Progressivism 123enthralledwithevolutionarytheory.For thissamereasonHerbertSpencerJennings’s
brotherwas complementarilynamedCharlesDarwinJennings.^191
The diametricclashbetweenSpencerismand Progressiveeugenicscameto a headin a
legislativebattlethatone BritishpoliticianheldagainstKarlPearsonandothersocialist
eugenicists.Government-enforcedeugenicswasfirstpromulgatedby CharlesDarwin’s
cousin Francis Galton, and endorsed by Charles’s own son Leonard Darwin
(1850–1943).^192 Yet I wouldnot be hastyin faultingthe Darwinfamily,as a whole,for this
movement.It wasanothercousinof CharlesDarwin’s whocombatedcompulsorysteril-
ization.Thatmanwasa Memberof Parliament—JosiahWedgwoodIV (1872–1943),the
FirstBaronWedgwood.^193 He firstservedin the free-marketLiberalPartyandthenthe
socialistLabourParty,^194 and wasdescribedby MattRidleyas an overall“libertarian.”^195
In 1912,PrimeMinisterWinstonChurchill(1874–1965)andDr. Pearsonintroducedto
Parliamenta bill—the firstof its sortin England—for compulsoryeugenicsterilization.
RidleynotesthatWedgwoodfortunatelythwartedthembecausehe objectedto the bill
“on the groundsof individualliberty.” He was“the individualagainstthe state.” He
emergedvictoriousoverthe bill thenand againwhenit was revivedthe subsequentyear.
TheexchangebetweenWedgwoodandDr. Pearsonoverthis issueencapsulatesthe
fundamentalnatureof the conflict.Wedgwoodadducedthe sameLockeanindividual
rightsthat Spencerdid.Pearsonthusretortedto himas wouldmanyotherphilosophical-
ly consistentsocialistsandprogressives—“Whatissocialis right,andthereis no defini-
tionof rightbeyondthat” (emphasismine).Ridleyrightlyconcludesthatthe state-im-
posedeugenicsmovementis not so much“an exampleof lettingscience,geneticsespe-
cially,out of control.. .” Nay,it is really“an exampleof the dangerof lettinggovernment
out of control.”^196
As withRidley,SwarthmoreCollege’s RobertBannisterremainsunmovedby the gam-
bit of thosewhowouldhaveit seemthatgovernisteugenicsis simplypro-capitalist
ideologytakento its logicalend.Bannisterremarksthat the governisteugenicsmovement
is not to be confusedwithManchesterism.Bannisterrecognizesthatstateeugenicseither
resultedfrom—or wasat leastempoweredby—the sameprogressivegovernismthat
soughtto shacklepeacefulenterprise.Moreover,it wasthe sameprogressivegovernism
withwhomHofstadterusuallysided.Suchtwentieth-centuryhistoriansas Hofstadter,
observesthe Swarthmorescholar,“havetendedto picture” regulatoryeugenics“as a
perverseafterglowof earlierconservative”— i.e., free-market“usesof Darwinism.Thus,
the eugenicsmovementbecomesthe finalproofof the reactionaryeffectsof the Darwin-
ian revolution.But,as withothervarietiesof reformDarwinism”—i.e., progressiveideol-
ogy—“thisapproachdistorts... the placeof the socialDarwinistsloganin eugenic
debates.” Throughoutthe 1900s,the contentionof left-winghistorians“that eugenicswas
simplyan extensionof...the industriallaissezfaire” that“eugenicistsdespised,” has
“blurred” the factthatgovernisteugenicistsonlyinvokedDarwin’s nameto promote
Stateregulationof society’s geneticstock.Progressivesdid not viewthe “socialjustice” of
the welfarestateas “necessarilyincompatible” withgovernist“socialcontrol.” Indeedit
was“the progressiveera” that“breda varietyof proposedcontrols,fromimmigration
restrictionto newsanctionsagainstnonwhiteAmericans,” andotherformsof “eugenic
legislation.” For this reason,governist“eugenicistsfromthe startviedwitheachotherin
condemninglaissezfaire,a termtheyappliedto anyonewhoopposedthem”^197 (emphasis
Bannister’s).
For instance,to quoteBritishFabiansocialistAnnieBesant,“laisserallerin marriageis
no wiserthanin otherpartsof life”^198 (emphasishers).Anda moreconservativeeugeni-
cist statedthat“the preventionof the multiplicationof the defectiveclasses... is so
obviousa dutyandso feasiblea projectthatthe continuationof our presentlaissezfaire
policyis nothingshortof a crimeto society.”^199