Recently, Nick Fesenko submitted a Wespeak defending James Dewey Watson’s comments concerning the “future of the continent of Africa,” which basically argued that those of African descent are not as intelligent as those with non-African ancestry. Fesenko claimed politics and science should be maintained separate for the purpose of scientific accuracy and invoked the traditional devils, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, as foils to what should be done to Fesenko.
Before I respond directly, note that Watson did not receive much real punishment for his comments. He was criticized and lost his job — not thrown in jail, or silenced, or killed; and I’m sure that a best-selling author and Nobel laureate isn’t going bankrupt anytime soon. I don’t think Watson’s right to say what he wants was in any way hindered, and I don’t think it trumps others’ rights to criticize him. To be honest, I don’t really understand what the point of Fesenko’s defense was, unless he supports the possible veracity of Watson’s statement itself.
But more importantly, I think Fesenko’s defense completely misses the boat on the nature of both race and science. Regarding race, Watson’s comments are pretty absurd. To speak of races as distinct, pure categories is ridiculous. Not only has mixing among these constructed categories gone on for a very, very long time, but human genetics is way more complex and nuanced than classifying people into a finite number of bounded categories.
When it comes to science, I think Fesenko’s attitude is just as problematic. Sure, we would all like science to tell us objective truth. But even disregarding doubts about the feasibility of such a project in ideal settings, real-world experience has certainly not conformed to this conception of the scientific project. The fact is science and prejudice have long been bedfellows. Many scientists have been trying to prove the superiority of whiteness since who knows when, from the eugenics movement to the infamous 1994 bestseller, “The Bell Curve.” Granted, this aspect of science has diminished over time, but I think Watson’s statement is proof that it has not disappeared.
Science is not, and has never been, separate from our social world — no matter how inconvenient that fact may be. So, instead of placing scientific inquiry on some false, isolated pedestal, we should allow the insights of other disciplines to inform science.
Leave a Reply