Content warning: discussion of racism, prejudice, antisemitism, and the Holocaust
I want to start by saying all of these practices were extremely racist, antisemitic, misogynistic, and ableist. For anyone outside of psychology, you're probably wondering what do those words even mean? If you haven't heard of one or more of these concepts, buckle up because it's going to be a wild ride. Thankfully, these days no one actually believes/practices these concepts, but traces of them can still be seen in current society. I got so angry when doing the research for this post, and I truly hope that anger comes across because some aspects of these so-called "sciences" are just egregious.
Sources posted at the end
Phrenology originated during the 1800s and was an early attempt to map out the brain. They wanted to know what parts of the brain do what function. Essentially, it looks at the bumps on the inside of the skull and makes deductions about personality and intellectual aspects of a person. Thankfully, this is considered a pseudoscience (fake science) in current society. Phrenologists believed that enlargements in a certain part of the skull corresponded to enlargement in that part of the brain. If you've seen Django Unchained, you've seen a scene demonstrating this. It's the one where Leonardo Dicaprio shatters the skull and cuts his hand. That actually portrays phrenology with a lot of accuracy. That's actually what a lot of people, especially slave owners, believed. White Anglo-Saxon people, especially men (not exclusively men, women surely believed this as well, but it was mostly men because they were the "intellectuals" of the time) used these beliefs to justify and perpetuate slavery. If people of color were "scientifically" more subservient (they aren't), then what they were doing was "scientifically" supported. I use the quotations because those beliefs are absolute bull. The best part is that they weren't even measuring what they thought they were. The brain shape is not a 1:1 match for the shape of the skull. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
They believed that by comparing European skulls to the skulls of other ethnic groups, they could determine which ethnic group was the most evolved. You can probably imagine who they thought that was (white men). In fact, the guy that created phrenology believed Caucasians were the most beautiful and people of Aboriginal or Maori descent would never become civilized because they lacked the structure that was believed to create great artists. Yeah, you read that correctly. Additionally, most phrenologists were against the emancipation of slaves. They considered them to be "lesser people." That's not all of it either. Early criminologists believed they could determine the criminal tendencies of people based on phrenology. You can probably imagine who they thought the criminals were. The aftereffects of this can still be seen today. Who does the media most often portray as being criminal? Who does the police feel most threatened by? How many political leaders have suggested that one group is inherently more criminal than others?
Physiognomy is the belief that a person's physical features are indicative of their character. Thankfully, this is also considered a pseudoscience (fake science) in current society. Physiognomy has a longer history than phrenology. In fact, it dates back to a few ancient Greek philosophers, but it underwent a revival in the late 1800s. Gee, I wonder why that might have been. During the late 1800s, Sir Francis Galton tried to give concrete definitions to physiognomic features through composite photography. He made composites using the photos of violent criminals, and he found that the end result was deemed "more respectable" than the individual faces it contained. Again, wonder why that might have been. Could it be because it contained white men, so it had slightly whiter features? That's my guess.
Eugenics came about after both phrenology and physiognomy were largely discredited, but you can definitely see their influence on eugenics. Eugenics is defined as "the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary characteristics" (History Channel, 2017). Its primary goal is to breed out disease, disability, and undesirable characteristics. Early supporters believed people inherited poverty, criminal tendencies, and mental illness. The criminal tendencies bit is interesting because according to physiognomy, there would be a physical indicator of criminal tendencies. I genuinely believe the "indicator" of criminal tendencies was likely one of the so-called undesirable characteristics. In the wake of phrenology and physiognomy, eugenics was largely supported in the United States, which is sadly unsurprising. It's basically a combination of the two, just repackaged with a touch of Darwinism. Think about it. Undesirable characteristics, criminal tendencies, what you don't want a person to be, what you do want a person to be. The only thing that's different is the idea of inheritable traits because eugenics became popular after Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species.
One of the worst parts of this is how it lead to forced sterilizations of women of color, especially those in mental institutions. I want to mention here that this was not exclusive to mental institutions. A woman of color could have potentially gone in for surgery and walk out without a functional reproductive tract. In fact, between 1909 and 1979, 20,000 forced sterilizations occurred just in mental institutions. That does not include those done under the table. For anyone thinking, "Well, it's a mental institution." Back then, it didn't take much to be put in a mental institution. You would be put in one just for being gay or having depression (melancholy) or bipolar disorder (hysteria). In fact, in the wake of this, in 1927, the United States Supreme Court ruled that is was not against the constitution to forcibly sterilize disabled people.
Now, for a bit of lesser-known history knowledge. Adolf Hitler saw how African Americans were being treated in America. He also came across the idea of eugenics. He viewed Jewish people and Romani people as less than people, as inferior. He felt the same way about disabled Germans. He viewed them as impeding his goal of establishing a superior Aryan race. Because of this, he disposed of them. He may not have directly killed them, but he put the system in place that did. All of that blood is on his hands. Him and Mengele. For anyone who may not know, Josef Mengele was an SS doctor at Auschwitz, who oversaw the horribly, unethical experiments that took place there. I am not going to go into the gruesome details of what he did, but he earned the nickname Angel of Death.
That isn't where the story of eugenics ends though. Many of you have probably at least heard of Asperger's disorder, which is no longer a valid psychological diagnosis. Originally, it was considered a developmental disorder and placed under the autism spectrum disorder umbrella. Recent research has found that autism is indeed a spectrum, not categorial. This is why Asperger's isn't really a diagnosis people receive any more. I want to be clear here. This in no way invalidates the experiences of anyone diagnosed with Asperger's. I recognize that was a thing at one point. Your diagnosis is valid, and you and your experiences are valid. It just isn't a diagnosis someone would receive today.
Well, Asperger was a Nazi. Hans Asperger, after who the condition is named, had a questionable involvement with the Nazi regime in the 30s and 40s. One source (2) believes that one of the factors that make Asperger’s involvement with the Nazis questionable is the fact that he worked in close proximity to Erwin Jekelius, who was found responsible for the deaths of thousands of psychiatric patients and mentally disabled children. If Asperger were involved with the Nazis, that could raise the issue of how this diagnosis may have affected people under Nazi rule. For example, since the Nazis needed people for work camps, those with an Asperger’s diagnosis would be viewed as more fit to work than those with an autism diagnosis. The same could be said for those found to have high-functioning autism. This is why recently those in the autism community have been pushing against the diagnosis of Asperger’s and the use of the terms high and low functioning when talking about autism. A more recent source (1) believes that he was just another cog in the Nazi regime, and he deliberately referred disabled children to Am Spiegelgrund where he knew they would probably be killed. There are a few awesome articles that go into a lot more detail about this for anyone interested.
Sadly, this is only part of the dark history of psychology and the study of the mind. I am so thankful we are living in the times we are because oh boy. I would not have faired well, even in the 60s.
Sources:
Phrenology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
Physiognomy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiognomy
Asperger's and the Nazis 1: https://tidsskriftet.no/en/2019/05/essay/asperger-nazis-and-children-history-birth-diagnosis
Asperger's and the Nazis 2: https://molecularautism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13229-018-0208-6
Comments