I’ve been trying to figure out what exactly I wanted to talk
about all day. But I was flipping through the pages of my book, and I found a
comparison between Kant and von Herder. We did not discuss the passage by von Herder in class on Thursday, but the similarity between the two is the notion of monogenesis. As we learned in class, monogenesis is the idea that all humans have the same origin or genus. Both Kant and von Herder refer to the concept of monogenesis in some form, but they are in opposition when it comes to defining races.
In Kant's piece, he describes monogenesis through natural division, which is based on identifying distinct lines of descent according to reproductive relations. According to this theory, he says all human beings anywhere on earth belong to the same natural genus, because they always produce fertile children with one another even if we find great dissimilarities in their form. So, basically, he's saying if we all belong to the same genus, we're connected in some way, like a family.
Similarly, von Herder supports monogenesis. The very first statement he makes in his article is no matter how different the forms in which humankind appears on earth, it is still everywhere one and the same human species. In other words, no matter how many differences humans possess, we are still one and originate from the same human species, thus we are from the same genus.
So what was interesting to me is the fact that while both refer to and support monogenesis and how we all belong to the same genus, the concept of race is a completely different story. Kant describes four different races, and argues that race is the most helpful tool to organize humans. von Herder, however, sees no reason for the concept of "race." He argues that there are neither four nor five races. We are all one, and our "colors" run into one another.
If we think of this truly from the notion of monogenesis, there really should not be distinct "races." If we all belong to the same genus, then we are all the same species, period. I found it interesting that while Kant is trying to denounce polygenesis, he's still supporting the idea that there are, in fact, different races and the racial characteristics are permanent across generations. How is this possible? If we are all from one genus, or one "Adam," how can we be divided into races?
My question is, what are your interpretations of monogenesis and race? Do you think the two related? or are they two completely different concepts?
I think that it is understandable that when discussing race, concepts like monogenesis are brought up. Dr. J mentioned in class that people in the time period of some of these essays were borderline obsessed with the question 'why are black people black?' When white academics began writing, they had to try to answer this question with relatively very little science. If they were operating with the assumption that all of these beings were in fact people, then they had to try to figure out how people could have such different characteristics. Environmental factors were ruled out, thus, it would seem understandable that the question "Where did we all 'come from'?" would eventually be asked.
ReplyDeleteI'm not scientifically capable of answering just how similar monogenesis and race are, but I don't think it makes sense to say that different races of people were just created in different ways.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAndrea don’t be so quick to rule yourself out on scientifically explaining similarities of monogenesis and race. This is exactly what Kant was trying to prove!
ReplyDeleteFor Kant, it was possible that different races and racial characteristics that come from monogenesis. I believe he did an excellent job of explaining the distinct difference between race without straying to far away from his monogenesis roots. While explaining how we can be divided into races he did use somewhat of a polygenesis tone and thats where I feel like Ally’s questioning might have sprout from. With Kant’s provided idea of a natural system of understanding that we also discussed in class, he defends his monogenesis reasoning with a correct scientific outlook that can be supported biblically. Scientifically, Kant supported his claim by stating that the different races could still breed together which still makes them of the same genus. If Kant were take an opposite defense and support polygenesis, then this scientific reasoning would deteriorate because polygenesis states that different races begin from multiple sources making them unable to produce offspring.
I also feel that based on Kant’s terminology of race, that it would be reasonable to state that we are all the same race, but within out race lies different phenotypes that are generated as a result of change climate and geographical placement. With this altered definition of Kant's explanation of race, the term "variations" must be dismissed entirely to hold true to his own original monogenesis virtues. Using the world variation emphasizes different racial appearances so much so that it seems like a mutation. If we are all developments from Adam’s seed, then why does Kant classify racial differences further than the length of our branches (height, weight, and size of our body parts) and the color of our leaves (skin tone)?