Daniel Gasman - Ferris State University

uniquely important figure when measured against his contemporaries and therefore could not personally
have played a determining role in inaugurating the birth of Nazi ideology. 3 The trouble with this
argument is the fact that racism in the nineteenth century did not subscribe to a one-dimensional account
of the composition of society but rather was a multi-delineated ‘scientific’ and ideological doctrine. There
did exist a widespread run of the mill racism that was typical for many scientists and anthropologists who
conceived of humankind as composed of a hierarchy of races, and this is the view that Bowler suggests
was ubiquitous. But there was also a much more radical racism, proclaimed by Haeckel, that not only
stressed racial hierarchy and the supremacy of the white race, but also the special importance and
superiority of the Germans based on an Aryan mythology. It was this radically charged and highly
aggressive form of racism that was forcefully disseminated as scientifically valid by Haeckel and which
ultimately served as an authentication for Nazi doctrine. 4
In addition, it is vital to remember that Aryan racism, as important as it was for the creation of
Nazism, was hardly the only constituent of the ideology. There were a multitude of other significant
facets to this doctrine that can be readily linked to the direct influence of Haeckel and Monism – for
example, Haeckel’s idea that politics is applied biology; his explicit ‘scientific’ support of anti-Semitism
and his demand for the disappearance of the Jewish community in Germany, based on his belief that the
Jews were at the root of the decay of European civilization; his marked insistence on eugenics as
necessary for the racial health of the Germanic community; his ideological influence over the proto-Nazi
völkisch movement; and lastly, his prediction that a racially superior Germany was entitled to supplant the
British Empire on the world stage. It is this comprehensive aspect of the story that Bowler neglects in his
criticism of my analysis.
3 This leads Bowler to accept Richards’ criticism of my work: ‘[Richards] quite rightly points to the fact that almost
all of Haeckel’s contemporaries thought the white race was superior…. At most, one could implicate Haeckel [in
Nazism-dg] by noting the effectiveness of his popularization of Darwinism….’ [440-441]
4 For an account of Haeckel’s influence on the birth of Fascist ideology in Italy, France, and other countries apart
from Germany, see Daniel Gasman, Haeckel’s Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology, New York: Peter Lang,
2008. [1998]
2