权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Anarchism and Eugenics: A Seeming Paradox (1890-1940)

无政府主义与优生学：看似悖论（1890-1940）

基本信息

批准号：
AH/M005291/1
负责人：
Richard Cleminson
金额：
$ 16.85万
依托单位：
University of Leeds
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Fellowship
财政年份：
2015
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2015 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FM005291%2F1
关键词：
Anarchism Eugenics Seeming Paradox 1890

项目摘要

This Fellowship aims to examine the historic overlap between the international anarchist labour movement and the international eugenics movement. At first sight, the two would appear to be mutually exclusive. Anarchism, an anti-authoritarian, egalitarian movement opposed to the power of the state and questioning of all forms of authority, including medical authority, would surely have been repelled by a 'scientific' doctrine that sought to eliminate the 'unfit' and champion the 'fit' as a means of 'race' survival. Paradoxical though it may seem, however, numerous strains of anarchist thought in different countries did in fact engage historically with certain aspects of eugenic thought and practice and provided a forum for their dissemination. By means of a historical analysis that situates anarchism's interest in evolutionary ideas, population control and the ideas of Malthus, anti-clericalism and revolutionary transformation, this Fellowship charts the intersection and the conflicts between - and within - the two movements during their heyday; the 1890s to the 1940s. In order to do so, the Fellowship focuses on the eugenics movement and the anarchist movement in five different countries where both eugenics and anarchism were historically influential - England, France, Portugal, Spain and Argentina. These movements are examined simultaneously and within a contemporaneous period (1890-1940), the years of both movements' maximum influence.By using an innovative set of theoretical and methodological tools, from Foucauldian insights to feminist epistemologies, through to 'post-anarchist' interpretations, this research aims to transform the historiography of both eugenics and anarchism. The first, because, despite new directions taken in the last decades, a right-wing affiliation and a statist origin of eugenics is assumed, whereby any reception of eugenic ideas is interpreted as inherently totalitarian and leading to the horrors of the Nazi death camps; the second, because too often it is thought inconceivable that the supporters of anarchism could contemplate birth control, hereditarian notions or advocate the achievement of a 'well-born' population.Three principal objectives are sought during the eighteen months of this Fellowship. The first objective analyses how important the presence or otherwise of the state and statist practice were in the articulation of eugenic thought and practice in the five countries studied. The state, drawing on current political theory, is considered to be not only a particular government, a set of policies, or legislation, but a varied political and social framework of authority that could be implemented through coercion, force or indeed consent. How did anarchist non-adherence and a lack of deference to the state alter the reception of eugenics by the libertarian movement? The second objective focuses on the transnational knowledge flows within eugenics, anarchism and between the two. To what extent was eugenics 'anarchized' and how was anarchism 'eugenicized' in this scenario? The third objective is to explore how the presence of another major social influence, the Catholic Church, affected the uptake of eugenics by anarchism. To what degree did anarchism define its engagement with eugenics as part of its declared anti-clericalism and the power of the Church to regulate sexuality and reproduction?This research, trans-national in its remit is not merely historical in scope, however. By examining the reception of scientific ideas in the past, we can pose questions on the ethics of medical thought, on matters of choice, on the power of the state and medical profession, to mould people's responses to illness and empowerment in today's society. The Fellowship seeks to engage with these debates by means of academic production (one monograph, one journal article, one conference paper) and a public-facing exhibition for the transmission of the Fellowship's findings.

本奖学金旨在研究国际无政府主义劳工运动和国际优生学运动之间的历史重叠。乍一看，这两者似乎是相互排斥的。无政府主义是一种反权威、平等主义的运动，反对国家权力，质疑包括医疗权威在内的所有形式的权威，它肯定会被一种“科学”学说所排斥，这种学说试图消除“不合适的”，捍卫“合适的”，作为“种族”生存的一种手段。然而，看似矛盾的是，不同国家的许多无政府主义思想实际上在历史上确实与优生思想和实践的某些方面有联系，并为它们的传播提供了一个论坛。通过对无政府主义在进化思想、人口控制和马尔萨斯思想、反教权主义和革命转型方面的兴趣的历史分析，本书描绘了这两种运动在其鼎盛时期之间和内部的交集和冲突；19世纪90年代到40年代。为了做到这一点，奖学金将重点放在五个不同国家的优生学运动和无政府主义运动上，这些国家的优生学和无政府主义在历史上都有影响力——英国、法国、葡萄牙、西班牙和阿根廷。这些运动同时被研究，并在同一时期（1890-1940），这是两个运动影响最大的年份。通过使用一套创新的理论和方法工具，从福柯式的见解到女权主义认识论，再到“后无政府主义”的解释，本研究旨在改变优生学和无政府主义的史学。首先，尽管在过去的几十年里，优生学有了新的发展方向，但人们仍然认为优生学是右翼的附会和中央集权的起源，因此，任何对优生学思想的接受都被解释为固有的极权主义，并导致纳粹死亡集中营的恐怖；第二，因为人们常常认为无政府主义的支持者不可能考虑生育控制、遗传观念或提倡实现“出生良好”的人口。在这项研究金的十八个月期间，力求实现三个主要目标。第一个客观分析了在被研究的五个国家中，国家和国家主义实践在表达优生思想和实践中的重要性。根据当前的政治理论，国家被认为不仅是一个特定的政府、一套政策或立法，而且是一个可以通过强制、武力或实际上的同意来实施的各种政治和社会权威框架。无政府主义者的不服从和对国家的不服从如何改变了自由意志主义运动对优生学的接受？第二个目标集中在优生学，无政府主义和两者之间的跨国知识流动。优生学在多大程度上被“无政府化”了？在这种情况下，无政府主义是如何被“优生化”的？第三个目标是探索另一个主要的社会影响——天主教会的存在如何影响无政府主义对优生学的吸收。无政府主义在多大程度上将其与优生学的接触定义为其宣称的反教权主义和教会规范性和生殖的权力的一部分？然而，这项跨国研究不仅在范围上具有历史意义。通过考察过去对科学思想的接受，我们可以对医学思想的伦理、选择问题、国家和医学专业的权力提出问题，以塑造人们对疾病的反应，并在当今社会赋予权力。研究金试图通过学术作品（一篇专著、一篇期刊文章、一篇会议论文）和面向公众的展览来参与这些辩论，以传播研究金的研究结果。