98 ANALYSIS AND CRITICISM 



NOTES 



1 'Race', p. 155. 



2 Literature and Society, p. 4. 



3 Ibid., p. 5. 



^ See, for example, Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 

 1860-1915. 



5 History of English Literature, I, 12. 



6 /^iW., p. 13. A footnote refers to Darwin and Prosper Lucas' work On 

 Heredity. 



7 Ibid., p. 13. 



8 See our Chapters V, VIII, and IX, passim. 



9 Thus, Race is iht first and richest source of these master faculties from which 

 historical events take their rise {History of English Literature, I, p. 13, our italics). 



10 Chapter V, above, p. 64. 



11 History of English Literature, I, 30. 



12 Ibid., p. 66, our italics. (See Lectures, First Series, pp. 216-217, for another 

 example of the 'blood' explanation.) 



13 L. C. Dunn and T. Dobzhansky, Heredity, Race, and Society, pp. 1 01-104. 

 Cf. Irwin Edman, Chapter XI, 'Racial and Cultural Continuity', in Human 

 Traits and Their Social Significance : 'The cultural achievements of the past, 

 which we inherit chiefly as social habits, are obviously not transmitted to us 

 physically, as are the original human traits with which this volume has so far 

 been chiefly concerned. They are not in our blood; they are acquired like other 

 habits, through contact with others and through repeated practice' (p. 248). 



I'* M. F. Ashley Montagu, 'Race Theory in the Light of Modern Science', 



P- 4- 



15 Lectures, Second Series, p. 198, our italics. 



16 'Most biologists believe that the great variety of human heredities are the 

 result of mutations in the near and distant past' (Dunn and Dobzhansky, 

 op. cit., pp. 25-27). 



1"^ History of English Literature, I, 74, our italics. 



18 Ibid., Note i, our italics. 



19 Julian Huxley refers to genes 'making for social and economic success' 

 {Man in the Modern World, p. 54) and writes: 'There is no doubt that genetic 

 differences of temperament, including tendencies to social or anti-social action, 

 to cooperation or individualism, do exist, nor that they could be bred for in 

 man as man has bred for tameness and other temperamental traits in many 

 domestic animals . . .' {ibid., p. 56). Dunn and Dobzhansky are more cautious, 

 stressing the interaction of heredity and environment: 'Nevertheless, in spite of 

 all this, it is perfectly evident that some psychic characters depend on the 

 relations between the environment (including the cultural inheritance) and 

 the biological heredity, just as physical characters do' {op. cit., p. 28). Ruth 

 Benedict does not deny the relation of biology and culture, but tries to include 

 the former in a larger perspective: 'Cultural interpretations of behaviour need 

 never deny that a physiological element is also involved. . . . To point out, 

 therefore, that the biological bases of cultural behaviour in mankind are for the 

 most part irrelevant is not to deny that they are present. It is merely to stress 

 the fact that the historical factors are dynamic' {Patterns of Culture, p. 217). 



