User:Dagny371/Average American Man (1921)

Notes to Reviewer
I am creating a new article that does not currently exist on Wikipedia. Since I'm creating the article from scratch, I'd love if you could give me feedback specifically on organization of the page and inclusion/exclusion of certain details. In particular, I'm still playing around with section headings, so if you have suggestions on which sections I should have and what their titles should be, let me know! Please also let me know if there are issues with the flow of information as I have organized it, if there is irrelevant information I should take out or make more succinct, or if there is information you think is missing and I need to add in order to make the article more complete. Thank you!

Article Draft
This is where you will draft your Wikipedia contribution. Please refer to the following resources for help:

Lead
The Average American Man, also known as the Average Young American Male and the American Adonis, was a 22-inch plaster statue sculpted in 1921 by Jane Davenport Harris as a composite model for the eugenics movement in the United States. The statue was exhibited at the Second and Third International Congresses of Eugenics in 1921 and 1932, respectively, as a visual representation what eugenicists considered to be the degeneration of the white race. While the statue received mixed responses from contemporary critics, its inspired the creation of additional composite statues as propaganda for the eugenics movement throughout the mid-twentieth century.

Conception and Exhibition
Created in 1921, the figure was based on anthropometric measurements taken from 100,000 white U.S. Army recruits. Body measurements of drafted and demobilized American soldiers were commissioned by the Office of the Surgeon General and documented by Charles Davenport and Albert G. Love. The data collected was then averaged by Davenport's daughter Jane in order to create the final composite statue. Such anthropometric studies had been used by eugenicists since the late nineteenth century to analyze various criminal, professional, and racial “types,” and at times, they had been represented visually through composite photography, one example of which was Francis Galton’s composite portraiture. Using sculpture as a medium allowed for three-dimensional examination of "average [body] types."

The composite statue was exhibited both the Second and Third International Eugenics Congresses held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, with its primary purpose to explain eugenics to a general public. The exhibition in 1921 included a poster titled What is Eugenics? followed by this definition: "“that science which studies the inborn qualities – physical, mental, and spiritual – in man, with a view to their improvement. Nothing is more evident in the history of families, communities, and nations that, in the change of individuals from generation to generation, some families, some races, and the people of some nations, improve greatly in physical soundness, in intelligence and in character, industry, leadership, and other qualities which make for human breed improvement; while other racial, national, and family stocks die out – they decline in physical stamina, in intellectual capacity and in moral force' (Laughlin 1934, 13)."In order to illustrate the above eugenic idea of racial degeneracy, the exhibit included a pair of composite statues. At one end of the hall stood "The Average Young American Male, 100,000 White Veterans, 1919" and at the other stood "the Composite Athlete, 30 Strongest Men of Harvard." In her analytical essay "The American Adonis," Mary Coffey wrote, "Contrasted with the vigorous and idealized body of the composite Harvard athlete, the average male's slight shoulders, distended belly, and lack of firm musculature implied that the national [white] body was degenerating as a result of improvident mixing with inferior European stocks."

Although the data had been collected from World War I soldiers, discussion of the statue during the International Eugenics Congresses didn't include wartime effects on the men's physique. Instead, the depicted decline in the average American male's body was attributed solely to biological inheritance and immigration. Henry Fairfield Osborn, co-founder of the Galton Society, delivered a speech alongside the exhibition that included the "Average Young American Male" statue, in which he encouraged the men in the room to realize that they were "engaged in a serious struggle to maintain our historic republican institutions through barring the entrance of those who are unfit to share the duties and responsibilities of our well-founded government."

The first time the sculpture was shown, its juxtaposition with the composite sculpture of a "Harvard athlete" showed the degeneration to the Nordic type caused by race mixing with "less evolved" white racial strains. In 1932, however, at the Third International Eugenic Congress, eight years after the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act, the statue was a stand alone exhibit. Its interpretation during this Congress had shifted to a sign of the degeneracy of the average American male resulting from differential birthrate. Coffey proposes that this shift in interpretation of the sculpture paralleled a shift in eugenicist focus from immigrants being primarily responsible for racial decline to white, middle-class, educated women who were having fewer children as being the main cause of national genetic decline.

Criticism
It was widely agreed that Davenport’s sculpture revealed that the average white male’s physical fitness was far from ideal. Journalists criticized his pudgy stomach, slouching posture, heavy hips, and undefined muscles and interpreted the statue as a symbol of American “degeneracy.”

The concept of composite statuary was also criticized by reviewers who denounced Davenport’s statue as bearing no resemblance to life and a piece that shouldn’t be considered a work of art. “Its statistical representativeness did not make it a representative portrait of the average American. Rather it was a purely imaginary figure; a statistical ideal that captured nothing essential of the embodied reality.” In 1932, writing for the New York Times, art critic Edward Alden Jewell asked rhetorically, “What is a work of art and what is a work of science?” His response to the sculpture included criticism of the growing authority of science to quantify and represent man over and against aesthetic canons of ideal beauty. Jewell referred to a conflict between the “Masterpiece” and the “Modeled Chart.” He wrote that since the Average American Male statue was created on the basis of data, or “two-dimensional charts,” collected from 100,000 “doughboys,” he cannot be considered a work of art. Jewell compared the “condensed doughboy” to the Idolino, a Greek sculpture from the fifth century BCE, and a Twelfth Dynasty statue of King Horus from ancient Egypt, each of which, he asserted eschewed naturalism or “truth to nature” in favor of stylized “synthesis of ideal attributes fused into a unity.”

Despite criticism, the sculpture remained on display through the Third International Congress of Eugenics and inspired the creation of additional composite statues by various artists over the next couple decades, meant to further the eugenic agenda and represent different racial “types.”