Defective data: statistics, disability, and eugenic sterilisation in interwar Britain.

IF 1.1 2区 哲学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Alex Aylward, Coreen McGuire
{"title":"Defective data: statistics, disability, and eugenic sterilisation in interwar Britain.","authors":"Alex Aylward, Coreen McGuire","doi":"10.1017/mdh.2025.10014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article is concerned with the history of eugenic sterilisation in Britain through the 1920s and 1930s. In this period, the Eugenics Society mounted an active but ultimately unsuccessful campaign to legalise the voluntary surgical sterilisation of various categories of people, including those deemed 'mentally deficient' or 'defective'. We take as our explicit focus the propaganda produced and disseminated by the Eugenics Society as part of this campaign, and especially the various kinds of data mobilised therein. The parliamentary defeat of the Society's Sterilisation Bill in July 1931 marks, we argue, a significant shift in the tactics of the campaign. Before this, the Eugenics Society framed sterilisation as a promising method for eradicating, or at least significantly reducing the incidence of, inherited 'mental defect'. Subsequently, they came to emphasise the inequality of access to sterilisation between rich and poor, (re)positioning theirs as an egalitarian campaign aimed at extending a form of reproductive agency to the disadvantaged. These distinct phases of the campaign were each supported by different kinds of propaganda material, which in turn centred on very different types of data. As the campaign evolved, the numbers and quantitative rhetoric which typified earlier propaganda materials gave way to a more qualitative approach, which notably included the selective incorporation of the voices of people living with hereditary 'defects'. In addition to exposing a rupture in the Eugenics Society's propagandistic data practices, this episode underscores the need to further incorporate disabled dialogues and perspectives into our histories of eugenics.</p>","PeriodicalId":18275,"journal":{"name":"Medical History","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2025.10014","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article is concerned with the history of eugenic sterilisation in Britain through the 1920s and 1930s. In this period, the Eugenics Society mounted an active but ultimately unsuccessful campaign to legalise the voluntary surgical sterilisation of various categories of people, including those deemed 'mentally deficient' or 'defective'. We take as our explicit focus the propaganda produced and disseminated by the Eugenics Society as part of this campaign, and especially the various kinds of data mobilised therein. The parliamentary defeat of the Society's Sterilisation Bill in July 1931 marks, we argue, a significant shift in the tactics of the campaign. Before this, the Eugenics Society framed sterilisation as a promising method for eradicating, or at least significantly reducing the incidence of, inherited 'mental defect'. Subsequently, they came to emphasise the inequality of access to sterilisation between rich and poor, (re)positioning theirs as an egalitarian campaign aimed at extending a form of reproductive agency to the disadvantaged. These distinct phases of the campaign were each supported by different kinds of propaganda material, which in turn centred on very different types of data. As the campaign evolved, the numbers and quantitative rhetoric which typified earlier propaganda materials gave way to a more qualitative approach, which notably included the selective incorporation of the voices of people living with hereditary 'defects'. In addition to exposing a rupture in the Eugenics Society's propagandistic data practices, this episode underscores the need to further incorporate disabled dialogues and perspectives into our histories of eugenics.

有缺陷的数据:统计,残疾和优生绝育在两次世界大战之间的英国。
这篇文章关注的是20世纪20年代和30年代英国优生绝育的历史。在此期间,优生学协会发起了一场积极但最终失败的运动,以使各种类型的人自愿手术绝育合法化,包括那些被认为是“精神缺陷”或“有缺陷”的人。我们明确关注优生学协会制作和传播的宣传,作为该运动的一部分,特别是其中动员的各种数据。我们认为,1931年7月该协会绝育法案在议会的失败标志着该运动策略的重大转变。在此之前,优生学协会认为绝育是一种很有前途的方法,可以根除或至少显著减少遗传性“精神缺陷”的发生率。随后,他们开始强调富人和穷人之间获得绝育服务的不平等,(重新)将他们的运动定位为一场平等主义运动,旨在将一种生殖代理形式扩展到弱势群体。运动的这些不同阶段都有不同类型的宣传材料支持,而这些宣传材料又以非常不同类型的数据为中心。随着运动的发展,早期宣传材料中典型的数字和数量修辞让位于更定性的方法,其中包括有选择地纳入遗传“缺陷”者的声音。除了揭露优生学协会的宣传数据实践的破裂外,这一事件还强调了进一步将残疾人对话和观点纳入我们的优生学历史的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical History
Medical History 医学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical History is a refereed journal devoted to all aspects of the history of medicine and health, with the goal of broadening and deepening the understanding of the field, in the widest sense, by historical studies of the highest quality. It is also the journal of the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health. The membership of the Editorial Board, which includes senior members of the EAHMH, reflects the commitment to the finest international standards in refereeing of submitted papers and the reviewing of books. The journal publishes in English, but welcomes submissions from scholars for whom English is not a first language; language and copy-editing assistance will be provided wherever possible.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信