“The tragedy of these undemocratic prejudices lies in their absurd falsity. Just as there is a stage Jew, a stage Frenchman, a stage Chinese, so in real life there is a symbolic Jew, a symbolic Frenchman, and a symbolic Chinese” p. 13.
In probably the most compelling point in his essay, Franz Boas, German-American anthropologist, tells the story of a young man he meets during his days teaching at UC Berkley. He explains that this young man approaches him after a particularly compelling class on racial prejudice and tells him (Boas) that he has “convinced him of the unreasonableness of the arguments brought forward in support of an innate antipathy.” (p. 8). With this said, he accompanies Boas while walking to his next class, and as they pass a Japanese person, he “broke into a great passion” and angrily exclaimed how he despised Japanese people. Boas presents this, along with a few other instances of prejudice he has encountered, as having shown him that such apntipathies is based on emotion and not reason. He continues this by even talking about how there is no such thing as racial purity (a distinct German race, a French race, or an Italian race); instead, it is an idea that “stimulates their (nationalists) emotional life.” (pg 10)
This is a recurring theme in his essays in Race and Democratic Society, and while he makes many claims, the point he keeps coming back to is that race really isn’t all that substantive or empirical. He begins this first by explaining what the word race even means to people. According to Boas, for most, race is defined as “a people descended from the same stock… Incorporating all physical and mental traits of common ancestors with individual differences, narrowly limited”; therefore, there is a level of resemblance expected from these peoples. (p. 6) He responds to this definition of race by stating that this simply isn’t a reality and that “even among the blackskinned Negroes or slant-eyed Mongols, the variations are wide.” (p. 7) Therefore, if race can’t be determined by looks, people might turn to mannerisms, but once again, Boas finds this determination lacking. He explains that while it makes sense that people, if they are from a close-knit community, might have similar outlooks and attitudes, once they are removed from these settings, they are removed from those dispositions. “Even identical twins, when brought up in different environments, behave differently” (p. 7). This, along with simply looking at any large American city, proved to Boas that even if bodily structure were to play a role in social behavior, it undoubtedly did not withstand environmental influence (e.g., a first-generation immigrant vs. a second-generation immigrant), but for those with prejudice, this did not matter. This compels him to say, “The tragedy of these undemocratic prejudices lies in their absurd falsity. Just as there is a stage Jew, a stage Frenchman, a stage Chinese, so in real life there is a symbolic Jew, a symbolic Frenchman, and a symbolic Chinese” While some are generalization might not be so harmful (the generalization of a school teacher or a mail man) generalizations become dangerous when they are taken to the “fanatical extremes” as done by the Nazi’s who went so far as to reject the theory of relativity because of Einstein, a Jew, or claim that there was a Jewish approach to mathematics (pg. 9) Boas ends this segments by stating that the obvious remedy to these prejudices even present in the US, was education and that it was time to return to the fundamental democratic principles that, “a citizen is to be judged solely by the readiness with which he fits himself into the social structure and by the value of his contributions to the country’s development (pg. 9)
I think Boas’s writings about race are as relevant now as they were in 1945, not because people aren’t aware of the points that he makes in his essays, but because they need to be reminded of them. I had a political science professor once who would always get mad if anyone said that history repeats itself because, in his mind, history was never so simple as to just repeat itself, instead it echoes because echos are harder to hear. I think when we look around and see things such as an alt-right resurgence across Europe (notably Italy and Germany) and a revival of antisemitic rhetoric (whether intentional or unintentional), we have to question whether or not people really heard it (the arguments against racial prejudice) the first time or if they simply don’t care. I would argue that one place Boas got it wrong is in his claim that the obvious remedy to racial prejudice is education. (p. 9) I think that while education might have been the obvious remedy to racial prejudice in 1945, in 2024 it is obvious that education simply isn’t enough. I first thought this while paging through George Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism, where he states that while in Europe antisemitism was like the opioid of the masses, it was somehow particularly enticing to intellectuals (even if they were embarrassed to have been labeled as antisemites). He continues to state that the antisemite is entirely aware that their outlook is indefensible, but this, for some reason, never stops them from harboring that hate. So my question is, if education can no longer be (if it ever was) our savior from racial prejudice and antisemitism, then what is? How have the racial prejudices and antisemitism of the past adapted to take room even in a highly educated society when facts are simply one Google search away? And most importantly, if we are in an age of alt-right resurgence along with antisemitism and racial prejudice, are these insurgences a sign that we are headed down a path of anti-intellectualism?
I also agree that Boaz’s points are just as relevant today. Your questions at the end were also very thought provoking, and I would say I agree with Boaz that education is very crucial in trying to overcome prejudice and hate, though I do agree that sometimes it can feel like even that is not enough when history seems to repeat itself even when the world vows to never repeat its mistakes. The question of racial prejudices and antisemitism of the past still existing in a highly educated society is really interesting to me as well because many of the top Nazis were “highly educated” and were considered to be the most “civilized” yet committed horrific acts, so its can feel challenging to say that “education” will solve the world’s problems. Education doesn’t always lead to open-mindedness, and today with the internet, people can easily find “facts” that confirm their existing beliefs, and hateful people can distort historical events to fit their agendas. I agreed with many of the points that Boaz made about prejudice, but I was left a bit puzzled by his closing statement about prejudice: “Thus it would seems that man being what he is, the Negro problem will not disappear in America until the Negro blood has been so much diluted that it will no longer be recognized just as antisemitism will not disappear until the last vestige of the jew as a Jew has disappeared”(81). Is Boaz arguing that prejudice will only disappear when we live in a “color blind” society?
As Mia mentioned, Boas defines race as people who “come from the same stock.” He expands on this calming that race is not a substantive or empirical reality but a socially constructed concept that stimulates emotional responses. This is similar to when Paul-Sartre tried to define what a Jew was saying that the inauthentic Jew existing by virtue of anti-semitism—something he describes as based on a feeling of passion rather than reason. While Boas recognizes the idea of race being socially constructed, he also critiques it as he tries to find a solution for it. This is unlike Sartre who just says to be the most authentic version of yourself and live your way despite the “condition” you have been placed in. Boas suggests that educating people on race would be a possible solution, however, the extent to which he believes it will get rid of prejudices about race.
I completely agree that Franz Boas’ writing is relevant to today’s world. I do believe history is repeating itself. We are seeing the same kind of anti-semitic rhetoric and propaganda that the Nazis used during the Holocaust. It is extremely frightening but I am not too surprised (based on the lack of education people have). I think education is an important way to help solve racial prejudice and it is something we need to continue to work hard to do. That being said, who is willing to be educated, who is the one doing the educating, and what sources are they using, those all make it more complicated. There is so much false information that is spread across social media and various news outlets, but people are ignorant and gullible. So we must educate as many people as possible and flood them with the facts. We just need to make sure they’re willing to listen to us. I don’t think there will ever be a world in which hate and racism are non-existent, but we must try our best to get people to listen and learn. There can still be hope for future generations.
Mia, I really appreciated your thorough analysis and questioning of history echoing throughout. I can say that I have been struggling with understanding how higher education may or may not be complicit in educating students, but not teaching them how to think (Critical Analysis). But, as for your comment about education not necessarily being a cure and understanding the anti-intellectual “black-pill” movement if you are familiar with Elle Reeve’s collection of essays on how the alt-right is influencing social media/politics, I would argue that it is not so much that we are anti-intellectual, but that people are being influenced by social media (among other things) to believe that they are intellectuals or have seen the true light that other people don’t see because they aren’t reading the same things they are. It’s almost like counter-intuitive, because they aren’t being educated but they do think they are learning? I don’t know, I am just fearful of where we are at right now as a society.
I do agree that education is the remedy for racism and antisemitism but in reviewing Boas’ takeaways, it begs the question as to what kind of education? He seems to think racial prejudice can somehow be unlearned but how? Boas suggests that people look at the world through a shared cultural lens depending on their own religion, community, family morals, or ideals. He is adamant that grounding people in an eduction that promotes race as a construct, that grounding them in history will undo cultural racism and open minds. But how can this be taught in a way that satisfies everyone? Who decides how to educate, and with which stories? Who is doing the educating? I think that this is the problem even right now. We have trusted academia questioning the Holocaust, propping up ideologies that undermine the Jewish experience and Jewish history (facts), while others are likely getting some other experiences wrong.
Truthfully, it is tricky it is to figure out how to frame people and their experiences in general — not just Jews. Determining which facts are relevant, historical, and trusted, no matter who we are talking about, just seems to be getting more difficult and convoluted in this day and age.
I really enjoyed reading your post, Mia, and I especially loved the questions you posed at the end because they were the exact type of questions I began asking myself when I finished the piece. Throughout his argument, Boas calls on the tool of education as a mechanism to combat prejudice. As you said in your post, we live in a world of really educated people, and yet we still seem to encounter problems of racism, prejudice, and hate. I think one of the main reasons why this is the case is because of social media (something Franz Boas was never able to account for). Social media has surely done a lot of good, but it has also done a lot of bad. It continues to give everyone an equal platform, and in doing so, it sometimes creates an unequal playing field where people with a following are able to freely spread racism, antisemitism, and other forms of hate. Consumers see this and immediately believe that it must be true, and this is the problem. Many highly educated (especially young) individuals have let social media dictate their minds and opinions. I wonder what Boas would say about this if he were still alive today.
Your transfer of Boas’ work to the modern day is excellent and I really appreciate your focus on his point about education. I feel that, to a degree, his point about education contradicts his own understanding of prejudice as more emotional than rational. I don’t know that education is a complete solution to these issues and saying that people just need to be educated is overly simplistic. How does a society unlearn centuries of bias and hatred? As Lucy said, people are educated, they just haven’t been educated out of their prejudice. Like Boas mentioned on pg. 14, schools were limiting Jewish teachers and students at the same time as our need for education against antisemitism. How do we successfully educate people on prejudice, when it is built into the system? Thank you so much for your thoughts!
I agree with you in your point that education alone couldn’t be successful in eliminating racism or antisemitism. My thoughts in answer to your question would be that one element of the conversation that Boaz ignores in his piece is the structural one. Especially when it comes to racism in the United States, there are many laws that still have racist impacts without addressing race explicitly, and will continue to work this way even if the people in office or carrying them out aren’t prejudiced themselves. To me, this reality suggests that systemic racism would need to be intentionally addressed, as it isn’t something that will just go away on its own. I also wonder if antisemitism could serve as an example of inter-marriage not being a complete answer. Boaz notes on page 39 that Jews “represented a thorough mixture of divergent racial types”, and as we noted in class today, it is more difficult to tell who is Jewish based simply on names or appearances. However, I wonder what Boaz would say today about the fact that antisemitism still exists despite these changes.
I found it interesting from a psychology perspective how Boas talks about how those from different environments and communities behave differently, while I understand the reasoning he was attempting to create his note about twins was not factually correct. I’m curious as to how he would respond to many of the twin studies that have been conducted that prove that genetics play a large role in our behavior. Would this change how Boas views environmental influence? To answer your first question I think not only is education still a huge part of the solution but also productive and respectful conversations that allow individuals and communities to come together and understand the importance of both communication and education through those around us.