Eugenics today

This is a short position paper that I wrote for my genetics and society class at portland state.  It is meant to be a persuasive paper only, mostly not reflective of any of my personal views.  The topic fascinated me, which is why I posted it here.  Enjoy.

1/24/12

SPP #2: Why did eugenics fail?

As genetics became a scientifically viable field, public discourse struggled to define this new science. Many new thinkers were attracted to the topic, many with their own agendas. If the fundamental principles of the development of species could be understood, surely they could also be controlled and manipulated. Control of human biological destiny developed into what is now known as eugenics. Culminating in the idealogical purging of Nazi Germany, eugenics was based on tenuous scientific principles at best, and quickly transformed into political rhetoric. Because of the catastrophe of the Holocaust, the word 'eugenics' may have fallen out of favor, and with it the metaphor of animal stock-breeding, but as a social concept eugenics still influences political rhetoric.

Political discourse, especially in today's 24-hour news cycle, thrives on controversy, even without truth. “The dynamics of reductive simplicity and full-blown complexity persist in the public discourse because each features substantial, though different, rhetorical advantages.” (Condit, 1999: 56) Both modern American political narratives, the “conservative” and “liberal” agendas are guilty of reductive simplicity and paralyzing complexity for political victories. Both sides blame each other of seeking homogeneity, which at its core, is what eugenics is all about: “The ambiguous notion of the germ-plasm, with its connotations of cohesion and homogeneity...” (Condit, 1999: 54) Conservatives accuse liberals of threatening individual freedom and traditional values through dilution of the gene pool. Liberals accuse conservatives of threatening freedom of expression and inclusive values through similarly over-simplistic views of the gene pool. “Clearly, the scientific findings did not drive the public discourse to new anti-eugenic positions but merely supported reorientations urged by other forces.” (Condit, 1999: 55) Politics drives itself. Under eugenics, science was just a guise for a racist agenda: “...In public rhetoric, it matters little whether the true believers learn from new data and correct themselves, for the balance of public opinion is built... from members of the broader public who serve as audience and judge of these doctrines.” (Condit, 1999:55) Eugenics may have enjoyed a brief wink of scientific validity, but that is dwarfed by its historical importance as political rhetoric.

Within the modern conservative narrative, traditional values are under attack by progressives and liberals attempting to control the America citizenry via federalized institutions and mandates. The truth is that this was the aim of many eugenicists at the beginning of the 20^th century, in order to encourage the re-education of the “unfit.” However, “[eugenicists] eventually bowed to the conditions of feasibility generated by innate [biological] complexity.” (Condit, 1999:57) Scientific understanding had not yet advanced to enable sufficient control for breeding out the “unfit” in exchange for the genetically “superior.” According to French Strother: “The most [the eugenic scientist] hopes is that some day he will have so many facts, so clearly proven, that only the very ignorant will not know how nature deals with human heredity, and only the fools will be rash enough to try to beat nature. But that's a century or two ahead yet.” (1924:170-171) Now, nearly a century later, according to conservative political narrative, eugenics is thriving in the form of population and reproductive control via advances in medicine: the morning after pill, abortion, and birth control. Simultaneously, the paradigm continues the victim stance by decrying the scientific research of global climate change as a 'liberal agenda.' Literally, Strother's vision has manifest as “nature deals with human heredity” and the industrial choices Western culture has made in the name of superiority.

At the same time, the conservative narrative has used the eugenic argument to its advantage. The power of the individual in the context of American capitalism to “lift himself up by his bootstraps” (Lakoff, 2004) has cast the poor on the losing side of the superior/unfit dichotomy. However, the modern Great Recession has limited the argument, similar to how the Great Depression “...cast doubt on the proposition that the unemployed were out of work because of their incapacities rather than because of factors in the social structure.” (Condit, 1999:52) Despite, the economic realities, this type of polarizing rhetoric continues even through the current Republican Presidential Debates.

Eugenics was only briefly scientifically relevant. The science of eugenics quickly got replaced as methods and knowledge advanced. But as public and political rhetoric, eugenics by many other names, is alive and well.

• Lakoff, George (2004) Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.

• Condit, Celeste M. (1999) The Meanings of the Gene: Public Debates about Human Heredity. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.