Eugenics in Britain
Author(s): Donald MacKenzie
Source: Social Studies of Science, Vol. 6, No. 3/4, Special Issue: Aspects of the Sociology of
Science: Papers from a Conference, University of York, UK 16-18 September 1975 (Sep., 1976),
pp. 499-532
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/284693 .
Accessed: 18/12/2013 14:53
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Studies of
Science.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Social Studies of Science, 6 (1976) 499-532
Eugenics in Britain
Donald MacKenzie
The eugenics' movement,which flourishedin Britainaround the early
part of thiscenturyis an importantexampleofthe relationshipbetween
scientific ideas and the interestsand purposes of social groups. The
eugenistspossessed a social theory,and a set of social policies, which
claimed scientificfoundation.Social position,they argued,was largely
the result of individualqualities such as mental ability,predisposition
to sicknessor health,or moraltendency.These qualities were inherited,
and thus a rough equation could be drawnbetweensocial standingand
hereditaryworth.On thisbasis a programmeof social action to improve
the quality of the population was put forward.Centralto thiswas the
alteration of the relativebirth-rate(or survivalrate) of the 'fit' and
'unfit'. Those with good hereditaryqualities should marrywith care
and have large numbers of children (this came to be called positive
eugenics), while those with hereditarydisabilitiesshould be discouraged
fromparenthood (negativeeugenics). The eugenistssupportedschemes
of social reformwhich would, either directlyor indirectly,have this
effect, while condemning policies which appeared to encourage
procreationof the 'unfit'. Thus, they sought to raise the fertilityof
some groups in society (generally those of highersocial status) and
lower that of others(those of lowest status).
Eugenics was backed by argumentsbased on commonsense and
medical knowledge of heredity,Darwinian biology and, increasingly,
specialized scientific research.\ Whilelargelyrelying on pre-existing
Autbor's address: Department of Sociology, Universityof Edinburgh,Adam
FergusonBuilding,40 GeorgeSquare, EdinburghEH8 9JU, Scotland,UK.
499
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
500
Social Studies of Science
ideas of society and human heredity, the eugenists themselves
developed a body of knowledge of direct eugenic relevance.2 Much
of this has become integratedinto modern science. Eugenistsplayed
the crucial role in the development of mathematical statistics in
Britain,throughthe work of Francis Galton, Karl Pearson and their
collaborators,and their ideas informedmuch early work in genetics.
Psychological testing and psychometric theories were developed
primarilyby men with eugenic convictions(Galton, Charles Spearman,
Cyril Burt). Thus, the science of the eugenistsmade a considerable
impact on the scientificand intellectual development of twentiethcentury Britain.3 Further, as I hope to show in futurepapers, the
content of this science (the concepts, theories and methods used)
was in large part determinedby the eugenic purposes for which it was
developed.
Unlike its counterpartin the United States, the eugenicsmovement
in Britainhas receivedlittleattentionfromscholars,withthe exception
of the work of Lyndsay Farrall and, for the later period of the
movement,Lawrence Waterman.4Farrall's comprehensiveand detailed
study has firmlyestablished the essential points of the history of
eugenics in Britain. Accordingly I have drawn on it extensively.
Inevitably, however, Farrall's pioneering work does not fully treat
all aspects of Britisheugenics, and to some of these I address myself
here. In addition, I shall develop a somewhat differentexplanatory
perspective. Unfortunately,Waterman's work was available to me
only after the completion of the original draft of this article.
Happily, however, his more thorough study does not appear to
contradictmy verysketchyanalysisof eugenicsin the 1930s.
A few initial words on the perspectiveof this paper are perhaps
desirable. I shall attempt to explain the rise and decline of eugenics,
some aspects of the content of eugenic ideology, and the differential
appeal of eugenics to the various social classes and occupational
groups in Britain. British society I see as fundamentallydivided
between capitalist and residual aristocraticgroups on the one hand
('the ruling class'), and the manual working class on the other.
However, by the late nineteenth century important intermediary
groups had appeared, notably the new professional occupations
(school-teaching,science and engineering,etc.). Together with the
established professions of the church, the law and medicine, these
formed what is conventionally and usefully referred to as 'the
professional middle class'. Within this group there were, however,
importantdivisions - for example in the nature of the specialized
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
501
knowledge which legitimated the particular professional role. The
church and the legal profession relied on traditional spheres of
knowledge, while many of the newer professions (and increasingly
the older professionof medicine) sought legitimationsin such fields
as naturalscience and empiricalsocial research.5
I shall argue that eugenics should be seen as an ideology of the
professional middle class, and in particular of the 'modern' rather
than the 'traditional' sector. Eugenic ideas were put forwardas a
legitimationof the social position of the professional middle class,
and as an argument for its enhancement. At the same time the
eugenic programmewas seen by its protagonistsas a solution to
the most pressing perceived problems of social control in British
society. It was thus put forward as a strategyfor the rulingclass,
and the plausibilityof eugenics as such a strategyis an important
variable in explaining its rise and decline. Eugenic ideas can be
regarded as a set of tools deployed for social purposes. The ideas
were taken up when thought likely to be useful to their carrier
group, and later, when changed circumstances made them less
appropriate,theywere discarded.
No attempt will be made to compare the eugenic movements
of different societies. The analysis offered is particular to the
British situation; only its general assumptions and perspectives
could be applied in other contexts. British eugenics was unique in
many respects. In particular, it was a class rather than a 'racist'
phenomenon, and unlike its German and United States equivalents
is not to be understood in terms of preoccupation with Jews,
Blacks or immigrants.Doubtless British eugenists, like Britons in
general at this time, held 'racist' views, but these prove largely
incidentalto theireugenicconcerns.
THE BACKGROUND TO EUGENICS
The eugenists did not develop their ideas in an intellectualvacuum.
They were able to draw on pre-existingbeliefs about heredityand
society. They fashioned their theory in accord with their purposes
by taking some of these beliefs, transformingsome of them, and
addingnew elements.
In his biography,Galton describedearly nineteenth-century
beliefs
about heredity as 'lax and contradictory'.6To the extent that this
was so it can be attributedto the largevarietyof social purposeswhich
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
502
Social Studies of Science
such beliefs served. The animal breeder used heredityas a guide in
developing stock; the physician used it as an explanation of disease;
the moralistused it to sanction deviance; the middle class male used it
as an argumentforfemalepassivity.Beforeeugenicstherewas no single
dominant social use to which heredity was put, there was no
generalized controversy about heredity, and thus there was little
pressureto consistencyin the deploymentof ideas. 'Clarification'came
only as a resultof the eugenists'systematicand controversialuse of the
ideas of heredity;pre-eugenicnotions formeda rich,variedand plastic
body of knowledgecapable of easy deploymentin variousdirections.7
Hereditarianbeliefswere invoked in argumentsabout social reform
before eugenics,but the use made of them was frequentlyopposite to
that typical of the eugenics movement.Hereditycould be invokedas a
sanction reinforcingthe case for particular environmentalreforms.
Thus, bad conditions,drunkennessand drug abuse were held to have a
detrimentaleffect on the childrenof the presentgenerationthrough
the inheritanceof acquired characteristics.Environmentalreformsanitary improvements,a curb on the drink trade - would arguably
improve not simply this generation but the next.8 As Rosenberg
points out, Richard Dugdale's famous study of the Jukesfamilywas
not a call for eugenics - as it was later to be interpreted- but for
environmentalreform.Sufficientlyvigorous action in education and
the improvement of conditions, extended over two or three
generations,could stamp out the social evils manifestedby the Jukes
family.9
It is not possible to attribute the change in the social uses of
hereditarianbeliefs in the later nineteenthcenturysimplyto internal
changes within science. Certainly,most Britishbiologists after 1890
did follow August Weismann in his rejection of the view that
acquired characterscould be inherited.And eugenistsdid use this as a
basis for arguingthat only eugenic reformcould have a permanent
effect on the race. However it is clear that Weismannismdid not
cause eugenics.Galton had independentlyrejected the inheritanceof
acquired characters before Weismann's work appeared, probably
because of his eugenic views.10 And the subsequent reception of
Weismann's views in Britain was strongly conditioned by their
1 There had, in fact, been no major
perceived political significance.1
change in the available scientific evidence. Nor did acceptance of
Weismannismcompel or even indicateadvocacy of eguenics.12
Another component in the intellectual background of eugenic
thought was political economy and the image of society it
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
503
developed.1 For all its rejection of Enlightenmentoptimism,of the
of the utilitarians,and of the revolutionary-bourgeois
environmentalism
notion that 'all men are born equal', eugenics retained certain
key elements of classical bourgeois thought. The eugenic view of
society was individualisticand atomistic. The fitnessof a society was
the sum of the fitnesses of the various individuals comprisingit.
Although the eugenists stressed race, their view of race was not a
holisticone. The race was not an unalterableessence, but an historical
population,the sum of its parts.
There was a particularlyclose affinityto the biological variant
of political economy, social Darwinism. The eugenic identification
of social failurewithbiological unfitness,the notion of progresscoming
throughthe eliminationof the unfit,and the biologicalview of society,
are all drawn fromsocial Darwinism.Indeed, Halliday has attemptedto
treat the two movementsas more or less equivalent.14 In thishowever
he is wrong. Earlier social Darwinism(especially Spencer's) held that
the eliminationof the unfitcould be achieved by political inaction. If
the state would stop interferingin the workingof natural laws, all
would be well.' S Eugenics, in contrast,did not trust to laissez-faire.
'What Nature does blindly,slowly, and ruthlessly',wroteGalton, 'man
may do providently,quickly,and kindly'.16
Thus, eugenic thought drew on resources present in the culture
of Victorian Britain. But it combined these in its own characteristic
manner and, in addition, developed patterns of thought of an
entirely novel kind: both general, such as the nature/nurture
distinction, and more specialized, such as the statistical view of
heredity and evolution. We must now consider who developed
and propagatedthisnew and characteristicbody of thought.
THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT
British eugenics can, for our purposes, be said to have begun in
the 1860s with the publication of the firstarticles on the subject
by Galton and Greg. During the 1880s eugenics became a definite
topic of public discussion in books and articles. Between 1900
and 1914 it achieved institutional expression, notably with the
establishment of a Eugenics Laboratory in the University of
London and in 1907 with the foundation of the Eugenics Education
Society (EES). By 1913-14 the EES had over 1,000 members.17
The most straightforward
answer to the question, 'Who were the
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
504
Social Studies of Science
eugenists?', is provided by examining the membershipof the EES
in the key years 1908-14. With the exceptions (notably Karl
Pearson), nearly all known active British eugenists seem to have
been members of the Society. Its membershipand activities have
been documented by Farrall. His investigations lead him to
conclude that:
The leadership of the Eugenics Education Society was dominated by welleducated members of the middle-class professionsof medicine,university
teachingand science . Membershipwas not only drawnalmost exclusively
from the middle classes but also heavily from the intellectual,creativeand
welfare professions.Of those whose professionhas been discovered only
threemilitaryofficersand one businessmanwould be excluded definitelyfrom
thiscategory.18
To the extent that the hypothesis of membershipdrawn virtually
exclusively from the professionalmiddle class is true, it should be
possible to identifyevery memberof the EES by use of the various
biographical dictionaries of the professions (such as the Medical
Directory), in addition to sources such as the DNB and Who's Who.
As a check that this can in fact be done, and that the ratherhigh
proportion of individuals not positively identified by Farrall does
not contradict his conclusion, I examined one group of members:
the 41 elected membersof the Council for 1914 (Vice-Presidentsand
honorary members were omitted). Forty of these were identified
(See Appendix for details) and their occupations were as follows:
Universityteachersand researchers
Doctors1
11
9
9
4
Lawyers
Politicians20
2
Non-academic scientists2 1
2
Writers
2
Headmasters
Clergymen
Other2 2
1
1
8
Total
40
This supports Farrall. It seems safe to conclude that while eugenics
may well have enjoyed support amongst other social groups, the bulk of
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
505
its activists were of the professionalmiddle class. Business and the
hereditary aristocracy(as distinct from ennobled commoners) were
not prominentin support of eugenics, in or out of the Society. Nor
were the working class. It would also seem clear that the eugenists
were not recruitedequally fromall sections of the professionalmiddle
class. The universities,science and medicine are highlyrepresented;
law and the church more sparsely. Finally, it is of interestto note
that women are highlyrepresentedin the EES (forming,for example,
a majorityof its total membersin 1913).23
These conclusions can be given a little more support by identifying
eugenists in the period precedingthe formationof the Society. Those
I have traced were exclusivelyprofessionalmiddle class, and generally
associated with the scientifically-based
professions.24So the general
tenor of the evidence supportsthe associationof eugenicthinkingwith
the professional middle class. However, evidence of this nature is
essentially ambiguous. Might not movements such as spiritualism,
vegetarianism,anti-vivisectionism
or even tariffreformshow a similar
membershippattern? Might these figuresdemonstrateonly differing
class propensitiesto join voluntaryorganizations?While comparative
studies of (say) the membership of the eugenics and spiritualist
movementsare verynecessary,let us approach the question differently.
Let us see whetherthe contentof eugenicthoughtcan be said to reflect
the social base of the eugenicsmovement.Can we imputeeugenicsas an
ideology of the professional middle class? If so, the empirical
association of class and eugenicattitudebecomes of greatersociological
significance.
EUGENICS AS AN IDEOLOGY OF THE
PROFESSIONAL MIDDLE CLASS
Let us begin by examining Francis Galton as the founder of British
eugenics, before turningto the movementas a whole. What was the
relationbetween Galton's eugenicsand his social experience?
By birth, marriage and inclination Galton belonged to the elite
of the Victorian professionalmiddle class. N.G. Annan has called the
group to which Galton belonged 'the intellectual aristocracy'.25
The origins of this group lay in the bourgeoisie. The familiesfrom
which this group came were distinguishedfrom the bulk of the
bourgeoisie by religion (they were Quakers, Unitariansor members
of the Clapham Sect) and by their philanthropic and anti-slavery
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
506
Social Studies of Science
concerns. The children of marriageswithin this group tended to
abandon direct business involvementfor the world of scholarship,
education and the professions. They rapidly rose to dominant
positions in the universities,public schools, science and literature.
Some entered the state bureaucracy, to become 'mandarins' of
the increasinglyprofessionalcivil service. Although links of kinship
and common interestbound them to other sections of the elite of
Victorian Britain, Annan emphasizes that this group maintained a
separate identity.
At least until the end of the nineteenth
century it remained tightly-knit,held together by continuing
intermarriage and by a common commitment to educational
modernization and administrative reform, to the abolition of
religious tests and to the introductionof selection by competitive
examination in the civil service. 'The intellectual aristocracy'
stood for change in Britishsociety, but for change that was gradual
and piecemeal, that would be achieved by argument and
persuasionwithinthe 'corridorsof power'.2 7
Franics Galton could well be taken as an archetype of this
group. He was born into one of the families of the 'intellectual
aristocracy' (the Wedgwood/Darwin/Galton
family) and marriedinto
another (the Butlers).He inheritedfromhis Quaker ancestorssufficient
money never to have to practise a profession for gain (he was
trained in medicine and mathematics),and the two familiesto which
he belonged brought him connections in science, medicine,education
and the church. It seems that direct observation of kinship links
within this professionalelite was the source of his initialhereditarian
convictions.He wrote in his autobiography:
I had been immenselyimpressedby many obvious cases of heredi7 among
the Cambridgemen who were at the Universityabout myown time.2
He did not, however, give any general interpretation to this to begin
with. The spur to such an interpretation was the publication by his
cousin, Charles Darwin, of The Originof Species.29 Fifty years later,
Galton wrote:
The publication in 1859 of the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin made
a marked epoch in my own mental development,as it did in that of human
thought generally. Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic
barriersby a singlestroke,and to arouse a spiritof rebellionagainstall ancient
authoritieswhose positiveand unauthenticatedstatementswere contradicated
by modernscience.30
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
507
As importantas any detailed impact Darwin'swork had on Galton was
the more general effect on him of the controversyfollowing its
publication. Galton was present at the BritishAssociation meetingat
Oxford in 1860 when Huxley and Wilberforcedebated Darwin's
theories.31 Galton clearly felt the need to choose sides between
scientificnaturalismand its theological opponents:32 given his background, there could be little doubt which side he would choose. He
became a leading memberof the group of scientificintellectualswhich
included Huxley, Spencer and Tyndall. He vigorouslyopposed the
dogmas of revealed religion,and sought to replace the Christianfaith
3
by a systemof belief based on naturalscience. The near monopoly
of the church in comfortableprofessionalpositions must be ended,
and an adequately-supportedprofessionof science established. The
scientists'role should not be a mere technical one: they should form
a sortof scientific
thekingdom,
whosehighdutieswould
priesthood
through
have reference
to the healthand well-being
of the natiolnin its broadest
sense.34
In the 1860s Galton began to interprethis experience of kinship
links in the professional elite in a naturalistic and evolutionary
framework,and to derive from this a faith and a social practice for
the scientificpriesthood.The method of his initialstudies in heredity
was a simple generalization of his early observations of his
contemporaries. He sought to trade kinship links amongst those
acknowledged to be of exceptional mental ability (amongst his
examples were the Darwin and Butler families). By this means he
showed that achievementran in families(i.e. the closeness of kinship
links amongst the eminent was far greater than would be expected
if eminence was distributedat random in the population). This he
interpretedas proof of the inheritanceof mental ability,and on this
basis he argued for a eugenic programmewhich would insure the
careful and earlymarriageand high fertilityof the most able.3 5 For
Galton, eugenics was not a mere minor reform.He saw in eugenics
the basis for a new scientificand evolutionaryreligion,in which an
individual would be seen only as a manifestationof immortalgerm
plasm.36 This new faith implied the dominance of the 'scientific
priesthood' over revealed religion. The practice of eugenics also
necessitated social changes. The dominance of society by plutocracy
and hereditarynobility must be ended. Extremesof inheritedwealth
and titles of nobility had a bad effect on the race, causing the
degenerationand sterilityof originallyhealthystock. Instead,
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
508
Social Studies of Science
inrespectto theimprovement
Thebestformof civilisation
oftherace,would
be one in whichsocietywas notcostly;whereincomeswerechiefly
derived
fromprofessional
sources,and notmuchthrough
inheritance;
whereeverylad
had a chanceof showinghis abilitiesand,if highlygifted,was enabledto
achievea first-class
educationandentrance
intoprofessional
life,bytheliberal
help of the exhibitions
and scholarships
whichhe had gainedin his early
youth;wheremarriage
was held in highhonouras in ancientJewishtimes,
wherethe prideof race was encouraged(of courseI do not referto the
nonsensical
sentiment
of thepresentday,thatgoesunderthatname);where
theweakcouldfinda welcomeand a refugein celibatemonasteries
orsisterhoods,and lastly,wherethebettersortof emigrants
andrefugees
fromother
landswereinvited
andwelcomed,
andtheirdescendants
naturalised.37
At the end of his life, Galton wrotea novel,Kantsaywhere,in which
he described his eugenic utopia.38 This reads, in many respects,as a
direct description of the practices and ideals of the 'intellectual
aristrocracy'.The island of Kantsaywhereis dominatedby a benevolent
oligarchy, the Eugenic College, who administer it along the lines
suggested by Galton's early articles, holding examinationsof fitness,
encouragingthe early marriageof the fit,deportingor segregatingthe
unfit. The population have fullyaccepted the rule of the College, and
'everyone is classed by everybodyelse according to theirestimate or
knowledge of his person and faculties'. The College is trusted and
looked up to:
The Trusteesof theCollegeare thesoleproprietors
of almostall theterritory
of Kantsaywhere,
and theyexercisea corresponding
influence
overthewhole
population.Theirmoralascendancy
is paramount.
Thefamilies
oftheCollege
and those of the Town are connectedby numerousinter-marriages
and
commoninterests,
so thattherelation
betweenthemismorelikethatbetween
theFellowsof a Collegeandtheundergraduates,
thantheGownandTownof
an EnglishUniversity.
In short,Kantsaywhere
maybe lookedupon as an
activelittlecommunity,
a highly-respected
containing
and wealthyguild.39
Competitive examinations determine status, the intellectuallygifted
intermarry,the dominance of society by the extremelywealthy and
titled is replaced by the dominanceof the intellectualelite; the relaxed
social control of the university,passing and 'plucking', has been
extendedover the whole society.
Galton's eugenicshad thus a double aspect. It was expressiveof his
social experience. He came froman intellectualelite closely bound by
kinshipties. In his social group achievementwas inherited(though we
might now want to interpretthis socially rather than biologically).
Successful fathershad successful sons, these sons generally married
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
509
within the social group and themselveshad successful offspring.40
So Galton was interpreting
generallyand naturalisticallya salientfacet
of his social experience. At the same time, an intrinsicpart of the
eugenic programme was the advancement of the interestsof the
professional middle class. The middle class 'expert', ratherthan the
priest, aristocrator plutocrat, should exercise power in an efficient
modernized eugenic society. Science, rather than Christianreligion,
should be the dominantculturalform.Thus, Galton's eugenics,as well
as expressing his social experience,also representedthe interestsof
his social group.
Although Galton was the founder of the eugenics movement,the
analysis of his work alone does not establishthe natureof eugenics
as a whole. I do not wish to argue that eugenics remainedexpressive
of the social experience of the eugenistsin the sense thatthiswas true
for Galton. Later eugenistswere generallyof a lower status withinthe
professional middle class than the 'intellectualaristocracy',and few
would have had such strongkinshiplinks to the elite as Galton had.4 1
On the other hand it remainstrue that eugenic thoughtexpressedthe
interestsof the professionalmiddle class, both in a narrowsense and in
the wider sense of the relativestatus of professionalsand othermiddle
and upper class groups.
At times the Eugenics Education Society acted as a straightforward
advocate of the financialinterestof the middleclass:
... the incidence of the income tax is claimingattention,and a letterhas
been sent by the Presidentto all Membersof Parliamentpointingout that
any systemof taxation which takes no account of the necessaryexpenditure
involvedin bringingup a familymay, in a sense, be said to penalize marriage
and parenthood, and that taxation which retardsmarriageand discourages
parenthoodon the part of worthycitizenshas a harmfulinfluencein tending
to lower the proportionof men and women of good stock or blood in the
composition of the generationof the future.There is no question that the
income tax at presentfalls most heavilyon parentsbelongingto the middle
and professional classes, to whom the description can be appropriately
applied.
It is suggestedthat the way to remedythis evil is to extend the principle
of allowingrebatesforeach child . . .42
When the First World War broke out the Council of the EES discussed
what practical eugenic action could be taken in the war situation. As
a result of this discussion the EES, in conjunctionwith the heads of
the
leading
professional
bodies
and
institutions, helped
form a
ProfessionalClasses War Relief Council and set up a maternityhome
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
510
Social Studies of Science
forthe wivesof professionalmen servingin the armedforces.4 3
The significanceof eugenics as regardsthe professionalmiddle class
was, however, much wider than this. Eugenics served both to
legitimatethe social position of the professionalmiddle class and as an
argument for its improvement.The professionalmiddle class owed
its social position neitherto wealth nor to ascribed status but to the
specialized mental abilities and knowledge of its members. The
hereditariantheory of mental ability as developed by the eugenists
claimed that only a limited section of the population had the
potential to achieve the skills and knowledgerequiredfor professional
middle class roles. The professionalmiddle class had achieved their
position not by accident of circumstances,but as the result of
generations of selection for mental ability. The next generation of
professionalswould of necessityhave to be recruitedfromthe middle
class. Thus a rigidlystratifiededucational systemwas justified,with
only the narrowestof ladders to allow the unusuallygiftedchild, the
'sport', to rise from the lower classes. Eugenics offered the
professional middle class an educational philosophy which enabled
themto justifythe effectivemonopoly of professionaleducation by the
existingprotessionalclass. The eugenistcould consistentlyadvocate an
expanded educational system - 1870-1914 was a period of
considerableeducational expansion - while layingdown a structurefor
this expansionwhichmaintainedexistingprivileges.44
One interestingfacet of the discussion of mental abilityby British
eugenistsis that 'business acumen' or 'entrepreneurialskills' played no
part in it. We find no 'English Men of Business' parallelingGalton's
English Men of Science, althoughan hereditarianaccount of business
skills could have been cotnstructedwith equal plausibility. While
the majority of British eugenists did not attack the business community, they did not seek to legitimateit in a similarway to their
legitimation of the professional middle class. There was also no
attemptto legitimatethe hereditarynobility. Indeed a not uncommon
target for attacks by cugenistswas the House of Lords. Following
Galton's views on the detrimentaleffecton the race of the peerage,
schemes such as the replacementof the House of Lords by an Upper
House of families of genuine eugenic worth were discussed. Arnold
White, for example, pictured the aristocracy and plutocracy as
degenerate and prey to hereditaryills as the result of inbreeding
and marriagefor wealth ratherthan for health and mental ability.45
The majority of eugenists stopped short of an explicit attack on
the existingpower structureof Britishsociety. A significantsection,
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
511
however, attacked the existingrulinggroups as unable to administer
a modernsocietyefficiently
and scientificallyand condemnedcapitalist
society as dysgenic(i.e. anti-eugenic)in itsoperation. A eugenicpolicy,
they argued, was impossible while laissez-fairecapitalism demanded
large suppliesof unskilledlabour and a permanentpool of unemployed.
Among these 'socialist' eugenists were Karl Pearson, Jane Hume
Clappertonand severalleaders of the Fabian Society, includingSidney
Webb, GeorgeBernardShaw and (for a while) H.G. Wells.46
Socialist support for a movement I have analyzed as representing
the interests of the professional middle class seems paradoxical.
However the main point of referencefor Fabian socialists and nearFabians such as Pearson was not the workingclass but the professional
middle class. As Eric Hobsbawn has shown, the social compositionof
the Fabian Society was 'overwhelmingly non-proletarian', with
journalists, writers,universityand school teachers,clergyand public
officialsthe most common occupations of its members.4 7 Politically,
there were wide differencesbetween the Fabians and the majorityof
workingclass socialists:
The Fabians,alone amongsocialistgroups,opposedthe formation
of an
independent
refusedto opposethe
partyof labour,supportedimperialism,
Boerwar,took no interest
in the traditional
international
and anti-war
preoccupationsof the left,and theirleaderstook practically
no partin the
tradeunionrevivals
of 1889 and1911. 8
But the chief concern of the Fabians was not with the workingclass
as the agency of social change. Fabian ideology (especiallyas expressed
by the Webbs) pivotedround the salariedmiddle class:
They are the trained,impartialand scientificadministrators
and expert
advisers
whohavecreatedan altemative
courtofappealto profit.49
In the ethos of the professionalsthe Fabians saw 'a workingalternative
to a systemin which men worked in proportiononly to theirfinancial
incentive'. Once stimulated, the professional middle class would
realize that a socialist society 'really suited them just as well if not
better than the capitalist'.51 Why should a professionalmiddle-class
ideology take a socialist form? As the Fabians argued, there are no
necessary reasons why the interestsof the professionalmiddle class
should be tied to a capitalisteconomic order. The rising'meritocracy'
could see theirskills as necessaryto any industrialsociety, not merely
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Social Studies of Science
512
a capitalistone. There were indeed particularreasonswhy professionals
(especially in the new, risingprofessions)should be hostile to laissezfaire capitalism. Laissez-fairerestrictedthe scope for theirtalents and
theirjob opportunities(for example in the lack of state supportfor
science). As Hobsbawn points out, a lot of the Fabians' socialism is
merely hostilityto laissez-faire,not to capitalism. Indeed, the term
'socialist' was at the time defined in this way. Any doctrine which
gave the state a greaterrole in the nationallifeand economy than that
allowed by classical liberal political theorywas labelled 'socialist'. The
verydominance of liberalismtended to blurthe politicaldifferencesof
itsrivals.
Hobsbawn concluded thatthe historyof the Fabians ...
... must be writtennot in termsof the socialistrevivalof the 1880s, but in
terms of the middle-class reactions to the breakdown of mid-Victorian
certainties,the rise of new strata,new structures,new policies,withinBritish
capitalism: as an adaptation of the British middle classes to the era of
imperialism.52
5 2
On this view Fabianism and eugenics were not political opposites but
different (though overlapping) variants of the same adaptation.
Eugenics was the kind of social reform that the Fabians liked:
scientistic, involving state action, legislation and (no doubt) an
expansion of bureaucracy. If the Fabian eugenistsdifferedfromtheir
more conservativebrethren,it was that they took a more fundamental
and long-termattitudeto the interestsof the professionalmiddle class.
EUGENICS, THE RESIDUUM AND SOCIAL IMPERIALISM
Eugenics was not only a matter of raisingthe fertility(and status)
of the professional middle class: it also involved lowering the
fertilityof those at the bottom of the social scale. While this aspect
of it was littleemphasized in Galton's early,utopian, positiveeugenics,
it came more and more to the fore in the period from 1880 onwards.
WithinGalton's own work negativeeugenics became more prominent
(though he always treatedthe subject with a certaincaution, even distaste, and avoided 'unmentionable' topics such as sterilizationand
contraception). More generally,the 'unfit' ratherthan the 'fit' were
the central focus of eugenic propaganda. What, we must ask, were
the views on class structureheld by the eugenists,and who were the
unfitwho were to be dissuaded frombreeding?
The eugenists accepted a rough equation of social standing and
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
513
genetic worth. Indeed, this is generallyan axiom with theirthought,
seldom a propositionthey feel any need to defend. At least for those
social groups conventionallyregardedas being below the professional
middle class, class position was taken as a sure indicator of average
mental ability.The view of social structurethey held was summarized
by Galton in his 1901 Huxley Lecture.53 Galton took the social
categoriesof Booth's surveyof London and mapped them on to his
assumed distributionof inherited 'civic worth'. In Figure 1, I have
presentedhis resultsin graphicalform. 'R, S, T, U, V' and 'r, s, t, u, v'
are the subdivisionsof 'civic worth'. The lowest group, classes t, u, v
and below, 'are undesirables'54 It is against them (and particularly
against the 'criminals,semi-criminals
and loafers' of v and below) that
negativeeugenics should be practised;for example, habitual criminals
should be segregated'under mercifulsurveillance'and 'peremptorily
denied opportunitiesfor producingoffspring'.55Galton (and the other
eugenists)did not wish to depressthe birthrate of all groupsbelow the
middle class. It would scarcelyhave been in the interestsof the middle
class to do so! All eugenistswere agreed that manual workerswere
socially necessary. What they wanted was to improve the discipline,
physique and intelligenceof the working class by eradicatingthe
'lowest' elementsof it. The eugenistsattemptedto draw a line between
socially useful and socially dangerous elements of the lower orders.
While the exact placing of this line was vague, and varied from one
writerto another,all were agreed that this distinctionwas necessary.
In few cases was the view of social class as explicitas it was in Galton's
writings:nonetheless, all eugenists would have adhered to a similar
model. Indeed, few members of the middle class of Victorian and
Edwardian Britainwould have found much to disagreewith in Galton's
model. The specificityof eugenic thoughtlay not in the model, but in
the conclusionsforaction drawn.
The lowest social group ('t, u, v and below') were a prominentindeed the prominent - social problem in the eyes of middle class
late Victorians and Edwardians. The attitudes of the middle class to
this group have recentlybeen elucidated by Gareth Stedman Jones in
his Outcast London.56 Jones argues that in the latterpart of the nineteenth centurythe focus of middle class fears about social stability,
doubt about industrialismand urban existence, shifted from the
heartlandsof the industrialrevolution(such as Manchester)and became
centred on London. Since the decline of Chartism,most middle class
observers felt that the respectable working class of the North of
England were no longer a threat or a social problem. The problem
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
514
Social Studies of Science
Figure 1. Galton's view of Britishsocial structure
z
/
/Poor and 'Respectable' Skilled
\
lowpaid working
class cwiorrekiers.r
~~~~~~~~tradesmen
Ilndependent
/
s
xjuj
professionals,
lage employers
etc.
~~~~~etc.
/Criminais,
paupers;
i
rT|R
|T
TI1
U
| V
GENETIC
WORTH
For explanation,
see text.
ratherlay with a smallerand more specificgroup on the slums of the
big cities.
The most characteristicimage of the workingclass was that of increasingly
prosperous and cohesive communitiesbound togetherby the chapel, the
friendlysociety, and the co-op. Pitted againstthe dominantclimateof moral
and material improvementwas a minorityof the still unregeneratepoor:
those who had turned theirbacks on progress,or had been rejected by it.
This group was variouslyreferredto as 'the dangerousclass', the casual poor
or most ch.aracteristically,
as 'the residuum>.
In other words, the perceivedproblem of social control was no longer
the workingclass as a whole, but only a residual section of it. Most of
this was found in London. The Quarterly Review summed up the
perceivedproblemas earlyas 1855:
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
515
. . . the most remarkablefeatureof London life is a class decidedlylower in
the social scale than the labourer, and numericallyvery large, though the
population returns do not number them among the inhabitants of the
kingdom,who derive theirlivingfromthe streets... for the most part their
utmost effortsdo little more than maintain them in a state of chronic
starvation... very many have besides their acknowledged calling, another
in the backgroundin directviolation of the eighthcommandment;and thus
by gradationsimperceptibly
darkeningas we advance,we arriveat the classes
who are at open war with society, and professedlylive by the produce of
depredationor the wages of infamy.58
The worstsituationwas in the East End.
From the end of the 1860s to the First WorldWar the East End was a by-
wordforchronicand hopelesspoverty,
and endemiceconomicmalaise.9
There was thus a definitesocial problemin London. But it was more
than this. The residuumposed a problem of social control. They were
not, it is true, radical or revolutionary.But they were politically
volatile, and, pressed by extremehardship,they were liable to riot.60
The middle class were not concernedwith social controlalone. They
felt that the poor were not only dangerous but also physicallyand
mentally degenerate. Characteristically,the urban slum dweller was
compared with the healthy and strong agriculturallabourer. It was
widely believed that urban conditions caused the degeneration of
immigrantsfrom the country, whether by the direct effect of
environmentor by selection of the worst types. FrancisGalton was an
earlyproponentof the theoryof urbandegeneracy:
It is perfectlydistressingto me to witnessthe draggled,drudged,mean look
of the massof individuals,especiallyof the women, that one meets in the
streetsof Londonand otherpurelyEnglishtowns.The conditions
ot their
life seem too hardfor theirconstitutions,
and to be crushing
theminto
degeneracy.6 1
Increasingly,
the
context
in
which
the
problem
of
urban
degeneration was seen, was that of imperialism. A degenerating
population was serious enough under any circumstances,but it would
be fatal to a British Empire faced with increased foreigneconomic
competition,colonial war and the ultimate threatof inte-r-imperialist
war. The early reversessufferedby British troops in the Boer War
(1899-1902) gave concrete formto these misgivings.It was put about,
and widely believed, that up to 60 per centof workingclass volunteers
for the army had had to be rejected because they failed to meet the
army'sminimnum
standardsof physicalfitness.62
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
516
Social Studies of Science
The problem, then, was seen to be a selection of the workingclass
that lacked both moral fibre (i.e. was outside social control) and
physical fitness.The urban situation had broken the older formsof
social controlbased on direct personal contact between richand poor.
The most important early attempt at a solution was the Charity
OrganisationSociety, set up in 1869, which soughtto reimposesocial
control through organized, selective charity and trained social
workers.63 But with the deepening urban crisisof the 1880s and the
serious rioting,there was a conscious search for new responsesto the
problem. Crucial to these responses was the distinctionbetween the
respectable working class and the residuum: the residuum must be
isolated from the working class as a whole (even at the price of
concessions to the bulk of workers) and neutralized or eliminated.
The growing awareness of competition between imperialistpowers
underlined the urgency of the problem. A modern imperialiststate
needed an efficient,fit and loyal workingclass. As the riots of the
1880s and the debacles of the Boer War indicated,therewas a weakness
at the very heart of the BritishEmpire. Fabians, Tories and Liberal
Imperialistscould find common ground in agreementthat a solution
to the problem of the urban residuum was a prerequisiteof imperial
survival.The basis was thus laid for social imperialism,the linkingof
imperialism and social reformthat loomed large in British politics
between the 1880s and 1914, and which, as Farrall points out, was
importantto eugenicthought.64
It was in this context that eugenics provided a plausible social
policy.The eugenistshad a biological explanation of the residuum.The
suspension of natural selection through the operation of charity,
medical science and sanitaryreformhad led to the flourishingin the
hearts of the great cities of a group of people tainted by hereditary
defect. They were unemployedbecause they lacked the health, ability
and strengthof will to work. Hereditaryweakness turned them to
crime and alcohol. Their constitutions inclined them to wasting
diseases such as tuberculosis. This group of degenerates was outbreeding skilled workers and the professionalmiddle class. Further,
the eugenistswarned,althoughnaturalselection was largelysuspended
within Britishsociety, competitionbetween differentnationswent on.
Britain was engaged in a strugglefor survivalthat was at present
commercial but might become military. National fitness for this
strugglewas necessary. This had previouslybeen ensured by natural
selection, but under the conditions of modern civilization a
replacementfor naturalselection had to be found in conscious eugenic
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
517
selection. A pliable and fit workingclass could be bred by isolating
the residuum in institutions where parenthood would be made
impossible. 6 5
Negativeeugenicswas thus not an abstractprogramme,but a specific
response to a specific problem. The eugenists proposed the most
thoroughsolution to the problem of the residuumshort of immediate
elimination. Social control was to be imposed by the detention in
institutionsof the habitual criminal,the alcoholic, the 'hereditary'
pauper, and so on. Prevention of parenthood in these institutions
would mean the eventual disappearance of the residuumas a group.
This solution would leave untouched the position and privilegesof the
highersocial classes, while drawing in full on the skills of the middle
class scientificexpert. While it mightseem a ratherextremeproposal,
it differedonly in thoroughnessand scientificrationale from similar
proposals put forwardat the time,forexample,forlabour camps with
compulsory powers of detention (proposals that were supported by
Fabians and 'humanitarian'Liberals).66
THE RISE AND DECLINE OF EUGENICS
The rise and decline of the eugenics movementin Britainseems to be
largelyaccounted for by variationsin the credibilityof the programme
for negativeeugenics. Four major turningpoints can be identified:the
sense of an urban crisis in the 1880s, the Boer War (1889-1902), the
First World War and the world slump and the emergenceof German
fascism(1929-34).
Before 1880 it is impossible to talk of eugenicsas a movement:it
must have seemed to be a utopian speculation.The urban crisisof the
1880s and the related emergenceof social imperialismand Fabianism
provided the context for serious considerationof negativeeugenics.67
The real opportunityfor the eugenistscame withthe Boer Warand the
boost it gave to social imperialism.This prompted Karl Pearson and
Arnold Whiteto writetheir most famoussocial imperialistand eugenic
tracts.68 As Whitewrote:
In South Africa we have a lesson. Shall we profitby it sufficientlyto
reconsiderour ways?69
Pearson wrote to Galton urginghim to open a direct campaign for
eugenics, sensing that the time was ripe for 'a word in season' on
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
518
Social Studies of Science
eugenics.70 Although almost in his eighties, Galton responded by
campaigning for, funding and supportingeugenics. The years from
1901-14 were of almost uninterruptedsuccess for the eugenics
movement,which by the time of the outbreak of war seemed on the
thresholdof considerablelegislativeimpact. Prominentpolitical figures
had at least shown interest in eugenics, as was witnessed by the
presence of names such as A.J. Balfourand WinstonChurchillin the list
of Vice-Presidents of the International Eugenics Congress held in
London in 1912. A small but growinggroup of MPs responded to
eugenic ideas, and the Eugenics Education Society was able to claim
the formulationand passing of the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913
as the resultof itswork.71
After 1918 all this impetus had gone. There was no disastrous
immediate decline of British eugenics. The cadre of the movement
remained intact. But eugenics seemed to lack political credibility.
The EES (renamed the Eugenics Society) evolved gradually into a
learned society ratherthan a campaigningpolitical group. The broad
spectrum of political support in the professional middle class
evaporated. Increasingly,eugenics as a full-scalepolitical programme
What went wrongfor
became identifiedwith the extreme right-wing.
the eugenists?
The answer appears to be that the conditions for the
credibilityof the social programmeof negative eugenics no longer
existed after 1918. Before the War the problem of social control
was seen as centred on a relativelysmall and well-definedsubgroup
of the working class. After 1918 things were different. Red
Clydeside and the industrialbattles of the 1920s suggestedthat there
was a pressingdanger to established society from the workingclass
as a whole. Unemploymentwas no longer localized (indeed London,
the core of unemploymentbefore 1914, was relativelyprosperous
duringthe 1920s and 1930s by comparisonwiththe industrialNorth).
A political strategyfor the Britishruling class clearly had to involve
a reckoningwith the working class as a whole. Such a strategydid
evolve, empiricallyratherthan theoretically,in the 1920s. Although
it involved intransigence at certain key moments (notably the
General Strikeof 1926), the key to the strategywas an accommodation
with the political and industrialleadershipof the workingclass in the
Labour Party and trade unions. This left no place for eugenics; for
example, to make the point starkly,sterilizationof the unemployed
(as advocated by E.W. MacBride72) was out of place in such a
strategy.It was impossibleboth to reach a compromisewiththe official
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
519
leadership of the working class and to threaten that class (or a
significantsubsectionof it) withnegativeeugenics.
Most eugenistsgraduallycame to termswiththisrealityand diluted
theirproposals accordingly(for example by callingforvoluntaryrather
than compulsory sterilization). Some, like R.A. Fisher, ceased to
propagandize for eugenics, while continuingprivatelyto hold eugenic
beliefs.73 A few maintainedthe old attitudesintact and looked to the
application of eugenic measuresin the contextof the destructionof the
labour movementratherthan accommodationwith it: thusGeorge PittRivers, formerlySecretary of the InternationalFederation of Eugenic
Societies, joined the BritishUnion of Fascists and was internedduring
the Second World War.7 4 The Nazi victory in Germany and the
subsequent Nazi eugenic measures strengthenedthe association of
eugenics and the extreme right. After some initial hesitation, the
EugenicsSocietycondemned Nazi eugenics.7 5 But an alreadyenfeebled
Society found it difficultto make it clear that what it preached was
differentfrom what the Nazi practised.By the late 1930s eugenics in
the old, strong,sense was identifiedwith fascism. In the absence of
gains for fascism within British society, eugenics was bound to
decline 76
OPPONENTS OF EUGENICS
Even at the peak of its influencein the Edwardianperiod,eugenicswas
not unopposed. Within the professionalmiddle class itself,eugenics
had its critics.Clerics,particularlyCatholic clerics,were notablyamong
them.77 These professionalsof the old order had their own strategy
for dealing with problems of poverty,unemployment,social control
and the family.Despite effortsby the EES not to offendthe church,
eugenics appeared as an intruderinto the traditionalsphereof religious
authorityand as a competingsecularand scientisticideology.78 A great
deal of the reluctance of the eugenists to advocate the use of
contraceptivesand sterilizationas techniques of negativeeugenics can
be attributedto fearof religiouscondemnation.
Socialists who, unlike the Fabians, took the workingclass as their
primereferencegroup, were anothersource of opposition to eugenics.
Stella Browne, a socialist and feminist,attacked the EES for 'class
bias and sex bias' and argued that women themselvesshould have
control over their own fertility.79Other socialists concentratedon
defendingthe workingclass against the charge of genetic inferiority.
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
520
Social Studies of Science
In a series of articles in The New Age, M.D. Eder took the eugenists
to task for their view that the 'upper middle class' represented'the
brains of the nation'. Eder remindedKarl Pearson that Gauss, whose
work provided the base of much of the mathematics Pearson
deployed in support of eugenics, was 'the son of a bricklayer'.De
Vries' mutation theory.was seen by Eder as a biological justification
of revolutionarysocialism, refutingthe gradualism of evolutionary
socialists such as Pearson.80 After the First World War the socialist
attack on eugenicsbegan to find a small numberof supporterswithin
science. Then men like J.B.S. Haldane and Lancelot Hogben who were
the equals or superiorsof the eugenistsin technical competencebegan
to attack the eugenists on their own ground. The radical scientists
of the 1930s saw the eugenics movementas a paradigm case of the
anti-workingclass use of science, and the defeat of eugenic ideology
became one of theirmajor pre-occupations.8 1
Aside from these two major sources of opposition to eugenics,
particularindividualsand small groups withinthe professionalmiddle
class were hostile to eugenics for less general reasons. The eugenists
presented their major opponent as a social reformerwho ascribed
all to environmentand nothingto heredity.Such a parody creature
scarcely existed.82 Nonetheless some groups felt their schemes for
particular reformsthreatenedby eugenic ideology. Karl Pearson, for
example, earned the wrath of temperance workers for his denial
that environmental reform (temperance measures) would have a
beneficial effecton the next generation.83 Similarly,Pearson's views
that the major factor in the incidence of tuberculosiswas an inherited
tubercular'diathesis' led to controversywithpublic healthworkersand
other medical men seeking environmentalcontrol of tuberculosis.
CONCLUSION
In his study of the English eugenics movement, Farrall defines it
as a form of 'middle class radicalism' and compares it with the
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament(CND) of the 1950s and 1960s.84
Both the EES and the CND, he argues,were drawn largelyfromthe
'welfareand creative' professions,and as was the case with the CND,
. .. the membersof the eugenics movementfound emotional satisfactionin
expressingtheirpersonal beliefsin action ratherthanseekingspecificmaterial
in theirstatuswithinsociety.8 5
improvement
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
521
From the perspectiveof this paper, the differencesbetween the EES
and the CND are more importantthan the similarities.The eugenists,
I argue, were concerned with improvingthe social status of the professional middle class. CND members, on the other hand, were
self-deprecatingon the subject of their social status, replying to
questioning with such answers as 'middle class - unfortunately'.86
Further,for many of its membersparticipationin the CND was closely
linked to growingidentificationwith the workingclass and the labour
movement. The eugenists remained identified (if at times rather
critically) with the ruling class. The basic question raised by this
paper is that of the determinantsof the political attitudes of the
professionalmiddle class. Under what circumstancesdo membersof
this class identifywith the rulingclass, and under what circumstances
with the working class? With growing class conflict,and with signs
of the re-emergenceof eugenic positions87, this question is not
simplytheoretical.
POSTSCRIPT
This paper was completed, apart from minor revisions,in July 1975.
Since then, chieflyas a result of criticismsand suggestionsby Gary
Werskey, I have realized that there are several ways in which the
analysis can and should be strengthened.In particular,much of the
material discussed fits well with the perspective developed by
Poulantzas in his Classes in Contemporary Capitalism (1975 ).8 8
The term 'professionalmiddle class', as I have used it, would in this
perspectiveinclude two separate groups: a fractionof the rulingclass,
the dominant intellectualelite who control the chief institutionsof
education and science and who are ultimately chief bearers of the
cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie (the centre of this group in
Victorian Britainwould be the 'intellectualaristocracy');and an upper
fraction of the 'new petty bourgeoisie', the professional,technical,
office and serviceworkerswho have become such an importantgroup
in modern capitalism.Now, in Britain,the 'professional'fractionof the
new petty bourgeoisie was largelyunder the sway of the 'intellectual
aristocracy'(who, forexample. providedits cultureheroes fromDarwin
to Keynes). However,the technocraticanti-capitalism
which Poulantzas
argues is a typical featureof the ideologyof the new pettybourgeoisie
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
522
Social Studies of Science
does appear in the form of Fabianism. Thus the split between ruling
class and petty bourgeois elements of the 'professionalmiddle class'
had its reflectionin the split between rightistand leftisteugenists.
As Poulantzas points out, the new petty bourgeoisie owe their
situation fundamentallyto the division of mental and manual labour
a professional(or even, though
in capitalistsociety. What differentiates
to a lesser extent, an ordinaryoffice worker)froma manual worker
is the professional'spossession of (and monopoly of) knowledge and
mental skills which are held to be uniquely valuable. The whole
rationale of professionalizationis to legitimate the activity of an
occupational group with referenceto its accredited possession of a
body of knowledge, while at the same time imposingstrictcontrols
on access to this knowledge. A hereditariantheory of mental ability
has then obvious attractions for members of the new petty
bourgeoisie, as it makes the social division between them and the
working class into a naturaldivision,based on geneticallydetermined
ability. Although in all class societies it is to be expected that the
dominant class will tryto explain differencesin social positionin terms
of innate, 'natural' differences,the new pettybourgeoisie,which is not
in realitya dominant class, perhaps feels a particularneed to elaborate
thisinto a full-blownideological system.
Further,it is in a sense mistakento see the decline in supportof the
period as the
more extremenegativeeugenic proposals in the inter-war
decline of all aspects of eugenics. Eugenistssuch as Galton and Pearson
(especially the latter) had as one of theirchief aims the provisionof a
rationalized system for ensuringthat occupational positions at the
various levels of the hierarchicaldivision of labour were adequately
filled. They sensed that a highly technological monopoly capitalist
societywould need a planned and selected supplyof labour,ratherthan
the chaotically competitivelabour marketof early capitalism.As Gary
Werskey has pointed out to me, this need was largelymet after the
First WorldWar by the widespreaduse of IQ tests,the developmentof
the three-tiersecondary education system, and so on. While not
involvingeugenicallyplanned reproduction,these developmentsdid in
fact have strong connections with eugenics (for example, the role of
the eugenist Cyril Burt in pioneering the introduction of mental
testing).
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
523
APPENDIX
SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE EUGENICS EDUCATION SOCIETY
Farrall's data refermainly to two groups: the membersof the Council from
1908-20, and a random sample of 60 membersand associate membersof the
Society from1912-13. Withhis kindpermission,I reproducehis data:
Occupationsof the Membersof the EES Council89
Occupation
Medical
Academic
Politicians
Clergy
Social Work
Scientists
Writers
MilitaryOfficers
Lawyers
Housewives
Not Known
Totals
Total
Well-documented
number
26a
18
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
48d
10
16
3
3
3
2b
2c
1
1
2
0
111
43
a. Includes five who had the title 'Dr' but about whom no furtherinformation
was available.
b. Includes Col. H.E. Hills, FRS, who was a militaryofficerspecializing in
militaryengineering.
c. Includes Havelock Ellis whose writingswere largelyscientific.
d. Includes eightpeople who had universitydegreesand ten with the title,'Sir'
or 'Lady'.
The 'well-documentednumber' refersto those for whom definitebiographical
information
was available.
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Social Studies of Science
524
Occupationsof the Membersof the Random Sample90
Occupation
Number
Occupation
6
3
2
2
1
1
Academic
Medical
Social Work
Writer
Clergy
MilitaryOfficer
Wifea
Lawyer
Directorof ArtMuseum
Local Governmegt
Part-timeauthor
No information
Total
Number
5
1
1
1
2
35
60
a. All werewivesof prominentpeople.
b. These two membersare known only because of the one or two books they
each wrote.
The group of 41 EES Council membersfor 1914 is a subsetof Farrall'sgroup
of 111 Council membersfor 1908-20, and can be seen as a check on the 'not
known' or not 'well-documented'cases in Farrall's list. We see that thereis in
fact no reason to doubt his conclusion (individualsalreadyidentifiedby Farrall
are asterisked ).
*President:
Major Leonard Darwin. Son of Charles
Darwin. Retired army engineer. (Who
was Who, 192940).
*Hon Secretary:
Mrs Sybil Gotto. Hon Secretary190720. Widow of Naval Officer.Effectively
worked full-timeforeugenics.(Eugenics
Review,Vol. 47 [1955-61, 149).
Hon Treasurer:
Paul von Fleischl. Treasurer of EES,
1907-22. Occupationunknown.
Mr CroftonBlack:
Barrister and official of Land Union.
(EES Sixth Annual Report, 25, and
Eugenics Review, Vol. 12 [1920-21],
91).
Sir Edward Brabrock:
Barrister,Chief Registrarof Friendly
Societies 1891-1904. Directorof Society
of Antiquariesand formerPresidentof
the Anthropological Institute. (Who's
Who, 1914).
MrsTheodore Chambers:
Wifeof Theodore Chambers,civilservant
and businessman. (Who was Who,
1951-60).
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
525
Hon Sir JohnCockburn:
Former Minister of Education, South
Australia.Doctor. RepresentedAustralia
at internationalconferenceson health,
eugenics,etc. (Who was Wbo, 1914).
Mr R. NewtonCrane:
International lawyer. (Who's
1914.)
Mr A.E. Crawley:
Who,
Author. Wrote on anthropology,sport,
etc. (Who's Who, 1914.)
Sir H. Cunningham:
Former lawyer and judge in India.
(Who's Who, 1914.)
Dr Langdon Down:
Physician to National Association for
Welfare of Feeble-Minded. (Medical
Directory, 1914.)
*MrHavelockEllis:
Scientist and author. (Who's Who,
1914.)
Prof J. Findlay:
Professor of Education, Uiiiversityof
Manchester. (Wbo's Who, 1914.)
Mr E.G. WhelerGalton:
*Dr M. Greenwood:
Dr W. Hadley:
Nephew of Francis Galton. Farmer at
Claverton.Interestedin scientificaspects
of agriculture.(K. Pearson,op. cit. note
38, passim.)
Medical
passim.)
statistician.
(Biometrika,
Lecturerin Medicine, London Hospital.
Physician,Chest Hospital,VictoriaPark.
(Who's Who, 1914.)
MrsW.H. Henderson:
Wife of Admiral Henderson,who since
retirementhad served on Metropolitan
Asylums Board. (Who's Who, 1914.)
*MajorE.H. Hills,FRS:
Director of
Durham University
Observatory,Presidentof Royal Astronomical Society. Former military
engineer. (Who's Who, 1914.)
*VeryRev W.R. Inge:
Dean of St. Paul's. Former Professor
of Divinityat Cambridge.(Who's Who,
1914.)
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Social Studies of Science
526
Secretary of National Association for
Welfare of Feeble-Minded. (Eugenics
Review,Vol. 1 [1909-101, 85.)
*MissKirby:
Dr ErnestLane:
*Prof E.W. Macbride:
Lady Owen MacKenzie:
*MrRobertMond:
Senior surgeon, St. Mary's Hospital.
(Who's Who, 1914.)
Professorof Zoology, Imperial College.
(Who's Who,1914.)
Widow of Sir George Sutherland
MacKenzie (1844-1910), merchantand
geographer.(DNB)
IndustrialChemist.Directorof Brunner,
Mond & Co. (Who's Who, 1914.)
*Dr F.W. Mott,FRS:
Neuropathologist.Physician to Charing
Cross
Mr G.P. Mudge:
Hospital
(Who's
Who,
1914.)
Surgeon, universityteacher,and author
of biology textbooks. (Universityof
London Calendar and BritishMuseum
Catalogue.)
*MrsG. Pooley:
Wifeof opthalmicsurgeon,G.H. Pooley.
(Who's Who,1914.)
*MrW. Rae, MP:
Liberal MP for Scarborough. (Who's
Who,1914.)
*Dr ArchdallReid:
Physician and author of books on
heredity, alcoholism, etc. (Medical
Directory,1914.)
MrJohnRussell:
Headmaster of King Alfred's School,
Hampstead. (Alumni Cantabrigienses,
Part II.)
*MrF.C.S. Schiller:
Philosopher,Oxford University.(Who's
Who, 1914.)
*Prof A. Schuster,FRS:
Secretary of Royal Society. Formerly
Professor of Physics, University of
Manchester.(Who's Who,1914.)
*MrEdgarSchuster:
Former Galton research fellow in
eugenics. In 1914 at Oxford University.
(Biometrika,passim.)
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
527
*Dr C.G. Seligmann:
Professor of Ethnology, Universityof
London. FormerlyHunterianProfessor
at Royal College of Surgeons. (Who's
Who, 1914.)
*Prof C. Spearman:
Grote Professor of Mind and Logic,
University of
1914.)
London.
(Who's
Who,
*Prof J.A.Thomson:
Professorof Natural History,University
of Aberdeen. (Who's Who, 1914.)
Dr E.F. Tredgold:
Physicianspecializingin mentaldiseases.
(Who's Who,1914.)
MrsAlec Tweedie:
Writer and columnist. (Who's Who,
1914.)
*MrW.C.D. Whetham,FRS:
Senior tutor,TrinityCollege Cambridge.
Physicist. (Who's Who, 1914.)
Dr Douglas White:
Dr FlorenceWilley:
Physician. (Medical Directory, 1914.)
Lecturer in midwifery,London School
of Medicine for Women. (Who's Who,
1914.)
NOTES
I would like to thank the following: Lyndsay Farrall,on whose work I have
drawnextensivelyhere,and who has kindlypermittedme to reproducematerial
fromhis unpublishedthesis;BarryBarnes,StevenShapin and Helen Rugenof the
Science Studies Unit, Universityof Edinburgh,and the Editors and anonymous
refereeof Social Studies of Science, all of whom made helpfulcommentson
earlierdraftsof thispaper.
1. Francis Galton firstused the termeugenics in his Inquiries into Human
Faculty (London: Macmillan, 1883), 25. The concept was implicitfrom the
beginningof his work in heredity20 years earlier.The Greek root means 'of
good stock'.
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
528
Social Studies of Science
2. Throughout this paper I use the word 'knowledge' in the sociologists'
sense of 'accepted belief'and do not wishto implyanyjudgementas to the truth
of the ideas in question.
3. The impact of eugenicson statisticsis discussedin Ruth SchartzCowan,
'Francis Galton's Statistical Idea: the Influence of Eugenics', Isis, Vol. 63
(1972), 509-28; also in D. MacKenzie, 'Social Factors in the Emergence of
Modern Statistics', paper read to the Conferenceon the Historyof Statistics,
Harvard University(January 1974). Cowan discusses Galton's influence on
geneticsin 'Francis Galton's Contributionto Genetics',Journalof theHistoryof
Biology, Vol. 5 (1972), 380412. PhilipAbrams,The Originsof BritishSociology,
1834-1914 (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1968) indicates the general
intellectualimpactof eugenics.
4. L.A. Farrall,The Originand Growthof theEnglishEugenicsMovement,
Bloomington,1970), available from
1865-1925 (PhD Thesis, Indiana University,
UniversityMicrofilms;L.S. Waterman,The Eugenic Movementin Britainin the
of Sussex, 1975). There has also been
NineteenthThirties(MSc Thesis,University
some work by eugenists on the history of eugenics: C.P. Blacker, Eugenics:
Galton and After (London: Charles Duckworth,1952) and F. Schenk and A.S.
Parkes,'The Activitiesof the EugenicsSociety', EugenicsReview,Vol. 60 (1968),
142-61. For eugenics in America see Mark Haller, Eugenics: Hereditarian
Attitudesin American Thought (New Brunswick,N.J.: RutgersUniversityPress,
1963); K.M. Ludmerer,Genetics and AmericanSociety: an HistoricalAppraisal
(Baltimore,Md.: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1972); D.K. Pickens,Eugenics
and the Progressives(Nashville,Tenn: VanderbiltUniversityPress,1968); and the
essay review by Garland Allen, 'Genetics, Eugenics and Society: Internalists
and Externalistsin ContemporaryHistoryof Science', Social Studies of Science,
Vol. 6 (1976), 105-22.
5. For an account of the growthof professionaloccupations in Britain,
see A.M. Carr-Saundersand P.A. Wilson, The Professions(Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1933). In identifyingparticularoccupations as 'professional' or not, I
would followtheirjudgement.
6. F. Galton,Memoriesof my Life (London: Methuen,1908), 288.
7. Cf. C.E. Rosenberg, 'The Bitter Fruit: Heredity,Disease and Social
America', Perspectives in American History,
Thought in Nineteenth-Century
Vol. 8 (1974), 189-235.
8. It should, however, be noted that many of those campaigningfor
compulsory custodial treatmentof alcoholics did not accept this optimistic
view, and saw retreatsas a means of isolatingalcoholics. See R.M. MacLeod,
'The Edge of Hope: Social Policy and ChronicAlcoholism,1870-1900', Journal
of theHistoryofMedicineand Allied Sciences, Vol. 22 (1967), 215-45.
9. Rosenberg,op. cit. note 7, 221-22.
10. Ruth Schwartz Cowan, 'Sir Francis Galton and the Continuityof the
Germ-Plasm: a Biological Idea with Political Roots', Actes du XIIe Congres
Internationalde l'Histoiredes Sciences (Paris,1968), Vol. 8, 181-86.
11. See, for example, W.P. Ball, Are the Effects of Use and Disuse
Inberited? (London: Macmillan, 1890). J.C. Burnham argues that this sociopolitical response to Weismannism was a peculiarly Anglo-American
phenomenon. See his 'Instinct Theory and the German Reaction to
Weismannism',
Journalof theHistotyof Biology,Vol. 5 (1972), 321-26.
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
529
12. Arthur Russel Wallace, for example, accepted that acquired characters
were not inherited,but rejected eugenics as a social programme.See Wallace,
'Human Selection',FortnigbtlyReview,Vol. 48 (1890), 325-37.
13. Abrams makes much of the resemblanceof eugenic thoughtto political
economy: 'Eugenics,when its historyis written,will have to be treatedin close
relationto politicaleconomy',op. cit. note 3, 123.
14. R.J. Halliday, 'Social Darwinism: A Definition', Victorian Studies,
Vol. 14 (1971), 389-405.
15. See, for example, HerbertSpencer, The Study of Sociology (London:
HenryKing, 1873), 343-46.
16. F. Galton, 'Eugenics: its Definition,Scope and Aims', in his Essays in
Eugenics (London: Eugenics Education Society, 1909), 42. For an account of
social Darwinism's broadly similar developmentin America,see R. Hofstadter,
Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1968).
17. Farrall,op. cit. note 4, 211-12.
18. Ibid., 225 and 228.
19. Several of the doctors held universityor medical school teaching
posts.
20. One, Cockburn,a doctorby training.
21. One, Havelock Ellis, also an author; the other, Mond, also a businessman.
22. One official of National Association for the Welfareof the FeebleMinded, one farmer (and amateur agriculturalscientist), one retired army
engineer,and five wives or widows (of a naval lieutenant,an admiral,a civil
servantand businessman,a merchantand geographer,and a surgeon).
23. Farrall, op. cit. note 4, 211. The small number of women with
independent professional careers seem to have been particularly highly
representedin the Society. The relationshipbetween eugenicsand feminismis a
complex and interesting
one, whichI hope to discusselsewhere.
24. See my forthcoming
PhD thesisformore details.
25. N.G. Annan, 'The Intellectual Aristocracy', in J.H. Plumb (ed.),
Studies in Social History: a Tribute to G.M. Trevelyan(London: Longmans
Green,1955).
26. Ibid., 248.
27. Ibid., 247.
28. Galton,op. cit. note 6, 288.
29. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservationof Favoured Races in the Strugglefor Life (London: John
Murray,1859).
30. Galton,op. cit. note 6, 287.
31. D.W. Forrest,Francis Galton: the Life and Workof a VictorianGenius
(London: Paul Elek, 1974), 84.
32. See F.M. Turner's Between Science and Religion (New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University
Press,1974) fora sensitiveanalysisof thisdivide.
33. Some of Galton's anti-clerical sallies - in particular his statistical
'disproof'of the efficacyof prayer- now seem ratheramusing.But at the time
issues such as this were seriouslydebated. See F.M. Turner, 'Rainfall, Plagues
and the Prince of Wales: a Chapter in the Conflict of Religion and Science',
Journalof BritishStudies,Vol. 13 (1974), 46-65.
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
5 30
Social Studies of Science
34. F. Galton, Englisb Men of Science: theirNature and Nurture(London:
Macmillan, 1874; facsimile reprint,with an introductionby R. Schwartz
Cowan, London: FrankCass, 1970), 260.
35. See F. Galton, 'HereditaryTalent and Character',Macmillan'sMagazine,
Vol. 12 (1865), 157-66 and 318-27, and HereditaryGenius (London: Macmillan
1865), reprintof second edition(Gloucester,Mass.: PeterSmith,1972).
36. See, e.g., Galton,HereditaryGenius,op. cit. note 35.
3 7. Ibid., 415.
38. This was never published. The survivingfragmentsare reproducedin
Karl Pearson, The Life, Letters and Labours of Francis Galton, Vol. IIIA
(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1930), 411-25.
39. Ibid., 414.
40. Mothersand daughters,it is worth noting,scarcelyfiguredin Galton's
of hereditaryability.
eugenicthoughtexcept as the transmitters
41. On the otherhand it seemslikely(althoughI have no conclusiveevidence
on this point) that few eugenistswould have had workingclass parents,and thus
in seeingthemselvesas instancesof inheritance
that fewwould have had difficulty
of ability. Further,the view of social status as determinedby individualenergy
and abilityratherthan (say) collectiveactivityarguablycorrespondsmoreclosely
to the educational and work experienceof the professionalmiddle class than to
that of other social groups. On this point see the materialcited by A. Giddens,
The Class Structureof theAdvanced Societies (London: Hutchinson,1973), 185.
42. EES,SixtbAnnualReport(1913-14), 7.
43. EES, SeventbAnnual Report (1914-15), 4-5.
44. See Karl Pearson, 'The Function of Science in the Modern State',
Encyclopedia Britannica,Vol. XXXII (London: Adam and CharlesBlack, 10th
edition, 1902), vii-xxxvii,for a detailed educational blueprintbased on eugenics.
argumentsin Britisheducational
The deep and persistentrole of crypto-eugenic
thought and policy is indicated by B. Simon, Intelligence,Psycbology and
Education (London: Lawrence and Wishart,1971) and is a subjectworthfurther
study.
45. See his Efficiencyand Empire(London: Methuen,1901).
46. For Karl Pearson, see my forthcomingUniversityof EdinburghPhD
thesis; for Jane Hume Clapperton,her ScientificMeliorismand the Evolution
of Happiness (London: Kegan Paul, 1885) and Farrall,op. cit. note 4, 32-34;
for Webb's views, The Decline in the Birtb-Rate(London: Fabian Society 1907;
Fabian Tract No. 131); forWells,W.J.Hyde, 'The Socialismof H.G. Wellsin the
Early TwentiethCentury',Journalof the Historyof Ideas, Vol. 17 (1956), 21734; for Shaw, whose 'extremism'on the subject of marriageand monogamy
terrifiedmost eugenists,see the Prefaceto Man and Superman(Harmondsworth,
Middx.: Penguin,1972).
47. Eric Hobsbawm, 'The Fabians Reconsidered', in his Labouring Men:
Studies in the Historyof Labour (London: Weidenfeldand Nicolson, 1968), 268.
48. Ibid., 253.
49. Ibid., 258.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid., 259.
52. Ibid., 266.
53. F. Galton, 'The Possible Improvementof the Human Breed, under the
existingConditions of Law and Sentiment',reprintedin his Essays in Eugenics,
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MacKenzie: Eugenics in Britain
5 31
op. cit. note 16, 1-34.
54. Ibid., 11.
55. Ibid., 20.
56. Gareth Stedman Jones, Outcast London (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1971).
57. Ibid., 10-11.
58. Quoted, ibid., 12.
59. Ibid., 99.
60. For the most serious distrubances(those of the mid-1880s) see ibid.,
290-96.
61. Galton,HereditaryGenius,op. cit. note 35, 395-96.
62. See BentleyGilbert,The Evolution of NationalInsurancein GreatBritain
(London: Michael Joseph, 1966), 85 ff., for differentresponsesto the scare.
63. See Jones,op. cit. note 56, 241-61.
64. See Farrall, op. cit. note 4; B. Semmel,Imperialismand Social Reform:
EnglishSocial ImperialThought,1895-1914 (London: George Allen and Unwin,
1960); and G. Searle, The Quest for National Efficiency(Oxford: Blackwell,
1971).
65. See, for example,White,op. cit. note 45, and the worksof Karl Pearson,
forthisargument.
66. See Jones,op. cit. note 56, passim.,forsome of theseproposals.
67. See, for example, Amold White, Problems of a Great City (London:
Remington,4th edition,1895), firstpublishedin 1886.
68. Karl Pearson,National Life from the Standpoint of Science (London:
Adam and CharlesBlack, 1901); White,op. cit. note 45.
69. White,op. cit. note 45, xiii.
70. The letteris in Karl Pearson,op. cit. note 38, 24243.
71. EES, Sixth Annual Report (1913-14), 5-6. See Farrall,op. cit. note 4,
23847, forthe politicalactivitiesof the EES.
72. In Nature, Vol. 137 (1936), 45. Quoted by P.G. Werskey in his
article 'Natureand Politicsbetween the Wars',Nature, Vol. 224 (1969), 462-72.
73. Interviewswith students of Fisher have convinced me of this point.
74. P.G. Werskey,'BritishScientistsand "Outsider" Politics 1931-1945', in
S.B. Barnes (ed.), Sociology of Science(Harmondsworth,
Middx.: Penguin,1972),
252. The British Union of Fascists employed eugenic rhetoric. See Sheila
Rowbotham,HiddenfromHistory(London: Pluto, 1973), 151.
75. See the Eugenics Review,Vol. 25 (1933-4) and Vol. 26 (1934-5), passim.
76. For a farfulleraccount,see Waterman,op. cit. note 4.
77. For discussion of Christian attitudes to eugenics by churchmen
sympatheticto eugenics, see W.R. Inge, 'Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics',
Eugenics Review, Vol. 1 (1909-10), 26-36; J.H.F. Peile, 'Eugenics and the
Church, Eugenics Review, Vol. 1 (1909-10), 163-73; Inge, 'Eugenics and
Religion',EugenicsReview,Vol. 12 (1920-21), 257-65.
78. This attitudecomes over clearly,if idiosyncratically,
in G.K. Chesterton,
Eugenics and Other Evils (London: Cassell, 1922), in which eugenics is
condemned from a Christian,anti-scientistic
and anti-industrial
point of view.
79. Quoted by Rowbotham,op. cit. note 74, 152. Stella Browne,a member
of the Communist Partyuntil 1923, was importantas a pioneerof birthcontrol
and abortionlaw reform.
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
532
Social Studies of Science
80. M.D. Eder, 'Good Breedingor Eugenics',The New Age (23 May, 13 June,
18 Julyand 25 July 1908). Copies of thesearticlesare in the press-cutting
fileof
the EugenicsSociety forSeptember,1907, to September1908.
81. See P. Gary Werskey, The Visible College: a Study of Left-Wing
Scientistsin Britain,1918-1939 (PhD Thesis, HarvardUniversity,
1972), forthe
radical scientists' movement. It is worth noting, however, that Haldane, for
and to a large degree their
example,in fact shared the eugenists'hereditarianism
elitism.What was attacked was the specificallyright-wing
and fascistformstaken
by eugenicsin the 1930s.
82. The nearestapproach is perhaps L.T. Hobhouse who attacked eugenics
fromthe point of view of an activist,reforming
Liberalism,arguingthatprogress
was ethical and social ratherthan racial. But even he accepted particulareugenic
measuressuch as controlof the 'feeble-minded'.L.T. Hobhouse,Social Evolution
and Political Theory(New York: Columbia University
Press,1911).
83. See Farrall,op. cit. note 4, 250-82. Many eugenists,however,disagreed
withPearsonon this.
84. The term'middle class radicalism'is takenfromthe account of the CND
in F. Parkin,MiddleClass Radicalism (Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,
1968).
85. Farrall,op. cit. note 4, 293.
86. Parkin,op. cit. note 84, 51.
87. The speech by Sir Keith Joseph,in which he arguedthat 'the balance of
our population, our human stock is threatened',althoughsubsequentlylargely
retracted,may be a harbingerof this.See the reportin The Observer(20 October
1974).
88. N. Poulantzas,Classes in ContemporaryCapitalism(London: New Left
Books, 1975).
89. From Farrall,op. cit. note 4, 221.
90. Ibid., 227.
91. As listed,ibid., 220, footnote37.
This content downloaded from 152.10.144.220 on Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:53:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions