Content area
Full Text
Biological explanations shaped criminology at its inception, and today they are reemerging with fresh vigor and increased potential. But many criminologists do not understand how biological theories developed, what they contributed to criminology generally and where they went astray. This paper focuses on the work of Earnest A. Hooton, whose criminological studies, published in 1939, met with decidedly mixed reviews but were nonetheless discussed for decades in criminological textbooks. Information about a now half-forgotten and misunderstood figure like Hooton, in addition to being useful in and of itself, contributes to the history of criminology as a discipline-a project essential to the field's ultimate maturity. It helps build a history of criminological knowledge.
KEYWORDS: biological theories of crime, eugenics, history of anthropology, history of criminology, Earnest A. Hooton, racism, William H. Sheldon, Sheldon and Eleanor T. Glueck
In 1939, Harvard University anthropologist Earnest Albert Hooton published two books, The American Criminal and Crime and the Man, based on statistical analysis of one of the largest surveys of criminals ever compiled. These books were widely reviewed, and during the 1930s and 1940s Hooton became a prominent spokesperson on criminological matters, quoted in leading newspapers and invited to deliver prestigious lectures. He was a controversial figure in his own time, with some reviewers fiercely attacking his methods and conclusions. But other contemporaries regarded Hooton as a major criminologist and textbooks regularly summarized his work. Since Hooton's death in 1954, however, the textbook references have decreased in size and frequency, and though many criminologists still agree that Hooton occupies a niche in the history of the discipline, the reasons for his reputation and status have grown obscure. Today, few are familiar with Hooton's work and those who do take the trouble to read it are likely to be perplexed. Even those who know the work are quick to discount it for ahistorical reasons, failing to take into account his time and place and his role in the evolution of criminology. Unarguably, much of his work is unpersuasive by today's standards. Yet no matter how tempted we may now be to dismiss it, his research on crime played an important part in the development of criminology, sociology and anthropology. Moreover, it forms part of the background of some recent...