Eugenics Reevaluated By Desiree Burroughs-Hill Eugenics is a term that was coined in the 19th century by British eugenicist, Sir Francis Galton and greatly impacted the direction of science in the early twentieth century. The aim of eugenics was to encourage, “the improvement of the inborn qualities, or stock, of some one human population” wrote Galton1. This rational approach to improving society by selecting for those who would contribute positively society quickly gained popularity. Following World War I, the American people experienced cycles of unrelenting depression, and it soon became evident that current initiatives were not meeting the needs of its citizens. Concurrent to this movement was progressivism, which sought to “increase the role of government planning in both the economic and social sphere2.” Eugenics was the ideal economic solution because it sought to remove society’s economic burden, those that were feeble-minded. This lead to the abuses seen in Germany, and eugenics quickly lost its credibility. Prior to genetics, this was eugenics, but with genetic advances modern eugenics is now capable of positively influencing an individual’s quality of life. Modern eugenics should be given the opportunity to prevent debilitating diseases through genetic screenings, but its history should be remembered so as not be repeated. Eugenics quickly diverged into two separate branches and it was this divergence that caused problems. The two different branches of eugenics are positive eugenics and 1 Francis Galton, EUGENICS: ITS DEFINITION, SCOPE, AND AIMS; The American Journal of Sociology. Volume X; July, 1904; Number 1 2 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement <http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/list3.pl>negative eugenics. Positive eugenics is the belief that humanity possesses the techniques and moral judgement to take control of its own evolution and affect the health of future generations positively3. Negative eugenics instead promoted the prevention of unwanted traits by removing persons with these traits by inhibiting their ability to reproduce4. Unfortunately like Germany, the United States chose negative eugenics, and began a campaign to relieve the burden that “invalids” placed on society. Unlike Social Darwinism which encouraged a commitment to unrestricted laissez-faire and emphasis on individual choice, eugenics left the concerns of reproduction to the state to regulate and encourage as it saw fit5. This concentration of power without any means of checks or balances began to take a life of its own, and eugenics became the popular science of the early twentieth century. Previous humanitarian ideas of social improvement were replaced with a rational control of human society by the government based on explanations provided by genetics. In the wake of Mendelian genetics, and the demonstrated ease with which desired traits could be selected for in pea plants, it was believed that the same could be done for humans. Eugenicists claimed that since unemployment and crime originated from those persons genetically inadequate, the easiest solution would be to prevent them from being born before they could become a burden on society, also known as negative eugenics6. In order to standardize the criteria qualifying a person to be considered genetically inadequate, a classification system was developed. This binary system classified individuals as either normal or feeble-minded, with the term feeble-minded referring to 3 Elof Carlson, The Unfit: A History of a Bad Idea, 2001; CSHL Press, p.2 4 Carlson, p.2 5 Diane Paul, Eugenics and the Left; Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 45 No.4 (1984) 6 Cold Spring Harborall deviance resulting from an inferior intellectual capacity, including thievery, sexual deviation, and other undesirable traits7. The legitimization of this classification system came from ongoing research by eugenics of the time, but their data and its interpretations were more subjective than objective. Research was pursued by American eugenicists on the inheritance of physical, mental, and personal traits however implemented methods of data collection were not ideal. In most instances family-pedigree charts were used and all data was collected from family members, meaning the study lacked standardization by which different family-pedigree charts could be compared8. Eugenists believed that each trait was determined by inheriting one or two pairs of Mendelian genes, no thought was given to factors other than genetics9. Researchers were not content with studying basic characteristics but instead attempted to show that complex traits such as musical ability could be inherited10. This research was also used politically to halt the massive immigration of individuals from Eastern and Southern Europe, by providing scientific data indicating that they were contributing to society’s unwanted burden11. Studies supporting this claim were carried out by Henry Goddard, a psychologist, who subjected immigrants to IQ testing immediately upon arrival to Ellis Island, and the test was only in one language, English12. Data collection under such stressed conditions allowed Goddard to claim that 80-90% of Italian, Russian, Hungarian, and Jewish 7 Anne Kerr & Sarah Cunnigham-Burley, On Ambivalence and risk: Reflexive Modernity and the New Human Genetics, May 2000; Sociology, Volume34, Issue 02 8 Cold Spring Harbor 9 Cold Spring Harbor 10 Cold Spring Harbor 11 Robert G. Resta, The Twisted Helix: An Essay on Genetic Counselors, Eugenics, and Social Responsibility; Journal of Genetic Counseling, Vol 1. No. 3, 1992 12 Resta p.5immigrants were feeble-minded based on their performance on the IQ test. Equipped with this data, Henry Laughlin went before Congress and provided extensive testimony supporting Goddard’s results and consequently impacted immigration legislation. The Johnson Act was passed in 1924, and restricted any region to only 2 percent of the number of residents originating from that region currently living in the United States as indicated by the 1890 census13. Limiting immigration was only one of many techniques, such as compulsory sterilization, institutionalization, anti-miscegenation laws, and segregation, implemented to reduce the burden placed on society by “invalids.” However these practices were cast under a different light when in the wake of
View Full Document
Unlocking...