How eugenics poisoned the welfare state

MikeF

One of the delusions of our time is that ideas about the supposed genetic and hence social or racial inferiority of whole groups of people are somehow the exclusive province of the 'right'. The left likes nothing better than to 'categorise' people on a group basis, especially when it can claim some sort of spurious 'scientific' justification for doing so. I wonder if we will get a BBC or Channel 4 documentary on this phenomenon - perhaps they might even label it the left's 'dirty little secret'. I somehow think not.

A. MacAulay

Eugenics is irredeemably part of the "Modern" and seems now as old fashioned as a le Corbusier high rise. Or the 3rd Reich. Here, this vicious, crazy, inhuman doctrine became state policy.

Robert Slack

"the poorest members of society are literally trapped"

Are they poor because they are trapped or trapped because they are poor? Without answering the question it it will not be possible to solve the problem. If there are genetic heritable differences among the population which create an underclass then we must face up to it, even it seems unpalatable. Even if the observed differences in attitudes and attainment levels are purely the consequence of nurture we still have the problem of differential birth rates (don't know numbers off the top but I'm fairly sure birth rates in poor and poorly educated communities are higher than in higher socio-economic groups. If we don't deal with it it will deal with us. And it is hard to see it will not lead to serious civil unrest..street violence leading to repression and demographic balancing through death. Or perhaps a good old world war to get rid of cannon fodder. It might be better to accept we must deal with the problem. Reality rules!

Paul C

People dependent on benefits usually vote Labour so it is not in the interests of the party to liberate them.

A. MacAulay

Robert Slack, one of the interesting things about British society, perhaps the most significant, is that it is on the one side a rigid structure with an arcane proliferation of expressions of social merit through Orders, medals, societies, etc. all emanating from the Crown and that this hierarchy is permeable from below. A person of humble background could make it to the House of Lords, and until the shameless Blair, the consensus (practice will diverge) was that a person who worked hard could go far and merit could be recognised and service rewarded. Now, not only has the meritocracy been perverted (e.g. Baroness Ashton) but the permeability has been wilfully undermined with the destruction of the education system and the creation of a dependant dole class.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If poverty and ignorance were genetic we would still be living in caves. Please consider that the failure to understand this is at the root of the disasters of the 20thC with its millions of dead. Pseudo Malthusianism and social Darwinism are perversions. Think on this before you, go over the top, in your next, "good old war".

Laban Tall

"They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State... but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights — including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood.’ And that, except for the loss of fatherhood, has effectively been his legacy."

In which case Beveridge's plan was a total failure, as the whole point of eugenics is to produce differential birth rates between different classes of people. I'd also dispute that the very poor have been disenfranchised or deprived of civil freedom.

I'd go further and say that Berveridge produced the opposite effect to that intended. Only the very rich or the very poor can afford to have lots of children now.

John Patrick

I recommend War against the Weak by the American journalist Edwin Black which charts the origins and development of this evil movement. Interestingly the feminist icon Margaret Sanger, founder of the family planning movement, was also a staunch supporter of eugenics. For her, both contraception and abortion were essential tools in weeding out the desirable elements of society. Black, to his discredit, defends modern feminism with its support for both these and fails to acknowledge the continuity between the eugenics version and the contemporary version of pro-'choice' radical feminism.

David Lindsay

There is nothing new here, nor does there purport to be. What is new, although less and less so now, is the disappearance of the explicitly Christian Tory, Liberal and Labour traditions (Catholic or classically Protestant - Liberal Protestants were prominent in eugenics) that used the legacy of Keynes and Beveridge in causes radically different from that of eugenics, whatever Keynes or Beveridge himself may have intended, just as Christianity has redeemed everything from the Old Israel, Hellenism and the Roman Empire onwards.

TDK

"Or perhaps a good old world war to get rid of cannon fodder."

It is disappointing that so many people still believe in the myth that world wars killed a disproportionate number of the poor and working class. This is total bunk. As a proportion of the relevant population groups the one with the highest casualties in the first and second world wars was the officer class. NCOs and privates were relatively lower. Now many people say that the senior officers were safe in their châteaux. However this is to neglect the fact that most senior officers were of an age that would excuse them for duty if they were of private rank. The equivalent working class age group were in Britain.

Robert Slack

TDK and A MacAulay

I thought my comment was easy to understand. Why did it so totally confuse you both?

Theresa

I think in the interests of balance, you should have mentioned that Winston Churchill, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and Dean Paul Inge, GK Chesterton's bete noire were also enthusiastic supporters of eugenics and attempts to introduce compulsory sterilisation. I think they might just possibly have been right wing.

Peter Reeve

When you say, "the eugenicists succeeded in getting the Mental Incapacity Act 1913 through parliament" I assume you intend The Mental Deficiency Act of 1913, of which Winston Churchill had been one of the early drafters and was its most enthusiastic proponent. (The Mental Incapacity Act was passed in 2005).

More seriously, you quote Shaw as saying, "The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man." That quote is actually from The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion, in which Shaw put the words into the mouth of his character John Tanner. The work is satirical. If you read it - and it is worth reading, being very well written, often hilarious, and is freely available online - and cannot see that it is meant ironically, then just be thankful that Churchill did not get his way with his proposal for enforced sterilization of the "feeble-minded".

K Crosby

Thanks Peter, what a shame that it took a look in this right-wing rag to find the citation....