The Relationship between Degeneration and Eugenics - Dissertation Example

?Introduction: One of the commonalities with regards to the human experience is with respect to the fact that any time in which rapid sociological change takes place, a litany of different theories and approaches towards this change are oftentimes evidenced. Without question, the turn of the 20th century was a period in time in which rapid sociological, technological, scientific, and a litany of other changes were taking place. In response to this, theories such as the theory of evolution, Freud’s psychosexual approach to human behavior, and an array of different scientific discoveries and theories helped to push the level of human development understanding forward. However, not all of the theories and understandings which were put forward during this time were ultimately helpful and/or beneficial to the human experience. Specifically, during this period in time Sir Galton put forward the theory of eugenics. Within the same timeframe, Max Nordau’s, disgusted by what he saw as an anti-moral future, put forward the idea of human degeneration. Although these theories and the subsequent evidence that supports them are divergent, the following analysis will seek to compare and contrast the way in which both of these authors approach their subject matter and whether or not a level of similarity and dissimilarity is reflected in their made contributions. It is the hope of this author that such a unit approach will allow the reader to come to a more definitive understanding of what these authors put forward and the means by which the impact upon the society of their time and continued impact upon society of today. Sir Francis Galton - Background Firstly, before delving into the respective theories that are put forward by Nordau or Galton, it is necessary to understand and differentiate the different types of backgrounds and/or the sociological/historical elements that contributed to these respective individual development and environment. With regards to Sir Francis Galton, this author cannot do justice to the level of scientific research, interests, or intelligence that this individual espoused. Born in 1822, Sir Francis Galton is reasonably considered as one of the great minds of the 19th century. From a sociological standpoint, Sir Francis Galton was of high birth and was in fact because of Charles Darwin; the father of the modern day theory of evolution. Moreover, rather than just being related to Darwin, Galton had the following to say concerning the theory of evolution and the ideas put forward by his own cousin: ” The publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859 changed the direction of his life. It so profoundly affected Galton that it “made a marked epoch in my own mental development, as it did in human thought generally” (Gillham 133). As a function of his high birth, it can be argued that case that was influence to believe that a certain mental, physical, or otherwise indefinable birthright existed with regards to the level of differentiation that separated him from the remainder of society. Although this particular aspect of intrigue only accounted for one portion of the research that defined the scientific life, this theory of eugenics was ultimately the one for which he would be most remembered. Whether this is fair or unfair is not a question of this analysis; rather, it is a question of historical development. Notwithstanding this, Sir Francis Galton was an avid anthropologist, Explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, statistician, geneticists, and physicist. Max Nordau – Background: Secondly, Max Nordau’s life can be appropriately defined not by scientific research or the desire to prove a particular fear of; rather, his early life and subsequent development can be defined as a desire for Jewish separatism from what he saw as an increasingly degenerate Europe. Although few within the current time might realize that Max Nordau was originally born as Simon Maximillian Sudfeld the Jewish upbringing an understanding of the importance of his Orthodox Jewish faith heavily contributed to the life and work of this physician, author, and social critic. As Europe became increasingly anti-Semitic around the turn of the 20th century, Nordau saw this as an indication that a degree of separatism and/or Zionism for the Jewish people, must take place in order to keep a level of purity from what he saw as the Jack degeneracy of European art, culture, society, and bought during that period of time. Although his glove broadly appealed to non-Jews within German society, this was mainly the result of the fact that Nordau ultimately sought to gain a degree of revenue from the sale of this book that he would ultimately not have derived from marketing the book towards a comparatively smaller Jewish population within Europe that time. It is likely that his Jewish upbringing and profound belief in Orthodox Judaism as a defining faith for his life contributed to his clear and profound pronunciation of anti-Semitism within his book. Realizing that some of the extent of frustration that he was expressing could easily find its way into further anti-Semitic movements within Europe, he felt it necessary to categorize and differentiate his approach to this degeneracy so that it could not ultimately be blamed upon a defenseless and innocent Jewish population. Nordau’s Approach With regards to Nordau’s approach, it can and should be viewed that No places primary unit of analysis upon what he saw as a degenerate culture. Due to the rapid level of change and international integration that Europe was beginning to experience and had experience of the better part of as several decades, Nordau felt that the culture of Europe was beginning to disintegrate. Ultimately, even though the argument between the nature versus nurture had been previously posited, Nordau instead focused his anger and frustration at the current situation within Europe on what he saw as a slippery slope to moral depravity and cultural destruction. Rather than being satisfied to leave this in the realm of a cultural interpretation, Nordau discusses whether or not this cultural degeneracy has an impact with regards to biological development. In such a way, this generation and the impact that it has upon the members of society to integrate with it is ultimately deemed as a type of medical condition; neurasthenia. Such an approach steers the direction of Nordau’s work in a different path. Whereas the preceding analysis and postulations that he had made concentric upon the degree to which European culture was disintegrating and ultimately degenerating into a type of failed system, this particular argument positive the fact that the degeneracy which had been defined was ultimately contributing to a biological degeneration as well. As such, the argument was been found to be concentric upon nurture, from the sociological and societal perspective, influencing upon the biological nature of the individual. Although little information is given as a means of proving that this linkage exists, a great deal of extemporaneous and unlinked information is provided as a type of unsubstantiated proof that this is indeed taking place within the society for which the book was ultimately written. Galton as a Scientist and Researcher – Nordau a Commentator and Polemicist Conversely, Sir Galton, father of the modern data theory of eugenics, approached the issue from a far more scientific standpoint. As compared to Nordau, Galton was very much a researcher and a scientist rather than focusing his energies on creating a polemic against modern society and the ills that it ultimately portended, Galton instead sought to define why key differences in races and classes existed within the modern world. Although his research has said calm to be widely discredited and ultimately used for one of the worst horrors in the history of the 21st century, Galton was nonetheless a visionary and an individual scientist who sought to measure and interpret the results of his work as a means of drawing inference upon pertinent aspects of contemporary society. Another key differential that emerges when one seeks to consider the work of Galton and Nordau is the fact that Nordau engaged with his research as a means of proving a point that he had already established within his own mind. Naturally, this goes against the fundamental framework for scientific research and provides a market contrast as compared to the means by which Galton By utilizing the scientific method, Galton sought to answer the question of whether or not eugenic factors could have an impact upon defining differentials in culture, class, and race. Although within the current time, the reader can understand that such a question is rather ludicrous, this merely represents a development in human knowledge and the growth of science as a means of solving and answering the many societal questions that spring to mind during this particular period of time. Galton and Nordau as a Product of European Geo-Politics Another important marked level of similarity that exists between Galton and Nordau is with respect to how they are work was interpreted and utilized long after they had passed away. Unfortunately, the similarity that exists between how these individuals were interpreted and beers theories utilized is invariably negative. For instance, the national Socialist party of Germany leading up to and during the Second World War utilized such series as a means of putting forward the idea that a master race ultimately exist and the Jewish population throughout the world was responsible for and continuing to contribute to the degeneration that higher cultures were experiencing. Evidence of this can of course be seen with regards to the way in which the third right specifically targeted particular races for internment and annihilation. Further evidence of the impact that these individuals had upon the not too regime is with regards to the fact that certain types of art within Nazi Germany were denoted as “degenerate” art. Such artwork was attributed to mental illness and ultimately to Jewish destruction of high culture. By tapping in to an understanding and appreciation for the fact that society was ultimately becoming worse, the Nazi party was able to ride a wave of hatred and contempt for these factors as a means of promoting its own ends. However, it must be understood that regardless of the evil purposes to which the Nazi party utilized these theories and works of Galton or Nordau, these individuals themselves were neither openly anti-Semitic nor full of hatred. Considering the case of Galton, it can be noted that one of his most trusted a and assistance was in fact the Jewish Joseph Jacobs (Waller 144). Whereas many scholars appointed to the fact that Joseph Jacobs and Galton and were responsible for creating what was known as the Jewish come posited, this was only done as a means of creating a new type of composite photography which would aid law enforcement and/or different types of medical diagnosis. The fact of the matter is that Dalton himself the polymath; equally interested and a litany of issues and subject matter that spanned from the hard sciences to issues concerning sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Evidence of this broad realm of interest can of course be noted in the fact that even the theory of eugenics and sell incorporates a broad level of scientific inquiry and sociological analysis as a means of proving the point that it sets out to make. By much the same token, Nordau specifically states within his works that the sweeping wave of anti-Semitism that was beginning to culminate within Europe during this time was ultimately false and should not be integrated with as a means of explaining the societal degeneration that he railed against. By removing the ethnic question of blame with regards to this degeneration, he was able to create a more nuanced and effectively neutral theory that has allowed his work to be taken and considered seriously without being stained with racism for a degree of ethnocentrism. Said one author, “The reason for exploring a connection between Nordau and Grant is therefore important in several respects. First, while Nordau’s influence as a cultural critic and a Zionist have both been horoughly investigated, the study of Nordau’s relationship to fin-de-siecle racial theory is a very recent phenomenon (Burgers 121). This is not to state that Nordau’s theory, in and of itself, is ethical, rational, or effective; rather, it merely states that even though this theory, and many of the ideas that were put forward by him, have subsequently been twisted as a means of proving a warped sociopolitical vantage point, Nordau himself put little if any faith in such a warped interpretation of reality. Conclusion: As the reader can see, a level of similarity exists between the works of Nordau and Galton. Although he approach is nonetheless quite different and the unit of analysis and theory behind these views is also divergent, both individuals sought to define and provide reasons for why a deviation from a standard was effected in both biology and sociology of the time. Whereas Galton took a far more scientific approach and Nordau took a far more polemic approach, the result was ultimately helpful in moving society’s understanding of these issues ahead and furthering future studies into what motivates basic levels of cultural change and/or human sociological development. Works Cited Burgers, Johannes Hendrikus. "Max Nordau, Madison Grant, And Racialized Theories Of Ideology." Journal Of The History Of Ideas 72.1 (2011): 119-140. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Aug. 2013. Gillham, Nicholas. "Cousins: Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton And The Birth Of Eugenics." Significance 6.3 (2009): 132-135. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Aug. 2013. Waller, John C. "Becoming A Darwinian: The Micro-Politics Of Sir Francis Galton's Scientific Career 1859-65." Annals Of Science 61.2 (2004): 141-163. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Aug. 2013. Read More