Bowker and Star continue to expand upon a topic we began discussing last week, classification. They discuss means of classification as a “spatial, temporal, or spatio-temporal segmentation of the world”. In lecture we went over many classification and organizational systems that are currently in use, from library classifications to those used in social medias. These exist to make data retrieval easier, they create ways to expedite retrieval by categorizing information into relevant subgroups. We have been discussing so many useful and innovative systems of classifying observations and information that I want to bring in a very specific, and now obsolete, classification system subset related to how crania appear: phrenology.
Phrenology hails back to late 18th century Germany, springing from the observations of physician Franz Joseph Gall. Now considered a pseudo-science, phrenology was invented to classify specific physiological features of the skull as belonging to specific characteristics or faculties. There were 27 faculties that Gall identified, ranging from reproductive instincts and the love of one’s offspring to murderous instincts and metaphysics. Franz Joseph Gall’s classification of specific traits within this range of physical contours in the cranium is an example of how even if something can be classified or has already been classified that does not necessarily lend truthfulness its subject. With that said, the phrenology classification can be seen as a precursor to psychology and its physiological correlations.
In the more modern era, we think of phrenology as a funny side note in medical and scientific history. It seems laughable now that something as arbitrary and even changeable as the lumps and indentations on a head could denote specific personalities or behavioral tendencies. Had there been a better reception of phrenology, or perhaps more scientific evidence, this system could have become a standardized method of evaluating personalities. These shortcomings on a scientific scope are tied to its shortcomings as a classification system as Bowker and Star describe it. It is interesting to me that even though Bowker and Star lay down three qualities for a classification system to have (consistent unique classificatory principles, mutually exclusive categories, a complete system) they only exist in a theoretical ideal setting. Phrenological studies identify different faculties, categories of behavior and personality, but they are difficult to quantify on their own; it becomes difficult to say with certainty that a specific node on the head is of a size to denote that a person has an aptitude for education. This lack of ability to definitively categorize what size bump or indentation in the skull leads to personality traits, combined with pseudo-scientific reasoning (this being the biggest reason) that ultimately makes phrenology an idea of the past.
You can learn more about phrenology from books that UCLA currently has in its collection (and you get to see the Library of Congress classification system in action!). The Biomed History and Special Collections Cage has a few really old books on the subject! See here and here