Human Studies

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 237–255 | Cite as

Empirical Race Psychology and the Hermeneutics of Epistemological Violence

Theoretical Paper


After identifying the discipline of psychology’s history of contributing pioneers and leaders to the field of race research, epistemological problems in empirical psychology are identified including an adherence to a naïve empiricist philosophy of science. The reconstruction focuses on the underdetermined relationship between data and interpretation. It is argued that empirical psychology works under a hermeneutic deficit and that this deficit leads to the advancement of interpretations regarding racialized groups that are detrimental to those groups. Because these interpretations are understood as actions that bring harm to certain racialized groups, and because these actions are made in the name of science and knowledge, the term epistemological violence is applied. Reflections regarding the meanings and consequences of this term in empirical psychology and the human sciences are presented.


Epistemological violence Scientific racism Psychology Hermeneutics 



This article is based on a paper presented in the fall of 2010 at the 7th California Roundtable for Philosophy and Race at Northwestern University. It is a continuation of my work on epistemological violence (Teo 2008, 2010) supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Standard Research Grant.


  1. Aalbers, D. (2002). The rhetoric of the middle ground. History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 14(2), 11–17.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. (2001). In R. McKeon (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Original work published 1962).Google Scholar
  4. Bacon, F. (1965). In S. Warhaft (Ed.), A selection of his works. Toronto: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Cattell, R. B. (1937). The fight for our national intelligence. London: P. S. King.Google Scholar
  6. Cattell, R. B. (1987). Beyondism: Religion from science. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  7. Cernovsky, Z. Z., & Litman, L. C. (1993). Re-analyses of J. P. Rushton’s crime data. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 35(1), 31–36.Google Scholar
  8. Code, L. (1993). Taking subjectivity into account. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 15–48). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Cole, M., & Cole, S. R. (1993). The development of children (2nd ed.). New York: Scientific American Books.Google Scholar
  10. Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind: How psychology found its language. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press (Original work published 1967).Google Scholar
  12. Dilthey, W. (1957). Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie [Ideas on a descriptive and analytical psychology]. In W. Dilthey (Ed.), Die geistige Welt: Einleitung in die Philosophie des Lebens (Gesammelte Schriften V. Band) [The mental world: Introduction to the philosophy of life (Collected writings: Volume 5)] (pp. 139–240). Stuttgart: Teubner (Original work published 1894).Google Scholar
  13. Duhem, P. (1954). The aim and structure of physical theory (P. P. Wiener, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (Original work published 1905).Google Scholar
  14. Ebbinghaus, H. (1896). Über erklärende und beschreibende Psychologie [Concerning explanatory and descriptive psychology]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 9, 161–205.Google Scholar
  15. Fairchild, H. H. (1991). Scientific racism: The cloak of objectivity. Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flandro, C. (2010, June 19). Marysville School Board member should resign over e-mail, some say. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from
  17. Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11(2), 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (revised and expanded). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1971). Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz [Preparatory remarks for a theory of communicative competence] In J. Habermas & N. Luhmann (Eds.), Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie: Was leistet die Systemforschung? (pp. 101–141). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  21. Habermas, J. (1988). On the logic of the social sciences (S. W. Nicholsen & J. A. Stark, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1967).Google Scholar
  22. Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Holzkamp, K. (1964). Theorie und Experiment in der Psychologie: Eine grundlagenkritische Untersuchung [Theory and experiment in psychology: A critical study]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Holzkamp, K. (1968). Wissenschaft als Handlung: Versuch einer neuen Grundlegung der Wissenschaftslehre [Science as action: Essay on a new foundation for the philosophy of science]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Holzkamp, K. (1983). Grundlegung der Psychologie [Foundation of psychology]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus.Google Scholar
  26. Horkheimer, M. (1992). Traditional and critical theory. In D. Ingram & J. Simon-Ingram (Eds.), Critical theory: The essential readings (pp. 239–254). New York: Paragon House (Original work published 1937).Google Scholar
  27. Hume, D. (1988). An enquiry concerning human understanding (Introduction, notes, and editorial arrangement by Antony Flew). La Salle, IL: Open Court. (Original work published 1748).Google Scholar
  28. Hunter, W. S., & Sommermier, E. (1922). The relation of degree of Indian blood to score on the Otis intelligence test. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2, 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jackson, J. P., & Weidman, N. M. (2004). Race, racism, and science: Social impact and interaction. Santa Barbara, CA: Abc-Clio.Google Scholar
  30. Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1–123.Google Scholar
  31. Joseph, J. (2004). The gene illusion: Genetic research in psychiatry and psychology under the microscope. New York: Algora.Google Scholar
  32. Kant, I. (1965). Critique of pure reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.). New York: St. Martin’s Press (Original work published 1781).Google Scholar
  33. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lewontin, R. (1995). Human diversity. New York: Scientific American Library.Google Scholar
  35. Lieberman, L. (2001). How “Caucasoids” got such big crania and why they shrank—From Morton to Rushton. Current Anthropology, 42(1), 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2010). 50 great myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread misconceptions about human behavior. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Mach, E. (1976). Knowledge and error: Sketches of the psychology of enquiry. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. (German original first published in 1905).Google Scholar
  38. Marx, M. H. (1951). The general nature of theory construction. In M. H. Marx (Ed.), Psychological theory: Contemporary readings (pp. 4–19). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Peregrine, P. N., Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (2003). Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(5), 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peters, M. (1995). Race differences in brain size. American Psychologist, 50(11), 947–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Proctor, R. N., & Schiebinger, L. (Eds.). (2008). Agnotology: The making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Quine, W. V. (1969). Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ramachandran, V. S. (1997). Why do gentlemen prefer blondes? Medical Hypotheses, 48(1), 19–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction: An analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richards, G. (1997). “Race”, racism and psychology: Towards a reflexive history. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Rushton, J. (1985). Differential K theory: The sociobiology of individual and group differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(4), 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  48. Rushton, J. P. (1999). Race, evolution, and behavior: Special abridged edition. Somerset, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  49. Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2), 235–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Samelson, F. (1978). From “race psychology” to “studies in prejudice”: Some observations on the thematic reversal in social psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14(3), 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shaw, J. (2010, June 18). Marysville School Board member: “Inferior” students need not apply [Web log comment]. Retrieved from
  52. Slife, B. D., Reber, J. S., & Richardson, F. C. (2005). Critical thinking about psychology: Hidden assumptions and plausible alternatives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  53. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing. American Psychologist, 42(2), 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sugarman, J. (2009). Historical ontology and psychological description. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 29(1), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Summers, L. H. (2005). Remarks at NBER conference on diversifying the science and engineering workforce. Retrieved from
  57. Teo, T. (1998). Klaus Holzkamp and the rise and decline of German critical psychology. History of Psychology, 1(3), 235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Teo, T. (2004). The historical problematization of “mixed race” in psychological and human-scientific discourses. In A. Winston (Ed.), Defining difference: Race and racism in the history of psychology (pp. 79–108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Teo, T. (2008). From speculation to epistemological violence in psychology: A critical-hermeneutic reconstruction. Theory and Psychology, 18(1), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Teo, T. (2010). What is epistemological violence in the empirical social sciences? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tucker, W. H. (1994). The science and politics of racial research. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  62. Tucker, W. H. (2002). The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe draper and the pioneer fund. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  63. Vilar, M. (Sept. 18, 2000). Ever had a bad hair day? Science world, 7–9.Google Scholar
  64. Weizmann, F., Wiener, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L., & Ziegler, M. (1990). Differential K theory and racial hierarchies. Canadian Psychology, 31(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  65. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Winston, A. S. (1996). The context of correctness: A comment on Rushton. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 5(2), 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Winston, A. (2001). Cause into function: Ernst Mach and the reconstruction of explanation in psychology. In C. D. Green, M. Shore, & T. Teo (Eds.), The transformation of psychology: Influences of 19th-century philosophy, technology, and natural science (pp. 107–131). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Winston, A. S. (Ed.). (2004). Defining difference: Race and racism in the history of psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  69. Zuckerman, M. (2003). Are there racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality? A critique of Lynn’s (2002) racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(6), 1463–1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, History and Theory of PsychologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations