Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 2 - Mendelism Maturing: From Experimental to Interpretative Framework, 1913–1933

  • Amir Teicher, Tel-Aviv University
  • Book:
    Social Mendelism
    Published online:
    03 February 2020
    Print publication:
    13 February 2020, pp 54-88

  • Summary

    As it soon turned out, there was a limit to what Mendelian teaching could offer to each of these three disciplines. In the case of genealogy, adopting Mendelian assumptions required genealogists to give up too much of their traditional methods and their professional identity. They therefore adopted very little of it. Among psychiatrists, despite several vocal opponents to Mendelian inquiries, the impact of Mendelism was deep and lasting, especially in relation to schizophrenia research and to the nosology of mental illnesses. The anthropological discipline fully embraced and adapted itself to Mendelian ideas, though simultaneously recognized the limitations of Mendelian analysis. The study of skull shapes (especially cephalic index), on the one hand, and of blood types, on the other, demonstrate the spectrum of possibilities for Mendelian analysis in racial anthropology and its problematic nature. Contrary to what historians have thus far argued, at the end of the 1920s Mendelism was still a ruling paradigm both in anthropology and psychiatry, even if it no longer supplied actual tools for scientific inquiry.