- Social Sciences
- African Studies
- American Studies
- Asian Studies
- Communication Sciences
- Ethnic Studies
- European Studies
- Gender Studies
- Physical Sciences
- Life Sciences
- Animal Communications
- Cell Biology
- Evolutionary Biology
- Food Science and Technology
- Human Anatomy
Gender and the Deconstruction of the Race Concept
by Leonard Lieberman
Gender and the Deconstruction of the Race Concept
Updated: October 18th, 2012
LEONARD LIEBERMAN I CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
Gender and the Deconstruction of the
Hierarchies, relations of domination, subordination, power and control are not necessarily inherent in nature but are an integral part of the conceptual framework of persons bred in a civilization constructed on principles of stratifi- cation. [Bleier 1984:200]
For centuries race and gender have been integral parts of the conceptual framework used to maintain hi- erarchies of domination and control. But in this century both concepts have undergone deconstruction. Race as a scientific concept has lost consensus, while gender concepts are being newly reconstructed by feminists working in several scientific and humanistic disci- plines. The deconstruction and reconstruction of the notions of race and gender are related in diverse ways.
In this essay I utilize historical, biographical, and survey data to clarify, in part, the role women have played in deconstructing the race concept in anthropol- ogy. This was accomplishedin three ways: first, through the participation of women in the critique of racism; second, through their participation in the construction of the concept of culture, which provided an alternative explanation to that of racial determinism; and third, and most recently, through the higher frequency of rejection of the race concept by women. I first discuss the role women played prior to 1960 in challenging the racism that lay at the core of the race concept. Then I analyze why the acceptance of race declined to different levels in four separate disciplines after 1965 and consider the role played by women in this shift.
Women and Racism
Both men and women have worked to curtail rac- ism. Among the men were Franz Boas (Barkan 1992),
LEONARD LIEBERMAN is a professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859.
W. E. B. Du Bois (1906), Otto Klineberg (1935), and Ashley Montagu (1942, 1962). Although it was not the explicit intent of Boas to cast aside the concept of race, his critique of racism contributed to that conceptual revolution, as we shall see. Among the women directly or indirectly involved in challenging racism in the first half of this century were Ruth Benedict, Ruth Bunzel, Caroline Bond Day, Ella Cara Deloria, Ellen Irene Diggs, Katherine Dunham, May Edel, Dorothy Keur, Ruth Lan- des, Nancy Oestreich Lurie, Margaret Mead, Hortense Powdermaker, Gitel Poznanski Steed, Gladys Reichard, and Gene Weltfish. (See Table 1for life spans, early pub- lications, and references.)
A number of these women experienced racism and prejudice because of their African, Jewish, or Native American ancestry (e.g., Day, Deloria, Diggs, Edel, Green, Landes, Powdermaker, Steed, and Weltfish). To- gether with women of European origin, they met obsta- cles to their careers in colleges and universities, obsta- cles usually based solely on their status as woman or wife. A number of them never held an "official univer- sity position, a full-time appointment or tenure, and/or [they] faced years of unemployment after receipt of their degree" (e.g., Landes, Powdermaker, Steed, and Weltfish) (Gacs et al. 1989:xvii). All of them conducted fieldwork in which they participated in the lives of ex- ploited people of the third world, inside and outside of the United States, and all lived through the period of shocked awareness when the Holocaust was fully re- vealed after World War 11.
Almost all were encouraged by Boas at Columbia University, as well as by Benedict, Mead, and Weltfish. During the time that Benedict was active in Columbia's Department of Anthropology, 19 women (and 20 men) received Ph.D.s (Babcock and Parezo 1994:112). But even after their training, there remained obstacles in the path of a woman's career (see Parezo 1994a). Many of these women took their stand against injustice even
American Anthropolo~ist 99(3):545-558. Copyright @ 1997, American Anthropological Association.
Women and antiracism through 1960
Anthropologist Publication(s) or Activity Source(s)
|Ruth Benedict, 1887-1948||1940,1943||Babcock 1994; Caffrey 1989; Modell 1989|
|Ruth Leah Bunzel, 1898-1990a||1972 [I9291||Bunzel1959; Hardin 1994|
|Natalie Curtis Burlin, 1875-1921||1904||Babcock and Parezo 1988, Hinton 1994|
|Ella Cara Deloria, 1888-1971||1929,1944||Medicine 1989|
|Ellen Irene Diggs, 1906-||Cofounded Phylon with||Bolles 1989|
|W. E. B. DuBois, 1940|
|Katherine Dunham, 1912-||1941||Aschenbre~er 1989|
|May Edel, 1909-1964a||see Weltfih 1981||Bunze11966|
|Alice Fletcher, 1838-1923||1883||Lurie 1966|
|Estelle Fuchs, 1922-||1991b||1991b|
|Esther S. Goldfrank, 1896-||1927||Lange 1994|
|Zora Neale Hurston, 1903-1960||1934||Hemenway 1980; Mikell1989|
|Bernice Kaplan, 1923-||1954||Kaplan 1954|
|Dorothy Keur, 1904-||1941||James 1989|
|Ruth Landes, 1908-1991a||1952,1955||Park and Park 1989|
|Eleanor Burke Leacock, 1922-1987||1949||Gailey 1989|
|Dorothea Leighton, 1908-1992a||1946'||Griffen 1989|
|Nancy Oestreich Lurie, 1924-||1944||Ganteaurne 1989|
|Alice Marriott, 1910-199Za||1948||Gordon 1994|
|Margaret Mead, 1901-1978||1928,1930||Yans-McLaughlin 1989|
|Elsie Clews Parsons, 1875-1941||1919,1936||Babcock and Parezo 1988; Hieb 1994|
|Hortense Powdermaker, 1896-1970||1939,1944a, 1944b||Silverman 1989|
|Gitel Poznanski (Steed), 1914-1977||1946||Berleant-Schiller 1989|
|Gladys Reichard, 1893-1955||1928,1943||Gordon 1994; Larnphere 1994; Leacock 1989|
|Matilda Coxe Stevenson, 1849-1915a||1881,1888,1898||Parezo 1989|
|Ruth Underhill, 1883-1984||1936,1938||Babcock and Parezo 1988; Halpern 1994; Tisdale 1994|
|Gene Weltfiih, 1902-1980||1945||Path6 1989|
Note: This list cannot be complete and is only meant to underline the signficance of the work of women in constructing ethnography, the culture idea, and antiracism. My apologies to the many women whom I have not been able to include. Consulted were all volumes of the American Anthropologist and the American Journal of Physical Anthropology up to and including 1960, and anthropology books listed in the Central Michigan University computer catalogue for the same period. Especially helpful were Parezo 1994% Babcock and Parezo 1988, Gacs et alia 1989, and Lurie 1966. a See Price n.d.
Estelle Fuchs, personal communication, 1991.
See Leighton and Kluckhohn 1946.
before their commitment to anthropology, largely are the works of Ruth Benedict (1943) and Gene Welt- through involvement in "women's rights, civil rights and fish (1945) correcting racial misinformation, and the labor activism, social work, teaching in other academic work of Caroline Day, an African American anthropolo- disciplines, and writingn (Gacs et al. 1989:xv). As an-gist trained under Earnest A. Hooton, disproving ideas thropologists, many combated racism through their about the allegedly harmful effects of racial cross- teaching and publications. In 1935, Gene Weltfish mating (Day 1932; Harrison 1992). Also from this sub- taught one of the earliest courses on race problems field came Bernice Kaplan's (1954) essay stressing envi- (Path6 1989:375). In 1940, Ellen Irene Diggs cofounded ronment and human plasticity and Lois Mednick and Phylon (The Atlanta University Review of Race and Martin Orans's (1956) discussion of the sickle-cell gene, Culture) with W. E. B. Du Bois. In 1944, Ella Cara De- which demonstrated that it is not confined to a sub- loria wrote Speaking of Indians, in which she rejected Saharan population. All of these women helped to com- stereotypes and stressed the importance of kin obliga- bat racial stereotypes involving biological dimensions. tions and the obstacles faced on reservations (Medicine In 1926, Zora Neale Hurston began her fieldwork 1989). measuring physical characteristics in Harlem as a part
Among the relatively few contributions listed in Ta- of Franz Boas's research challenging the prevailing ble 1 that spring directly from physical anthropology ideas of African American inferiority (Hemenway 1980:88). In the 1930s she assisted a research team headed by Otto Klineberg investigating "musical ability in black communities of New Orleansn (Mikell 1989: 161). Hurston was committed to identifying unrecog- nized dimensions of black culture. Her later work in the Caribbean was concerned with "women as culture bear- ers," and the exploitation of black women, whom she re- ferred to as "the mules of the Caribbean" (Mikell 1989:162-163). Her contribution to combating racism was vigorous.
In Hidden Scholars, Nancy J. Parezo reports that 3,500 men and 1,600 women have published on Native Americans in the American Southwest (1994:xii). The names of the men are well known in anthropology- Bandelier, Cushing, Devereaux, Eggan, Haury, Kluck- hohn, Kroeber, and Powell-but Ruth Benedict is the only woman widely acknowledged in the discipline's histories (Kehoe 1995:1600). Clearly women scholars were viewed with ambivalence and intolerance and not given the recognition due them. Exemplary of this pat- tern is Matilda Coxe Stevenson, the first woman to work in the Southwest. A pioneer ethnologist, as well as "ex- plorer, scholar, activist, organizer, and wife" (Parezo 1994b:38), Stevenson first went to the Southwest in 1879 and published Zuni and the Zunians in 1881. In time she became the first woman paid as a government anthropologist for the Bureau of Ethnology. Her work was an attempt to change the idea that Indians were be- reft of religion, emphasizing instead that they had a real religion of their own (though she viewed it, in accord- ance with the notion of cultural evolution, as less ad- vanced than monotheism). Deborah Gordon comments that, while woman anthropologists in the Southwest were participants in the white governance and manage- ment of Native Americans, they also desired to
educate the lay public as a means of countering a general lack of empathy for and interest in Native Americans on the part of members of the white culture. Like their white male counterparts, these women saw themselves as fighting ig- norance and racism through education and supporting val- ues of tolerance, curiosity, and openness in the face of cultural differences among whites and Native Americans.
At first, female anthropologists were welcomed be- cause they complemented male fieldworkers by estab- lishing contact with Native American women, a vital area inaccessible to males. But their work was more ho- listic than was recognized.
In the first decades of the 20th century, Elsie Clews Parsons and a number of other women, inclulng an- thropological linguist Natalie Curtis Burlin,
used their fathers' fortunes or family influence to finance expeditions, collections, field schools, research, and publi- cations; to fight for Indian rights and to support and encour- age Indian arts and crafts; to persuade Theodore Roosevelt to lift the assimilationist ban against the singing and playing of Indian music; to lobby for the preservation of prehistoric ruins and for the establishment of national parks; and to build lasting and influential institutions such as the School of American Research, the Museum of Northern Arizona, the Wheelwright Museum, and the Millicent Rogers Mu- seum. [Babcock and Parezo 1988:2IA
Through such efforts, these women "laid the foundation for Pueblo ethnographic studies and made a place for women in southwestern anthropology" (Babcock and Parezo 1988:5) and the field of anthropology. As Alfred Kroeber wrote of Parsons, "Her society had encroached on her; she studied the science of society better to fight back against society" (Spier and Kroeber 1943:252). Par- sons taught graduate courses on family and sex roles at Columbia University from 1902 to 1905 and at the New School for Social Research in 1919 (Babcock and Parezo 1988: 15).
At a meeting of the American Anthropological Association in 1939, Weltfish, May Edel, and Gladys Reichard formed a small group voting, with Alexander Lesser and Edward Sapir, in support of "a resolution against Nazi classification of the racesn (Lesser 1981: 30). The resolution was overwhelmingly defeated (Barkan 1992) but was passed at a subsequent session at that conferen~e.~
Hortense Powdermaker's work in- cludes an ethnography of a Deep South community (1939) and a book on prejudice for high school students (1944b). In 1943, Katherine Dunham established a School of Arts and Research for dance in New York City, which included an Institute for Caribbean Research. She and her dancers appeared in concerts and movies, and toured Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. Encountering segregation in accommodations and audience seating, she worked with the NAACP and the Urban League to desegregate audiences. Dunham believes this was one of the most important achieve- ments of her dance company (Aschenbrenner 1989; Clark and Wilkerson 1978).
Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, through their popular publications Patterns of Culture (Benedict 1934) and Coming of Age in Samoa (Mead 1928), caught the attention of millions of Americans and helped construct the concept of culture as a part of American popular and scientific reality (see Webb 1968). This enabled them to make a conceptual distinc- tion between biology, which was inherited, and culture, which was learned-an essential step in reducing rac- ism and ethnocentrism.
In Race: Science and Politics (1940), Benedict criti- cized and corrected a number of racist beliefs. Her biog- rapher Margaret Caffrey summarized Benedict's argu- ment this way:
[Benedict] showed that scientifically there were no "puren races; the aeons-long migrations of peoples had seen to that. She stressed that race mixture was not evil but natural and even positive; that when mixed children were inferior it was due to social discrimination, not physical degener- acy. ...On the question of mental superiority, she gave the example of the World War I I.Q. tests, which showed that some whites from the South scored lower than some blacks from the North, and that results of the tests varied by educational opportunity, not innate intelligence. As for the argument that one race was historically destined to lead the rest, she talked of past cultures that had cycled up and then down again. . . . The necessary objective in any program concerning blacks, she wrote, was the "ultimate elimina- tion of legal, educational, economic, and social discrimina- tions."[1989:293-2941
In 1943, Benedict and Weltfish coauthored a 32- page pamphlet incorporating many of the ideas in Benedict's book. It was published by the Public Affairs Committee (a New York City nonprofit educational or- ganization) and sold for 10 cents a copy. Distribution of 55,000 copies by the U.S. Army Morale Division was blocked by Representative Andrew May of Mississippi, who objected to the comparison of intelligence scores of whites in Mississippi to blacks educated in the North, who had higher scores on the average. Controversy en- sued in the media, and thousands heard about the Pam- phlet who might otherwise never have been aware of it. In the United States, sales reached almost three-quar- ters of a million by 1945. It was translated into seven for- eign languages and used asthe basis for a filmstrip (Ed- wards 1945).
Eleanor Burke Leacock participated in antiracist community activities beginning about 1944, while en- rolled in graduate school at Columbia. She received her doctorate in 1952 but was unable to find a full-time ap- pointment teaching anthropology until 1963, when she joined the faculty of New York University. After she se- cured this position, her influence began to be felt. It in- creased after 1972 when she was asked to rebuild the anthropology program at City College. Among the nu- merous books, articles, and reviews which she wrote, the most influential included her critique of the culture of poverty as biased in terms of class and race and her work on Engels. As a faculty she was "extremely sup- portive of junior colleagues, especially those who were marginally employed" (Gailey 1989:216-219).
In general, the women identified here as antiracist did not reject the race concept; it was unthinkable to do so until racism had been reduced. But neither did they necessarily utilize the 19th-century idea of race as a fxed complex of traits or as an essence. Ruth Benedict's reconstruction of race is an example:
An understanding of the distribution of racial types in the world is possible only against this background of multiple centers of characterization in which certain hereditary traits become fixed, only to mingle with those from some other area, and again to become stabilized in a new type after mixture, and then to repeat the cycle.. . . We must accept human history for what it is, and try to think not in terms of a few primary races but in terms of an indefinite number of areas of characterization. [1940:45]
Women in other disciplines have also rejected race typologies, and it is important to note this, because the percentage of women in these disciplines was smaller in the past. An example is provided by the comparative psychologist Ethel Tobach: "On the human social level, I believe, the construct of race is not defensible by any of the acceptable criteria of validity testingn (1968: 107).
The critique of racism was a precursor to that later conceptual revolution in which race would be rejected. Racist beliefs assume race as a reality, and so long as rac- ism was an accepted truth, it would be laughable to criticize the concept of race itself. Racism was a shield that protected the race concept and made it difficult to challenge because it provided the Euro-American be- liever a sense of superiority over other races. There was also profitability in racism, as it justified low wages and other forms of discrimination from which scientists and nonscientists benefited. Beginning about the middle of the 20th century, the concept of race, without racism as its cornerstone, was less able to function in popular thought as either a rational or a romantic justification for colonial and imperial exploitation. It was less able to justify inequalities, scapegoating, and exploitation with- in the state societies of the northern hemisphere; it did not aseasily support the sense of superiority enjoyed by dominant classes. For scientists, the decline of racism made it less worthwhile to propose typologies or classi- fications of race.
Reduced racism enabled many others to concen- trate their energies on the race concept. Paradoxically, one of their reasons for doing so was that, as long as race remained a viable concept, it served to invite a re- birth of racism in some quarters of society.
The decline of racism was facilitated by wide- spread opposition to Nazi Germany and hastened by the necessary propaganda against Aryanism. Then came the shocking knowledge of the Holocaust and growing awareness of how race and racism were used to justify that systematic slaughter. Later the civil rights move- ment clarified the gross consequences of racism within the United States. With the decline of racism in anthro- pology, energies were turned to deconstructing race it- self.
The Debate over Race
The concept of race, a widely accepted scientific idea since the 18th century, was first proposed by several
biologists. The scientific discipline most responsible for its construction was physical anthropology. That few women directly challenged the race concept in pub- lications in the 1960s and 1970s in part reflected their smaller numbers in the discipline at that time. Other fac- tors limiting women's opposition to race included the prevailing absence of blind reviews in the publication process, which may have inhibited women who op- posed conventional thinking. Similarly, their promotion and tenure might have been affected.
Women were more likely to be active in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements in the 1960s, in which they rediscovered that many males did not ex- tend the idea of equality to women. As a result, in the 1970s they turned to developing the feminist movement in the sciences and humanities by creating and publish- ing in new journals devoted to feminist research. There emerged a de facto division of labor in publications. Men more often confronted the race concept, while women in several disciplines challenged the gender concept. The exception to this pattern was Ashley Mon- tagu, who critiqued race in 1942 and gender in 1952.
Montagu vigorously expressed his concerns about the utility and consequences of the concept of race in 1942. In the United States he provided the best known opposition to the race concept until Frank Livingstone published his study (1958) on the distribution of the sickling hemoglobin in Africa. Livingstone's data pro- vided a strong alternative to typological race categories and breathed life into Julian Huxley's (1938) concept of clines (gradations) asan alternative to thinking in racial categories. Livingstone was supported in one way or an- other by Jean Hiernaux (1964), C. Loring Brace (1964), and Gloria Marshall (1968). He was opposed by Theo- dosius Dobzhansky (1963), Stanley Garn (1964), and others. Most of the debate was published in three issues of Current Anthropology, in 1962-64 (see Lieberman 1968).
This debate, coupled with the new data and the an- tiracist effect of World War 11, as well as the social movements of the 1960s and early 1970s, promised to change thinking about the concept of race. Indication of that change was first identified in a content analysis of textbooks of physical anthropology published from 1932 to 1979 (Littlefield et al. 1982). Before 1970 only 3 texts rejected the race concept while 13 presented it as a reality (N =20). The effect of the 1962-64 debate is evident between 1970 and 1979, when 14 texts rejected race and 12 supported it (N =38). Most recently, from 1980 to 1994, 13 books rejected race and 4 supported it (N =25, preliminary analysis). The remainder in each period were noncommittal, did not mention race, or were unclassifiable. By three to one, the authors of text- books in the most recent period seemed to have con- cluded either that the discipline had changed or that it was ready to do so.
The authors of the 1982 study attributed the change to numerous empirical difficulties, the political milieu of the 1960s, and entry into the discipline of scholars from more diverse backgrounds.
In 1984-85 my colleagues and I inquired further into changes in the status of the race concept among faculty at Ph.D.-granting department^.^ We asked mem- bers of four disciplines to indicate agreement or dis- agreement with this statement: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens. "4 As of 1985,42 per- cent of biological anthropologists at Ph.D.-granting de- partments disagreed with the concept. Among the much more numerous cultural anthropologists, 52 percent disagreed with the statement. Given the number of cul- tural anthropologists, it is evident that a somewhat larger proportion of anthropologists reject the concept than accept it. By way of contrast, in the discipline of bi- ology, race is rejected by only 12 percent of respondents (ethologists), and in developmental psychology the concept is rejected by about 34 percent.
Women and Race after 1980
The data reported above obscure the fact that women are more likely to reject race than are men in all disciplines except developmental psychology (Table 2, Total column, p =0.03). Women in cultural anthropol- ogy reject race only slightly more frequently than do men. But among respondents who list psychological an- thropology as a specialty, 71 percent of women reject race, while only 40percent of men do (psychological an- thropology: cognitive, educational, developmental, per- sonality, and so forth, p =0.02). When responses from cultural and psychological specialties are combined, 63 percent of women reject race compared to 49 percent of men (p= 0.05).
In biology, 21 percent of women and 9 percent of men reject the reality of race; in biological anthropol- ogy the figures are 50 percent of women, 40 percent of men; and in developmental psychology, 44 percent of women and 35 percent of men. Only in cultural and psy- chological anthropology do the overall majority reject race, and this is due to the votes cast by women. I do not mean to diminish the weight of men's views on race. In fact, a greater proportion of male cultural anthropolo- gists and biological anthropologists reject race than do male biologists or developmental psychologists, and be- tween 1980 and 1994, when almost all textbook authors were male, race was rejected in half of the texts and sup- ported in very few. But it is the views of women which provide the critical margin of rejection.
Percentage of agreement with statement "There are biological races in the species Homosapiens," by discipline and gender (M = males, F = females), at Ph.D.-granting departments, 1984-85.
|(N)||(113)||(34)||(109)||(38)||(124)||(27)||(50)||(34) 1 NAc||(129)||(67)||(525)||(200) 1 NAc|
|a X2= 7.1719,2df, p = 0.03;||X2 = 7.6963,2df,p = -0.02;||NA =: no answer.|
I propose that the variation in the rejection of race and insightful overview, employing genetics to clarify is related to the concepts, traditions, and data of each the misconceptions embedded in the race concept. discipline and that gender is one factor interacting with In science, any question about concepts must also the nature of each discipline and bringing about these consider the nature of available data and how they are patterns. The primary importance of the nature of each interpreted. Many biological and cultural anthropolo- discipline is seen in the similarity of the greater rates of gists have some knowledge of the intense debate, begin- rejection of race by men and women in both biological ning in the mid-1960s, over the existence of race. From and cultural anthropology, and in the difference be- that debate there developed awareness of Livingstone's tween these anthropological disciplines on the one data on the geographic distribution of clines for sickle- hand and biology and developmental psychology on the cell genes in West Africa. Recognition grew that heredi- other. tary variations were usually distributed in continuous
Among women biological anthropologists who geographic gradations. These several variations did not continue to support the race concept is Alice Brues, the covary in their geographic pattern. They overlapped only woman to earn a Ph.D. at Harvard under Earnest each other in a discordant pattern, making boundaries Hooton. Her People and Races (1977) provides an excel- based on multiple characteristics unidentifiable (see lent review of the state of the concept in the 1970s, Lieberman and Kirk 1997 and Lieberman and Rice
when many anthropologists were turning away from 1996). Awareness of this pattern in the Puerto Rican race. As pointed out earlier in regard to Dobzhansky population is expressed by Clara Rodriguez: and Gam, Brues illustrates the possibility of rejecting
People in this society are not really white or non-white. racism while embracing race. Her careful analysis of Indeed, within each of these two categories there are spec- heritability in relation to IQ acknowledged the possibil- trums of color, of facial features, of hair texture, of bodily ity that "the differences between two populations may form, and of cultural predisposition that determine what be entirely due to environment. ... The debate [over kind of non-white or white you are. And these various
race and IQ] will be nicely settled when populations of spectrums overlap. . . . It would seem to me that under these circumstances we will indeed need a reassessment of
the two races are living under conditions exactly the
the definition of race. [1989:20]
same in all respects; at that point no one will care any- more" (1977:245; emphasis in original). I believe that Rodriguez is describing both the idea of
A plea to revive the race concept is presented in Pat clines and her own experience, asa Puerto Rican, of the Shipman's The Evolution of Racism: Human Differ- sociocultural process in which individual and group ences and the Use and Abuse of Science (1994). She identity are constructed, a process in which gender and stresses that the decline of the race concept has pre- class experiences are also crucial. Her writing suggests vented research on human variation. Actually the re- that understanding the newer views held by women verse is the case. It was Livingstone's work (1958,1962) about race requires awareness of the individual experi- on sickle-cell clines and Brace's article (1964) on ana- ences of a society's members, in this case its women. lyzing one trait at a time when studying human variation Insights into this biographical question are not that identified the inaccuracy and uselessness of the forthcoming from conventional sources, which had ear- race concept. Further, much research is currently being lier constructed a largely negative view of females based done on human variation (see Williams 1995). Jonathan mostly on the assumptions of biological determin- Marks's Human Biodiversity (1995) provides a broad ism. Leadership in the deconstruction of such views of women has been provided by women scientists and hu- manists, with newer views currently being constructed. I can only briefly describe a portion of these views. Psy- chologists Patricia Smith and Elizabeth Midlarsky (1989) present data suggesting that men in the sciences are most likely to analyze component parts rather than viewing them as part of the functioning whole. Thus scholars in several disciplines "have suggested that Western women scientists tend to be holistic and inte- grative thinkers, who, as a result of differential sociali- zation practices, may be more attuned than men to the complexities and subtleties of social interactions, and less satisfied with reductionist principles of analysisn (Fedigan and Fedigan 1989:45).5 Psychologist Carol Gil- ligan (1982) suggests that women reason in a way differ- ent from that used by men; women see morality as a matter of care and relationships, while men view moral- ity in terms of a system of law or impartial justice. Biolo- gist Evelyn Keller (1982) refers to the fact that women are both members and outsiders in relation to the pri- marily male scientific establishment; in other words, they experience marginality (Cole 1979; Stonequist
Another suggestion has been that, since women are subordinated to men by their socialization, they may re- order established theories from an underdog perspec- tive (Daniels 1975; Millet 1970). Several anthropolo- gists, including Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (1984), Jane Lancaster (1973), and Thelma Rowel1 (1984), have pro- posed that the common experiences of females lead them to "possess an enhanced ability to empathize with, and to comprehend the behavior of, their subjects" (Fedigan and Fedigan 1989:45). Sociologist Alice Rossi (1977) argues for a greater sensitivity in women be- cause of the greater closeness of mothers and daugh- ters. In her biography of Barbara McClintock, Keller (1983) lists several characteristics as present to a greater degree because of feminist ideology, socializa- tion, andlor life experiences. Included among these characteristics is one described by anthropologists Linda Marie Fedigan and Laurence Fedigan as "a reluc- tance to impose an a priori or prematurely theoretical design on the material, but rather a desire to listen to the material . . . to develop a 'feeling for the organism' " (1989:52). The involvement of cultural anthropologists in fieldwork would be one example of a procedure for developing feeling for the organism.
If the psychology of women is applied to explaining their more frequent rejection of race, then turnabout should be fair play. Why do a greater proportion of men support the race concept? It would be consistent with the tradition of past research on male-female differ- ences to ascribe to males the complement of the preced- ing explanations about women. Thus males would be less empathic, less holistic, less marginalized, and so
DECONSTRUCTINGRACE 1 LEONARD LIEBERMAN 551
on. It would also be argued that male scientists would be less often offended by biological reductionism since they were more frequently members of the strata of so- ciety that applied the reductionist explanations to oth- ers. But there are different avenues to holism. Was Jo- hann Blumenbach's (1865) insightful emphasis on gradations connecting races a kind of holism?
C. Loring Brace (1964) utilized biological reductionism in advocating the analysis of clines for one character at a time, and that enabled him to see the problem of race in holistic fashion.
Linda Marie Fedigan and Laurence Fedigan remind us that "none of the [earlier mentioned traits] are bio- logical capacities exclusive to women. Rather they are traits which are more characteristic of women due to socialization practices and ideological directivesn (1989:52). Socialization, rather than biological factors, is the crucial consideration that brings about some of the above patterns through interaction with the fe- male's experience of motherhood and the role and status of women. I also affirm that there is no universal "essence" of woman or man (Stacey and Thorne 1985), nor should there be any claim to intrinsic "moral supe- riority" of either gender (Longino 1990). While women and men may reject race for different reasons, they may also do so for very similar reason^.^ In The Mismeasure of Woman, Carol Tavris (1992) emphasizes the power of context. By context she means "everything in the envi- ronment of a person's life" (1992:295).
The nature of each discipline provides the context within which daily situations are experienced. For cul- tural anthropology, the context is provided by its dual traditions of scientific research and humanism. Human- ism was strongly revitalized by the social movements of the late 1960s (Hymes 1969) and provides a context that invites iconoclastic examination of established concepts, especially when they concern biological explana- tions of race and gender. Some women in anthropology are likely to be concerned with biological divisions and explanations of the human species because they have experienced the effects of stereotypical gender models based on biology and used to justify sexism. They are likely to be alerted to such abuses by a strong feminist orientation and by participation in feminist networks. It is possible that a greater proportion of women have re- jected race by drawing upon one or more of the experi- ences of women, as suggested by various authors. They have been encouraged by the new data and new fields of study within the context of the dual scientific and hu- manistic traditions of anthropology.
In the population of psychological anthropologists, as noted above, women more frequently reject race than any other group (Table 2), including cultural anthro- pologists. It is possible that those specializing in psychological anthropology are more committed to cultural explanations and less receptive to biological views. By contrast, the lower frequency of rejection of race among biologists may be related to their basic com- mitment to biological practice and concepts and their broad domain of study in the plant and animal kingdoms (in which it is useful to designate a subspecies). It may also be related to less contact with clinal data on human variation, less exposure to the debate over race in the 1960s, greater insulation from the social movements of the 1960s, and their biographical characteristics, in- cluding the greater conservatism of those attracted to biology (Ladd and Lipset 1975).
The frequency of rejection of race by biological an- thropologists is intermediate between that of biologists and cultural anthropologists. As compared to cultural anthropologists, this may reflect the more comprehen- sive commitment of biological anthropologists to bio- logical concepts, of which systematics or taxonomy is part. Several subfields of biological anthropology- such as paleoanthropology, genetic and molecular an- thropology, primate behavior, demography and human population biology, epidemiology, and forensic anthro- pology-involve dedication to biological concepts in which taxonomy is more or less taken for granted. As compared to biologists, however, biological anthro- pologists consider the concept of human culture rele- vant to human evolutionary scenarios, although they give it less emphasis than do cultural anthropologists. Also in comparison to biologists, biological anthropolo- gists are more aware of the debate over race of the late 1960s and are more familiar with clinal data that demon- strates the inadequacy of the concept of race as a tool for research on the geographic distribution of gene fre- quencies. Additionally, there are now many research specialties for biological anthropologists to pursue, in contrast to the emphasis on race that characterized the origins of the discipline. Finally, biological anthropolo- gists are more directly concerned than biologists about the harmful consequences of the race concept.
The very similar rates of rejection and acceptance of race among developmental psychologists may reflect the dual commitment of members of this discipline to the inclusion of both biological and environmental con- cepts in their holistic and eclectic framework (Lerner 1983). This orientation might encompass inclusion by some of a biological concept of race simply because such a concept has not been intensively examined within their research literature. The lack of debate over race also relates to the high frequency of neutral an- swers (28 percent) in this discipline.
It is, in large part, the greater percentage of women in cultural anthropology who reject race which brings the total rejection rate to significant levels, even though female respondents constitute only a minority of all re- spondents in both physical and cultural anthropology. It is apparent that, while women in various fields have been actively deconstructing the Victorian and "scien- tific" concept of woman, those in anthropology have also contributed to the deconstruction of the race con- cept.
The 1982 analysis of textbook content concluded that the demise of the race concept was a potential but not an accomplished fact. Countertrends were identi- fied: "Higher education in the United States is now con- tracting rather than expanding. Cuts in funding are mak- ing a college education less accessible to nonprivileged youth [some of whom are] likely to be receptive to a no- race viewpointn (Littlefield et al. 1982:647). Graduate programs that do not oppose the race concept may be producing more of tomorrow's professors. "In both aca- demic and non-academic arenas, the civil rights gains of the 1960s and 1970s are under attack. These trends sug- gest that the race concept may be with us for some time to come and may even experience a renewal during the 1980s" (Littlefield et al. 1982:647). The conditions that began growing in the early 1980s are strongly evident in the mid-1990s (see Goodman and Armelagos 1996). En- compassing these external conditions is a stagnant or low-growth economy increasingly stratified into a nar- row high-income level and a growing low-wage sector, with national elections determined by a shrinking and fear-ridden electorate.
Within the discipline of anthropology conceptual developments are less than favorable. The cline con- cept was a data-based alternative to the race concept in the period of the great debate (Lieberman 1968), but relatively little research has been generated since then. Exceptions are geneticists Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Albert Piazza's The History and Geogra- phy of Human Genes (1994), presenting a prodigious number of clinal maps, and Joseph B. Birdsell's Microevolutionary Patterns inAboriginal Australia (1993), presenting clinal maps of his earlier research in Austra- lia.
The future of the race concept also depends on its use in other areas of research such as the origins of modern Homo sapien~.~
The two contending sides in the debate over mtDNA and the fossil record both util- ize the ideas of lineages and geographic regions, terms lacking the typological and taxonomic implications of race as a subspecific term. But they also use the race label. Is this an expression of the power of everyday cul- ture or the once great tradition of the discipline? What does the race concept add to the analysis? It seems hardly necessary to use it when geographical designations of origin would do aswell, are more precise, and carry less historical baggage than the race concept.
In terms of the magnitude of influence on the data reported here (Table Z), I conclude that the pattern of results is due to discipline, to the interaction of disci- pline and gender, and to the external social context in which these forces interact. Sociologists Judith Stacey and Barrie Thorne write:
Feminist gains in anthropology are impressive. We believe that the transformation of the core domain assumption of the discipline has been more radical than in any other field. And these conceptual breakthroughs have achieved greater acceptance by many of the prominent scholars in the field. . . . Anthropology seems to provide the best example of a discipline that is benefitting from a feminist "revolution." [1985:306]
Clearly, female anthropologists, from their research situations in primatology and cultural anthropol- ogy, have raised worthwhile challenges to several as- pects of existing anthropological views (see Morgan 1989). Both male and female anthropologists point to primate societies that are "structured around female kinship groups aswell as male hierarchiesn (Linda Fedi- gan 1982:iii) and research concluding that the impetus to the evolution of our bipedal lineage may not have been derived solely from the way of life of man-the- hunter but also from the efforts of woman-the-gatherer in the woodlands and savannas of 3 or more million years ago, foraging for food for herself and her offspring (Linton 1979; Tanner 1981), with assistance .from the foraging male (Zihlman 1989).
I have described the part played by women earlier in the century in the deconstruction of racism and pro- posed that this process preceded deconstructing the race concept in the 1960s. I have presented data indicat- ing that the striking decline of race in anthropology may in part be understood by the large proportion of women who reject the concept, and I have also described trends favoring the continuation of the concept. Increased re- jection of race depends upon studying human variation in terms of gradations or clines, a knowledge of genetics capable of exposing the weaknesses of the race con- cept, the theoretical tradition of anthropology and its dual emphasis on biological evolution and culture, and the continued entry of women into this discipline sensi- tized by feminist perspectives.
The construction of race and gender, the decon- struction of the race concept, and the reconstruction of gender were, and still are, intertwined, as conceptions of race and gender have been mutually reinforcing hier- archies. The deconstruction of both race and gender were facilitated by critiques of racism and sexism, and women played active roles in both of these campaigns. In the case of race, they provided the support in anthro- pology which has resulted in a majority rejecting the concept. In the case of gender, women in many disci- plines are redefining it. These changes are yet another example of how scientific concepts, especially those with biological implications about human nature, are subject to social construction, deconstruction, and re- construction.
Acknowledgments. I am grateful for the very helpful com- ments of C. Loring Brace, Robert L. Blakely, and an anony- mous reviewer for the American Anthropologist. I have also benefited from the long-term cooperation of my colleagues Alice Littlefield and Lany T. Reynolds, the numerous authors of books and articles upon which I rely, and the women and men who have fought racism and the race concept throughout the 20th century. My most deeply felt gratitude is for the encouragement of Leslie Lieberman (1925-1992), professor of family studies, my colleague and wife.
The other women included Mary Colton, Mary Hemen- way, Millicent Rogers, Mary Wheelwright, and Amelia White. See also Hinton 1994 and McGreevy 1994.
Lieberman et al. 1992; Lieberman and Reynolds 1996; Lieberman et al. 1989.
- Weltfish believes the defeat occurred because members felt it was proposed by Boas, when in fact E. A. Hooton had written and proposed it (Weltfish 1981). The motion was passed unanimously at a subsequent session (December 30, 1938)after AAA President Edward Sapir explained that it had been written by Hooton of Harvard. Boas attributed the pas- sage to the 1,284 American scientists who had earlier that year signed a manifesto criticizing Nazi ideas about race (Barkan 1992:339).
- Utilizing national membership directories, random sam- ples were selected for members of the Animal Behavior Soci- ety, cultural anthropologists in the American Anthropological Association, and developmental psychologists in the Ameri- can Psychological Association. All persons in the AAA listing a specialty in biological anthropology were included. The percentages of returned and usable questionnaires from fac- ulty at Ph.D.-granting institutions were: biologists, 81;biological anthropologists, 71; cultural anthropologists, 69; psychological anthropologists, 54;and developmental psychologists,
Cann et al. 1987;Lieberman and Jackson 1995;Wolpoff 1993.
- See also Bleier 1984;Fee 1983, 1986; Gilligan 1982; and Keller 1983.
- The described differences between male and female should not be allowed to obscure similarities between men and women (Tavris 1992). Deaux (1984:107) and Eagly and Carli (1981) reviewed the influence of gender differences on influenceability and found they accounted for 1 percent of variance. In everyday language, the measured differences between males and females on various attributes are small.
1989 Katherine Dunham (1912-). In Women Anthropolo- gists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 80-87. Urbana: Uni- versity of Illinois Press.
Babcock, Barbara A., and Nancy J. Parezo
1988 Daughters of the Desert. Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest, 1880-1980. Albu- querque: University of New Mexico Press.
1994 "Not in the Absolute Singularn: Re-reading Ruth Benedict. In Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest. N. J. Parezo, ed. Pp. 107-128. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Barkan, Elazar 1992 The Retreat of Scientific Racism. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.
Benedict, Ruth 1940 Race: Science and Politics. New York: Viking Press. 1943 Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Benedict, Ruth, and Gene Weltfish 1943 The Races of Mankind. Public Affairs Committee Pamphlet, 85. New York: Public Affairs Committee. Berleant-Schiller, Riva
1989 Gitel (Gertrude) Poznanski. In Women Anthropolo- gists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 331-336. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Birdsell, Joseph B. 1993 Microevolutionary Patterns in Aboriginal Australia. New York: Oxford University Press. Bleier, Ruth 1984 Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology and Its Theories on Women. New York: Pergamon Press. Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich 1865 On the Natural Varieties of Mankind. Thomas Bedyshe, trans. New York: Bergman. Bolles, A. Lynn
1989 E. Irene Diggs (1906). In Women Anthropologists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 59-64. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Brace, C. Loring
1964 A Nonracial Approach towards the Understanding of Human Diversity. In The Concept of Race. A. Montagu, ed. Pp. 103-152. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Brues, Alice 1977 People and Races. New York: Macmillan. Bunzel, Ruth L. 1959 Chichicastenango: A Guatemalan Village. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 1966 May Mandelbaum Edel (1909-1964). American An- thropologist 68:98&989.
1972 The Pueblo Potter: A Study of Creative Imagi- nation in Primitive Art. New York: Columbia University Press.
Burlin, Natalie Curtis 1904 The Value of Indian Art. Southern Workman 33: 448-450.
Caffrey, Margaret M. 1989 Ruth Benedict: Stranger in This Land. Austin: Univer- sity of Texas Press. Cann, Rebecca L., Mark Stoneking, and Allan C. Wilson 1987 Mitochondria1 DNA and Human Evolution. Nature 325:31-36. Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca, Paolo Menozzi, and Albert Piazza 1994 The History and Geography of Human Genes. Prince- ton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Clark, Ve' Ve', and Margaret B. Wilkerson, eds. 1978 KAISO: Katherine Dunham: An Anthology of Writ- ings. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cole, Johnathan R. 1979 Fair Science, Women in the Scientific Community. New York: Free Press. Daniels, Arlene Kaplan
1975 Feminist Perspectives in Sociological Research. In Another Voice. M. Millman and R. M. Kanter, eds. Pp. 340-380. New York: Anchor Books.
Day, Caroline B. 1932 A Study of Some Negro-White Families in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Harvard University.
Deaux, Kay 1984 From Individual Differences to Social Categories: Analysis of a Decade's Research on Gender. American Psychologist 39:105-116. Deloria, Ella Cara 1929 The Sun Dance of the Ogala Sioux. Journal of Ameri- can Folklore 42:354-413. 1944 Speaking of Indians. New York: Friendship Press. Dobzhansky, Theodosius 1963 Comment. Current Anthropology 4:197. Du Bois, W. E. B., ed. 1906 The Health and Physique of the Negro American. Atlanta, GA: Atlanta University Press. Dunham, Katherine 1941 The Negro Dance. In The Negro Caravan. S. A. Brown, A. P. Davis, and U. Lee, eds. Pp. 991-1000. New York: Dryden Press. Eagly, Alice H. J., and Linda L. Carli 1981 Sex of Researchers and Sex Typed Communication as Determinants of Sex Differences in Influenceability: A Meta-analysis of Social Influences Studies. Psychological Bulletin 90: 1-20. Edwards, Violet 1945 Note on The Races of Mankind. In Race: Science and Politics. R. Benedict. Rev. edition. Pp. 167-168. New York: Viking Press. Fedigan, Linda Marie 1982 Primate Paradigms: Sex Roles and Social Bonds. Montreal: Eden Press. Fedigan, Linda Marie, and Laurence Fedigan 1989 Gender and the Study of Primates. In Gender and Anthropology. S. Morgan, ed. Pp. 41-64. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association. Fee, E. 1983 Woman's Nature and Scientific Objectivity. In Woman's Nature: Rationalizations of Inequality. M. Lowe and R. Hubbard, eds. Pp. 9-27. New York: Pergamon Press.
1986 Critiques of Modem Science. The Relationship of Feminists to Other Radical Epistemologies. In Feminine Approaches to Science. R. Bleier, ed. Pp. 42-56. New York: Pergamon Press.
Fletcher, Alice 1883 Sun Dance of the Ogalalla Sioux. Proceedings, American Association for the Advancement of Science 21:580-584.
Gacs, Ute, Alisha Khan, Jerrie McIntyre, and Ruth Weinberg, eds. 1989 Women Anthropologists: A Biographical Dictionary. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Gailey, Christine Ward
1989 Eleanor Burke Leacock (1922-1987). In Women An- thropologists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 215-221. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Ganteaume, Cecile R.
1989 Nancy Oestreich Lurie (1924-). In Women Anthro- pologists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp.238-245. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Garn, Stanley 1964 Comment. Current Anthropology 5:316. Gilligan, Carol 1982 In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press. Goldfrank, Esther Schiff 1927 The Social and Ceremonial Organization of Cochiti. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association,
33. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Associa- tion. Goodman, Alan H., and George J. Armelagos
1996 Race, Racism and the New Physical Anthropology. In Race and Other Misadventures: Essays in Honor of Ashley Montagu. L. T. Reynolds and L. Lieberman, eds. Pp. 172-186. Dix Hill, NY: General Hall Publishers.
1994 Among Women: Gender and Ethnographic Authority of the Southwest, 1930-1980. In Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native American South- west. N. J. Parezo, ed. Pp. 129-145. Albuquerque: Univer- sity of New Mexico Press.
1989 Dorothea Cross Leighton. In Women Anthropolo- gists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 231-237. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Halpem, Katherine Spencer
1994 Women in Applied Anthropology in the Southwest: The Early Years. In Hidden Scholars: Women Anthro- pologists and the Native American Southwest. N. J. Parezo, ed. Pp. 189-201. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Hardin, Margaret Ann
1994 Zuni Potters and the Pueblo Potter: The Contribu- tions of Ruth Bunzel. In Hidden Scholars: Women An- thropologists and the Native American Southwest. N. J. Parezo, ed. Pp. 259-269. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Harrison, Faye V. 1992 The DuBoisian Lkgacy in Anthropology. Critique of Anthropology 12:239-260. Hemenway, Robert E. 1980 Zora Neale Hurston: A Literary Biography. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Hieb, Louis A.
1994 Elsie Clews Parsons in the Southwest. In Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native Ameri- can Southwest. N. J. Parezo, ed. Pp. 63-75. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1964 The Concept of Race and the Taxonomy of Mankind. In The Concept of Race. A. Montagu, ed. Pp. 4243. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
1994 Women in Southwestern Linguistic Studies. In Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest. N. J. Parezo, ed. Pp. 233-251. Albu- querque: University of New Mexico Press.
Hrdy, Sarah B. 1984 Introduction to Section 11. Female Reproductive Strategies. In Female Primates: Studies by Women Pri- matologists. M. F. Small, ed. Pp. 103-109. New York: Alan
R. Liss. Hurston, Zora Neale 1934 Jonah's Gourd Vine. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott. Huxley, Julian S. 1938 Clines: An Auxiliary Method in Taxonomy. Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde 27:491-520. Hyrnes, Dell, ed. 1969 Reinventing Anthropology. New York Random House. James, Alice
1989 Dorothy Louise Strouse Keur (1904-). In Women Anthropologists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 181-186. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kaplan, Bernice A. 1954 Environment and Human Plasticity. American An- thropologist 56:780-800. Kehoe, Alice Beck
1995 Undervalued Contributors. Review of Hidden Schol- ars: Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest, N. J. Parezo, ed. Science 269:1600-1601.
Keller, Evelyn Fox 1982 Feminism and Science. Signs 8:659-671. 1983 A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Keur, Dorothy Louise 1941 Big Bead Mesa: An Archaeological Study of Navaho Acculturation 1745-1912. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, 1. Menasha, WI: Society for American Archaeology.
Klineberg, Otto 1935 Race Differences. New York: Harper. Ladd, Everett Carl, Jr., and Seymour Martin Lipset 1975 The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1994 Gladys Reichard among the Navajo. InHidden Schol- ars: Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest. N. J. Parezo, ed. Pp. 157-181. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Lancaster, Jane B. 1973 In Praise of the Achieving Female Monkey. Psychol- ogy Today 7:30,32-36,99. Landes, Ruth Schlossberg 1952 Preliminary Statement of a Survey of Negro-White Relations in Britain. Man 52:133. 1955 Biracialism in American Society: A Comparative View. American Anthropologist 57:1253-1264. Lange, Charles H. 1994 The Contributions of Esther S. Goldfrank. In Hidden
Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native Ameri- can Southwest. N. J. Parezo, ed. Pp. 221-232. Albuquer- que: University of New Mexico Press.
Leacock, Eleanor B. 1949 The Seabird Community. In Indians of the Urban Northwest. M. Smith, ed. Pp. 185-195. New York: Colum- bia University Press.
1989 Gladys Amanda Reichard (1893-1955). In Women Anthropologists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 303-309. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Leighton, Dorothea, and Clyde Kluckhohn 1946 The Navajo. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lerner, Richard M.
1983 Developmental Psychology: Historical and Philo- sophical Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lesser, Alexander 1981 Franz Boas. In Totems and Teachers. S. Silverman, ed. Pp. 1-33. New York: Columbia University Press. Lieberman, Leonard 1968 The Debate over Race: A Study in the Sociology of Knowledge. Phylon 39:127-141. Lieberman, Leonard, Raymond E. Hampton, Alice L. Littlefield, and Glen Hallead 1992 Race in Biology and Anthropology: A Study of Col- lege Texts and Professors. Journal of Research in Sci- ence Teaching 29(3):301-321. Lieberman, Leonard, and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson 1995 Race and Three Models of Human Origin. American Anthropologist 97:231-242. Lieberman, Leonard, and Rodney C. Kirk 1997 Teaching about Human Variation: An Anthropologi- cal Tradition for the Twenty-First Century. InThe Teach- ing of Anthropology: Problems, Issues, and Decisions.
C. R. Kottak, J. J. White, R. H. Furlow, and P. C. Rice, eds. Pp. 193-207. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Lieberman, Leonard, and Larry T. Reynolds
1996 Race: The Deconstruction of a Scientific Concept. In Race and Other Misadventures: Essays in Honor of Ashley Montagu. L. T. Reynolds and L. Lieberman, eds. Pp. 142-173. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall Publishers.
Lieberman, Leonard, and Patricia C. Rice 1996 Races or Clines? Module No. 3 in Teaching Anthro- pology. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Asso- ciation.
Lieberman, Leonard, Blaine W. Stevenson, and Larry T. Reynolds 1989 Race and Anthropology: A Core Concept without Con- sensus. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 20:67-73. Littlefield, Alice, Leonard Lieberman, and Larry T. Reynolds
1982 Redefining Race: The Potential Demise of a Concept in Physical Anthropology. Current Anthropology 23:641-647.
Linton, Sally 1979 Woman the Gatherer. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Asso- ciation, San Diego.
Livingstone, Frank B. 1958 Anthropological Implications of Sickle Cell Gene Distributions in West Africa. American Anthropologist 60:533-562.
1962 On the Non-Existence of Human Races. Current Anthropology 3:279-281. Longino, Helen E.
1990 Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lurie, Nancy Oestreich 1944 Culture Change among the Winnebago. Wisconsin Archaeologist 25:119-125.
1966 Women in Early Anthropology. In Pioneers of Ameri- can Anthropology. J. Helm, ed. Pp. 29-81. Seattle: Univer- sity of Washington Press.
Marks, Jonathan 1995 Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Marriott, Alice 1948 Maria: The Potter of San Ildefonso. Norman: Univer- sity of Oklahoma Press. Marshall, Gloria [Niara Sudarkasa] 1968 Racial Classifications: Popular and Scientific. In Science and the Concept of Race. M. Mead, T. Dobzhansky,
E. Tobach, and R. E. Light, eds. Pp. 149-164. New York: Columbia University Press. McGreevy, Susan Brown
1994 Daughters of Affluence: Wealth, Collecting, and Southwestern Institutions. In Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest.
N. J. Parezo, ed. Pp. 76-100. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Mead, Margaret
1928 Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological Study of Primitive Youth for Western Civilization. New York: Wil- liam Morrow.
1930 Growing Up in New Guinea: A Comparative Study of Primitive Education. New York: William Morrow. Medicine, Beatrice 1989 Ella Cara Deloria (1888-1971). In Women Anthro- pologists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan,
J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 45-50. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Mednick, Lois W., and Martin Orans 1956 The Sickle Cell Gene: Migration versus Selection. American Anthropologist 58:293-295. Mikell, Gwendolyn
1989 Zora Neale Hurston. In Women Anthropologists: A
Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Kahn, J. McIntyre,
and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 160-166. Urbana: University of
Millet, Kate 1970 Sexual Politics. Garden City, NY: Harcourt Brace. Modell, Judith
1989 Ruth Fulton Benedict (1887-1948). In Women An-
thropologists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A.
Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 1-7. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Montagu, Ashley 1942 Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. New York: Columbia University Press. 1952 The Natural Superiority of Women. New York: Macmillan. 1962 The Concept of Race. American Anthropologist 64:919-928. Morgan, Sandra
1989 Gender and Anthropology: Introductory Essay. In
Gender and Anthropology. S. Morgan, ed. Pp. 1-20. Wash-
ington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Parezo, Nancy J.
1989 Matilda Coxe Stevenson (1849-1915). In Women An- thropologists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 337-343. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
1994a Anthropology: The Welcoming Science. In Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native Ameri- can Southwest. N. J. Parezo, ed. Pp. 3-37. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1994b Matilda Coxe Stevenson, Pioneer Ethnologist. In Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest. N. J. Parezo, ed. Pp. 38-62. Albu- querque: University of New Mexico Press.
Park, George, and Alice Park
1989 Ruth Sclossberg Landes (190%). In Women Anthro- pologists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 208-214. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Parsons, Elsie Clews 1919 Mothers and Children at Zuni, New Mexico. Man 19:168-173. 1936 Taos Pueblo. General Series in Anthropology, 2. Menasha, WI: American Anthropological Association. Pathe, Ruth E.
1989 Gene Weltfish (1902-1980). In Women Anthropolo- gists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 372-381. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Powdermaker, Hortense 1939 After Freedom: A Cultural Study in the Deep South. New York: Viking.
1944a The Anthropological Approach to the Problem of
Modifying Race Attitudes. Journal of Negro Education
DECONSTRUCTINGRACE / LEONARDLIEBERMAN 557
1944b Probing Our Prejudices. New York: Harper and Brothers. Poznanski (Steed), Gitel
1946 The Strategy of Decimation. InThe Black Book: The Nazi Crime against the Jewish People. The Jewish Black Book Committee and Ursula Wassermon, eds. Pp. 11 1-240. New York: Duell, Sloan, Pearce.
n.d. American Anthropology Obituary Index. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, St. Martin's College, Lacey, WA.
Reichard, Gladys Amanda 1928 Social Life of the Navajo Indians. New York: Colum- bia University Press. 1943 Human Nature as Conceived by the Navajo Indians. Review of Religion 7:353-360. Rodriguez, Clara E. 1989 Puerto Ricans: Born intheU.S.A. Boston: UnwinHyman. Rossi, Alice S. 1977 A Biosocial Perspective on Parenting. Daedalus 106:l-31. Rowell, Thelma E.
1984 Introduction to Section I: Mothers, Infants and Ado- lescents. In Female Primates: Studies by Women Prima- tologists. M. F. Small, ed. Pp. 3-16. New York: Alan R. Liss.
Shipman, Pat 1994 The Evolution of Racism: Human Differences and the Use and Abuse of Science. New York: Simon and Schuster. Silverman, Sydel
1989 Hortense Powdermaker (1869-1970). In Women An- thropologists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 291-296. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Smith, Patricia, and Elizabeth Midlarsky 1989 Empirically Derived Conceptions of Femaleness and Maleness: A Current View. Sex Roles 12:313-328. Spier, Leslie R., and Alfred L. Kroeber 1943 Elsie Clews Parsons. American Anthropologist 45:244-255. Stacey, Judith, and Barrie Thorne 1985 The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology. Social Problems 32(4):301-316. Stevenson, Matilda Coxe 1881 Zuni and the Zunians. Washington, DC: [Matilda
Coxe Stevenson]. 1888 Zuni Religion. Science 11(268):136-137. 1898 Zuni Ancestral Gods and Masks. American Anthro-
pologist, o.s., 11:33-40. Stonequist, Everett V. 1937 The Marginal Man. New York: Charles Scribner. Tanner, Nancy Makepeace 1981 On Becoming Human. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Tavris, Carol 1992 The Mismeasure of Woman: Paradoxes and Perspec- tivesin the Study of Gender. New York: Simon and Shuster. Tisdale, Shelby J. 1994 Women on the Periphery of the Ivory Tower. In Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native
American Southwest. N. J. Parezo, ed. Pp. 31 1-333. Albu- querque: University of New Mexico Press.
Tobach, Ethel 1968 Discussion. In Science and the Concept of Race. M. Mead, T. Dobzhansky, E. Tobach, and R. E. Light, eds. Pp. 106-108. New York: Columbia University Press. Underhill, Ruth M. 1936 Autobiography of a Papago Woman. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, 46. Menasha, WI: American Anthropological Association. 1938 Singing for Power. Berkeley: University of California Press. Webb, Malcolm C. 1968 The Culture Concept and Culture Change in the Work of Margaret Mead. Louisiana Academy of Sciences 31:148-165. Weltfish, Gene 1945 Science and Prejudice, with Proposed Scientist's Oath. Scientific Monthly 61:210-212.
1981 Comment. InTotems and Teachers. S. Silverman, ed. Pp. 29-30. New York: Columbia University Press. Williams, Robert C. 1995 Measuring Genetic Admixture: The Gila River Story. Evolutionary Anthropology 3234-92. Wolpoff, Milford H.
1993 Multiregional Evolution: The Fossil Alternative to Eden. In The Human Evolution Source Book. R. L. Ciochon and J. G. Fleagle, eds. Pp. 476-497. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yans-McLaughlin, Virginia 1989 Margaret Mead (1901-1978). In Women Anthropolo- gists: A Biographical Dictionary. U. Gacs, A. Khan, J. McIntyre, and R. Weinberg, eds. Pp. 252-260. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Zihlman, Adrienne 1989 Woman the Gatherer: The Role of Women in Early Hominid Evolution. In Gender and Anthropology. S. Mor- gan, ed. Pp. 21-40. Washington, DC: American Anthropo- logical Association.