FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2093690410> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2093690410 endingPage "298" @default.
• W2093690410 startingPage "293" @default.
• W2093690410 abstract "Reviewed by: Anthropology at War: World War I and the Science of Race in Germany Suzanne Marchand Andrew D. Evans , Anthropology at War: World War I and the Science of Race in Germany. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010, 312 pp. Sometimes it takes a modest, carefully-focused book, rather than a sprawling or theoretically-ambitious one, to clarify the issues in a long-running debate. Andrew Evans's Anthropology at War is such a book. Although tightly focused on German anthropologists and ethnographers in the period between about 1900 and 1930 (of whom there were no great number), Anthropology at War offers a convincing answer to the question, when exactly did racial thinking become dominant in German scholarship? Evans also offers some insight into the related question, why did racial thinking catch on? But perhaps because Evans is as much an historian of Germany as an historian of anthropology, he also throws light on some larger dynamics in German history, most importantly the generational changes which contributed to the weakening of the liberal tradition. We can learn much from this modest book—though perhaps not everything we wanted to know. To understand Evans's contribution, we have to sketch some of the debates that have been going on for some time about the history of anthropology [End Page 293] and of racial thought in modern Germany. One of the key questions is, how related are these two things? Was German anthropological thinking always racist? Or, did racial thought always reach for anthropological scholarship? Another question involves the timing of racism's dominance in German culture. We all know that the German-speaking world has produced many liberal thinkers, but has also produced vicious anti-Semites (including Luther) and specialists in racial hygiene. More recently, historians have begun to study German colonial exploits overseas, and to seek there the sources, structures, or practices that might have prefigured the Nazis' racialized imperialism (for example, Hull 2005). But when did racial thinking begin to inform respectable scholarship? Finally, there has long been a general recognition that by the mid-1910s, German anthropological and ethnographic work was moving in different directions from French and British schools of thought (though American anthropologists, under the leadership of German exile Franz Boas, actually remained closer to German schools of thought for a decade or so longer). When exactly did this divergence set in, and why? These obvious related questions have been answered in different, and often opposing ways. George Stocking, who first interested me in the history of anthropology as a student at the University of Chicago in the 1980s, suggested that the divergence between German and Central Europe diffusionist cultural history on the one hand, and French and British ethnographicized anthropology on the other was the product of charismatic functionalists (which the Germans lacked), and traditions inclined to latch on to the social-scientific ideas of Darwin, Durkheim, and Freud. Moreover, France and Britain had larger and long-lasting empires, which afforded them greater opportunities for fieldwork (for example, Stocking 1992:212-275, 356-358). Stocking's critical attempts to demythologize British and French structural-functionalism, and his careful work on American anthropology suggested that the real divergence of the traditions was a post-WWI product—though he never forgot that Franz Boas left for the United States in 1887 in part because he realized that German liberalism was under siege, and that the German university system had little room for left-of-center professors. Stocking was not interested in delving more deeply into the German tradition. But, inspired by his work, some historians of the German sciences began to investigate the origins of German anthropological uniqueness. Just to cite a few, James Ryding's (1978) important essay on diffusionism, and essays and books by Robert Proctor (1988) and Woodruff Smith (1991) underlined [End Page 294] the importance of the passing of leading members of the liberal generation around 1905: Rudolf Virchow died in 1902, Friedrich Ratzel in 1904, and Adolf Bastian in 1905. I, for one, was convinced that this marked the onset of the age of German racial anthropology—though subsequently I have come to think that the peculiarities of the German and..." @default.
• W2093690410 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2093690410 creator A5038664484 @default.
• W2093690410 date "2011-01-01" @default.
• W2093690410 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2093690410 title "<i>Anthropology at War: World War I and the Science of Race in Germany</i> (review)" @default.
• W2093690410 cites W1528513724 @default.
• W2093690410 cites W1966952579 @default.
• W2093690410 cites W1992216470 @default.
• W2093690410 cites W1995531915 @default.
• W2093690410 cites W1995977893 @default.
• W2093690410 cites W2118931679 @default.
• W2093690410 cites W586737082 @default.
• W2093690410 cites W613227155 @default.
• W2093690410 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2011.0003" @default.
• W2093690410 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2093690410 type Work @default.
• W2093690410 sameAs 2093690410 @default.
• W2093690410 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2093690410 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2093690410 hasAuthorship W2093690410A5038664484 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConcept C137355542 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConcept C154775046 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConcept C179454799 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConcept C19165224 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConcept C76509639 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConceptScore W2093690410C107993555 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConceptScore W2093690410C137355542 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConceptScore W2093690410C144024400 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConceptScore W2093690410C154775046 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConceptScore W2093690410C166957645 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConceptScore W2093690410C17744445 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConceptScore W2093690410C179454799 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConceptScore W2093690410C19165224 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConceptScore W2093690410C199539241 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConceptScore W2093690410C2778061430 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConceptScore W2093690410C76509639 @default.
• W2093690410 hasConceptScore W2093690410C95457728 @default.
• W2093690410 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2093690410 hasLocation W20936904101 @default.
• W2093690410 hasOpenAccess W2093690410 @default.
• W2093690410 hasPrimaryLocation W20936904101 @default.
• W2093690410 hasRelatedWork W1991070250 @default.
• W2093690410 hasRelatedWork W2005172318 @default.
• W2093690410 hasRelatedWork W2007056831 @default.
• W2093690410 hasRelatedWork W2064836460 @default.
• W2093690410 hasRelatedWork W2075419108 @default.
• W2093690410 hasRelatedWork W2140008790 @default.
• W2093690410 hasRelatedWork W2954128138 @default.
• W2093690410 hasRelatedWork W2966297373 @default.
• W2093690410 hasRelatedWork W3045578224 @default.
• W2093690410 hasRelatedWork W2162749018 @default.
• W2093690410 hasVolume "84" @default.
• W2093690410 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2093690410 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2093690410 magId "2093690410" @default.
• W2093690410 workType "article" @default.