Duty or dream? Edwin G. Conklin's critique of eugenics and support for American individualism.
This paper assesses ideas about moral and reproductive duty in American eugenics during the early twentieth century. While extreme eugenicists, including Charles Davenport and Paul Popenoe, argued that social leaders and biologists must work to prevent individuals who were "unfit" from reproducing, moderates, especially Edwin G. Conklin, presented a different view. Although he was sympathetic to eugenic goals and participated in eugenic organizations throughout his life, Conklin realized that eugenic ideas rarely could meet strict hereditary measures. Relying on his experience as an embryologist, Conklin instead attempted to balance more extreme eugenic claims - that emphasized the absolute limits posed by heredity - with his own view of "the possibilities of development." Through his critique he argued that most human beings never even begin to approach their hereditary potential; he moderated his own eugenic rhetoric so that it preserved individual opportunity and responsibility, or what has often been labeled the American Dream.
Cooke
Kathy J
KJ
Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT 06518, USA. kathy.cooke@quinnipiac.edu
D005053:Eugenics / Q000266:history*; D049672:History, 19th Century; D049673:History, 20th Century; D006801:Humans; D010684:Philosophy / Q000266:history*; D044469:Racial Groups / Q000266:history*; D014481:United States
Genetics and Reproduction