Berkeley's Racialized Economic Development and Eugenics

512. Whether our natural Irish are not partly Spaniards and partly Tartars; and whether they do not bear signatures of their descent from both these nations, which is also confirmed by all their histories?

513. Whether the Tartar progeny is not numerous in this land? And whether there is an idler occupation under the sun than to attend flocks and herds of cattle?

514. Whether the wisdom of the state should not wrestle with this hereditary disposition of our Tartars, and with a high hand introduce agriculture?--Berkeley, The Querist.

This post is inspired by a wonderful lecture by Justin Smith on the history of philosophical racism with special emphasis on the logic of living systems in the history of philosophy. In The Querist (first published in 1735), Berkeley offers an ambitious program of political, economic, monetary, educational, and cultural reform for Ireland. Berkeley revised it a few more times through the end of his life. The book has attracted modest attention from historians of economics and scholars of Ireland in the eighteenth century.

In the three queries (which are also found in the first edition) quoted above, Berkeley treats the eighteenth century native population of Ireland (as opposed to the colonial English and Scottish) as a mixture of two stock (Spanish and Tartars) with the Tartar predominating.* According to Berkeley's population theory (or assumptions), these distinct human populations have inherited, enduring dispositions that express themselves in particular behavioral manifestations and occupational traits. This theory is, in part, designed to explain Ireland's backward economic development, which remains stuck in a shepherding stage and has not moved yet to the agricultural stage (not to mention the commercial stage reached by Holland and England). In fact, in these remarks Berkeley anticipates the outlines of the so-called stadial theory of economic development more commonly associated with Hume, Smith, and Marx. Berkeley's theory is also designed to justify colonial policy, that is, to introduce forcibly ("heavy hand") agricultural practices into Ireland.

Berkeley does not explain the mechanism between the inherited "dispositions" that characterize a population stock and the external signs (or "signature") by which these are expressed (and, perhaps, recognized). But strikingly, these dispositions endure over time and after considerable mixing of populations given a certain set of institutions. Unfortunately, he is silent on the mechanism of inheritance, too.

Berkeley does not use the term "race" in The Querist, so you may think I am being not just anachronistic but misleading in the title of this post. But, first, he does use stereotypes to characterize distinct populations whose inherited dispositions and identity endures within a mixed population. Second, he does treat the then-present native, Irish population as a "lazy, destitute, and degenerate race" in his (1749) A Word to the Wise. From context, it is clear that Berkeley thinks that with different incentives and social mores/institutions the Irish could recover ancient flourishing in arts and letters.  

So, Berkeley is not a racial determinist who thinks that stereotypical traits can never be modified. Institutions can, in fact, be stronger than inherited dispositions. Moreover, he is uninterested in racial purity. (And, as we have seen, for Berkeley a race can itself be a mixture.) Rather, he advocates increased population mixing between colonists and colonized (recall). This is clear from an earlier set of Queries in The Querist:

206. Whether the Public is more concerned in any thing than in the procreation of able citizens? ...

213. Whether it was Plato’s opinion that for the good of the community, rich should marry with rich? (Laws, I.4)

214. Whether as seed equally scattered produceth a goodly harvest, even so an equal distribution of wealth doth not cause a nation to flourish?

215. Whence is it that Barbs and Arabs are so good horses? And whether in those countries they are not exactly nice in admitting none but nudes of a good kind to their mares?

216. What effects would the same care produce in families? 

According to Berkeley population management is a key policy objective of the government. It requires the same kind of skill and practice as horse-breeding. A growing population is (in addition to hard work and frugality) the "foundation" of enduring economic growth (217). Not unlike the Athenian Stranger in Plato's Laws, Berkeley is also an enemy of extreme income inequality and assortative mating. (I think Berkeley has Laws VI, [773a-f] in mind.)*** In particular, for the "good of the community," he promotes interbreeding of economic classes by way of well regulated marriage laws. In practice this means interbreeding among the (Protestant) upperclass English (and Scots) and the native (Catholic) Irish.

At this stage of The Querist Berkeley does not mention his population theory. But given that later in the text he associates the extremely poor shepherding element of the Irish population with the Tartar stock, the net effect of Berkeley's breeding proposal is to dilute the inherited dispositions that he thinks prevent economic growth.

*During the eighteenth century, "Tartars" tends to refer to what we would call central Asia. Here's a map of Tartary as drawn by Nicholaas Witsen, an Amsterdam mayor who corresponded with Leibniz.

** As opposed to rape.

***He thinks that the consumption habits of the very rich (absentee) landlords in Ireland, impoverish the nation.

Comments

[Leigh M. Johnson]

Thanks for this, Eric. I wasn’t familiar with Berkeley’s *Querist,* but I am quite interested in race theory, so I will definitely check it out now!

I have one small (nit-picky, really) question w/r/t your claim that Berkeley “is uninterested in racial purity” because he permitted, and in this case promoted, “race-mixing”: does this necessarily follow? Berkeley was clearly working with an idea of “race” (or “stock” or “volk” or whatever other synonyms stood in for what became “race”), that is, he assumed sets of group-specific morphological, intellectual and characterological traits, heritable across generations. And I think you’re right to point out that his encouragement of race-mixing in this instance is a proto-eugenics program, intended to speed along the natural processes evolution, allowing (as Francis Galton described it) for Man to do ”providently, quickly and kindly” what Nature does “blindly, slowly and ruthlessly.” I just don’t see any way that any version of a race-based pro-eugenics program can be “uninterested” in racial purity.

That Berkeley wasn’t arguing for purity-of-blood maintenance among members of a so-called “higher” race is not all by itself evidence, I think, for your claim. Anti-miscegenation programs were interested in racial purity because they did not want the blood-borne, “positive” qualities of a preferred race diluted. But a program like Berkeley’s (and Gobineau’s, for that matter) operate by the same reasoning, and thus demonstrate an equal interest in racial purity, when they promote miscegenation. Such programs want the blood-borne, “negative” qualities of an ill-favored race diluted. Either way, it is assumed that there are significant, value-laden consequences to racial purity.
In fact, Berkeley reads very similar to Gobineau here, only Berkeley doesn’t seem to think all the way through his own pro-“seed-scattering” logic as Gobineau did. For Gobineau, race-mixing also raises the quality of the lower races, but at the same time it dilutes the strength of the higher races and so, though miscegenation is necessary for the growth of civilization, it will also be the cause of that same civilization’s inevitable decline. Maybe Berkley’s “seed equally scattered” formulation gets him off the hook here, but I’m not sure.

Anyway, as I said above, maybe a nit-picky point, but not an inconsequential one, as I see it. Thanks again for this!

[Eric Schliesser]

Hi Leigh, thank you for your very interesting and helpful comments. In turn I have two observations: (i) it's unclear how Berkeley thinks about 'evolution' (I don't think he is a proto-Darwinian or neo-Epicurean, although Plato's Laws has a quasi-selectionist model), so I would be a bit cautious reading Galton-style program back into Berkeley. (ii) Berkeley is also very critical of some of the qualities of the (English) upper-classes, so he does not treat them as some kind of pure normative standard. But I will think more about the issue of purity because I certainly did not think through all the ways dilution might be understood here. (The 'chemistry' of Siris becomes relevant context.)

[Leigh M. Johnson]

In re (ii), just curious: does Berkeley view race-mixing as fortuitous in any way *for* the English upper-classes? That is, are the British upper-classes' vices race-based (heritable)?

[Eric Schliesser]

For now, I think the texts are just not explicit enough, Leigh. But hopefully this post will inspire further research.