Paper #3 AssignmentCollege WritingAnn Dean

In his chapter “Measuring Heads,” Stephen Jay Gould describes Paul Broca as unsurpassed in

“meticulous care and accuracy” (74). At the same time, he argues that Broca was oblivious to his own

prejudices and the way he “manipulated [facts] unconsciously” (85). Can the same argument be made

about Malvina Hoffman’s sculptures for the Races of Mankind exhibit? Were the sculptures made with

“meticulous care and accuracy”? Did the artist or either of the two exhibits “manipulate” the careful

details to serve a priori conclusions?

Or

Develop your own question related to these two articles. Be sure that it is a question requiring

interpretation, and that it addresses the relation between the two readings. It should not require

significant further research.

1

College Writing I

October 24th, 2016

Hi _____,

I’m not marking any of the comma splices, because I want you to work on finding them

yourself. Please check with me if you are having trouble with this.

The Mistakes of Broca and the Successes of Hoffman

In the “Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould, Paul Broca conducted an experiment

to see if black brains were smaller then white brains, his data was impeccable and it was accurate

and precise. However, his prior conclusions about the size of black brains vs white brains

clouded his judgement and data. In a New York Times article titled “Races of Mankind

Sculptures, Long Exiled Return to Display at Chicago’s Field Museum” it talks about Malvina

Hoffman a sculpture in the 1930’s, and her sculptures she was commissioned to make for the

exhibit “Race of Mankind”. Hoffman also went to great detail, like Broca, to get accurate and

precise measurements and images of the people who were sculpted. However, she didn’t let prior

conclusions cloud her ideas when she was creating the sculptures. The exhbit was about the

hierarchy of the races and she didn’t let that idea affect her sculptures. Hoffman did what Broca

couldn’t, she cleared away all the outside ideas and conclusions about race and she created

sculptures accurate to the people they were sculpted from. Hoffman didn’t let prior ideas or

conclusions affect her sculptures because she created her own ideas in her travels throughout the

world.

Malvina Hoffman took the time to be detailed and accurate with her sculptures, she

included small details like, the patina for the skin tone, the poses people were in, and the light

2

shining on every sculpture. Hoffman did this when

she "approached the project with meticulous realism,

using different patinas to subtly suggest skin tones"

(Schuessler 2). She used a patina to cover the bronze

to suggest the sculpture had a different skin tone. She

did this with the sculpture of "a Sara woman from the

Lake Chad region of central Africa" (Schuessler 1). As

you can see in figure 1, the woman from Lake Chad is a darker shade then the sculpture of Tony

Sansone in figure 2. The patina on both sculptures is different from each other to show the

difference in skin tone the two people have. Hoffman included this detail to show how each

sculpture is an individual person. The light on each sculpture also shows each person’s features,

and attitudes. In figure 1 the light shines on her cheeks, which shows her face being cheerful or

bashful. While in figure 2 the light is shining on his chest and his whole face showing his

muscles. His face seems stronger and more calm then in figure 1. The light alone shows how

different the two personalities of figure 1 and figure

2 are. Another thing is that both sculptures have very

different poses. Figure 1 is leaning on something and

she’s looking down which shows her line of action

curved, meaning she is more relaxed. In Figure 2 he

is looking up and he seems proud which shows his

line of action straight, meaning he is more confident

or proud. This also adds to each sculptures personalities. It helps show how bashful or shy Figure

1 is, and it helps to show how strong and confident Figure 2 is. In these sculptures Hoffman went

3

to great detail to get every aspect of the person correct. However, when Paul Broca took the time

to be detailed, he ended up letting his conclusions cloud his final data. Broca’s “facts were

reliable (unlike Morton’s), but they were gathered selectively and then manipulated

unconsciously in the service of prior conclusions” (Gould 85). Broca went to the same detail as

Hoffman, but his data was clouded by his prior beliefs. He believed that black brains were

smaller than white brains so he wanted his data to reflect that. When Hoffman was creating her

sculptures she didn’t have a prior belief that clouded her. She was just creating the sculptures for

art, and for the exhibit. Both Hoffman and Broca went to tremendous detail to show their art or

data, but Hoffman didn’t let a prior belief cloud her end result, while Broca let his prior

conclusions affect his data.

Paul Broca’s data ended up being wrong because he let his prior beliefs and ideas cloud

his data. While Hoffman said multiple times that “these people are individuals, not types”

(Schuessler 3). She is talking about the sculptures being individual people instead of general

examples of each race. She believed that each person she sculpted was an individual and not part

of a hierarchy of races. She shows this in her sculptures like Figure 1 and Figure 2. She also said

“she was skeptical about the biological notions of race she was hired to illustrate” (Schuessler 3).

She was saying that she didn’t agree with what the exhibit was saying, which shows that when

she made the sculptures she wasn’t clouded by the idea that the races could be placed in a

hierarchy. Broca’s ideas were clouded because he was surrounded by people who also were

researching the same thing. His hero and the person he looked up to, Morton, was also

researching how black brains were smaller than white brains. Broca never questioned Morton

because he was his hero. However, when Morton “used a subjective and imprecise method of

reckoning, he calculated systematically lower capacities for blacks than when he measured the

4

same skulls with a precise technique” (Gould 84). Morton did experiment incorrectly, which

resulted in faulty data. When Broca saw this data he never checked it, because his hero was

Morton. Broca even “published a one-hundred-page paper analyzing Morton’s techniques in the

most minute detail” (Gould 84). Broca obviously had clouded ideas and data because his hero

that he took after did his data in correctly too. Broca’s data also reflects most of the conclusions

white males had at the time too (Gould 84). Because many people in 1860 were racist against

blacks, and sexist against women. Hoffman never let the current beliefs cloud her ideas with the

sculptures because each person she sculpted was an individual and unique, while Broca followed

in his hero’s footsteps with incorrect data.

When Hoffman was creating the sculptures she “traveled the world looking for models

with her husband” (Schuessler 2). Malvina Hoffman went around the world looking for specific

people to sculpt, to show how different every person in the world is. She met many various

people around the world. In a video her husband took she is shown “measuring a Malaysian

sitter’s head with calipers” (Schuessler 3). She took the time to measure and get the exact

measurements of each person so she could create that person accurately. She met these people,

which is why she knew they were “individuals, and not types” (Schuessler 3). She knew there

stories and what they have been through. In the article it talks about how Hoffman’s sculpture of

the “Balinese cockfight” contained “a man from Madura, whom Hoffman met in a Parisian

restaurant where he worked as a waiter” (Schuessler 4). This shows how Hoffman met these

people and went to where they worked, and went with them elsewhere. It shows she learned

about these individuals, and she didn’t just generalize each race. Her ideas weren’t clouded by

outside ideas, she learned about each individual. Unlike Hoffman, Broca never met the people he

was working on, he just dissected their brains and measured them. He just knew these people as

5

black and white. Broca “preferred to weigh the brain directly after autopsies performed by his

own hands” (Gould 85). This shows Broca knew the race of the person he was measuring the

head of, but he didn’t know the actual person themselves because they were dead. Hoffman

learned about these people and developed her own thoughts about the “hierarchy of races”, while

Broca just went off prior conclusions and ideas to come up with his data. He never took the time

to think outside of what he knew, while Hoffman travelled the world and discovered new people.

Malvina Hoffman went to great detail and accuracy to create her sculptures, while Broca

also had great accuracy and precision, his data was clouded and incorrect. Hoffman formed her

own ideas and didn’t let the ideas of her time cloud her judgement of the people she was

sculpting. Her sculptures ended up being very accurate and detailed because she didn’t just think

of that person as black or white, she thought of them as individuals. Each sculpture is unique and

detailed because of the clear ideas she came up with herself. Broca never had this chance to think

on his own because he was too caught up with his hero, Morton’s ideas and data. If he had

thought outside of his time, and didn’t let those ideas cloud his judgement his data would have

been accurate and clear. Hoffman didn’t let prior ideas or conclusions affect her sculptures

because she created her own ideas in her travels throughout the world.

6

Work Cited

Schuessler, Jennifer. "‘Races of Mankind’ Sculptures, Long Exiled, Return to Display at Chicago’s Field Museum." New York Times. New York Times, 20 Jan. 2016. Web. 2016.

Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton, 1981. Print.

7