (ed.) 1988 p. 348; idem (ed.) 1996 p. 433. Eickstedt, Die rassischen
Grundlagen des deutschen Volkes, p. 29. Eickstedt characterizes the Jews as a racial mixture that is
primarily of the Armenoid type. On standard characterizations of the Armenoid type see Klaus
Taschwer, Lo sung der Judenfrage. Zu einigen anthropologischen Ausstellungen im Naturhistorischen Museum
Wien in: Kirstin Breitenfellner und Charlotte Kohn-Ley (eds.), Wie ein Monster entsteht : zur
Konstruktion des anderen in Rassismus und Antisemitismus, Bodenheim 1998, 170-171, as well as Niels C.
Losch, Rasse als Konstrukt: Leben und Werk Eugen Fischers, Frankfurt 1997, p. 280.
82
Clauss, p. 81.
214
Amos Morris-Reich
then he disguised it through reclassication although we cannot entirely rule out the
possibility that Knuman was unaware of the original context of the photograph.
The fact that the reader remains in a state of uncertainty as to whether this is a
case of unstated, concealed, or genuinely absent beliefs is an essential characteristic
of the intellectual structure addressed by this article.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Based on a degree of continuity in scientic writing on race coupled with
destabilization of the discussion of Jews, this article retrieves small tensions in the
215