Breeding Contempt: The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States

Abstract

In Breeding Contempt, Mark Largent revisits the history of forced sterilization in the U.S., from its inception in the mid-nineteenth century into the twenty-first. Perhaps the most interesting and valuable contribution of Largent's work is its insistence that we consider the role of coercive sterilization outside the parameters of eugenics. His first chapter, “nipping the problem in the bud,” discusses the role of physicians interested in performing sexual surgeries for both punitive and therapeutic reasons. Long before biologists became interested in the cause, physicians played a crucial role in the practice of sterilization. According to Largent, doctors interested in reducing crime through restricting reproduction “aggressively campaigned for the legal authority to perform the operations” (25). Without the scientific authority of American biologists, however, physicians did not have much legislative success. As Largent argues, sterilization laws emerged only with a coalition of professionals able to provide biological evidence that certain traits were inheritable. In particular, biologist Charles Davenport became a crucial promoter of eugenic ideas, despite the fact that he did not support coercive sterilization. Largent details the creation of Davenport's Station for Experimental Evolution, the American Breeders Association, and the Eugenics Record Office. Not only were these organizations highly influential in promoting eugenics and sterilization, but these topics, in turn, provided the organizations with financial support and professional authority.