Eugenics: America’s First Genetic Engineering
by Aaron McK.
The closing decades of the nineteenth century were ones when American Society grew to respect the changing realities of daily life due to rapid technological advancement. The Eugenics movement in America followed this trend. The Term “Eugenics” as defined by the principal proponent of the movement, Sir Francis Galton, “is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with these that develop them with the utmost advantage.” (1) This definition of the eugenics movement describes it as a movement that is beneficial to all who prescribe to its philosophy. The eugenics movement was not however a single idea nor was it carried out with a single action. Incorporating anti-immigration fears, misunderstanding of mental and physical handicaps, and a faith that scientific progress will lead to an improved society, the eugenics movement was the cutting edge of genetic engineering during the gilded age.
The leaders of the eugenics movement in this period were men and women of science who felt they knew of a way to ensure the success of society by selecting those who would be able to successfully contribute to it. At immigration points such as Ellis Island, immigrants attempting to enter the United States were denied access because of failing health, physical handicap, or unsavory physical appearance. The nations first mental institutions were established to provide locations to properly manage the mentally retarded members of American society. These institutions quickly fell under the belief that it was in the best interests of society to limit the reproductive capabilities of these patients. (2)
Francis Galton, as the leader of the American Eugenics movement, attempted to ensure the genetic prosperity of America by created a Eugenic ranking of people, attaching a value to the genetic qualities of their individual lineage, economic prosperity, and physical vitality. (3) The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences stated in 1883 that Eugenics “shall teach the human race how to breed so that its best stock shall be preserved and improved, and its worst shall be eliminated.” (4) By referring to desirable qualities in people as those that shall be retained and unsavory ones as ones to be “eliminated,” proponents of the eugenics movement are bringing social Darwinism directly into the logic behind this American Eugenics movement. The eugenic rank earned by a person directly correlated to ones “inherited wealth of valuable properties,” correlating economic success with a high eugenic ranking.
The scientific benefits of this philosophy seemed, to the supporters of Eugenics, to be boundless. The concept of eugenic ranking appeared to people to be more legitimate than psychological testing of the period. The new study of a human’s mind was less trusted than the adaptation of common agricultural breeding techniques. (5)
The Eugenics movement of this period was not primarily about the creation of a utopian society through limiting the reproductive abilities of unsavory members of society; such as the Nazi party did in the 1930’s. What the progressive era eugenics movement hoped to achieve was to bring the strongest traits of those who were breeding together to create a stronger society. Galton, in his support for marriage law reform states, “when (eugenics) lofty objects shall become generally appreciated, they will meet with some recognition both from the religious sense of the people and its laws.” (6) This optimistic view of societies willingness to accept certain levels of genetic intervention in daily life clearly reflects the changing attitudes that common Americans had towards science and it’s day-to-day applicability. For the first time in the history of civilization, medical doctors were trained specifically to treat the ailments of people; education and technology had taken such leaps forward that people were living longer and healthier lives. It was not irrational therefore at this major turning point in human-technological relations to believe wholeheartedly that the possibility for acceptance of limited human genetic engineering was attainable.
The eugenics movement in the late nineteenth century was born from the ideas espoused by Charles Darwin and his theories on the origins of species. The period saw business leaders amass incredible wealth based upon the principal of Social Darwinism along with the emergence of scientific advances unseen before this time. The connection of these two principals into a philosophy that promised a stronger future was extremely tempting to many Americans. The eugenics movement in America represented the changing attitudes of American society in relation to science and its application in day-to-day life.
1. Johnson, Roswell H. Eugenics and so-called Eugenics. American Journal of Sociology 1914, University of Chicago Press
2. Keeping America Sane: Pshyciatry and Eugenics in the US and Canada 1880-1940. American Review of Canadian Studies, 1992
3. Galtons Human Faculty. American Association for the Advancement of Sciences 1883
4. Ibid.
5. Galton, Francis. Eugenics: Its defenition, scope, and Aims. American Journal of Sociology 1909, University of Chicago Press
6. Galtons Human Faculty. American Association for the Advancement of Sciences 1883
The closing decades of the nineteenth century were ones when American Society grew to respect the changing realities of daily life due to rapid technological advancement. The Eugenics movement in America followed this trend. The Term “Eugenics” as defined by the principal proponent of the movement, Sir Francis Galton, “is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with these that develop them with the utmost advantage.” (1) This definition of the eugenics movement describes it as a movement that is beneficial to all who prescribe to its philosophy. The eugenics movement was not however a single idea nor was it carried out with a single action. Incorporating anti-immigration fears, misunderstanding of mental and physical handicaps, and a faith that scientific progress will lead to an improved society, the eugenics movement was the cutting edge of genetic engineering during the gilded age.
The leaders of the eugenics movement in this period were men and women of science who felt they knew of a way to ensure the success of society by selecting those who would be able to successfully contribute to it. At immigration points such as Ellis Island, immigrants attempting to enter the United States were denied access because of failing health, physical handicap, or unsavory physical appearance. The nations first mental institutions were established to provide locations to properly manage the mentally retarded members of American society. These institutions quickly fell under the belief that it was in the best interests of society to limit the reproductive capabilities of these patients. (2)
Francis Galton, as the leader of the American Eugenics movement, attempted to ensure the genetic prosperity of America by created a Eugenic ranking of people, attaching a value to the genetic qualities of their individual lineage, economic prosperity, and physical vitality. (3) The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences stated in 1883 that Eugenics “shall teach the human race how to breed so that its best stock shall be preserved and improved, and its worst shall be eliminated.” (4) By referring to desirable qualities in people as those that shall be retained and unsavory ones as ones to be “eliminated,” proponents of the eugenics movement are bringing social Darwinism directly into the logic behind this American Eugenics movement. The eugenic rank earned by a person directly correlated to ones “inherited wealth of valuable properties,” correlating economic success with a high eugenic ranking.
The scientific benefits of this philosophy seemed, to the supporters of Eugenics, to be boundless. The concept of eugenic ranking appeared to people to be more legitimate than psychological testing of the period. The new study of a human’s mind was less trusted than the adaptation of common agricultural breeding techniques. (5)
The Eugenics movement of this period was not primarily about the creation of a utopian society through limiting the reproductive abilities of unsavory members of society; such as the Nazi party did in the 1930’s. What the progressive era eugenics movement hoped to achieve was to bring the strongest traits of those who were breeding together to create a stronger society. Galton, in his support for marriage law reform states, “when (eugenics) lofty objects shall become generally appreciated, they will meet with some recognition both from the religious sense of the people and its laws.” (6) This optimistic view of societies willingness to accept certain levels of genetic intervention in daily life clearly reflects the changing attitudes that common Americans had towards science and it’s day-to-day applicability. For the first time in the history of civilization, medical doctors were trained specifically to treat the ailments of people; education and technology had taken such leaps forward that people were living longer and healthier lives. It was not irrational therefore at this major turning point in human-technological relations to believe wholeheartedly that the possibility for acceptance of limited human genetic engineering was attainable.
The eugenics movement in the late nineteenth century was born from the ideas espoused by Charles Darwin and his theories on the origins of species. The period saw business leaders amass incredible wealth based upon the principal of Social Darwinism along with the emergence of scientific advances unseen before this time. The connection of these two principals into a philosophy that promised a stronger future was extremely tempting to many Americans. The eugenics movement in America represented the changing attitudes of American society in relation to science and its application in day-to-day life.
1. Johnson, Roswell H. Eugenics and so-called Eugenics. American Journal of Sociology 1914, University of Chicago Press
2. Keeping America Sane: Pshyciatry and Eugenics in the US and Canada 1880-1940. American Review of Canadian Studies, 1992
3. Galtons Human Faculty. American Association for the Advancement of Sciences 1883
4. Ibid.
5. Galton, Francis. Eugenics: Its defenition, scope, and Aims. American Journal of Sociology 1909, University of Chicago Press
6. Galtons Human Faculty. American Association for the Advancement of Sciences 1883
posted by Leslie Madsen-Brooks at 11:14 AM
14 Comments:
The way the eugenics movement links science and technological advancement with american society is an interesting idea and reminds me of the concept of scientific management that we discussed earlier in the quarter. An increase in efficiency of task seems to be a theme for the 1890's and relates to the way in which eugenics appeared in society.
The issues raised in the 1890s can be applied to today's realm. Biomedical Engineering serves to help recreate tissue, help with drug delivery, and "fix" unwanted genes. However, such issues are not addressed fully by laws or committees. Until then, anything (except for the fact of human cloning) is up for grabs. Today we have the technology to engineer cardiac tissue and have it "beat" on its own (without the use of an animal). So now the question is How far should we let technology and science take us? Where do we draw the line? especially if we can justify it as 'improving our society.'
This idea somewhat resembles the genetic engineering theme of the Arian race that was used in the holocaust. While in the United States, there wasn't outright persecution of people, the matching up of people to create the perfect baby is quite dispicable. The competitive nature of the human race has been prevalent through the course of time.
We shouldn't view eugenics as "a things of the past". Open any edition of the Aggie, and you will see advertisements for human eggs with specific racial , height, and intelligence requirements. Not only this, the people who created the nations sperm banks, did so predominantly to encourage eugenic reproduction (many were direct disciples of Galton), subsequently these banks do large scale screening to obtain the most fit donors. I imagine, as techniques for fertility become more and more sophisticated, we will see a proliferation of the practice of eugenic selection. I think no one would argue that what the Nazi’s and early eugenicists did was not atrocious, but are these “benign” cases of eugenics still at some level wrong? This will probably be a question most of us will face sometime in their lives so its interesting to consider.
During the time of this Eugenics craze, did anyone ever oppose the movement? I understand that Eugenics' purpose was to create strong individuals in order to build strong citizens thus a strong society, but was this a matter of race as well? Other than being a healthy person, where there any other guidelines? Did this movement prefer white over black, etc? Though Eugenics is really discussed today, and if it is it is considered to be a thing in the past, that's isn't necessarily the case. Though, Hitler and the Holocaust weren't scientifically based, it was still the same idea. Creat ONE race. People still do that today, there are new scientific methods out right now that allow pregnant women to alter genes of their fetuses to insure things such as green eyes or brown/blonde hair. It's scary to think that the idea of creating life is not in the hands of fate anymore and in the hands of science.
My first impression of a genetically engineered society was alarming. The advancements of science are incredibly rapid, and it wouldn't surprise if we were to see enhanced humans in the near future. Was anyone in opposition of this movement? As we look back upon history and see the relation to Hitler and the extinction of the Jews, this idea raises controversy.
To answer Stephanie’s' question, there were some notable opponents to Eugenics. The most prominent opponent of Eugenics was Populist Party candidate for President, William Jennings Bryant, who is famous for leading the anti-evolution side of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Ironically enough, Bryant's opposition of the idea of human evolution was motivated in part by his disgust with Eugenics. Bryant thought that if human evolution were accepted as truth, it would invariably lead to the policies of Social Darwinism and eugenics both of which he considered to be un-Christian.
The whole concept of eugenics really scares me. It just goes to show the power of human desire for answers. People seem to crave information that will make life simple and clear-cut, thus freeing them from moral dilemma. I guess people will go to any lengths to feel guilt-free.
It sounds to me like a definite American idea. America has always been a country that tries to be the best it can possible be, no matter who, what or where it harms. When I read that they were limiting the immigrants by how they looked and how great they were. It was not surprising. Many of these ideas are still present in the culture of America today. Is it a horrible thing?
The issues concerning the moral questions that are raised in regads to eugenics are quite applicable to the world that we live in today. I was fortunate enough to have a pre-midterm conversation about our societies willingness to embrace eugenics. In my opinion the Eugenics movement is very similar to social forces that are made about what we value in a mate. The Eugenics movement of this period in many cases focused on what should be looked for in a partner. Usually society fills this role, but in this period of uniformity and production line culture, it follows that this thought process would occur.
Good post. Were ordinary people aware of the eugenics movement? It seems to me that it would be rather alarming, especially for the working class, since society didn't treat them that well to begin with it may have seemed logical to them that they would be the ones that the eugenics movement would try to weed out. I also find it very intersting that they attempted to weed out people of "unsavory appearance". It sort of makes the movement seem a bit less about creating people that would be successful and productive, and more about creating a superior nation in every respect.
From reading the essay, I get the feeling that the tendencies that brought about that movement seems to be resurging today. As Edgar said we have adopted science as the ultimate solution to a lot of problems now. Any pharmeceutical company can tell you that. But using science as a bandaid never addresses the social issue behind the movement. In eugenics, the desire to create better races of people and to preserve the strong was probably motivated by the fact that many people at the time were dying of diseases or poverty. And though the lofty intellectual elites of the time thought the world would be better to save the strong, they didn't couldn't name the real reason why people were sick or poor in the first place. 20 (or maybe 40) years ago when people wanted to eradicate world hunger a huge bioag. program with engineered food to increase the food supply was implimented. There is now probably enough food to feed the world 2x over and yet world hunger has not disappeared because the people in charge of making sure the food was distributed was dicking around and the problem was never solved.
To me the underlying idea of creating a strong society makes sense... The problem I have is that the guidelines used to determine who ideally was the strongest in society, and with some understanding of the time period I assume the ideal person would be white, which leaves out a lot of other races and cultures either born in America or born else where. Ironic how thigns that were considered scientific are still not free from the constraints of society...
The eugenics movement appeals to be somewhat interesting, and alarming. It appeals frightening because those behind this movement are incorporating thier ideologies with any form of checks and balances. This allows for racism, sexism, and any other bias/ and or prejudice the hinder what some may argue as a 'noble' cause.
Post a Comment
<< Home