What is the argument in this sketch from Punch? What methods of characterization does the person find acceptable/unacceptable? What does the article's opinion (and satire) say about the status of "scientific" characterization in the late 1840s? Why would people want to use phrenology and physiognomy (and other assorted methods of character analysis)? Alternatively, what might people have against such strategies?
This sketch from Punch, which is saturated with puns, sarcasm and irony, through purporting that this new method of character analysis through observing locks of hair is ridiculous, is actually mocking the "scientific methods" of the time which had already been established, like phrenology and physiognomy. The author is trying to demonstrate that there is hardly a large gap of absurdity between this new type of character analysis from the ones that are also based on physical features.
ReplyDeletePeople probably used these methods of character analysis for entertainment to some extent. Just as people today take Cosmo personality quizzes seriously, people probably enjoyed the process of classifying, characterizing, and stereotyping. Of course, there was a grave consequence to the employment of such methods. People did use these methods to discriminate against certain groups or types of people, and by certifying these methods as accurate, justified their mistreating of these people. Of course, as this sketch from Punch shows, there are people who found these methods to be nothing more than a quasi-science, that had no foundation in fact.
While I was reading this sketch from Punch I couldn’t help but laugh at the absurdness of the whole thing. The language is playful and satirical which makes it very hard to take the article seriously (though I don’t think the point of the article is to be taken seriously anyway). I think the main argument from the sketch is trying to show, and advocate this new way of telling a person’s character – that is – examining a lock of hair from a person. As Anneke briefly touches upon, I agree that the sketch seems to be showing that there is hardly a difference between the method of phrenology, physiognomy, palmistry and now examining a lock of hair – they are all ridiculous methods of “determining one’s character.” We may want to ask the question, can we even “determine one’s character?” The sketch seems to place this method of telling character as the most absurd of all when it states, “We can comprehend physiognomy…we can see some show of reason in attempting to read one’s future by the light of palmistry…but to tell the character by a lock of hair seems to savour of absurdity.”
ReplyDeleteI think people would have been drawn to phrenology and physiognomy and other assorted methods of character analysis because of their curiosity. I think to some extent people would see these as a form of entertainment but I also think there were groups of people out there (let’s say the more sophisticated classes) that whole-heartedly felt like these methods worked. These people most likely become enthralled by what these methods had to offer. I agree with Anneke when she says that these methods gave people justication for mistreating certain groups of people. We have to remember that during this era, people, especially the upper classes, were very judgmental.
The argument of the article is that the pseudosciences of the day were getting out of hand. I do find it funny that the author quickly points out the ridiculousness of physiognomy while simultaneously supporting (even if in small part) phrenology. I get the impression that if his joking corn hypothesis had enough support or research being done, he would believe in it. The "science" of judging based on appearance was needed by the elite so that they could scientifically prove their superiority. The more the commoners believed in social mobility and their ability to ascend the social ladder, the more threatened the elites were. Such "sciences" could be used to disway a lower class member from reaching for a goal or from even getting hired because the science of the day said he lacked worth.
ReplyDeleteThe supporters of phrenology and physiognomy had their wildest dreams answered by Darwin's introduction of "survival of the fittest" and its subsequent application to society. With darwin on their side, the elites only had to look to their high position as proof of their innate intelligence and higher "fitness".
The article's main point is, how seriously should people take these popular methods of character determination. The answer seems to be, not serious at all. Though the author concedes a certain legitimacy of claim to the more well-established practices of phrenology and physiognomy, he uses the same language of puns and exaggeration as for the methods he discredits. This suggests the author believes the reader should have a healthy skepticism even for these.
ReplyDeleteAs others have mentioned, people would have been attracted to these methods as justification for their own judgements of people, both on a personal level and at a societal level, inviting prejudice and discrimination towards the lower class.
I agree with Brendan that the author believes methods such as physiognomy and palmistry have been gone too far in their convictions. This is immediately clear from the picture, in which the man’s large head and thick mane of hair are the most ridiculously pronounced features. I would venture to say that the author does not actually approve of the sciences he puts in comparison to the new method of phrenology. Though he claims, “we can see some show of reason” in palmistry, the pun is that the guiding light is too literal, “to what we ought to turn our hands to.” These methods are too narrow, and I agree that they would be used by the upper classes as a way to put some in positions of power based on the slightest bump or, now, lock of hair. However, we have also seen Jane make heavy use of physiognomy to size up the character of Mr. Rochester, and Jane is far from frivolous.
ReplyDeleteThe author also furthers the satire through obvious wordplay—a “bald” man’s work is “balderdash”, etc.—though I found the most humorous question to be that of the man without any hair, an anomaly in the face of this new science of phrenology.
I found the author’s final musing, on the future of corns, most disgusting but also most telling of the overall argument. Here again is the word play, emphasized this time, of a “regular cornucopia of aristocracy”, and yet the irony is that laborers of the lower classes would probably be more susceptible to such growths. The heaviest satire comes last, with the suggestion that social harmony might be promoted through such ludicrous methods—perhaps for lack of any other solution.
Like my classmates, I also found this article to mock the progression of the pseudosciences. While originally palmistry, physiognomy, and phrenology were introduced and adopted readily enough, the author makes the point that their legitimacy is not to be trusted. While any 'science' can find ready followers at its introduction, the absurdity of a proposal to 'read' corn reminds the audience of the absence of credibility for these 'sciences'.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous posts that argue the article is highlighting the resemblance of this absurd method of determining character, examining hair, with all the rest. The author states “we can comprehend physiognomy, which affects to get a scent of one’s disposition from one’s nose,” yet how is this any different from examining hair? I believe it is all satirical and the author does not hold value in any of the pseudo-scientific methods of determining character.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to play devil’s advocate, I argue that the pseudo-sciences of determining character could have been employed by the lower classes instead of the higher classes. I realize that the article, in its discussion of corns as the “prima facie evidence of high birth,” supports the idea that the aristocracy could have used physiognomy to justify their exclusion of the lower classes; however, could it not have been used to the exact opposite end? The way Becky Sharp is described in the novel, she is everything, physically, worthy of being part of the noble class and by now we know she has gained entry into the Court. Physiognomy could have been used to include exceptional beauties into the noble class despite their lower class or it could have been beacon of hope for the lower classes to partake in physiognomy because that way they could get away from their low birth.
Punch makes the argument that discerning a person's character by a lock of hair is absolutely ridiculous while maintaining that bone structure and skin abrasions are perfectly normal tell-tale signs; however, I agree that this was probably said in satire. The article maintains that the examination of hair in regards to character is not very different from previous methods, and goes on to frolic in wordplay that would make it so- a snub of a nose snubbed by fortune, palmistry guiding them to "what we ought to turn our hands to."
ReplyDeleteThe appeal in such characterization is the same as the appeal that comes from astrology today- learning our fate and character by indirect or mystical signs. And just as with astrology, people would hold grudges against those who take such predictions too seriously, so as to base aspects of their personality description or other aspects of life on them. It narrows down to superstition and to classification of which features are acceptable in a certain society, and people could use that to their advantage, as Edgar noted, in class transition among other things.