Mike Palij wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:43:55 -0400, Christopher D. Green wrote:
Regretible as the experiment with Godard's test at Ellis Island was, my
understanding is that it was relatively limited in duration (although it
has gotten an enormous amount of "play" since Gould's _Mismeasure of
Man_ was published).
I admit to not understanding what your point is here, Chris.
There are a couple of different readings that one can make of
your text above, including: [and then I get squeezed between a rock
and a hard place]
Neither of these things, Mike. I was suggesting that Goddard's program
at Ellis Island didn't have the (negative) impact people often attribute
to it because it was short-lived (if I am correct in this recollection).
That doesn't make it "justified" (your term). It only makes it not quite
as horrific or important (to both the history of psychology and the
history of immigration) as is often made out.
...there appears to be an article that appears to be source for the
number provided on the website I cite above. This is:
Goddard, H. H. (1917). Mental tests and the immigrant. Journal
of Delinquency, 2, 243-277.
And a copy of this article is available on web at:
http://harpend.dsl.xmission.com/Documents/goddard.html
Good. I'm glad we have found the source. I have not had time to read
this article carefully. I am somewhat surprised at what appears to be
the relatively small number of people tested. This does not appear to be
the result of several years of testing, perhaps not even several months.
I was beginning to wonder if people had confused Goddard's testing
program at Ellis Island with Yerkes' testing program with draftees into
the US Army during WWI. In his final report, I believe, Yerkes gave the
average mental age of southern and eastern European immigrant draftees
as being at around 11 years (which would have led to their being placed
in the classification group that Goddard dubbed "moron" -- mental age
below 12).
Unfortunately, I don't have a reliable source ready
to hand. Does someone have a copy of Leila Zenderland's biography of
Goddard?
Alas, I do not and the library's copy is out. However, because of the
ambiguities above, I'm not entirely sure how relevant Zenderland's
book is. From the reviews I've read (always a dangerous basis for
evaluating a book) it seems to me that Zenderland attempts to
rehabilitate Goddard's reputation by pointing out that he changed
his position on issues, had a positive influence in other areas, and
that we shouldn't judge people in past on the basis of our "present"
values. You know, the same kind of thing that some folks have tried
to do with Richard M. Nixon. ;-)
I hardly think that this is a correct characterization of Zenderland's
work (though I can understand how non-historians might misinterpret it
that way). It is often the case that historical figures are judged
entirely on the basis of a relatively short, ill-advised episode in
their lives, not infrequently in the service of a political agenda that,
whatever other virtues it might have, has little to do with historical
accuracy. Goddard's career was long and varied. Few today would want to
defend the eugenic, anti-immigrant period of his career. That he soon
retracted these claims is, while not absolving him, seems to me well
worth knowing (if one is interested in the history).
(Nixon, by contrast, was a nasty piece of work from his first
congressional campaign to the bitter end, IMHO).
Consider if, instead of knowing only Gould's characterization of Goddard
(which is all that most people know), the first thing you had read about
him was the following:
"He played a major role in the emerging field of clinical psychology, in
1911 helped to write the first U.S. law requiring that blind, deaf and
mentally retarded children be provided special education within public
school systems, and in 1914 became the first American psychologist to
testify in court that subnormal intelligence should limit the criminal
responsibility of defendants." (from the Wikipedia entry for him)
You opinion of him (and your judgment of the centrality to his career of
his "adventure" on Ellis Island) might be somewhat different.
[NOTE: I am really resisting the urge to bring up "Die Familie Kallikak"
and its effects in Germany as well as on sterilization laws in the
U.S. --
Yes, well, the Nazis also deployed the philosophies of Kant and
Nietzsche for their own purposes. Are we going to blame them for that as
well? To be fair, the Nazis used a lot of American ideas and practices
(not just Goddard's) in the development of their policies. Let us not
forget Indian "reservations." (I am really resisting the urge to bring
up the US continuance of slavery decades past its illegalization in
England. Indeed, I wonder how many Americans know that the reason
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation when he did had little to
do with his own sentiments about slavery. It was timed specifically to
stop the British from breaking the Union blockades of Confederate ports.
As long as the war was about "union," the English didn't care who won,
as long as they got their cotton. As soon as it became a war about
slavery, though -- which it did only once the Proclamation was issued --
the English would be seen to be defending slavery, which they were not
willing to do.)
Also, note, the Nazis weren't the only ones to brandish the Kallikak
book long after Goddard had renounced it. APA President (and
white-supremacist) Henry Garrett continued to do so as well. Now
*there's* someone whose career merits a little more attention!
None of this makes Goddard blameless, of course, but it does make him a
considerably more interesting and nuanced a character than is usually
portrayed.
Regards,
Chris
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164
fax: 416-736-5814
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
