Hernstein & Murray’s The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, offers a controversial statistical argument about social stratification and race being concretely linked to intelligence. However, the book more effectively investigates the consequences of American social stratification. The rich and educated members of society are increasingly isolating themselves in zip code enclaves instead of contributing to the American ideal of diversity. As a result, society has become increasingly divided by education, class and race. Overall, the book attempts to deconstruct complex socioeconomic issues of race, class and intelligence using statistical analysis. Intelligence is an important part of social science because it is “ a valued trait about people (including ourselves and our loved ones), and one of the most visible and controversial products of social science” (p. 5).
The title of the book refers to the Gaussian bell shaped normal statistical distribution of intelligence quotient (IQ) scores. Its primary argument is that intelligence is a result of genetic and environmental factors and it can predict individual outcomes, including income, career success, and involvement in crime. In the book, the conclusions are clear: smart people go to college, stupid people go to jail; an individuals intelligence and education is correlated to socioeconomic status. The book also asserts a rather dystopic American future in which the intelligent "cognitive elite” retreat into enclaves and isolate themselves from the rest of society. According to Murray and Hernstein, this group of cognitive elites will be comprised of primarily white European Americans and a few “representatives” from minority groups, and society will become increasingly divided along racial, economic and – most importantly - intelligence lines.
The book has become an example of quasi-academic research that become exploited as a hot topic in the mainstream media and politicalized by groups looking to promote a specific agenda. The book was immediately controversial because it asserted that race played a role in intelligence and explored the societal implications of those differences. It warned of the consequences of this “intelligence gap”, and suggested specific governmental social policies that could alleviate the negative consequences of this inequality. The Bell Curve has been criticized for trying to statistically “prove” racial stereotypes and cultural generalizations, such as Asians are good at math, and African-American women have babies out of wedlock. The statistical causation of these relationships, particularly between low measured intelligence and anti-social behavior, and genetic factors in intelligence abilities have been discussed ad-nauseam since the books publication in 1994.
The Bell Curve starts with some basic assumptions about society and the data which is being analyzed. The two which touch on intercultural communication are that “properly administered IQ tests are not demonstrably biased against social, economic, ethnic, or racial groups” (p. 23). This is a huge and probably erroneous assumption, that the tests are symbolically identical to a white affluent person and a minority from an inner-city community. This analysis completely neglects to adequately address test bias, and how it can skew scores – and the resulting data used to formulate illuminative bell curve representations. The second assumption that applies to intercultural communication is that “cognitive ability is substantially heritable, apparently no less than 40 percent and no more than 80 percent” (p. 24). This introduces a racial element to the analysis of intelligence and its impact on society. The book equates intelligence stratification with racial and cultural stratification.
The first four chapters of the book describes the growing intelligence stratification of American society and the newly formed "Cognitive Elite" (p. 67). Smart people are ruling society, are selected for prestigious colleges, and work in rewarding professions. These cognitive elites do not mingle with the masses, who are uneducated and lower cognitive abilities. The authors emphasize that traditional measures of intelligence and education – like a college degree – no longer mean much. Many members of society will have a college degree, however, only the cognitive elite are truly socioeconomically successful. They are more proficient, make more money, live in exclusive areas, and send their children to prestigious schools. This leads to to isolation - physical separation - from the rest of society, that only makes society worse.
In chapter five, entitled “Poverty”, the authors assert that lower IQ is a strong indicator of poverty, even “more so than the socioeconomic conditions in which people grow up” (p. 127). The chapter quiet simply correlates low IQ with low income, regardless of any other factor. In chapter six, “Schooling”, the analysis covers drop out rates and low IQ. Individuals with low IQ are much more likely to leave school before graduation, and most never attain a college degree. Throughout the rest of part two, which addresses “cognitive classes and social behavior” the authors break down complex social issues like unemployment, family composition, welfare dependency, crime and citizenship to statistical bell curves and correlations. People with low IQ’s just do not do well in society. They are poor, uneducated, bad parents and worse citizens. These individuals, who are “at the low end of the cognitive ability spectrum are much more likely to be “losers” or involved in “anti-social or otherwise undesirable behavior or situations” (p. 134).
In chapter thirteen, “Ethnic Differences in Cognitive Ability”, the authors turn their attention from the micro level of individuals, to larger societal issues, and differences between racial and ethnic groups. The stereotypes and generalizations get ramped up - “East Asians typically earn higher IQ scores than white Americans” (p. 167). African-Americans IQ scores are below average. Some fundamentally controversial questions linger throughout the chapter, such as: are black people really less intelligent than whites? Are Asians genetically better at mathematics? This is where the book starts to offend, and the analysis looks less scientific, and more absurd. The authors recognize that this is dangerous territory and caution the reader to “read carefully” because of the “incredibly complex nature of the comparisons being made” (p. 179).
In Chapter fifteen, “The Demography of Intelligence” the authors make a disturbing claim. Evidence “indicates that demographic trends are exerting downward pressure on the distribution of cognitive ability in the United States and that the pressures are strong enough to have social consequences” (p. 340). Educated women have fewer babies. The uneducated masses are procreating at a much higher rate. The results is a less intelligent society. The authors go a step further, and claim new immigrants are much lazier and “less hard working, less imaginative, and less self-starting than many of the immigrant groups of the past.” According to their statistics, the average immigrant IQ is 95, lower than the national average. Their conclusion is that smart people are not having children, and stupid people are having more children, and immigrants are lazy and have below average IQ. These factors are contributing to a hierarchal societal IQ division.
The second half of The Bell Curve looks at - and dismisses - the possibility of mitigating intelligence inequality. In chapter seventeen, “Raising Cognitive Ability”, extinguishes any positive impetus to increase social or educational equality. They conclude that:
If it were possible to significantly, consistently, and affordably raise intelligence,
many of the negative consequences of societal low IQ could be mitigated or
removed. However, historical attempts to raise IQ using nutritional programs,
additional formal schooling, and government preschool programs (such as
Head Start) have proven to have little if any lasting impact on intelligence as measured by IQ. (p. 314)
Chapter eighteen, “The Leveling of American Education” asserts that education in the United States has been “dumbed down” and declines have not impacted the “average American school child” (p. 410). Instead, the American school system has shifted more and more towards educating the average and below-average child to the exclusion of gifted – or cognitive elite – students. According to Murray and Hernstein, no more than one-tenth of one percent of federal education spending is targeted towards gifted students. As a result, smart students from all socioeconomic backgrounds are neglected. The authors recommend that education be reoriented to educating the gifted, because they are “future” and society depends on them. Subsequent chapters on affirmative action at the university level and in the workplace emphasize the authors thesis – smart people are smart, and stupid people are stupid, and there is not much to be done about it. Affirmative action leads to “racial animosity” and “large discrepancies in job performance” (p. 476).
Chapter twenty one “The Way We are Headed” points to trends that are creating an Indian like “caste” society in the U.S. (p. 521). These trends could lead to an increasingly isolated affluent and cognitive elite and a worsening quality of life for individuals with low IQ. The authors predict a “continued polarization of society with the underclass anchored at the bottom, and the cognitive elite anchored at the top, restructuring the rules of society so that it becomes harder and harder for them to lose” (p. 541). The result of this increasingly stratified society, based on income, intelligence, race, class and education is a custodial state – “an expanded welfare state for the underclass" (p. 534). Instead of this dystopic welfare state, the authors suggest another more positive sociological concept, in which equality is more about living together in a diverse racial and ethnic background. For example:
implement a training program for unemployed men, we should realize that
fully half of the target group will have measured IQ below 80. This should have a significant impact on the resulting social program or policy we establish.(p 245).
Murray and Hernstein argue for a world devoid of confusing racial and class definitions and want to focus on results. To thrive in society, regardless of race or language, you need to speak the language of success. College, long term relationships and co-parenting defines success. To be unemployed, a single mother, uneducated – these are associated with failure. The Bell Curve can mean different thing to different people. To some, the book is about social Darwinism. The less intelligent, are genetically inferior, which implies a world with a justifiable stratified society. The book also can be used to argue against the welfare state, affirmative action, immigration.. Herrnstein and Murray offer a dystopic and sci-fi vision of a society wrecked by the stupid. The cognitive elite - intelligent Asian and white couples, have fewer children, and the less intelligent strata of society continued to reproduce. It is ugly. The Bell Curve contains data and analysis of the cognitive elite, it also has some research a “cognitive underclass,” with a low IQ, which is disproportionately minority, low-income, incarcerated, with a high birth rate. The estimated I.Q. of incarcerated criminals is ten points below the general population mean. The books investigates the social implications of the rapid growth of this cognitive underclass.
The Bell Curve argues that intelligence creates the foundation of a “successful” life. The more intelligent lead more successful lives. A more realistic reading could produce analysis that would start the definition of a successful life. Cultural norms define ideals of societal success. Some members of society, particularly minority voices, might see “success” as meaning something different from the benchmarks set by Murray and Hernstein.
One aspect completely left out of The Bench Curve that is associated with communication is test bias. Standardized tests, including IQ tests can perpetuate dominant group hegemony and this can contribute to what Murray and Hernstein see as an “achievement gap” between whites and minorities. There are hidden biases in the construction, development and administration of standardized tests and interpretation of scores. These aspects of social construction are not statistics, and do not offer bell curves, however, they can offer some insight into how communication plays a role on societal constructs like relationships “success “or standardized test scores.
Murray and Hernstein claim the book is about "the quest for human dignity" (p. 551). Despite the fragility of many of their arguments, their concluding paragraph reinforces this motive:
Inequality of endowments, including intelligence, is a reality. Trying to
pretend that inequality does not really exist has led to disaster. Trying to
eradicate inequality with artificially manufactured outcomes has led to
disaster. It is time for America once again to try living with inequality,
as life is lived: understanding that each human being has strengths and
weaknesses, qualities we admire and qualities we do not admire,
competencies and incompetencies, assets and debits; that the success
of each human life is not measured externally but internally; that all of the
rewards we can confer on each other, the most precious is a place as a
valued fellow citizen. (p. 551-552)
This is a nice defense. Critics have accused the authors of scientific racism but the books does offer a construct - an ideological framework that is useful to look at the way cultures exist today in society. The Bell Curve views race as purely biological (and statistical) instead a social construction. The book completely disregards slavery or the challenges of immigration as having a short term effect on the data. An ESL student may struggle with the SAT, this has nothing to do with IQ.
One way The Bell Curve can be attacked today and in the future is along the lines of race. The book clearly states that whites have a slightly higher average IQ than non-whites (p. 91). However, the book never really spends much time defining race. What is a “white” person in contemporary America? In an increasingly multicultural and globalized world, this is a difficult way to frame a topic. Murray and Hernstein seem to be suggesting a world defined by socioeconomic factors like education and geographic location. The authors also look at high cognitive black and Hispanic “representatives” that going the “white” and Asian high cognitive world. As these numbers of these representatives increase, the topic will shift from being about race to being about just being “smart”, or high IQ, and the controversy will be resettle on other factors - like geographic location.
The Bell Curve can be seen as a largely conservative, or reactionary book. However, most sociological theories assert that those with power maintain their dominance by discriminating against minority classes or races and Murray and Hernstein seem to be strangely aligned with Marxist theorists. There are clearly biases in the research and the policies and conclusions suggested as a the authors, but the information and conclusions are useful nonetheless. Socioeconomic hierarchies are highly correlated with race. There is increasing socioeconomic stratification in the U.S. that is not democratic and is not diverse.
However, the book gets strange. It takes analyzing statistics to endorsing the “manipulation of fertility” (p. 510). Instead of assessing numbers, it reduces people to Orwellian social policies:
We can imagine no recommendation for using the government to manipulate fertility
that does not have dangers. But this highlights the problem: The United States already
has policies that inadvertently social-engineer who has babies, and it is encouraging t
he wrong women. If the United States did as much to encourage high-IQ women to have
‘ babies as it now does to encourage low-IQ women, it would rightly be described as
engaging in aggressive manipulation of fertility. The technically precise description of
America’s fertility policy is that it subsidizes births among poor women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution. We urge generally that
these policies, represented by the extensive network of cash and services for low-income women who have babies, be ended. The government should stop subsidizing births to anyone, rich or poor. (p. 576).
Strange, advocating for fertility policies, but today, the book is relevant. Globalization is increasing multiculturalism in the U.S. and around the world. A lack of communication between socioeconomic classes is the antithesis of core American values of diversity and freedom. The U.S. has celebrated the “middle class” as the core of society. This has always been seen as the real meat of the bell curve, but today there is a feeling that there is no middle class, only rich and poor.
The Bell Curve paints a picture of America that is polarized along socioeconomic rather than racial lines. The book, twenty years old, resonates today, with an increasingly stratified American society. However, the communication between the two classes was largely ignored in the research. If the Unites States is deteriorating into two cultures – the “cognitive elite” and the “cognitive underclass”, do these two groups have a common language, or are they so alienated that – as “cultures” – they are unable to even communicate? One of the authors – Hernstein - died before the books publication, and Murray is defending his work, which is either vilified or glorified and exploited to further educational and political agendas. Even more alarmingly, the book can be used to further policies that seem eugenic:
The smarter the woman, the more likely that she deliberately decides
woman is, the more likely that she does not think ahead from sex to
procreation, does not remember birth control, does not carefully consider
when and under what circumstances she should have a child. How intelligent
a woman is may interact with her impulsiveness, and hence her ability to
exert self-discipline and restraint on her partner in order to avoid pregnancy (p. 187).
The book does not look at cultural issues or address a lack of understanding on the part of the authors about ways of life that may be different than theirs. Again, the authors do not address basic questions about communication. Do the low cognitive subjects of their research have anything to say about their predicament? It is a one way dialogue. Group differences should be analyzed as group that exist, not as numbers on a page. To Murray and Hernstein, much of their analysis reduces people to voiceless data, which is unusual in a sociological work of this scope. Crime and children born out of wedlock and in poverty are simply seen as negative statistics that indicate poor performance in life. Criminals, for example, show “A lack of foresight, which is often associated with low IQ, raises the attractions of the immediate gains from crime and lowers the strength of the deterrentsTo a person of low intelligence, the threats of apprehension and prison may fade to meaninglessness. They are too abstract” ( p. 191). Defining people as inferior by genetics seems racist and welcomes criticism from a number of directions. Historically, the twentieth century – particularly Nazi Germany or the Antebellum South in America - are full of examples of the dubious use genetics to further fascist and destructive social goals. The Bell Curve is as controversial – and perhaps effective - today as it was when it was published in 1994. Twenty years later the socioeconomic landscape has only evolved in a way that supports Murray and Herrnsteins originally controversial thesis. Ultimately, not everyone can be smart. Group differences might just be that – differences. To use complicated statistical analysis to analyze and judge groups of people might be missing the point - that diversity means accepting the good and bad about diverse groups of people. Sociologically, the book seems to resort to grouping and labeling people using arbitrary and insensitive criteria. The book states that it may offend sensibilities from the beginning. However, from a communications perspective it offers useful questions that can frame a debate about culture and discourse about equality.
Work Cited
Herrnstein, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.
