7 Comments

1. Rawson Rebecca  •  Nov 14, 2009 @9:57 am
   

   As we saw in the immigration unit, racist and classist rationales abounded in pseudo-scientific theories of the 1920s. The eugenics movement was no exception. Henry Herbert Goddard claimed to have discovered in the Kalikak family a perfect opportunity to study the hereditability of morality, intelligence and criminality—alleged behavioral corollaries to the trait of “feeble-mindedness.” In direct reference Mendel, Goddard concludes that because mental traits could be inherited, “recessive feeble-minded genes” carried by otherwise “normal” looking members of the population posed an enormous threat to society (104). Since he deems these qualities to be biological, rather than environmental or socioeconomic, Goddard thinks that “feeble-minded” persons are a lost cause, that even programs like public education are lost on them, and that sterilization is the only answer.

   Reading between the lines, though, what exactly does that societal threat entail? First, Goddard discusses the “contamination” or “pollution” of the human gene pool with feeble-mindedness. He also points out “modern society is burdened (112) by generations of “social sores” (113), in reference to the potential burden of welfare support on taxpayers. I find, however, that the most interesting reason for his rejection of “unfit individuals” is found in the following excerpt:

   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 connection with Jessica’s discussion of morality, the above quote shows that beneath the scientific jargon, Goddard was mostly concerned with preserving an Anglo-Saxon claim to American identity. In his analysis of Martin Sr.’s family history, he links the family’s “pure blood” with “good representative citizenship,” supported with references to successful ancestors, including co-signers of the Declaration of Independence. In order to protect a “virtuous” American bloodline, Goddard calls for social controls to maintain a demographically white population, and one that specifically embodied Victorian values, such as aversion to sexuality. Like immigration quotas and miscegenation laws, Goddard overlays stereotypical assumptions about the high sexual activity of immigrants and the lower classes with progressivist science—believed to be truth itself—in order to target and exclude “others” who did not fit a nativist profile of an American.

   Disturbingly, the 1927 case of Buck v. Bell reveals what follows when such pseudo-scientific theories were instituted as actionable policy. Carrie Buck, the plaintiff, was ordered to undergo compulsory sterilization, so that “the health of the patient and the welfare of society [would] be promoted.” In the majority decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” That the scientifically-based heredity of “imbecility” went unquestioned is most evident in Holmes’ famous declaration, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

   To speak to Jessica’s question about our perception of eugenics today, I was most shocked by the Court’s claim that Carrie Buck could “be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health.” As someone standing on the other side of major movements for women’s and patients’ rights, I can’t imagine a situation where major surgery could be forced against someone’s will and then deemed healthful. Actually, with a quick search online, I discovered that a salpingectomy—the removal of the fallopian tubes from the abdominal cavity—involves a number of health risks and can be complicated and painful. Buck v. Bell presents both an unnerving endorsement of governmental eugenic policy and a powerful symbol of state control over the private matter of reproduction. Overall, it seems that eugenics of this era stemmed in part from a negative interpretation of evolution that envisioned the future degradation of society.

2. Elizabeth Gresk  •  Nov 15, 2009 @3:46 pm
   

   What intrigued me the most about this week’s readings was the complete subjectivity of eugenics and social services. I did not see one explanation of science or biology or even a definition of mental illness in any of the readings (similar to the Laughlin testimony). The social workers who go into the homes of people are basically entrusted with diagnosing mental capabilities and their word is accepted as truth. These women are “highly trained, of broad human experience, and interested in social problems. As a result of weeks of residence at the Training School, they become acquainted with the condition of the feeble-minded. They study all the grades, note their peculiarities, and acquaint themselves with the methods of testing and recognizing them.” (13)

   Additionally, the social workers appear to err in favor of always assuming a mental deficiency. “For example, if a man was strongly alcoholic, it is almost impossible to determine whether he was also feeble-minded, because the reports usually declare that the only trouble with him was that he was always drunk and they say if he had been sober, he would have been all right. This may be true, but on the other hand, it is quite possibly that he was feeble-minded also.” (15) In later chapters, when discussing the charts and heredity of the Kallikak families, Goddard talks about how some members of the family seemed ‘normal’, but it wasn’t possible to conclusively say so, thus it was better to assume they were feeble-minded.

   I think both readings provide excellent examples of the phenomenon of ‘pseudoscience’. I’m pretty sure none of these methods would be acceptable as medical proof in today’s world. Additionally, I think there is a general ignorance about the impacts of poverty and education on these people. When reading the descriptions of the families, it didn’t seem like they were particularly stupid or mentally deficient. In fact most of them seemed to be doing the best they could given their poverty. Also, Deborah’s ‘education’ barely focused on academics, since there was the assumption that feeble-minded people weren’t capable of such actions. At one point she even gets removed from her lessons because she’s not doing well. After reading about how she can sight-read music and seeing images of her handiwork, I’m not convinced at all that Deborah is even slightly mentally deficient. It would be interesting to see if any of the social workers were capable of the tasks they judged Deborah by. I think today there is still the assumption of a connection between feeble-mindedness (or any mental deficiency) and poverty and lack of education. We look at the situation in a manner that creates a cycle that is impossible to escape because people are denied opportunities to prove themselves capable on the assumption that they are incapable.

   There is also an interesting sexual bias in both of the readings, but I noticed it particularly in The Kallikak Family. While discussing the descendants of Martin Kallikak, Goddard frames all instances of ‘feeble-mindedness’ as coming from the woman that Martin Kallikak had an illegitimate child with. She herself is described as “the nameless feeble-minded girl” (who apparently had enough intelligence to name her child after its father). Kallikak’s actions are described as: “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…” (50). What I would like to know is why Kallikak did not get any blame for deciding to involve himself with a ‘feeble-minded girl’. He is paraded through history as this wonderful man who made one mistake that was really unfortunate for the rest of society, but no one questions his sanity. What would a ‘normal’ man be doing with a ‘feeble-minded’ girl? I think this proves Jess’s point about how feeble-mindedness for women was deeply connected to their sexuality. I’d guess that Martin’s actions would be explained in 2 ways: 1) he was just being a ‘man’; 2) this ‘feeble-minded girl’ is an evil sexual temptress. Either way, Martin looks bad or the girl looks considerably more capable than someone who is ‘feeble-minded’.

3. Katie O'Mealia  •  Nov 17, 2009 @12:43 am
   

   In response to Jess’s discussion question, “How would Goddard’s book be perceived by modern society?” I would hope that they would be appalled. Goddard lacks any figment of compassion in his analysis of the “feeble-minded”, a group of people whom he cannot himself concretely identify. Additionally, he is quick to judge, and frighteningly takes his judgments as absolute truths.

   His lack of compassion shows itself most notably when he speaks of one of the families that the field worker visited. One of the girls, “should have been at school, according to the law, but when one saw her face, one realized it made no difference. She was pretty, with olive complexion and dark, languid eyes, but there was no mind there.” (73). He assessed that she had no mind by simply looking into her eyes. How on earth is that a scientific analysis of her hereditary misfortune? Further, in this statement he concludes that no amount of school could help this girl. Though he states at some points in his argument that one of the ways to ameliorate the situation of the slums would be to help whoever is living there, he does not truly believe those words. What he truly believes is that some individuals are simply unfit to function in the world, and thus should not try. This conjecture should be shocking to individuals of modern society. People now should know that children should be granted all the tools necessary to succeed, and that mindset is reflected in the presence of programs such as DC Reads and Jumpstart here at Georgetown.

   He further infuriated me with his description of the vapid-eye girl’s sister: “the oldest girl, a vulgar, repulsive creature of fifteen, came into the room and stood looking at the stranger. She had somehow managed to live.” (74). In summary, he said that the poor girl did not deserve to live because she was unattractive. This statement was obviously backed by substantial scientific evidence. All that this girl had done was stand in front of the field worker. How on earth could she have made an accurate assessment of the fifteen year old’s intellectual capacity from a biased glance?

   His argument at times made sense in its logical progression, but he lost me when he made these hypotheses based solely on looks. He got too caught up in the superficial aspects of individual presentation, and failed to speak of their actual intellectual abilities. Sure, the girls may have terrified him with their looks, but did the field agent ask them to add anything together? Did she have them spell or display any sort of intellectual prowess? No. She let her abhorrence for the environment dictate her conclusion.

   Modern society would hopefully feel the compassion that Goddard lost when he was hanging out with the Wicked Witch of the West and people who hate Santa Clause. They would resent his elitist attitude, and disregard his comments as ludicrous. Though society is not perfect, and there are undoubtedly still individuals who hold prejudices, I would hope that none of them are advocating sterilization or castration as a solution to their feelings of hereditary superiority.

4. Mary Jane  •  Nov 17, 2009 @12:46 am
   

   At the end of her post, Jessica asks how Goddard’s book would be received by modern society. Despite the eugenicists’ complete misunderstanding of inheritance, some modern scholars may hesitate to condemn and criticize these twentieth-century “scientists.” After all, they did not have the scientific tools or knowledge we enjoy today. However, the blatant contradictions and uncertainties that characterize Goddard’s work render him and his fellow eugenicists culpable of inflicting unjustified harm on “feeble-minded” individuals.
   Eighty years of scientific discoveries reveal that the eugenicists did not understand genetics. When interpreting Mendel’s law, Goddard states that “dwarfness is simply the absence of tallness” (110). He extends this concept to mental deficiencies, suggesting that “feeble-mindedness is recessive due to the absence of something that would make for normality” (112). While Goddard employs scientific terminology – “recessive” and “dominant” – he clearly does not know the underlying concepts. A recessive trait is not simply the absence of a dominant trait. Instead, “recessive” and “dominant” simply refer to the phenotypic interplay between two different alleles. Furthermore, inheritance is usually much more complicated than the simple “dominant” and “recessive” binary. Many phenotypes result from a combination of the two alleles.
   While Goddard clearly misunderstands genetics’ basic concepts, the uncertainties and contradictions that plague his writing are far more troubling than his apparent ignorance. The eugenicists advocate colonization and sterilization in order to “prevent them [the feeble-minded] from falling into evil and from procreating their kind, so avoiding the transmitting of their defects and delinquencies to succeeding generations” (60). These two “solutions” to mental deficiencies degrade citizens while violating their privacy and independence. In order to justify these deplorable practices, eugenicists would need a wide body of incontrovertible scientific evidence regarding the policies’ necessity and effectiveness. However, Goddard’s work is replete with doubt and ambiguity about the genetic basis of “feeble-mindedness” and criminality. He repeatedly states that scientists have “pretty clearly” shown that Mendel’s law of inheritance applies to mental deficiencies. Indeed, he readily admits “We do not know that feeble-mindedness is a ‘unit character.’ Indeed, there are many reasons for thinking that it cannot be” (111). Despite these doubts, Goddard “assumes for the sake of simplifying our illustration that it [feeble-mindedness] is a ‘unit character’” (111). How can Goddard feel justified in advocating sterilization if the purported basis for this practice is shrouded in uncertainty?
   After reading Goddard, I thought that his work may not be representative of all eugenicists. Perhaps other such “scientists” felt that their interpretations of inherited characteristics were irrefutably substantiated by accepted scientific facts. However, the account of Buck vs. Bell reveals a similar sense of uncertainty. The document states that “Buck is the probably potential parent of socially inadequate offspring.” Despite this ambiguity, the court allows that she “be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health, and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization.” The eugenicists’ sterilization policies are abhorrent in and of themselves. However, the fact that they advocated these practices while remaining uncertain about the underlying genetic concepts renders eugenicists even more blameworthy. Their lack of scientific technology and knowledge cannot excuse this flagrant inability to recognize their inherently flawed beliefs. In answer to Jessica’s question then, Goddard’s book must be regarded with unmitigated scorn.

5. Kathryn Swoboda  •  Nov 17, 2009 @5:05 am
   

   I can’t say I was shocked when I read either of this week’s readings. Throughout the course of the semester, we have come across “doctors” and “scientists” claiming science and physical proof to justify classification of groups of different people and in almost every case, while they claimed science, we have seen little if any behind any diagnosis or categorization. So, I was not that alarmed by Henry Herbert Goddard’s The Kallikak family: a Study in the Heredity of feeble-mindedness as one unfamiliar with this periods tradition of “pseudoscience” would have been. However, I will admit, although we have discussed compulsory sterilization, I was still shocked by the Buck vs. Bell case. Maybe, like Rebecca has said, it was seeing the consequences of this “pseudoscience” becoming a reality and seeing them instituted in policy that made it so disturbing.

   While reading, Goddard’s study and the Buck vs Bell case not once, was there any actual scientific and biological explanation of what was considered mental illness. Similar to how we saw race constructed in Virginia legislation or ethnicity and the ability to assimilate determined without any biological or science explanation, we see none here as these “specialists” diagnose “feeble-mindedness”. First, Goddard says he sends in “trained” social workers to meet the families of these “feeble-minded”, but his explanation of their training is that they have spent weeks working at the school, studying tests and working with “feeble-minded” (Goddard 13). How is this at all any sort of formal training? In determining whether or not someone is mentally handicapped, they look to their family and look to records or mental illness, again they have no biological proof to explain mental illness is hereditary, as this is what they are studying to find. When they have no documentation or parents to observe, he says, “they become familiar with the conditions of those persons not seen, from the similarity of the language used in describing them to that used in describing persons whom she has seen” (15). Again, we have seen countless times the use of personal judgment is what is used in place of actual science.

   In order to further try and legitimize his research, Goddard explains the use of IQ exams, like the Binet scale. Although still used today, the validity of standardized tests such as Stanford-Binet for testing general intelligence has been disputed by a number of commentators since their creation. Today, they have been revised numerous times, but still the argument is that these tests, test not on intelligence, but on bias that confuses people and tricks them to answer incorrectly based on social and environmental differences.

   Reading through Goddard’s study, I was disturbed by his own contradiction and lack of evidence, and yet his continuance belief that mental illness is hereditary. Studying Deborah, he cited her personality and strengths and weaknesses one way and from those observances, would conclude her mental illness and then go to cite complete opposite personality traits and continue to claim her mental illness. Goddard goes to claim Deborah was not particularly “affectionate” early on as if to say this is some indicator of her “feeble-mindedness”(2). Then it is observed that she is “very affectionate” in another study (8). Deborah obviously can not read or write when she enters the school, not because of any mental illness, but because she has simply not had an education. Looking at her Christmas list, she is even seems interested in reading as that she wants books, three years in a row and after that we are to assume, she either got her books, or my assumption, she just gave up. Like, Elizabeth points out, following the observances made of Deborah, it’s clear she is not getting a formal education and that is why it shows in how they test her intelligence. However, that does not prove she is “feeble-minded”, for she seems pretty capable of accomplishes many difficult tasks.

   In response to Jessica’s questions, I’m not completely sure about all of them . I’d like to hope that modern society today would read Goddard’s study and not buy into it. I think it’s pretty obvious his study had very little science, if any at all, behind it and I think that if this was produced today, most of society would not believe it. However, some of society still believes everything and anything a doctor or scientists says is fact. We still question the roots and causes of mental illness and we I think would all agree that depending on the type of mental illness, there are a number of genetic, social, and environmental reasons for people to have it. Yes, some would argue that certain mental illness could be genetic, but obviously Goddard’s study is not professional and his conclusions are definitely not backed any appropriate use of science or research. I’d like to think that today we would question scientific studies more closely and not believe all we are told.

6. Caroline Moore  •  Nov 17, 2009 @12:33 pm
   

   This week’s readings mark yet another attempt to maintain the presumed “normal” heterogeneity of the American populous through the subordination of a minority group. Just as we saw with the issues of race and immigration, mental capacity became another marker by which authorities regulated and distributed certain rights to individuals while prohibiting others from acquiring the same sorts of rights. In Henry Herbert Goddard’s The Kallikak Family and the Buck v. Bell case, feeble-minded individuals are deemed threats to both society and the “normal, dominant society” (Begen). Goddard claims, “a great majority” of feeble-minded individuals, “become a direct burden on society” when left to their own “wayward” devices, wreaking havoc on the social order (55). Similarly, Judge Holmes proclaims, “it is better for all the world if…society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”
   As Jess points out in her blog response, people of the time viewed feeble-mindedness as a character trait closely tied to reprehensible moral behavior. The extensive pedigree Goddard provides dating back to Martin, Sr. illustrates this strict dichotomy between normal, morally sound, and “good” individuals on the one side, and the feeble-minded, morally reprehensible, and “bad” people from whom Deborah descends (29-30). Goddard elaborates on Deborah’s family history as one plagued by countless instances of criminality, sexual promiscuity and the births of multiple illegitimate children. Since conception outside of wedlock was considered taboo, it comes as no surprise that Goddard would continue to expound on the Kallikak family’s unsound moral values, a byproduct of their feeble-mindedness.
   Goddard spends so much time focusing on heredity as insurmountable and immutable. To him, the inherited quality of feeble-mindedness remains steadfast: the nature versus nurture debate simply does not apply in the case of the Kallikak family, for “no amount of education or good environment change a feeble-minded individual into a normal one” (53). After a semester debating this same topic in abnormal psychology, I am well aware that people are shaped both by the environment and genetic makeup. The point that Goddard asserts—that environment and genes are mutually exclusive—reinforces the common viewpoint many people had during the early part of the twentieth century, which demonstrates the lack of foresight that many scientists and psychologists had. Goddard’s notion of inheritance as steadfast gets called into question when we consider Gregor Mendel’s punnett squares and the increased understanding of genetics during this time. The court ruling in the Buck v. Bell case suggests it was only probable—not certain—that the plaintiff to produce “socially inadequate offspring,” and fails to recognize that “normal” offspring can also be produced.
   As Elizabeth also discusses, another aspect of this week’s readings that really resonated with me was the underlying issue of subjectivity. Both the Buck v. Bell case and Goddard’s work rely on subjectivity as a determinant of one’s status as feeble-minded or not. Buck v. Bell states, “it shall be of opinion” as to whether or not a person should be sexually sterilized, but who gets the ultimate say? Can we expect impartiality on behalf of those who are elected to make such judgments? In Goddard’s piece, field workers were dispatched to the homes in order to determine if a child was defective or not (13-14). Although humans have the ability to act rationally, it would be incorrect to say that each person employ rationale to the same extent. Due to the fact that a prototypical, normal human being does not exist, there are bound to be some who get mislabeled by the field workers. Though Goddard cites that “this is not the case,” human judgment is not the most-sound method for such classification, as evident by such disastrous events like Abu Ghraib.

7. Ryan Gofus  •  Nov 17, 2009 @3:02 pm
   

   Jess draws a good distinction between the uses of feeble-minded to denote a lack of mental capacity and how it was applied as a catch-all phrase. “Feeble-mindedness” was applied to anyone perceived to be promiscuous, poor, uneducated or abnormal in anyway. The Buck v. Bell case legalized the eugenic sterilization of those labeled in this way, in an almost unanimous decision (only one dissenting opinion). This near unanimity shows how ingrained these ideas were within the culture and public opinion of the day.

   This theme of these defects being hereditary and thus insurmountable runs through both documents. Also, as Caroline mentions, there is a high degree of subjectivity used in determining feeble-mindedness. In reality, I found many of the perceived traits as conditional. They people resulted in the way they were because of the conditions into which they were born, not because of any inherent genetic deficiencies. I believe that to an extent, the same paradigms are working today. For example, a boy born to a single mother, in an inner city environment will face conditions that will cause him to develop in a certain way. These conditions (crime, poor school systems, early exposure to drugs and alcohol) could enable one to perceive the boy as inherently deficient. However, had this same boy been born to a different family, in a different area very probably would have developed in a manner that would be perceived acceptable (even outstanding) by many. Instead of hereditary, I believe that many of the perceived traits are conditional. Though no one will ever say it, one could argue that the conditions are defined greatly by class, not genetics.

   Buck v. Bell show again how the law serves to perpetuate these ideas of hereditary traits of feeble-mindedness. It takes decades for these rulings to be overturned at the state level. It is interesting to look at the motivation of those who fought to enact the eugenics law. What were they working towards? They claim that they were motivated by the desire to create a more exceptional American citizenry. But, like the construction of race, it could be argued that they were motivated to protect their upper class status, just as white were motivated to create a container / bubble to protect their whiteness and the privileges that accompany it.