the solvency of metaphysics: the debate over racial science and moral philosophy in france 1890-1919

7/27/2019 The Solvency of Metaphysics: The Debate Over Racial Science and Moral Philosophy in France 1890-1919

1/26

The Solvency of Metaphysics: The Debate over Racial Science and Moral Philosophy in France,1890-1919

Author(s): Jennifer Michael HechtSource: Isis, Vol. 90, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 1-24Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/237472 .

Accessed: 30/07/2013 15:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toIsis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.194 on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:42:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hsshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/237472?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/237472?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/26

T h e Solvency o f MetaphysicsThe Debateover Racial Science and MoralPhilosophy in France,1890-1919

By Jennifer Michael Hecht*

ABSTRACTFrench nineteenth-century olitical theorygenerallyheld thatthe empiricalscientismas-sociated with the Enlightenmentwas inextricablefrom Enlightenmentegalitarian deals.As the centurydrewto a close, a racistanthropologydevelopedthat seemedto confoundthis idea becauseit combined scientismwith a devotion to human nequality.Therewereseveralvarietiesof this phenomenon,but GeorgesVacherdeLapouge'santhroposociologywas most prominent.The racistdoctrinewas effectively combatedby the anthropologistLeonce Manouvrier,but it remainedtroublingbecause it had demonstratedhatsciencecould be used against democracy.Three left-wing social theoristsaddressed his issue togreateffect: Alfred Fouillee, CelestinBougle, and JeanFinot. Thougheach of these menwas dedicatedto secular rationalism,each came to the conclusion that if society had tochoose between Enlightenment deals and Enlightenmentmethods it shouldpreservetheideals. In so doing, Fouillee, Bougle, and Finot proposeda sort of metaphysical eap offaith thatwould hold certainbasic human values beyondthe reachof scientifictheories,however persuasivethey might seem.

THERISEOF ANTHROPOLOGICAL HEORIESOFHUMANINEQUALITYn latenineteenth-century France created a schism between Enlightenment empirical scien-

tism and Enlightenment egalitarian ideals. The relationship between scientific authorityand politics began to shift, and the resulting changes contributed to the development ofthe "new right" and "new left." Broadly, the old right can be said to have relied uponmonarchical tradition and revealed religion, while the left looked to science and the con-comitant vision of historical progress. Between 1880 and 1914, the right began to employscience and numbers to support its social hierarchies and the left saw that, in some in-stances, the preservation of their political ideals required a rejection of science. A signifi-cant aspect of this reconfiguration was precipitated by antidemocratic biological theories.In France, the most important of these was the "anthroposociology" of Georges Vacherde Lapouge. This essay examines the antiracist and antiscientific doctrines devised in

* Departmentof History,Nassau CommunityCollege, One EducationDrive, GardenCity, New York [email protected], 1999, 90:1-24? 1999 by The Historyof Science Society. All rightsreserved.0021-1753/99/9001-0001$02.00

1

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/26

The literarycritic Ferdinand Bruneti6re in his home, 1899.



4/26

2 THE SOLVENCY OF METAPHYSICSreaction to Lapouge and theorists like him. The primaryauthorsof this late nineteenth-century antiracismwere Alfred Fouillee, Celestin Bougle, and Jean Finot.It has long been noted that at the end of the nineteenthcenturythe republicanpoliticalleft began to mistrust the ability of science to defend its ideals. HarryPaul's insightfularticleof 1968 discussed this phenomenon n termsof the "debateover the bankruptcy fscience," which he describedas arising from a public call, issued in 1895 by the positivistFerdinandBrunetiere, or a return o religion in the service of a moral society.' This callwas significanton a broadcultural ield: it was deploredby angrychemists and governmentpositivists and applaudedby clerics. This study will demonstratehat anthropologists ndphilosophersof the period mocked the answersprofferedon both sides of the issues raisedby Brunetiere.They were engagedin a much moretrenchantdebate on moralitythat wasgenerating the new ideas, both horrifying and heroic, that would define the followingcentury.This article takes Brunetiere's "bankruptcy f science" debate as a backgroundmapof ideological positions at the turnof the century.From opposite sides, the opponentsin a new debate were pushing each other off that map andcontributing o the creationofa new politicalorder.FerdinandBrunetierewas a prolific and respected literarycritic, well known for hismultivolumetomes on lyric poetry and the historyof French iterature.By the turnof thecenturyhe would distinguishhimself as a leading lay participantn the Catholicrevivalistmovementand as an anti-Dreyfusard, ut before 1895 he was best known as a rationalistfreethinking cholar, maitre de conference at the Ecole NormaleSuperieure,and editor oftheRevue des Deux Mondes.He usedthepagesof that ournal o discussDarwinian heory,anticlericalism,andphilosophicalmaterialism- all in the name of seculardemocracy. SeeFrontispiece.)When he called for a pragmaticreturn o Catholicism n his article "Apresune visite au Vatican,"he was not announcinga new intellectualposition regarding henatureof reality but, rather,proclaiminga changein social strategy.He fearedthatwithoutthe moralityof religion the republicanbody politic would fall into chaos. In defense ofbourgeois security,he dramaticallyassertedthat he hadbeen mistaken:science could notconvince the mass of humanbeings to be good. When Brunetierespoke of science, hemeantpositivist secularismas opposedto religiosity.He bemoaned the failureof scienceto provide a convincing social moralitybecausehe believed thatwithout sanctions n theafterlife,no moralitycould be sufficiently imposing. In one instancehe did state that"ifwe ask Darwinismfor lessons in moral behavior,the lessons which it gives us will beabominable,"but his mainpointwas thatthe secularmoralityof scientiststaught he samelessons as religion without the requisite supervision.2His leading opponentshad no ar-gument with his terms. The chemist and governmentminister Marcelin Berthelot, forexample, arguedthatpositivist republicanismwas doing fine and hadno need to run backinto the arms of a paternalist,dogmatic religion. On both sides of this debate,the samebasic model of rationalismprevailed,and both sides had the sameconceptionof good andbad: the scientists were making no claims to have found a new scientific morality,andBrunetieredid not insist on spiritualityas a rationale or his proposedCatholic revival.When Vacher de Lapouge spoke of science, however,he meant Darwinism's"abomi-nable lessons." He advocatedthe breedingof humanbeings througha process of stateselection (based on anti-Semitismand skull measurement),artificialinsemination,and

1HarryPaul, "The Debate over the Bankruptcyof Science in 1895," French HistoricalStudies, 1968, 3:299-327.2 FerdinandBrunetiere,"Apresune visite auVatican,"Revue des Deux Mondes, 1895, 127:97-118, on p. 104.



5/26

JENNIFERMICHAELHECHT 3euthanasia,and he vilified any conception of moralitythat would hinderhis proposals.3Secular, positivist republicanswho responded to Lapouge's work understoodthat tocountersuch doctrineswith an uninspiredCatholicismwould be as ineffective as it wouldbe hypocritical. But they were driven to believe that science could not be left as theauthorityon humanmorality. In the hands of Brunetiereand his opponents, the debateover moralitywas rather ame, posing a pragmaticCatholicismagainst a science that wasessentiallyuninterested n revising morality. Philosophersand anthropologistswent fur-ther, pitting a new metaphysics of human values against a harsh materialistdoctrine ofantimoralismandracist law.

ANTHROPOSOCIOLOGYThere was nothingnew about mixing biological theory with politics, but the practicehadproliferatedafter 1859, when Darwin publishedhis theory of evolution."Racialconflicts"were ubiquitous,for the term signified tensions between groupsthat "are aciallyhomo-geneous by today's definitions.In the 1860s and 1870s Paul Broca's anthropometricalstudies had quantified hese purported acial differences.The famed Count Gobineau,anardentopponentof evolution, invented a theory of history based on the interactionsofthreehumanracesthatcorresponded losely to aristocratsGobineau'swhiterace),bour-geois (yellow), and workers (black). By the turnof the century many French theoristsapplieda biological hierarchy o social categories;discussionsof degeneration,criminalanthropology,and eugenics were relatively commonplace.4Nonetheless, Vacher de La-pouge stood out as having inventeda racialdoctrine that his contemporaries aw as sci-entific, erudite,vicious, andrevolutionary.He calledhis science "anthroposociology,"ndthisterm,thoughsoonwidely used, generallymaintained ts reference oLapouge.It wouldbe hardto overestimateLapouge's industriousnessn the service of his science. He keptup a tremendouscorrespondencewith disciples, sympathizers,opponents, ournaleditors,and colleagues all over the world. In so doing, he actively facilitated the exchange ofinformation, he translationof work, the publicationof new studies, and the creationofconferences.He sentfellow travelershis collectionsof dataandhisphotographs f "types,"lent them skulls, annotated heirwork, wrote prefaces,and even helped them attainuni-versity positions. Contemporary iscussionsof racialistanthropologicalpoliticsregularlycitedhim as the leaderof the movement n France.sThus,while the defendersof egalitarian

Lapouge's dismissalof good and evil is quite similarto Nietzsche's, though neitherseems to have readtheother'swork. The chief differencebetween themis that, ultimately,Nietzsche called for the individual o strive,inwardly,to become the "Ubermann,"while Lapouge called for a dismissal of individuality n pursuitof racialgroup progress.At times Nietzsche seems to be advocatingvery Lapougianconstructs,but while the philoso-pher's work is punctuatedwith brilliant nsights that explode his otherwiseracialist deas, the anthroposociolo-gist's work is punctuatedwith very clever wit that merely serves to furtherhis racialistconvictions.4See Stephen J. Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New York:Norton, 1981); RobertNye, Crime,Madness,and Politics in Modem France: TheMedical Conceptionof National Decline (Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniv.Press, 1984); Linda Clark, Social Darwinism in France (University:Univ. Alabama Press, 1984); J. Edward

ChamberlinandSanderGilman,eds., Degeneration:The Darker Side of Progress (New York:ColumbiaUniv.Press, 1985); Daniel Pick, Faces of Degeneration:A European Disorder, c. 1848-c. 1918 (Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniv. Press, 1989); and William Schneider,Qualityand Quantity:TheQuest or Biological Regeneration(Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1990).5See, e.g., LeonWiniarski,"L'anthropo-sociologie," evenir Social, 1898, 4(3):193-232; and CharlesFages,"L'evolutiondu Darwinisme sociologique,"HumaniteNouvelle, 1898, 2:28-42. See Lapouge's extensive col-lection of correspondence,"FondsVacher de Lapouge,"housed in the Paul Val6ry Libraryof the UniversityofMontpellier;his governmentpersonnelfiles, locatedin the ArchivesNationalesde Paris, especiallyBB/6(II)419andF/17/22640; and the Archives of the Societe d'Anthropologiede Paris, located at the Musee de l'Hommein Paris.



6/26

4 THE SOLVENCYOF METAPHYSICSdemocracydid not direct their argumentsexclusively at Lapouge,it is useful to considerthis centraltarget.Lapouge s also animportant ubjectbecause, despitethestrenuous ejectionof his ideasthat will be described in this essay, those ideas were profoundly nfluential-celebratedin Germanyandthe United States duringhis lifetimeand,afterhis death,revived in France.Hans Gunther,the principal Nazi race scientist, cited Lapouge regularly. The two mencorrespondedover many years and aided one anotherin importantways. Lapouge hadmany other Germancollaborators,buthis influence was not limitedto Germany.He cor-respondedwithmanyAmericansand was entertained t the WhiteHouse, alongwithothereugenists, under the Hardingadministration. n 1939 the Vichy regime set up an Institutd'Anthroposociologie hat formed the "scientific"armof a group of institutionsdedicatedto racist propaganda.The institute was based on Lapouge's ideas, and his son, ClaudeVacher de Lapouge, was made its president. n 1940 PierreLaval authorizeda commissionto investigate the possibility of putting Lapouge's eugenics program nto practice.6Andyet years earlier,at the turn of the century, Lapougehad been repudiatedby the Frenchintelligentsia.In his two major works, Les selections sociales (1896) andL'Aryen (1899), Lapougedescribed humanity as divided into two races, each of which could be identifiedby its"cephalic ndex": the dolichocephalicand the brachycephalic. See Figure 1.) The indexwas calculatedby comparing he width andbreadthof the skull:dolichocephalihadlong,narrowheads, while brachycephalihad round heads. The cephalic index originatedwiththe Swedish anthropologistAnders Retzius; Lapouge's innovationlay in the qualitativecharacteristics e associatedwith these head shapes.7"Dolichos"-or Aryans,as Lapouge alternativelycalled them-were fairskinnedwithblue eyes and temperamentally reative, adventurous,and refined.More often Protestantthan Catholic, they were the majoritypopulation n northernGermany,Scandinavia,andEngland. "Brachies" also his term)were much darker n complexion, tended to live inmountainous egions, and were more often CatholicthanProtestant.They preferredo staynear their homes and chose constancyoverchange. They weregood but mediocrepeople,lacking imaginationandcourage.This mild anduninspiredgroupdominated he popula-tions of France, Spain, andItaly, all of Asia, and most of the Slavic countries.Lapougeinsisted that the aristocracyof the ancienregime had been dolichocephalic.Because theFrench Revolution had removedthe aristocracy rom control in France,the dolichos wereoverwhelmedby the masses of brachies.Strippedof theirlegal and financialpower, theywere intermixingwith the brachiesanddyingout.Accordingto Lapouge,the only dolichogroupthat was bothsucceedingin thepublicworldandrefusingto breed outside thegroup

6In many of his books, Gtinthercited Lapouge more frequently han any other authorand there were manymore general borrowings. See, e.g., Hans Gunther,Kleine RassenkundeEuropas (Munich, 1925); Gtinther,Rassenkundedes Deutschen Volkes Munich, 1923); andGunther,RacialElementsof EuropeanHistory(London,1927). For theircorrespondence ee Lapouge/Gtinther ndLapouge/A.F. DuPont (DuPontoften wrote to La-pouge on Gunther'sbehalf), FondsVacher de Lapouge.On Lapouge's trip to the White House see LapougetoMadameAlbertine de Lapouge,no. 068-50, 23 Sept. 1921, and [no number] 28 Sept. 1921, Fonds VacherdeLapouge. On the institutesee MichaelR. MarrusandRobert0. Paxton,Vichyet lesjuifs (Paris:Calmann-Levy,1981), pp. 395, 413, 416. Laval's commission is discussed in HubertThomas-Chevalier,Le racisme ranVaise(Nancy:Thomas,1943), pp. xi, xix, citedin GeorgeL. Mosse, Toward he Final Solution:A History of EuropeanRacism (Madison:Univ. WisconsinPress, 1978), pp. 58-62.

7Georges Vacherde Lapouge,Les selections sociales (Paris, 1896); and Lapouge,L'Aryen,son role social(Paris, 1899). On the history of the cephalic index see ClaudeBlanckaert,"L'indice cephaliqueet 1'ethnogenieeuropeenne: A. Retzius, P. Broca, F. Pruner-Bey (1840-1870)," Bulletins et Memoires de la Societed'Anthropologiede Paris, 1989, 1(3-4): 165-202.



7/26

JENNIFERMICHAELHECHT 5

D. )Fx-Stv ee s4, 8dx$7 Isdn 66. AvEyntox. sAi,mxt;TVP5..

.CqpsInd" 67.

.N,TI'uIE.M9Vrr 5.eSAXkASms.

FRANCEi

Figure 1. Headtypes. Lapouge oanedthese photographs o WilliamRipley,whopublished heminhis Races of Europe(New York,1899).Note the cephalic ndexprintedbeneath some of theportraits.Lapougeconsideredan index below80 to be dolichocephalic hesuperior ype.

was the Jews. This was a problemfor Lapougebecause he was an anti-Semitewho sawthe Jews as a dangerous,venial, "false aristocracy"hat could exploit butnot createcivi-lization.Lapouge also recognizedmany racialsubdivisions, mixes, andexceptionsto hisrules,all of whichhe explainedin greatnumerical,anecdotal,andlinguisticdetail. He andhis disciples measuredmany thousandsof skulls and heads in order to demonstrateanddecipher these relationshipS.8Lapouge wanted France,redesignedas a "selectionist state,"to regulateits citizens'professionalandreproductiveives. He argued hatthedilutedsemen of oneperfectdolichoman could serve for the impregnationof two hundredthousand women a year, and heproposeda government hatwouldorganizetheenterprise."Liberty,Equality,Fraternity,"

8Lapouge had many zealous disciples, but he also got help from some unexpected quarters.The poet PaulValery, for instance, oined Lapouge in his laboratory,helpinghim to measuresix hundred kulls taken from anold cemetery.The young poet frequentedLapouge's anthroposociology ectureswhile studying law at Mont-pellier. Val6ry ater commentedthathe did not learnanythingusefulbut that,"amongall the thingsthatI learnedthat were never useful to me, thosepointlessmeasurementswere not morepointless thanthe others."PaulValeryto HenriB6gouen, 1936, quoted in HenriBegouen, "Vacherde Lapouge-Pere de l'Aryenisme,"Journal desDebats Politiques et Litte'raires, 2 Aug. 1936, p. 3.



8/26

6 THE SOLVENCY OF METAPHYSICSLapouge insisted, must be replacedby "Determinism, nequality,Selection!"9He saw theworldon the brinkof a total revolution basedon his theories of heredity, writing that "inthe next century people will be slaughteredby the millions for the sake of one or twodegreeson the cephalicindex."This kind of languagewas rare with Lapouge andit wasmore a predictionthan a threat.Yet although Lapougedid not ask specifically for exter-mination,he did call for the death of any moral sentiments hat stoodin its way-becausetheyalso stoodin theway of hisbreedingplans.His invectiveagainstmoralitywas explicit:"Here s why I have been speaking to you of the abyss and of a cataclysm.All of moralityand all of the ideas which serve as a base for law and for the political sciences, in theirpresent-dayconceptions,constitutea series of deductionsof which the first term assumesthe existence of a personaldivinity.... Remove all validityfrom this source andthere isnothing left." When he predicted that "the superiorraces"would soon conquerhumangroups "retarded n evolution," he added that "the last sentimentalistswill witness thecopious exterminationof entire peoples."10As a rule,he showed more angertoward hese"last sentimentalists,"who continued to believe in God and morality, than towardthehumangroups"retardedn evolution."In general, scholarshave understoodLapouge as a frustrated ristocratwho addedDar-winism to the racistand classist theories of Gobineau and in so doing fashionedone ofthe firstpolitical utopiasbasedon scientific racism.Indeed,in his own memoirsLapougedescribedhimself as an aristocratwho had always struggled againstthe republicand itsideals.11But this is not accurate.Vacher de Lapougebegan his career as a resoluteleft-wing anticlericalrepublican;he worked as a magistrate or the youngThirdRepublicandinsisted on democratic deals in his public andprivatecorrespondence.He was not verysuccessful in this career-partly in consequenceof his boisterous anticlericalzeal-andwhen he was still a young manhe resumedhis studies, switchinghis attention romlawto science.12 Lapouge began taking classes at various Parisianinstitutions, among themthe Ecole d'Anthropologie,which was runby radicallyanticlericalatheists.These anthro-pologists were freethinkerswho had trainedthemselves in anthropology n order to use

I Georges Vacherde Lapouge, "Preface,"n ErnstHaeckel, Le monisme, lien entre la religion et la science,trans.Lapouge (Paris,1897), pp. 1-8. Lapougeclaimed to have performed he first"telegenesis,"mailinga doseof human spermfrom one town to another and there attaininga successful conception:Lapouge, Selectionssociales (cit. n. 7), pp. 472-473.10Georges Vacher de Lapouge, "L'anthropologieet la science politique,"Revue dAnthropologie, 1887,16:136-157, on pp. 151, 142, 151.l GeorgesVacherde Lapouge,"Souvenirs,"n GeorgesVacherde Lapouge:Essai de bibliographie,ed. Henride La Haye Josselin (Paris, 1986), pp. 9-16, on p. 15. On Lapougesee Guy Thuillier,"Unanarchistepositive:Georges Vacher de Lapouge," n L'idee de race dans la pensee politique fran,caise contemporaine,ed. PierreGuiral and Emile Temime (Paris:CNRS, 1977), pp. 48-65; and Pierre-AndreTaguieff, "L'introductiondel'eugenisme en France:Du mot a l'idee," Mots, 1991, 26:23-45. For an articlethatexhibits a decidedsympathyfor Lapouge and his ideas see Jean Boissel, "Georges Vacherde Lapouge:Un socialiste revolutionnaireDar-winien,"Nouvelle Ecole, 1982, 38:59-84. Insofar as these essays discuss the life of Lapouge, they largely drawon two articles writtenat the time of his death:Begouen, "Vacherde Lapouge"(cit. n. 8); and Etienne Patte,"GeorgesVacher de Lapouge,"Revue G6neraledu Centre-Ouestde la France, 1937, 46:769-789. For worksin English see Clark,Social Darwinism n France (cit. n. 4), pp. 143-154; Schneider,Qualityand Quantity cit.n. 4), pp. 56-63; and JenniferMichael Hecht, "AnthropologicalUtopias and Republican Morality:PoliticalAtheism and the Mind/BodyProblem n France,1880-1914" (Ph.D. diss., ColumbiaUniv., 1995), Chs. 5, 6.

12 In one instance,Lapouge apparently ook advantageof the fact that a revolutionary aw forbiddingeccle-siastic dress had never been officially revokedand arrested he firstpriesthe saw passing in the street outsidehis window; see Begouen, "Vacherde Lapouge."Lapouge's youthful republicanism s best illustrated n thesupervisor'sreportswrittenabouthim duringhis periodin the magistrature:ArchivesNationales de Paris,BB/6(11)419and F/17/22640. Indicationscan also be found in the personalcorrespondence n Fonds Vacher deLapouge.Fora historyof Lapouge hattraceshis leftist, republicanoriginssee Hecht, "AnthropologicalUtopias,"Ch. 5.



9/26

JENNIFERMICHAELHECHT 7the young science as a bludgeon against religion. When Brunetiereneeded a quotation norderto demonstrate he position of total antimetaphysics,he took it from the writings ofone of these anthropologists.They were atheists, explicitly antiphilosophical,and com-mitted to scientific materialism,but they were also devoted to principlesof equality. Thegroup put forward a numberof programs o increase knowledge and social equality andclaimed, if often a bit mournfully,that these projectswere an adequatereplacement orthe functions of religion.13In contrast,Lapouge was deeply nihilistic. Even his own project for human breedingseemed to him a poor, though serviceable, replacement or religious purpose.His beliefin selection as the evolutionarymechanism surpassedeven that of Darwin, who allowedfor some effect of the inheritanceof acquiredcharacteristics.ForLapouge,control of thebreedingof human beings was the only true arenaof progress, despiteits difficulty. "Weare on our way,"he wrote, "bynew formulasbased on social hygiene, towardthe elimi-nation of the idea of morality.It is an evolution which has its advantagesandits incon-veniences, but which the progress of human knowledge renders inevitable."Lapougebelieved that only cowardice prevented his contemporariesrom adoptinghis anthropo-sociological theories-especially those contemporarieswho claimed to be freethinkers.Indeed, he said that it was "an act of faith" that enabled them to escape the conclusionsof "Darwinianpolitical science."14 or Lapougeandmany of his contemporaries,"faith"was a ratherbadwordimplying a lackof intellectualrigor.It was in opposition o Lapougeand his ilk that a handful of republicantheorists rehabilitated his loose notion of faith,insistingthatcertainhumanprinciples were unconditionally rue-even if they could notbe supportedby empiricalevidence.ForLapouge,Brunetiere' solutionto the crisis of moralityandmeaningwas theepitomeof cowardice. "Already iberals, socialists, and anarchists reat Darwiniansas barbarians.So be it! The barbariansare coming, the besiegers have come to be besieged, and theirlast hope of resistanceis to lock themselvesup in the citadel which they were attacking.Thenearfuturewill show our sonsacuriousspectacle: he theoreticiansof thefalsemodemdemocracy constrained o shut themselves back up in the citadel of clericalism."Manycontemporariesagreed with Lapouge, lauding his scientific and scholarly abilities andholding him up against"Christians ndmystics of all types."In one of the few articlestocompareBrunetiereandLapouge directly,an 1897 review of Les se'lectionssociales re-peatedly praised Lapouge's dismissal of God and traditionalmoralityandcongratulatedhim forusing "themostdependableanthropologicalmethods:measurement f skulls."For

13 The freethinking anthropologistBrunetierequoted is Andre Lefevre. It is worth repeatinghis extremestatement:"Religionsarethe purifiedresiduesof superstition.The value of a civilization is in inverseproportionto its religiousfervor.All intellectualprogresscorresponds o a diminutionof the supernaturaln the world. Thefuture s science."Andre Lefevre, La religion(Paris:Reinwald, 1892), pp. 572-573, cited in Brunetiere,"Apresune visite au Vatican" cit. n. 2), p. 98. On the anthropologists ee Hecht, "AnthropologicalUtopias";ElizabethWilliams, "The Science of Man" (Ph.D. diss., IndianaUniv., 1983); Joy Harvey, "Races Specified,EvolutionTransformed"Ph.D. diss., HarvardUniv., 1983); andMichael Hammond,"Anthropology s a Weapon of SocialCombat," ournalof the History of theBehavioral Sciences, 1980, 16:118-132. Fortheirantiphilosophical tancesee, e.g., Lefevre, "Laphilosophiedevant l'anthropologie,"Homme,1884, 1:577-584; and Ren6 Fauvelle, "IIfaut en finiravec la philosophie," bid., 1885, 2:139-146. For more on the anthropologists'programsand theirrole as replacements or religion see JenniferMichaelHecht, "FrenchScientific Materialismand the LiturgyofDeath: The Invention of a Secular Version of Catholic Last Rites (1876-1914)," French Hist. Stud., 1997,20:703-735.14Lapouge,L'Aryen cit.n. 7), pp.509,514. Unlike mostFrencheugenists,who tended owardLamarckianism,Lapouge believed that educating ndividualshad no place in an evolutionaryprogrambecause it would have noreal effect on their offspring.



10/26

8 THE SOLVENCY OF METAPHYSICSthis reviewer and many others, the chief concern was the issue of morality: "Lately-before and afterBrunetiere-the favorable nfluenceof moral nstructionhas been put intoserious doubt. Vacher de Lapouge goes further."According to Lapouge, the review con-tinued, "it is necessaryto finally replace service to a supernatural nd chimericalGod withservice to the species."''5Lapouge excoriated any solution to the "crisis of morality"that, having professed abelief in materialism,either prescribeda return o Christianmoralityor profferedbelief ina naturally mprovinghereditarymorality.He assertedthat"thesocialist, anarchistor so-called democratic ournals"were celebratingDarwinism because they saw it "above all"as ''an argumentwith which to oppose the Church."They were happy to use science todisprove religion, Lapouge charged, but when science suggested a course of action thatcontradictedtheir own moral universe they refused to acknowledge it. "When I say'they,' " wroteLapouge, "Imeanthe freethinkers,or those who qualifyas such, becausefrom the very beginningthe churcheshave seen the consequencesof these new theoriesand have taken steps to denigrate hem." He was right. Catholic writers had not had anytroublerepudiatinghis vicious theories.They simply denied that science was a source oftruthand laughed at Lapouge's odd construct,usually includinga few jokes regarding heidea that humans sharedan ancestrywith apes.16For scientistic, positivist republicans,on the otherhand, counteringLapougewas notso easy. Emile Durkheim,for instance, felt compelled to allow a Lapougian disciple aplace in his Anne'eSociologique-editing a section on anthroposociology.Durkheimdidnot like it, but as long as Lapouge appeared o be a good scientist,Durkheim elt obligedto permitextremelypositivereviews of his work to be printed n thejournal.17Republicanschampioned earlessnessin the face of science as a cardinalvirtue, upholdinga belief, atleast as old as the Enlightenment, hat the world was a conflict between the darknessoffamiliar, comforting,but infantilizing dogma and the light of new, somewhatharrowing,but ultimately emancipatory awful truths.18To these progressive republicans, gnoranceor fear of science seemed to explainthe backwardnessof conservatives.How could theynow turn againstwhat seemed to be a lawful, quantifiable cientificdiscovery?The scientisticrepublicanswere luckyto have an excellent anthropologist n theirside,in the person of Leonce Manouvrier.Manouvrierhad earned his medical degree, and a

15 Ibid., p. 514; and R. F. [no full name given], "Les s6lections sociales," Revue des Revues, 1896,23(135):375-377, on pp. 376, 377.16 Lapouge, L'Aryen,p. 513. For jokes at Lapouge's expense see, e.g., J. Rochette, "Compte rendu-Less6lections sociales," ttudes Religeuses, July 1897, pp. 279-281.17 The disciple, HenriMuffang, sent all of his reviews to Lapouge for "correction" efore submitting hemtoDurkheim. See Henri Muffang to Georges Vacher de Lapouge, A067-1 through A067-91, Fonds Vacher deLapouge. Durkheimexplainshis decision to include anthroposociologywhen introducing he section in its firstappearance:Emile Durkheim,AnneieSociologique, 1896-1897, 1:519.18 This admittedlyabbreviatedaccount of a complicatedphenomenon does not address the questionof hownumbers came to be seen as objective and authoritative.One answer is that the Newtonian descriptionof the

world in numericalratios was so astoundinglypowerful (allowing one to predict,explain, and manipulate hephysical universe)that it made quantification ttractive.Another,related answeris that the complex, unsettlingtransition o modernity ed to a desire to extend the pure truthsof mathematics nto the world of subjectsandobjects. Also, historiansof statistics have describedrelationshipsbetweenthe rise of modern states andthe riseof the authority of quantitativemethodologies; see, e.g., Ian Hacking, The Taming of Chance (Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1990). TheodoreM. Porter'srecentwork,Trust n Numbers:The Pursuitof Objectivityin Science andPublic Life (Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniv. Press, 1995), offers a new, persuasive nterpretation,suggesting that the rise of quantificationhad to do in partwith the need to shareknowledge at a distance. Inprivate or local situationsknowledge of the speakercertifiesthe information,whereas the modernglobal com-munity requiresa system of detailed universalstandards.



11/26

JENNIFERMICHAELHECHT 9laureatedu prix de these, from the ParisFacultyof Medicine. He left the professionin1878, when the famed anthropologistPaul Broca invited him to work in the Paris Labo-ratory of Anthropology.After Broca died in 1880, Manouvrierspent the rest of his liferunning he lab (thoughnot alwaysas its titularchief). He was also a professorat the ParisSchool of Anthropology,served as SecretaryGeneralof the ParisSocietyof Anthropologyfor twenty-four years, gave frequent, well-attendedpublic lectures, and wrote a numberof anthropological rticles.Mostof these lecturesand articleswere dedicated o debunkingthe racist and sexist methodology of contemporaryphysical anthropology.Manouvrier'sstrong attackon Lapouge, "L'indice cephalique et la pseudo-sociologie,"defended an-thropologyagainstanthroposociology,but it was not scientistic. He dismissedthe idea thatabilitiesand character raitsare determinedby biology, positing insteada socialphilosophyin which environment hapespersonality.Yet it was his scientific credentials hat gave thearticle its tremendous weight, and it was cited widely.19Durkheim used Manouvrier'scritiqueas an opportunity o cut the "Anthroposociology"ection from his journal.Thefirst ssue thatdidnotinclude the section insteadranback-to-back eviews of Manouvrier'article and Lapouge's latest book, L'Aryen.Even here, Lapouge was given creditfor an"incontestableerudition,"but his theories were pronouncedscientificallyerroneous,ac-cordingto the "magisterial ritiqueof M. Manouvrier."There were manysimilarcelebra-tions of Manouvrier'sarticle,all of which conspicuouslycited and admiredhis scientificcredentials.20 he anthropologist'srefutationwas just whatthe republicanpolitical worldwas lookingfor andmighthave ended the matter,hadnot several theoristsnoticed a flaw:theLapougian hreatwouldalwaysexist if science was held to be theauthority nquestionsof humansociety. REPUBLICAN REACTION TO LAPOUGEMany of Lapouge's contemporaries espondedpubliclyto his theories. Of them, the the-orists who most aggressivelyandsignificantlyaddressed he relationshipbetween scienceand social moralitywere Alfred Fouillee, CelestinBougle, andJean Finot. Questionsofnaturalmoralityversus a priori moral facts have long occupied philosophers,andmanyinquirieson such topics substantiallyantedatethe work of Fouillee, Bougle, and Finot.The significanceof these later theorists lies in the fact that their actions were directlypolitical and their concerns immediate. Their work reacted to an increasingly populartheorythat describednatureas amoraland called uponhumanbeings to be antimoralandmurderous.Darwinianevolutionarytheorymade explicit the progressive possibilities ofabandoningtraditionalmorality, and henceforthboth morality and amoralitycould bedescribedas having vital social benefits. The work of Fouillee, Bougle, and Finot wasengenderedby the assault on humaneand democratic deals suchpossibilitiesoccasioned.

ALFRED FOUILLEESolidarismhas come to be known, in the wordsof the historianJ. E. S. Hayward,as "theideology of the ThirdRepublic."ThephilosopherAlfredFouilleeformulatedhedoctrine,

19Lonce Manouvrier,"L'indicec6phalique t la pseudo-sociologie,"Revuede l'tcole d'Anthropologie,1899,9:233-259. On Manouvrier's ritiqueof Lapougeand otheranthropological xcesses see JenniferMichael Hecht,"A Vigilant Anthropologist:Leonce Manouvrierand the DisappearingNumbers,"J. Hist. Behav. Sci., 1997,33(3):221-240.20 Forthe two reviews see "Compterendu-L'indice c6phaliqueet la pseudo-sociologie,"Ann. Sociol., 1899-1900, 4:143-145; and "Compterendu-L'Aryen, son role social," ibid., pp. 145-146. For anotherapprovingcitation of Manouvrier'sessay see Gustave Rouanet, "Les theories aristocratiquesdevant la science," PetiteRepublique,2 Jan. 1900, p. 1.



12/26

10 THE SOLVENCY OF METAPHYSICSbeginningin the 1870s, and by the 1890s it dominatedpolitical discourse. Solidarism'smost dedicated political champion,Leon Bourgeois, was made prime minister in 1895,andin the following years he continued o articulateand popularizeSolidaristgoals.21Thepopularityof Solidarism was due to its concerned moderation: t was a reaction againstlaissez-faireindividualism hatstopped short of socialism. William Logue has character-ized it as a kind of neoliberalismthat assertedthat the maximum libertyfor all could beattainedonly throughorganizedsocial action that ran counterto classic liberalism's con-cept of freedom.In a differentcontext, Haywardsaid much the same thing when he citedthe growing nineteenth-century otion that "in the inegalitarianeconomic sphere, it waslaissez-faire thatoppressedand social intervention hat liberated."22eitherHaywardnorLogue, however,takes into account the themes of naturalhistoryand evolution that dom-inate nineteenth-and early twentieth-centurydiscussions of Solidarism.It would be dif-ficult to exaggerate heextent to which the theoristsof Solidarismdiscussedpoliticaltheoryin termsof Darwinianevolution.This was not a simple case of scientific argon borrowedfrom the anthropologistso increase the doctrine's culturalauthority.Rather,Leon Bour-geois and the theoristsof Solidarismclearlyfelt both burdenedand blessed to be the firstthinkerswith access to anthropology'sstunningnew information.It was with a sense ofdutyand resolve (anda sense thatmisinterpretationouldbe calamitous) hatthey broughtnaturalism o bearon the old questionsof social contract,human character,general will,and a prepolitical"stateof nature."Solidarism's concern about the political implicationsof evolutionary theory concen-tratedfirmlyon Darwinian,not neo-Lamarckian, heory.Unlike Frenchscientists,Frenchpoliticiansandpolitical theorists madefrequentreferenceto Darwin and the "survivalofthe fittest"but seldom mentioned Lamarckor his work.23Darwinianevolution was wellknown in political circles, and its frightening mplicationswere by no means lost on theFrench.They understood hat civilization's moralgoal of takingcare of the "unfit"waspreventing,even reversing,the work of evolution.And yet thatgoal could not be aban-doned:to return o the political, social, and economic equivalentof the "state of nature"

21 The relationshipbetween Fouillee's philosophyand Bourgeois's political careerhas been well established.See J. E. S. Hayward,"Solidarity:The Social History of an Idea in Nineteenth-CenturyFrance," nternationalReviewof Social History, 1959, 4:261-284; JohnA. Scott, Republican deas and the Liberal Tradition nFrance,1870-1914 (New York:ColumbiaUniv. Press, 1951); and Clark, Social Darwinismin France (cit. n. 4), pp.54-57, 157-186. For a discussion of Solidarismsee Hayward,"The Official Philosophy of the French ThirdRepublic:Leon Bourgeois and Solidarism,"Int. Rev. Soc. Hist., 1961, 9:22-25; Hayward,"Solidarity"; ndC6lestinBougle, Le solidarism (Paris, 1907).

22 William Logue,"Sociologieet politique:Le liberalismede C6lestinBougle,"RevueFran aise deSociologie,1979, 20:141-161; andHayward,"OfficialPhilosophyof the FrenchThird Republic,"p. 33.23 Severalstudies have demonstratedhatFrenchscientists(andin some cases the English as well) held on toLamarckianismong after Darwiniantheory had replaced it elsewhere. See Yvette Conry, L'introductionduDarwinismeen France au XIXe siecle (Paris:Vrin, 1974);Thomas F. Glick, ed., TheComparativeReceptionofDarwinism(Austin:Univ. Texas Press, 1974); RobertNye, "Heredityor Milieu: The Foundationsof ModernEuropeanCriminologicalTheory,"Isis, 1976, 67:335-355; and PeterBowler, Theories of HumanEvolution:ACenturyof Debate, 1844-1944 (Baltimore:Johns HopkinsUniv. Press, 1986). As for the Darwinianorientation

of politicalfiguresand social theorists, he worksexamined n this studyall consistently gnoreLamarck thoughin some cases he would have aidedtheir arguments)and use the terms"Darwinism,""Darwinian," r "strugglefor life" ("luttepourla vie," "luttepourl'existence")in their references to evolution. See also Leon Bourgeois,Essai d'une philosophiede la solidarity: Conferenceset discussions (Paris,1902). This conference was attendedby twenty-oneprominentFrenchphilosophers,academics,lawyers, and politicians. In the discussions no onebroughtup Lamarckor his "inheritanceof acquiredcharacteristics."This is not to say that they discussedDarwinism in detail, either, or that they never assumeda gradualhuman progressthat mightbe construedas asort of Lamarckian mprovement.My point is that the French wrote copiously about the meaningand conse-quencesof Darwinianevolution.Our discoveryof the FrenchromancewithLamarck hould not blind us to theirobsession with the Darwinian"struggle."



13/26

JENNIFERMICHAELHECHT 11would lead to a brutalworld. Solidarism was partly conceived of as a defense of civili-zation-a humanecall for society to remain above nature'sbase struggle. But it was alsoborn of the notion that the naturalworldwas more just (impartial,uncorrupted) han theworld of human society, because humansociety creates artificialbarriers unequalwealth)and artificialhazards(war, machinery,and "virtuous" elibacy) to the survival and prop-agationof the most fit. Because of these conflicting impulses, Solidarism was, at first,sometimes described as the policy of a just society working to insure that cruel naturalcompetitionwas temperedby humanreason and sometimes describedas an effort to returnto a naturalcondition in which the "fittest"have the opportunity o succeed-regardlessof theiroriginalsocial station.We might call these "civil Solidarism"and "natural om-petition Solidarism."It furtherconfuses matters that some Solidarist theorists saw thenaturalworld as much more cooperativethan the world Darwin described.This gave riseto a "natural ooperation Solidarism" hat held that mutualismwas a natural act, eitherbecause animalswere seen to be interdependent r because society was understoodas asingle organism n which individuals and classes acted as cells andorgans, respectively.All three forms had their championsfromthe beginning, butwe can discerna clear shiftover time: in the naturalSolidarismof the early years modern society was generallyheldto be the villain (indicted eitherfor promotingartificialrather han natural nequalityorfor replacing naturalcooperationwith artificialcompetition),while the later civil Solidar-ism assumed that whateverevils could be foundin society, naturewas worse.Haywarddiscussed the dual nature of Solidarism, calling it "simultaneously is' and'ought,' a datum and an imperative"-even showing thatit came to rest on the impera-tive-but he did not give much consideration o the naturalhistorydebatefromwhich itstemmed.That debate,however,is crucial o understanding ow the dualitywas eventuallyresolved. In Hayward's words, by 1908 Bourgeois "had(following Fouillee) recognizedthat naturalsolidarity-the fact of interdependence-was a-moral and that it was onlythroughthe rational interventionof men that it could be made the foundation of socialjustice."24But to understandwhy Fouillee came to rest-after muchvacillating-on theidea of civil Solidarism,we must consider the battle he was waging againstLapouge.Thebrutalityof naturehad once meant a lion killing a zebraand, further,a less aptlion dyingof starvation.Now the brutalityof naturemightmean the erasureof moralityfrompubliclife, Europeanraces dominatingor even slaughteringone another,state-determinedabo-ratorypregnancies, he end of the family, the end of democracy,the elevation of the raceand the state above all.By the time Lapouge publishedhis firstbook,Fouilleehadlong been engagedin a fightagainst arguments or social individualismbased on naturalhistory-primarily those ar-ticulatedby HerbertSpencer.Fouilleeheld that an understanding f biologicalfacts aboutindividuals and human groups was necessary for the creationof an ideal state. UnlikeSpencer,however,he believed that thesebiologicalfacts argued ormutualismas stronglyas for individualismandthat humanreasonmust, in any case, mitigatethe harsh nterpre-tationof "survivalof the fittest"prescribedby Spencerand other social Darwinists. ndeed,fromhis doctoral hesis, "La iberteet le determinisme," f 1872throughhisHumanitaireset libertairesaupointde vuesociologique,whichappearedposthumouslyn 1914,Fouilleepublished twenty-seven books that grappledwith the relationshipbetween biology andpolitics. He deliberatedextensivelyon the moralityof redirectingor acceleratingDarwin-ian evolution and devotedconsiderableattention o anthroposociology.Fouillee'es ccep-

24 Hayward,"OfficialPhilosophy of the French Third Republic" cit. n. 21), p. 27.



14/26

12 THE SOLVENCYOF METAPHYSICStance of some degree of social Darwinismmade him particularly ensitive to Lapouge'sclaims. In one of the earliest articles to take up the discussion of Lapouge,Fouillee com-plainedthat "the 'struggle or life' betweenthe whites, blacks, andyellows was not enough;some anthropologistshave also imagined a strugglefor life betweenblonds and brunettes,long-headsand short-heads."He argued,essentially,thatLapougehad grossly exaggeratedthe biological aspect of psychological differencesbetween the Germansand the French,and he cited Leonce Manouvrieras an anthropologistwho denied the significance of thecephalic index.25Though Fouillee objected strongly to Lapouge's "fanaticism,"he stillquotedLapougeconsistentlyand,in general,approvingly.Fouilleemaintained hat, f usedprudently, nquiries into the national physiological differences between Europeanscouldhelp to establish heirpsychological differences.He would devotemuch of his large oeuvreto definingthe characteristicsof variousnationalities.Fouillee is rememberedas one ofthe most important ate nineteenth-centuryFrenchphilosophers,but he should also beknown as a central igure n what might be termed"fin-de-sieclenationalcharacter tudies."This phenomenonseems best explainedby the coincidenceof discussionsof evolutionaryhereditywith the moment at which WesternEuropebecame a solid block of nation-states.After 1871 "character tudies"of these statesproliferated,etishisticallycharacterizinghenatural"likes and dislikes," virtues and failings, friends and enemies of each hitherto-amorphousnationalgroup.Frenchworksof this sortgenerallyclaimed severalhighvirtuesas inherentlyFrench,butthe nationalcharacter tudieswere also sites of anxietyand self-doubt.(See Figure2.) As authorsattempted o reimaginethe nations of Europe n light ofshifting political balances and new anthropologicaldata, they considered not only thestrangenessof othersbut also how strange ordecadent) heir own groupseemedin others'eyes.26Fouillee was certain hat nationalitieshadbiologicallydeterminedntellectualand socialcharacteristics,buthe firmly objectedto many of Lapouge's claims. Forexample, in hisstudyof the psychology of the Frenchpeople, Fouillee cited Lapouge'snationalcharac-terizationsbut found his pragmaticsuggestionsdistasteful.WroteFouillee, "This ethicsof breeding-studs ounded on naturalisthypothesesand on the dreamsof utopiansis notreally humanmorality." nany case, FouilleedoubtedLapouge'scontention hatonecouldbreedany desiredpsychic and intellectualtype and ridiculed the furthersuggestionthatone could create races of naturalists, ishermen, armers,andblacksmiths.He foundthislast notion particularlyamusing:"A race of naturalists!As if the quality of naturalistfollows a cerebral ormationdistinct fromthatof a fishermanor a farmer!Whataudacityit would take to want to intervenein the creation of men, on the basis of informationasvague as that of the formsof skulls andof theirproblematicrelationship o mentalsupe-riority!" t is surprising hatFouillee foundso muchfun in this,because the gradationshedid endorsewere only marginally ess fine.Indeed,such characterizationswere the whole

25 Alfred Fouillee, "La psychologie des peuples et l'anthropologie,"Rev. Deux Mondes, 1895, 128:365-396,on p. 365. Fouillee quotes Lapouge's warningof "copiousexterminations"-without attribution-on the firstpage of this piece. His referenceto Manouvrierpredatedthe latter's specific critique of Lapouge. Fouillee'sconcernswith the relationshipof biology and politics were later combined with analyses of the works of thephilosopherMarie-JeanGuyau, who becameFouill6e's son-in-lawwhenFouill6e marriedAugustineGuyau.Herwork may have been the best known of the three:underthe pseudonymBruno,she was the authorof thefamousLe tour de France par deux enfants,which sold 7.4 million copies between its publication n 1877 and 1914.Subtitled"Devoiret patrie," t was a primer or civic andmoral virtue. On Guyauthe philosophersee GeoffreyC. Fidler,"On Jean-MariGuyau,Immoraliste," ournalof the History of Ideas, 1994, 55(l):75-97.

26 They even exportedthis imaginedcriticism. See, e.g., Alfred Fouill6e, "As Others See Us," LivingAge,1899, no. 212, pp. 67-72.



15/26

JENNIFERMICHAELHECHT 13

Figure2. "Howhe Frenchare seen by others."From he Revue Encyclopddique1899). Theflurryof anthropologicalnationalharacter tudies" hatappeared n the last decades of the nineteenthcenturyexhibited ome anxietyregardingoreignopinionsof the Frenchcharacterandstyle.

point of his book, and thoughhe intended them to be used to help the nationalitiesun-derstandone another,he offered scientificexplanationsas to why any given group wasmore or less nervous,imaginative,proneto dreaming,sexually energetic,and so on. Forthis reason,Fouille'ewas sometimesreferred o as an anthroposociologist, houghhe him-self strictlyrejected he appellationwithin his publishedworks,in his coffespondencewithLapouge,andin reported onversationswithLapouge' disciples.2 Fouille'eneverrejectedthe idea that nationalcharacter ypes were based in heritablebiological traits,but thereisno doubt that the yearshe spentarguingagainst Lapouge'santimoralistnaturalismhiftedhis thinkingtowardcivil Solidarism.He found himself codifyingSolidarismas an"ought"rather han an "is"preciselybecauseLapouge' natural aws were so convincinglynasty.In 1903 Fouille'epublisheda lengthyattackon anthroposociology.The workwas, as hedescribedit, a study of the variouspsychological profilesof Europeannationsalong so-ciological, historical,andbiologicallines. However,while the centralchaptersof thebookkeptto a somewhatsociobiological agenda,the introductionand conclusion weredevotedto combating anthroposociologicalideas. "The real law of human societies," assertedFouille'e,"is not naturalselection and the strugglefor life, but rationalchoice andcoop-erationfor life."128He had arguedin the past both that mutualism n humansociety wasscientificallybased in naturalmodels and that the competitionthatdid exist in naturewaspreferableo thecorrupted ompetitionof humansociety.Now he characterized olidarism

27 Alfred Fouill6e, Psychologie du peuplefranCais(Paris, 1898), pp. 281, 281-282. For the correspondencesee Muffang to Lapouge;A 91-6, n.d.; and Alfred Fouill6e to Lapouge,A 42-1 throughA 42-3, Fonds Vacherde Lapouge.28 AlfredFouillee, Esquissepsychologiquedes peuples (Paris, 1903), pp. 529-530.



16/26

14 THE SOLVENCY OF METAPHYSICS

Figure3. C6lestinBougl6. Bougl6was one of the mostimportantf Durkheim's isciplesandsucceeded to his university ost when Durkheim iedin 1917. He laterbecame director f the EcoleNormaleSup6rieure.

as distinctlyhuman.Modem society mightbe brutalandamoral,but,if Lapougewas evenpartiallycorrect,natural orces were even less humane. Humanbeings must then create aworld based neither on religious dogma nor on naturalscience. Only "rationalchoice"could serve as the "real aw of human societies."In fashioninghis notion of Solidarism,LedonBourgeois drew heavily on the work of Fouille'e, ncreasingly promotingthe ideathat humanlogic and moralitydictatedmutualassistance. Still, thoughcivil Solidarismtriumphed,notions of naturalcooperationSolidarism and naturalcompetitionSolidarismnever entirely disappeared rom the argumentsof Fouille'eand Bourgeois.The otherofSolidarism's centraltheorists,Ce'lestinBougle',substantiallyalteredthe debateby explic-itly rejectingscience as a viable means of arrivingat sociopoliticaltruths.

CE~LESTINBOUGLECe'lestinBougle'was one of Durkheim'sprimarydisciples and closest collaborators.SeeFigure3.) Havingwrittena doctoralthesis entitled "Les doctrinesedgalitaires,"e went onto teach at theFaculte' es Lettresde Toulouse.In 1901hebegan teachingsocialphilosophyat the Sorbonne,andin 1920 he was named the directorof the Centre de DocumentationSocial at the E~coleNormale.In his manyworksBougle'expresseda positionon egalitar-ianismandSolidarism hatrespectedthe validityof scientific informationon humanitybutincreasinglyconsidered it to be inconsequential o society. In his 1897 article"Anthro-pologie etdedmocratie"ougle'argued hatwhetheror not science couldprovetheexistenceof biologicallybased differences n thecapabilitiesof races orindividuals, hesedifferencesshould have no effect on the philosophicaldecision to maintainpolitical equality. Bougle'



17/26

JENNIFERMICHAELHECHT 15directly attacked anthroposociology and Lapouge, whom he recognized as the Frenchfounder and leader of this movement. He would later use the same arguments o refute awider range of anthropological, acist doctrines.In "Anthropologie t democratie"Bouglearguedthat Lapouge's descriptionsof inequalitymight be factual but should be function-ally insignificantto the republic. In fact, he suggested that the republicanattachment onotions of naturalequality may have been no more than a necessary but transientstage.Thus, "a morality suffused with the idea of Solidarity may not need to consider the ideaof equality as anythingmore than provisional.... If it is true that,in declaringmen to beequal, we deliver a judgment not on the way that naturemade them, but on the way thatsociety must treat them, well then the most precise craniometry ould not prove us rightor wrong."29Although Bougle questionedwhether human capabilities could be deducedfrom physiological measurements citing Leonce Manouvrier'sscientific argument),hisinvective against Lapouge was largely based on the assumptionsthat anthroposociologymade concerningthe significanceof the biologicallybased inequalityof human beings.Even afterManouvrier addismissed the scientificvalidityof Lapouge's claims, Bouglecontinued to write refutations of anthroposociology.For whetheror not brachycephaliconstituted a distinctrace, Lapouge had put forth a profoundly disturbingchallenge toliberal democracy and laissez-faire capitalism.A crucial aspectof thatchallengewas thatit provided a way of referring o the nation's less capable, less intelligentmembers as adistinct group. Bougle believed that the essence of Lapouge's questions (if not their par-ticular formulation)was in fact extremely important.When anthropologistsclaimed-through he erroneousmethodof comparingcephalic ndexes -that humanbeingsdifferedin their capabilities, they were, accordingto Bougle, pronouncing"a truthas old as theworld."30eople's abilitiesdiffered,whetheror nottheywere commensuratewithcephalicindexes. However, Bougle concluded, thatfact should have no bearingon theirpolitical,judicial,or economic rights.Bougle published "Anthropologie t democratie"n the Revue de Metaphysiqueet deMorale. This journalhad been founded in direct reactionto the incursion of materialistscience into philosophy's territory. t also specificallydenounced the desperatereturn oorganized religion that was elsewhere advocatedas a response to materialist,atheistic,"natural"morality.The Revue rejectedthe "pretensions" f those who looked to scienceor to a self-consciousCatholicismfor social morality.Alphonse Darlu,a philosopherandfrequentcontributor o the Revue,reviewed Brunetiere's 1895 article and made thejour-nal's positionclear:"Wewould like to remindhim thatphilosophyexists."AccordingtoDarlu,Brunetiere'sproblemwas that his educationhad been excessively shaped by pos-itivism. Like many of his generation,he had been raised on Ernest RenanandHippolyteTaine, leaders in the cult of reason and science and in the attemptto apply scientificmethods to history and morality.Following that, he "read and re-readDarwin, at thatyoung age when one lives for intellect."Darluargued hatBrunetiere'sexperiencewas byno meansunique-such changesof heart were a widespreadphenomenonaffectingmenand women who hadembracedpositivismandevolutionismwithtoo much faith andthen,pulled by theirstrongsenses of morality,eventually swungback to Catholicismwithgreatforce. "To stop midway," explainedDarlu, "requiresa philosophicalframe of mind and

29 Ce1estinBougle, "Anthropologie t democratie,"Revuede Metaphysiqueet de Morale, 1897, 5:443-461,on p. 461. Bougle correctlynamed Otto Ammonas Lapouge'sGermancounterpart nd referred o otherauthorsas "theirdisciples"(p. 443 and throughout).30Ibid., p. 457.



18/26

16 THE SOLVENCY OF METAPHYSICSvery deep moralbeliefs." Frenchsociety, he insisted, was coming apartowing to an im-balance betweenintellectualand moral thought.In the absence of a strong,crediblemoralcode, some members of society were returning o "a very simple, very sweet, very sadChristianity,"while othersburiedthemselvesin specialized scientificprojects.Meanwhile,warnedDarlu, society is falling prey to "blindand terribleforces."The light of reasonwas lost "between positivism that stops at the facts and mysticism that is driven by su-perstitions."31This journalwas thus a naturalhome for Bougle's more theoreticalwork, buthe worriedthatthose who were awed by Lapouge's scientificdatawouldbe moved only by a scientific,data-ladenrebuttal.He thus straddledseveral different academicfields as he progressedfrom his earlycritiqueof bad science to a later,more general, ndictmentof the enterpriseas a whole, always remaining rueto an antireligioussecularrepublicanism.Despite Bou-gle's strongrejection of the pragmatic"return o religion," he gingerly approachedBru-netiereon thesubjectof combiningtheirresources n a struggleagainstanthroposociology.In a privateletter Bougle candidlyadmitted o Brunetiere hathe had "combated everalof your ideas and methodswith all possible vigor."But he went on to say that, given anearlier conversation,he was sure that Brunetierewould be eagerto fightthe "pretensionsof anthroposociology."Bougle proposed o discreditanthroposociologyby writinga studyof the caste system in India;apparentlyhe hoped that Brunetierewould publishsectionsof it in his Revue des Deux Mondes. Bougle asserted hatthis work would show thatIndianmarriagerules had not given the results predictedby anthroposociologyand that "it isimpossible to find, even in this land, a trueparallel between social differences,physicaldifferences,andmentaldifferences."We do not have Brunetiere'sresponse,but it seemsthat he declinedthe proposal.Bougle went aheadwith his study nonetheless; t was pub-lished in sections in the Annee Sociologique and in the Grande Revue andappearedas abook entitled Essais sur le regime des castes. This work was explicitly aimed againstanthroposociology especially the section on race) and came to be one of Bougle's mostinfluentialsociological studies.32In 1904Bougle, who was now a professorof social philosophyatthe Sorbonne,sharplycriticizedall attemptsto describehistoryas an epiphenomenonof naturalhistory.In Lademocratiedevantla science he divided suchattempts nto social Darwinism,organicism,andanthroposociology.To theextent thathe could, Bougle counteredeach of these notionswith anthropological,"scientific"arguments,resistingthe idea thatEnlightenmentdealsmighthave to be divorced from Enlightenmentmethodology.He was no longer namingLapougeas his primaryopponent,but he still referred o Lapougewhen articulating hephilosophicalproblemof science andpolitical equality:"Anthropology,accordingto M.Vacher de Lapouge, victoriouslyrefutes the errorsof the eighteenthcentury, 'the mostfantasy-believing, he mostanti-scientificof centuries,'anddemonstrates hata democraticregime is 'the worst conditionin which to make good [hereditary] election.' " Denyingthe scientific validityof antidemocratic nthropologywas not a sufficientreactionto La-

31 AlphonseDarlu, "Reflexionsd'un philosophiesurles questionsdu jour: Science, morale et religion,"Rev.Metaphys.Morale, 1895, 3:239-251, on pp. 249, 248. On the reasonsfor the journal's foundingsee "Introduc-tion," ibid., 1893, 1:1-6; see pp. 2-4 for the quotations.32 C6lestinBougle to FerdinandBrunetiere,n.d., BibliothequeNationale de Paris,Manuscrit,25033, fols. 79-80 NAF. There s a sustaineddiscussionof "anthroposociology"n the chapteron racein CelestinBougle,Essaissur le regime des castes (Paris:Felix Alcan, 1908), pp. 129-156. Of Bougle's studythe historianof sociologyDon Martindalewrites: "More than any other single study, this essay laid the basis for the modern theoryofcaste."Don Martindale,TheNatureand Typesof Sociological Theory Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1981), p. 265.



19/26

JENNIFERMICHAELHECHT 17pouge's critique.Bougle made it clear that if he were forced to choose betweenEnlight-enmentpoliticalideals andEnlightenmentrust n science, he would choose the ideals:

Evenwhen it is established hat solidarityexists withinthe best organizedanimalsocieties,thisanimal solidaritydoes not seem to approach he human deal: respect for the equal dignityofeach of society's members.Democraticsocieties recognize fromthis thatthey are attemptingto go above andbeyondnature.... At times acquiescingandat times resistingnature,societyseems to say to naturalscience both "Iwill applyyour laws"and "Your aws do not apply tome."This disavowal of the authorityof science clearly went beyond the mere negation ofunpleasantscientific findings.Bougle insisted thatneither naturalism,nor logic, nor ra-tionalitywould ever manageto make society "liftits smallestfinger" owardequality andsocial cohesion unless they were joined by sentiment. "In otherwords,the indispensableconditionof moralefficacy of these sociologicalinferences [of solidarity]s the preliminaryexistence of a 'social spirit.'"33Though Bougle called for a return o a philosophical ustificationof democratic dealsthat ay beyond scientificdiscovery,he didoccasionallyarguethata trulyobjectivesciencewould demonstrate hat natural aws dictateda Solidaristsociety. He was arguingnot thatscience would discover equalitybut thatit would discover thathuman societies shouldberun on principlesof equality.Bougle believed thatscience mightbe able to discoversuchlaws in the distant future;until then,he mused,France should concentrateon the revivalof moralphilosophy.Even those who aremost dedicatedto science, he continued,shouldstop assaultingphilosophy as an unempirical and thus unnecessarydiscipline, becauseuntil science fulfilled its promisesphilosophywas, in fact, profoundlynecessary.Bouglewarnedthat

if it is true thatthe most objective scientificobservationcannotyet suffice to demonstrate ohumanbeings that they must work for the coming of a just city, of which the members aideach other to rise, if rightup until the new order t will be necessaryto come to this by a sortof rationalchoice, then maybe it would be imprudent andin a democracymore thanin anyother society) to denigratemoralphilosophy,which is the art of rationalchoice and of me-thodicallyordering he purposeof a human ife in terms of a universalpurpose.He hopedthatsomedaythere would be an objective,egalitarian,"scientificmorality"andwonderedwhetherit would "relegateall moralphilosophy to the frontiers of society astotallyuseless."Uncertainof the futurerelationshipbetween science andmorality,he wasquite sure that contemporary cientificmoralitywas unacceptable.Anthroposociologicaldoctrineswerewrong,he argued,becauseof the society they imagined."Against hesewecan propose, accordingto experience, our firm conclusions. We will henceforth knowthem by their fruit."Bougle knew it was very unscientific to dismiss a methodologybecause it drewunpleasantresults.He was uncomfortablewith this positionandworriedthatotherswould disagreewith him, arguingthategalitarianprinciplesareimpossibletoemploy and that "it would be dangerousto try; it would be much better to listen to thelessons of nature."Againstthis imaginedresponseby those who would "exploitthe pres-tige of science againstthe attractionof democracy,"Bougle admittedthathe offerednopositiveproofs."Ourconclusions,"he wrote,"if not imperative,are at leastemancipatory.

33 Ce1estinBougle, La democratiedevantla science (Paris, 1904), pp. 18, 288, 301.



20/26

18 THE SOLVENCY OFMETAPHYSICS

Figure4. Jean Finot.Paintingby L.L&vy-Dhurmer.inot oundedand edited thejournalRevuedesRevues (whichbecame the Revue Mondiale), ublishing widerangeof literary ndpolitical pinionsandhighlightingisprimaryoncern: nternationalacifism.Thispainting anin the Revue Mondialewhen Finotdiedin 1922.

They liberateoursociety from its naturalistobsession.They remind t that no one has therightto discouragethe ambitions of the spiritin the name of a so-called scientificmoral-ity."').34Bougle's belief that science could make objective discoveries about the natureof hu-manity led him to fear either that bad science, proving inequality,, would be mistaken forgood science or, worseyet, thatgood science would, in fact,prove inequality.Thispushedhim to thepositionthathe summedup as "Nolime tangere"-natural science cannot ouchhumanvalues. Even if the science is correct,humandignity and the resultingclaim toequaltreatmentmust be set above scientificpronouncements f inequalitybetweenhumangroups.3Had he been able to discredit not bad race science but all race science-ta shad he been able to announce hatthe search orobjectivenatural acial aws wasinherentlyfallacious-he would not have needed this elegantintellectualdevice.

JEAN FINOT

JeanFinotdemonstratedhat such a critiqueof race science was in fact conceivable.Finot,bornFinklehaus,was a Polishjournalistwho becamea Frenchcitizen in 1897. (See Figure4.) In his adopted country he founded a journal, La Revue des Revues, which he editedand to which he contributednumerousarticles.This work put him in close contactwithmanyof his most illustriouscontemporaries.Hiscorrespondentsncludedwritersasdiverseas Zola,Tolstoy,Bruneti'ere,nd CesareLombroso-many of whomfrequentlypublished

34Ibid., pp. 302, 303.35 Ibid., p. 288.



21/26

JENNIFERMICHAELHECHT 19in La Revue des Revues. Finot was well known in his time. When he died in 1922, thesociologistReneWormscelebratedhimas aneminent"philosopher, hilanthropist, atriot,hygienist, feminist, and sociologist."Above all, however,WormspraisedFinot for havingfought against the whole "school"whose doctrineis "generallyknown under the nameanthroposociology."36inot's greatestfame came from his Le pre'juge' es races (1905)and his later Pre'juge's t probleme des sexes (1912). Both of these works put forwardlively, witty argumentsagainst the existence of innate,biological character raits and in-tellectualabilities. Finot too drewon Manouvrier'swork for its scientificcredentials.37 isown argumentsagainstracismconcentrated n parton debunking cientificrace theoryandin part on consideringthe sociopolitical origins of perceived racial differences. His in-dictment of "race prejudice"was broadly conceived, including discussions of Americanblacks, animosity between the English and the French, and Aryan supremacy.He oftencited racial categories thathis generationno longerrecognized as such as evidence of thetransienceand historical specificityof supposedracial divisions. Indeed,in the forewordto the 1906 English translation f Lepre'juge'es races,Finotpleadedfor the"indulgence"of his readersby remindingthem thathe had claimed, as early as 1901, that contrary opopularbelief there was no innate immutablehatredbetween the English and the Frenchraces. Finot's need to assert that these were not separateracesreminds the modernreaderof the extentof this racial conceptionof nations:

Whenmy firstworksappearedn 1901on thatsubject,mocking oices wereraised o showthe impossibilityf an ententebetween wo races whichwere so inherently ifferent nd,presumably,ntagonistic....TheTimes,na remarkablerticle nmyeffortsn thisdirection(November st, 1902),wasright n maintaininghat t is often sufficient o breathe n thesubjects f ourdiscord o seethemvanish.Theunionof a few menof goodwillhas succeededin overcominghe stupidityf the theory f racesandof age-longprejudices!38Finot's centralinterest,and the central interestof his journal, was the promotionofpacifism throughinternationalism.He held that the differences between humanbeingswere only individual,andthoughhe criticizedFouillee for his racialistthinkinghe madeuse of thephilosopher'snotion of Solidarism n his efforts on behalfof international eace.Becausenationswere understoodas representingdifferentraces,the cause of pacifismwas

well servedby an attackon racialism.Le pre'juge' es races begins with a discussion ofEnglishandAmericaneugenic theorists; houghFinotdismissedthem,he did so withoutanger, explainingthatthey were simply tryingto ameliorate he publichealth."InFranceand Germany,"he added, "the gospel of humaninequalityhas taken on even strangeraspects.It is Vacher de Lapougewho is the most authoritative epresentativeof the newdoctrine.Loyal to his principles,convinced of their truth,he defends them in his workwith a keenness anda talentworthyof esteem."Finot had so muchrespectfor Lapouge'sscholarshipthathe cited him as the quintessentialopponent, writingthat"in M. Vacher36 Ren6 Worms, "JeanFinot, sociologue,"RevueMondiale, 1922, pp. 228-232, on p. 229. The only figureWormsmentionshere is Gobineau,buthe speaksat length aboutFinot's attackon the cephalicindex.La Revuedes Revueswas later called La Revue and then La Revue Mondiale.Finot wrote many of thejournal'sarticles.According to his son, in the few years before he became a French citizen he used ten differentpseudonymsinorder o write freely: Jean-LouisFinot, "Monpere,"Rev. Mond., 1922, pp. 143-150. ForFinot's correspondencewith these figures see BibliothequeNationale de Paris, Manuscrit,24494 (1) doc. 264, microfilm2278/NAF24519, fols. 174-180, NAF 24530, fols. 380-382, NAF 25038, fols. 292-293.37 Jean Finot, Les pre'juge' es races (Paris, 1905), p. 103; and Finot, Prejuge'set probleme des sexes (Paris:Alcan, 1912).38 Jean Finot,Race Prejudice, trans.FlorenceWade-Evans(New York, 1906), p. vi.



22/26

20 THE SOLVENCYOF METAPHYSICSde Lapouge, the new doctrine finds a defenderof the greatesteloquence andit suffices toexamine his books for one to know all the weapons thatare taken up by his co-religionists,adepts, and students."Finot bemoanedthe uncriticalacceptance hat this theoryhad foundamong ournalists,politicians, iterarywriters,artists,andthe greaterpublicand noted withdisgust that the doctrine was findingits way into manualsof history and pedagogy. Heassuredhis readerthat "withoutdoubt,this doctrinewill some day take a place of honorin the history of human errors,"buthe lamentedthat,for now, "out of any one-thousandeducatedEuropeans,nine-hundredand ninety-nine are persuadedof the authenticityoftheirAryan origins."39Finot's critiqueof racist anthropologyrested on the idea that the science began withcertainassumptionsabout racial difference-he described it as "teleological"and thuswithoutvalue.The anthroposociologists, e claimed,were "hypnotizedby theirprimordialidea," which they supportedby bringingtogether, "withoutexamination,everything thatseems propitiousto their theory-a theory thatis more political than scientific."Finot'sconclusionswere surprisingly ncompassing.He arguedthat all character raitswere spe-cific to individualsand that even if, indeed, a trait could be found in one human groupmore thanin another, hatwas due to environmentand culture.Beauty,he argued,was apurelysocial convention, andno single standard ould be set forall humanbeings.Neithera language type nor any system of governmentcould be establishedas an innate capacityof any single racialgroup.In general,Finotboldly concluded that "the term race is but aproduct of our mental gymnastics, the workings of our intellect, and outside all reality.Science had need of races as hypotheticalgroupings,and these productsof art ... havebecome concrete realities for the vulgar. Races as irreduciblecategories exist only asfictions of ourbrains."Drawingon an analysis of the work of Manouvrieras well as hisown investigations,Finotargued hat "craniologicalmeasurements eachus almostnothingconcerning hementalcapacityandthemoralvalue of peoples."Ridiculinganthropology's"instruments f precision,"he asserted hat the "fantasticaldata" hey providedwas mean-ingless. Therewas "literallynothing,"he argued, n the whole collection of external dif-ferences that appearto divide men, that could authorizetheir division into superiorandinferiorbeings. "If this division exists in ourthought," nsistedFinot, "itonly came thereas the resultof inexact observationsand false opinions drawnfromthem."Finotrejectedthe scientific categorizationof his generation n defense of a notion of eternalchangethatwould continueeven afterhis internationalist reamof peacehadbeenachieved.Progress,then,was not aimingtowardan end point of happystasisbut, rather, owardan endpointwherein humanbeings could endlessly change in an environmentof peace andequality."Thecharacterof a people,"wrote Finot, "is thus nothingbut an eternalbecoming.Thequalitiesof oursoul and its aspirations emain as mobile as clouds chasedby the wind."40Like Bougle, Finot struggledhis entire life to strikea balancebetweenscience, philos-ophy, and the religious needs of the masses. Later in life he wrote several books onlongevity, a theme thatgrows in significancewhen understoodas an atheist'salternativeto eternity.Finot's longevity theories all carrieda wistful optimism that he explicitlymaintainedn the absence of divinegrace.It was this balancedoptimismthatHenriBerg-son celebratedwhen he presentedFinot's Progres et bonheurto the AcademieFrancaisein 1914. Two monthsbeforethebeginningof thewar,Bergsonstood beforetheAcademiepraisingFinot for discussing moralitywithouterringeither on the side of the "abstract

39Finot,Prefjug,6 es races (cit. n. 37), pp. 505, 27, 356-357.40Ibid.,pp. 491, 312, 501, 109, 489-490, 345.



23/26

JENNIFERMICHAELHECHT 21deductions of the old metaphysics"or on the side of "pureempiricism"and, instead, forbalancingbetweenthe two, "for a knowledge which is clearly of the philosophicalorder,but, withoutpretendingto embrace the totality of the real, concentrates ts attentiononhuman activity." Finot's other major work on longevity, La science du bonheur, alsostruggled against the dogmas of science and of religion. In dealing with the issue ofmorality,Finotinsisted on the priorityof rationalexpectationsover religious deals, writingthathe refused to be "intoxicatedby the religion of self-sacrifice,of altruism oward alland for all, and especially by thatof future existence ... we have wrapped t carefully ina purple shroud,there where the dead gods sleep."Yet following such comments,issuedalways with thatcombinationof spite and sadness reserved for absent deities,Finot sim-ilarly lamentedthe lost prestige of science: "Nature,we are told, knowsonly the species.She neglects and dooms the individual. Nature is calumniated.Science is libeled in thesame way. 41

Finot never abandonedscience but constantlyremindedhis readershipof its fallibility.In the struggle between science and religion, of "freethoughtagainst the dogmas,"hebelieved that science would andshouldprevail,but not to the exclusion of a devotion tohuman solidarityand love. Finot chidedscientistswho pretentiouslydismissedmetaphys-ics: "From the scientific standpoint,nothing authorizesthe logic of the sectarianmindviolently rejectingeverythingthat is not in harmonywith its comprehension."Similarly,he warned spiritualists o stop mocking secularmoralists:"Dogmaticreligions are alsowrongin seekingto struggleagainst ay morality .. Social harmonyrequires heirmutualrespect. Mankindcan exist only upon moral foundations.Why discredit those of scienceand of experience,if a portionof the nation mustlive by these latter?"Despite such callsfor tolerance,Finot tended to treatthe religious as ratherbackward.He did not believethat one could be a purematerialistatheist,but to arguethis he invokedthe human needfor spiritualism ather han ts truth."Themostpositive rationalists," e wrote,"now admitthe existence of spiritualneeds and eternalaspirations owardthe infinite."He believedthatin the futurehumanbeings would experiencein a more useful way whatwill foreverbe the "same awe of and the same longing for the Infinite."When Finot outlined thereasons for his optimism about the future, they had everythingto do with reconcilingoneself to a godless world andcelebrating he progressof a moralityconceived in oppo-sition to biological assumptionsabouthumancharacter.42Finotwas apowerfuladversary.WhenLapougecomplained,publiclyorprivately,abouthis detractors,he blamedFinot, more thanany othernonscientist,for the general repudi-ationof his theories.In his finalwork,Race et milieu social, Lapougeattacked he intel-ligence, honesty, and educationof, among others,Manouvrier,Bougle, andFinot,but thelast was the targetof particularmalice: LapougerevealedFinot's real name, Finklehaus,with much anti-Semiticdrama.Lapougewas so angrybecause Finotwas so effective. Hemade this explicit in a letter to Madison Grant, he famed Americanracistand authorofThe Passing of the GreatRace. The yearwas 1919, andLapougewas explainingthat hehad not writtenmuch on race in the past few years:"Jews like Finklehaus(called JeanFinot) have so excited public opinion against the theory of races that it would be as

41 Henri Bergson, "Rapport ur 'Progres et bonheur'de J. Finot,"in Bergson,Melanges, ed. Andr6 Robinet(Paris:Presses Univ. France,1972), pp. 1090-1094, on p. 1093; and JeanFinot, TheScience ofHappiness,trans.MaryStafford (New York:Putnams, 1914), pp. 20-21. Accordingto Finot's son, this book was translatedntofifteen languages.42 Finot, Science of Happiness,trans.Stafford,pp. 234-240, 242, 244, 242, 246, 248, 257, 331-333.



24/26

22 THE SOLVENCYOF METAPHYSICSdangerousas it would be useless to try to do anything."43apougecontinuedhis campaignuntilhis deathin 1936-but not in France.

GOVERNMENT SCIENTISM AGAINST THE ACADEMY

In 1947 George Sarton publisheda tributeto the life and work of the recentlydeceasedMarie Tannery, n the course of which he describedthe "scandalof 1903."This scandalpertained o MarieTannery'shusband,Paul,whose professorialelection to the facultyofthe College de Francehad been overturnedby a scientistic governmentminister merelybecause Tannerywas Catholic.In HarryPaul's articleon Brunetiereand the "bankruptcyof science"debate,thisincident s effectivelyused to describethe lag betweenthe scholarlyturn away from purelymaterialistscience and ideology and the government'scontinuedinterpretation f all metaphysicsas inimical to the republic."Describedassuch, the scandaloffers a window into tensions between Catholicismand positivism, but it deserves re-evaluationwithin the context of anthropologyandphilosophy.The creationof a historyof science chair at the College de Francehad been requestedby Auguste Comte in 1832 and became a realityfor PierreLaffitte,one of his disciples.When Laffittedied,theapplicants orthechair ncludedLeonceManouvrier,PaulTannery,andGregoireWyrouboff; he final choice was between TanneryandWyrouboff.Tannery,a widely known historianof science, was elected by a large majority.It was almostun-precedentedwhen the ministerof public instruction,Joseph Chaumie,overturned he pro-fessors' vote and gavethepositionto Wyrouboff nstead.Tannerybelongedto the CatholicScientific Society of Brussels (as did Pasteurand PierreDuhem),which was dedicated odemonstratinghat science andChristian aith wereby no means mutuallyexclusive.45Hiswork,however,betrayedno sign of his religiousbeliefs; indeed,he had been muchinflu-enced by Comte. Tannery'swork on the historyof science was internationally cclaimedandstood as a model long after his death.Wyrouboff,on the o

the solvency of metaphysics: the debate over racial science and moral philosophy in france 1890-1919

Documents