The Public and Private History of Eugenics: An Introduction

Burke, Chloe S.; Castaneda, Christopher J.

doi:10.1525/tph.2007.29.3.5

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The extreme case for sexual sterilization in Alberta was made after the “Mental Hygiene Survey of the Province of Alberta” was published in 1922. The authors of this report concluded that there existed a causal link between mental abnormality and immorality (Burke & Castaneda, 2007). With the results of this study in hand, both the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) and the United Farm Women of Alberta (UFWA) passed a resolution that pushed the government to draft legislation that would segregate feeble minded adults to prevent reproduction, and to commission a study on the possibility of sterilization.…”

Section: Eugenics In Canadamentioning

confidence: 93%

Eugenics and human rights in Canada: The Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928.

McCavitt

2013

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This case study looks at how the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act (1928) is a site of contested and difficult Canadian history. In particular, it focuses on how the Act can be used as a narrative of individual versus collective rights, the evolution of social thought in Canada, the legitimized stigmatization and physical violation of thousands of individuals, and the development and protection of human rights. This case study discusses the emergence of the eugenics movements in Canada, the proposal and passing of the Act into law, the nature of the Act itself, the damage it caused to thousands of individuals, and its eventual repeal. The sources drawn upon include both primary and secondary works. The story of the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act (1928) is not just about how mistakes were made in the past, but the broader issues of collective and individual rights, and how they must balance in our society.

show abstract

Section: Eugenics In Canadamentioning

confidence: 93%

Eugenics and human rights in Canada: The Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928.

McCavitt

2013

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…crimes against humanity; see Fig. 3 and Burke and Castaneda, 2007). What are the T, , θ , and the relationships between them and the relevant phenomena, which practitioners are comfortable with and which are inadmissible?…”

Section: Embedding Reach (Mis)usementioning

confidence: 99%

What Makes a Good Theory, and How Do We Make a Theory Good?

Guest

2024

Comput Brain Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I present an ontology of criteria for evaluating theory to answer the titular question from the perspective of a scientist practitioner. Set inside a formal account of our adjudication over theories, a metatheoretical calculus, this ontology comprises the following: (a) metaphysical commitment, the need to highlight what parts of theory are not under investigation, but are assumed, asserted, or essential; (b) discursive survival, the ability to be understood by interested non-bad actors, to withstand scrutiny within the intended (sub)field(s), and to negotiate the dialectical landscape thereof; (c) empirical interface, the potential to explicate the relationship between theory and observation, i.e., how observations relate to, and affect, theory and vice versa; (d) minimising harm, the reckoning with how theory is forged in a fire of historical, if not ongoing, abuses—from past crimes against humanity, to current exploitation, turbocharged or hyped by machine learning, to historical and present internal academic marginalisation. This work hopes to serve as a possible beginning for scientists who want to examine the properties and characteristics of theories, to propose additional virtues and vices, and to engage in further dialogue. Finally, I appeal to practitioners to iterate frequently over such criteria, by building and sharing the metatheoretical calculi used to adjudicate over theories.

show abstract

“…An individual practitioner, user of such theories, would potentially have to answer such questions for themselves about how they substantiate their use of evolutionary theory to avoid spillover into inappropriate (for them) or even illegal aspects (e.g. crimes against humanity, see Figure 3, and Burke and Castaneda, 2007). What are the T, Θ, θ, and the relationships between them and the relevant phenomena, which practitioners are comfortable with and which are inadmissible?…”

Section: Embedding Reach (Mis)usementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Or contrariwise, is it aiding in hiding history, the descent of theory and of research institutions, exactly where and when it should be documented, discussed and explicitly condemned (e.g. Burke & Castaneda, 2007;Weigmann, 2001;Weindling et al, 2021)? Are fields that use statistical and/or AI methods uncritically (e.g.…”

Section: Geneological Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes a good theory, and how do we make a theory good?

Guest¹

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I present an ontology of criteria for evaluating theory to answer the titular question from the perspective of a scientist practitioner. Set inside a formal account of our adjudication over theories, a metatheoretical calculus, this ontology comprises: a) Metaphysical commitment, the need to highlight what parts of theory are not under investigation, but are assumed, asserted, or essential. b) Discursive survival, the ability to be understood by interested non-bad actors, to withstand scrutiny within the intended (sub)field(s), and to negotiate the dialectical landscape thereof. c) Empirical interface, the potential to explicate the relationship between theory and observation, i.e., how observations relate to, and affect, theory and vice versa. d) Minimizing harm, the reckoning with how theory is forged in a fire of historical, if not ongoing, abuses — from past crimes against humanity, to current exploitation, turbocharged or hyped by machine learning, to historical and present internal academic marginalization. This work hopes to serve as a possible beginning for scientists who want to examine the properties and characteristics of theories, to propose additional virtues and vices, and to engage in further dialogue. Finally, I appeal to practitioners to iterate frequently over such criteria, by building and sharing the metatheoretical calculi used to adjudicate over theories.

show abstract

The Public and Private History of Eugenics: An Introduction

Cited by 11 publications

References 6 publications

Eugenics and human rights in Canada: The Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928.

Eugenics and human rights in Canada: The Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928.

What Makes a Good Theory, and How Do We Make a Theory Good?

What makes a good theory, and how do we make a theory good?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About