Eugenics, politics and the state: social democracy and the Swiss ‘gardening state’

This article explores the connections between eugenics, politics and the state, taking the Swiss case as a particular focus. It is argued that Switzerland provides a historical example of what Bauman [Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the Holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Press.] describes as ‘gardening states’: states that are concerned with eliminating the ‘bad weeds’ from the national garden and thereby constructing sharply exclusionary national identities. The Swiss experiments with eugenics (1920s–1960s) can be seen as an example of an ongoing struggle against ‘difference’. Against this backdrop I will examine, first, the ways in which state regulation of reproductive sexuality, and other eugenic measures, became central mechanisms for dealing with cultural and other ‘differences’ in the Swiss nation. Second, I will analyse the gendered nature of such mechanisms, as well as the preoccupation with racial ‘difference’ exemplified by eugenic policies towards ‘Gypsies’. To conclude, I will examine the impact of political institutions and political ideology, in particular, social democracy, on these eugenic gardening efforts.     

Rational subjects, marriage counselling and the conundrums of eugenics

Against the background of degeneration and the perceived threat to the nation's health and stock, family politics came to constitute an important site for eugenic discourses and interventions. Eugenic regulation of reproductive sexuality and marriage was not only pursued through 'negative' eugenics but also through educational policies targeted at young adults and youth. Switzerland serves as a useful case to explore a general idea, namely the limitations for eugenicists of exploiting the concept of a rational subject in order to achieve their ends. Practices of 'positive eugenics' crucially hinged on the utilitarian principle of rationality underpinning positive eugenics which this paper seeks to elaborate. Eugenicists devised tools to deal efficiently with social problems on a collective as well as an individual basis by deploying technologies of government which conceived individuals to be members of a population who were each held responsible for the generation of healthy future generations. As a form of 'sustaining, multiplying and ordering life' eugenics thus relied on the premise that its ideas would be adopted through an appeal to rationality and, where this was insufficient, through a series of coercive measures. Relying on conviction and education about the merits of eugenics, however, posed particular problems to positive eugenic thinking and practice.     

Politics of heredity--Germany 1900-1940, a brief overview

The paper gives a brief overview of the main stages of development of eugenics and race hygiene in Germany between 1900 and 1940. Two main stages can be differentiated: one, the formation of the eugenics movement and its development parallel to quantitative population policy before and after World War I, and the second beginning toward the end of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) when the financial crisis of the public health system favored eugenic schemes implemented by an authoritarian government, such as the Nazi regime.     

Eugenic and sexual folklores and the castration of sex offenders in the Netherlands (1938-1968)

This contribution questions the positive/negative eugenics dichotomy that typifies the historiography on the eugenic movement in the Netherlands and the claim that this movement was mostly marginal because only positive eugenics was pursued. From 1938 to 1968 in the Netherlands, after a decade of debates, 400 sex offenders who had been committed to asylums for the criminally insane were 'voluntarily' and 'therapeutically' castrated. For political reasons debates on castration, meant to create consensus, eliminated any reference to or connotation with eugenics, yet these policies were unthinkable without them. This article shows that thinking about social and sexual problems and their solutions in the 1930s were permeated by eugenic folklore which in turn was informed by sexual folklore. Both eugenic and sexual lore, as common sense, or as ways of knowing, were about individual and collective loss of self control which was referred to with a catch-all phrase: 'hypersexuality'. Although sexual classifications used in diagnosing sex offenders suggested the existence of discrete sexual categories, homosexuality for instance was not seen as a sexual alternative or as an identity but as the extent to which an offender suffered from a form of hypersexuality that threatened the fabric of society.     

'Reform' eugenics and the decline of Mendelism.

By the mid-1930s, according to Daniel Kevles, 'mainline eugenics had generally been recognized as a farrago of flawed science.' By then, most geneticists accepted that eugenic sterilization could not rid society of its undesirables. But paradoxically, eugenics still had supporters even among its scientist critics, whom Kevles called 'reform eugenicists'. My opinion is that there was no such sharp turning point in eugenics. Reliance on simple mendelian inheritance faded away, but eugenics continued much as before until after World War II. In this paper, I consider the history of the eugenics movement in terms of its concepts of the inheritance of 'feeble-mindedness' and psychosis as single-gene recessives, and sterilization as a means of control.     

Eugenic and sexual folklores and the castration of sex offenders in the Netherlands (1938–1968)

This contribution questions the positive/negative eugenics dichotomy that typifies the historiography on the eugenic movement in the Netherlands and the claim that this movement was mostly marginal because only positive eugenics was pursued. From 1938 to 1968 in the Netherlands, after a decade of debates, 400 sex offenders who had been committed to asylums for the criminally insane were ‘voluntarily’ and ‘therapeutically’ castrated. For political reasons debates on castration, meant to create consensus, eliminated any reference to or connotation with eugenics, yet these policies were unthinkable without them. This article shows that thinking about social and sexual problems and their solutions in the 1930s were permeated by eugenic folklore which in turn was informed by sexual folklore. Both eugenic and sexual lore, as common sense, or as ways of knowing, were about individual and collective loss of self control which was referred to with a catch-all phrase: ‘hypersexuality’. Although sexual classifications used in diagnosing sex offenders suggested the existence of discrete sexual categories, homosexuality for instance was not seen as a sexual alternative or as an identity but as the extent to which an offender suffered from a form of hypersexuality that threatened the fabric of society.     

Eugenics without the state: anarchism in Catalonia, 1900-1937

Current historiography has considered eugenics to be an emanation from state structures or a movement which sought to appeal to the state in order to implement eugenic reform. This paper examines the limitations of that view and argues that it is necessary to expand our horizons to consider particularly working-class eugenics movements that were based on the dissemination of knowledge about sex and which did not aspire to positions of political power. The paper argues that anarchism, with its contradictory practice afforded by the convulsive social situation of the Civil War in Spain, allows us to assess critically the parameters of the social action of eugenics, its many alliances, and its struggle for existence in changing political circumstances not of its own making.     

Private and Public Eugenics: Genetic Testing and Screening in India

Epidemiologists and geneticists claim that genetics has an increasing role to play in public health policies and programs in the future. Within this perspective, genetic testing and screening are instrumental in avoiding the birth of children with serious, costly or untreatable disorders. This paper discusses genetic testing and screening within the framework of eugenics in the health care context of India. Observations are based on literature review and empirical research using qualitative methods. I distinguish ‘private’ from ‘public’ eugenics. I refer to the practice of prenatal diagnosis as an aspect of private eugenics, when the initiative to test comes from the pregnant woman herself. Public eugenics involves testing initiated by the state or medical profession through (more or less) obligatory testing programmes. To illustrate these concepts I discuss the management of thalassaemia, which I see as an example of private eugenics that is moving into the sphere of public eugenics. I then discuss the recently launched newborn screening programme as an example of public eugenics. I use Foucault’s concepts of power and governmentality to explore the thin line separating individual choice and overt or covert coercion, and between private and public eugenics. We can expect that the use of genetic testing technology will have serious and far-reaching implications for cultural perceptions regarding health and disease and women’s experience of pregnancy, besides creating new ethical dilemmas and new professional and parental responsibilities. Therefore, culturally sensitive health literacy programmes to empower the public and sensitise professionals need attention.

Eugenics without the state: anarchism in Catalonia, 1900–1937

Current historiography has considered eugenics to be an emanation from state structures or a movement which sought to appeal to the state in order to implement eugenic reform. This paper examines the limitations of that view and argues that it is necessary to expand our horizons to consider particularly working-class eugenics movements that were based on the dissemination of knowledge about sex and which did not aspire to positions of political power. The paper argues that anarchism, with its contradictory practice afforded by the convulsive social situation of the Civil War in Spain, allows us to assess critically the parameters of the social action of eugenics, its many alliances, and its struggle for existence in changing political circumstances not of its own making.     

Lionel Penrose and the concept of normal variation in human intelligence

Lionel Penrose (1898-1972) was an important leader during the mid-20th century decline of eugenics and the development of modern medical genetics. However, historians have paid little attention to his radical theoretical challenges to mainline eugenic concepts of mental disease. Working from a classification system developed with his colleague, E. O. Lewis, Penrose developed a statistically sophisticated and clinically grounded refutation of the popular position that low intelligence is inherently a disease state. In the early 1930s, Penrose advocated dividing "mental defect" (low intelligence) into two categories: "pathological mental defect," which is a disease state that can be traced to a distinct genetic or environmental cause, and "subcultural mental defect," which is not an inherent disease state, but rather a statistically necessary manifestation of human variation in intelligence. I explore the historical context and theoretical import of this contribution, discussing its rejection of typological thinking and noting that it preceded Theodosius Dobzhansky's better-known defense of human diversity. I illustrate the importance of Penrose's contribution with a discussion of an analogous situation in contemporary medicine, the controversial practice of using human growth hormone injections to treat "idiopathic short stature" (mere diminutive height, with no distinct cause). I show how Penrose's contributions to understanding human variation make such treatments appear quite misguided.     

Cacogenic Cartographies: Space and Place in the Eugenic Family Study

Though only one component product of the larger eugenics movement, the eugenic family study proved to be, by far, its most potent ideological tool. The Kallikak Family, for instance, went through eight editions between 1913 and 1931. This essay argues that the current scholarship has missed important ways that the architects of the eugenic family studies theorized and described the subjects of their investigation. Using one sparsely interrogated work (sociologist Frank Wilson Blackmar’s “The Smoky Pilgrims”) and one previously unknown eugenic family study (biologist Frank Gary Brooks’ untitled analysis of the flood-zone Oklahomans) from the Southern Plains, this essay aims to introduce “environment” as a schema that allows for how the subjects of the eugenic family study were conceptualized with respect to their surroundings. Geospatially and environmentally relevant constructions of scientific knowledge were central to the project of eugenics during its formative years, but remain largely and conspicuously absent from the critical literature which engages this project to separate the fit from the unfit in American society. The dysgenic constituted a unique human geography, giving us significant insight into how concatenations of jurisprudence as well as cultural and social worth were tied to the land.     

Beyondism: Raymond B. Cattell and the new eugenics

A significant confusion has arisen out of the mass of work done on the history of eugenics in the last two decades. Early scholars of the subject treated eugenics as a marginalized or obsolete movement of the radical right. Subsequent research has shown that eugenic ideas were adopted in diverse national settings by very different groups, including – among others – liberals, communists and Catholics, as well as radical rightists. This complexity is sometimes taken to mean that eugenics has no special ideological associations, that it is historically and potentially a beast of a thousand heads. It is not. Although people of varied ideological commitments have been attracted to eugenics, ideologues of the radical right, and above all interwar fascists, have been uniquely and centrally involved in its development. Fascism and the radical right are also complex entities, but for all the heterogeneity of both eugenics and fascism, the special historical relationship between the two cannot be ignored. This relationship is exemplified in the work of the influential psychologist, Raymond B. Cattell. Cattell was an early supporter of German national socialism and his work should be understood in the context of interwar fascism. The new religious movement that he founded, ‘Beyondism’, is a neo-fascist contrivance. Cattell now promulgates ideas that he formulated within a demimonde of radical eugenists and neo-fascists that includes such associates as Revilo Oliver, Roger Pearson, Wilmot Robertson and Robert K. Graham. These ideas and Cattell's role in the history of eugenics deserve deeper analysis than they have hitherto received. Far from being of merely antiquarian interest, his work currently encourages the propagation of radical eugenist ideology. It is unconscionable for scholars to permit these ideas to go unchallenged, and indeed honored and emulated by a new generation of ideologues and academicians whose work helps to dignify the most destructive political ideas of the twentieth century. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

“Culling the Herd”: Eugenics and the Conservation Movement in the United States, 1900–1940

While from a late twentieth- and early twenty-first century perspective, the ideologies of eugenics (controlled reproduction to eliminate the genetically unfit and promote the reproduction of the genetically fit) and environmental conservation and preservation, may seem incompatible, they were promoted simultaneously by a number of figures in the progressive era in the decades between 1900 and 1950. Common to the two movements were the desire to preserve the “best” in both the germ plasm of the human population and natural environments (including not only natural resources, but also undisturbed nature preserves such as state and national parks and forests). In both cases advocates sought to use the latest advances in science to bolster and promote their plans, which in good progressive style, involved governmental planning and social control. This article explores the interaction of eugenic and conservationist ideologies in the careers of Sacramento banker and developer Charles M. Goethe and his friend and mentor, wealthy New York lawyer Madison Grant. In particular, the article suggests how metaphors of nature supported active work in both arenas.     

Watching the ‘Eugenic Experiment’ Unfold: The Mixed Views of British Eugenicists Toward Nazi Germany in the Early 1930s

Historians of the eugenics movement have long been ambivalent in their examination of the links between British hereditary researchers and Nazi Germany. While there is now a clear consensus that American eugenics provided significant material and ideological support for the Germans, the evidence remains less clear in the British case where comparatively few figures openly supported the Nazi regime and the left-wing critique of eugenics remained particularly strong. After the Second World War British eugenicists had to push back against the accusation that their science was intrinsically dictatorial or totalitarian and, as a result, many of their early perceptions of the Nazis were ignored or rationalised away. Further, historians in recent years have focused more directly on the social reformist elements of eugenics, discussing the links between hereditary science and the birth control and feminist movements in addition to others. While undoubtedly making valuable contributions to the scholarly understanding of the eugenic milieu in the interwar years, these studies have neglected to recontextualize the sentiments of British eugenicists who did indeed view the Nazi government positively in the early years of the 1930s. This article argues that there was a significant, though not numerically sizable, faction in the British eugenics movement, though mostly outside the Eugenics Society itself, in the early 1930s that viewed the Nazi Germany as an admirable state for its implementation of eugenic principles. One of these figures was later interned by his own government for being too closely aligned with the German regime, though he argued that this affinity was driven by the quest for scientific truth rather than politics. Eugenics in Britain thus contained a greater diversity of views toward Germany than scholars have previously assumed, warranting more research into the individuals and organizations harbouring these views.     

The politics of human heredity in the USSR, 1920-1940

After the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, Iurii Filipchenko (in Petrograd) and Nikolai Koltsov (in Moscow) created centers of genetic research where eugenics prospered as a socially relevant part of the new "experimental" biology. The Russian Eugenics Society, established in 1920, was dominated by research-oriented professionals. However, Bolshevik activists in the movement tried to translate eugenics into social policies (among them, sterilization) and in 1929, Marxist geneticist Alexander Serebrovsky was stimulated by the forthcoming Five-Year Plan to urge a massive eugenic program of human artificial insemination. With the advent of Stalinism, such attempts to "biologize" social phenomena became ideologically untenable and the society was abolished in 1930. Three years later, however, a number of eugenicists reassembled in the world's first institute of medical genetics, created by Bolshevik physician Solomon Levit after this return from a postdoctoral year in Texas with H.J. Muller. Muller himself moved to the Soviet Union in 1933, where he agitated for eugenics and wrote Stalin in 1936 to urge an artificial insemination program. Shortly thereafter, Muller left Russia, several of his colleagues were shot, and the Institute of Medical Genetics was disbanded. During the next three decades, Lysenkoists regularly invoked the Soviet eugenic legacy to claim that genetics itself was fascist.     

Designing babies: morally permissible ways to modify the human genome

My focus in this paper is the question of the moral acceptability of attempts to modify the human genome. Much of the debate in this area has revolved around the distinction between supposedly therapeutic modification on the one hand, and eugenic modification on the other. In the first part of the paper I reject some recent arguments against genetic engineering. In the second part I seek to distinguish between permissible and impermissible forms of intervention in such a way that does not appeal to the therapeutic/eugenic distinction. If I am right much of what we would intuitively call eugenic intervention will be morally acceptable. Central to my argument is an asymmetry in the way genetic engineers can influence a person's capacities on the one hand and life-goals on the other. Forms of genetic intervention that have a high probability of producing a mismatch of life-goals and capacities will be ruled out.     

Donor Insemination: Eugenic and Feminist Implications

One concern regarding developments in genetics is that, when techniques such as genetic engineering become safe and affordable, people will use them for positive eugenics: to "improve" their offspring by enpowering them with exceptional qualities. Another is whether new reproductive technologies are being used to improve the condition of women or as the tools of a patriarchal system that appropriates female functions to itself and exploits women to further its own ends. Donor insemination is relevant to both of these issues. The degree to which people have used donor insemination in the past for positive eugenic purposes may give some insight into the likelihood of developing technologies being so used in the future. Donor insemination provides women with the opportunity to reproduce with only the most remote involvement of a man. To what degree do women take advantage of this to liberate themselves from male dominance? Through questionnaires and interviews, women who have used donor insemination disclosed their criteria for selecting sperm donors. The results are analyzed for the prevalence of positive eugenic criteria in the selection process and women's attitudes toward minimizing the male role in reproduction.     

Two different ethical notions of benefit sharing of genetic resources and their implications for global development

Nazi eugenics is one of the main historical events influencing current popular as well as scholarly discussions of reproductive genetics. This influence, however, is open to different interpretations and social constructions. Based on 44 open interviews with Israeli and German genetic counselors, conducted in 2000–2003, our findings suggest that while the majority of German counselors reflected on Nazi eugenics as setting moral limits for contemporary repro-genetics, many Israeli counselors detached their contemporary practice from the wrongdoings of the past. Correspondingly, German counselors were far more sensitive towards the disability critique of repro-genetics than their Israeli counterparts. We conclude with a discussion of these two opposite positions, suggesting that the comparison of German and Israeli professionals reveals a profound complexity and involvedness in coming to terms with the “eugenic” lessons of the Holocaust, on both sides. In Germany, potential benefits of repro-genetics might be rejected due to an emphasis on a more universalistic lesson of the Holocaust regarding the value of human life and dignity. In Israel, a more particularistic lesson of the Holocaust regarding national Jewish survival, combined with a lack of public debate regarding medicalization and geneticization, might have promoted the advent of unregulated commercially and consumer-driven repro-genetics.     

Involuntary sterilization in the United States: a surgical solution

Although the eugenics movement in the United States flourished during the first quarter of the 20th Century, its roots lie in concerns over the cost of caring for "defective" persons, concerns that first became manifest in the 19th Century. The history of state-supported programs of involuntary sterilization indicates that this "surgical solution" persisted until the 1950s. A review of the archives of prominent eugenicists, the records of eugenic organizations, important legal cases, and state reports indicates that public support for the involuntary sterilization of insane and retarded persons was broad and sustained. During the early 1930s there was a dramatic increase in the number of sterilizations performed upon mildly retarded young women. This change in policy was a product of the Depression. Institutional officials were concerned that such women might bear children for whom they could not provide adequate parental care, and thus would put more demands on strained social services. There is little evidence to suggest that the excesses of the Nazi sterilization program (initiated in 1934) altered American programs. Data are presented here to show that a number of state-supported eugenic sterilization programs were quite active long after scientists had refuted the eugenic thesis.     

The Human Genome Project and eugenic concerns.

The U.S. Human Genome project is the largest scientific project funded by the federal government since the Apollo Moon Project. The overall effect from this project should be of great benefit to humankind because it will provide a better understanding both of single gene defects and multifactorial or familial diseases such as diabetes, arteriosclerosis, and cancer. At first this will lead to more exact ways of screening and diagnosing genetic disease, and later it will lead, in many if not most instances, to specific genetic cures. However, in the past, in both the U.S. and German eugenic movements genetic information has been misused. Hopefully, by remembering and understanding the past injustices and inhumanity of negative eugenics, further misuse of scientific information can be avoided.