HH Goddard

[Christopher D. Green]

_Mismeasure of Man_, while very entertaining and informative, is not very highly regarded by historians because of its sensationalism (e.g., no one ever simply modifies their position in light of new evidence; they always "recant"). Nevertheless, like everyone else, I was shocked when I first learned of the retouched photos. Surely this was clear evidence of fraud in the service of a political agenda, I assumed. I have a great deal of respect for Ray Fancher's historical skills, however (disclaimer: he is a colleague of mine), and I believe his finding that photo-retouching of this sort was relatively common in Goddard's time. (You might also look at his book, _The Intelligence Men_.) I haven't read Leila Zenderland's book, so I can't comment on it. Obviously Goddard (or whoever) retouched them to emphasize a particular characteristic he perceived in the faces (much as a diagram emphasizes certain features). Whether *more* retouching was done than was customary, whether the retouching "legitimately" drew attention to real features of interest or "illegitimately" created features that weren't really there, would take a person with far more expertise than I have about the history of photography to answer with any authority. (Actually, I have a vague memory -- sorry, I can't come up with a reference for this -- that the "kakos" side family was tracked down later and it turned out that they weren't imbeciles after all -- surprise!!) When all is said and done, I still have little doubt that Goddard had a point to make, and decided he was going to make on the back of this poor family that couldn't really defend itself. I have no doubt of his sincerity, but he doesn't seem to have made a strong distinction between real evidence and mere illustration (then again, the "case study" was still widely considered a legitimate form of research at this time, and the Kallikaks were, in effect, a case study) . What the matter points up, however, are the complications that sometimes arise in answering of even apparently simple historical questions, and the reason that historical context is needed to answer them fairly.  For us, of course, if, say, _Time_ magazine published retouched photos roday we'd scream "Fraud!" At a time when the "meaning" that photos have today hadn't fully crystalized, when the days in which newspapers and magazines regularly used drawings were within living memory, when the quality of photos was such that they often didn't reflect features that were fairly obvious to a direct observer of the photographed scene, retouching may have had a different relation to the viewer and to truth. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ============================ . Aubyn Fulton wrote: I always appreciate Christopher's historical contributions; since we are on Goddard, perhaps I can squeeze in a follow-up question.   In his *Mismeasure of Man* Gould makes good dramatic use of the Kallikak story, and especially hits the punch-line that the photos used to bolster and illustrate Goddard's claims were "doctored". The Vineland site that Christopher referred us to does have some interesting background, and seems to acknowledge that Goddard's passion for eugenics led him to intellectual dishonesty, but it also says that not only has it not been established that Goddard himself knew of the "photo-doctoring" but that the process may have been a relatively innocent standard practice of photo publishing in books of the day.   The site gives some references for the more rehabilitative version of the Goddard "Photo-Gate" scandal: Fancher, R. E. (1987). Henry Goddard and the Kallikak Family photographs: "Conscious skullduggery" or "Whig history"? American Psychologist, 42, 585-590. Zenderland, L. (1998). Measuring minds: Henry Herbert Goddard and the origins of American intelligence testing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. I have good intentions of looking these up, but in the event that more mundane items on my to do list intervene, I wonder if Chris or anyone else on the list has a take on the bottom line of this episode? Can we reasonably conclude that the Kallikak photos were deliberate attempts of forgery, and if so, is it reasonable to conclude that Goddard knew about it?     Aubyn **************************************************** Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Chair, Behavioral Science Department Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 94508 Office: 707-965-6536 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****************************************************   --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]