The Sociopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America

Voces Novae Volume 11 Article 3 2019 Engineering Mankind: The oS ciopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America Megan Lee [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/vocesnovae Part of the American Politics Commons, Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, Genetics and Genomics Commons, and the History Commons Recommended Citation Lee, Megan (2019) "Engineering Mankind: The ocS iopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America," Voces Novae: Vol. 11, Article 3. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Voces Novae by an authorized editor of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lee: Engineering Mankind: The Sociopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America Engineering Mankind: The Sociopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America Megan Lee “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”1 This statement was made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. while presenting the court’s majority opinion on the sterilization of a seventeen-year old girl in 1927. The concept of forced sterilization emerged during the American Eugenics Movement of the early 20th century. In 1909, California became one of the first states to introduce eugenic laws which legalized the forced sterilization of those deemed “feeble-minded.” The victims were mentally ill patients in psychiatric state hospitals, individuals who suffered from epilepsy and autism, and prisoners with criminal convictions, all of whom were forcibly castrated. For seventy years, California performed approximately 20,000 sterilizations from 1909-1979, the highest number of procedures executed by any state. Although this practice seems like a relic of an intolerant past, it hasn’t quite fallen out of fashion: from 2006 to 2010, 150 women were sterilized by tubal ligation in California’s prisons without their consent or the approval of the state. Forced sterilization, as California intended it, prevented individuals deemed undesirable by society from reproducing, thereby preventing them from affecting the future populace. Particularly during the 1920s, eugenicists aimed to control the bodies of the American population by exploiting their fears of societal degradation to place value on those they deemed superior and deny those they deemed inferior the chance to reproduce. Through public programs that advocated for eugenical measures and the introduction of sterilization laws, an extensive eugenical framework was institutionalized within American society. It is evident that eugenics had a significant sociopolitical impact on the United States. The American eugenics movement aimed to improve the genetic quality of humankind by eradicating traits considered undesirable. Notion of both positive and negative eugenics were promulgated amongst American scientists, doctors, legislators and the rest of the population, but both branches proved to be detrimental to the American sociopolitical framework. The primary goal of “positive” eugenics was to encourage individuals who possessed favorable traits, such as superior intelligence and physique, to reproduce, while “negative” eugenics focused on eradicating characteristics that were deemed undesirable, such as mental illness and physical deformities, through procedures such as forced sterilization. Although eugenicists were primarily focused on the propagation of the fit and the elimination of the unfit, many were also concerned with miscegenation, the mixing of races through interracial relationships. Eugenicists regarded miscegenation as a threat to the Nordic and Anglo-Saxon white “master race,” and established strict anti-miscegenation laws such as Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited interracial marriage. In that same year, President Calvin Coolidge stated that “America must be 1 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Buck V. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), 207. Published by Chapman University Digital Commons, 2019 1 Voces Novae, Vol. 11 [2019], Art. 3 kept American,” and signed into law The Immigration Act, which aimed to prevent the immigration of foreigners who eugenicists considered “dysgenic,” or biologically defective. The appeal of eugenics soon became apparent to more countries, and the influence of the American eugenics movement began to spread. In mid-1930s Nazi Germany, notions such as Aryan superiority, antisemitism, and a desire to eradicate hereditary diseases proliferated. This led to a close relationship between American and German eugenicists, with their correspondence including letters of praise, advice, and the exchange of research and information. Many of Germany’s sterilization laws were strongly influenced by earlier American versions, a fact that many American eugenicists took pride in. Eugenics in Nazi Germany eventually progressed to genocide, and after the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent, American eugenicists attempted to distance themselves from their previous connections to Nazi eugenic programs. Additionally, eugenic ideas were consistently scientifically refuted, further damaging its scientific legitimacy. The Origins of Eugenics During the mid-nineteenth century, Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the process in which genetically superior organisms adapted to survive, was applied to social theory, creating the ideology of Social Darwinism. This belief in the “survival of the fittest” was used to justify racism and economic inequality, various ethnic minorities were most heavily concentrated in low socioeconomic groups, and for this reason their biology was used to explain their inherent predisposition to a lower quality of life. The propagators of Social Darwinism argued that societal issues such as criminality, poverty and morality were inherited traits of “lesser” races, and that the genetically strong should prosper and the genetically weak should be left to die out. Essentially, this offered a pseudoscientific explanation claiming that the evolution of civilization would only be possible by actively enabling the extinction of the “inferior.” Unsurprisingly, the beliefs of Social Darwinism laid the foundation from which eugenics emerged. The term “eugenics” was derived from the Greek word “eu”, meaning well, and “genos”, meaning offspring, and when put together, “eugenes” translates to “well-born.” However, the ideology of eugenics was not constructed solely based on the work of Darwin. In 1866, Gregor Mendel, considered the father of modern genetics, introduced his theories on heredity and inheritance in his paper “Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden” (“Experiments on Plant Hybridization”). The paper details his experiments with breeding pea plants, which led to the discovery of inheritance through certain dominant or recessive traits such as height, shape and color. Each contained hereditary information which could be transferred through generations - genes. Through an intensive and detailed process of analyzing the offspring of hybrid pea plants, Mendel discovered that “the constant characters which appear in the several varieties of a group of plants may be obtained in all the associations which are possible according to the laws of combination, by means of repeated artificial fertilization.”2 Mendel’s findings were only later recognized in the late nineteenth century, which was then implemented to explain human genetics. Charles and Gertrude Davenport, both of whom would 2 Gregor Mendel, “Experiments on Plant Hybridization,” (1865). https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/vocesnovae/vol11/iss1/3 2 Lee: Engineering Mankind: The Sociopolitical Impact of Eugenics in America become notable eugenicists, referenced Mendelism in their 1907 article “Heredity of Eye-Color in Man” in pursuit of the question, “Is human eye-color inherited in Mendelian fashion?”3 By analyzing his experiments with pea plant colors, they noticed similarities when comparing the hereditary processes of eye color in humans, thus laying the foundation for the eugenics movement’s use of Mendel’s philosophy. Francis Galton, an English polymath (and Charles Darwin’s half-cousin), was considered a pioneer of eugenics. In 1865 and 1869, he published several significant works which served as highly influential sources for future eugenicists, such as “Hereditary Character and Talent” and “Hereditary Genius” in which he examined the genealogies of 330 prominent men of science and literature, analyzed their consanguinity and concluded that traits such as intelligence and talent were hereditary. It was Galton’s first publication of his theories on the relationship between genius and heredity. He also pointed to Germany as an example, noting that “it is very much the custom for professors to marry the daughters of other professors, and I have some reason to believe, but am anxious for further information before I can feel sure of it, that the enormous intellectual digestion of German literary men, which far exceeds that of the corresponding class of our own country-men, may, in some considerable degree, be traceable to this practice.”4 Galton continued to envision a similar ideal for his own country, suggesting, “what an extraordinary effect might be produced on our race, if its object was to unite in marriage those who

Load more