24
Neo-Eugenics and Our Future
February 24th, 2010
While Patrick Boudreault’s “neo-eugenics” term may be effective as an attempt to bring a profound perspective change, I do not compare oralism and cochlear implants to eugenics.
My reason is found in the second root word of eugenics which is -genes. Neither oralism or cochlear implants involve genes. Cochlear implants surgeries are performed on and oralism taught to deaf gene non-carriers.
Alexander Graham Bell, on the other hand, promoted eugenics. Had his ideas been mandated as law, deaf people would have been forbidden from intermarriage. Along with sterilization, Bell believed this would decrease the chances of children being born deaf. The root word -genes is Greek for “born”.
However, in terms of neo-eugenics, stem cell treatments involves genes. And it is well on its way. Not only does the deaf community have hard questions ahead of them, the questions the the entire society must ask are much harder.
brenster- | February 24th, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
You might not consider oralism & cochlear implants as an appropriate comparison with eugenics simply based on semantics. However, the goals behind oralism & cochlear implants are the same as eugenics. It is just that they differ in methods. As you call it, stem cell treatments are on the way and it is all with much credit to the movement of oralism and cochlear implants. They still relate among each other, and they are on the same wavelength of many, many, many attempts to assimilate Deaf people.
That!
tayler | February 24th, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
I agree with some parts of your comment, brenster. Boudreault may have meant well if he was speaking metaphorically. And ONLY that. A better word would be eradication, which I think is just as strong a term. Besides more people understand it as opposed to eugenics.
Brance | February 24th, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
Hi Taylor!
I copied a part of my notes from my keynote slides and pasted it here:
1980s
Sperm banks that select donors according to intelligence, looks and success are founded. One of these sperm banks prohibits artists from being donors. [One scientist] founds a sperm bank exclusively for Nobel Prize winners. In this explicitly eugenicist project, only women who were members of MENSA could receive the sperm.
1990s
At least one college coed with “desirable traits” has sold her eggs for $50,000. A spate of books such as The Bell Curve reintroduces earlier eugenicists’ arguments about the genetic basis of social inequality . This argument is only the most extreme variation, symptomatic of the ideological geneticism being accelerated by the new bio-technologies.
1999 A Web site devoted to the sale of the eggs of supermodels promising “beauty to the highest bidder” asks $10,000 to $150,000 per egg. Its owner declares, “This is Darwin’s ‘Natural Selection’ at its very best…this ‘Celebrity Culture’ that we have created does better economically than any other civilization in history…”
Rather than being forcefully imposed, these new eugenic mechanisms reflect the ideological values of the social formation in which the rationalized reproductive process occurs, where ‘quality of life = economic performance’ and human value is determined by a person’s economic success. As Owen predicted, eugenic ideology, if not practice, is rapidly being naturalized.
Under the guise of optimizing reproduction and “improving” human beings today’s reproductive technologies are being implemented without a critical discussion of their latent eugenic content.
-A Summary History of Eugenic Theories and Practices in the United States Compiled by Emily de Araujo and Lucia Sommer
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
When you mentioned “Brave New World”. Did you know that Leonardo DiCaprio will star as John in 2011?
In “1984″ by pen name, George Orwell, you experience fear, paranoia, loneliness, sexual desire and other emotions in a totalitarian government.
In Brave New World you experiences mindless happiness and fulfillment in a totalitarian government.
I watched “1984″ on video and read the book “BNW” by Huxley. Because of that, I’m conservative to the core and stick to my Founding Principles!
http://www.foundingprinciples.org/
RLM | February 24th, 2010 @ 9:50 pm
Gallaudet Professor Ben Bahn once coined “Neo Bell movement” in the late 1980s. His quip come enough true ahead of our time.
There are clearly the patterns of “neo eugenics” conducted by the nowaday society for more than 40 years.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
Dianrez | February 25th, 2010 @ 8:58 am
Eugenics is a word better left in the biology sphere, agreed. It is also a weaker word than eradication…if people think more about it.
Eugenics theoretically eliminates bad genes from the pool, but in reality it does not cover the many mutations, gene linkages and breakages and recessive genes that constantly percolate throughout the pool. Even if Bell’s ideas were successfully implemented, deafness still would not disappear. Only 10% of deaf people are born to deaf parents, leaving 90% to be still considered.
Eradication can be taken to mean eliminating the “undesirable” trait from society without affecting the person, or it can mean culling and weeding out of these persons. As a more powerful word with connotations that can get out of control, it needs to be carefully reconsidered.
Assimilation, as has happened with the Native Americans and immigrants, causes a reduction in what makes one unique and imposes a national identity (think “melting pot”) in its place. We now know it is not healthy to suppress otherwise good traits and personal identity and efforts are under way to encourage multiculturalism, identity nuturing, and social acceptance of differences.
On the genetic level, scientists are now moving in the direction of gene therapy, elimination of “bad genes” at the embryonic level, and treating “problems” in the first few years. We are now struggling to define WHAT is bad and what is a problem at the same time we are struggling to define potential for damage, side effects and tradeoffs of these treatments.
At what point do we stand up and say being deaf, no matter what the cause, is normal and acceptable and does not need treatment?
MM | February 25th, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
“At what point do we stand up and say being deaf, no matter what the cause, is normal and acceptable and does not need treatment?”
It depends who you want to stand up to. Many acquired deaf would want and support ‘treatments’ to cure them, who else drives the improvements in hearing acquisitions of any kind ?
Loss is an serious issue, so they won’t see losing their hearing as ‘normal’, quite the opposite. I’d agree the person should be freely accepted, but let’s fess up, the cultural deaf and the the rest are equally guilty in not doing that. I think they invite opposition by opposing genetics and implants. Genetic choices are determined by current acceptances and needs. If it ‘cures’ a deaf person who has lost hearing that would be great ! So long as coercion is not used I cannot see the problem.
We need to understand it isn’t just the deaf gene under the microscope here, but many many others that contribute to ‘disability’. Do you want to stay in a wheelchair all your life or, have some gene therapy and walk, do you want to die young or have a long and pain free life etc again most I think would instinctively if of the acquired sector, take that therapy in a blink.
For others to suggest this is just veiled attack on culture shows gross misunderstanding of the issue itself. I’m quite happy to accept those who are determined to stay deaf no matter what, so long as they aren’t standing in my way, or opposing my potential cure..
My partner who is born deaf would probably REFUSE to be enabled to hear, she is terrified what it means and feels she couldn’t cope with it, and her social life, far from improving, would cease, her only friends are deaf. She cannot envisage the concept of never signing and speaking all the time.