Social Structures & Their Evolution — Part I

Class Warfare in a Society Paradoxically Obsessed with Equality

How our social structure is evolving toward greater social control…

It’s easy to assume, especially as an outsider or as someone who hasn’t yet been otherized, that everyone has the same level of opportunity in the United States, but the truth is, our social structure is quite a bit more nuanced than that. All one has to do to recognize this fact is to study our history as a nation. One important example of this lack of uniform opportunity is how African Americans have been treated historically. They were subjected to a rigid closed system within an already existing open class structure by force.

While African Americans are not (officially) subjected to this rigid closed system anymore, there are myriad ways in which our open class-based system could again allow for the development of a parallel rigid closed system that could exist right within our current social structure. One important way it could evolve to such a system is through health status. In this series, we’re going to focus on how the emerging surveillance model of medicine is pushing us toward such a social system but first, we need to define our terms.

What’s The Difference Between Open & Closed Class Systems?

Well, in order to detail the differences, first we need to define social stratification which is essentially the layering of society.

Social Stratification

‘Social stratification refers to a society’s categorization of its people into rankings of socioeconomic tiers based on factors like wealth, income, race, education, and power.’[1]

Differences Between Closed & Open Social Systems

‘Sociologists distinguish between two types of systems of stratification. Closed systems accommodate little change in social position…Open systems, which are based on achievement, allow movement and interaction between layers and classes.’[2]

It’s important to remember that even in an ‘open’ system, where you fall in the social strata can deeply influence your social mobility. Even if a society is ‘open,’ that doesn’t automatically mean it’s just. While there is a chance for individuals to experience upward mobility, that wasn’t always the case, and it may not be the case in the future.

When Did The US Ever Have A Closed System?

During the time of unconstitutional Jim Crow laws which endured until the mid-1960s, African Americans were forced into a closed system within an already established open class structure in the US, creating a hybridized social system with both open and closed attributes. This was the norm for much of our history. Lloyd Warner described it as a caste. He said:

‘Caste as used here describes a theoretical arrangement of the people of the given group in an order in which the privileges, duties, obligations, opportunities, etc., are unequally distributed between the groups which are considered to be higher and lower. There are social sanctions which tend to maintain this unequal distribution. Such a definition also describes class. A caste organization, however, can be further defined as one where marriage between two or more groups is not sanctioned and where there is no opportunity for members of the lower groups to rise into the upper groups or of the members of the upper to fall into the lower ones.

In class, on the other hand, there is a certain proportion of interclass marriage between lower and higher groups, and there are, in the very nature of the class organization, mechanisms established by which people move up and down the vertical extensions of the society. Obviously, two such structures are antithetical to each other, the one inflexibly prohibiting movement between the two groups and intergroup marriage, and the other sanctioning intergroup movement and at least certain kinds of marriage between higher and lower classes. Nevertheless, they have accommodated themselves to each other in the southern community we examined.’[3]

Warner here makes it clear that despite class and caste being antithetical to one another, these two social systems existed alongside each other in America for a large portion of our history. However, an extremely detailed critique of this view was provided by other sociologists subsequently and Warner’s view has since fallen out of favor.

How Has Health Status Contributed To A Rigid Closed System In The Past?

Now that we have a historical example of how complicated our class system really is and also how it has evolved, we’re going to look at how another similar parallel closed system within an open one developed in the US.

I’d like to switch gears and discuss how health status was used to force the emergence of a new class as well as a more rigid social structure with no possibility of social mobility. This structure began to emerge in the early 20th century and some of its hallmarks are still visible today. We need to look at how the perception of human health has contributed to inequality in the past, and also how healthcare models can contribute to the evolution of our class structure.

This topic is very nuanced so I’ll do my best to get as much information in this one article as I can. This will likely be more of an overview of a couple important topics so we’re ready when we get to the meat of this series.

In particular, we’re going to look at how another hybrid social structure developed in the US, much like the one that Warner described as a caste system in the deep south. This system, much like all of them, only benefited those who already held most of the power in society, as well as most of the financial resources and the means of communication.

Our social structure is not static by any means and it may be transforming itself once again, however, it’s certainly not by accident and likely never is.

To use another extremely important historical example, except this time as it relates to health status and how it can contribute to a closed system emerging within an open structure, we’re going to go back in time and look at how the ideology of eugenics was successful at giving birth to a brand new closed social system in the US. This system, for a short time, existed alongside the closed system that African Americans were subjected to, and which existed within the open system that white men and the ‘fit’ benefited from. There was a rapid addition of a stark new class, but this time, based on perceived intellectual and health status rather than just race, as if the latter weren’t bad enough.

When we think of eugenics, we think of Nazi Germany and the horrors of WWII, however, eugenics was an ideology that was actually born in the US via the ‘scientific community.’ I demote the scientific community in the case of eugenics because there’s a big difference between the valid and impartial scientific method and those who employ the method appropriately to understand the truth of the natural world, and the kind of tripe we’ve seen repeatedly burgeoning from the sciences and academia in the past that seek to use ‘science’ as a means to discriminate and expand industrial and professional territory.

What Is Eugenics?

Eugenics is still, to this day, defined as ‘the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.’ Eugenics was ‘developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race’ and ‘it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.’

The above is the Oxford Dictionary’s definition, however, it’s my contention that the ideology was not ‘perverted’ by the Nazis. Rather, it was perverse to begin with and judging by emerging technologies in the health sector such as DNA manipulation, artificial intelligence and predictive analytics, it’s not difficult to anticipate the kinds of changes that could take place in our current social structure if these technologies are employed at the consumer level or within the medical machine itself; especially if regulatory controls continue to lose their applicability.

At the time it was fashionable, eugenics was seen as cutting edge science and ‘scientific evidence,’ much the same way our ‘evidence-base’ is perceived now despite the overwhelming corruption of it by individuals with conflicts of interest, industry interference, and more.

It’s also my contention that eugenics has not fallen into disfavor. In fact, it’s my claim that it has simply received a face-lift and a new name after being driven underground but its tenets are re-emerging and again becoming popular in the scientific community and within the wider public consciousness. We will discuss that later. First, I think it’s important to paint a picture of the social climate during eugenics’ heyday when the ideology still carried that name.

A New Hope In Dark Days

Science and topics given a ‘scientific’ veneer were incredibly welcome at this time in our history, the 19th and 20th centuries, as a replacement for spiritual or religious explanations of the natural world. It was a paradigm shift in our culture that continues to endure to this day. At the time, scientists like Charles Darwin were providing a brand new explanation for the development of life that didn’t include a God or gods, but rather a seemingly more reproducible and provable explanation.

This was incredibly attractive to many people who were disillusioned with religion and the historical horrors inflicted on populations by organized religious institutions.

‘Eugenics was proposed as the scientific solution to social problems’,[4] but what were the hallmarks of this now supposedly unpopular ideology called eugenics and what does the word mean?

Eugenics is ‘a hybrid derived from the Greek words meaning “well” and “born,” the term eugenics was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, a British cousin to Charles Darwin, to name a new “science” through which human beings might take charge of their own evolution.’[5]

‘The Eugenics Crusade’

Michelle Ferrari, an award-winning Writer, Director, Producer, and winner of the 2019 Writers Guild Award for ‘The Eugenics Crusade’ tells the story of eugenics from an American-centric view.

‘The Eugenics Crusade tells the story of the unlikely — and largely unknown — movement that turned the fledgling scientific theory of heredity into a powerful instrument of social control. Perhaps more surprising still, American eugenics was neither the work of fanatics, nor the product of fringe science.

The goal of the movement was simple and, to its disciples, laudable: to eradicate social ills by limiting the number of those considered to be genetically “unfit” — a group that would expand to include many immigrant groups, the poor, Jews, the mentally and physically disabled, and the “morally delinquent.” At its peak in the 1920s, the movement was in every way mainstream, packaged as a progressive quest for “healthy babies.” Its doctrines were not only popular and practiced, but codified by laws that severely restricted immigration and ultimately led to the institutionalization and sterilization of tens of thousands of American citizens. Populated by figures both celebrated and obscure.’[5]

Despite its previously mainstream status, eugenics has remained a dark undercurrent in our history that was rarely acknowledged post-WWII and before Ferrari’s work with PBS, few really knew its history. There were racial, intellectual, and health indicators that could make an individual fall into the ‘undesirable’ or ‘unfit’ category which would then make them candidates for forced sterilization and/or institutionalization. Both became common practice during this time in our history and the last (official) forced sterilization was conducted in 1981, however, the practice is still being employed today.

‘Starting in 1907, state governments sanctioned sterilization as a form of eugenics, to prevent anyone with undesirable traits — disabilities, poverty, a criminal record, specific racial backgrounds — from procreating. This type of legislation justified the sterilization of approximately 60,000 Americans until the laws were phased out in the late 1970s. But that doesn’t mean the practice actually ended…’[6]

Current Zeitgeists

‘In 2013, the Center for Investigative Reporting found that at least 148 female inmates in California received tubal ligations without their consent between 2006 and 2010. Just one year later, the Associated Press reported on at least four instances of prosecutors in Nashville including birth control requirements in plea deals.

Other recent examples of court-required sterilization throughout the country include a 21-year-old West Virginia mother who had her tubes tied as part of her probation for marijuana possession (2009), and a man in Virginia who traded a vasectomy for a lighter child endangerment sentence (2014). “We’re starting to reach a point where the courts are responsible for anyone,” explained one prosecutor involved in a Florida plea deal. “It’s one final step to have to supervise teenagers in sexual relationships they aren’t ready to handle.”’[6]

There is also Project Prevention, a US based nonprofit organization that expanded its reach into the United Kingdom in 2010 and echos a terrifyingly familiar theme, that those considered unfit or morally defective should be sterilized.

Project Prevention, as of 2014, had sterilized or provided long term birth control to 4,000 women with a substance use disorder and paid them to agree to it.[7] As of 2019, 7,412 men and women have undergone procedures or have been given long term birth control via the project.[8] As you can see, this is a sentiment that still exists today and while this is just one organization that isn’t state sanctioned, yet, it’s a view into an undercurrent of current societal zeitgeists that is already beginning to breach the surface of the public consciousness.

Criminality, drug addiction, as well as disability were seen as health signals or indicators for forced intervention in the past, and they’re seen as such today in the way of conservatorship laws which I touched on in Your Autonomy Could be Destroyed via State Laws. While there are somewhat stringent processes for involuntary commitment of an individual today, it’s not difficult to see how such laws could be abused in the future as we move toward a more rigid closed social system. It’s also of import to note that the criteria is rather broad, you’ll want to read that article to get a sense of current conservatorship laws.

Social Stratification As A Moral Imperative

Getting back to the history of eugenics, ‘feeble-mindedness’ was also one such indicator, and it was Charles Davenport who created the Eugenic Record Office in 1910 that was responsible for organizing human beings into these new social strata (feeble-mindedness being just one of many categories).

‘The aim of eugenics was to change the behavior of the general public through voluntary or coercive means in order to increase the number of “well-born” individuals, thereby improving the health and ultimate strength of the nation. To do this, eugenicists focused on population genetics and the prevention of so-called hereditary illnesses, most of which would be considered disabilities in contemporary Western culture.

Eugenics concerned itself with “feeblemindedness,” a category which served as a catchall classification for anyone found to display an unacceptable degree of deviancy. Eugenicists considered feebleminded individuals a burden on and a threat to the health of the nation, and, as a result, they employed various strategies aimed at the prevention — or destruction — of future generations of sick, disabled, criminal and other individuals deemed inferior — categories which were often conflated.’[9]

Davenport ‘was without peer or rival in the American Eugenics movement. His close contact and cordial relations with many of the wealthiest philanthropists in the United States who had eugenic interests allowed him to control the purse strings of the movement. John D. Rockefeller, the widow of railroad magnate E.H. Harriman, and Andrew Carnegie were sources of funds that he cultivated carefully and attentively.’

‘For Davenport eugenics provided a practical approach to addressing societal problems: “It is a reproach to our intelligence that we as a people, proud in other respects of our control of nature, should have to support about half a million insane, feeble-minded, epileptic, blind and deaf, 80,000 prisoners and 100,000 paupers at a cost of over 100 million dollars per year.”’[10]

If you’d like a much more in-depth view into the ideological climate of this era, please watch the below film. The full version is linked in the caption.

It’s important to recognize that we are officially at a point where the building blocks of these types of policies are again being communicated as a moral imperative. Bear with me, I will explain how I’ve come to this conclusion in subsequent articles.

Summary

Social stratification has existed as a means for organizing societies for millennia. The United States is not immune and has an incredibly dark history complete with racism, sexism, ableism, classism, and more. All of these gave way to serious human rights abuses in the 19th and 20th centuries, and it’s possible that it’s happening in the 21st century as well under the guise of public health practice and ‘protecting’ human health. These ideologies are important central themes within the undertow of American culture, even today, and they’ve wrought destruction on many vulnerable populations and continue to.

It’s my contention that the social conditions required for an ideology like eugenics to re-emerge are present in our culture today. Eugenics did not go the way of the dodo bird, in fact, we are witnessing the evolution of our social system using ‘science’ as a tool for discrimination once again and the hallmarks of the foul ideology known as eugenics can be seen not only in a couple of nonprofit organizations and prisons, but in many current elements of our healthcare system and in public health practice. We will discuss that in more depth in Part II of this series.

Conclusion

The economic burden of health conditions was an area of deep concern and public health action during the eugenics movement of the 20th century, and it’s also an area of deep concern and public health action today. Public health initiatives are often framed in economic terms and we’ll discuss that more as we move forward as well.

There are many similarities between emerging elements of our current healthcare model, and yesterday’s eugenics movement and just as eugenicists focused on population health and genetics to tackle the social problems of their day; population health and public health practice are being leveraged as a way to tackle contemporary ones.

References:

[1] What Is Social Stratification? — https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sociology/chapter/what-is-social-stratification/ — Lumen Learning

[2] Systems of Social Stratification — https://courses.lumenlearning.com/alamo-sociology/chapter/reading-systems-of-social-stratification/ — Lumen Learning

[3] W. Lloyd Warner, “American Caste and Class,” American Journal of Sociology 42, no. 2 (Sep., 1936): 234–237. https://doi.org/10.1086/217391

[4] The Eugenics Crusade: https://www.pbs.org/video/the-eugenics-crusade-jtaetc/ — PBS

[5] The Eugenics Crusade: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/eugenics-crusade/ — PBS

[6] The U.S. Is Still Forcibly Sterilizing Prisoners — https://talkpoverty.org/2017/08/23/u-s-still-forcibly-sterilizing-prisoners/

[7] Murphy, Clare. “Selling sterilisation to addicts”. BBC News. 2 September 2003. Retrieved 21 October 2010

[8] Project Prevention Statistics: http://www.projectprevention.org/statistics/

[9] Diagnosing defectives: disability, gender and eugenics in the United States, 1910–1924 — https://hekint.org/2017/01/30/diagnosing-defectives-disability-gender-and-eugenics-in-the-united-states-1910-1924/ — Sara Vogt MS

[10] Charles Davenport’s Heredity in Relation to Eugenics — https://library.missouri.edu/exhibits/eugenics/heredity.htm

Dez is a human rights and disability advocate, Founder of the National Advocacy Access Clinic (NAAC), and Owner & Editor of The Compendia Project. You can follow Dez on Twitter here or you can visit NAAC here.

© National Advocacy Access Clinic (2016- 2020) All rights reserved. Content does not constitute a medical consultation or legal advice. Please see a certified medical professional for medical advice or consult an attorney for legal advice.