Somehow we missed this…

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2009/11/20/costello.
cameron.evolution.cnn.html

The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-mindedness discusses heredity and the negative impact that feeble-minded individuals have when they join “normal” families. The basic take-away from Goddard is that the feeble-minded are dangerous to the normal, dominant society

One theme from the book that stood out to me was the conflation of feeble-mindedness with moral behavior. Paired with an individual’s assessment as feeble-minded, there are additional assumptions regarding that individual’s likelihood to pursue sex, alcohol, and crime. As Goddard writes: “They are people we can scarcely recognize as normal; frequently they are not what we would call good members of society” (34). This quote posits “normal” and “good members of society” as opposites; in other words, if you are not normal you are not a good member of society. The book directly claims that criminality, prostitution, and alcoholism are outgrowths of feeblemindedness (70). According to the text, this creates a social burden or social problem that demands segregation of the feeble and non-feeble minded.

The dynamic between feeble-mindedness and morality is especially interesting with regard to women. Feeble-winded women are frequently judged as immoral or sexually loose, in contrast to “a respectable girl of good family” (43). In the story of Deborah, they discuss her education and abilities, none of which pertain to her moral behavior, but immediately jump to the moral consequences that they presume will follow. “They are wayward,” writes Goddard. “…they get into all sorts of trouble and difficulties, sexually and otherwise …today if this young woman were to leave the Institution, she would at once become pretty to the designs of evil men or evil women and would lead a life that would be vicious, immoral, and criminal…because she has no power of control, and all her instincts and appetites are in the direction that would lead to vice” (28). Goddard says that one of the easiest things for feeble-minded women to fall into is prostitution. This sexual immorality can be passed down from the feeble-minded mother to her daughter. As Goddard describes the case of one woman he writes: “She had already followed the instinct implanted in her by her mother, and was on the point of giving birth to an illegitimate child” (40). Thus sexual immorality is linked to heredity.

There is a noticeable binary between good/bad, moral/immoral, and normal/feeble-minded. And when those two groups, it results in dangerous degeneracy. As this quote explains: “We have here a family of good English blood of the middle class, settling upon the original land purchased from the proprietors of the state in Colonial times, and throughout four generations maintaining a reputation for honor and respectability of which they are justly proud. Then a scion of this family, in an unguarded moment, steps aside from the paths of rectitude and with the help of a feeble-minded girl, starts a line of mental defectives that is truly appalling. After this mistake, he returns to the traditions of his family, marries a woman of his own quality, and through her carries on a line of respectability equal to that of his ancestors” (64).

In addition to all of the topics above, here are some thoughts for discussion: How would Goddard’s book be perceived by modern society? How and to what extent have our thoughts regarding heredity, “feeble-mindedness,” and degeneracy changed?   Are there any forms of social control we can compare to the eugenics movement?

Dear American Studies Students, Alumni, and Faculty,

American Studies alumnus Andrew Owen and his collaborator, Ross McDermott, will be making a presentation on their photography exhibit,”The American Festivals Project,” which is currently on display in Georgetown as a part of the prestigious FotoWeekDC. The talk will take place this Thursday evening, November 12, on campus.

The American Festivals Project unearths the hidden, and at times bizarre, festivals and competitions of America’s small towns. With photography, video and writing, the project documents over 40 events with the aim of discovering and understanding American subcultures. The presentation will feature slides of photos from the exhibit.

In addition to discussing the work, Andrew will address how the American Studies major informed the work. The talk will be of interest to students contemplating or working on the senior thesis, as it illustrate how photography can be used effectively to document aspects of American life.

Students, alumni, and faculty, please join us to catch up with this successful young American Studies alumnus and celebrate his accomplishments!

Here are the details:
Date: November 12th,
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: McShain Lounge – Large
Reception with light hour d’oeuvres following the presentation

Please RSVP to amst@georgetown.edu

            During the first half of the semester, we explored the distribution of economic and political power in early twentieth-century America.  In his work “The History of Science Society”, John Servos examines the balance of intellectual power during this time period.  He seeks to explain why most intellectuals engaged in experimental rather than theoretical science.  Servos’ analysis seems particularly compelling in light of the other theories he discusses.  However, he fails to draw a few key inferences that would lend further support to his reasoning.

            Before presenting his argument, Servos discusses common explanations for why “in the sciences of physics and chemistry…Americans gravitate(d) toward experimental problems rather than toward the theoretical issues that occupied a significant number of their colleagues in Europe” (613).  Servos readily dismisses the notion that Americans’ inherent practicality and disdain for abstractness compelled them to embrace Bacon’s investigative scientific method.  After all, many experiments seem as impractical as theoretical inquiries.  Similarly, he quickly rejects the theory that American scientists embraced “Baconianism” because “they exalted in collecting facts and feared demon mathematics, an idol that could pervert an unprejudiced understanding of nature” (614).  Servos rightly deems this theory implausible since few scientists allow philosophical concerns to dictate their actions.

            Of all the theories Servos considers, the last seems the most problematic and contradictory.  Surprisingly, this is the only explanation he does not explicitly reject.  According to Servos, some historians contend that experimental science flourished because it was compatible with American ideals and traditions: “The laboratory was…a place to mold character, to inculcate in young men the virtues of honesty, perseverance, and fidelity to the little things” (614).  In contrast, theoretical science contained “something sinful in believing that he could use mathematical cunning to determine how nature worked, and something dishonest about winning a reputation in science through work at the desk…[Theoreticians] prospered off the labor of others” (614).  After a rather painful stint in Organic Chemistry, I disagree that laboratory work fosters more perseverance and attention to detail.  Indeed, painstaking theoretical work demands an abundance of patience and resolve.  Furthermore, it seems far more “sinful” to manipulate nature rather than use theoretical principles to understand it.  Indeed, Adams’ “The Dynamo and the Virgin” suggests that new technology – certainly more closely associated with applied rather than theoretical science – was actually replacing religion as a moral force.  As Adams comments, “To Adams the dynamo became a symbol of infinity.  As he grew accustomed to the great gallery of machines, he began to feel the forty-foot dynamos as a moral force, much as the early Christians felt the cross” (380).  These machines also diminished Adams’ regard for nature: “The planet itself seemed less impressive, in its old-fashioned, deliberate, annual or daily revolution, than this huge wheel” (380).  Evidently, applied science seems far more heretical than theoretical physics or chemistry.  Lastly, the suggestion that theoreticians “prosper off the labor of others” is utterly absurd.  Every laboratory experiment relies heavily on abstract theories.  While laboratory scientists may not understand the intricacies of different theories, their work would be impossible without a theoretical framework.  Given all of the theory’s contradictions, it seems shocking that Servos did not fervently reject it like he did the previous arguments.  In fact, he states that “There is merit to an argument constructed along these lines” (614).  Granted, Servos does assert his explanation’s superiority when he contends that “another factor may have been as, if not more, important in shaping the Baconian character of American scientific work” (615).  However, I would have expected Servos to point out the “cultural” theory’s inherent flaws in order to bolster his own thesis.

            Servos presents a sound argument that derives its strength from the level of detail he provides.  While first reading the piece, I worried that Servos would not explain why math was so divorced from science during the early twentieth century.  However, several pages after repeatedly stating that science and math remained in separate fields, he does offer a plausible explanation for this phenomenon: “This may well have been a by-product of the effort by mathematicians to distinguish their subject as a professional pursuit independent of its applications” (618).  The argument that scientists did not receive theoretical training because mathematicians were trying to advance their own careers seems far more plausible than any vague conjectures about the scientists’ philosophical or cultural backgrounds.  Once again, though, it seems that Servos misses an opportunity to lend further support to his argument.  He states that “The discipline of mathematics was making great strides in America during this period.  But the greatest expansion occurred in those areas of mathematics most remote from the needs of scientists” (618).  Since theoretical mathematics flourished during this time period, doesn’t that undermine any argument providing a philosophical or theoretical explanation for trends in American science? After all, wouldn’t American mathematicians have the same purported ideals and values as American scientists?

            Servos certainly offers a viable interpretation of trends in American science.  However, his argument could have been even more convincing if he recognized alternative theories’ inherent contradictions.  I would be interested in knowing what Adams would have thought of Servos’ work.  Would he prefer concrete laboratory experiments over theoretical work?  Perhaps an investigation of various scientific journals published during that time period would further elucidate the predominance of experimental over theoretical science.