Gilman’s Eugenics

4. Gilman’s Eugenics

Gilman’s philosophy of social evolution presupposed an ultimate standard of progress that was not free of racism or ethnocentrism. Like other Darwinists, she believed that civilizations could be ranked from superior to inferior levels of advancement. It was tacitly assumed that white EuroAmerican cultures were the “most advanced,” that non-Western cultures were “savage” and “inferior”. Yet, because social evolutionists believed behavior can be improved by transmission of advanced traits over generations, “inferiors” could be improved through education and socialization. “It is easily within our power to make this world such an environment as should conduce to the development of a noble race, rapidly and surely improving from generation to generation, and so naturally producing better conduct.”35

For Gilman, although humanity was “in the making,” and history was the story of progress, the development of our human-ness was merely presupposed. On the one hand, “advancement” in her view meant quali-ties favorable to most liberal reformers: more education, good health, free labor, ease from needless suffering. Yet, Gilman, in practice, was xenophobic in ways that overlapped with goals of the Eugenic Movement. The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1926, proposed concrete strategies for accomplishing the goals of Darwinists, specifically the sterilization of “inferiors” and the restriction of immigration. Although not a member of the Eugenics Society, Gilman was biased against immigrants, particularly non-white immigrants, and was favorable toward eugenics in her work. Her racism is evident in the article, “A Suggestion on the Negro Problem” in which, while recognizing the exploitation of Black people in post-abolitionist America, she nonetheless referred to Black people as “aliens”, and the Black race as an “inferior” or backward race. She believed that Black people need to “attain” the level of white cultural civilization. She stated the problem explicitly, synthesizing racism with eugenics: “how can we best promote the civilization of the Negro? He is here: we can’t get rid of him; it is all our fault; he does not suit us as he is; what can we do to improve him?”36 She suggested the formation of a Black labor army for all non-self-sufficient Black men, women, and children that would provide food and education in exchange for farm and factory labor.

Her eugenics position is also found in her theories of improving children through better breeding. She claimed that to improve humanity we must have better children bom: 

If you are buying babies, investing in young human stock as you would in colts or calves, for the value of the beast, a sturdy English baby would be worth more than an equally vigorous young Fuegian. With the same training and care, you could develop higher faculties in the English specimen than in the Fuegian specimen, because it was better bred. The savage baby would excel in some points, but the qualities of the modern baby are those dominant today.37

Theories of social evolution may be inherently laden with the oppressions derivative of eugenics to the degree that the “superior” society, or “advanced individual” is specified by some standard that is intolerant of diversity. Although some forms of social progress such as advances in health, education and free-labor may be objectionable, definitions and methods for bringing about “progress” is problematic. For instance, would it be correct for an “advanced culture” to improve the health of an “inferior” culture if it did so by annihilating the customs, religion, and politics of the latter? If education and training are desirable, what “truths” should be taught? If training, to make what kind of products or perform which services? In Gilman’s social philosophy, she was unable to advocate progress without suggesting the breeding of white- Euro-American Society, albeit, presumably free of sex, class and wage exploitation. Although she consistently privileged the group over the individual, it has only by privileging individuality and diversity over the group that has enabled a tolerance of difference to exist within and between cultures. Gilman’s social philosophy, xenophobic or racist, does not overcome the conflict between respect for diversity and the primacy of the social group.