Title: The fate of the somatotype: Examining the afterlives of a body classification system
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Patricia Vertinsky
Committee Members: Dr. Brian Wilson, Dr. Mona Gleason
External Examiner: Dr. Vanessa Heggie
University Examiners: Dr. Jason Ellis, Dr. Moss Norman
Chair: Dr. Kenneth Craig
Abstract: While the story of the “somatotype” really begins with William H. Sheldon, an initially well respected American psychologist who first outlined his system of body-classification during the 1930s, this dissertation project picks up in the years following his ostracization by the broader academic community following WWII. Sheldon was criticized for his eugenic and racist views, for defending the notion of a biological connection between physique and temperament and for touting the supremacy of hereditary influences on human behavior in his somatotyping research. Knowing this backstory, one may wonder—how has the use of the somatotype managed to retain interest (and even thrive) throughout the 20th century and into the present? The focus of this dissertation is an attempt to answer this question. I construct four historical case studies, three of which examine how Sheldon’s colleagues successfully revived the somatotype in disparate areas including pediatric medicine, psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, physical education, and sport science. In a fourth macro-level case study, I use science mapping techniques and archival approaches to explore the evolving interest in and international reach of somatotyping research from its inception to the present moment, broadly considering the relationships among groups of somatotype researchers and publications in different research arenas and geographical contexts. Throughout this dissertation, I employ the notion of historical ontology to examine how the somatotype was used to define personhood or identity across various research contexts and time periods. I investigate how it was introduced into new areas of research and application through implicit and explicit acts of “boundary-making,” a process whereby scientists draw boundaries between science and non-science to make claims for intellectual authority and legitimacy. The somatotype was used to define and delineate the bounds of “normal” physiques, generating specific understandings of human evolution and variation, and fostering discriminatory beliefs around race, social class, intelligence, and athleticism (among other complex, multifaceted, and historically contingent human traits). I illustrate how, despite persistent and well-founded criticisms of its racist and eugenic foundations and implications, academics across the globe have continued to use somatotypes, often uncritically, to measure, classify, and organize groups of people in biologically deterministic ways.