Читать книгу Race, Language and Culture - Boas Franz - Страница 11

Table of Contents

In settling in the United States the immigrants have been brought into a new environment, geographically as well as socially, and the question arises whether the new environment exerts an influence upon bodily form and functions. It has been customary to consider certain features of bodily development as absolutely stable, and anthropologists have characterized modern human types as “permanent forms” which have lasted without variation from the beginning of our modern geological period up to the present time. It is fairly easy to show that in this view exaggerated importance is ascribed to the phenomena of observed hereditary stability.

We know that the bulk of the body of an adult depends to a certain extent upon the more or less favorable conditions under which the child grows up. It has been shown that malnutrition or pathological conditions of various kinds may retard growth, and that the retardation may be so considerable that it cannot be made up by long continued growth. As a matter of fact, the bulk of the body at the time of birth is so small as compared to the bulk of the body of the adult that it is easy to understand that environmental conditions must exert a considerable influence upon its development. Proof of this is the gradual increase of stature during the past fifty years, until 1914, which has been demonstrated by investigations in a number of countries in Europe, and the difference in stature which is found in the same nationality for people living under different economic conditions.^[14]

Since many proportions of the body are related to stature and bulk, these will also undergo modifications due to environmental conditions. The influence of environment is not so obvious in those cases in which the bodily form is practically determined at the time of birth, or in those in which the total growth from the time of birth until the adult stage is very slight. It might be assumed that in all cases of this type heredity alone determines the characteristic form of the body.

From a wider point of view the assumption that environment has no influence upon the form of the body does not seem justified. It must be understood that the question of stability or instability of the body in relation to environmental influences has no relation to the question of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Even if we should adhere most rigidly to the dogma of the impossibility of the transmission of acquired characteristics, we must admit that a modification of the bodily form of the individual is easily conceivable without the necessity of assuming any modification of the germ plasm owing to individually acquired variation. We should rather have to say that adaptability of a definite type is one of the hereditary characteristics of the germ plasm. The problem involved is readily understood in the case of plants which appear in strongly modified form according to the environment in which they grow. In many cases the amount of hairiness, the form of the leaves, etc., are subject to the degree of moisture of the soil, and an accurate description of the species would therefore involve a statement that the plant has a certain degree of hairiness, dependent as a definite function upon the moisture of the soil, or that the leaves have a certain form dependent upon outer circumstances. In other words, the plant has a definite form only under a definite environment, and with changing environment, the form changes.

We may include under the group of environmental effects also all those variants of form and function that are dependent upon social habits which influence the organism. An influence upon bodily form is exerted by the habitual uses to which groups of muscles are put. Thus the rest position of the lower jaw is different in different areas. The English seem to hold the lower jaw a little farther forward than the Americans. The people of the western states relax the soft palate more than those of the North Atlantic area. The facial expression is determined by the development of the groups of facial muscles; the variations of certain aspects of the form of the hand and the foot are of this kind. The functioning of organs is even more markedly dependent upon habits, particularly upon habits firmly established during childhood. This is illustrated by the characteristic gait of individuals and of whole groups of people; by the involuntary movements in response to certain stimuli; by many of the expressive movements of the body; by habits of articulation; and by the dexterity and accuracy of movements obtained by early training.

Since we recognize the influence of environment upon the form of body including such features as bulk of body, or muscular forms and the functioning of organs, it seems justifiable to define racial characteristics as we do those of a variable plant, namely, by stating that under definite environmental conditions the bodily form of a race and its functioning are such as we observe, without prejudging the question in how far modifications in form and function may result from changing environment. The actual problem, then, would be to determine whether and how far the traits of the body may be so influenced. We should also bear in mind that it is perfectly conceivable that there may be congenital modifications in forms which are nevertheless not hereditary.^[15] Constitutional changes in the body of the mother may bring about modifications in prenatal growth which to the superficial observer might give the impression of hereditary changes. These considerations demonstrate that it is necessary to consider this problem in any thorough investigation of the characteristics of the American population.

[14]	Rudolf Martin, Lehrbuch der Anthropologie (Jena, 1914), p. 225. Second edition (Jena, 1928), vol. I, p. 297.

[15]	Cf. infra p. 47.