We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices…in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
—Supreme Court Justice Holmes,
Buck v. Bell (1927)
The philosophical controversy over the legitimacy and accuracy of the scientific assessment of an individual’s cognitive ability—intelligence—and its relationship to environmental and genetic factors is highly charged. Those who assert that various environmental conditions foster intellectual aptitude and those who contest that genetic encoding determines human intelligence wage a continuous debate over what most influences intelligence; each side, entrenched in its own ideological camp, has its own battery of assertions, experiments, research, evaluations, test scores, and theories to defend its particular position.
This debate, already politicized and complex, is made even more convoluted by profound and fundamental disagreements over the very definition of intelligence; psychologists and anthropologists, researchers and historians, educators and politicians, simply cannot propose a unified theory of the structure of human intellect. Despite extensive and highly divergent research, all of these studies can be categorized as descending from one of two central traditions in human intelligence theory: the conception that intelligence is a single, definable characteristic or the assertion that intelligence consists of several complex but interrelated components (Gardner, 1993, p. xii).
The contemporary conception of intelligence as a single, heritable characteristic can be traced to Alfred Binet (1857-1911) (Gould, 1981, p. 146). In 1904 Binet was commissioned by the minister of public education of Sorbonne, France to conduct a research study with very specific parameters and goals: to develop techniques for identifying mentally handicapped children (Gould, 1981, p. 149). Although he initially experimented with other forms of measuring intelligence (including the nineteenth century pseudo-science of studying the size of the human skull and how it relates to intelligence—craniometry), Binet ultimately decided to pursue intelligence evaluations based on various cognitive tests (Gould, 1981, p. 149). In 1905, Binet created a series of tests to evaluate and test children whose lack of success in traditional classroom settings suggested the need for some form of special instruction—this scale eventually became the basis for the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) (Gould, 1981, p. 149).
Binet insisted upon three cardinal principles for the application and utilization of his tests. First, he argued that assessment derived from his tests was merely a practical device and, therefore, did not support or validate any theory of intelligence (Gould, 1981, p.150). Second, Binet considered the testing scale solely as a rough empirical guide for identifying learning-disabled children who need special assistance (Gould, 1981, p. 150). And third, Binet believed that his testing system should be employed to tailor instruction to meet the divergent needs of the learning impaired. He argued passionately that “whatever the cause of difficulty in children identified for help, emphasis shall be placed upon improvement through special training” (as quoted in Gould, 1981, p. 155).
In describing his theory, for instance, Binet asserted that his test “does not permit the measure of the intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superimposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured” (as quoted in Gould, 1981, p. 151). Binet was exceedingly hostile to educators who employed his tests as a justification to ignore and abandon remedial students. He publicly criticized teachers who “are not interested in students who lack intelligence. They have neither sympathy nor respect for them, and their intemperate language leads them to say such things as… ‘this is a child who will never amount anything’” (as quoted in Gould, 1981, p. 153).
Despite Binet’s numerous admonitions, his theory of Intelligence Quotients was radically perverted by subsequent researchers. Indeed, three men—H.H. Goddard, L.M. Terman, and R.M. Yerkes—brought Binet’s scale to the United States, reified its scores as innate intelligence, and eventually provided the supposed validation of an inevitable, hereditary basis of intelligence (Gould, 1981, p. 158). These subsequent conclusions (again, through an application of Binet’s theory antithetical to its initial formulation) eventually formed an entirely new theory of intelligence based on select elements of Binet’s conclusions—the hereditarian theory of IQ (Gould, 1981, p. 159).
The vast majority of these early studies in human intelligence were thoroughly biased and poorly constructed; indeed, many researchers patently falsified and fabricated data to support their preconceived notions regarding ethnicity and intelligence. In one particular research study, for example, H.H. Goddard sent two research assistants to Ellis Island to interview immigrants of different ethnic backgrounds and thereby test his theory of IQ and its relationship to ethnicity. In order to make his study more efficient, H.H. Goddard instructed his research assistants to only select men and women for interviewing who were “recognized as defective” (Gould, 1981, p. 165). Goddard’s test results were as astounding as they were ridiculous: his research determined that 83% of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the Russians were feeble-minded (Gould, 1981, p. 165). The fact that these people were exhausted, hungry, in a foreign country, and were being asked questions in a language they might not even understand was never considered—or simply ignored—by the researchers (Gould, 1981, p. 165). Further, Goddard even faked photographs to support his outlandish claims. According to one historian, Goddard actually modified a series of pictures of a supposedly “moronic” family to emphasize their so-called physical depravity—he retouched and darkened their eyes, eyebrows, mouth, nose, and hair (Gould, 1981, p. 171). In describing similar research studies on IQ and its relationship to ethnicity, the noted linguist Noam Chomsky writes, “In a racist society, inquiry into race and IQ can be expected to reinforce prejudice, pretty much independent of the outcome of the inquiry” (Chomsky, 1987, p. 200).
The social, political, and psychological effects of the hereditarian theory of IQ were profoundly enormous. In the United States, for example, the theory of IQ became associated with the notion that evolutionary lineage could be traced by examining what appeared to be lesser—but related—species. Racists of the early twentieth century employed this line of pseudo-science to assert that the adults of inferior races were intellectually similar to the children of superior races—a theory called recapitulation (Gould, 1981, p. 120). According to one historian, “scientists had collected reams of objective data all loudly proclaiming the same message: adult blacks, women, and lower-class whites are like white upper-class male children” (Gould, 1981, p. 120). This process of clearly erroneous reasoning—supposedly validated by the misapplication of Binet’s IQ test—became the justification for the existing “Jim Crow” laws segregating the different ethnicities of Americans on streetcars, trains, schools, parks, public buildings, and cemeteries. Ethnic minorities (including African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Jewish-Americans) were generally regarded as primitive, animalistic, and savage and thought to be a physical threat to white Americans. And the research into IQ and intelligence overtly supported and justified these racist conclusions.
During World War II, Nazi Germany utilized the pseudo-science of Nordic intellectual supremacy to justify the mandatory sterilization of millions of unwanted groups (including the mentally handicapped, physically impaired, Gypsies, and Jews); sterilization would continue until the Nazis demanded the “desired final solution of the Jewish question” (Goralski, 1981, p. 169)—the systematic annihilation of the Jewish people. In the end, well over five million people died in Hitler’s pogrom of genocide, all in the name of supposed intellectual purification (Goralski, 1981, p. 428).
Although the United States did not promote an entire system of mass murder, it was also susceptible to the frenzy of preserving a supposed intellectual elite. The 1927 Supreme Court decision to uphold the Virginia sterilization law in Buck v. Bell represents a conscious promotion of intellectual purity (Gould, 1981, p. 335). Between the years of 1924 and 1972, the United States government mandated the sterilization of thousands of men and women considered feeble-minded or antisocial—including “unwed mothers, prostitutes, petty criminals and children with disciplinary problems” (Gould, 1981, p. 335). In the end, well over 7,500 people were forcibly sterilized under the law of the United States, often without their knowledge or permission (Gould, 1981, p.335).
Despite the chaos and horror and bloodshed of the early twentieth century, leading political figures finally demanded progressive change, and traditional conceptions of cultural and ethnic superiority were reevaluated. The long dormant field of anthropology—paralyzed by two horrifying world wars—reemerged and began to challenge the status quo; people understood all too well that cultural misunderstandings among nations were quite divisive, and often downright bloody, and contemporary world society could not afford to be complacent about intercultural harmony. In his inaugural address of January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy proclaimed, "To those peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves" (as quoted on the Peace Corps web site). On March 1, 1961, President Kennedy signed the executive order establishing the Peace Corps, a non-profit organization designed to promote world peace and understanding (Peace Corps web site).
With the reevaluation of different ethnicities and cultures, anthropologists challenged, in particular, the notion of a single, easily defined characteristic of intelligence; how could it be, they reasoned, that Anglo-Europeans are simply more intelligent than other peoples? In order to adequately address this question, anthropology and psychology needed to be utilized in tandem, and one of the most significant and profound pioneers in synthesizing these two fields is the renowned anthropologist Edward T. Hall.
In 1959 Hall published what many anthropologists and historians consider the seminal work on intercultural communication—The Silent Language. This book was followed by several other equally significant publications, including The Hidden Dimension in 1966 and Beyond Culture in 1976 (Sorrells, 1998). These works—coupled with the reemerging field of anthropology—fundamentally challenged the conception of a single correct cultural standard in intelligence. Hall’s entire philosophy is as surprisingly simple as it is revolutionary—that all cultures “have their own identity, language, systems of nonverbal communication, material culture, history, and ways of doing things” (Hall, 1981, p. 2).
Culture, as Hall defines it, has a pervasive influence on every individual: it is thoroughly ingrained in each person’s psyche and determines countless aspects of a person’s behavior, including intelligence. Hall argued, “the natural act of thinking is greatly modified by culture; Western man uses only a small fraction of his mental capabilities; there are many different and legitimate ways of thinking; we in the West value one of these ways above all others—the one we call ‘logic’” (Hall, 1981, p. 9). Adding to the self-evident complexity of intercultural assessment is the fact that most people are seldom—if ever—aware of the extent to which culture subconsciously influences their behavioral paradigms; people simply assume that their specific operational processes are correct and all others are wrong.
The United States’ cultural system is supported and perpetuated by the dominant culture in North America (specifically, Anglo-European culture), and accordingly, the standards and expectations are inherently alien to the myriad minority cultures present in contemporary U.S. society. Other cultures, then, may emphasize other types of intelligences—intelligences devalued in the United States. Naturally, people who were born and raised in a culture that does not value logic and reason more than other ways of thinking have a very difficult time adjusting to mainstream Anglo-American culture.
Despite Hall’s innovative and profound research into intercultural communication, psychologists and neurologists have generally considered anthropological studies too subjective for any serious inquiry. However, inspired by the abundance of significant and meaningful research in the field of anthropology and discontent with the traditional definition of intelligence as a single attribute (or at most three), psychologist Howard Gardner conducted a research study employing several somewhat unorthodox areas of information (anthropological studies, literary accounts, etc.). In 1983, Gardner published this research study as Frames of Mind (Gage, 1998, p. 75). The study is considered the pioneering work in the theory of multiple intelligences (Gage, 1998, p. 75).
Gardner’s 1983 research suggested that all people have more than one type of intelligence, a direct contrast to the traditional definition of intelligence. Although the western world values logic-mathematical intelligence above other types of intelligence, Gardner argued that humans possess at least seven different—but equally important—intelligences: logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, linguistic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal (Gardner, 1993, p. 6-7). Coupled with subsequent research, Gardner’s research has coalesced into the theory of multiple intelligences. The theory of multiple intelligences is currently quite popular, and it provides a legitimate alternative to many other more narrow definitions of intelligence. In particular, this theory explains the phenomena of idiot savants (people of extremely impaired general cognitive ability who possess incredible ability in one skill or talent), as well as people with severe brain damage who are able to produce incredible pieces of art or become virtuosos on musical instruments (Gardner, 1993, p. 8). When applied to cross-cultural comparisons, the theory of multiple intelligences also illuminates and explains divergent skill and ability proficiencies among different ethnicities.
The fundamental construction of intelligence has transformed considerably over the last sixty years. At the beginning of the twentieth century, intelligence was defined as a single characteristic (IQ) that was directly inheritable from parent to child. However, as cross-cultural and intercultural communication expanded, the hereditarian theory of IQ was gradually transformed into the theory of multiple intelligences. Among educators and researchers, the theory of multiple intelligences has overshadowed and almost replaced the single intelligence theory. But this shift in the definition and evaluation of intelligence has many implications for both psychologists and educators.
Though many people invoke “the traditional prestige of science as objective knowledge, free from social and political taint” (Gould, 1981, p. 20) when describing intelligence, any human activity (including science) is naturally embedded in cultural context and is therefore biased; “culture influences what we see and how we see it” (Gould, 1981, p. 22). In the process of defining intelligence—either as a single or multiple characteristic—any given psychologist will be necessarily influenced by a multitude of unconscious biases, biases which could destroy the possibility of legitimate intelligence testing. As such, all psychologists must be very hesitant to define intelligence in any individual, except when circumstances are such that an IQ test would substantially help the person in question (such as identifying a student with a learning disability). Educators must also be cautious with any form of intelligence test, including the IQ, SAT, and GRE. As all teachers know, school systems operate with an astonishing degree of inertia—when the bureaucracy begins its internal process, almost nothing can change or stop this process, even if the results are negative. According to one educator, “We set out to determine what a child knows in order to tailor instruction, but we frequently slot rather than shape, categorize rather than foster” (Rose, 1990, p. 128).
The various theories of intelligence have been and will continue to be significant issues for scientific inquiry. But, despite the interest and attention of the scientific community, the conception of intelligence (its definition and evaluation) is influenced substantially by cultural biases. Indeed, falsely validated assessments of intelligence have been employed by unscrupulous men and women to legitimatize horrendous acts of prejudice and brutality throughout the early twentieth century. Fortunately, the field of anthropology challenged antiquated cultural assumptions and prompted a major revision of the traditional notion of intelligence—the theory of multiple intelligences emerged. Yet, regardless of the theory of intelligence applied, intelligence testing remains embedded within a distinct cultural framework of rank, hierarchy, and power. And it is this very framework that biases and potentially corrupts any scientific inquiry. All people, including scientists, educators, politicians and government officials, need to understand that the assessment and classification of intelligence can—often inevitably—result in the expression of cultural prejudices and biases. As such, intelligence testing simply cannot be employed indiscriminately; it demands the utmost caution and care.
References
Boyer, Paul. (1993). The Enduring Vision, Vol. 2. Lexington: D.C. Heath and
Company.
Chomsky, Noam. (1987). The Chomsky Reader. New York: Pantheon Books.
Freire, Paulo. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing.
Gage, N.L., David Berliner. (1998). Educational Psychology (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Gardner, Howard. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New
York: BasicBooks.
Goralski, Robert. (1981). World War II Almanac 1931-1945. New York:
Bonanza Books.
Gould, Stephen Jay. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton
and Company.
Hall, Edward T. (1989). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books.
Hall, Edward T. (1990). The Silent Language. New York: Anchor Books.
Jandt, Fred. (1995). Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publishing.
Lexis-Nexis. (2001). http://www.lexis.com. Buck v. Bell (vol. 274 U.S. p. 200).
Peace Corps Home Page. (1998). http://www.peacecorps.gov/home.html
Rose, Mike. (1989). Lives on the Boundary. New York: Penguin Books.
Sorrells, Kathryn (1998). [Interview with Edward T. Hall]. “The Edge: The E-
Journal of Intercultural Relations 1, 3.
