QIAN ZHANG ASA 115, Week 3 Reading blog

I found Thomas Teo’s article, The Historical Problematization of “Mixed Race” in Psychological and Human-Scientific Discourses, highly intriguing and informative. His analysis of pre-World War II discourse on miscegenation, specifically the academic problematization of progeny emerging from the intermarriage of individuals from different racial backgrounds, was eye-opening. It demonstrated how personal prejudices can cloud the reasoning of even the most distinguished thinkers. Teo’s analysis of the paradigm shift after World War II also illuminated the slow departure from the problematization of mixed-race groups. While it was amusing to read about the attempts to reconcile hearsay and empiricism by the likes of Charles Davenport, knowing the effects that this reasoning had is sobering. Moreover, I was disappointed to see that some of the philosophers I look up to, held these beliefs. Even so, I was happy to see that some scientists were courageous enough to oppose the misguided beliefs of the great thinkers of their time.

       While I originally considered Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto, Mein Kampf, to be the misguided ramblings of a frustrated nationalist, I was surprised to learn that his reasoning hinged on the ongoing sentiments by philosophers, historians, and scientists at the time. In his article, Teo observed that the ideology of scientific racism by Count Arthur de Gobineau featured Hitler’s discourse on hybridity (80). Further, Eugen Fischer, inspired by his deluded assumptions on mixing races, went on to participate in the atrocities of the Nazi regime (Teo 89). While it is not the objective of Teo’s article, the evolution of these ideologies to concerted efforts to implement eugenics, demonstrates the potency of biased reasoning to inspire action.

       As an admirer of Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy, I was surprised to learn of his view of race mixing as problematic. While Teo asserts that “Kant may not have had bad intentions when he wrote and expressed his views,” the fact that he neither consorted empirical research nor provided evidence for his reasoning, mitigates his position as a moral authority (84). It does not help his case that scientists like William Castle were able to see past their biases and even predict the criticism with which future generations would view their assertions (Teo 91).

       In all, Teo’s characterization of the two eras of thinking, which is to say the pre-WWII problematization of mixing races and the post-WWII paradigm shift, was very engaging. It allowed me to reflect critically on my personal biases when conducting research. Teo’s article also increased my intrigue in the evolution of the discourse on race mixture in Western nations.