Its leaders have always felt that they are using science to improve society. Nature is a brilliant arbiter in ordering the natural world and can rarely be improved upon. It should, however, be supported by policies that give deference to the natural.
Defenders claims that it’s not matter of ideology. Countless studies have shown the dangers, and many of the current ills of society almost certainly stem from interfering with nature’s plan, a plan crafted by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Why would we ignore the processes that nature has created? Why would we put ourselves at risk with beliefs that these choices don’t matter or, worse yet, that we should protect everyone’s feelings by pretending that all choices are equal?
[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Natural childbirth and lactivism are based on science in the same way that eugenics is based on science.[/pullquote]
In order to prevent a future that is even worse than the present, professional societies have been created, books and journals are published, courses are taught, conferences are held and policies are promulgated. Do these policies make some people uncomfortable? Yes, they do. Do they mean pain and suffering of some individuals? Yes, but the suffering is brief and the benefits are more than worth the effort. But above all else, it must be emphasized that this is what science tells us we should do.
Think I’m talking about natural mothering — natural childbirth, breastfeeding and attachment parenting? Think again.
I’m talking about the eugenics movement. The parallels of the natural mothering movement to the eugenics movement are striking.
- Both were undertaken by those whose traditional hold on power was being threatened.
- Both reinscribe (eugenics) traditionally held power or returned it (natural childbirth and lactivism) to its “rightful” holders.
- Both are appeals to nature and rely on the naturalistic fallacy.
- Both insist that evolution has created the best possible outcome.
- Both berate those who believe differently as inferior and defective.
- Both were or are embraced by academia.
Adam S. Cohen explains the prominent role of Harvard University in the eugenics movement:
In August 1912, Harvard president emeritus Charles William Eliot addressed the Harvard Club of San Francisco on a subject close to his heart: racial purity. It was being threatened, he declared, by immigration…
The former Harvard president was an outspoken supporter of another major eugenic cause of his time: forced sterilization of people declared to be “feebleminded,” physically disabled, “criminalistic,” or otherwise flawed…
He also lent his considerable prestige to the campaign to build a global eugenics movement…
None of these actions created problems for Eliot at Harvard, for a simple reason: they were well within the intellectual mainstream at the University. Harvard administrators, faculty members, and alumni were at the forefront of American eugenics—founding eugenics organizations, writing academic and popular eugenics articles, and lobbying government to enact eugenics laws.
Similarly, natural mothering advocates deeply believe that childbirth, breastfeeding and mothering itself are being threatened by lazy women and greedy doctors who would rather use technology than respect the natural order.
The case for eugenics, as its supporters understood it, was remarkably simple. Nature had created a world in which Anglo-Saxon Protestant white males had achieved dominance over other races. That must be what nature intended.
Frank W. Taussig, whose 1911 Principles of Economics was one of the most widely adopted economics textbooks of its time, called for sterilizing unworthy individuals, with a particular focus on the lower classes. “The human race could be immensely improved in quality, and its capacity for happy living immensely increased, if those of poor physical and mental endowment were prevented from multiplying,” he wrote. “Certain types of criminals and paupers breed only their kind, and society has a right and a duty to protect its members from the repeated burden of maintaining and guarding such parasites.”
The case for natural mothering is remarkably simple, too. Nature has created a world in which women suffer agony in childbirth, babies die of insufficient breastmilk, and women are denied access to the wider world by being relegated to childcare. That must be what nature intended.
Supporters of eugenics insisted it was based on science, but eugenics is merely bullying masquerading as science. Most of the scientific evidence touted by its supporters was “discovered” by eugenicists themselves.
One of Harvard’s most prominent psychology professors was a eugenicist who pioneered the use of questionable intelligence testing. Robert M. Yerkes, A.B. 1898, Ph.D. ’02 … developed a now-infamous intelligence test that was administered to 1.75 million U.S. Army enlistees in 1917. The test purported to find that more than 47 percent of the white test-takers, and even more of the black ones, were feebleminded. Some of Yerkes’s questions were straightforward language and math problems, but others were more like tests of familiarity with the dominant culture: one asked, “Christy Mathewson is famous as a: writer, artist, baseball player, comedian.”
In other words, the studies were poorly done, deeply biased and designed to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion … just like most of the literature on natural childbirth and breastfeeding.
It’s pretty obvious to us that the supporters of eugenics were merely seeking to consolidate their hold on the levers of power and the perquisites of wealth, but it wasn’t obvious to many at the time. It ought to be obvious to us that the supporters of natural childbirth, lactivism and attachment parenting are seeking to bolster their power, employment opportunities and self esteem but, sadly, it still has the imprimatur of science.
Ultimately, most supporters of eugenics realized their spectacular error.
Today, the American eugenics movement is often thought of as an episode of national folly—like 1920s dance marathons or Prohibition—with little harm done …
The truth is that eugenics caused tremendous harm through forced sterilization of “mental defectives” and immigration quotas crafted to keep out “undesirables.”
A few years ago, correspondence was discovered from 1941 in which Otto Frank pleaded with the U.S. State Department for visas for himself, his wife, and his daughters Margot and Anne. It is understood today that Anne Frank died because the Nazis considered her a member of an inferior race, but few appreciate that her death was also due, in part, to the fact that many in the U.S. Congress felt the same way.
It’s hardly surprising that eugenics was harmful; it was bullying masquerading as science.
The harm caused by the natural mothering movement is less serious, but more pervasive. Women who choose epidurals or undergo C-sections have been convinced that they are “defective”; women who can’t breastfeed (or choose not to) are derided as lazy; and women who dare to imagine a life beyond childrearing are jeered as “unnatural.”
The next time someone tells you that natural childbirth, lactivism and attachment parenting are “based on science,” remember: people used to believe that eugenics was based on science, too.
