Eugenics is a science and humanity’s rivalry. The annals of psychology and genetics can no doubt take in eugenics as the most repulsive and shameful chapter. This radical proposal was the product of the mind of Sir Francis Galton in the 19th century. In his view, the “best” race would come to be through the natural selection of the “good” and the extermination of the “bad” by sterilisation. Once more, though, evil science with ferocious and tyrannical ideology, which relied on fear, hatred, and power, was prevailing.
Walking through the door of the eugenics psychology, one will find out how much human bias. And emotion can misguide a science that claims to be the sole liberator of humanity and their extirpation as the oppressed. Eugenics is a term that comes from the Greek, meaning literally ‘good birth.’ It consists of’ eu’ (good) and ‘genes’(born). Galton, influenced by Darwin’s natural selection theory, insisted that ‘good’ people would, in a metaphysical way, and ultimately physically, ‘give birth to the best’ over the evils of society.
Read More: Birth Defects: How Early Detection Can Save Newborn Lives
Power, Fear, and Desire for Control
The eugenics movement, which started in the early 1900s and lasted for around 100 years, was a global phenomenon that not only affected people’s lives and health but also social and economic conditions in the USA, Germany, and Britain. The majority of the population suffered from poverty and diseases. And at the same time, they lived in constant fear of criminals.
The psychoanalytical author points to the fear of uncertainty and the need for control. Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality Theory (1950) states that people, when perceiving a threat or loss of control, will be more likely to adopt the severe systems and norms that promise them the safety they desire. The eugenicists believed that through contraception. They would slowly eliminate the social problems, thus creating a false security amidst the chaos of a world.
Read More: The Psychology Behind Authoritarianism
Prejudice, Power and “Us vs Them” Mentality
If social psychology is taken into account, the phenomenon of euthanasia can be justified. Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory claims that human behaviour is often influenced by the unconscious divisions between “us” and “them” made. Prejudice consequently occurs when one group believes that it has a larger and more deserving claim to the needs of belonging.
The eugenics supporters labelled the physically or mentally challenged, certain races and the people with low income as “unfit.” That is why the upper classes could consider themselves both morally and genetically better. The moral disengagement theory (Albert Bandura, 1999) states that if people are convinced that eventually, good will prevail, they will.
Read More: Understanding the Dynamics of Social Psychology
The Role of Psychology in Eugenics Support
Alfred Binet was the very first to envision the use of IQ tests and their application in the case of children’s education. He is viewed as the intelligence testing movement, and this eventually resulted in the next generation of psychologists, such as Lewis Terman and Henry H. Goddard, relying heavily on IQ tests to measure and categorise the alleged shortcomings of the less privileged races or people.
One of the factors that led to the devaluation of scientific racism was the issue itself, which initially gave rise to a gradual uncovering of discredited notions of racial differences by science. Education, diet, and environment are the most significant factors affecting IQ, among others. To some extent, however, the practices of testing did support the denial of rights to certain groups, and the inhumane acts of forced sterilisation and discriminatory immigration policies were the consequences in the U.S., Canada, and Sweden, among others.
Read More: Are Intelligence Tests Applicable in the 21st Century?
Atrocity and Obedience: Psychological Mechanisms
The eugenics program in Nazi Germany marked the utmost abominable part of the entire undertaking. They, in absurd and barbarous manners, went to such lengths in the application of the theory that it was unrecognisable. Dressed up as “racial purity,” the hunt for the so-called “Aryan master race” led to the sterilisation or extermination of millions.
The psychological reasoning is horrifying, yet it is very instructive. The outcome of Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment, which took place in 1963, was that average people could carry out very brutal actions merely because an authority figure told them to do so. A similar event took place at Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison.
The documents that were unsealed reveal the horrible and disgusting story of the gigantic human gamble, as well as the doctors and psychiatrists, the very people supposed to heal the patients, systematically eliminating them. They were simply the ones “obeying orders.”
The Modern Face of Eugenic Thought
Eugenics lost the war but drew its moral after-shock at different levels in society. Present-day genetic screening, embryo selection, and even beauty being perceived as a genetic trait are all rather conservative but yet they are linked in some way to the rudimentary idea of “better” human characters. Current genetic science has divided the arguments into two poles; justifying the past who will be allowed to live and who will get the cure who will decide who gets the cure or who goes down the road of suppression?
Social media, one of the biggest and simplest ways of pushing eugenic thoughts through beauty, body, and gene idealism and perfectionism, is right in the most private areas of life. The constant exposure to “ideal” looks has a double effect: it devalues a person. And at the same time, it keeps the idea that only certain traits should be acknowledged. Modern-day eugenics is more of a psychological issue and less biological, but still, it affects the same way, drawing people into “worthy” and “unworthy” classes.
Learning from the Past: Ethics and Empathy in Science
Eugenics is undeniably a brilliant example to illustrate the case of psychology: science without compassion equals cruel suppression. The ethical codes that are in force today not only uphold the rights of the subjects but also act as a brake on unethical practices. Modern-day psychologists are very conscious of their biases. They are trained to challenge the authorities, and they always need to get the consent of the person involved in the research.
The psychology of eugenics might be the least recognised type of discrimination, particularly if it is cloaked scientifically. A “deployment” of self-awareness, intellectual sensitivity, and generosity would be all that humanity would need to prevent any such occurrences from happening again.
Conclusion
Eugenics has become more of a warning from nature to humankind rather than just a notion of a dead-and-buried science. It is the rapid perversion of knowledge through the channels of fear, pride, and suppression. The psychological repercussions of eugenics are enormous, extending from the flawed reasoning of Galton to the killing of the Nazis, which not only revealed our most unpleasant traits but also the astonishing size of moral retreat as a factor of the error’s toll. Whether humankind’s creative power is still in dispute is mainly determined by possible future breakthroughs in the areas of genetics and AI.
FAQs
1. What is eugenics in psychology?
Eugenics, in this context, is what nature considered as a losing but man, the winning argument and thus the birth of a new race implanted with better and more beautiful features through mating. If we take the psychological aspect into account, it can be considered as a splitting view based on biases, fear and the desire to dominate a mysterious phenomenon.
2. In which ways did psychology help eugenics?
IQ and character tests were the first to be misused by psychologists to such an extent that they were given justification for racial and social hierarchies. The profession eventually, although very difficult, realised the need for high ethical standards in practice and, through this failure, became part of the story of ethics in the professions, slowly but surely.
References +
Adorno, T. W., et al. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities.
Kevles, D. J. (1985). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and Uses of Human Heredity.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural Study of Obedience.
Tajfel, H. (1979). Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). “The Stanford Prison Experiment”.
