Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Building the New Man

 | 
Francesco Cassata

Introduction

Texte intégral

  • 1 Mark B. Adams, ed., The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil and Russia (New York (...)
  • 2 Samuel J. Holmes, A Bibliography of Eugenics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1924).

1Francis Galton’s gospel was quickly spread around the world. In 1924, a report of the International Commission of Eugenics published in Eugenical News listed fifteen countries in which eugenics had assumed an institutional form: England, Germany, the United States, Italy, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Argentina, Cuba and Russia; countries that were cooperating with the International Commission included Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, Australia and New Zealand.1 In the same year, a bibliography dedicated to eugenic issues already counted 7,500 titles, including monographs and articles.2

  • 3 Frank Dikötter, “Race Culture: Recent perspectives on the history of eugenics,” The American Histo (...)
  • 4 Publications on eugenics in Great Britain and United States are too numerous to list here exhausti (...)
  • 5 On German eugenics, see: Gisela Bock, Zwangssterilisation im Nationalsozialismus (Opladen: Westdeu (...)

2It therefore seems most appropriate to approach eugenics as a cultural, social and political phenomenon with a broad international relevance. As Frank Dikötter put it, eugenics should be considered as “a fundamental aspect of some of the most important cultural and social movements of the twentieth century, intimately linked to ideologies of ‘race,’ nation and sex, inextricably meshed with population control, social hygiene, state hospitals, and the welfare state.”3 Initially focused on the cases of Great Britain, the United States4 and Germany,5 the historiography on eugenics has recently assumed a more open and varied comparative perspective, following the pioneering suggestions offered by Mark B. Adams in 1990:

  • 6 Adams, ed., The Wellborn Science, 6.

Even if our ultimate goal is to comprehend the “essence” of eugenics as a phenomenon, or to find the invariant laws or processes underlying the character of knowledge, or even to ascertain what is unique or atypical in a given movement or development, we cannot hope to do so without comparative studies. And this is as true for eugenics and the history of the sciences generally as it is for embryology, molecular biology, or linguistics.6

3Nowadays, the general interpretative framework seems extremely fresh and stimulating.

  • 7 Peter Weingart, “Science and Political Culture: Eugenics in Comparative Perspective,” Scandinavian (...)
  • 8 On eugenics in Scandinavia, see: Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen, eds., Eugenics and the Welfa (...)
  • 9 Maria Bucur, Eugenics and Modernization in Interwar Romania (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Pre (...)
  • 10 Nancy Leys Stepan, The “Hour of Eugenics”: Race, Gender and Nation in Latin America (Ithaca–London (...)
  • 11 Frank Dikötter, Imperfect Conceptions: Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects and Eugenics in China (New (...)

4First of all, eugenics no longer appears as a homogenous movement, coherent within itself and essentially reducible to the Anglo-Saxon matrix. Instead, it could be described as a “multiform archipelago,” composed of multiple national styles:7 the Scandinavian countries,8 Central and Eastern Europe,9 Latin America,10 but also China, India, and Japan are among the regions and countries most recently studied.11

  • 12 William H. Schneider, Quality and Quantity. The Quest for Biological Regeneration in Twentieth-Cen (...)
  • 13 See, in particular, Marisa Miranda and Gustavo Vallejo, eds., Darwinismo social y eugenesia en el (...)

5Secondly, on a theoretical level, next to Mendelism, which was dominant in the British and North American contexts, neo-Lamarckism has been identified as one of the constitutive elements of the eugenic discourse, above all in several nations, such as France, Russia and Brazil.12 In parallel, “Nordic” eugenics has been coupled with “Latin” eugenics, widespread in Catholic countries such as Italy, France, Spain, Belgium and some Latin American nations.13

  • 14 On genetics and eugenics, see: Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics; Diane B. Paul, Controlling Human H (...)

6Thirdly, the definition of eugenics as a “pseudo-science” is being progressively substituted by an analysis that is more conscious of the relationships of eugenics to genetics and other scientific disciplines, such as demography, statistics and psychology.14

  • 15 See: Donald K. Pickens, Eugenics and the Progressives (Nashville: Vanderbildt University Press, 19 (...)

7Finally, the myth of eugenics as an essentially reactionary ideology, mostly linked to sexist, racist, anti-Semitic and generally right-wing movements, has been replaced with an historically more mature evaluation, which is more knowledgeable about the fascination exercised by the eugenic thinking also in the left-wing milieu: from the first British feminists to German and Swedish social-democrats; from Spanish anarchists to French communists.15

  • 16 On eugenics and fascist population policy, see: David Horn, Social Bodies. Science, Reproduction a (...)

8In the context of this fertile comparative approach, the Italian case—notwithstanding its crucial importance from an international point of view, due to the role of Fascism and of the Catholic Church—has long been neglected, or has been studied in an incomplete manner, as a component of the fascist population policy or state racism.16

9Based on previously unexplored archival documentation, this book offers a first general overview of the history of Italian eugenics, not limited to the decades of the fascist regime, but instead ranging from the beginning of the 1900s to the first half of the seventies.

10The word eugenica (or, less frequently, eugenia and eugenetica) began to spread in Italy in 1912, in the wake of the First International Congress of Eugenics, held in London, under the presidency of Leonard Darwin. Even recalling the intense proto-eugenic debate existing in Italy from the final decades of the nineteenth century, the Italian participation at the London Congress not only stimulated a process of institutionalization of Italian eugenics—through the constitution in 1913 of the first Italian Committee of Eugenic Studies—but also demonstrated from the beginning the particular originality of the Italian approach to eugenics. Neo-Lamarckian theoretical influences; Pareto’s theory of the elite and social exchange; the anthropology of racial breeding and migrations; and the Lombrosian connection between genius and degeneration, all created a scientific and intellectual framework that made Italian eugenics inassimilable to the Anglo-Saxon model.

11The First World War, which is addressed in chapter 2, represented an important moment of development for Italian eugenics. Interpreted as dramatic “counter-selection”; or, vice-versa, as a means of biological optimization of the nation, the conflict provided eugenicists with important lessons: in particular, it demonstrated the relevance of a “unity of command” and the efficiency of direct state management, economically rational, of the biological resources of the nation.

12Anxieties over national regeneration, technocratic ambitions and new social welfare-oriented policies, which, after the war, accompanied the crises of the last liberal governments and the progressive rise of fascism, favored the affirmation of eugenics as a part of social medicine and public health. In this context, eugenics was progressively seen as a paradigm of national efficiency, based on the subordination of individual liberty to superior collective interests for the “defense of society and the race.” Such a technocratic and managerial conception of the population fascinated the Italian political elite in this period, the left as much as the right, ranging from nationalism to reformist socialism, and of course fascism. It was in these years—as discussed in chapter 3—that Italian eugenics was institutionalized, with the constitution of the Institute of Public Welfare and Assistance (Istituto di Previdenza e Assistenza Sociale, IPAS); the Italian Society for the Study of Sexual Questions (Società Italiana per lo studio delle Questioni Sessuali, SISQS); the Italian Society for Genetics and Eugenics (Società Italiana di Genetica e Eugenica, SIGE); and the Italian League of Hygiene and Mental Prophylaxis (Lega Italiana di Igiene e Profilassi Mentale, LIPIM). In the same period, the eugenic debate went through a season of extreme richness and variety, exploring the fundamental issues of birth control, premarital certification, sterilization and mental hygiene.

13The orthodoxy based on the binomial “quantitative” eugenics—pronatalist population policy was imposed officially and definitively in 1927. The turning point was above all political, and it was sanctioned by the alliance between fascist natalist policy, inaugurated in May 1927 with Mussolini’s famous Ascension Day Speech, and Catholic sexual morals, reaffirmed by the Holy See in December 1930, with the encyclical Casti Connubii [On Christian marriage]. SIGE’s leadership mirrored this ideological and political fusion: the president was the demographer and statistician Corrado Gini, who contemporaneously managed also ISTAT and CISP; the vice-president was Agostino Gemelli, founder and dean of the Milan Catholic University, and principle exponent of Italian Catholic eugenics.

14On a more specifically scientific level, starting from the second half of the 1920s, the theoretical paradigm that fascist eugenics was based on was constituted by the convergence between Corrado Gini’s “integral” demography—synthesis of demography, biology, anthropology, economy, sociology and, obviously, eugenics—and constitutional biotypological medicine. The latter was represented above all by the endocrinologist Nicola Pende, close to the Catholic environments. Both Gini’s “regenerative” eugenics and Pende’s biotypological “orthogenesis” opposed the “Nordic” Anglo-Germanic and Scandinavian model.

15This opposition—scientific, ideological and political all at the same time—was expressed at an institutional level by Italy’s exit from the IFEO, and the constitution in 1935 of the Latin Federation of Eugenic Societies: an alternative model, the birth of which coincided not surprisingly with the most critical phase of diplomatic relationships between fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

16Starting from 1936, and in particular in 1938 with the introduction of state racism in fascist Italy, the ideological and political convergence of fascism and national socialism also influenced the relationship between eugenics and racism, feeding new tensions and oppositions. This issue is analyzed in chapter 5. Between 1938 and 1943 the nature/nurture debate became the battleground for the clash between the different racisms of fascism:“biological” (Telesio Interlandi, Guido Landra, etc.) and “esoterictraditionalist” racism (Julius Evola, Giovanni Preziosi, etc.) adopted the negative Nazi eugenic model, while “nationalist” and “Mediterranean” racism (Giacomo Acerbo, Nicola Pende, etc.) remained faithful to the “Latin” model, environmentalist and neo-Lamarckian. The two positions were opposed in their definition of Italian racial identity, but converged in their discrimination of racial enemies, in particular the half-caste and the “Jew.”

17The end of the Second World War and the discovery of the tragic consequences of National Socialist racism did not signal the definitive end of eugenics. In the 1950s and 1960s, eugenics in Italy was not stigmatized as taboo, but it was progressively redefined, passing through a sort of no man’s land, in which struggles and oppositions occurred on different levels. Institutionally and academically, the statisticians and demographers of SIGE clashed with the geneticists (Adriano Buzzati-Traverso, Giuseppe Montalenti, Claudio Barigozzi), who decided, in 1953, to constitute a new autonomous association (Associazione Italiana di Genetica, AGI). Instead, the physicians (Carlo Foà, Luigi Gedda, Luisa Gianferrari) in 1951 constituted the first Italian Society of Medical Genetics (Società Italiana di Genetica Medica), opposed to both Gini’s SIGE and the AGI. Politically, mainline Italian eugenics, after the Second World War, became an important component of international scientific racism, expressed by the IAAEE and the Mankind Quarterly, encountering the anti-fascist and anti-racist components of the reform and new Italian eugenics.

18Finally, from an ideological point of view, Catholic, familial and natalist eugenics, supported above all by Luigi Gedda’s “Gregorio Mendel” Institute, opposed secular eugenics, which advocated birth control and family planning policies. The history of eugenics and genetics in Italy after the Second World War is covered in chapters 6 and 7.

  • 17 On “new” eugenics, see Diane B. Paul, “Eugenic Anxieties, Social Realities, and Political Choices, (...)

19The book concludes in the second half of the 1970s, with the introduction in Italy of prenatal diagnosis in 1975, followed in 1978 with the approval of Law 194 on the legalization of abortion: the eugenic debate entered in a new phase—that of so-called new eugenics—which in Italy even today feeds an intense, and at times lacerating, political and cultural debate.17

Notes

1 Mark B. Adams, ed., The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil and Russia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 5.

2 Samuel J. Holmes, A Bibliography of Eugenics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1924).

3 Frank Dikötter, “Race Culture: Recent perspectives on the history of eugenics,” The American Historical Review 103, no. 2 (April 1998): 467. See also Marius Turda, “New Perspectives on Race and Eugenics,” Historical Journal 51, no. 4 (2008): 1115–24.

4 Publications on eugenics in Great Britain and United States are too numerous to list here exhaustively. See, in particular, Lindsay Andrew Farrall, The Origins and Growth of the English Eugenics Movement 1865–1925 (New York: Garland Pub., 1965); Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics. Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995); Richard A. Soloway, Demography and Degeneration. Eugenics and the Declining Birthrate in Twentieth Century Britain (Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press, 1990); Pauline M. H. Mazumdar, Eugenics, human genetics and human failings: the Eugenics Society, its Source and its Critics in Britain (London–New York: Routledge, 1992); Garland E. Allen, “The Misuse of Biological Hierarchies: the American Eugenics Movement, 1900–1940,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 2, no. 5 (1983): 105–128; Mark H. Haller, Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1984); Edward J. Larson, Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); Ian Robert Dowbiggin, Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the US and Canada, 1880–1940 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997); Philip R. Reilly, The Surgical Solution: a History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991); Wendy Kline, Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom (Berkeley and London: University of California Press, 2001); Edwin Black, War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003); Alexandra Minna Stern, Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005); Alison Bashford and Philippa Levine, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Marius Turda, Modernism and Eugenics (Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).

5 On German eugenics, see: Gisela Bock, Zwangssterilisation im Nationalsozialismus (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1986); Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Peter Weingart, Jürgen Kroll, and Kurt Bayertz, Rasse Blut und Gene: Geschichte der Eugenik und Rassenhygiene in Deutschland (Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1988); Paul J. Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism, 1870–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Paul J. Weindling, “The ‘Sonderweg’ of German Eugenics: Nationalism and Scientific Internationalism,” The British Journal for the History of Science 22, no. 3 (September 1989): 321–33; Sheila F. Weiss, “The Race Hygiene Movement in Germany, 1904–1945,” in Adams, ed., The Wellborn Science, 8–68; Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wipperman, The Racial State: Germany 1933–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

6 Adams, ed., The Wellborn Science, 6.

7 Peter Weingart, “Science and Political Culture: Eugenics in Comparative Perspective,” Scandinavian Journal of History 24, no. 2 (June 1999): 163–177. On international networks, see, in particular, Stefan Kühl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) and Die Internationale der Rassisten. Aufstieg und Niedergang der internationalen Bewegung für Eugenik und Rassenhygiene im 20. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag, 1997). See also Alison Bashford, Internationalism, Cosmopolitanism, and Eugenics, in Bashford and Levine, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics, 154–72.

8 On eugenics in Scandinavia, see: Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen, eds., Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1996); Dorothy Porter, “Eugenics and the sterilization debate in Sweden and Britain before World War II,” Scandinavian Journal of History 24, no. 2 (1999): 145–162; Alain Drouard, “Concerning Eugenics in Scandinavia. An Evaluation of Recent Research and Publications,” Population: an English Selection 11 (1999): 261– 70; Mattias Tydén, The Scandinavian States: Reformed Eugenics applied, in Bashford and Levine, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics, 363–76.

9 Maria Bucur, Eugenics and Modernization in Interwar Romania (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press, 2002); Brigitte Fuchs, ‘Rasse’, ‘Folk’, ‘Geschlecht’. Anthropologische Diskurse in Österreich, 1850–1960 (Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag, 2003); Kamila Uzarczyk, Podstawy ideologiczne higieny ras i ich realizacja na przykładzie Śląska w latach 1924–1944 (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, 2003); Magdalena Gawin, Rasa i nowczesność. Historia polskiego ruchu eugenicznego, 1880–1952 (Warsaw: Wydawnicwo Neriton, 2003); Heinz Eberhard and Wolfgang Neugebauer, eds., Vorreiter der Vernichtung? Eugenic, Rassenhygiene und Euthanasie in der österreichischen Discussion vor 1938 (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2005); Gerhard Baader, Veronika Hofer and Thomas Mayer, eds., Eugenik in Österreich: Biopolitischer Methoden und Strukturen vor 1900–1945 (Vienna: Czernin Verlag, 2007); Marius Turda and Paul J. Weindling, eds., Blood and Homeland: Eugenics and Racial Nationalism in Central and Southeast Europe 1900–1940 (Budapest–New York: Central European University Press, 2007); Christian Promitzer, Sevasti Trubeta, Marius Turda, eds., Health, Hygiene and Eugenics in Southeastern Europe to 1945 (Budapest–New York: Central European University Press, 2011).

10 Nancy Leys Stepan, The “Hour of Eugenics”: Race, Gender and Nation in Latin America (Ithaca–London: Cornell University Press, 1991); Alexandra Minna Stern, “From Mestizophilia to Biotypology. Racialization and Science in Mexico, 1920–1960,” in Nancy P. Appelbaum, Anne S. Macpherson, and Karin Alejandra Rosenblatt, eds., Race & Nation in Modern Latin America (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 187–210.

11 Frank Dikötter, Imperfect Conceptions: Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects and Eugenics in China (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998); Patrick McGinn, “‘Quality not quantity tells’: The Eugenics Movement in India,” unpublished manuscript; Sabine Frühstück, Die Politik der Sexualwissenschaft: Zur Produktion und Popularisierung sexologischen Wissens in Japan 1908–1941 (Vienna: Institut Ostasienwissenschaften, 1997); Yuehtsen Juliette Chung, Eugenics in China and Hong Kong: Nationalism and Colonialism, in Bashford and Levine, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics, 258–73; Jennifer Robertson, Eugenics in Japan: Sanguinous Repair, in Bashford and Levine, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics, 430–48.

12 William H. Schneider, Quality and Quantity. The Quest for Biological Regeneration in Twentieth-Century France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Nancy Leys Stepan, “Eugenics in Brazil, 1917–1940,” in Adams, ed., The Wellborn Science, 110–52; Gilberto Hochman, Nisia Trindade Lima, and Marcos Chor Maio, The Path of Eugenics in Brazil: Dilemmas of Miscegenation, in Bashford and Levine, eds., The Oxford Handbbook of the History of Eugenics, 493–510; Mark B. Adams, “Eugenics in Russia, 1900–1940,” in Adams, ed., The Wellborn Science, 153–216.; Nikolai Krementsov, “From ‘Beastly Philosophy’ to Medical Genetics: Eugenics in Russia and the Soviet Union,” Annals of Science 68, no. 1 ( January 2011): 61–92. On Lamarckian eugenics, see also: Peter J. Bowler, “E. W. MacBride’s Lamarckian Eugenics and Its Implications for the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge,” Annals of Science 41, no. 3 (May 1984): 245–60.

13 See, in particular, Marisa Miranda and Gustavo Vallejo, eds., Darwinismo social y eugenesia en el mundo latino (Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno de Argentina Editores, 2005); Armando Garcia Gonzalez, Raquel Alvarez Pelaez, En busca de la raza perfecta. Eugenesia e higiene en Cuba (1898–1958) (Madrid: CSIC, 1998); “Dossier: Estudios sobre eugenesia,” ed. Raquel Alvarez Pelaez, special issue, Asclepio 51, no. 2 (1999): 5–148; Patience A. Schell, Eugenics Policy and Practice in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Mexico, in Bashford and Levine, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics, 477–92.

14 On genetics and eugenics, see: Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics; Diane B. Paul, Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1995); Jan Sapp, “The Struggle for Authority in the Field of Heredity, 1900–1932: New perspectives on the Rise of Genetics,” Journal of the History of Biology 16, no. 3 (1983): 311–42; Jonathan Harwood, “Geneticists and the Evolutionary Synthesis in Interwar Germany,” Annals of Science 42, no. 3 (May 1985): 279–301; Paul Weindling, “Weimar Eugenics: The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics in Social Context,” Annals of Science 42, no. 3 (May 1985): 303–18; Garland E. Allen, “The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, 1910–1940. An Essay in Institutional History,” Osiris, 2nd series 2 (1986): 225–64; Nils Roll-Hansen, “Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement in Scandinavia,” The British Journal for the History of Science 22, no. 3 (September 1989): 335–46; David Barker, “The Biology of Stupidity: Genetics, Eugenics and Mental Deficiency in the Inter-War Years,” The British Journal for the History of Science 22, no. 3 (September 1989): 347–75; Hans-Peter Kröner, Von der Rassenhygiene zur Humangenetik (Munich: Urban & Fischer, 1998); Nathaniel Comfort, “‘Polyhybrid Heterogeneous Bastards’: Promoting Medical Genetics in America in the 1930s and 1940s,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 61, no. 4 (October 2006): 415–55. On eugenics and demography, see: Edmund Ramsden, “Carving up Population Science: Eugenics, Demography and the Controversy over the ‘Biological Law’ of Population Growth,” Social Studies of Science, 32, no. 5–6 (October– December 2002): 857–99; Edmund Ramsden, “Social Demography and Eugenics in the Interwar United States,” Population and Development Review, 29, no. 4 (December 2003): 547–93; Edmund Ramsden, “Eugenics from the New Deal to the Great Society: Genetics, Demography and Population Quality,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39 (2008): 391–406.

15 See: Donald K. Pickens, Eugenics and the Progressives (Nashville: Vanderbildt University Press, 1968); Michael Freeden, “Eugenics and Progressive Thought: a Study in Ideological Affinity,” Historical Journal 22 (1979): 645–71; Loren R. Graham, “Science and Values: the Eugenic Movement in Germany and Russia in 1920s,” American Historical Review 82, no. 5 (December 1977): 1133–1964; Diane B. Paul, “Eugenics and the Left,” Journal of the History of Ideas 45 (1984): 567–90; Kevin Repp, “‘More Corporeal, More Concrete’: Liberal Humanism, Eugenics and German Progressives at the Last Fin de Siècle,” Journal of Modern History 72 (2000): 683–730; M. Schwartz, Sozialistische Eugenik. Eugenische Sozialtechnologien in Debatten und Politik der deutschen Sozialdemokratie, 1890–1993 (Bonn: Dietz, 1995); Richard Cleminson, Anarchism, Science and Sex: Eugenics in Eastern Spain, 1900–1937 (Oxford–Bern: Peter Lang 2000); Richard Sonn, “‘Your body is Yours’: Anarchism, Birth Control, and Eugenics in Interwar France,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 14, no. 4 (October 2005): 415–32; Richard Cleminson, “‘A Century of Civilization under the Influence of Eugenics’: Dr. Enrique Diego Madrazo, Socialism and Scientific Progress,” Dynamis 26 (2006): 221–51.

16 On eugenics and fascist population policy, see: David Horn, Social Bodies. Science, Reproduction and Italian Modernity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Carl Ipsen, Dictating Demography: The Problem of Population in Fascist Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Maria Sophia Quine, Population Politics in Twentieth Century Europe: Fascist Dictatorships and Liberal Democracies (London: Routledge, 1996). On eugenics and racism in fascist Italy, see: Roberto Maiocchi, Scienza italiana e razzismo fascista (Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1999); Giorgio Israel, Pietro Nastasi, Scienza e razza nell’Italia fascista (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1998); Aaron Gillette, Racial Theories in Fascist Italy (New York: Routledge, 2002). Recent works have provided a more comprehensive approach. See, in particular, Claudia Mantovani, Rigenerare la società. L’eugenetica in Italia dalle origini ottocentesche agli anni Trenta (Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino, 2004).

17 On “new” eugenics, see Diane B. Paul, “Eugenic Anxieties, Social Realities, and Political Choices,” Social Research 59, no. 3 (1992): 663–83; Jean Gayon and Daniel Jacobi, eds., L’éternel retour de l’eugénisme (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2006); Alison Bashford, Where Did Eugenics Go?, in Bashford and Levine, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics, 539–58.

© Central European University Press, 2011

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540