Discussion about this post

User's avatar
DC Reade's avatar

Stan, as usual, I'm mostly in agreement with your writing. But it sounds to me as if your summary of the phenomenon of "eugenics" partakes of some serious flaws, and that you've overlooked some important points in your framing.

Yes, the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century was fatally flawed by racism. The proponents weren't even aware of DNA heritability at that point (which is NOT to say that an awareness of the role of DNA has led to the dismantling of racism, although logic and knowledge increase indicates that modern genetics leads in the direction of dismantling scientific racism, rather than verifying the concept.) The abuses of power that marked early Eugenic efforts- and the cold rationality that justified them- don't amount to a refutation of the entire principle.

My reading of history indicates that eugenic principles are nothing new, and there isn't anything abnormal about the human recognition of them, and nothing inhumane or forbiddingly presumptuous about conscious endeavors to pursue their improvement. The effort certainly isn't unnatural- some amount of eugenic activity had to have been performed from the outset of human society at the level of the smallest human groups. It's a natural reality that some infants were born too disabled for the group to care for; they were abandoned. The absence of physical confirmation of the practice enables modern humans to refrain from reflecting on it, but the logic is irrefutable; infanticide of disabled infants had to have been common practice. Exceptions to that rule have on rare occasions been found in the archaeological record (the paleoarchaeological record on any paleolithic human practice is threadbare and rudimentary, and is likely to remain so). But the fact that there are traces of evidence that sometimes disabled offspring received nurturing and care--as much as humanly possible--does not discredit the reality that most often that level of care was humanly impossible. And it's a simple physical fact that the fitness of the species had to have been increased as a result.

Moreover, I'd argue that most of the conventions of human marriage, inheritance, and family structure evolved as a eugenic effort. Right up to the modern era in the affluent and technologically advanced West--where choices about marriage are left to individual choice first and foremost, as a principle supported by law--improved fitness of offspring is a primary consideration for fertile couples. That's eugenics, too- a nonauthoritarian and informal sort of eugenics, but eugenics nonetheless. The modern system of individual adults as free agents seeking out other free agents with whom to reproduce is also arguably quite novel, and still far from universally accepted in contemporary human societies. Dowry, bride price, arranged marriage, child marriage, clan outbreeding, marriage for the purpose of political alliance, assortative mating on the basis of educational pedigree- all of those conventions partake of eugenic considerations! Eugenics is arguably the foundational purpose of all of them. As is the historic practice of inbreeding, as a conscious effort by aristocracies and monarchical dynasties. The modern discouragement of that practice- traditional for some centuries at the top reaches of European society, as well as in the top social stratum of civilizations going back to the Egyptians,and before- is also due to modern eugenic considerations; once it was observed that close-kinship marriage and inbred reproduction had dysgenic effects that outweighed any perceived eugenic benefit, it fell out of favor right away.

The human reverence for preserving human life- including the most helpless (and all human infants are born helpless)- has also long marked human history. That priority has traditionally provided the principal motivation for the development of modern medical technologies. And yes, there is such a thing as authentic medical progress: it's not only improved the duration and quality of life for the most genetically and materially advantaged of us, it's led to dramatic improvements for a much wider population, all over the planet. The fact that the advances haven't yet been universalized says nothing about the intrinsic benefits of their invention, or about their potential to be universalized eventually.

As a practical inevitability, those developments have also led to new challenges- including the conundrum that modern medical technology has played a pivotal role in foregrounding the ethical dilemmas related to abortion, and its elevation to prominence as a legal-political matter. I'm neither particularly knowledgeable or at all comfortable with discussing the history of infant survivability and prognosis for children born with gravely disabling or incapacitating conditions in former eras, but I think I can state with confidence that many ethical dilemmas of the present day were obviated by the stark reality that nature took its course with the workings of early mortality- often very early mortality. Whereas nowadays, medical technology is often utilized to the utmost to preserve newborn life under conditions that would not have been survivable for most of human history. This practical reality leaves characterizations that focus on modern medicine as is if one of its implicit missions is to act as an abortion factory in heedless pursuit of inhumane Eugenic ideas as a narrative very close to calumny.

Which is to say that I don't find any insight to be derived from an interpretation like this one:

"Echoing through this contrast between modern and premodern are Jean Bodin and Francis Bacon, advocating instrumental order in the face of a female nature’s chaos and disorder, now projected onto primitive peoples and the “unfit.” Nature itself must be conquered, and in this guise, we observe the eternal re-emergence of masculinity constructed as conquest..."

Sorry, Stan. That's facile sentimentality, feminist and pro-ecological tropes notwithstanding. In the course of our existence and spread on this planet at a species, "female nature" taking its ordained course included, as part of its holistic workings, a staggering infant mortality rate. Infirmity and disabilities were summarily culled, by the workings of "female nature", undisturbed by the power of human intelligence that led to the development of the disciplined craft of medicine and the empirical/scientific discipline of modern medicine and technology. I'm aware that there are features of the human condition that present intractable obstacles to any tech remedy, or any presumption of "progress" toward some idealized, perfected end state. But if there's no such thing as "human progress"- in any realm at all- we might as well burn all the books and close all the hospitals.

And while a much wider conversation on the ways that the post-oral contraceptive era impacts values and goals certainly needs to continue, there's simply no honest way to frame the increased access to abortion and the invention of technologies that enable ready access to contraception as a project driven by the ulterior goals of a Masculinist Patriarchal Conspiracy. It just isn't that simple. Mary Harrington makes some important counterpoints to assumptions that the consequences of the development of those technologies--and their widespread acceptance in the West--were entirely positive and "liberating", but the critique Harrington offers is also arguably indulging in some luxury beliefs of a different sort. An argument that I've found more ably articulated in this recent Substack post than anything I could construct in my own words https://coxkaren6.substack.com/p/mary-harringtons-worst-bad-idea

Lots more to say, but I need to leave off here, for now.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts