A LOOK INTO SHAPIRO’S VIEW ON CIVIC BIOLOGY AND ORIGIN OF THE ANTIEVOLUTION MOVEMENT
Historians play a big role in shaping how human beings understand the evolution of different topics and subjects in a given society. They tend to shape how one perceives the origin of different characters in society. Adam R. Shapiro’s article on Civic Biology and the Origin of the Antievolution Movement describes how authors used biology to advance different social agendas among learners. There was a great discussion among different scholars on what best suited the urban student who lived in many congested districts compared to rural students. John L. Rudolf and Philip J Pauly, in their articles, have pointed out the contributions of both the Biology committee and National Education commission’s influence on the school content of teaching life sciences[1]. The effects of these organizations were transmitted beyond New York City using textbooks. Pauly notes that as much as textbooks may not have been the only tool that indicated education regulation, but they played a big role in where anti-evolution took place. Pauly notes that teachers cum authors who helped develop biology in New York city mostly used textbooks to assert their influence and were joined by publishers, distributors, and salespeople who convinced school administrations to adopt these textbooks. Shapiro argues that the priority of using these textbooks was further affirmed by Austin Peay, the governor of Tennessee, who found nothing of consequence from the textbooks being used.[2]
Shapiro tells on the reasons for the sudden development of biology in the 1910s and 1920s due to the creation of a new generation of biology textbooks and penetration of compulsory government education to rural areas[3] It goes ahead to emphasize Pauly’s argument on the availability of large metropolitan publishers in New York that influenced most biology authors’ concentration within the city whom most became pioneers of the subject. This proximity played in the favor of the authors since there was a close-knit sharing of information between them since they either taught in the same department or to schools close to one another hence the free exchange of information and ideas. These groups worked close together that saw to it that they were able to compete effectively with other publishing companies and enabled them shape the subject of biology on the shared vision of societal value which made ‘biology textbooks a coherent ideological platform that gave birth to civic biology.
The birth of civic biology came with the over-emphasis of the practical human use of knowledge, which saw the diversification of knowledge about the environment, economic use, and hereditary. Hunter describes his book as what shows how girls and boys living in urban communities can best know how to live within their environment and cooperate with the civic authorities.[4] Civic biology came with a new understanding of life sciences, which shows a shift from botany and zoology. One could not teach biology without teaching its applications, such as the effects of excessive alcohol consumptions and the benefit of maintaining a healthy diet. Civic education marked a shift about teaching science in the shaping of a society and its culture, which saw the concepts of industrialization and urbanization linked to science.[5]
The adoption of civic biology saw a sudden change in societal behaviors, which led to advocacy towards the compulsory expansion of public education, describing the science textbook as a social reform tool. The textbook industry joined the campaign to enroll more students, which would eventually benefit them since it equated to textbooks’ high demands. According to Shapiro, as much as textbook companies claimed neutrality in this matter, their biggest target was the market set to grow hence more profits to these companies. The companies claimed neutrality to cultural conflicts, such as producing different textbooks to suit different sides. Still, deep down, they wanted a homogeneous use of books which could profiteer their production ventures.[6]
Shapiro describes Benjamin C. Gruenberg’s first book – the Elementary Biology as a book whose main social plan was to use science to achieve civic ends with an emphasis on the closing chapter named “science and civilization”[7] Shapiro goes ahead to discuss how time passed by more and more authors adapted to civic biology, which led to the obsoleteness of botany and zoology, and this was evident in the change in numbers in enrollment concerning biology. It was reinforced by the assertion that its application made biological knowledge more.
Shapiro gives an in-depth perception of how different authors used this revolution to stamp their users’ influence. Shapiro goes ahead to paint the real reasons why textbook publisher was pro-adoption civic biology. Still, deep down, they were up to making profits, which led to the conflict between textbook publishers and states, a key contributor to the antievolution movement. There was a need for states to choose a suitable biology textbook for its schools, which proved to be troublesome. Many rural citizens saw the expansion of public education as a threat to their culture and forced foreign cultures to them since civic biology taught children to prepare lives away from their rural homes.[8]
In conclusion, Shapiro gives an in-depth analysis of how different players in the education sector influenced the development of civic biology and used it to push for personal agendas. The article gives historians a broader view of how one can use their ability to shape how different aspects of society were developed.
Bibliography
Hunter, George W., and Whitman, Walter C., 1921. Civic Science in the Home and Community.
New York. ABC.
Pauly, Philip J., 1990. “The Struggle for Ignorance about Alcohol: American Physiologists,
Wilbur Olin Atwater, and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union
Peay, Austin Journal of the Tennessee House 1925. Nashville, TN: STATE OF TENNESSEE
Shapiro Adam R., Civic Biology and the Origin of the Antievolution Movement. Journal of
History of Biology 2008.
[1] Pauly, 1991, p. 664, Rudolf 2005, p.385.
[2] Austin M. Peay 1925 Journal of the Tennesse House p.743-745
[3] Adam R. Shapiro, Origin of Antievolution movement p.413
[4] Hunter 1914, p.9
[5] Adam R. Shapiro, Origin of the Antievolution Movement 409 – 423
[6] Adam R. Shapiro, Origin of School Antievolution Movement p. 423
[7] Adam R. Shapiro p.424.
[8] Adam R. Shapiro, Origin of Antievolution Movement p.428