There is an extensive historiography available of both British eugenics and class. Despite this the secondary literature for this specific field suffers from some extremely significant limitations at present. This is particularly so when the intersection between class and eugenics is considered, as well as recent (post-1995) publication.
References to the survival (or revival) of eugenic attitudes after 1970 are mostly short or passive, at best. For example, the chapter “Eugenics in Britain” by Lucy Bland and Lesley A. Hall in The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics (2010) only makes passing reference to eugenic continuity as regards class and race beyond 1965. Most passive references tend to focus on cases where internationally …show more content…
This is understandable, considering the extensive focus that Stephen Jay Gould gave to debunking historical American studies of racial inferiority and linking them back to later works of biological determinism such as The Bell Curve (1994) in three revised editions of The Mismeasure of Man (from 1981), in itself partly a work of scientific history. In particular, the American “culture war” debates over the neo-Darwinian validity of eugenic thought have been focused upon. This is demonstrated well in meta-analytical works such as George Levine's Darwin Loves You (2006) and Andrew Brown's The Darwin Wars …show more content…
Chris Renwick's work on post-war social mobility and eugenics (specifically the 2016 article Eugenics, Population Research, And Social Mobility Studies In Early And Mid-Twentieth-Century Britain) could be used as a similar starting point. Renwick mentions a continuity of eugenic thought in thought on social mobility, but (likewise) does not expand on how this has taken place beyond 1970. Dennis Sewell's The Political Gene (2009) touched briefly on some relevant twentieth-century controversies over inferiority. However, Sewell leant more towards exploring contemporary Darwinian controversies and providing a generalised overview of eugenic persistence in western politics. Nevertheless, expanding on Sewell's brief exploration of recent continuities of historical scientific attitudes as to “inherent” biological traits and other later-day political eugenic controversies post-1975 will prove
References to the survival (or revival) of eugenic attitudes after 1970 are mostly short or passive, at best. For example, the chapter “Eugenics in Britain” by Lucy Bland and Lesley A. Hall in The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics (2010) only makes passing reference to eugenic continuity as regards class and race beyond 1965. Most passive references tend to focus on cases where internationally …show more content…
This is understandable, considering the extensive focus that Stephen Jay Gould gave to debunking historical American studies of racial inferiority and linking them back to later works of biological determinism such as The Bell Curve (1994) in three revised editions of The Mismeasure of Man (from 1981), in itself partly a work of scientific history. In particular, the American “culture war” debates over the neo-Darwinian validity of eugenic thought have been focused upon. This is demonstrated well in meta-analytical works such as George Levine's Darwin Loves You (2006) and Andrew Brown's The Darwin Wars …show more content…
Chris Renwick's work on post-war social mobility and eugenics (specifically the 2016 article Eugenics, Population Research, And Social Mobility Studies In Early And Mid-Twentieth-Century Britain) could be used as a similar starting point. Renwick mentions a continuity of eugenic thought in thought on social mobility, but (likewise) does not expand on how this has taken place beyond 1970. Dennis Sewell's The Political Gene (2009) touched briefly on some relevant twentieth-century controversies over inferiority. However, Sewell leant more towards exploring contemporary Darwinian controversies and providing a generalised overview of eugenic persistence in western politics. Nevertheless, expanding on Sewell's brief exploration of recent continuities of historical scientific attitudes as to “inherent” biological traits and other later-day political eugenic controversies post-1975 will prove