Event Title
Dependency discourse, disability rhetoric and expediency arguments: A geneology of the relationship between feminism and eugenic philosophy
Start Date
28-6-2010 10:45 AM
End Date
28-6-2010 12:15 PM
Description
This presentation is part of the Disability and Dependence track.
“Dependency Discourse, Disability Rhetoric and Expediency Arguments – A Genealogy of the Relationship between Feminism and Eugenic Philosophy”
All known theories of human rights, whether based on humanity, social contract theory, utilitarianism, or citizenship, exclude individuals from the rights-bearing community if they do not possess the specific abilities required for membership. […] It is also to understand that the human-rights discourse will never break free from the ideology of ability until it includes disability as a defining characteristic of human beings. (178)
Moreover, the practice of granting rights to only those people capable of demonstrating a prescribed level of physical and mental ability must be swept away if being human is to serve as a universal standard for political membership. Basing human rights on disability, however, presents a more minimum standard for universality. (180)
--Tobin Siebers, Disability Theory, 2008
Social movements necessarily employ a rhetorical strategy when they struggle against the “system” to make change. Sometimes the strategy pays off and sometimes the effects to be had on the movement itself are far more reaching than anyone would ever have thought possible. The early women’s movement’s choice to employ a rhetorical strategy that fought against their “role” as dependents was perhaps necessary and complicated in a society where the concept of “dependency” had begun to take on a negative meaning. Unfortunately, while taking a stance for independence, the movement employed disability rhetoric to achieve its purpose. Referencing women’s legal and social disabilities, as well as setting criteria for those “fit” and “unfit” for citizenship, the leaders of the early movement created an atmosphere of intolerance rather than inclusion. This disability rhetoric was often coupled with expediency arguments that promoted a “betterment of society” through the provision of women’s rights, rather than adhering to a natural rights argument that would focus on the guarantee of rights for everyone. This complete strategy would have long-lasting effects on women with disabilities, as well as the relationships between female minority communities and the women’s movement – effects that are still present today.
Just as the movement demonstrated its racist bias, even while fighting for abolitionist causes, many women in the movement also embraced eugenics philosophy in the early to mid 20th century, following Margaret Sanger and Charlotte Perkins-Gilman in their support of birth control as the “great Saviour” of the poor and as a means to control population growth. Because eugenic philosophy also relies on a “dependency discourse,” uses disability rhetoric, and uses a rhetorical strategy that engages in expediency arguments, feminists could easily appropriate the tenets of eugenics and incorporate these notions of “betterment” into a preexisting feminist philosophy that already mirrored much of what eugenics was relying on in its own philosophy and rhetorical strategy. This Eugenic Feminism touched not only those women and men with disabilities, but also those of the “poor” and “lower” classes, those who were deemed “unfit.” Class-based and race-based eugenic philosophy impacted the African American community, as well as numerous other ethnic and minority communities in the US, stirring up tensions in the women’s movement in the latter part of the 20th century when abortion rights were the forefront of the women’s movement’s fights for freedom – reproductive freedom. Autonomy and independence become sticking points for the discussions to be had between feminists/feminism and the disability rights movement, as the definitions for autonomy and independence and the notions of liberation in each group were/are not necessarily the same.
Many feminists still continue to support eugenic methods in current day reproductive and genetic technology development, as well, creating a disconnect in the movement, one that has its roots in the early movement’s desire to distance themselves from a “dependent” role and to demand individual and autonomous rights over their bodies. Current debates between both communities continue to revolve around eugenic practices and reproductive rights and technologies in the 21st century. I will argue that the women’s movement’s desire to distance themselves as far as possible from any type of dependency, and their use of disability rhetoric and expediency arguments, provides the foundation for the movement’s support of eugenic philosophy and methods in the early 20th century, as well as eugenic methods in the late 20th early 21st centuries.
Dependency discourse, disability rhetoric and expediency arguments: A geneology of the relationship between feminism and eugenic philosophy
This presentation is part of the Disability and Dependence track.
“Dependency Discourse, Disability Rhetoric and Expediency Arguments – A Genealogy of the Relationship between Feminism and Eugenic Philosophy”
All known theories of human rights, whether based on humanity, social contract theory, utilitarianism, or citizenship, exclude individuals from the rights-bearing community if they do not possess the specific abilities required for membership. […] It is also to understand that the human-rights discourse will never break free from the ideology of ability until it includes disability as a defining characteristic of human beings. (178)
Moreover, the practice of granting rights to only those people capable of demonstrating a prescribed level of physical and mental ability must be swept away if being human is to serve as a universal standard for political membership. Basing human rights on disability, however, presents a more minimum standard for universality. (180)
--Tobin Siebers, Disability Theory, 2008
Social movements necessarily employ a rhetorical strategy when they struggle against the “system” to make change. Sometimes the strategy pays off and sometimes the effects to be had on the movement itself are far more reaching than anyone would ever have thought possible. The early women’s movement’s choice to employ a rhetorical strategy that fought against their “role” as dependents was perhaps necessary and complicated in a society where the concept of “dependency” had begun to take on a negative meaning. Unfortunately, while taking a stance for independence, the movement employed disability rhetoric to achieve its purpose. Referencing women’s legal and social disabilities, as well as setting criteria for those “fit” and “unfit” for citizenship, the leaders of the early movement created an atmosphere of intolerance rather than inclusion. This disability rhetoric was often coupled with expediency arguments that promoted a “betterment of society” through the provision of women’s rights, rather than adhering to a natural rights argument that would focus on the guarantee of rights for everyone. This complete strategy would have long-lasting effects on women with disabilities, as well as the relationships between female minority communities and the women’s movement – effects that are still present today.
Just as the movement demonstrated its racist bias, even while fighting for abolitionist causes, many women in the movement also embraced eugenics philosophy in the early to mid 20th century, following Margaret Sanger and Charlotte Perkins-Gilman in their support of birth control as the “great Saviour” of the poor and as a means to control population growth. Because eugenic philosophy also relies on a “dependency discourse,” uses disability rhetoric, and uses a rhetorical strategy that engages in expediency arguments, feminists could easily appropriate the tenets of eugenics and incorporate these notions of “betterment” into a preexisting feminist philosophy that already mirrored much of what eugenics was relying on in its own philosophy and rhetorical strategy. This Eugenic Feminism touched not only those women and men with disabilities, but also those of the “poor” and “lower” classes, those who were deemed “unfit.” Class-based and race-based eugenic philosophy impacted the African American community, as well as numerous other ethnic and minority communities in the US, stirring up tensions in the women’s movement in the latter part of the 20th century when abortion rights were the forefront of the women’s movement’s fights for freedom – reproductive freedom. Autonomy and independence become sticking points for the discussions to be had between feminists/feminism and the disability rights movement, as the definitions for autonomy and independence and the notions of liberation in each group were/are not necessarily the same.
Many feminists still continue to support eugenic methods in current day reproductive and genetic technology development, as well, creating a disconnect in the movement, one that has its roots in the early movement’s desire to distance themselves from a “dependent” role and to demand individual and autonomous rights over their bodies. Current debates between both communities continue to revolve around eugenic practices and reproductive rights and technologies in the 21st century. I will argue that the women’s movement’s desire to distance themselves as far as possible from any type of dependency, and their use of disability rhetoric and expediency arguments, provides the foundation for the movement’s support of eugenic philosophy and methods in the early 20th century, as well as eugenic methods in the late 20th early 21st centuries.