Eugenics refers to the belief in improving the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding, sterilization, or other forms of reproductive control. It was promoted as a scientific theory and was heavily supported by many prominent scientists and politicians, who believed that it could help solve social problems such as poverty, crime, and disease.
The idea of eugenics gained popularity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a supposed means of improving the genetic stock of the human race. Eugenicists believed that certain traits, such as intelligence, physical strength, and moral character, were inherited and could be improved through selective breeding. They also believed that certain groups of people, such as those with mental or physical disabilities, were genetically inferior and should be prevented from reproducing. The implementation of eugenic policies has been responsible for numerous human rights abuses, including forced sterilizations, mass killings, and discrimination against certain groups of people. Eugenics led to the forced sterilization of thousands of people in countries such as the United States and Canada, and was used as a rationale for discriminatory immigration policies.
There are ongoing debates about the ethical implications of genetic engineering and genetic manipulation, which have the potential to be used in ways that resemble eugenic policies. It is important to be aware of these debates and to approach these technologies with caution and a critical eye. Today, the concept of eugenics is widely rejected and considered morally and ethically unacceptable. However, its legacy continues to impact the ways in which we think about genetics, race, and human identity.
History of Eugenics
General Overview:
Most people’s introduction to and knowledge of eugenics comes from the example of Nazi Germany. There is the widespread belief that the actions of the Third Reich coerced the German people into the genocide of unworthy peoples through the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler. However not only did Germany have a long standing history of pent up antisemitism but it was the rhetoric and legislation in Great Britain and The United States that allowed Germany to act on their discrimination.
There are two schools of thought when it comes to eugenics. There is positive eugenics which is used to “improve the fertility of some” and negative eugenics which is implemented to prevent the fertility or procreation of certain groups (Zehra, Explanation and Interpretation). Greek philosopher Plato is believed to be the first to publicize the idea of eugenics but the term “eugenics” was not used until Sir Francis Galton, a British academic, used it in his book Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development in 1883.
The idea of eugenics can be said to have begun with the noblest of intentions; strengthening and protecting the fertility of the nation and future generations. However, this power can so easily be twisted into atrocities committed by nations that are seen as major pillars of freedom and power in the world today. It is important to understand that eugenics in Germany was not a vacuum created by a deranged political leader but a long standing tradition of hate that was given life through the actions and ideals of America and Great Britain.
Introduction:
The rhetoric of eugenics in Britain was mainly centered around class rather than race. The movement wanted to eliminate or at the least decrease the lower class population. However, the classist ideologies were twisted and blurred to justify race as part of the equation. By promoting that certain races made up the majority of the undesirable class, it allowed for race to become part of the conversation (Caleb, The Rhetorical Biopower). The success of eugenics anywhere relies on the authority of science in that place. When science that has high authority and is widely respected begins asserting the science of eugenics; that justifies racial and social cleansing in the eyes of the populace (Caleb, The Rhetorical Biopower). When the idea of eugenics takes hold in a country like Britain who has a high scientific authority, it allows the government to control and regulate individual people under the guise of strengthening the nation. The government then has a right to “the act of classifying bodies in order to justify managing bodies”; this idea is carried out through rhetoric (Caleb, The Rhetorical Biopower). The language used to assert control of bodies is centered around “difference, authority, and national interests” which allows for eugenics to take hold in society (Caleb, The Rhetorical Biopower). For Britain the rhetoric was centered around science because that was what would allow the idea to take hold, since many British people highly valued and trusted science.
Eugenics in Britain:
A piece of rhetoric employed by the British which was adopted by the Nazis was the idea of usefulness. The idea was that people who were working and actively contributed to society had more of a right to life and procreation than those who were not. Usefulness was also tied to class and it was asserted that the middle class is the most desirable because they do the most work and contribute the most to the country. The upper class was useful in the sense that it gave an ideal for the middle class to look up to and therefore work harder (Caleb, The Rhetorical Biopower). Nazi Germany also favored a working middle class, yet another connection between the British Rhetoric and the Nazi legislation. This rhetoric “reinforced the existing prejudice against the lower classes” which in turn again justified eugenics against that class and the races that aligned with those ideas (Caleb, The Rhetorical Biopower). The British rhetoric “provided a foundation for the Eugenics Education Society (EES)” which was established in 1907 (Caleb, The Rhetorical Biopower). In this foundation it was believed that the lower class had the highest reproductive rate and was simultaneously the least useful and most degenerate of people. Their notions were asserted through scientific claims which allowed them to acquire control over their bodies and reproduction. Race was also part of what made certain groups of people part of the useless and degenerate lower class. Great Britain never made any legislation regarding eugenics but the rhetorical power of eugenics was very great within the country. Nazi Germany took British rhetoric and actually took action on it. Which is what allowed them to be so efficient and prolific, and also allowed the German people to turn a blind eye to the killing of millions.
Introduction:
In America, eugenics made its debut in marriage laws which forbade the mentally ill from entering marriage. In the U.S. there was also the formation of the Eugenics Record Office who traced the genetics of the American people to see if they were fit to marry and have children. This allowed eugenics to take hold as positive science for the betterment of America instead of as the racist and classist program that it really was. America was also a large proponent in forced sterilization of the mentally ill and criminals and laws were passed in many states to allow this to happen. The acts of the American government were openly praised and adopted by Nazi Germany and were publicly and widely used in the U.S. until it entered World War II as an allied nation.
Eugenics in America:
While we can see that the British rhetoric had a large influence on the Nazi eugenics program, America has an arguably larger influence. American and German eugenicists were in direct contact with each other and praised the work of one another. During the First International Eugenics Congress of 1912 Americans and Germans came together, along with many other European countries to discuss eugenics (Williamson, Trans-Atlantic Connection). German eugenicist Alfred Ploetz praised how eugenics research was funded and sponsored in America as well as the laws prohibiting immigration and the marriage between immigrants and non immigrants as well as the sterilization laws that were passed in 14 states (Williamson, Trans-Atlantic Connection). Geza von Hoffman was a German writer who was able to spend some time in California in 1909, allowing for Germany to learn a great deal about the sanitization laws happening there at the time. Stated in Trans-Atlantic Connection: The Link Between American and Nazi Eugenics by Shaun Williamson: “California became the third state in America to enact a mandatory sterilization law. California had by far the most forced sterilizations in the country, and by 1921 accounted for 80% of all mandatory sterilization in America” (Williamson, Trans-Atlantic Connection). This connection between California and Germany through Hoffmann allowed Germany to see how things were being done in America and bring back their methods to be implemented in Germany. In America the eugenics movement was situated around ideas of “statesmanship” rather than a science focused approach like Britain (Williamson, Trans-Atlantic Connection). Which allowed for the legislation to pass quicker. Leader of the Munich chapter of the German Society for Race Hygiene, Fritz Lenz, stated that there were major similarities in the American and German eugenics programs except for that difference in legislation (Williamson, Trans-Atlantic Connection). That statesmanship approach would not have had as much of an effect in Germany as they were more disposed to the high authority of science to justify the racial culling of undesirable people. The legislation in America provided a template for Germany, the Nazi government highly respected and looked up to the movement in America and were not shy about that fact. There is a mountain of written praise back and forth between the countries as well as American companies like Rockerfeller sending millions of dollars to German eugenics efforts (Williamson, Trans-Atlantic Connection).
Zyklon B
It is also noted that the tactics used for eugenics in America were also adopted by the Germans, particularly the use of Zyklon B. Zyklon B is a pesticide that was used in America to delouse Mexans who were coming across the border (Williamson, Trans-Atlantic Connection). There is an active component in Zyklon B called hydrochloric acid gas which is highly poisonous and very effective at killing and maiming those who were exposed to it. Gerhard Peters, a German doctor, was the first to suggest that the pesticide be used and researched in Germany alongside the delousing chambers that were employed in America. Degesch was one of the German firms in which Zyklon B was patented and manufactured (Williamson, Trans-Atlantic Connection). The president of Degesch was none other than Gerhard Peters, who: “was tried, convicted and sentenced to five years in jail during the Nuremberg trials for his role in the production of Zyklon B” (Williamson, Trans-Atlantic Connection). The use of gas and chambers to exterminate ‘pests’ is the most well known aspect of the Nazi Eugenics program as seen in the concentration camps of Auschwitz and Dachau in particular.
Introduction:
The acts of the American government were openly praised and adopted by Nazi Germany and were publicly and widely used in the U.S. until it entered World War II as an allied nation. Hitler begins his tirade against Jews, the Romani people, the disabled, and the feeble minded in his Book Mein Kampf. This led to “the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring which resulted in thousands of forced sterilizations”(Akgoz, History of Eugenics). Here you can see the similarities between the American and German actions towards eugenics. As most of us know Hilter gradually increased the intensity of his cleansing of the German populace through mass murder and genocide, by which millions were killed.
Germany's History of Anti-Semitism:
Germany’s journey to social cleansing did not begin with Hitler’s ideologies. Germany has a deep history of discrimination against the Jewish populace. It is first and foremost prevalent in Martin Luther’s The Jews & their Lies where he is quoted:
“Be on your guard against the Jews, nothing is found but a
den of devils, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat
no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not
stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury, eject
them forever from this country, set fire to their synagogues or schools,
their houses also be razed and destroyed, safe conduct on the highways
be abolished” (Letsinger, The Nazi Genocide)
Here we can see an eerie similarity in Luther’s call to action to the actions of the Nazi government, even though there is a 900 year difference between the two instances. So we can see that antisemitism is a deep seated part of German society. These discriminatory sentiments were pushed to the point of legislative cleansing due to the aftermath of World War I. There was a widespread belief that the vast majority of the best of men were lost due to the war (Letsinger, The Nazi Genocide). Those that were left were those who were not fit to fight, and so were seen as inferior. These inferior men were allowed to breed after the war, leaving Germany with the idea that the offspring of the weak men were also weak and inferior (Letsinger, The Nazi Genocide). There was a great fear “that their society would suffer from a ‘dumbing down’ of their gene pool” which made many Germans worried (Letsinger, The Nazi Genocide). Through the creation of the German League for National Regeneration and Heredity, the average German could now assert that their beliefs against weak and undesirable offspring was not only a social idea but one now proven by scientists. Racial laws against perceived inferior groups of people took hold more than 40 years before the Third Reich came to power, and as the country grew in their nationalistic ideals, so too did their eugenic and hereditary ideals (Letsinger, The Nazi Genocide). This proves that Germany began their eugenics journey long before any coercion by Hitler. The antisemitism we see in Germany too was a long standing tradition in German society as seen in the Martin Luther quote above. This asserts the idea that the extermination of Jewish people from German society was not due to a poor society and economy; but racist ideals alone that were justified and allowed to propagate under the guise of economic and social strife (Letsinger, The Nazi Genocide).
Nazi Legislation:
The pent up ideologies that passed through generations of Germans eventually lead to the legislation that was adopted by the Nazi government. This legislation began with the Nuremberg Laws which asserted racial same and forbade Aryans, the ideal race for the German people, and non Aryans from marrying or having any sexual relations (Letsinger, The Nazi Genocide). Other people who were targeted included: “criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble minded, homosexual, idle, insane, and the weak” and so were deemed unworthy of life or creating life (Letsinger, The Nazi Genocide). Action T4 was a plan of action to euthanize and or sterilize the undesirable people and is quoted as:
“Reich Leader Büler and Dr. med. Brandt are charged with
The responsibility of enlarging the competence of certain physicians,
designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human
judgment, are considered incurable, can be granted mercy
death after a discerning diagnosis” (Letsinger, The Nazi Genocide).
This allowed for the extermination of a calculated 70,273 people who were deemed incurable or undesirable in mental hospitals across Germany and Austria (Letsinger, The Nazi Genocide). Thousands of children were also killed for being “identified as defective” before and during World War II. “Defective” children were those with learning disabilities and autism. These legislative actions are the cornerstone of eugenics in action but are not the whole picture. One has to understand that the actions of Germany were inspired by the rhetoric of Great Britain and the similar legislation in the U.S. before the war.
Attribution is in the public domain, CC0
The United States’ history with eugenics still has its effects on society today. A clear example of this is how people with mental health issues and intellectual disabilities are still not understood by many today. This is largely due to the widespread institutionalization that occurred during the late 18th and well into the 19th century. One of the sole purposes of these facilities was to isolate patients from mainstream society, rather than work to improve their lives. The isolation of people with intellectual disabilities and mental health issues has led to a large misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about their conditions and created stigmas against them. Initially, medical professionals used terms to label patients such as “feebleminded”, “moron”, and “mentally retarded”. These terms were neutral when created, however, they quickly became used as insults after entering the public language.
Race science is another thing that perpetuates eugenics and is still in effect today. Race science, also known as scientific racism, is the belief that uses distorted scientific evidence to support the idea that certain races are superior to others. While the most extreme forms of eugenics have fallen out of favor, the legacy of this belief system continues to perpetuate through race science. One of the ways in which race science perpetuates eugenics is by promoting the idea that genetic differences between races are responsible for differences in intelligence, behavior, and other traits. While having some mainstream supporters such as James Watson, one of the scientists credited with the discovery of the structure of DNA believed that white people were inherently smarter than black people and that female scientists couldn’t be as effective as men. This concept has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community, which recognizes that race is a social construct rather than a biological reality. Despite this, proponents of race science continue to push the idea that certain races are inherently more intelligent or better suited to certain tasks than others. This not only reinforces harmful stereotypes but also provides a justification for discriminatory policies and practices. Another way in which race science perpetuates eugenics is by promoting the idea that certain races are genetically predisposed to health problems or other negative outcomes. This belief has been used to justify everything from forced sterilization to medical experimentation on minority populations. In reality, however, the vast majority of health disparities can be attributed to social and economic factors such as poverty, discrimination, and limited access to healthcare. By promoting the idea that these disparities are the result of genetic inferiority, race science perpetuates harmful and unjust policies that only serve to further marginalize vulnerable populations. In conclusion, race science is a dangerous and pseudoscientific belief system that perpetuates the harmful legacy of eugenics. By promoting the idea that certain races are genetically superior or inferior, it provides a justification for discriminatory policies and practices that harm marginalized populations. It is important that we recognize the true nature of race as a social construct and work to dismantle the systems of oppression that continue to perpetuate the harmful legacy of eugenics.
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Eugenics has a large presence in science today. This problem has both physical and mental impacts on society. There is a popular misconception that eugenics in science is a thing of the past, but there are many examples that prove that this is a current-day issue as well. The problems of genetic counseling, teaching evolution in schools, and even animal breeding all show that this is a real, modern problem.
Eugenics has been discussed alongside genetic counseling over the last few years. While it is debated whether or not this practice is currently a form of eugenics, many experts worry about its future impacts on society. In its current form, genetic counseling is medical testing that is done to determine the likelihood of a person's child to inherit a genetic condition or disease. It can also be done to determine if a fetus will be born with a genetic condition. With science and research rapidly advancing, experts worry that this could evolve into creating something called “Designer Babies.” This term refers to a fetus that has been genetically altered to whatever the parents would like. While this may sound appealing to some, these alterations would have huge future consequences. Genetic alterations impact every cell in the child's body, which would in turn impact that child's future offspring and so on. If this process was done only to eliminate potential genetic diseases, the implications would be positive. But many experts worry that companies may offer these services to parents so that they can select specific physical attributes for their child. In a hypothetical situation, if a large group of parents decided to alter their child's genes to have blond hair, then it may be possible that other hair colors will be eliminated out of the population in the future. While the example of hair color doesn't seem like it would be harmful, it could have very negative effects. In today's society, many people view Eurocentric features as the ideal standard of beauty. This is shown in many ways, such as the lack of racial diversity in the modeling industry, through social media, and even in which plastic surgeries are the most popular. These Eurocentric beauty standards have been shown to negatively impact people of color's perception of their own features and appearances. It is a worry that people would specifically try to eliminate ethnic features, which would perpetuate racism against people of color. If this trend of designer babies became the norm, there is a fear that it would turn to a form of eugenics by eliminating ethnic traits.
While it is less common today, there has always been a problem with teaching evolution in schools. The theory of evolution was created by Charles Darwin in 1859. While this scientific theory is considered fact by nearly all, many extremist Christian groups believe that this theory directly opposes their beliefs. Because of their extreme beliefs, many people have tried to ban the teaching of evolution in school systems. In a way, these groups were trying to eliminate the ideas of evolution all together, which in a way could be considered a form of eugenics. If this way of teaching continues, experts worry that many children will not be taught about evolution and could fall behind in their schooling.
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
Genna Rauccio: Criminal Justice Major, 2025
Phoebe Strudwick: History Major, 2025
Sam Wittwer: Psychology Major, 2025
Emily Eichner: Graphic Design Major, 2025
Akgoz, Riza. “(DOC) History of Eugenics | Riza Akgoz - Academia.Edu.” Academia.Edu - Share Research, https://www.academia.edu/42299476/History_of_Eugenics. Accessed 30 Mar. 2023.
Caleb, Amanda M. “The Rhetorical Biopower of Eugenics: Understanding the Influence of British Eugenics on the Nazi Program.” Conatus, no. 2, National Documentation Centre (EKT), Dec. 2019, p. 149. Crossref, doi:10.12681/cjp.21200.
Letsinger, Michael. “The Nazi Genocide: Eugenics, Ideology, and Implementation.” Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works, School of Graduate Studies East Tennessee Sate University , May 2015.
Williamson, Shaun. “Trans-Atlantic Connection: The Link Between American and Nazi Eugenics.” Mount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review (MRUHR), University of Alberta Libraries, Nov. 2015. Crossref, doi:10.29173/mruhr228.
Zehra, Dilek. “(PDF) Explanation and Interpretation: Disability & Eugenics in the United States | Dilek Zehra - Academia.Edu.” Academia.Edu - Share Research, https://www.academia.edu/25496725/Explanation_and_Interpretation_Disability_and_Eugenics_in_the_United_States. Accessed 30 Mar. 2023.
Dyck, Erika. “The Eugenics Archive.” The Eugenics Archive, https://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/encyclopedia/54823635bf64660000000001. Accessed 30 March 2023.
Howe, SG. “History Of Stigmatizing Names For Intellectual Disabilities Continued.” MentalHelp.net, https://www.mentalhelp.net/intellectual-disabilities/history-of-stigmatizing-names-for-intellectual-disabilities- continued/. Accessed 30 March 2023.
The Dangers of Designer Babies | Fairfaxtimes.com.www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/opinions/the-dangers-of- designer-babies/article_15cd3ae6-2c46-11e7-acdb-dbffb0479893.html.