Centre for Medical History, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Exeter, Exter, UK.
Soc Stud Sci. 2009 Dec;39(6):853-84. doi: 10.1177/0306312709335406.
Building upon the work of Thomas Gieryn and Erving Goffman, this paper will explore how the concepts of stigma and boundary work can be usefully applied to history of population science. Having been closely aligned to eugenics in the early 20th century, from the 1930s both demographers and geneticists began to establish a boundary between their own disciplines and eugenic ideology. The eugenics movement responded to this process of stigmatization. Through strategies defined by Goffman as 'disclosure' and 'concealment', stigma was managed, and a limited space for eugenics was retained in science and policy. Yet by the 1960s, a revitalized eugenics movement was bringing leading social and biological scientists together through the study of the genetic demography of characteristics such as intelligence. The success of this programme of 'stigma transformation' resulted from its ability to allow geneticists and demographers to conceive of eugenic improvement in ways that seemed consistent with the ideals of individuality, diversity and liberty. In doing so, it provided them with an alternative, and a challenge, to more radical and controversial programmes to realize an optimal genotype and population. The processes of stigma attribution and management are, however, ongoing, and since the rise of the nature-nurture controversy in the 1970s, the use of eugenics as a 'stigma symbol' has prevailed.
在托马斯·吉耶恩(Thomas Gieryn)和欧文·戈夫曼(Erving Goffman)的工作基础上,本文将探讨污名和边界工作的概念如何被有效地应用于人口科学史。在 20 世纪早期,人口统计学与优生学密切相关,从 20 世纪 30 年代开始,人口统计学家和遗传学家开始在自己的学科和优生学思想之间建立界限。优生运动对这一污名化过程做出了回应。通过戈夫曼定义的“揭示”和“隐瞒”策略,污名得以管理,优生学在科学和政策中保留了有限的空间。然而,到了 20 世纪 60 年代,通过研究智力等特征的遗传人口统计学,复兴的优生运动将领先的社会和生物科学家聚集在一起。这种“污名转化”计划的成功源于它能够让遗传学家和人口统计学家以看似符合个性、多样性和自由理想的方式构想优生学的改进。通过这种方式,它为他们提供了一种替代方案,也是对更激进和有争议的实现最佳基因型和人口的方案的挑战。然而,污名归因和管理的过程仍在继续,自 20 世纪 70 年代自然与教养之争兴起以来,优生学一直被用作“污名象征”。