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.     

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.     

Scandinavian eugenics: Nordic historians provide new approaches

Late disclosure of the large scale of sterilization practices in the Nordic countries created an outburst of scandal: did these policies rely on coercion? To what extent? Who in the end was responsible? Sterilization practices targeted underpriviledged people first. The mentally retarded and women were their first victims. Operations were very frequently determined by other people's manipulative or coercive influences. Should the blame be put on the Social-Democrats in power throughout the period (except in Finland and Estonia)? Apart from Denmark, perhaps, local physicians and local services, more than governments, seemed to have strongly supported sterilization practices. Teetotalers and feminists shared responsibilities. How can one explain that eugenics finally declined? Based on a sound application of the Hardy-Weinberg law, the science of the eugenicists was correct. Was it politics? But uncovering of the Nazi crimes had only a very small impact on eugenics. Some authors underline the fact that the Nordic scientific institutions were particularly suited to liberal values. Others point to the devastating effect on eugenics once hereditarist psychiatry fell from favour in the middle of the sixties.     

American geneticists and the eugenics movement: 1905–1935

Conclusion I have attempted to show that between 1905 and 1935, both internal and external factors were important in producing and influencing geneticists' attitudes toward the eugenics movement. Internal factors operated in several ways during this period. In the first decade of the century, discoveries within genetics supplied geneticists a mode of expression to evoke their already existing social concern by providing a new vocabulary with which to present eugenic proposals. In addition, because these findings were relatively easy to explain to the layman, it became an easy matter for geneticists to popularize eugenics. After 1915, by suggesting the complexity of inheritance, other developments within genetics helped dim their initial enthusiasm for the movement. During this period, factors external to the science of genetics also were important. By producing a general interest in social affairs among many geneticists, the intellectual and social milieu of the late 1800's lay the foundations for their early participation in the eugenics movement. In the 1920's and 1930's the subjection of genetic theory to support preconceived social and political doctrines prompted them to renounce the movement publicly.While both internal and external factors operated on geneticists, the lesson of this study is that external factors were more important in influencing their attitudes toward the movement than internal factors. At the turn of the century, geneticists inherited from Social Darwinism a general interest in applying biological principles to the analysis of social problems; discoveries within genetics mainly provided a convenient and persuasive terminology with which to express their interest. Later, both internal and external factors caused their enthusiasm for the movement to wane, but their public renunciation of it was caused primarily by external factors alone.The importance of external factors is seen to be even greater by considering the model I suggested to explain the development of social responsibility in modern form among scientists. According to this model, social responsibility results after a crisis in the social uses of a given science—as a response to external factors. This model appears to account satisfactorily for the emergence of geneticists' sense of social responsibility: alarmed by eugenicists' frequent endorsement of Nazi eugenic programs, many geneticists claimed it was their duty to explain the facts of their science to the public so that the layman could see for himself the scientific errors of racism. Geneticists were now presenting the layman the facts, though not necessarily interpreting the facts for him. This same pattern—the emergence of modern social responsibility after an externally induced crisis-appears to be present in the other examples that I gave.The ironies revealed by this study are many. First, it is ironic that principles of genetics created feelings of both pessimism and optimism among many geneticists. Early developments in genetics-Mendel's laws, the concept of unit inheritance, and Weismann's theory-supplemented Social Darwinism in creating an atmosphere of pessimism among many geneticists by posing the grim assumption that human defects are hereditarily determined and incapable of medical cure. In recognizing the importance of heredity in development, many geneticists for a while were overly pessimistic in their forecasts of the evolutionary future of the human race. These same three genetic developments, however, by suggesting the feasibility of a eugenics program, of controlling reproduction to eliminate defective genes from the population, provided a remedy to the problem they had helped create.It is also ironic that even though the classical eugenics movement has been discredited in America for over thirty years, many individuals today are speaking of certain dangers to society in terms remarkably similar to those used by the classical eugenicists. The explosion of the atomic bomb created a sudden awareness among the public of the dangers of gene mutation from radiation and other sources⁴¹. Today, as topics such as the genetic load are increasingly discussed, many individuals are experiencing a growing alarm over the future genetic condition of the American people, a marked concern over the rising genetic and financial costs to society of modern medicine for preserving defectives and allowing them to reproduce.Although geneticists in the 1930's generally abandoned the ideal of using science to prescribe policy, to construct ends for social action, it was this ideal which initially attracted many of them to the eugenics movement in the first place. In the early years of the century, geneticists viewed science in a new light: as a restraint upon conduct. Hitherto, science had been valued for its products, for releasing man from old burdens, for supplying him new opportunities to enjoy and to explore life. In supporting the eugenics movement, geneticists departed from this mode. They now appealed to science, not for a particular product, but to determine who should and who should not reproduce. They let science act as a constraint upon their actions; they let science tell them that individual desires are less important than the biological and moral imperative of improving the human race⁴². Thus, it becomes understandable why many geneticists for a time regarded eugenics as a religion, for they had permitted biology to assume religion's traditional function of defining permissible conduct. The history of geneticists' involvement with the eugenics movement reminds us that science can play many roles and be put to many purposes.     

'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.     

Reflections on the Historiography of American Eugenics: Trends,Fractures, Tensions

By the 1950s, eugenics had lost its scientific status; it now belonged to the context rather than to the content of science. Interest in the subject was also at low ebb. But that situation would soon change dramatically. Indeed, in an essay-review published in 1993, Philip Pauly commented that a “eugenics industry” had come to rival the “Darwin industry” in importance, although the former seemed less integrated than the latter. Since then, the pace of publication on eugenics, including American eugenics, has only accelerated, while the field has become even more fractured, moving in multiple and even contradictory directions. This essay explores the trajectory of work on the history of American eugenics since interest in the subject revived in the 1960s, noting trends and also fractures. The latter are seen to result partly from the fact that professional historians no longer own the subject, which has attracted the interest of scholars in several other disciplines as well as scientists, political activists, and journalists, and also from the fact that the history of eugenics has almost always been policy-oriented. Historians’ desire to be policy-relevant and at the same time attentive to context, complexity, and contingency has generated tensions at several levels: within individuals, among historians, and between professional historians and others who also engage with the history of eugenics. That these tensions are resolved differently by different authors and even by the same authors at different times helps explain why the fragmentation that Pauly noted is not likely to be overcome anytime soon.     

Eugenics, sexual pedagogy and social change: constructing the responsible subject of governmentality in the Spanish Second Republic

This study focuses on eugenics in Spain, and more specifically on the 'official' eugenics whose platform was the Primeras Jornadas Eugénicas Espa?olas (First Spanish Eugenic Days, FSED). The aim of this paper is to relate eugenics to 'governmentality' rather than to State politics alone and to 'Latin eugenics' rather than to 'mainline eugenics'. On the one hand, the FSED were largely centred on the development of a new sexual code which would set Catholic sexual morality aside. For this reason, sexual pedagogy was one of the most relevant topics during the FSED, personal responsibility becoming the first step to social change. The concern about making people play an active role in their own self-regulation is typical of governmentality. The latter refers to societies where power is decentered and where the objective is to structure the field of action of others (the conduct of conduct). On the other hand, the FSED emphasised preventive eugenics such as welfare programmes and health campaigns rather than negative eugenics such as the sterilisation of the unfit. The situation in Spain was mirrored in countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, which allows us to think about them in terms of 'Latin eugenics' rather than 'mainline eugenics' from countries such as Great Britain, Germany and the USA.     

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.     

The anthropology of science part II: Scientific norms and behaviors

A major consequence of seeing science as a cultural activity is the ability to distinguish formally between the normative and expressed behaviors of scientists. Science progresses often in spite of the constraints and conflicting goals imposed on scientists; therefore studying science and studying scientists are not equivalent. Nevertheless, what scientists do is a starting point for understanding how science functions in modern society. The eugenics movement of the 1920s provides a paradigmatic example of how science is invoked as cultural authority, and of the importance in distinguishing among good science, bad science, and pseudo-science. While this may be easy in retrospect, retrospect is too late. Straddling the sciences and humanities, anthropology is situated in a unique position to mediate the “culture wars,” by analyzing both the boundaries of science itself and the activities of scientists in society.     

Notions of heredity in the correspondence of Edwin Grant Conklin

This article examines five letters from the correspondence of American zoologist Edwin Grant Conklin that highlight his theories of genetic and social inheritance, in order to suggest that Conklin's eugenic beliefs--like those of many American authorities during this time--were complex and sometimes contradictory. The letters reveal the international prestige of American science after the two world wars and illuminate key moments in the emergence of the concepts of heredity and inheritance, within both the science of genetics and the social movement of eugenics.     

Reproductive Politics,Biopolitics and Auto-immunity: From Foucault to Esposito

The contingent cultural, epistemological and ontological status of biology is highlighted by changes in attitudes towards reproductive politics in the history of feminist movements. Consider, for example, the American, British, and numerous European instances of feminist sympathy for eugenics at the turn of the century. This amounted to a specific formation of the role, in late nineteenth and early twentieth century feminisms, of concepts of biological risk and defence, which were transformed into the justificatory language of rights claims. In this context, one can ask how reproductive politics are to be fitted into the paradoxical relationship between biopolitics and thanatopolitics discussed by Michel Foucault and more recently by Roberto Esposito. In this context, “reproductive life,” can be thought of arising at the intersection of thanapolitics and biopolitics as these relate to women’s bodies. Revisiting Foucault and Esposito in the light of reproductive politics also allows a reconsideration of the paradoxical feminist aims involved in defending individual rights by reference to overall biopolitical interest and futurity.     

Rational versus anti-rational interpretations of science: an ape-language case-study

Robert Nola (2003) has argued that anti-rationalist interpretations of science fail to adequately explain the process of science, since objective reasons can be causal factors in belief formation. While I agree with Nola that objective reasons can be a cause of belief, in this paper I present a version of the strong programme in the sociology of knowledge, the Interests Thesis, and argue that the Interests Thesis provides a plausible explanation of an episode in the history of ape-language research. Specifically, I examine Terrace, Petitto, Sandess, & Bever (1979, 1980) illegitimate comparison of the signing of their chimpanzee, Nim, with data from human early childhood language development, and argue that Terrace et al.'s interests played a causal role in determining their sceptical beliefs concerning ape linguistic abilities. However, I go on to argue that Terrace et al.'s interests are not the only causal factors in determining their beliefs: objective reasons, associated with the institution of new methodologies, were also causally determinative of Terrace et al.'s sceptical beliefs. Consequently, I argue that belief formation in science is a multi-factorial affair wherein both interests and objective reasons have causal roles. I finish the paper with two conjectures concerning the proper locus of scientific rationality.     

The sex reform movement and eugenics in interwar Poland

This paper focuses on the relations between a liberal group of sex reformers, consisting of writers and literary critics, and physicians from the Polish Eugenics Society in interwar Poland. It illustrates the paradoxes of the mutual co-operation between these two groups during the 1930s and analyses the reason why compulsory sterilisation was rejected by politicians. From the early 1930s two movements began to forge an alliance in Poland: the sexual reform movement which advocated freedom of the individual, and eugenics, which called for limiting the freedom of the individual for the collective good. This paper draws attention to several issues which emerged as part of this collaboration: population politics, the relationship between reformers, eugenicists and state institutions, and the question of how both movements--eugenics and sexual reform--perceived the question of sexuality, birth control and abortion. It will also focus on those aspects of their thinking that led to mutual co-operation.     

江苏通州棉田捕食性节肢动物多样性的历史动态比较

农业生态系统中天敌多样性的保护和维持是当前生物多样性科学研究中的薄弱环节。作者对江苏通州市1970’s后期到1980’s前期和近年(2003~2004)棉田中捕食性节肢动物的多样性作了比较研究。调查表明,1970’s后期到1980’s前期,通州市棉田生态系统中常见的捕食性节肢动物的主要优势种维持在10余种。2003~2004年,在同一区域,采用相同的方法进行调查。结果表明,棉田的天敌物种多样性锐减,仅有龟纹瓢虫、草间小黑蛛等少数几类天敌。对棉田天敌的物种多样性锐减的原因作了初步的定性分析。     

The eugenics movement and its impact on art education in the United States

This article argues that the eugenics movement has had three major influences on education in the United States, and reveals how these influences have had an impact on visual arts education in particular. The first influence began with a debate between John Dewey and David Snedden that resulted in a two-tiered tracking system that separated college bound and vocational students. The second is the influence of eugenics on the establishment of the hierarchical framework for the public school curriculum. The third influence of eugenics discussed in this article is its impact on standardized testing. These influences have justified American imperialism in schools, and have led to the marginalization of visual arts education in the United States.     

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.     

Progressing from eugenics to human genetics. celebrating the 70th birthday of professor Newton E. Morton.

Eugenics, unlike science, involves decision making on various issues, and decision making involves the risk of making errors. This communication first clarifies the nature and seriousness of making errors known as type II in the statistical literature, i.e. the error of punishing a person when he is not guilty of the crime attributed to him. Eugenic laws in China and the eugenic movements in England and the United States are briefly reviewed. The explosive advances made in medical and population genetics in the last 40 years are replacing the conventional eugenics programs by new approaches. Modern genetic counseling has been introduced as the intermediate agent between the scientist and the family that needs advice. It is stressed that individual rights must be respected under all circumstances.     

L’émergence d’un mouvement sexologique français (1929–1939), entre hygiénlsme, eugénisme et psychanalyse

A sexological movement look form in France in the 1930’s on the initiative of the alienist Dr. Edouard Toulouse. The movement combined the approach of mental hygiene with the “biocratic” ideas of this psychiatrist: to rationalise social and sexual life, through science. Even though this movement founded, an association, instigated a scholarly society, produced its own journal and was supported by eminent personalities of the medical, political and cultural worlds, there is very little historical trace of this movement and consequently it is generally unknown. The author of the article explores the reasons for this oversight and analyses the relationships between this movement and some members of the then emerging French psychoanalytical movement, particularly Dr. Paul Schiff and Princess Marie Bonaparte, from the beginning of 1930’s to the war. The author retraces the socio-political factors which underpinned Toulouse’s initiative and the causes of its apparent failure. This particular case also highlights the relationships between contemporary psychiatry, eugenics and psychoanalysis, and more generally between science, popularization and ideology.     

The Medawar Lecture 1998 is science dangerous?

The idea that science is dangerous is deeply embedded in our culture, particularly in literature, yet science provides the best way of understanding the world. Science is not the same as technology. In contrast to technology, reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value. Scientists are not responsible for the technological applications of science; the very nature of science is that it is not possible to predict what will be discovered or how these discoveries could be applied. The obligation of scientists is to make public both any social implications of their work and its technological applications. A rare case of immoral science was eugenics. The image of Frankenstein has been turned by the media into genetic pornography, but neither cloning nor stem cells or gene therapy raise new ethical issues. There are no areas of research that are so socially sensitive that research into them should be proscribed. We have to rely on the many institutions of a democratic society: parliament, a free and vigorous press, affected groups and the scientists themselves. That is why programmes for the public understanding of science are so important. Alas, we still do not know how best to do this.     

Emancipation Through Interaction – How Eugenics and Statistics Converged and Diverged

The paper discusses the scope and influence of eugenics in defining the scientific programme of statistics and the impact of the evolution of biology on social scientists. It argues that eugenics was instrumental in providing a bridge between sciences, and therefore created both the impulse and the institutions necessary for the birth of modern statistics in its applications first to biology and then to the social sciences. Looking at the question from the point of view of the history of statistics and the social sciences, and mostly concentrating on evidence from the British debates, the paper discusses how these disciplines became emancipated from eugenics precisely because of the inspiration of biology. It also relates how social scientists were fascinated and perplexed by the innovations taking place in statistical theory and practice.