Theory in Practice
Thoroughbred Machines:
Eugenics and Streamlining in Baker's Mural
Caitlin Bass
Ernest Hamlin Baker's The Activities of the Narragansett Planters places a strong emphasis on breeding. The prominent location of the thoroughbred horses shows this particularly well. Historical accounts attest to the importance of the famous Narragansett pacer in the formation of the identity of the planters, justifying their placement within the painting. While less famous, the other animals in the painting also speak to the planters' success as breeders and stockholders, and by representing the planters' wealth, add to their prestige and identity. What if, however, one extends the idea of breeding to the humans depicted? In particular, the slave figures appear closely connected to those of the animals. All but one of them stand in direct physical contact with animals, and even this figure appears closely related to the cow in front of him. The delineation of their bodies and the expressions on their faces, as well as their varying levels of dress, relate more to the depictions of work animals than to that of the planter above them. The shepherd even shares a similar skin tone with the rearing horse, while the other slaves appear darker still. In the case of the human figures, the relationship to breeding presented in the mural becomes problematic, and brings up questions and issues that complicate the image and potential readings of it.
The connections between the slaves and the animals, as well as their subordinate position in relation to the planter, could lead viewers to perceive the slaves as work animals themselves. This perception echoes the type of logic used to justify slavery. The need of slave owners to reconcile their own insistence on freedom with their contradictory denial of it for others led to a variety of theories on the nature of freedom, slavery and race. Each of these hinged on the reduction of black people to a level somehow less than human. In this context, the control of slaves' sexual practices became both the prerogative and the duty of their owners. On a material level, they benefited or suffered from the results of such breeding on the part of their enslaved "property" as much as they did from the breeding of their horses or cattle, and thus had the right to control it. They also considered themselves morally responsible for the conduct of their households, including that of their supposedly childlike slaves.[1]
Figure 1. R. W. Shufeldt, "Comparison of the physiognomy
of a Congo Negro and Caesar," 1915
The mural, however, is not simply a depiction of the complex relationships of the eighteenth century. It also reflects the issues under discussion at the time of its creation, the 1930s. Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries an interest in heredity and particularly the application of genetics and breeding practices to humans was widespread. Termed "eugenics," meaning "well born," this movement "aimed at understanding the principles of genetics in order to improve human heredity."[2] Although supposedly based on scientific research into the mechanics of genetic transmission, the movement was profoundly ideological. The notion that some people are well-born implies that others are not. At the root of the eugenics movement lay the desire to divide people into categories of fit and unfit. The evolutionary theories promoted by eugenicists indicate a strong belief in their own superiority, evidenced by the tendency of theorists to place themselves at the apex of development.[3]
Figure 2. Ernest Hamlin Baker, The Activities of
the Narragansett Planters (detail), 1939.
The interconnection between good breeding and racial difference is a latent theme in the Wakefield mural, evidenced by the artist's treatment of the human figures. The depiction of the slaves' faces, particularly in comparison to that of the planter, relates directly to the sort of images used in the early 20th century to prove the existence of separate "races." Figure 1, Figure 2[4] The interest in breeding extends, therefore, to the figure of the planter himself. For those who made the rules, an interest in evolution could lead to the use of heritage to prove one's status as an advanced, modern and ultimately desirable human being. The desire to create what they considered a better, stronger nation led eugenicists to support a variety of methods of both exclusion of particular groups and restriction of human breeding. These ranged from national policies such as the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, and the Supreme Court's support of state sterilization statutes in 1927,[5] to personal choices of "sexual selection"[6] and family planning.[7] In 1910 the Eugenics Record Office was established to collect "pedigree records of the American populace;" among those who voluntarily filed pedigree charts were college students, "eager to ... have their superior skills noted."[8] For viewers with this mindset the figure of the planter, rather than those of the slaves, could thus represent the esteemed "thoroughbred." (see "Dual and Dueling Histories" and "Labor in the 1930s")
Figure 3. Raymond Loewy, "Evolution Chart of the Desk Telephone,"
"Evolution
Chart of the Railcar," and "Evolution Chart of
Female
Dress and the
Female Figure." 1934
These contemporary notions of breeding, and particularly the strongly racist beliefs behind them, reflect the sort of social Darwinism we would prefer not to recognize as part of our social heritage. The strong influence of eugenics on U.S. foreign policy and society in general throughout the beginning of the 20th century tends to disappear from modern discourse. This forms a similar sort of cultural amnesia to that regarding slavery in the North. Like slavery, the presence of eugenics in American culture had far-reaching effects on many aspects of life. For example, the desire to create a stronger society through the elimination of "degenerate" elements follows logic similar to that used by modern designers of the time. In Eugenic Design Christina Cogdell draws a convincing connection between the eugenics movement and streamlining, an aesthetic in which objects are reduced to sleek, aerodynamic forms. While now primarily associated with industrial objects, this ideal was applied to every aspect of life, from the streamlined potato,[9] to human dress and human bodies. The impulse to streamline is particularly apparent in comparisons between people and machines, as exemplified in Raymond Loewy's various evolution charts (Figure 3).[10] Within Baker's mural, the figures of the slaves most clearly embody this ideal, with their bald, streamlined heads and sleek, powerful forms. They thus could read as the epitome of evolution, while the planter appears overly ornamented and "degenerate." (For more on the artistic presentation of black figures, see "Racialized Bodies")
The application of the principles of eugenics and the ideals of streamlining give no definitive answers on how to read the mural and its figures. The ubiquitousness and popularity of these movements justifies their use as lenses through which to view Baker's mural, yet each of these viewpoints allow both groups presented to be viewed almost simultaneously in positive and negative lights. (See "Dueling Histories") This ambiguity mediates the contradictions and complexity inherent in social and interracial relations and in the politics of identity in the 18th century, in the 1930s and in the present.
Notes:
(back to top)
1. Joanne Pope Melish, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and "Race" in New England, 1780-1860. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998), p.30.
2. Christina Cogdell, Eugenic Design: Streamlining America in the 1930s. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), p. 3.
3. See, for example, Adolf Loos' essays on evolution, as quoted in Cogdell, p. 15.
4. Jan Nederveen Pieterse, White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture. (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1992), p. 49.
7. Margaret Sanger, founder of what became the Planned Parenthood Federation, was also a eugenicist, and supported legislation for the sterilization of the "feebleminded." Cogdell, p. 36.
