In my college years, I began to notice that Jewish girls, who then came into my experience for the first time, had an interesting feature in the upper eyelid. In a casual discussion I mentioned this observation to one of my zoology professors, who misunderstood it as racist in character and promptly berated me, concluding with the remark that the next thing I knew I would be talking about different racial smells. Later I read about racial variations of the quantitative and qualitative production of the axillary (armpit) apocrine glands. We shouldn't be surprised at the extent of our subgroup diversity, for it is one of the features of all living organisms. Purists, incidentally, prefer not to use "race", or "subspecies," for "subgroup" for very unbiological reasons.
Nonetheless, few forces in history have been more potent in their effect on the human condition than the physical differences between human races. And there is no question that these differences are still the main element in modeling attitudes of one class of people toward another. In spite of this deep emotional involvement in modern subgroup physical differences, the precise reasons for their existence are still, at best, poorly understood.
Much of our failure to account objectively for racial differences comes from the fact that we have been relying on functional anatomy to apply its principles of environmental adaptation to what are basically differences in social ornamentation. The slant-slit eye of the Cambodian, the coarse, leathery, pebbled skin of a Congo pygmy, the brilliant blue eyes of an Irish colleen, the long graceful neck of an Ethiopian queen, the massive cheekbones of a Plains Indian, and the long penis of a Masai are important social tools and have little to do with wind and the rain.
Among other species this pattern is also the rule. Birds differ in toe pattern and bill structure mainly as a result of their habitat and feeding patterns, but the colorful tail patterns, head crests, and breast colors are their social tools and correlate poorly with habitat and food. There are the same strikingly similar racial patterns among other primates that we are accustomed to seeing in human beings. The primate face is the main center of communication and this is where most of the specialized ornamentation is located.
In the face, also, is where one finds rather dramatic variations within species and between species. For example, the faces of African Green Monkeys or South American Saguinus Monkeys vary as much or more than the faces of human beings, in color, whisker patterning, and distribution, eyebrow size and pattern, and eye variations.
Earlier I mentioned the East-West cline in facial coloration of the hamadryas baboon. Eastern animals have a bright vermilion face and Western ones have melanin in the skin which gives the face a dark gray appearance. The drill has a polished jet black face and the mandrill a red and blue face. Most of the other baboons have dark brown to black facial skin. One is tempted to draw parallels between the cline of the hamadryas red to gray from Welshman to East Indian among the Caucasoids. I suspect the differences exist for the same reasons - and It's not just protection from the sun's rays which is the determining factor. One could go on and on with parallel examples; suffice it to say that we are not peculiar in this regard. Any explanation that tries to account for much of the human racial variation must be subject to broader application to other related organisms, and vice versa.
In my own mind, there are four fundamental points which account for much of the human racial variation in social organs: (1) the degree of specific and general neotenization (childlikeness); (2) dispersal along the evolutionary spectrum; (3) anatomical displacement among classes or among neighbors; (4) diversity of patterns which are just different ways of doing the same thing.
As we have seen, social neoteny combined the social posture of a juvenile and the physical skill, mental and reproductive wherewithal of an adult. One might expect neoteny to be at its most extreme form where social transparency was at a premium - the society required complete cooperation with and social reliance on one's fellows. There is no one environment nor really any one social situation which one could specify would invariably result in neoteny for social reasons. Eskimos and Bushmen live at low densities in marginal habitats, and they exhibit these qualities in a number of body characters. Their mode of life is such that a single family group would be at a considerable disadvantage as would members of a large populace. The Japanese, another group of social neotenics, however, are just as neotenic, but for different reasons. The combination of insular habitat and moderate to high density creates a forced intimacy. In such a situation one functions best by providing an image of inoffensiveness and interacting freely with many other people.
I suspect monogamous bonds would tend to support the process of male neotenization, especially if a female does much of the process of mate choosing and does not play a very subordinate role in the society. Promiscuity or polygamous bonding with dominant males would tend to select against neotenization in a loose-knit society. However, in a highly organized society (say, feudalistic) dominants usually do not possess the physical rugosity of the working classes and neotenization may be selectively favored on a class basis. Whatever their origin, racial variations seem to involve neoteny. Australoids bald and gray early, while some of the Orientals retain the long torso of youth and hairless body well into adulthood. The potbelly and protruding butt of the adult Hottentot perhaps has some origin in relation to their general childlike body form.
The second theme one finds among group diversity in social paraphernalia represents points along an evolutionary path. Some groups represent earlier conditions of stages through which other contemporary groups have passed. This is a principle on which anatomists have capitalized in their reconstruction of soft-part evolution (organs for which there is no fossil record). Among different living animals one can see a spectrum of, say, heart anatomy that gives one clues as to how the mammalian heart originated.
With some exceptions, this method of reconstruction can be adapted to social organs as well, and it is the process by which ethologists reconstruct evolutionary patterns of behavior. Social behavior and social ornamentation are intimately interrelated, so one must unravel both together. For example, Geist's work with the evolution of horns and hornlike organs: antelope and deer with small simple horns represent early evolutionary patterns of horn development and fighting technique, which in some species have been altered to complex horn or antler structure and highly ritualized fights. Thus, one can conclude that some groups are either evolving more slowly or have stabilized at one point while others have undergone continual change.
One can discuss these same types of differences among human groups, though virtually all texts about race refuse to do so for fear of being accused of racism. There is an unwarranted assumption that human change is always progress or advancement, and later stages would necessarily represent something "better." For example, ancestors of all human beings had thick, protruding bony brow-ridges. The Australian aborigines have a similar brow, and the Southeast Asian have virtually none - but this doesn't mean one is inherently better than the other. One has simply changed rather dramatically and the other to a lesser degree.
Our early ancestors had massive cheekbones or zygomas. This condition also varies considerably among different racial groups and subgroups. One can go on with other examples: receding foreheads, nose shape, chin size and shape, etc. There are, of course, many features which have no fossil record, but their ubiquitous distribution around the primate world suggests an earlier history such as brown eyes, black hair, and tan skin.
At the same time, ubiquity can be misleading. For example, peoples with considerable body hair are comparatively rare, but judging from other hominoids this must have been an earlier condition, and our slick nakedness is a later product. Again, reversals are probably common, so one would have to be fairly cautious in a judgment as to direction.
The third theme responsible for racial variation in social paraphernalia is a tendency for anatomical displacement. It is often disadvantageous for two species that live together to share the same forms of social paraphernalia if they do not compete directly with each other. Moose and caribou never fight in the wild because each species' threat patterns are unique to it. The same is also true for sexual attractants. Also, a similar principle seems to apply along the lines of contact between two adjacent species. The pressure is greater here to recognize the "foreigner."
Among human beings we see similar principles pertaining to castes and neighboring groups. If there are any differences they will tend to be exaggerated. Let's say that there are two neighboring groups, one tall and black and the other short and white; as with all neighbors, there are underlying tensions. To the Short-Whites, being tall and black becomes synonymous with badness, and vice versa. But what about the taller, darker Short-Whites? They must share a little of the stigma of neighbor hate. The same is true for the shorter and lighter Tall-Blacks. Both of these variants could be expected to leave fewer offspring than more typical members of their groups; hence, the two groups drift farther and farther apart with time, until the Tall-Blacks are really tall and black and the Short-Whites are very short and white.
The same phenomenon seems to occur between castes living together. Since we are more sensitive to physical differences around the "hot spots" of social communication (in humans, the eyes, mouth, skin color, hair patterns, and texture), one might expect these to vary more between castes and human subgroups than most other organs, as indeed they do.
The fourth theme of the diversity of social paraphernalia is probably the most important. There are numerous avenues of change that may effectively accomplish the same thing. There are a number of ways to look more beautiful: baby-doll sex kittens with waterfall curls, or haughty socialites with their hair piled on top of their heads. So also are there various ways to signal status - smelliness, deep voice, graying, balding, big beards, oily skin and so on - various combinations of which may serve a similar function to that of other communication combinations.
But the particular way of changing may occur somewhat at random. Probably some avenues are simply fortuitous - having become culturally traditionalized and selected simply because of some quirk of time and moment. Perhaps the values came from the appearance of a revered leader. We can assume, though, that the form of threat patterns characteristic of animal species is always in compromise with some environmental selection pressures or other social factors. The same must be true among human beings.
A cold-climate animal, like the Rocky Mountain goat, can utilize long, dense fur to cover most of its body, increasing its apparent body mass, while a tropical species is denied this route because of overheating. The more threatening, gaudy individuals of a species that does not depend on visual concealment may leave more offspring than the drab ones, whereas in a species that relies heavily on camouflage, it may be the drab ones who leave more offspring because the gaudy ones live such a short time, though they may consistently gain high social rank. Likewise, human status signals would be expected to take different avenues in different ecological and social settings. The degree of skin pigmentation, body size, relative fragility or robustness, and other physical characteristics may affect one's survival in a number of different environments. Thus, any reproductive advantage conferred by certain status signals may be either complemented or counteracted by their effect on other aspects of the individual's life history.
For instance, the special anatomical features of the penises of some Africans and the artificial extensions used by some islanders in the tropics may have been due to the penis being emphasized by the nudity allowed in warm weather. Farther from the equator the genitals are usually covered by clothing and are not as readily available for continual display.
Not only is there a large ecological component to the direction taken by these social paraphernalia, but there must surely be another large component based on the nature of the particular group's social structure. There are a number of ways social organization could influence social organs: size of the bands, caste system or lack of one, the need for cooperation, courtship patterns, marital arrangement, role of children in the society, the general temperament of openness or freedom of expression, the dominance structure itself, whether linear or class, relative importance of age, social role of women, and many others. All of these indirectly or directly affect the expression of which suite of physical features will be bent in which direction.
The question has often been asked, "Why is there so much variation within a group of human beings?" There is also considerable temperamental heterogeneity among a litter of puppies, and also of wolves. Some are shy, others have blustery daring, some are quiet, others are noisy, some are expressive, others are aloof, and so on. This is not true among foxes. One is stuck by their homogeneity. Adult foxes are asocial, each going his own way, and all adhere to a certain behavioral norm or optimum. But in a social species a number of different social strategies are allowable. Likewise, the social paraphernalia that accompanies behavior exhibits a similar pattern. The throat patches, masks, eye markings, coat color, etc., are extremely variable within a wolf population. This is particularly true among the Northern subspecies, which run in large winter packs and as a consequence-are more social than the southern wolf species which occupy a more loner, coyote-like niche.
The extension of this phenomenon to human beings and other social primates is obvious. Gorillas and chimps are extremely variable in their social ornamentation and behavior. Human beings, more than any other primate, are extremely variable within any one group. But if beards are important, why doesn't everybody have beards just alike? A slick chin and strong beard are different social strategies in one continuum; each has its assets and debits. The milieu of a highly social group selects for a broad spectrum of behavior and social paraphernalia.
Pictures of wild African hunting dogs never cease to amaze me. All are mottled in a piebald-skewbald mixture of black, yellow, white, and brown splotches - each with his individual pattern, like a litter of potlicker pups. Somewhat the same is true for Dall sheep; no horn pattern is like any other in size or shape. This is a general principle within human subgroups, whether it is Miamin, Kwakiutl, Turk, or Balinese.
Social identity is based mainly upon variations in social organs - the fullness of the eyebrows, the length and shape of the nose, the color of skin and hair, height, body hair, etc., but I doubt if this diversity has been selected for solely on the basis of creating special identity, as many have proposed. Rather, it seems to be a function of the diversity of social strategies which are selected for in an organized group. An organized group can tolerate (and even function best with) individual specifications and diversity, while loners, like foxes who have only themselves to rely on in the hunt or in encounters with strange foxes, are forced to yield to a narrow range of optimal individual performance.
In comparing modern human subgroups one can piece together some of the history of our social organ development. In some groups a character is only rudimentary, while in others it is fully developed (such as the blue eyes of some racial subgroups being only approximated by lighter brown eyes in others). A well developed social organ in some groups may have been almost lost in others. Also, there are cases of simple divergence: from the original brown skin came both translucent white and blue-black.
Most of us go through life not analyzing rationally all of these differences in our values relating to the social organs of other groups or even ourselves - but there are some who do.