Eugenics began with SIr Francis Galton’s assumption that desirable traits could be selected for in humans by selectively breeding the population
The eugenics movement began with a rather muddle-headed scientific study by Sir Francis Galton, cousin to Charles Darwin. In 1859, when Galton was safely back in England, Darwin turned the Western world upside down with his elegant, wonderfully documented theory of evolution. in Origin of Species, the implication was clear: Humans had not been fashioned in one grand stroke by God but rather had evolved over time from lower animals. The agent of change in evolution was a struggle for survival, with the winners of that struggle—the fit—able to pass on their genes. In nature, the unfit were eliminated before they had an opportunity to procreate.
To Galton, this new understanding of human evolution raised an exciting possibility. If humans were not a fixed species, but one that had evolved, future change in the human makeup was not only possible but inevitable. Farmers had already demonstrated that they could breed more desirable plants and domestic animals through careful breeding practices. By applying such practices to humans, he wondered, “could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?”
Even in asking the question, Galton assumed two critical things. The first was that human society could agree on traits that were desirable. The second was an essentialist type notion that such complex traits as intelligence were intrinsic to the person rather than the result of a nurturing environment. This i believe is an example here of how The left hemisphere sees things abstracted, isolated, and stripped of context. If environment—social and educational programs—could turn out accomplished people, then society would be wise to devote its resources to improving such programs in order to improve the “race.” But if intelligence and other “superior” characteristics were simply inborn, then a nation could, at least in theory, improve itself by breeding for such characteristics, much as a line of pigs might be bred for its tendency to put on weight quickly.
In 1869, Galton published a scientific work, Hereditary Genius, in which he concluded that it was nature, rather than nurture, that made the superior man. Galton had tracked familial relations among nearly 1,000 prominent English leaders—judges, statesmen, bankers, writers, scientists, artists, and so forth—and found that this top class came from a small, select group of people. Many were closely related. A poor person who looked at Galton’s data might have decided that his study simply revealed the obvious—that in class-conscious England, privilege begat success, but genetic theories of medical or mental conditions can enable people or society to absolve themselves from responsibility. Galton’s own life exemplified this. He had been able to make his mark as an explorer, and subsequently as a scientist, because of the wealth he had inherited. But to Galton, the data provided proof that intelligence was inherited and that a small group of successful English families enjoyed the benefits of a superior germ plasm.
References
- Whitaker, Robert. (2002). Mad in America Chapter 3. UNFIT TO BREED (p. 70). New York, NY: Basic Books.