by “The Pseudo-Scientist,” Tiffany Kinh Lam
As an Asian American who grew up in a predominantly Latino community of inner city Los Angeles, I stood out significantly in appearance as a minority among minorities. I grew up in a highly racialized setting where I was treated differently due to my physical attributes characteristic of East Asians such as slanted eyes, light-colored skin, and long black thin hair. These are the reasons why I am interested in the quasi-scientific approach of classical physiognomy in order to answer the question posed by our class, what is racial difference?
Classical physiognomy is most notably studied and written about by Joseph Ziegler of the Department of General History in the University of Haifa, Israel[1]. His essay “Physiognomy, Science, and Proto-Racism, 1200-1500” in the 2009 Cambridge University Press compilation, The Origins of Racism in the West, was described by one reviewer as “a detailed and fascinating deconstruction of a series of texts which make a connection between physical appearance and geography.”[2] He argues that classical physiognomy was not racist because it played the role of ‘a rational science’ that judged individuals and individual characteristics, whereas racism creates groups and discriminates[3].
The attempt to protect the integrity of the pseudo-science in classical and medieval physiognomy amounts to the rationale that discriminatory ideas are a function of time and access to the scientific method. The rationale does not justify the pain and injustice race causes. Therefore, I argue that classical physiognomy—the theory that a person’s facial features or expression is indicative of character—is a precursor to not only racial difference but also contemporary racism.
But I do not reject the need to understand racial difference from a scientific and physiognomic perspective altogether. First, I acknowledge that many medieval writers of physiognomy created a link between geography, physical appearance, complexion and character that would be considered discriminatory and racist today. I recognize also that there are some beneficent and humanitarian ends in distinguishing differences in origin and background, such as the preservation of customs and cultures or the treatment of illness. For example, Sally Satel in a New York Times op-ed column[4] argues that she “racially profiles” a patient so she can adjust prescriptive treatment options to fit the patient’s blood type and mineral levels, simply based on the patient’s physical appearance and race or ethnicity. Also, as a community organizer in Los Angeles around issues of food justice and gentrification, I find that it is important to recognize how differences in race and culture necessitate different prescriptive resources so that I can facilitate more effective intercultural settings for change.
In other words, whether you are a casual acquaintance taking a cursory glance at my physiognomic profile or a doctor qualified to address my medical concerns, I want you to treat me as equal by recognizing and accepting my differences. This is how racial constructs, as perpetuated by classical and medieval physiognomy, can be beneficial and begin to look in modernity like the benign tool that Ziegler argues classical physiognomy is in his essay. The line between positive and negative effects of racial constructs, however, is very thin. Admittedly, it may lean towards the negative. Therefore, the call for equality by recognition and acceptance of difference is always of utmost priority if we are to effect social progress around issues of race and ethnicity.
[1] “Dr. Joseph (Yossi) Ziegler.”
[2] Panayi, “Review of The Origins of Racism in the West (Review No. 887).”
[3] Ziegler, “Physiognomy, Science, and Proto-Racism 1200–1500.”
[4] Satel, “I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor.”
