The Dangerous “Science” of Gregory Clark, as Read In the New York Times

Econ prof’s ideas, which were published this weekend in the New York Times, should be critiqued and opposed at every turn. Remember Nazism?

eugenics 940

Earlier this week, Sandy Hingston reported on a new study by California economics professor Gregory Clark, which claims genes, not social factors, are why it’s so hard to move up the socio-economic ladder these days. Intrigued, I read Clark’s own recent New York Times column explaining his work, and a shiver ran down my spine.

Every year, I teach a course at Bryn Mawr College that examines poverty and social mobility throughout history. And every year, my students are shocked by a 19th Century Englishman named Francis Galton.


Galton founded the pseudo-science of Eugenics. He used a bastardized version of his cousin Charles Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection to argue what Clark argues: that genetics explains why elite families and groups remain on top from generation to generation, while the rest of us have a tougher time.

Francis_Galton_1850sGalton, whose work was highly influential in Europe and America, noticed that the same last names kept appearing in lists of award-winners at his alma mater of Cambridge. Similarly, Clark and his colleagues found that centuries-old elite surnames continue to show up disproportionately in the ranks of today’s elites. For Galton, this pattern couldn’t be the result of good education: It had to be the genes, or “stock” as he called it. Likewise, Clark reasons that since the world’s elite have remained on top despite governments’ attempts to increase social fairness, genes must be the answer.

My students know nothing of Francis Galton before entering my classroom, but they immediately see that he was blind to the complex web of cultural norms, family connections, wealth, political influence, and entitlement that shaped the self-image, aspirations, and opportunities of different social classes in England.

So, too, does Clark dismiss the social, cultural and economic dimensions of inheritance: how those at the top maintain status, gain advantages for their children, and inculcate traditions and vocations that appear as naturally “elite.” He also forgets what any Downton Abbey fan knows: that wealth is passed down generationally, just like genes, and with similar staying power.

And like Galton, Clark misuses evolution. He says social status must be genetic because it takes so long — 300 to 450 years — for elite groups to start to come down in the world, and for low ones to start to move up. But while that might seem like a long time to an economist, it’s the blink of an eye to an evolutionary biologist (not to mention anyone who knows anything about American slavery). If social status really were genetically based, it would take far longer for it to be “bred out.”

This understanding of our world is, in a word, stupid. It’s also dangerously naive.

Galton was not a hateful man. A child of the Enlightenment, he believed we could make things better. He lamented how Natural Selection promotes “the good of the whole with scant regard to that of the individual.” He argued that man has “the power of preventing many kinds of suffering. I conceive it to fall well within his province to replace Natural Selection by other processes that are more merciful and not less effective.”

But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Galton’s “mercy” entailed forbidding the poor and “unfit” from reproducing. Eventually history paved a path from his good intentions right into the ovens of Auschwitz.

Clark’s reasoning doesn’t lead anywhere near that. In fact, he supports social programs to compensate for what he sees as the genetic deficiencies of the unfortunate masses, and he says his research found “no evidence that certain racial groups innately did better than others.”

Yet, he still ends up in troubling territory. He says African Americans’ long, difficult struggle hasn’t been caused by discrimination. Because French Canadians also have struggled to progress, and have not faced racism, discrimination can’t be the reason African Americans have had trouble. Therefore, it must be a problem of genes.

Clark has every right to freely conduct his research and publicize his arguments. But in the name of sound policy, good scholarship, and an ethical society, his ideas should be critiqued and opposed at every turn. We can’t afford a 21st century Francis Galton.

Matt Ruben lives in Northern Liberties, where he serves as President of the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association. He teaches writing and public speaking at Bryn Mawr College. He is a former candidate for City Council-at-Large.

Be respectful of our online community and contribute to an engaging conversation. We reserve the right to ban impersonators and remove comments that contain personal attacks, threats, or profanity, or are flat-out offensive. By posting here, you are permitting Philadelphia magazine and Metro Corp. to edit and republish your comment in all media.

  • Robert Malthus

    You are a writing instructor and you “teach a course at Bryn Mawr College that examines poverty and social mobility”? Couldn’t they get a sociology graduate student to teach that class?

    So here is a question for you, Mr. Amateur Bioethicist: is there any genetic component or predisposition to the trait of “drive” or “aggressiveness”? Or is that trait randomly distributed throughout the human population? Is “drive” purely a cultural construct like jumping ability has been proven to be? Is it even ethical to explore any of this, or does it all just lead us down an icky path?

    • Matt Ruben

      Lovely username there, Mr. Malthus. There are no doubt genetic components to a variety of human personality traits, emotional dispositions, and behavioral tendencies. As you probably know, neuroscience and other fields are constantly providing us with new insights into these issues, and recent findings have suggested that even memories can be encoded in DNA.

      But that’s a far cry from plausibly suggesting – let alone proving or establishing – that certain individual family lines and ethnic/racial groups have specific genetic characteristics that explain their social status in highly complex modern societies.

      Jumping ability is a purely physical characteristic, and if you want to say that people genetically predisposed to higher jumping make better athletes (in sports where jumping is centrally important), I won’t argue with you. But you – and by analogy Clark – would be on thin ice if you claimed that genetic jumping ability explains why certain family lines or groups of people tend to go into specific sports, are able to stick with those sports throughout their school years, successfully transition to college, perform well under pressure, exercise on-court/on-field leadership or smarts, make the right career moves, and get to the professional level.

      Finally, Gregory Clark isn’t a bioethicist either; he’s an economist. Bioethicists do important work, but there’s also a long, dishonorable history of really bad scholarship on the bio-socio connection, from Eugenics and Social Darwinism, to Sociobiology, to books like “The Bell Curve.” This history is something that always has been commented upon by scholars outside the sciences (and FYI my own academic background includes cultural studies and urban studies, both fields with major historical and sociological components).

      • Robert Malthus

        Indeed it is “troubling territory” and “thin ice” to discuss the difficult subject of race and class. I commend you for broaching the subject, even if you are too much of a chickenshit to follow it through to any logical conclusion.

        • Matt Ruben

          It’s hard to respond productively to someone who thinks name-calling is a useful or appropriate part of a dialogue. That said, if I presume correctly, you appear to think that genetics play a more significant role in race and class than I do, that I’m “chickenshit” because I acknowledge that different people have different genetic abilities, but I don’t agree that different groups have different levels of natural ability or aptitude.

          If I do presume correctly, then we’ll have to agree to disagree, and I would suggest you read up on how the entire concept of race is not genetically valid as once thought.

      • Antonio

        Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can’t say the word “race”? You’re a buffoon.

  • Matt Baen

    Why is this nearly the only negative article about Clark’s NYT piece to be found on the internet? Did it fly over almost everyone’s heads? My background is in biological anthropology. Clark’s piece is part of a troubling resurgence of Social Darwinism and hereditarianism in academia which is fueling a network of racism and inegalitarian biopolitics on the internet and society in general.

    Related to that, check out this upcoming book from the NYT’s Nicholas Wade:
    http://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-Inheritance-Genes-Human-History/dp/1594204462

  • The_Racist_Atheist

    Haha, the egalitarians are panicking. Just accept it: Negroes are inferior to Whites and all other races. They are low-IQ subhumans. They are a stupid, ugly, foul, obnoxious, and worthless race that destroys whatever they touch: just look at the blasted wastelands of Detroit, Baltimore, Haiti, sub-Saharan Africa…

    Furthermore, they are genetic POISON. They must be treated as a biological menace and phased out of a existence.

  • Antonio

    Everyone knows that genes are our destiny. The author of this opinion piece isn’t very smart.