↣ Statures ↣ (Ascending Series)
Fig. 155.
At a certain point A the two curves meet and intersect, each invading the field of the other: so that within the space ABC there are individual rich children who are shorter than some of the poor, and individual poor children who are taller than some of the rich: i.e., the conditions are contrary to those generally established by the curve as a whole. This rule also, of the intersection of binomial curves, is of broad application; whenever a general principle is stated, e.g. that the rich are taller than the poor, it is necessary to understand it in a liberal sense, knowing that wherever we should descend to details, the opposite conditions could be found (superimposed area ABC). For all that, the principle as a whole does not alter its characteristic, which is a differentiation of diverse types (for example, the tall rich and the short poor). The same would hold true if we made a comparison of the stature of men and women; the curve for men would be shifted toward the higher figures and that for women toward the lower, but there would be a point where the two curves would intersect, and in the triangle ABC there would be women taller than some of the men, and men shorter than some of the women. The differences have reference to the numerical majority (the high portions of the curves) which are clearly separated from each other, like the tops of cypress trees which have roots interlacing in the earth. Now, it is the numerical prevalence of individuals, in any mixed community, that gives that community its distinctive type, whether of class or of race. If we see gathered together in a socialistic assemblage a proletarian crowd, suffering from the effects of pauperism, the majority of the individuals have stooping shoulders, ugly faces and pallid complexions; all this gives to the crowd a general aspect, one might say, of physical inferiority. And we say that this is the type of the labouring class of our epoch in which labour is proletarian—a type of caste. On the other hand, if we go to a court ball, what strikes us is the numerical prevalence of tall, distinguished persons, finely shaped, with velvety skin and delicate and beautiful facial lineaments, so that we recognise that the assemblage is composed of privileged persons, constituting the type of the aristocratic class. But this does not alter the fact that among the proletariat there may be some handsome persons, well developed, robust and quite worthy of being confounded with the privileged class; and conversely, among the aristocrats, certain undersized individuals, sad and emaciated, with stooping shoulders and features of inferior type, who seem to belong to the lower social classes.
For this same reason it is difficult to give clear-cut limits to any law and any distinction that we meet in our study of life. This is why it is difficult in zoology and in botany to establish a system, because although every species differs from the others, in the salience of its characteristics and the numerical prevalence of individuals very much alike, none the less every species grades off so insensibly into others, through individuals of intermediate characteristics, that it is difficult to separate the various species sharply from one another. It is only the treetops that are separate, but at their bases life is intertwined; and in the roots there is an inseparable unity. The same may be said when we wish to differentiate normality from pathology and degeneration. The man who is clearly sane differs beyond doubt from the one who is profoundly ill or degenerate; but certain individuals exist whose state it would be impossible to define.
Now, while seriations analyse certain particularities of the individual distribution, by studying the actual truth, mean averages give us only an abstraction, which nevertheless renders distinct what was previously nebulous and confused in its true particulars. The synthesis of the mean average brings home to us forcibly the true nature of the characteristics in their general effect. The analysis of the seriation brings home to us forcibly the truth regarding this effect when we observe it in the actuality of individual cases.
"When, from the topmost pinnacle of the Duomo of Milan or from the hill of the Superga," says Levi in felicitous comparison, "we contemplate the magnificent panorama of the Alpine chain, we see the zone of snow distinguished from that free from snow by a line that is visibly horizontal and that stretches evenly throughout the length of the chain. But if we enter into the Alpine valleys and try to reach and to touch the point at which the zone of snow begins, that regularity which we previously admired disappears before our eyes; we see, at one moment, a snow-clad peak, and at the next another free from snow that either is or seems to be higher than the former."
Now, through the statistics of mean averages, we are able to see the general progress of phenomena, like the spectator who gazes from a distance at the Alpine chain and concludes that the zone of snow is above and the open ground is below; while, by means of seriation, we are in the position of the person who has entered the valley and discovers the actuality of the particular details which go to make up the uniform aspect of the scene as a whole. Both aspects are true—just as both of those statistical methods are useful—for they reciprocally complete each other, concurring in revealing to us the laws and the phenomena of anthropology.