This article, written by Laura L. Lovett of the University
of California Press, is about the eugenics contests held in the 1920s, staged
at agriculture fairs (such as the Iowa state fair). By appealing to farmers,
they introduced human as “livestock.” They encouraged farm families to
reimagine their family history completely reshaped as a result of scientific
analysis. It was called “The Fitter Family Contest” and it was designed to fuse
rural nostalgia with the contemporary scientific control. They judged entire
families, not just their children, in order to determine the quality of their
pedigree.
Flourence Sherbon studied nursing in Iowa and became a part
of the Children’s Bureau in 1915, which was structured to examine the health of
newborn babies. Her mission was to reduce infant mortality rate by improving
the health of the mother and child, by getting rid of midwives and raising
medical standards by making births completely hospital controlled. She began these contests.
The contest entry went as follows: a family made an
appointment, and before entering, watched a puppet show at the “Mendel Theater”
explaining eugenic principles. They’d often use a cage with a black and white
guinea pig, demonstrating dominant and recessive traits. This illustrated what
families should avoid and should strive for. Then following, the family was
checked physically every which way, and took note of their health habits. They
were interviewed about their ancestry.
The prize: the fittest family.
Eugenics honestly sounds like science fiction. In the 1920s,
eugenics wasn’t seen as morally unjust or dehumanifying. In fact, it was a
rather ideal and what was determined as a healthy alternative. It began as a
motivation to create healthier children, and lowering infant mortality rates (Sheppard-Towner
Act: promoting child and maternal health). It yields a larger sense of control of
a child’s hygiene through their life By scientifically controlling someone’s
genetics, families could be made healthier, stronger, smarter, and better. By
running these contests, it would promote the Children’s Bureau indirectly, and appealed
to the increasing popularity of eugenics. It would take longer for criticism to
catch up.
Many of these Eugenics were also animal breeders. Hmmm.
Obviously, it was Hitler and his genocide that reflected the
inhumanity of eugenics. In addition, it denied the individual as a unit, and viewed
people only in reference to their family. This perspective is what shaped Hitler’s
ideal of the Aryans: the blond haired, blue-eyed people. At this point,
eugenics was twisted in a way that truly evil, but also seen for what it really
was.
Keep in mind; this was during a time when the nation was
changing from a largely farm-based society to an industrialized
utopia. There was a certain kind of romanticism about changing human beings to
become longer-lived and more intelligent city-slickers.
But, imagine if the WWII holocaust never happened. Would eugenics
still be as popular as it was back in the 20s and 30s? Would families still be
going to the “Fitter Families” contest, in high hopes to become the healthiest and
strongest unit of people? Could it still be seen as a completely justifiable
motive to make humanity more modernized?
I think these questions are left mostly open-ended. Varying
opinions would suggest two opposing arguments:
First, people would remain deluded, blind of the
psychological unjust of the contests, so long as it remained a positive
experience with a promising outcome of a healthier and stronger family.
Everyone is always looking to improve their personal health as well as their
family health: eliminating bad habits and controlling heart disease. It would be
some kind of Generational Darwinism.
However, the more critical hypothetical is obvious: it’s
morally incorrect. To control everyone’s family heritage, we’d lose our
individuality. That’s the very human condition: to be ourselves.
Article is here.
--Betsy Peterschmidt
No comments:
Post a Comment