Race
Race
The article under this heading discusses both the history of the concept of race and the cultural definition of race. The biology of race is described under Genetics, especially in the article on Race And Genetics.Social, psychological, and economic aspects of race are described in Discrimination, economic; Ethnic Groups; Individual differences; Intelligence and intelligence testing; Minorities; Prejudice; Race Relations; Segregation.Also relevant is the article Societal Analysis.The biography of Boasshould be consulted for its discussion of Boas’ pioneering studies of the diversity of cultural forms that occur within and between so-called racial groups.
Race engages the attention of social scientists both as a special constellation of cognitive or ideological categories and as a means of explaining sociocultural phenomena. Race is a recurrent ingredient in the ethnosemantics of group identity and intergroup relations. “Social races” are composed of socially defined and significant groups; the study of social race thus is a fundamental aspect of the study of social structure, especially in stratified state societies. Raciological (biological) explanations of sociocultural differences and similarities have attracted the support of a large and not infrequently preponderant scientific consensus. Evaluation of the relevance of racial differences to sociocultural theory thus becomes an inescapable obligation of the social sciences.
Social race
The term race, or its various ethnosemantic glosses, is applied in vernacular contexts to human populations organized along an astonishing variety of principles. Nation-states, such as the Irish, Japanese, or German; tribes such as the Scythian, Iroquois, Zulu; language families such as Slavic, Latin, Semitic; minorities such as the Jews, gypsies, Puerto Ricans; and phenotypically distinct but genetically hybrid aggregates such as whites, Negroes, yellows, and Coloureds are cognitively equivalent in many ethnosemantic contexts. Social scientists have tried to diminish intergroup conflict by exposing the disparity between biologically acceptable definitions of race and those which are entertained at a popular level. Since none of the folk usages is informed by valid genetic principles, the lack of correspondence between social race and biological race should occasion no surprise. Social races encompass both phenotypically similar and phenotypically dissimilar populations; actual gene frequencies, the ultimate goal of infra-species systematics, are obviously not desiderata in folk taxonomies. The cognitive substratum by which so many disparate aggregates are united cannot therefore be regarded as racial in the biological sense. It is quite obvious that in some societies biologically similar populations may be classified into groups which elsewhere go unrecognized. In this respect, the cognitive treatment of racial identity in Brazil is especially instructive. Despite the presence of distinct Negroid and Caucasoid components, the racial categories recognized by Brazilians are not the same as the categories recognized in the United States. In distinguishing socially defined races, therefore, attention must be directed toward common sociocultural rather than common biological features.
Viewed in terms of social structure, the processes by which a group achieves its continuity and by which individuals identify themselves and others are especially significant. Social races are composed of subjectively significant groups, unrestricted by age and sex criteria, in which membership is sociocentric (i.e., appears the same to all egos), is established at birth, endures for life, and confers special behavioral obligations or privileges. Social races differ from other stratified groups (such as classes with low rates of out-mobility) in their methods of maintaining membership and group identity. Social races accomplish this by a special ideological device, the idea of descent. Although the members of a social race are replaced during each generation, the group maintains a continuing identity through varied applications of descent rules. The basic cognitive factor of social races thus is present wherever the decisive test of group membership involves the calculation of genealogical relationships.
Since all kinship groups identify their membership in part through recognized principles of descent, there is a degree of overlap between kin groups and social race. Unilinear descent groups, in which membership is restricted exclusively to consanguineals, exhibit most of the essential ideological components of folk “races”; because membership is determined by descent, it is unambiguous, endures throughout the life of each member, and is associated with behavioral specialties such as marriage restrictions, rituals, and jural privileges. Unilinear descent groups differ from the more familiar instances of social “races” such as the Jews, gypsies, and Negroes in displaying more harmonious relations with outgroups which are founded on exogamic exchanges. Such differences do not distinguish the case of Indian castes, which in all essentials, including intergroup relations, resemble the classic social races. The composite band and the kindred and other nonunilineal groups in which affiliation is regularly achieved through marriage, voluntary recruitment, or option show a correspondingly more remote resemblance to the classic social races.
Racially heterogeneous societies need not be divided into structurally significant social races. If a descent rule is not evolved, categorizations of hybrid phenotypes will tend to correspond to the actual variety of visible intergrades. This is the case in Brazil, where descent plays a negligible role in establishing “racial” identity. In Bahia, full siblings whose phenotypes markedly differ from each other are assigned by different members of their community to contrastive racial categories. Because of the absence of descent rules, pronounced disagreements concerning the identity of individuals frequently occur, and this ambiguity is compounded by the plethora of “racial” categories—as many as forty in a single community and four or five hundred for the country as a whole. Under these conditions, structurally significant sociocentric groups based on racial criteria can scarcely be said to exist.
This conclusion is further warranted by the absence of systematic segregation and discrimination (but not of prejudice) associated with the social categories. Blurred, egocentric, and ambiguous racial identity would thus appear to be a functional correlate of the structural inconsequence of racial factors and the insignificance of descent (Harris 1964, pp. 54-64).
The importance of descent in racial ideology is frequently obscured by the apparent adequacy of phenotypical cues for the establishment of unambiguous identity. Most Americans are skilled in detecting phenotypical traces of Negroid admixture among the members of the community. Yet the much-discussed “high visibility” of the Negro group is belied by the phenomenon of the “white Negro,” a self-identified Negro-by-descent who refuses to “pass” into the white group. The powerful fictions invented through application of a descent principle are further demonstrated by the treatment of children of mixed marriages. Regardless of phenotype, such children are affiliated with the racial group of the lower-ranking parent. This affiliation is not at all a “natural” reflection of phenotypical character; it is rather a social fiction made possible by the peculiar principles of the descent rule practiced in the United States. One of the most common methodological blunders in scientific studies of the significance of racial differences in the United States is the tacit acceptance of this phantasmic notion of race as the basis for establishing research samples (Fried 1964).
Biological race
The development of scientific raciological theories is mainly a by-product of the development of Euro-American biology, although Carl von Linne’s correlation of custom and race in his epoch-making taxonomy, Systema naturae, was certainly not without both learned and popular precedent. Whether the racism that can be discovered in the texts of antiquity, in the Babylonian Talmud, and in the writings of a few Greeks and many Romans deserves to be detached from the underlying matrix of folklore depends on how much emphasis one gives to the distinctive features of post-Galilean science. In Linne’s classification of human varieties (1735), the aboriginal American is reddish in color with straight, dense black hair, and so on. He is “persevering, content, free,” and he paints himself with “skillful red lines.” Europeans are “light, active, ingenious” and “covered with tailored clothes.” Asians are “severe, haughty, miserly” and “covered with loose garments”; while Africans are “crafty, lazy, negligent, anointed with oil” and “governed by whim” (Count 1950, p. 359). Although Linne probably regarded these racial traits as having some degree of permanency, eighteenthcentury biologists generally believed that only the species level of differentiation reflected true hereditary fixity. Linne, like others of that period who believed in the unitary origin of mankind, was obliged to leave the door open for evolution, because if all men were descended from Adam, infraspecies variation had somehow to be explained. Moreover, it was at this time that environmentalism, both social and natural, was being enshrined in radical bourgeois political programs under the influence of Locke’s doctrine of the tabula rasa. Indeed, one of the central ideological themes of the French Revolution was the belief that hereditary differences among men were subordinate to the conditioning influences of education and the natural environment. Hence, on the whole, the eighteenth-century monogenesists tended to deprecate the power and permanence of racial differences. Buffon, for example, whose evolutionist inclinations appear at times to embrace the idea of the transformation of species, considered climate and diet to be the principal causes of racial variation. Like Linné, he correlated cultural and psychological characteristics with racial differences, yet so strong was his environmentalism that he believed all such differences would “gradually disappear … if the causes which produced them should cease, or if their operation should be varied by other circumstances and combinations” (Count 1950, p. 15). This early version of Lamarckism is conspicuous also in the outlook of men like Rousseau and Monboddo, both of whom were convinced that the great apes were actually human beings whose progress toward civilization had been retarded by adverse environmental conditions (Rousseau 1775, pp. 22 ff.; Monboddo 1773, pp. 22 ff.). Others, such as Blumenbach, one of the most influential naturalists of the period, continued to support the doctrine of “perfectibility” of the members of nonwhite races. In fact, belief in environmentalism and perfectibility was so strong that respectful attention was given to the possibility that Negroid physical features were not hereditary. In the United States, Samuel Stanhope Smith even argued that dark skin color was a phenomenon similar to freckles and that white people would become Negroid with sufficient exposure to the sun. Smith illustrated the reverse process in the celebrated case of Henry Moss, a Virginia slave who appears to have suffered a loss of pigmentation after having moved to the North. At a meeting of the American Philosophical Society in 1797, Benjamin Rush argued that the Moss case provided proof that black skin color was a disease akin to leprosy (Gossett 1963, p. 41).
A substantial, perhaps dominant, body of scientific opinion in the eighteenth century was thus heavily committed to the belief that racial differences were rather evanescent and subject to the control of both natural and cultural aspects of the environment. It was this negation of racial determinism that permitted Turgot, Holbach, Hévetius, and Condorcet to attempt social analyses which foreshadowed the modern cultural-ecological approach to the understanding of sociocultural evolution. But the belief that race was relatively unimportant to an understanding of the variety of cultures, past and present, was not destined to flourish in the succeeding century.
The equalitarian philosophy of the monogenesists was based on faith in the power of the environment to modify Hottentots into Englishmen. Indeed, equalitarian monogenesists long before Lamarck were quite prepared to believe that a specific transformation from ape to Caucasoid man must have taken place as part of the process by which humanity had emerged from its “state of nature.” A necessary but fatal ingredient in these early environmentalist theories was a stanch belief in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Lamarck merely generalized this point of view to include the entire organic universe. His theory of the use and disuse of organs was in most fundamental aspects perfectly anticipated in the work of Rousseau and Monboddo (Lovejoy 1933). Moreover, there was no significant disagreement between Darwin and Lamarck on the power of the environment to shape the hereditary nature of bioforms. According to Darwin, the use and disuse of organs exerted a direct influence upon the innovations which are subjected to natural selection (Darwin 1859, pp. 133-137 in 1958 edition).
Yet Darwin, Wallace, Huxley, Haeckel, Spencer, and every other evolutionist of the late nineteenth century, as well as almost every major social scientist from Marx to Morgan, regarded racial differences as essential to the understanding of human behavior (cf. Zirkle 1959, pp. 109-111; Resek 1960, p. 63). Even before them, the polygenesists, influenced by the skepticism that led them to reject the theologians’ idea of “special creation,” tended to regard the races as permanent, specieslike divisions, with differential hereditary capacities for achieving civilization. Voltaire, the influential Lord Kames, the English physician Charles White, the Frenchman Virrey, and the American Jefferson were among those who emphasized inequality of the hereditary endowments of the human races and the importance of these differences for an understanding of sociocultural phenomena (cf. Gos-sett 1963, pp. 42-53). Although post-Darwinian biologists tended to reaffirm the monogenesist view of a unitary origin for all mankind, they drew none of the equalitarian conclusions that had characterized their eighteenthcentury predecessors.
What had happened to turn a doctrine of equality, optimism, and perfectibility into chauvinistic, imperialistic, competitive, and pessimistic racism? One major scientific development of the early part of the nineteenth century seems especially significant (not to deny that a more fundamental answer would involve social, as distinct from ideological, innovation). A dawning insight into the true dimension of geological time compromised the equalitarianism of the evolutionists and brought them into direct conflict with the Biblically inspired equalitarian monogenesists. Hitherto unimaginably prolonged sequences were revealed, giving a completely new perspective to the transformation of species. Savages could be turned into Englishmen, yes, but not overnight, or in a few generations. According to the new chronology of progress, Caucasoid man came to be regarded as thousands of years “ahead” of the other races. The latter remained perfectible, but along a time scale which effectively removed them from any immediate claim to equal sociopolitical treatment. Characteristics were still acquired and became part of the hereditary repertory, but at a painfully slow pace. The ideological inertia engendered by concepts of racial heritage, racial memory, and racial consciousness enveloped the social and biological sciences and cast a spell over vast domains of Euro-American arts and letters. In its most popular version, promulgated principally by the synthesizing genius of Herbert Spencer, the social-to-biological feedback operated through the mechanisms of natural selection and the survival of the fittest: fundamental sociocultural change required equally fundamental biological change. Survival in an environment of unrestricted competition required individualized struggle and the untrammeled exercise of the will to achieve power. Hence, political philosophies such as social Darwinism, the “white man’s burden,” and “manifest destiny” all moved toward the mass megalomania of German Aryanism and twentieth-century race war and genocide (Barzun 1937; Hofstadter 1944; Snyder 1939; Gossett 1963). Not to be omitted from this spectacle is the contribution of the caliper-wielding anthropometrists, from Topinard to Lombroso, with their obsession for quantifying the precise details of physiologically insignificant traits. With slight consideration of the need for experimental control over cultural and physiological variables, minute differences, such as in the angles formed by cranial and facial bones, were used to help explain sociocultural contrast (Boyd 1958). Against the combined weight of the bioevolutionary synthesis, the passionate identification of science with precise measurement, and the problem of reconciling the inequalities of imperialism and capitalism with Christian principles, few intellectuals were able to withstand the appeal of some form of scientific racism.
Adherence to this ill-fated conceit was further promoted by an overemphasis, among the great cultural evolutionists of the times, upon parallel evolution and convergence. The simplistic equation of graded physical types with graded cultural types was extremely vulnerable to the test of comparative observation.
Documentation of the vast diversity of cultural forms that occur within as well as between racial groups eventually severed racist explanations from every vestige of scientific respectability. Much of the credit for this achievement rests with Franz Boas and the historical particularists and cultural relativists who were nurtured under his tutelage. Boas and his students insisted that there was no causal relationship between race, language, and culture (Boas 1887-1936; 1911). Especially damaging to the racist point of view were the first sophisticated linguistic descriptions of present-day primitive peoples, whereby it was established that variability and complexity of grammar and syntax are totally unrelated to degree of technological or sociopolitical organization (Sapir 1921).
The distinctive feature of the modern consensus concerning the relationship between race and culture is that the rate and direction of culture change among the various infraspecies groupings of Homo sapiens is not at present significantly affected by genetic specialties. It is generally believed that if all factors other than race are held constant, similar enculturation experiences will result in similar sociocultural repertories. Indeed, if perfect control over the enculturative process could be achieved, one generation would suffice to equip any two Homo sapiens groups with essentially similar repertories, regardless of their respective racial phylogenies. Thus, if Hottentot babies were substituted at birth for English babies, their average cultural performance would probably not differ in any significant fashion from a control group. The evidence for this point of view is overwhelming. Social groups and individuals drawn from every human “race” have shown themselves in countless instances to be susceptible to acculturation influences bearing upon every aspect of sociocultural behavior. American Indians brought up in Brazil show no hereditary resistance to learning African dance rhythms; Englishmen reared in China can learn to speak flawless Chinese; American Negroes who attend conservatories write symphonies in the classical European tradition; the Japanese display not the slightest hereditary disability in acquiring a knowledge of Western electronics; Jews brought up in Germany have German food preferences, while those brought up in Yemen acquire Yemenite tastes; under the influence of Western missionaries, the South Sea islanders learned to govern their sexual affairs in conformity with strict Protestant codes; everywhere the children of illiterate parents, exposed to the proper set of enculturative conditions, acquire within one lifetime the learning and lore contributed by hundreds of generations of men from all the races of the world. Although it is not possible to prove that all large divisions of Homo sapiens have equal learning ability for all kinds of responses, it is beyond dispute that the overwhelming bulk of the response repertory of any human breeding population can be learned by any other human breeding population. Moreover, if average differences in learning ability exist, they are demonstrably insufficient to account for the major cultural and subcultural contrasts which occupy the attention of the social sciences.
No one familiar with modern ethnography can doubt the dominant role of enculturative conditioning in the establishment of the behavioral specialties manifested by different human populations. No plausible connection has ever been proposed between specific human genes and such specialties as cross-cousin marriage, bilateral descent, polyandry, divine kingship, monotheism, brideprice, private property in land, or thousands of other small and large chains of less than universal human behavior. On the other hand, the inadequacy of racist explanations of sociocultural differences and similarities is further underscored by the growing success achieved by cultural and ecological explanations of those phenomena. With the exception of a handful of hereditary pathological disabilities, there does not exist a single instance of differential learning ability between populations which cannot be explained in terms of differential conditioning experience. Certainly this is the case wherever scores on so-called intelligence tests have been correlated with “racial” groups. Over and over again it has been demonstrated that such scores reflect, for each individual, the number of years of schooling, the quality of his academic training, his specific training for the test situation, his nuclear and extended family milieu, and an abundance of other nongenetic conditioning parameters (Kline-berg 1935; 1951; 1963; Comas 1961; Brown I960; Dreger & Miller 1960). As long as average performance differences are demonstrably embedded in conditioning parameters for which plausible linking hypotheses exist, emphasis upon genetic factors, especially those not significantly related to the behavior traits in question, exposes social science to every sort of occult mystification through the multiplication of superfluous hypotheses.
It should be carefully noted that the consensus by which racist explanations in the social sciences have been deprived of all claim to scientific respectability does not diminish the importance of further research concerning the essentially “creative” relation between biological and cultural traits. Such considerations are obviously required for an understanding of the evolution of the human condition, both during the hominoid-hominid transition and during the periods of species changes among the early hominids. Moreover, it is well known that human breeding populations exhibit genetic specialties, such as achondroplasia, myopia, and diabetes, whose frequencies are affected by cultural factors. Certainly, the rejection of racism should not obscure the possibility that differential reproductive and survival rates account for some cultural differences. None of these relationships, however, need run counter to the assumption that learning ability in its widest sense, as enculturation potential, is equal among all Homo sapiens. On the contrary, we may continue to assume that selection for behavioral plasticity, for freedom from gene-specific behavior, for high-order generalized learning receptivity, has been the most important source of biological control over the direction of hominid evolution during the last million and a half years (Dobzhansky & Montagu 1947; Hockett & Ascher 1964).
Marvin Harris
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barnes, J. A. 1960 Anthropology in Britain Before and After Darwin. Mankind 5:369-385.
Barzun, Jacques (1937) 1965 Race: A Study in Superstition. Rev. ed. New York: Harper. ? First published as Race: A Study in Modern Superstition.
Benedict, Ruth (1940) 1959 Race: Science and Politics. New York: Viking.
Berry, Brewton (1951) 1965 Race and Ethnic Relations. 3d ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ? First published as Race Relations: The Interaction of Ethnic and Racial Groups.
Blumenbach, Johann F. (1775-1811) 1865 The Anthropological Treatises of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Translated and edited by Thomas Bendyshe. London: Longmans. ? First published in German.
Boas, Franz (1887-1936) 1955 Race, Language and Culture. New York: Macmillan.
Boas, Franz (1911) 1963 The Mind of Primitive Man. Rev. ed. New York: Collier. ? A paperback edition was published in 1965 by the Free Press.
Boyd, William C. 1958 Has Statistics Retarded the Progress of Physical Anthropology? American Journal of Physical Anthropology New Series 16:481-484.
Brown, Ina C. 1960 [A Book Review of] The Testing of Negro Intelligence, by Audrey M. Shuey. American Anthropologist New Series 62:544 only.
Comas, Juan 1961 “Scientific“Racism Again? Current Anthropology 2:303-340.
Conference on Race Relations in World Perspective, Honolulu, 3954 1956 Race Relations in World Perspective: Papers. Edited by Andrew W. Lind. Honolulu: Univ. of Hawaii Press.
Coon, Carleton S. 1962 The Origin of Races. New York: Knopf.
Count, Earl W. (editor) 1950 This Is Race: An Anthology Selected From the International Literature on the Races of Man. New York: Schuman.
Cox, Oliver C. (1948) 1959 Caste, Class and Race: A Study in Social Dynamics. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Darwin, Charles (1859) 1964 On the Origin of Species. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius 1962 Mankind Evolving: The Evolution of the Human Species. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius; and Montagu, Ashley 1947 Natural Selection and the Mental Capacities of Mankind. Science New Series 105:587-590.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius; and Montagu, Ashley 1963 Two Views of Coon’s Origin of Races: With Comments by Coon and Replies. Current Anthropology 4:360-367.
Dreger, Ralph M.; and Miller, Kent S. 1960 Comparative Psychological Studies of Negroes and Whites in the United States. Psychological Bulletin 57:361-402.
Frazier, E. Franklin (1957) 1965 Race and Culture Contacts in the Modern World. Boston: Beacon.
Fried, Morton H. 1964 Disastrous Definition: Comment on Dwight J. Ingle’s Racial Differences and the Future. Science New Series 146:1526 only.
Garn, Stanley M. 1957 Race and Evolution. American Anthropologist New Series 59:218-224.
Gossett, Thomas F. 1963 Race: The History of an Idea in America. Dallas, Texas: Southern Methodist Univ. Press.
Harris, Marvin 1964 Patterns of Race in the Americas. New York: Walker.
Hockett, Charles F.; and Ascher, Robert 1964 The Human Revolution. Current Anthropology 5:135-168.
Hofstadter, Richard (1944) 1959 Social Darwinism in American Thought. Rev. ed. New York: Braziller.
Hughes, Everett C.j and Hughes, Helen M. 1952 Where Peoples Meet: Racial and Ethnic Frontiers. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.
Klineberg, Otto 1935 Race Differences. New York: Harper.
Klineberg, Otto (1951) 1953 Race and Psychology. Paris: UNESCO.
Klineberg, Otto 1963 Negro-White Differences in Intelligence Test Performance: A New Look at an Old Problem. American Psychologist 18:198-203.
Kloosterboer, Willemina 1960 Involuntary Labour Since the Abolition of Slavery: A Survey of Compulsory Labour Throughout the World. Leiden (Netherlands): Brill.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1915 Eighteen Professions. American Anthropologist New Series 17:283-288.
Linne, Carl Von (1735) 1956 Systema naturae. 10th ed. London: British Museum.
Livingstone, Frank B. 1962 On the Non-existence of Human Races. Current Anthropology 3:279-281.
Lovejoy, Arthur O. 1933 Monboddo and Rousseau. Modern Philology 30:275-296.
Mack, Raymond W. 1963 Race, Class and Power. New York: American Book.
Monboddo, James B. (1773) 1774 Of the Origin and Progress of Language. 2d ed. Edinburgh: Balfour.
Montagu, Ashley (1945) 1964 Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. 4th ed., rev. & enl. Cleveland: World.
Putnam, Carleton 1961 Race and Reason: A Yankee View. Washington: Public Affairs Press.
Resek, Carl 1960 Lewis Henry Morgan: American Scholar. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Ritterbush, Philip C. 1964 Overtures to Biology: The Speculations of Eighteenth-century Naturalists. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
Rousseau, Jean Jacques (1775) 1941 Discours sur I’origine et les fondements de I’inegalite parmi les hommes. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Sapir, Edward A. 1921 Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt.
Simpson, George E.; and Yinger, J. Milton (1953) 1965 Racial and Cultural Minorities: An Analysis of Prejudice and Discrimination. 3d ed. New York: Harper.
Snyder, Louis L. 1939 Race: A History of Modern Ethnic Theories. New York: Longmans.
Thompson, Edgar T. (editor) 1939 Race Relations and the Race Problem: A Definition and an Analysis. Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press.
Thompson, Edgar T.; and Hughes, Everett C. (editors) 1958 Race: Individual and Collective Behavior. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.
United Nations Educational, Scientific And Cultural Organization 1961 The Race Question in Modern Science: Race and Science. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. ? Contains all the brochures that have appeared separately in the UNESCO series “The Race Question in Modern Science.”
Wagley, Charles 1958 On the Concept of Social Race in the Americas. Volume 1, pages 403-417 in International Congress of Americanists, Thirty-third, San Jose, Costa Rica, 1958, Actas. San Jose: Lehmann.
Wagley, Charles; and Harris, Marvin 1958 Minorities in the New World. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
Washburn, S. L. 1951 The New Physical Anthropology. New York Academy of Sciences, Transactions Second Series 13:298-304.
Washburn, S. L. 1963 The Study of Race. American Anthropologist New Series 65:521-531.
Williams, Eric (1944) 1961 Capitalism and Slavery. New York: Russell & Russell.
Zirkle, Conway 1959 Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.