Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Eugenics in The 20th Century
Eugenics in The 20th Century
Eugenics in The 20th Century
Dawson College
EUGENICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY 2
What role should science have on our civilization when it advances at a faster rate than
our ethical questioning of its potential ramifications? This is constantly a relevant issue to reflect
on, considering our current scientific developments on artificial intelligence and genetics,
because science has been used as an instrument of oppression and violence in the past and such
situations could recur today if we neglect the ethical challenges constantly posed by scientific
innovation. The historical case of oppression that this essay will treat happened during the first
half of the 20th century, wherein various political and scientific entities took part in the eugenics
movement. At its core, the eugenic theory aimed to improve humankind’s genetic composition.
However, this seemingly noble goal was not executed with scientific objectivity and conclusive
research, but rather with bias towards oppressed groups due to their social status, their ethnicity,
their sexual orientation, and their mental state. In the eugenics movement, this institutional
oppression came in the form of forced sterilization, anti-immigration laws, or even involuntary
First of all, the eugenics movement was flawed from the beginning because it was
critical understanding of our reality and tried to solve various complex challenges by
oversimplifying them; nevertheless, during the first half of the 20th century, the movement
managed to be considered as scientifically sound and logical because it was based on Darwinism.
Darwinism was a scientific theory wherein the concept of “survival of the fittest” explained that
plants and animals “[competed] in their struggle for survival” (Lewis, 2016, p. 154). Eugenicists
were inspired by such an idea and were convinced that this theory could be extended to human
societies; The Journal of Psychohistory explains the reasoning behind the creation of eugenics:
EUGENICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY 3
versus 'superiority' and that due to urbanisation people are less able to reproduce,
encouraging the ‘less fit' to breed faster than the 'more fit'. (Lewis, 2016, p. 156)
Although this ideology would stir controversy nowadays due to the concepts of inferiority and
superiority (these concepts are notably a clear example of the dichotomy between the oppressed
and the oppressors in the eugenics movement), the majority of scholars and politicians of the era,
notably in the United-States, agreed with the idea and actively encouraged the movement. In
retrospect, now that we have more extensive knowledge on genetics, many issues with eugenics
can be stated to discredit its scientific accuracy. For instance, we now know that eugenics can
result in a loss of genetic diversity: a study found that “eugenics reduces greatly genetic diversity
of the population, increases the percentage of homozygotes and therefore leads to a population
badly prepared to cope with the next changes of the environment” (Pękalski, 2000). Another
matter that the eugenics movement does not take into account pleiotropy: “a phenomenon in
which one (usually mutant) allele influences two or more apparently unrelated phenotypic traits”
(Malagon & Larsen, 2015). In other words, this genetic phenomenon means that a single gene
can affect two or more characters in a living being. This poses a problem to the measures taken
by Eugenicists, because a genetic characteristic that is considered “bad” could in reality also
have underlying positive effects that are crucial for the natural evolution of humankind;
therefore, applying eugenics to eliminate a pleiotropic gene could have catastrophic effects on
humankind and its germline. Although eugenics is now proven as a pseudoscience, many
oppressors took advantage of this movement to dehumanize the oppressed and justify their
EUGENICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY 4
spiteful actions to the common masses since it was developed in a context where many respected
by subjecting the oppressed to institutional violence. Indeed, the Eugenicists’ actions showed an
evident interest towards promoting the reproduction of majoritarian groups and eradicating any
other community who could be seen as a threat to the majoritarian group. Thus, the already-
existing sociological problems of inequality and oppression that those marginalized groups
experienced were exacerbated by eugenics because the oppressors now possessed a supposed
scientific proof that such individuals were genetically “undesirable”. Now that we know the real
motive for applying eugenic policies, it is important to be aware of the atrocities committed by
the ruling class and reflect on their concrete effect on the oppressed. The following examples
will be limited to the historical context of Canada, the United-States, and Germany; nevertheless,
eugenics was spread around the globe and most “civilized” countries took part in the movement.
Firstly, Canada did participate in eugenics: the country undertook a methodical sterilization of
Indigenous women during the 1970s. In fact, “the federal government’s Indian Health Services
records [suggest] that the Canadian government engaged in coercive sterilizations amounting to a
genocide in the late 1960s and 1970s in the Northwest Territories (NWT)” (Dyck & Lux, 2016,
p. 485). Furthermore, in the United-States, “eighteen states passed laws based on Laughlin’s [an
states” (Ummel, 2016, p. 391). Besides sterilizations, the United-States took a bigger role than
Canada in enforcing eugenic ideologies and policies. In fact, Harvard University had a crucial
role in consolidating eugenic ideas: Harvard University “was more central to American eugenics
than any other university” (Cohen, 2016). Why exactly was Harvard, along with other
EUGENICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY 5
pedagogical environments such as Harvard University were globally respected and they defined
what knowledge would be worthy of being transmitted. Thus, the xenophobic Immigration
Restriction League was essentially born out of Harvard’s pedagogical eugenic ideas. In fact, the
Immigration Restriction League persuaded politicians to establish the Immigration Act of 1924:
After hearing extensive expert testimony about the biological threat posed by immigrants,
Congress imposed harsh national quotas designed to keep Jews, Italians, and Asians out.
When eugenics was solidified as a “legitimate” movement in the United-States, other countries
were inspired by their ideas; indeed, the American Journal of Public Health confirms that “US
eugenics programs served as models for the early eugenic initiatives promulgated in Germany”
(Grodin, Miller, & Kelly, 2018, p. 54). This now brings us to the most horrible example of
(racial hygiene). The Third Reich murdered members of the population that were considered
“unfit” to ultimately achieve a “pure race”. As a matter of fact, the same article reveals that, “to
purify the Aryan German population, 200 000 to 300 000 people were murdered under the guise
of ‘mercy killing’” (Grodin, Miller, & Kelly, 2018, p.54). The intrinsic hatred that the movement
comprised, along with the atrocities that were committed under the pretense that such measures
were necessary to better mankind, makes eugenics one of the most ghastly episodes of scientific
“progress” in history.
EUGENICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY 6
According to the oppressors, the eugenic movement of the 20th century was intended to
optimize our future civilization’s genetic composition. Unfortunately, we tardily realized that
this ideology was scientifically inaccurate due to the long-terms effects on our genetic diversity
and that hundreds of thousands of oppressed people were prejudiced by oppressive policies of
discrimination, sterilization, or even murder. This reality is still important to remember in our
epoch, because we need to be wary of how our current scientific progress could be used for
that makes genetic engineering easier than ever, has ushered a plethora of ethical dilemmas:
should we use this technique for therapeutic and medical needs only? Should we bring back
extinct species? Should we have the possibility to genetically modify our offspring to create
perfect humans?
EUGENICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY 7
References
Cohen, A. S. (2016, April 14). Harvard's Eugenics Era. Retrieved October 7, 2018, from
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/03/harvards-eugenics-era
Dyck, E., & Lux, M. (2016). Population Control in the “Global North”?: Canadas Response to
481-512. doi:10.3138/chr.dyck
Grodin, M. A., Miller, E. L., & Kelly, J. I. (2018). The Nazi Physicians as Leaders in Eugenics
and “Euthanasia”: Lessons for Today. American Journal of Public Health, 108(1), 53-57.
doi:10.2105/ajph.2017.304120
Malagon, N., & Larsen, E. (2015). Heredity and Self-Organization: Partners in the Generation
and Evolution of Phenotypes. International Review of Cell and Molecular Biology, 153-
181. doi:10.1016/bs.ircmb.2014.12.003
Pękalski, A. (2000). Effect of eugenics on the evolution of populations [Abstract]. The European
Ummel, D. (2016). Dream or Nightmare? The Impact of American Eugenics, Past and