Eugenics: What’s in a Name?

The June 2000 Newsletter invited suggestions for a new term to replace the name eugenics.

There are many precedents that suggest that when a word has become difficult or impossible to use for political or comparable reasons each of the alternatives which successively replace it will enjoy only a brief life. Each, in turn, will be replaced by other, more acceptable or fashionable ones.

Emotionally charged subjects provide many examples. Sexual organs and activities were, in England, described by the Anglo-Saxon terms until these were replaced, by academic persons, by the Latin and, more popularly, by words from the nursery. Excretion and elimination have a similar history. Latrine, garde-robe, lavatory, toilet, loo and many other examples could be quoted.

Examples from race should not, perhaps, be quoted. Occupations provide grandiloquent, often comic euphemisms: rat-catchers became “rodent operatives”. The case of “servant” is interesting. The replacement of manufacturing by service industries has resulted in the presence of more servants in the country today than ever before. They work as cleaning ladies, home helps, carers, in hotels, restaurants, the health service, transport and many other industries; but one should never say so. Doctors, of course, are glad to claim that they are the servants of their patients, teachers of their pupils, vicars of their flocks, politicians of the public; and civil servants would never claim to be anything else. Only the lower classes object. Oh dear! What have I said?

It might be more useful to consider the reasons why the word “eugenics” has become difficult to use.

The National Socialists of Germany were, of course, partly responsible. They did not distinguish between persons in prospect and persons extant. Nor do the public. The Nazis were cruel. Eugenicists are not.

Eugenics is associated in the public mind with the power of the State. Eugenicists are typically not dictators or democratic party-politicians. They are doctors concerned with health, biologists concerned with diversity, philanthropists concerned with benefaction.

Eugenics is associated in the public mind with the production of an elite. The public do not distinguish between the Victorian upper social class and the modern meritocratic elite: the two to the public are equally obnoxious. It happens that at the time of writing a leading politician recently exhibited the same confusion. He naively criticised the admissions procedures of an Oxford college. He paid a price in ridicule.

Eugenics is concerned with discrimination. That word also has become unusable. It now means the opposite of what it did. A person who, for example, appoints to an office only on the criterion of race or sex is not a person of discrimination: on the contrary, he lacks it.

Eugenics is concerned with inequality. The public, certainly the British public, is obsessed with equality. It is totally irrational in this respect. It accepts inequality in football. But then, it understands football. Intelligence, virtue, biological quality, social value: these concepts cause emotional disturbance comparable with sex. Time was when all were equal in the sight of God. O tempora! O mores! Whatever happened to respect? For each in his station?

Practical eugenics is, in fact, alive and well. It is a growth industry. It flourishes in nearly every doctor’s consulting room. The rate at which current research is providing him with new opportunities to practice eugenics is remarkable. He must, of course, refer only to his patient’s well-being, not to that of society. Patients do not actually want their children to be ill, or handicapped. The doctor must use appropriate language. Where intelligence or wisdom is not esteemed, “street-wisdom” or “coolness” may be.

The rate of improvement of public education and understanding should not be underestimated. Those best qualified to judge say that the baleful influence of the Roman Catholic Church and some other religions is rapidly diminishing. The sensational treatment by the popular press of artificial methods of reproduction is producing satiation, fatigue and, remarkably quickly, acceptance as of course. The beneficial effect of eugenic practice on a patient’s pocket may be grasped by him once it is pointed out.

It is doubtful to what extent the replacement of the word “eugenics” by a single euphemism would be useful or possible. On the other hand, choice of appropriate and prudent modes of expression and presentation are always essential. Spin? Oh no! Not that! Life is difficult!

Ronald A C McAllister