racist rhetoric

[Ronald Kephart]

Gabriella Modan wrote:

>Maybe Ron's characterization of evolutionary psychology is inaccurate...

Of course, I didn't intend to claim that *all* evolutionary
psychology is scientifically flawed, nor that all evolutionary
psychologists are racists, although rereading myself I see how it
might appear that way. I was, as I said, reacting out of frustration
because I have spent *so* much time lately on the issue of "race" and
what it means, and most of the time I seem to be arguing with the
defenders of particular people who identify with evolutionary
psychology: I am thinking especially of Rushton, Whitney, Lynn, and
some others.

I have both linguistic and anthropological problems with the
evolutionary psychology enterprise, or at least the enterprise as it
is practiced by some, which truly can be outrageous. Some of these, I
agree, are not appropriate for this list.  I think my linguistic
reservations are crucial, though, especially the reification as
biological entities of culturally constructed folk categories like
"race" and, for that matter, "intelligence," which is clearly a
feature of *some* evolutionary psychology research.

Anyway, it is a shame that people like Rushton and Whitney seem to be
so visible, while those evolutionary psychologists who might be
working on genuine problems are probably doing so quietly, with
little or no public attention.  I do think that, since anthropology
is the most holistic of the sciences focused on humans, we have a
responsibility to speak up when we see nonsense about humans being
propagated by scholars in any discipline.

Ronald Kephart
English & "Foreign" Languages
University of North Florida