Category: Eugenics

Comparison

One of the more interesting comparative traits between the article Modernism and Eugenics and that of the book The Sun Always Rises is in the portrayal of discrimination based on societal belief and specific traits rather than any actual adverse attribute about an individual (i.e. being an adulterer, womanizer, murderer, criminal etc.).

This was seen in case of the character Robert Cohn who was discriminated against by other members of the group on the basis of him being a Jew (Neilson, 1-4). As seen within the novel, there are numerous anti-Semite remarks made by Mike and Jake on numerous occasions with Cohn often being marked as different due to his religion, social practices and beliefs.

From a certain perspective, it can be stated that by being different Cohn within the novel was immediately marked as object of vilification and, as a result, in shunned and considered unattractive (Neilson, 1-4). On way of explaining such an attitude can be seen within the article Modernism and Eugenics wherein the concept of difference is often utilized as the basis behind discrimination.

Based on the article, it can be seen that eugenics is not only an argument for the development of a healthier and more psychologically sound society, rather, it is also a means by which a certain degree of uniformity is put into place. This means that instead of a diverse population within a society, what is advocated for is instead only one type of population that is deemed as the most ideal in terms of health and psychological soundness while at the same time possessing features that are considered appealing and attractive.

Such a perspective thus creates the notion of superior and inferior stock based on the racial origins of a particular individual, yet it must be questioned as to how did the early Eugenicists actually come up with such a level of distinction when essentially all people are biologically the same?

A true argument for eugenics would not discriminate against race, religion or culture but would instead focus primarily on removing attributes which were deemed as detrimental to the health and wellness of future generations. Instead, it can clearly be seen within the article that the article take on a particularly racist perspective wherein Eugenicists promote the continuation of superior races while those belonging to inferior classes should practice abstinence and die out.

The origins behind this particular viewpoint can be seen within the novel wherein the treat of Cohn is based on the concept of Mike, Jake and Campbell wherein they view Cohn as the the other, meaning that their derogative comments are based on their view of Cohen as an individual that they do not consider part of their group (Neilson, 1-4). One way of explaining such an attitude towards Cohen is through the concept of humanocentric speciesism.

Based on the work of OSullivan (2012), humanocentric speciesism can be considered a pervasive yet subconscious attitude among many societies wherein they view their own culture, group, and race as being superior to that of other groups (OSullivan, 32). While not outright stated, it is evidenced in both the article Modernism and Eugenics and the book The Sun Always Rises that humanocentric speciesism plays a role in not only the discrimination against Cohn but also in the way in which eugenics in justified.

What must be understood is that both the article and the book deal with the concept of biased perceptions when it comes to the treatment of others wherein those who are part of a racially acceptable stock are treated with respect and dignity while all others are treated with disdain and disgust. Thus, when looking at both the book and the article it can be seen that some aspects of their individual facets mirror each other when viewed under the lens of humanocentric speciesism.

Contrast

When it comes to contrasting elements within the book and the article, one of the most obvious is the difference in opinion involving women and sexuality and the necessity of procreation as the foundation of a relationship. Within the article, radical sexual behavior among women is actually frowned upon and thought of as a characteristic that should be removed from society.

The novel however paints a slightly different story wherein the character of Jake falls in love with Lady Brett Ashley as a direct result of her attitude and general sensuality that creates a significant degree of attraction (Adair, 114-118). Brett actually represents a form of sexual freedom among women during the 1920s wherein women found themselves enjoying romances, divorces and various trysts that used to be exclusive domains of the men (Adair, 114-118).

The article Modernism and Eugenics on the other hand espouses a completely different view when it comes to such aspects wherein women are expected to accord themselves with a certain prim and properness and only enter into relations with individuals that are of the right genetic stock Brett seemingly sleeps with and attracts a wide assortment of men heedless of repercussions and, as such, shows a distinct contrast from the ideas shown within the article.

It should also be noted that another of the contrasting aspects between the article and the novel is the view that love and sexual relationships can occur without the concept of procreation being included in the picture.

What you have to understand is that the article implies that in order for a man and a woman to enter into a long term sexual relationship procreation should be a factor in that they should be able to produce children in line with the eugenic policies that are being advocated by its proponents.

In the case of Brett and Jake, there is no prospect for the creation of children since Jake is impotent yet they still enter into a sexual relationship anyway based on what is perceived as emotion and lust.

This is actually one of the main contrasts between the article and the novel since relationships within the article are apparently fueled through an unemotional scientific perspective while in the novel relationships occur on a spur of the moment and are often entered into not through their need to procreate but rather their impression that they want to simply be together.

Conclusion

Overall, it can be seen that the similar elements within the novel and the article deal mostly with racism and humanocentric speciesism wherein it was shown that by the mere reason a particular group is considered different, they are immediately excluded and thought of as vile. On the other end of the spectrum are the contrasts between the novel and the article wherein relationships are viewed not under the lens of procreation but more along the lines of lust and emotion.

Works Cited

Adair, William. Ernest Hemingways The Sun Also Rises: The Novel As Gossip. Hemingway Review 31.2 (2012): 114-118. Literary Reference Center. Web.

Neilson, Keith. The Sun Also Rises. Masterplots, Fourth Edition (2010): 1-4. Literary Reference Center. Web.

OSullivan, John. Racism, Racism Everywhere!. National Review 64.18 (2012): 32. MasterFILE Premier. Web.

Introduction

The problem of eugenics is very important in the context of modern studies, I would like to discuss it refer to such books as Alexandra Minna Sterns Eugenic Nation and Laura Pulidos Black, Brown Yellow and Left.

If we are talking about eugenics within the United States during 1890  1945, then we need to say that one of the well-known modern inventors of eugenics was Alexander Graham Bell. He studied the grade of deafness on Marthas Vineyard from Massachusetts.

Main body

According to Alexandra Minna: From this he concluded that deafness was hereditary in nature and, through noting that congenitally deaf parents were more likely to produce deaf children, tentatively suggested that couples where both were deaf should not marry, in his lecture Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human race presented to the National Academy of Sciences on 13 November 1883 (Stern, 2005).

Another author, Pulido, mentions these: However, it was his hobby of livestock breeding which led to his appointment to biologist David Starr Jordans Committee on Eugenics, under the auspices of the American Breeders Association. The committee unequivocally extended the principle to man (Pulido, 2006).

So we can say that Bell suggested controlling immigration for the aim of eugenics; he admonished that boarding schools for deaf people may be considered as places of a certain deaf human race.

Another scientist who supported eugenics was Woodrow Wilson. According to Sterns book: In 1907 he helped to make Indiana the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals; although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927 (Stern, 2005). Many states established laws about marriage with certain eugenic criteria. Such scientists as Davenport and Laughlin were great promoters of eugenics.

During the 20th century, scientists were involved in the research connected with the idea stated that mental illness could influence and run in families. A lot of studies were made on such illnesses as depression, bipolar disorder, and also schizophrenia. Results of such research were used by the movement of eugenics as evidence for its cause. State laws prohibited the marriage of the mentally ill and forced them, motivated these as a means of preventing the passing on of mental disease to next generations.

It is written in Pulidos book: These laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 and were not abolished until the mid-20th century. By 1945 over 45,000 mentally ill individuals in the United States had been forcibly sterilized. All in all, 60 000 Americans suffered from sterilization (Pulido, 2006).

We can read such information from Minnas book: In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the unfit. (Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.) (Stern, 2005).

Nowadays we can state that such methodology was really flawed, but at the time it was considered lawful scientific research. Scientists were focused on the idea of a hierarchy of the human characteristic, but not on the idea of eugenics itself.

Some states did the sterilization of imbeciles for a large part of the 20t century. State authorities were able to sterilize those they considered unfit. We can find very interesting information in Sterns book that says: The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963. A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450 000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration (Stern, 2005).

If we regard William Graham Sumners idea of genius and talent, then we need to say that its key points stated that if governments of the state would not interfere in the laissez-faire policy of the social order, then those considered as defective ones: mentally retarded and handicapped people, would have a negative influence on the progress of the society because they would drain off certain resources needed for the life of genius and talent people.

This situation was mentioned in Pulidos book: They should be left on their own to sink or swim. But those in the class of delinquent (criminals, deviants, etc.) should be eliminated from society (Pulido, 2006).

If we are talking about such scientists as Du Bois and Marcus Garvey, then we need to say that they greatly supported ideas of resembling eugenics with the aim to lessen African American suffering. However, ideas of eugenics were used to outline white racial purity; state anti-miscegenation laws banned marriage between different races. We can read such information in Pulidos book: The most famous example of the influence of eugenics and its emphasis on strict racial segregation on such anti-miscegenation legislation was Virginias Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this law in 1967 in Loving, Virginia, and declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional (Pulido, 2006).

If we regard the Immigration Act of 1924 with the respect to our issue, then we need to mention that eugenicists made a great influence on Congress in the question of the threat of certain inferior stock from the regions of Southern and Eastern Europe.

Facts from Sterns book show us: This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to 15 percent from previous years, to control the number of unfit individuals entering the country. While eugenicists did support the act, the most important backers were union leaders like Samuel Gompers (Stern, 2005).

Assured by the eugenic belief of the racial supremacy of white Americans (Nordic race), this act strengthened existed already laws about prohibiting race-mixing. Eugenic views also lay behind the issue of the adoption of incest laws all over the United States; these were also used in order to authorize most of the anti-miscegenation laws.

Various scholars asserted such immigration restrictions were authorized by the aims of eugenics. Such eugenicists as Harry Laughlin and also Lothrop Stoddard argued that immigrants would contaminate the national gene pool. Alexandra Minna notices in her book that: It has been argued that this stirred both Canada and the United States into passing laws creating a hierarchy of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable Anglo-Saxon and Nordic peoples to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely banned from entering the country (Stern, 2005).

We can say that before the Nazis death camps during the period of World War II, nobody took seriously the possibility that eugenics could cause genocide.

Nowadays the situation seems better, but there are still some states where a blood test is required before marriage. Such tests are usually restricted to the revelation of sexually transferred diseases Syphilis, but some partners may voluntarily test for genetic incompatibilities.

The 1986s and the 1992s Harris polls showed that the majority of the public goes for restricted forms of germ-line intervention, especially with the aim of preventing fatal genetic diseases inherited by children.

Conclusion

In 1971 The International Association for Voluntary Sterilization, generally called AVS, suggested to politicians and authorities that the special organization  Office for Equal Opportunity may pay for the voluntary process of sterilization of Americans with low income in order to improve birth control.

AVS organization also suggested their solutions on the International communitys issue. This initiative led to a certain foreign policy of the United States: funding from the Americans Agency for International Development to stimulate developing countries, generally called Third World, to use abortion and sterilization with the purpose of better control on their population growth.

Works Cited

Stern, Alexandra Minna. Eugenic Nation. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2005.

Pulido, Laura. Black, Brown Yellow and Left. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006.

Sir Francis Galton, a renowned British scientist, made a considerable contribution to the multiple branches of science. While some of his works still serve as a basis for contemporary science, like in the field of statistics, he is most often credited for laying out the basis of eugenics  a discipline that aims at improving the qualities of humanity using artificial selection. While some of his core implications are debatable or disproven today, the methods he developed to aid the research process are recognized as valid in the fields of contemporary meteorology, historiometry, behavioral genetics, and statistics.

After reading On the Origin of Species, Galton was fascinated with the implications of the selection process (Hunt, 2007). Thus, Galton focused his studies on the hereditary nature of traits in human beings. This has subsequently led to the creation of the eugenics  a discipline that focused on the improvement of the human qualities by applying the breeding techniques the humanity had already been familiar with.

However, unlike animal breeding, which focused largely on the physical characteristics which could be industrially and commercially valuable, Galton was primarily interested in the intellectual properties and their inheritance. He decided to start the research by reviewing the existing information by applying the statistical analysis to the data he could obtain by assessing what he termed eminent individuals  people with extraordinary abilities or recognized achievements in the society of the time.

Essentially, he formed the basis of historiometry  statistical study of the historical data. His findings showed that the number of eminent individuals was the highest among the close relatives and gradually decreased from there. Galton interpreted it as a proof of his hypothesis that intelligence and talent were inherent (his conclusion was later criticized, primarily for the flawed sampling methods, now known as the Galtons problem).

At the time, Galtons findings became a turning point in nature versus nurture debate. His interpretation meant that any social status was primarily of genetic origin, which contrasted the predominant opinion that society was largely responsible for the outcome (Goldhaber, 2012). Thus, the results acquired by Galton supported the nature side of the debate.

In his paper, Hereditary Talent and Character, Galton proposed a concept of a society where the government would encourage marriages that were beneficial to the creation of the highly intelligent offspring by monetary incentives (Galton, 1865). The benefit of marriage in such a society could be calculated based on the public examination which would presumably include the assessment of achievements as well as physical traits.

Despite the appealing idea of creating a better society, Galtons concept is flawed. First, selective breeding poses the same dangers as the interbreeding: the lack of biodiversity, which results in poor health of the offspring (Garland-Thomson, 2015). While this can be circumvented by careful planning, an even larger obstacle is the measurement of the prerequisites required for selection. While the physical traits that are key factors in animal breeding are easily measured and analyzed, the same cannot be said about human intelligence, let alone the value to society or eminence, which is highly subjective.

To sum up, Galtons findings and core theories of inherent intelligence and eminence are largely outdated today. At the same time, the methods he used to support his research, as well as some intermediary conclusions made in the process, have shaped some of the modern sciences and remain influential to this time.

References

Hunt, M. (2007). The story of psychology. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Galton, F. (1865). Hereditary talent and character. Web.

Garland-Thomson, R. (2015). Human biodiversity conservation: a consensual ethical principle. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15(6), 13-15.

Goldhaber, D. (2012). The nature-nurture debates: bridging the gap. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

The debate of nature vs. nurture is a centuries long discussion splitting psychologist’s perspectives on human behavior and traits. The nature position of the debate focuses on how DNA and genotype influence behavior and personality. It is essentially hard-wired into your being. On the other hand, nurture leans toward outside influences and interactions shaping your mind. Nurture is founded on the belief that your mind is a blank slate, or a “tabula rasa.” Some psychologists believe in both sides, saying we can be born with traits specific to us, while also acquiring new ones from our environment. Extensive research has been done on this topic with case studies of identical twins and families. Despite efforts and multiple approaches to the matter, there is no one conclusion. If both sides of the argument prove to be intertwined, does one prove to be more influential than the other? “Researchers determined that the average variation for human traits and disease is 49% due to genetic factors and 51% due to environmental factors (Tan).”

The origins of nature vs. nurture came about in ancient Greece. The philosopher, Plato, favored nature, spawning the nativist view claiming that our knowledge was given to us at birth. Contrasting his views, Aristotle created the empiricist view. This side argued that our knowledge was endowed to us through our experiences. The phrase “nature versus nurture” was later coined by Francis Galton in 1874 when he published English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture. He wanted to understand the origins of human traits. Galton thought knowing these traits could help to benefit other people. He respectively coined the term “eugenics” which aimed to increase the likelihood of positive traits and decrease the likelihood of negative traits. His cousin, Charles Darwin, also believed in eugenics, publishing On the Origin of Species (1859). They both believed that nature triumphed over nurture in the sense that they thought they could influence individuals with better characteristics to breed with each other to create better people. Galton introduced the concept of twin studies, due to his interest in natural selecting through breeding. This played a pivotal role in nature vs. nurture as a whole. A twin study occurs when you survey a pair of twins that were separated and raised apart from each other. Their traits get compared with each other to test the genetic similarities.

Nature and nurture debates have made substantial progress to science, causing scientists to approach different ways of thinking. Nature falls on the biological side along with psychoanalysis, and would be considered a strict nativist approach. Nurture would be on the humanism and behaviorism side, becoming radical empiricists. Nativism focuses on characteristics being genetically inherited. Psychologists in child development today have used the research from nature and nurture to conclude whether children will develop their traits or are born with them.

There has been the discovery of gene expression, which is the process of how gene sequences create structures, proteins, and other molecules. Using gene expression, scientists are able to distinguish between what traits are inherited to a person, aiding the side of nature. They were able to pinpoint how mental and physical disorders were passed down to offspring. Using biopsychology, researchers are gathering data on how neurotransmitters affect behavior. Despite that, nurture’s argument was backed when it was discovered that certain genes can be activated by the environment you live in and interactions you are faced with. This introduces the concept of epigenetics, which correlates the environment with expression of genes. It is the study of changes in gene expression without the changing of the DNA sequence. Changing in gene expression can be accounted for by numerous aspects including lifestyle, the environment, and age. This disproved that an individual’s genetic sequence completely defined their traits. For example, if you were to have diabetes run in your family, you would be susceptible to that disease as well. If you took the correct care of your body, you would have a lesser chance of expressing that gene in the future. This was a breakthrough for the scientific community, giving rise once more to the empiricist view.

Looking back to twin studies, researcher Beben Benyamin has worked with others to put together a collection of data on nature vs. nurture. “The risk for eating disorders was found to be 40% genetic and 60% environmental, whereas the risk for mental and behavioural disorders due to use of alcohol was 41% genetic and 59% environmental…The risk for bipolar disorder was found to be 68% due to genetics and only 32% due to environmental factors. Weight maintenance was 63% due to genetics and 37% due to environmental factors (Tan).” This showcases how in some aspects environmental influence overtook genetics, and vice versa. Nature versus nurture in regards to mental health is also something developmental psychologists look at. Factors like parenting styles and social interaction play a big role in the probability of mental disorders, though genetics determine the likeliness of receiving that illness. When there is the possibility of contracting a mental disorder, being exposed to nurturing behavior may help the condition develop with less severity. Social Psychologists look into how social media and the effects of peer pressure in society influence behaviors. For example, neurologist James Fallon uncovered he had the brain of a psychopath, but he believed that since he had a positive upbringing, he didn’t allow that gene to fully express itself. Benyamin claimed that social attitudes and behaviors were more influenced by the environment, but aspects like skeletal and psychiatric traits were more genetically inherited.

The Bobo Doll experiment, led by Albert Bandera, was conducted to test whether observation and imitation aided the development of social behaviors. 36 boys and 36 girls between the ages of 3 and 6 were tested for this experiment. The children were pre-tested for aggression and put into groups with similar aggressive levels. The experiment was modeled so there were three rooms of 24 children. The kids in each room were exposed to different scenarios. The children in the first room were exposed to adults playing with a toy, or “Bobo Doll,” in an aggressive way, while another room had adults play with the toy in a civilized manner. The third room had the children be exposed to no adults. The children exposed to aggression reacted more violently than the kids who were not. The female children were more likely to physically respond to male models and verbally respond to female models. The male children were more likely to copy the male models than female models, but the female children did not have a preference. Conclusively, the results agreed with Badura’s behaviorist social learning theory. This theory uses the ideas of conditioning to state that, “…social behavior such as aggression through the process of observational learning (McLeod).”

To apply the theory of nature vs. nurture, there have been numerous case studies over the years, mostly with identical and fraternal twins. Francis Galton himself conducted studies on twins. He published his findings in his paper, ”The History of Twins, As a Criterion of the Relative Powers of Nature and Nurture.” Galton, being a strong nativist, aimed to prove the biological advantage over the environment. He stated that twins should inherit “similar traits from their parents.” Part of his procedure was to see if twins that were similar as children grew to be dissimilar as adults, or if the opposite occurred. He concluded that if the twins were of different genders or fraternal, they were more likely to differ from each other. Out of 35 pairs, he concluded 16 were closely similar, and 19 were very alike. The differences he experienced were within their personalities. A majority of his data resulted in sets of twins having similar height, weight, eye, and hair color. Galton came to two final observations that ended his study. Those being, if twins are similar in childhood and grow up in different environments, they will still be similar as adults, and if twins that were not alike as children and raised in similar environments, they will not be similar as adults. Galton used his study to back up that nature had more of an effect than nurture.

A further case study involved a pair of identical trains that were raised apart from each other at birth. Their names were Jim Lewis and Jim Springer. Once they met at age 39, they discovered that they both were nail biters, had tension headaches, and even drove the same variety of car. This pair of twins was involved in a group of studies ranging from 1979 to 1999. These proved that genetics had an influence on personality. “Environment affected personality when twins were raised apart, but not when they were raised together (Lewis).” Also, it was proven that identical twins have similar postures, while fraternal twins do not. Twins separated at birth and reunited reportedly felt 80% closer to each other than currently family or friends. This is inciting that they had a genetic link inspiring their relationship. A future study found that levels of happiness had a 50% genetic influence. This relates back to Benyamin’s work stating social behaviors were influenced more by the environment. Influence by environment or genetics varies from study to study.

This final case study in regards to congenital amusia, or tone deafness, in a pair of fraternal twins. Both of them were 27 year old females. They were exposed to music from a very young age, and both of them had normal hearing. One of the twins was diagnosed with congenital amusia, meaning she had an irregular pitch and rhythm perception. The twin who was not diagnosed did better with musical and language tasks, while the diagnosed twin did better with visual tasks. Both of the twins had a low scoring pitch memory span and beat perception. If they both had musical history and high intelligence, then why were they scoring low in these tests? In the end this study opened more questions on the topic of tone deafness, as well as nature and nurture. While one twin had the disease, the other did not. This called for a more in depth analysis of people with congenital amusia to see what genes cause only one twin to be affected. This study was the first to report on fraternal twins under these circumstances, and performing tests on more like this could produce the biological answers to these questions.

I feel like nature vs. nurture plays a big role in my life, as it does with everyone’s. Starting with nature, I feel as if I get my general temperament from both my mother and father. We tend to be easy going until we get provoked. My father also struggled from anger issues, which I may have also inherited. We are similar when we get aggravated and how we go about it. Genetically, I did inherit my mother’s height, but not her hair or eye color. I possibly also inherited her intelligence, which could be mistaken for work drive. My brother, on the other hand, most likely got handed down my father’s drive for success. They are not the type of people who do well in school. My mother and father both had more of an addictive personality. They struggled with smoking and alcoholism. We don’t share those same addictions, but I find that I also have a habitual personality. I tend to stray from those substances to prevent that gene from expressing itself. Research backs the statement that reoccuring alcoholism in families may change the way alcohol affects the body.

My siblings and I are all relatively short, which was inherited from my mother. My brother and sister have similar hair and eye colors to my mother, leaving me the odd one out of the gene pool. I have noticed my sister is nothing like my parents temperament-wise, unlike my brother and I. My sister is very carefree, while my brother and I are on the anxious side. The three of us all have a similar sense of humor, raising the question of whether that is because of our bonds or genetics. With our use of social media, we are subjected to similar types of content online. We easily could not agree with each other at all, but due to certain circumstances, all three of us are alike. We have been around each other for our entire lives, so are our behavioral similarities because of our nature or nurture? I believe this would fall under nurture due to the studies showing social media’s influence over society.

Moving on to nurture, I feel like I am personally shaped by friends and surroundings more than genetics. Although, I feel like I inherited a general temperament from my parents, I think outside influences altered that. Due to my upbringing, I feel I am more pessimistic on certain subjects than I should be. As a child, being put down may increase the likelihood of being rude to others. Despite growing up in an aggressive household, I had school to teach me the life lesson of “treat others how you would like to be treated.” I did not turn out to be a bully, but extremely shy with slight social anxiety. This is comparable to the James Fallon case mentioned above. Parenting styles and reinforcement played a big part of the anxiety I feel today. I try to do my best in educational situations to avoid disappointment from other adults. I feel like my friends supported me with this issue, and aided me in not turning out like my parents. Surrounding myself with different groups of people over the years has helped to show me who I would like to be. Having positive outside influences helped to alter my base temperament.

Going back to my mother, I was under the influence of her political views for my early teen years. I took both sides and based them off of her descriptions. As I got older, I started using social media. I saw the views of the public and started to understand more about politics. I understood enough to know I did not agree with my mother’s perceptions anymore. I think social media does influence social traits and behaviors in the newer generations due to the fact people rely on technology nowadays. I also also take into account the type of person I am hearing political banter from. If the person I am speaking with is saying negative things, I question the genuity of their outlooks. Nurture has guided me to be more accepting and understanding of the people around me, despite the upbringing I may have had.

Conclusively, there are plenty of factors that back both the nativist and empiricist approaches on nature vs. nurture. Due to the theory’s history dating back to ancient Greece, there is no lack of scientific research to back it. Psychologists have looked through all of the approaches on the matter ranging from psychoanalysis to behaviorism. This is a debate that may never be fully tackled by researchers. Developmentalists of modern times now believe that one side does not take full charge, but both are working respectively with one another. The question is now “how much” of each side is working side by side. Someone may be influenced more by genetics than environment or vice versa, no one person is the same. Genetic studies cannot confirm that heritability is the sole reason for traits and behaviors. Gene expression and eugenics take nurture into account when regarding social behavior and the possibility of contracting mental or physical diseases. Though, numerous case studies on twins back nature with hereditary characteristics. Psychologists now need to work on how the nativist and empiricist views intertwine instead of how they surpass one another. Psychopathology, or abnormal psychology, studies abnormal cognitions and behavior, leaving people to be “atypical” compared to the rest of society. Using this approach, nature and nurture are both seen to be needed to trigger the development of a mental disorder. Both sides play a major role in shaping how people are. To cease the centuries old debate of either “nature or nurture,” psychologists now have to elaborate on the concept of “nature and nurture.”

Scientifically, the genetic constitution of a person authenticates his/her personal trait or character. Similarly, the characteristics of a domestic animal are crucial in the agricultural sector. Genetic experts work tirelessly to produce animals with high milk content, wool, or quality meat among others.

Consequently, the society coined the term eugenic, which means selective reproduction of desired traits in a person. Categorically, positive eugenic is the promotion or retention of hereditary characteristics, which everybody yearns for, while negative eugenics call for the abolishment of people with unwanted traits.

The practice of eugenics produces a quality, intelligent, and healthy population even in the agricultural sector. Most professionals like sociologist, physicians, economists, and demographic experts advocate for eugenics. However, what is the moral and ethical implication of the practice? The following discussion expounds the two classes of eugenics highlighting their effects to the society.

According to the advocates of the positive eugenics, eugenic retains good heritable traits in the human species by encouraging reproduction among groups (Curell and Cogdell 203).

Encouraging positive eugenic was to make sure that, only physically, mentally, and psychologically fit people intermarried. Consequently, there was an assumption that the offspring would have the parental traits (hereditary). An example of positive eugenics is whereby only men and women with distinct, attractive features like hair and eyes have the right to reproduce.

Unfortunately, the people with the so-called desirable traits may have recessive genes, which become dominant later in their lineage. According to Watson, mapping a human genome is not an easy task as the society thinks (202). Mutations and environment are some of the aspects, which may alter a desired gene. Therefore, a critical assessment of personal genes and family history or hereditary traits is the main process of promoting a healthy population.

The major aim of positive eugenics was to increase the size of a quality population or the human race. The use of sophisticated reproduction measures makes sure only couples with specific traits breed. Inspiration talks, voluntary measures, campaigns, and shows to display the desired human traits are some of the methods applied to promote positive eugenics.

On the other hand, there are restrictions, reproduction rights against couples who have physical disabilities like dwarfism, and health defects like sickle cell (Dikotter “Imperfect Conceptions” 200). In addition, social traits like homosexuality, criminals, and rapist have to become extinct. The most debatable issue in positive eugenic is about racial discrimination whereby Romans and Jews had to stop reproduction.

However, although abolition of diseases through eugenic seems sensible, discriminating of physically disabled people is against humanity. Some of the physical disabilities occur because of environment and not genetics; therefore, the disabilities may recur in healthy people. Secondly, the need to extinguish given races promotes racism, which is a vice the world is fighting to abolish.

On the contrary, negative eugenic is to deter reproduction among people who are unfit. Eventually, through selective breeding the human race would consist of people with quality characters. Health wise, negative eugenics is supposedly right. Nevertheless, discriminating physically challenged and races is unsocial and unethical (Dikotter “The Discourse of Race” 50).

Traditionally, negative eugenic has been in practice for a long time. Parents had to watch and select spouses for their children while young men and women aspiring to marry shunned their counterparts with any form of disabilities. Sometimes infants with genetic disabilities either were outcasts or killed to prevent the continuation of a lineage with ‘bad genes’.

The process of negative eugenic can also be through carrying out abortions on the victims supposedly having deleterious genes, or application of sterilization techniques to deter them from reproducing. Restriction of incest relationships or marriages makes sure that a family with genetic problems becomes extinct. Hybrid populations or relationships produce quality and healthy off springs.

Socially, eugenic promotes superiority of one race or a group of people over the others (Henslin 200). Negative eugenic leads to intimidation of people especially the handicapped or the sick ones. Although economics assert that positive eugenic saves medical and social expenses in the community, denying people their reproduction is morally wrong.

Sincerely, how will a person, an institution, or government rule out that a given person, race, or trait is better in relation to the other? Psychological trauma is among the major impact an individual experiencing negative eugenic will undergo. Morally, it is against humanity because nobody wishes to be born with or from a family with hereditary defect. Furthermore, negative eugenic does not efficiently watch or lower the level of recessive genes. Thus, the process is slower at eliminating them.

In the contemporary world, medical experts promote positive eugenics from the lab. Advanced technologies in the medical industries and other sectors related to it, have enhanced positive application of eugenics to cut down on the level of human population genetic defects without violating the rights of the people involved.

For instance, the unborn child can undergo screening whereby any physical defect detected may prompt for an abortion. Terminating the fetus ensures no children with genetic defects are born. Secondly, physicians can screen couples through laboratory testing for many hereditary conditions and so, they will assure them if the child will be healthy or not. Thirdly, medical experts rely on eugenics to balance gender in countries like China where men are higher as compared to women.

Fourthly, surrogacy is a common practice in the current society. However, before the implantation in the uterus both the donor’s sperms and the surrogate mother undergo analysis of any inheritable trait that might affect the health of the child. Diseases like colonic cancer, breast cancer, Alzheimer, are inheritable. Therefore, donor sperms with the least of negative traits cut the risk of the child suffering from any of the aforementioned diseases.

On the other hand, ethicists and eugenicist oppose the application of eugenic in the elimination of the human race because it is against civil or human rights. Morally, eugenics leads to inequality whereby couples choose the gender and trait of their children. There is no society, which can produce perfect people.

Socially, a balanced community consists of people with all way of traits including the physical presentation. Government or an institutional coercing person to alter their reproduction health for a perfect population is demeaning. Sadly, the coerced people are not part of the perfect human race, yet they contribute to its establishment. Occasionally, couples with inheritable conditions may produce a healthy child while the vice versa is true.

Nature and environment profoundly contribute to the behavior and physical well-being of a person. Therefore, a perfect population free of crimes, diseases and other appropriate social elements can never exist. Social stigma may occur among people who the government perceives as having the undesired traits. The major result of perceiving a specified trait as superior is the adjustment of the medical sector to correct the so-called ‘defects’.

The breasts, buttocks, hips, and nose are some of the physical parts, which push people to undergo cosmetic surgery. Unfortunately, the pursuit of perfection leads to not only deformation but also to death of some of the people who happen to go for the surgeries. If the society would appreciate every physical feature as unique, then we would not have the above problems.

In brief, except in a few cases like the application of eugenics to eliminate a specific social group, eugenicist had devoted intention in promoting the practice. The aspect of eliminating a population with genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis was to make sure the population consists only of healthy people. The practice was exemplary in terms of economy and health sector because it decreases cases of health problems and saves the taxpayer from funding the research on how to cure diseases.

Positive eugenic promotes pride, and superiority, of the advantaged people, over the disadvantaged group. Ethically, the alteration of reproduction health of the people who have physical defects or those who are lesbians, homosexuals, or gypsies is against their human rights. Morally, the coercion of people to adopt certain human traits as better than others is wrong.

Historically, Hitler is the renowned leader who advocated for eugenics among his subjects. Contemporarily, medical experts practice eugenics either knowingly or unknowingly. Medical practices like ultrasound make sure that the child in the womb has no physical disabilities, while women who undergo sperm implantation need a donor who is free from any genetic disorders.

Works Cited

Curell, Susan, and Cogdell, Christina. Popular Eugenics: National Efficiency and American Mass Culture in the 1930s. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2006.

Dikotter, Frank. Imperfect Conceptions: Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects, and Eugenics in China. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

Dikotter, Frank. The Discourse of Race in Modern China. London: Stanford University Press, 1992.

Henslin, James. Sociology: A Down-To-Earth Approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2009.

Watson, James. A Passion for DNA: Genes, Genomes, and Society. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2000.

In sociology, a bio-social environment can largely benefit from the applied science of eugenics. In other words, eugenics supports the study of modifying or boosting the genetic make-up of any sample of a population.

In most cases, the human population is the major target in the application of eugenics practices. It is also imperative to mention that eugenics is a broad social philosophy that attempts to improve the productivity and genetic wellbeing of certain individuals, while lowering the productivity of some individuals by modifying their genetic make-up.

It is definite that eugenics has been a subject of great discourse and controversy since the time it was developed and adopted. During the first few decades of the 20^th century, eugenics had attained high popularity especially in the western world. It had been recognized as a formidable social movement. For instance, institutions, influential individuals as well governments were already propagating and advocating the practice of eugenics before the mid 20^th century.

Although the identification and understanding of certain features and compositions of genes have been facilitated in the study of genetics, there are still no definite and approved scientific methods that can be used to evaluate traits that may finally be useful. However, eugenics has been moderately applied in boosting body defense against diseases such as Cholera and Malaria.

In terms of genetic diversity, it is worth to mention that policies that promote eugenics are likely to interfere with the natural diversity of genes among various populations. There is a wide pool of scientific evidences which have demonstrated that vulnerability towards certain ailments could be rife especially among populations with modified genes.

For instance, individuals whose genes have been incapacitated find it difficult to adapt effectively against prevailing environmental conditions. Needless to say, when undesired genes are eliminated in the process of eugenics, the diversity of genes portfolio is equally reduced leading to unbalanced population in terms of various personalities needed to supplement society.

Individuals and corporate bodies who support the practice of eugenics argue that the process of eliminating genes may not necessarily impact a population negatively because it as slow program that can be reversed whenever undesired consequences are noted.

They also reiterate that when a particular program on eugenics is adopted, any unwanted consequences can be noted in advance and therefore controlled accordingly. Additionally, they observe that in case of any significant reduction in gene diversity, then it will take remarkably long period of time with negligible effects. Therefore, there is no cause for alarm over the practice of eugenics.

The autism rights’ movements have also entangled themselves in the controversies surrounding eugenics. When genes are predisposed among individual with autism, it is definite that the rate of autism can be reduced.

However, autistic movements argue that there is no need of lowering the rate of autism using eugenics because it is an integral component of brain diversity. On the same note, the Down syndrome’s advocacy groups also purport that the latter condition is part and parcel of neurodiversity that should not be interfered with at all.

Finally, it is vital to mention the relevance of heterozygous recessive traits in relation to the practice of eugenics. There are scenarios when it is practically impossible to eliminate single-gene mutations. It is against this backdrop that genes with heterozygous recessive traits may be difficult to eradicate due to myriads of carriers that are attached to them. Therefore, eugenics is a scientific attempt in gene mutation that has not achieved complete success.

In the age where scientific breakthroughs and development are achieved, scientists have devised some ways in which selective breeding is used in plants and animals to improve the chance of survival of species. Of course, they did not throw away the idea of applying the same process of improving humans and eliminate undesirable characteristics in them. British biologist Francis Galton (1822–1911) coined the word “eugenics” in 1883, though the underlying ideas could be found in earlier works of Plato, the Greek term literally meant “good in birth”. Because of these new scientific methods, eugenics has given room for the advancement of racism and other types of social divisions like class systems. Galton believed that marital unions between people of what he regarded as “excellent genetic stock” could be expected to produce offspring with the same or similar qualities (Last, 2007). However, the eugenics movement was frowned upon by many people because it was used by the Nazi regime in Germany, as it pushed to improve human race by eliminating the people they despised – the Jews (anti-Semitism). Thus, eugenics and racism are linked by the fact that every person will have their own rights and it is prone to be abused by people who want to dominate the weak.

As a cousin of Charles Darwin who introduced to the world the theory of evolution, Galton incorporated Darwin’s idea of survival of the fittest into his notion of eugenics. The goal of eugenics was the improvement of the human species through the careful selection of parents. Galton identified two primary processes to achieve this end. Positive eugenics encouraged individuals who were above average both mentally and physically to produce more offspring. Negative eugenics proposed that individuals who were below average should have fewer or no children. This second proposal could be achieved through institutional segregation, marriage restrictions, or sterilization (Berson & Cruz, 2001, p. 300). His exact words for these processes were eugenics’ first objective is “to check the birth-rate of the unfit … the second object is the improvement of the race by furthering the productivity of the fit.” Galton used the word race in its nineteenth-century sense to designate the population of the nation state and not in the broader twentieth-century sense. Galton seems to have believed that the reason why it would be desirable to improve the genetic quality of a nation’s population is that this determines the quality of its civilization and the economic and military strength of the nation. Lynn (2004) writes that:

In his book Hereditary Genius (1869), Galton proposed that the population of classical Athens had the highest intelligence of any human population and that this was responsible for the high level of civilization. He also contended that when the intelligence and the moral character of a society deteriorate through dysgenic fertility, the quality of its civilization declines. He cited the decline of Spain in the seventeenth century as an instance in which the deterioration of intelligence, which he attributed to the extensive celibate priesthood, had been responsible for national decline in the quality of civilization and of economic and military power…. [In this case,] Eugenics, in Galton’s view, is primarily concerned with promoting the good of the population, not that of the individual. This idea that the well-being of the population is more important than that of individuals fell increasingly into disfavor in the second half of the twentieth century and is one of the major reasons that eugenics became almost universally rejected.

Since racism is a form of prejudice based on perceived physical differences and usually refers to unfavourable or hostile attitudes toward people perceived to belong to another race, eugenics would definitely fall in this category because racism usually results in a belief in the superiority of one’s own race. The trigger of prejudice and racism is the “human tendency to form stereotypes, generalized beliefs that associate whole groups of people with particular traits”. Racial stereotypes are “exaggerated or oversimplified” descriptions of any person’s “appearance, personality, and behaviour” (Cavalli-Sforza, 2005).

Actually, Galton and his cohorts were well intentioned and progressive in their idea of suggesting eugenics because they were just concerned with bettering humanity. After all, this was during the Progressive Era, characterized as a time of hope and reform. Gerald Grob (1991) pointed out that eugenics advocates were acting on behalf of a noble cause that would benefit humanity. They believed that medical and scientific knowledge, combined with a new technology, had reached a point in time in which the eradication of inherited defects was possible.

With all that intention, eugenics was welcomed in the United States. As Rosen (2004) writes:

Beginning in the early years of the twentieth century and spanning the decades of the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s, eugenicists in the United States called for programs to control human reproduction. They urged legislatures to pass laws to segregate the so-called feebleminded into state colonies, where they would live out their lives in celibacy; they supported compulsory state sterilization laws aimed at men and women whose “germplasm” threatened the eugenic vitality of the nation; they led the drive to restrict immigration from countries whose citizens might pollute the American melting pot. Their science filtered into popular culture through eugenics advice books and child-rearing manuals, eugenics novels, plays, and films, and scores of magazine and newspaper articles.

With the growing presence and perceived virility of African Americans, immigrants in the early 1900s, and the working class—as well as the increasing visibility of working-class “women adrift, this threatened white middle-class male authority in both power and numbers, proponents of eugenics in the United States targeted a factor in middle-class decline: the limited fecundity of this new woman. As Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed in the 1900s, white middle-class womanhood had willfully abandoned its fertility. The white birthrate was rapidly declining: whereas the average American family of 1840 had produced six children that of 1900 generated only three children. Roosevelt propelled sociologist Edward Ross’s term race suicide into the public arena. In a 1901 address, “The Causes of Race Superiority,” Ross warned that the advancement and progress of the “superior race” could lead to its demise; manhood had become over civilized, decadent, and impotent. However, Roosevelt, significantly, placed the blame on white womanhood. Women of “good stock” who chose not to have children, he declared, were “race criminals” (Paul, 1995, p. 102).

Yet, the shocking turnout the eugenics movement was that in 1902, when an Indiana physician named Dr. Harry Sharp urged passage of mandatory sterilization laws that would require all men in prisons, reformatories, and paupers’ houses to be sterilized. Before any such law was passed permitting it, he had involuntarily sterilized more than five hundred men. Following Dr. Sharp’s lead, in 1907 Indiana became the first state to pass a eugenics-based sterilization law. By 1912, eight states had sterilization laws. Eventually nearly thirty states followed suit (Paul, 1995, p. 81-82).

In the course of the rise and fall of eugenics, we can see that there are obvious problems with it. The first is that there is more at stake in creating a superior human than in creating a superior species of vegetable. Vegetables do not have rights but humans do, and these human rights are possessed by all persons because they are human; human rights do not cease to exist if an individual is “imperfect” in one or more ways. At its core, eugenics tends to cancel out the right of the less than perfect individual to existence and this type of presumptive arrogance is inherently immoral and racist. A second harmful outcome of eugenics could be that through screening programs privileged groups might act on their prejudices against, for example, Black people being linked with criminality. Since being Black is neither a crime nor a defect, it would be a grave injustice for advocates of eugenics to try to eliminate such classes of people from the human gene pool. Another possible harm of eugenics is that those who promote it do so at the expense of the harmony of the human community. This community, as we know it, is made up of people of all kinds, some more gifted than others, some more troubled than others. The solidarity and prosperity of the human community depend on cooperation and respect among all members, not on a screening policy, like eugenics, through which some members lose their right to membership based on the values and biases of those in influential positions. The biggest problem with eugenics is probably the fact that, even if the program were embraced and employed, it would not be possible to carry it out. Humans are the most complex of all the species and, even with carefully orchestrated breeding programs, individuals with physical, mental, social, or psychological limitations would still be born.

Works Cited

1. Berson, Michael J., and Barbara Cruz. “Eugenics Past and Present.” Social Education 65.5 (2001): 300.
2. Grob, Gerald. Introduction, in the Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States, ed. Phillip R. Reilly, Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.
3. Last, John M. Eugenics. A Dictionary of Public Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
4. Lynn, Richard. Eugenics: A Reassessment. Ed. Seymour W. Itzkoff. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001.
5. Paul, Diane B. Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1995.
6. Rosen, Christine. Preaching Eugenics Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Comparison

One of the more interesting comparative traits between the article “Modernism and Eugenics” and that of the book “The Sun Always Rises” is in the portrayal of discrimination based on societal belief and specific traits rather than any actual adverse attribute about an individual (i.e. being an adulterer, womanizer, murderer, criminal etc.).

This was seen in case of the character Robert Cohn who was discriminated against by other members of the group on the basis of him being a Jew (Neilson, 1-4). As seen within the novel, there are numerous anti-Semite remarks made by Mike and Jake on numerous occasions with Cohn often being marked as “different” due to his religion, social practices and beliefs.

From a certain perspective, it can be stated that by being “different” Cohn within the novel was immediately marked as object of vilification and, as a result, in shunned and considered unattractive (Neilson, 1-4). On way of explaining such an attitude can be seen within the article “Modernism and Eugenics” wherein the concept of difference is often utilized as the basis behind discrimination.

Based on the article, it can be seen that eugenics is not only an argument for the development of a healthier and more psychologically sound society, rather, it is also a means by which a certain degree of uniformity is put into place. This means that instead of a diverse population within a society, what is advocated for is instead only one type of population that is deemed as the most “ideal” in terms of health and psychological soundness while at the same time possessing features that are considered appealing and attractive.

Such a perspective thus creates the notion of “superior and inferior stock” based on the racial origins of a particular individual, yet it must be questioned as to how did the early Eugenicists actually come up with such a level of distinction when essentially all people are biologically the same?

A true argument for eugenics would not discriminate against race, religion or culture but would instead focus primarily on removing attributes which were deemed as “detrimental” to the health and wellness of future generations. Instead, it can clearly be seen within the article that the article take on a particularly racist perspective wherein Eugenicists promote the continuation of “superior” races while those belonging to “inferior” classes should practice abstinence and die out.

The origins behind this particular viewpoint can be seen within the novel wherein the treat of Cohn is based on the concept of Mike, Jake and Campbell wherein they view Cohn as the “the other”, meaning that their derogative comments are based on their view of Cohen as an individual that they do not consider part of their “group” (Neilson, 1-4). One way of explaining such an attitude towards Cohen is through the concept of humanocentric speciesism.

Based on the work of O’Sullivan (2012), humanocentric speciesism can be considered a pervasive yet subconscious attitude among many societies wherein they view their own culture, group, and race as being superior to that of other groups (O’Sullivan, 32). While not outright stated, it is evidenced in both the article “Modernism and Eugenics” and the book “The Sun Always Rises” that humanocentric speciesism plays a role in not only the discrimination against Cohn but also in the way in which eugenics in justified.

What must be understood is that both the article and the book deal with the concept of biased perceptions when it comes to the treatment of others wherein those who are part of a racially “acceptable” stock are treated with respect and dignity while all others are treated with disdain and disgust. Thus, when looking at both the book and the article it can be seen that some aspects of their individual facets mirror each other when viewed under the lens of humanocentric speciesism.

Contrast

When it comes to contrasting elements within the book and the article, one of the most obvious is the difference in opinion involving women and sexuality and the necessity of procreation as the foundation of a relationship. Within the article, radical sexual behavior among women is actually frowned upon and thought of as a characteristic that should be removed from society.

The novel however paints a slightly different story wherein the character of Jake falls in love with Lady Brett Ashley as a direct result of her attitude and general sensuality that creates a significant degree of attraction (Adair, 114-118). Brett actually represents a form of sexual freedom among women during the 1920s wherein women found themselves enjoying romances, divorces and various trysts that used to be exclusive domains of the men (Adair, 114-118).

The article “Modernism and Eugenics” on the other hand espouses a completely different view when it comes to such aspects wherein women are expected to accord themselves with a certain prim and properness and only enter into relations with individuals that are of the right “genetic stock” Brett seemingly sleeps with and attracts a wide assortment of men heedless of repercussions and, as such, shows a distinct contrast from the ideas shown within the article.

It should also be noted that another of the contrasting aspects between the article and the novel is the view that love and sexual relationships can occur without the concept of procreation being included in the picture.

What you have to understand is that the article implies that in order for a man and a woman to enter into a long term sexual relationship procreation should be a factor in that they should be able to produce children in line with the eugenic policies that are being advocated by its proponents.

In the case of Brett and Jake, there is no prospect for the creation of children since Jake is impotent yet they still enter into a sexual relationship anyway based on what is perceived as emotion and lust.

This is actually one of the main contrasts between the article and the novel since relationships within the article are apparently fueled through an unemotional scientific perspective while in the novel relationships occur on a spur of the moment and are often entered into not through their need to procreate but rather their impression that they want to simply be together.

Conclusion

Overall, it can be seen that the similar elements within the novel and the article deal mostly with racism and humanocentric speciesism wherein it was shown that by the mere reason a particular group is considered “different, they are immediately excluded and thought of as vile. On the other end of the spectrum are the contrasts between the novel and the article wherein relationships are viewed not under the lens of procreation but more along the lines of lust and emotion.

Works Cited

Adair, William. “Ernest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises: The Novel As Gossip.” Hemingway Review 31.2 (2012): 114-118. Literary Reference Center. Web.

Neilson, Keith. “The Sun Also Rises.” Masterplots, Fourth Edition (2010): 1-4. Literary Reference Center. Web.

O’Sullivan, John. “Racism, Racism Everywhere!.” National Review 64.18 (2012): 32. MasterFILE Premier. Web.

Introduction

The problem of eugenics is very important in the context of modern studies, I would like to discuss it refer to such books as Alexandra Minna Stern’s “Eugenic Nation” and Laura Pulido’s “Black, Brown Yellow and Left”.

If we are talking about eugenics within the United States during 1890 – 1945, then we need to say that one of the well-known modern inventors of eugenics was Alexander Graham Bell. He studied the grade of deafness on Martha’s Vineyard from Massachusetts.

Main body

According to Alexandra Minna: “From this he concluded that deafness was hereditary in nature and, through noting that congenitally deaf parents were more likely to produce deaf children, tentatively suggested that couples where both were deaf should not marry, in his lecture Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human race presented to the National Academy of Sciences on 13 November 1883” (Stern, 2005).

Another author, Pulido, mentions these: “However, it was his hobby of livestock breeding which led to his appointment to biologist David Starr Jordan’s Committee on Eugenics, under the auspices of the American Breeders Association. The committee unequivocally extended the principle to man” (Pulido, 2006).

So we can say that Bell suggested controlling immigration for the aim of eugenics; he admonished that boarding schools for deaf people may be considered as places of a certain deaf human race.

Another scientist who supported eugenics was Woodrow Wilson. According to Stern’s book: “In 1907 he helped to make Indiana the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals; although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927” (Stern, 2005). Many states established laws about marriage with certain eugenic criteria. Such scientists as Davenport and Laughlin were great promoters of eugenics.

During the 20th century, scientists were involved in the research connected with the idea stated that mental illness could influence and run in families. A lot of studies were made on such illnesses as depression, bipolar disorder, and also schizophrenia. Results of such research were used by the movement of eugenics as evidence for its cause. State laws prohibited the marriage of the mentally ill and forced them, motivated these as a means of preventing the “passing on” of mental disease to next generations.

It is written in Pulido’s book: “These laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 and were not abolished until the mid-20th century. By 1945 over 45,000 mentally ill individuals in the United States had been forcibly sterilized. All in all, 60 000 Americans suffered from sterilization” (Pulido, 2006).

We can read such information from Minna’s book: “In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the “unfit”. (Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.)” (Stern, 2005).

Nowadays we can state that such methodology was really flawed, but at the time it was considered lawful scientific research. Scientists were focused on the idea of a hierarchy of the human characteristic, but not on the idea of eugenics itself.

Some states did the sterilization of “imbeciles” for a large part of the 20t century. State authorities were able to sterilize those they considered “unfit”. We can find very interesting information in Stern’s book that says: “The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963. A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450 000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration” (Stern, 2005).

If we regard William Graham Sumner’s idea of “genius” and “talent”, then we need to say that its key points stated that if governments of the state would not interfere in the laissez-faire policy of the social order, then those considered as defective ones: mentally retarded and handicapped people, would have a negative influence on the progress of the society because they would drain off certain resources needed for the life of “genius” and “talent” people.

This situation was mentioned in Pulido’s book: “They should be left on their own to sink or swim. But those in the class of delinquent (criminals, deviants, etc.) should be eliminated from society” (Pulido, 2006).

If we are talking about such scientists as Du Bois and Marcus Garvey, then we need to say that they greatly supported ideas of resembling eugenics with the aim to lessen African American suffering. However, ideas of eugenics were used to outline white racial purity; state “anti-miscegenation” laws banned marriage between different races. We can read such information in Pulido’s book: “The most famous example of the influence of eugenics and its emphasis on strict racial segregation on such “anti-miscegenation” legislation was Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this law in 1967 in Loving, Virginia, and declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional” (Pulido, 2006).

If we regard the Immigration Act of 1924 with the respect to our issue, then we need to mention that eugenicists made a great influence on Congress in the question of the threat of certain “inferior stock” from the regions of Southern and Eastern Europe.

Facts from Sterns’ book show us: “This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to 15 percent from previous years, to control the number of “unfit” individuals entering the country. While eugenicists did support the act, the most important backers were union leaders like Samuel Gompers” (Stern, 2005).

Assured by the eugenic belief of the racial supremacy of white Americans (“Nordic race”), this act strengthened existed already laws about prohibiting race-mixing. Eugenic views also lay behind the issue of the adoption of incest laws all over the United States; these were also used in order to authorize most of the anti-miscegenation laws.

Various scholars asserted such immigration restrictions were authorized by the aims of eugenics. Such eugenicists as Harry Laughlin and also Lothrop Stoddard argued that immigrants would “contaminate” the national gene pool. Alexandra Minna notices in her book that: “It has been argued that this stirred both Canada and the United States into passing laws creating a hierarchy of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable Anglo-Saxon and Nordic peoples to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely banned from entering the country” (Stern, 2005).

We can say that before the Nazi’s “death camps” during the period of World War II, nobody took seriously the possibility that eugenics could cause genocide.

Nowadays the situation seems better, but there are still some states where a blood test is required before marriage. Such tests are usually restricted to the revelation of sexually transferred diseases Syphilis, but some partners may voluntarily test for genetic incompatibilities.

The 1986’s and the 1992’s Harris polls showed that the majority of the public goes for restricted forms of germ-line intervention, especially with the aim of preventing fatal genetic diseases inherited by children.

Conclusion

In 1971 The International Association for Voluntary Sterilization, generally called AVS, suggested to politicians and authorities that the special organization – Office for Equal Opportunity may pay for the voluntary process of sterilization of Americans with low income in order to improve birth control.

AVS organization also suggested their solutions on the International community’s issue. This initiative led to a certain foreign policy of the United States: funding from the American’s Agency for International Development to stimulate developing countries, generally called “Third World”, to use abortion and sterilization with the purpose of better control on their population growth.

Works Cited

Stern, Alexandra Minna. Eugenic Nation. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2005.

Pulido, Laura. Black, Brown Yellow and Left. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006.

Eugenics is the process or means of race improvement through the restriction of mating within superior organisms. On the other hand, genetic engineering is the biotechnological alteration of an organism’s hereditary constitution. Eugenics was a widely applied scientific field in the United States during the 20th century, especially before the beginning of the First World War. When comparing the application of eugenics with modern genetic engineering, it is evident that nothing much has changed over the years. The main idea in genetic engineering is to manipulate the genetic make-up of human beings in order to shackle their inferior traits.

This same eugenics program can be likened to the modern practice of genetic engineering. Modern genetic engineering is an updated version of the eugenics’ program of the twentieth century. Products of genetic engineering (also referred to as genetically modified organisms- GMO’s), endeavor to achieve the same goals as the twentieth-century eugenics’ program. This paper explores the reasons why there are striking similarities between past eugenics programs and modern genetic modification.

Both eugenics and genetic engineering processes are designed to act as birth control mechanisms by doing away with some traits within the population. At one point, both eugenics and genetic engineering processes were used as mainstream birth control methods. In the nineteenth century, activists, socialites, and women’s rights leaders were very vocal in lobbying for eugenics as a method of controlling unwanted births. According to these groups, some births would only lead to disadvantageous qualities of life or to the birth of ‘unfit’ persons, whose traits were considered bad.

This improvement goal was accomplished using the most reasonable resolution at that time, and this action was to sterilize individuals who were considered hazardous when it came to reproduction. Some of the people who were considered unfit for reproduction included those who had mental health conditions. This led to mass-induced or willing sterilizations all over the United States. Moreover, in genetic modification, parents can eliminate some of their negative traits from their genes in order to give birth to a ‘perfect child.’ Nowadays, it is biotechnologically possible to bear a child who has specific genetic characteristics.

In recent years, the aspect of genetic engineering has led to the dissolution of the marriage institution because it enables the siring of offspring even in the absence of one gender. This process has detrimental effects upon genetically engineered children because although they might be considered hereditarily fit, they lack an important aspect of life. The breakdown in social structure as a result of genetically engineered technology was witnessed in the twentieth century when eugenics was on the rise. The need to get rid of unwanted aspects of society meant that some individuals were deliberately exempted from starting families of their own.

In the same manner, any time a person opts for genetically engineered reproduction, it means that this process is substituted for human effort. Even after years of genome ‘perfection’, some individuals are still considered as burdens by their societies. In both reproduction processes, the individuals who opt for these technologies do so solely due to the fact that in their own considerations, other people have become troublesome and unfit. The concept of socially independent reproduction is replicated in both eugenics and genetic engineering.

Some methods of genome modification are, by definition, brutal and obnoxious. Forced sterilization, which is still in practice today (albeit in the form of genetic rejection), is harmful to the body. The processes of both eugenics and genetic engineering are a clear indication of the infringement of human rights that occurs in full glare of the authorities and the society under the guise of ensuring better future-generations. Rejecting the hereditary qualities of some people translates into blatant disregard of the sanctity and the uniqueness of these individuals. Genetic engineering, on its part, is aimed at ‘eliminating’ certain traits in society.

However, traits are important aspects of every individual in society. For instance, genetic engineering that favors babies with blue eyes or those without an obesity gene is a veiled rejection of obese individuals and those with brown eyes. In the twentieth century, individuals with physical deformities were convinced that they were not fit for reproduction owing to their physical attributes. Today, individuals with weight problems have also been convinced that their physical attributes are a burden to society. Consequently, these individuals willfully seek the services of genetic engineers who can correct this ‘anomaly.’

The general idea in genetic modification is to do away with the essence of medical partitioning. Medics believe in the manipulation of any health or genetic condition. Elimination of affected persons would mean that medics have no power over genetic conditions, and the only possible way of helping affected persons is by eradicating them or curbing their reproduction. This practice is unacceptable in a society where morals are upheld, and medical science is at an advanced stage.