Advertisement

Eugenic Scientific Utopias Filled with Socially Engineered Happy Productive People

  • Oksana Yakushko
Chapter

Abstract

Supported by Darwin and developed by leading Western scientists, eugenics or the “science of racial betterment” became the dominant scientific force in the study of human differences, including human emotions. This chapter describes the promotion of eugenics as the path to individual and communal utopian happiness, as well as the development of specific scientific methods used to test human differences and to control emotional expressions. It discusses the significance of the study of brains, genes, intelligence and personality testing in attempts to prove the inferiority of particular groups, as well as the promotion of strategies to socially engineer, and thereby improve, already superior groups. This discussion will highlight key role played by leading American psychologists in the development and promotion of eugenics worldwide.

Keywords

Eugenics Human betterment Intelligence testing Personality testing Genetic differences Animal experiments Scientific racism Scientific sexism Scientific support for oppression 

References

  1. American Breeders Magazine: A Journal of Genetics and Eugenics. (1912). Washington, DC: American Breeders Association.Google Scholar
  2. Bashford, A., & Levine, P. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bergman, J. (2014). The Darwin effect: It’s influence on nazism, eugenics, racism, communism, capitalism & sexism. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  4. Black, E. (2003). War against the weak: Eugenics and America’s campaign to create a master race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.Google Scholar
  5. Bouchard, T. J. (1996). Galton lecture: Behaviour genetic studies of intelligence, yesterday and today: The long journey from plausibility to proof. Journal of Biosocial Science, 28(4), 527–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brigham, C. C. (1923). A study of American intelligence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cogdell, C. (2010). Eugenic design: Streamlining America in the 1930s. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  8. Danieli, Y. (1984). Psychotherapists’ participation in the conspiracy of silence about the Holocaust. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 1(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
  9. Darwin, C. (1888). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darwin, C. (1889). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: Murray.Google Scholar
  11. Davenport, C. B. (1910). Eugenics: The science of human improvement by better breeding. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  12. Davenport, C. B. (1911). Heredity in relation to eugenics. New York: H. Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davenport, C. B. (1913). State laws limiting marriage selection examined in the light of eugenics. Cold Springs, NY: Eugenics Record Office.Google Scholar
  14. Eugenical News. (1916–1922). Monthly publication of the Eugenics Record Office, Cold Springs, NY. Retrieved on February 22, 2018 from https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924063788834.
  15. Evans, W. S. (1931). Organized eugenics. New Haven, CT: American Eugenics Society.Google Scholar
  16. Fisher, R. A. (1924). The elimination of mental defect. Eugenics Review, 16, 114–116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Galton, F. (1865). Hereditary talent and character. Macmillan’s Magazine, 12(157), 318–327.Google Scholar
  18. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. New York, NY: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into the human faculty & its development. London, UK: J. M. Dent.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galton, F. (1904). Eugenics: Its definition, scope, and aims. American Journal of Sociology, 10(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galton, F. (1907). Probability: The foundation of eugenics. London, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gesche, I. E. M. A. (1927). The color preferences of one thousand one hundred and fifty-two Mexican children. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 7(4), 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goddard, H. H. (1911). The elimination of feeble-mindedness. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 37(2), 261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goddard, H. H. (1912). The Kallikak family: A study in the heredity of feeble-mindedness. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goddard, H. H. (1917). Mental tests and the immigrant. Journal of Delinquency, 2, 243–277.Google Scholar
  26. Goddard, H. H. (1919). Psychology of the normal and subnormal. New York: Dodd, Mead.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goddard, H. H. (1948). Our children in the atomic age. Mellott, IN: Hopkins Syndicate.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  29. Gregg, J. E. (1925). The comparison of races. The Scientific Monthly, 20(3), 248–254.Google Scholar
  30. Guthrie, R. V. (2004). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  31. Guyer, M. F. (1916). Being well-born: An introduction to eugenics. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
  32. Hague, W. G. (1913). The eugenic mother and baby: A complete home guide. London, UK: Hague.Google Scholar
  33. Hall, G. S. (1881). Aspects of German culture. Boston: J.R. Osgood.Google Scholar
  34. Hall, G. S. (1903). The white man’s burden versus indigenous development of the lower races. The Journal of Education, 58(4, 1438), 83.Google Scholar
  35. Hall, G. S. (1917a). Jesus, the Christ, in the light of psychology. New York: Doubleday, Page.Google Scholar
  36. Hall, G. S. (1917b). Practical relations between psychology and the war. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1(1), 9–16.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holbrook, M. L. (1897). Homo-culture—Or, The improvement of offspring through wiser generation. London, UK: M. L. Holbrook.Google Scholar
  38. Hollingworth, L. S. (1924). Provisions for intellectually superior children. In M. V. O’Shea (Ed.), The child: His nature and his needs (pp. 277–299). New York, NY: The Children’s Foundation.Google Scholar
  39. Hunter, G. W. (1914). A civic biology: Presented in problems. New York: American Book.Google Scholar
  40. Hunter, W. S., & Sommermier, E. (1922). The relation of degree of Indian blood to score on the Otis Intelligence Test. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2(3), 257–277.Google Scholar
  41. Hurlock, E. B. (1927). Color preferences of white and negro children. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 7(6), 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Huxley, J. S. (1936). Eugenics and society. Eugenics Review, 28(1), 11–31.Google Scholar
  43. Kenealy, A. (1920). Feminism and sex extinction. London, UK: T. Fisher Unwin.Google Scholar
  44. Kozlowski, S. W., Chen, G., & Salas, E. (2017). One hundred years of the Journal of Applied Psychology: Background, evolution, and scientific trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 237–253.Google Scholar
  45. Kuhl, S. (2002). The Nazi connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German national socialism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lippman, W. (1922). The mental age of Americans. New Republic, 32(412–417), 9–11, 213–215, 246–248, 275–277, 297–298, 328–330.Google Scholar
  47. Lombardo, P. A. (Ed.). (2011). A century of eugenics in America: From the Indiana experiment to the human genome era. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lombardo, P. A., & Dorr, G. M. (2006). Eugenics, medical education, and the public health service: Another perspective on the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 80(2), 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McDougall, W. (1914). Psychology in the service of eugenics. The Eugenics Review, 5(4), 295.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. McDougall, W. (1921). National welfare and national decay. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
  51. McGurk, F. C. (1953). On white and negro test performance and socio-economic factors. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(3), 448–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Melendy, M. R. (1914). The science of eugenics and sex life. New York: W. R. Vansant.Google Scholar
  53. Merskin, D. L. (2011). Media, minorities, and meaning: A critical introduction. Philadelphia, PA: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  54. Nearing, S. (1912). The super race: An American problem. New York: B. W. Huebsch.Google Scholar
  55. Pearson, K. (1905). National life from the standpoint of science. London: Adam and Black.Google Scholar
  56. Pearson, K. (1911). The scope and importance to the state of the science of national eugenics. London, UK: Dulau and Company.Google Scholar
  57. Popenoe, P., & Johnson, R. H. (1935). Applied eugenics (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  58. Rushton, J. P., & Ankney, C. D. (2009). Whole brain size and general mental ability: A review. International Journal of Neuroscience, 119(5), 692–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruti, M. (2015). The age of scientific sexism: How evolutionary psychology promotes gender profiling and fans the battle of the sexes. Toronto, ON: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  60. Saleeby, C. W. (1911). Woman and womanhood: A search for principles. New York: Kennerley.Google Scholar
  61. Sanger, M. (1919, February). Birth control and racial betterment. Eugenical News.Google Scholar
  62. Sanger, M. (1921). The eugenic value of birth control propaganda. Birth Control Review, 5(10), 1–10.Google Scholar
  63. Scharlieb, M. M. A. D. B. (1912). Womanhood and race-regeneration. New York, NY: Moffat, Yard.Google Scholar
  64. Schultz, A. H. (1923). Comparison of white and negro fetuses. In C. B. Davenport, H. F. Osborn, C. Wissler, & H. H. Laughlin (Eds.), Scientific papers of the second international congress of eugenics (Vol. 2). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  65. Selden, S. (1999). Inheriting shame: The story of eugenics and racism in America. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  66. Skaggs, E. B. (1930). Studies in attention and emotion. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 10(4), 375–419.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smith, J. D. (1985). Minds made feeble: The myth and legacy of the Kallikaks. Rockville, MD: Aspen.Google Scholar
  68. Stern, A. M. (2015). Eugenic nation: Faults and frontiers of better breeding in modern America. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sunne, D. (1917). A comparative study of white and negro children. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1(1), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. New York: Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thorndike, E. L. (1909). Darwin’s contribution to psychology. University of California Chronicle, 12(1), 65–80.Google Scholar
  72. Tucker, W. H. (1996). The science and politics of racial research. Carbondale, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  73. Walsh, R. T., Teo, T., & Baydala, A. (2014). A critical history and philosophy of psychology: Diversity of context, thought, and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Washburn, M. F. (1923). A questionary study of certain national differences in emotional traits. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 3(6), 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Watson, J. B. (1914). Behavior: An introduction to comparative psychology. New York, NY: H. Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Watson, J. B. (1919). Psychology: From the standpoint of a behaviorist. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wiggam, A. E. (1923). The new decalogue of science. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  78. Yakushko, O. (2018). Modern-day xenophobia: Critical historical and theoretical perspectives on the roots of anti-immigrant prejudice. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  79. Yakushko, O. (2019). Eugenics and its evolution in history of western psychology: A critical archival review. Psychotherapy and Politics International [online].Google Scholar
  80. Yerkes, R. M. (1907). The dancing mouse: A study in animal behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yerkes, R. M. (Ed.). (1920). The new world of science: Its development during the war. New York, NY: Century Company.Google Scholar
  82. Yerkes, R. M. (1923). Eugenic bearing of measurements of intelligence. The Eugenics Review, 14(4), 225–229.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Young, P. C. (1929). Intelligence and suggestibility in whites and negroes. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 9(5), 339–359.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0075409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oksana Yakushko
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical PsychologyPacifica Graduate InstituteCarpinteriaUSA

Personalised recommendations