Part 3: Neo-Malthusianism
In the first two parts of this serial, I have looked at the effect of Thomas Malthus’s theory of population on Darwinian theories of biological evolution and the ways in which Malthus was effected by private property battles during the rise of capitalism. In closing, I will look at the implications these various theories have on public health policies, environmentalism and international development as well as their relationship to the capitalist mode of production.
Malthusian theory found an ally in the early eugenics movement. Malthus argued the poor were not equal to the rich on a biological level (see Part Two): they had too many children, lacked moral restraint, foresight and self-discipline. At the end of the 19th century (the height of the eugenics movement was 1890s-1945), eugenics took hold of these ideas to platform their own agenda: the poor were a threat to social order because they were too numerous and, moreover, they caused a deterioration of national “racial stocks.” Through arguments about “managing” population, came notions that linked birth control to a more developed or modern self. The middle and upper classes used birth control unlike the workers and poor. Neo-Malthusians who were in favor of curbing fertility no longer believed that voluntary birth control was an option, and they argued for direct intervention.
  credit: ?mrhappy? |
At first it was argued that birth control, including sterilization, should be imposed on groups of ill and disabled people who were seen as “polluting” the national gene pool. By the time the 20th century rolled around, social ills such as prostitution, vagrancy and petty crimes were seen as the result of “feeble-minded” genes propagated by the poor, and the only answer was population control. Inspired by Malthus and eugenics, policymakers argued that science had demonstrated that poverty was a result of physical and mental (as well as moral) weakness. But after WWII, the eugenics movement in most western countries lost steam due to the eugenic agenda of the (then defeated) Nazi movement, but Malthus would find new allies in the ecology movement some 20 years later.
In 1968, biologists revived Malthusian theory by publishing of a handful of influential academic and popular texts. One such book was Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich’s book Population Bomb (published by the Sierra Club), which predicted a devastating resource crash due to overpopulation and centered much of the blame for population growth on the global south and newly liberated post-colonies. Another eminent biologist, Paul A. Colinvaux, wrote in his 1978 book Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare, “ecology’s first social law should be written:
Paul M Davis
4 Comments
Mike Stewart
Chris where did literacy come into play with these people. It is fine to blame overpopulation on the poor but the majority of the poor are so ill informed that they only have the basic instincts to survive. That being food, shelter and bringing new life to the already overpopulated land. Had the literate been able to educate the poor on matters of birth control the issue of overpopulation would not be an issue. But then how can one exploit a people if you try and feed the brain to nourish the soul.
Brigitte says hi.
Interesting article
03 Apr 2008 01:04 am
Chris Kortright
Hey Mike …
Literacy and education are always an issue that need to be address when talking about exploitation … but what I was trying to get at, and in this case I think is more important, was the fact that biology became an argument to blame poverty on the poor themselves. Science, in this case biology, became an unquestioned “fact” that scarcity (in an ecological sense) was the cause of poverty. At the same time biology as well as genetics (in the case of eugenecists) explained and justified both ethnic and class exploitation. It was argued (and backed up by science) that people who were not of the colonizing ethnicity or the ruling economic class were in the position of being exploited because they were biologically inferior. This argument was contingent on questions of reproduction and overpopulation … NOT as I would argue on question of distribution. The issue at hand was never (just like in out present situation) that there is too little food, but an issue of distribution. For capitalism to function and labor power to be sold (thus creating surplus value) scarcity needs to be created … the system of capitalist exploitation is contingent on this scarcity …
Thanks for the comments and I send much love to you all up north …
03 Apr 2008 06:04 pm
Michael Bishop
why blame science? that is like complaining that iron for the fact that it can be made into weapons.
scarcity is not manufactured. humans simply want more goods and services than they are able to acquire.
05 Apr 2008 08:04 pm
Chris Kortright
It is not blaming science it is understanding how scientific knowledge is made through different relationships as well as how science is historically situated.
I love science and specifically biology, but this doesn’t change the historical relationships with particular economic theories and that because of these theories one set of behaviors and practices are seen as natural while another is seen as unnatural, which I see as contrary to the creative potential of humanity (science being a perfect example human creativity).
This is not a moral tale of blame it is a historical look at science which after I make a political claim … this is the way knowledge production works my friend.
05 Apr 2008 09:04 pm
Leave a Comment