Justin’s Notes

Changing the Answer by Changing Which Science Gets Asked

2026-07-20 · AI-generated insight

Degler and Duedahl describe two phases of the same campaign, roughly fifty years apart — and reading them together reveals the campaign's core tactic. Boas didn't primarily refute racial hierarchy with better measurements of skulls (though he did some of that); he changed the discipline that got to answer the question, relentlessly articulating "culture" until social explanation displaced biological explanation as the default. Duedahl shows UNESCO running the identical play at institutional scale: its statements on race drew fire precisely because the organization preferred social scientists over physical anthropologists, making the real dispute one of jurisdiction — "whether the natural or social sciences should take precedence in determining the origins of human difference." The scientific fight over race was, at both stages, substantially a fight over which science owned the topic.

The pairing also complicates Degler's great-man framing. Boas's influence "can hardly be exaggerated" within American social science — but Duedahl's account shows what it took to move the idea beyond that community: four official statements, a publication "bombardment" of national school systems, expert witnesses in the segregation cases, and still nearly two decades before the effort was genuinely global rather than a Western scholars' conversation. Ideas don't diffuse on merit; they require infrastructure, and infrastructure has its own frictions (translation budgets, member-state politics, the failure to even locate non-Western scholars until 1967).

There's an irony buried here too. Boas fought a lonely insurgency against a scientific establishment; by 1950 his intellectual descendants were the establishment being installed by an international body that carefully chose sympathetic experts — Duedahl notes only once was an overt critic included. The anti-racist position was almost certainly correct, but the mechanism of its victory (curated panels, institutional authority, strategic disciplinary preference) mirrors how orthodoxies of any kind get built. Which suggests a general pattern worth watching for: when a scientific consensus shifts, ask not only what new evidence emerged, but which discipline gained custody of the question, and which institution did the choosing.

Woven from these notes

Boas’s influence upon American social scientists in matters of race can hardly be exaggerated. At the same time that racial segregation was being imposed by law in the states of the American South, and eugenics was emerging as a hereditarian solution to social problems. Boas was embarking upon a life-long assault on the idea that race was a primary source of the differences to be found in the mental or social capabilities of human groups. He accomplished his mission largely through his ceaseless, almost relentless articulation of the concept of culture.
— Carl Degler In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought
In 1997, Akira Iriye characterized UNESCO as a hub for cultural internationalism in the wake of World War II, and recent research has confirmed the impression of the organization as an excellent prism reflecting ways of thinking that became popular on a global scale and that it has sometimes even served as the initiating and powerful promotor of concepts that became popular and widely used, such as ‘world heritage’ and ‘global citizenship’. In this article, I have sought to demonstrate another example of the proactive role of UNESCO. The articles has focused on the organization’sefforts to launch a program supposed to combat racial inequality, which is not mentioned by Iriye, but which according to other scholars, placed the organization in the middle of a dispute in international scientific circles over the correct definition of the concept of race. Thus, in the article I have combined Iriye’s focus on the importance of cultural internationalism for global peace-making and UNESCO’s important role with the studies of the organization’s work within the field of race as well as my archival findings in order to draw a conclusion as to whether its showdown with the race concept had a global impact. What we see is that, from 1950 to 1967, UNESCO managed to issue four statements of race formulated by some of the world’s leading yet simultaneously carefully-chosen scientists, most Western and all stressing human equality. The organization’s preference for social scientists rather than physical anthropologists at the same time made the organization a centre of a dispute organized around the question of whether the natural or social sciences should take precedence in determining the origins of human difference, of social division, and the attribution of value. Outside of UNESCO headquarters, the statements for the same reasons caused severe criticism in a time still characterized by European colonialism, American segregation, and South African apartheid policies. Only on one occasion, in 1964, was a researcher chosen despite being overtly critical towards the organization’s work and only in 1967 could the panel of scientists be characterized as truly global in its scope and composition. UNESCO also issued a series of publications that were able to infiltrate national educational systems and which represented a steady bombardment of publications that at least physical anthropologists had to deal with. Critique of their content nonetheless only added to public awareness of the organization’s work. As the cases on segregation reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the outcome of UNESCO’s race program would also play a role. This article shows that experts affiliated with the organization were on several occasions brought in as expert witnesses and that the statements on race highlighted as the newest available research, paving the 16 P. DUEDAHL way towards the eradication of state-approved segregation in the U.S., whereas South Africa chose to withdraw from UNESCO. In sum, the statements and the authority with which the experts spoke had an impact and came to play a major part in imposing the new post-war view of man in several countries. However, it is only after 1960 that UNESCO’s cultural internationalism within the field of race can be said to focus on racism as a problem that had to be solved on a global scale. The main reasons for this was that discussions within academic circles ahead of UNESCO’s race efforts had mainly been going on among Western scholars, that UNESCO failed to locate non-Western scholars, and that dealing with racism was perceived as most urgent in the U.S. and South Africa. Also the expensiveness of translating UNESCO’s findings into all languages, the difficulties of promoting the content in a way that would have an impact on a larger group of people, and the lack of control over the many national environments that received and were supposed to distribute news from UNESCO made a difference. Only after a range of anti-Semitic incidents, the demands of a number of new Asian and African member states, and pressure from the UN, did the initiative gradually change. Altogether, it proved to be more difficult and to take a considerably longer time than initially imagined by UNESCO to turn a few scholar’s idea of race into one with a truly global appeal and impact.
— Poul Duedahl Changing the Concept of Race: On UNESCO and Cultural Internationalism