American Progressivism: Supreme Court of the United States and the legitimization of eugenic practices
Abstrakt
Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie kierunków reform i rozwoju idei eugenicznych w dobie Progressive Era w Stanach Zjednoczonych oraz ocena orzeczeń Sądu Najwyższego Stanów Zjednoczonych w kontekście praktyk eugenicznych. Na początku XX w. można dostrzec największą aktywność zwolenników nurtu progresywnego w USA. Ich działalność była odpowiedzią na zwiększoną industrializację, rozwój dużych korporacji i obawy przed korupcją w amerykańskiej polityce. Druga połowa ery progresywnej przyniosła wiele wymiernych, legislacyjnych zwycięstw progresywnych ekonomistów i ich apologetów. Reformy obejmowały regulacje stanowe, które dotyczyły warunków pracy, ustalały płace minimalne, określały godziny pracy i zakazywały pracy dzieci. Poglądy eugeniczne uzasadniały ustawodawstwo imigracyjne niekorzystne dla obcokrajowców. Ekonomiści powiązani z American Association for Labor Legislation i opowiadający się za reformami prawa pracy byli pod wpływem teorii race suicide. Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego Stanów Zjednoczonych miało ogromny wpływ na kształt porządku prawnego w dziedzinie prawa gospodarczego i prawa pracy. Niektóre decyzje odzwierciedlały raczej ideologiczne nastawienie sędziów niż dążenie do reform. Skutkiem orzeczenia w sprawie Buck v. Bell była legitymizacja praktyk eugenicznych w Stanach Zjednoczonych. Sprawa ta była również klasycznym przykładem rywalizacji między jednostką a państwem o możliwość kontroli reprodukcji.
Słowa kluczowe:
prawo konstytucyjne, Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych, orzecznictwo, era progresywna, sterylizacja, eugenikaBibliografia
Barret D., Kurzman C., Globalizing Social Movement Theory: The Case of Eugenics, “Theory and Society” 2004, vol. 33, no. 5. Google Scholar
Beeby J.M., Ingrassia B.M., Precursors to Gilded Age and Progressive era Reforms, [in:] A Companion to the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, eds. C. McKnight Nichols, N.C. Unger, Wiley Blackwell, Malden-Oxford 2017. Google Scholar
Binnebesel J., Baczała D., Błajet P., Eugenika – aspekty historyczne, biologiczne i edukacyjne, “Studia Edukacyjne” 2019, vol. 52, DOI: 10.14746/se.2019.52.10. Google Scholar
Black E., Eugenics and the Nazis: The California Connection, [in:] Beyond Bioethics: Toward a New Biopolitics, eds. O.K. Obasogie, M. Darnovsky, University of California Press 2018. Google Scholar
Broberg G., Roll-Hansen N. (eds.), Eugenics and Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland, East Lansing, Michigan 1996. Google Scholar
Corber R.J., American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism Nancy Ordover (Review), “The American Historical Review” 2004, vol. 109, no. 4. Google Scholar
Dikötter F., Race Culture: Recent Perspectives on the History of Eugenics, “The American Historical Review” 1998, vol. 103, no. 2. Google Scholar
Dorr G.M., Defective or Disabled?: Race, Medicine, and Eugenics in Progressive Era Virginia and Alabama, “The Journal of Gilded Age and Progressive Era” 2006, vol. 5, no. 4. Google Scholar
Dorr G.M., Segregation’s Science: Eugenics and Society in Virginia, Charlottesville-London 2008. Google Scholar
Edwards R., New Spirits: Americans in the “Gilded Age” 1865–1905, 2nd edn., Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York 2011. Google Scholar
Edwards R., Politics, Social Movements, and the Periodization of U.S. History, “The Journal of Gilded Age and Progressive Era” 2009, vol. 8, no. 4. Google Scholar
Field J.A., The Progress of Eugenics, “The Quarterly Journal of Economics” 1911, vol. 26, no. 1. Google Scholar
Freeden M., Liberal Languages: Ideological Imaginations and Twentieth-Century Progressive Thought, Princeton University Press 2005. Google Scholar
Friedman B., The Will of the People. How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution, Farrar Straus & Giroux, New York 2009. Google Scholar
Galton F., Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims, “The American Journal of Sociology” 1905, vol. 10, no. 1. Google Scholar
Gendzel G., What the Progressives Had in Common, “The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era” 2011, vol. 10, no. 3, DOI: 10.1017/S15377811411000089. Google Scholar
Glenna L.L., Gollnick M.A., Jones S.S., Eugenics Opportunity Structures: Teaching Genetic Engineering at U.S. Land-Grant Universities Since 1911, “Social Studies of Science” 2007, vol. 37, no. 2. Google Scholar
Gould L.L., America in the Progressive Era, 1890-1914, Routledge, London-New York 2013, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315839479. Google Scholar
Górski G., Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych do 1930 roku, Wydawnictwo KUL, Lublin 2006. Google Scholar
Grantham D. W., The Contours of Southern Progressivism, “The American Historical Review” 1981, vol. 86, no. 5. Google Scholar
Hogan J.M. (ed.), Rhetoric and reform in the Progressive Era, Michigan State University Press, East Lansing 2003. Google Scholar
Johnston R., Influential Works about the Gilded and Progressive Era, [in:] A Companion to the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, eds. C. McKnight Nichols, N.C. Unger, Wiley Blackwell, Malden-Oxford 2017. Google Scholar
Leonard T.C., Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era, Princeton University Press 2016. Google Scholar
Leonard T.C., More Merciful and Not Less Effective: Eugenics and Progressive Era American Economics, “History of Political Economy” 2003, vol. 35(4). Google Scholar
Leonard T.C., Protecting Family and Race: The Progressive Case for Regulating Women’s work, “American Journal of Economics and Sociology” 2005, vol. 64(3). Google Scholar
Leonard T.C., Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era, “The Journal of Economic Perspectives” 2005, vol. 19, no. 4. Google Scholar
Link A.S., What Happened to the Progressive Movement in the 1920s?, “The American Historical Review” 1959, vol. 64, no. 4. Google Scholar
Lombardo, P.A., Three Generations, no Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme court, and Buck v. Bell, Johns Hopkins University Press 2008. Google Scholar
Lombardo, P.A., Three Generations, no Imbeciles: new Light on Buck v. Bell, “New York University Law Review” 1985, vol. 60 (30). Google Scholar
Machaj Ł, Buck versus Bell czyli eugenika w sadzie Najwyższym Stanów Zjednoczonych, “Studia nad Faszyzmem i Zbrodniami Hitlerowskimi” 2009, vol. 31. Google Scholar
Nye R B., Midwestern Progressive Politics: A Historical Study of its Origins and Development, 1870-1958, Harper & Row, East Lansing 1959. Google Scholar
Oberman M., Thirteen Ways of Looking at Buck v. bell: Thoughts Occasioned by Paul Lombardo’s “Three Generations, No Imbeciles, “Journal of Legal Education” 2010, vol. 59 (3). Google Scholar
Ordover N., American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism, University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota 2003. Google Scholar
Orloff A. S., Skocpol T., Why not Equal Protection? Explaining the Politics of Public Social Spending in Britain, 1900-1911, and the United States, 1880-1920, “American Sociological Review” 1984, vol. 49, no. 6. Google Scholar
Perry E.I., Men Are from the Gilded Age, Women Are from the Progressive Era, “The Journal of Gilded Age and Progressive Era” 2002, vol. 1, no. 1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537781400000086. Google Scholar
Rehnquist W.H., The Supreme Court. Revisited and Updated, Knopf, New York 2001. Google Scholar
Rodgers D.T., In search of Progressivism, „Reviews in American History” 1982, vol. 10, no. 4, The Promise of American History: Progress and Prospects. Google Scholar
Ruiz G.W., The Ideological Convergence of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, “Presidential Studies Quarterly”1989, vol. 19, No. 1, Part 1: American Foreign Policy for the 1990s and part 2: Wilson and the Progressive Era. Google Scholar
Sanders E., Roots of Reforms: Farmers, Workers, and the American State 1877-1917, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1999. Google Scholar
Sokalska E., American Progressivism and the Issue of Women’s Rights (Some Remarks Concerning the Influence of Feminist Currents on the American Constitutionalism), [in:] Women, Society and Law: From Roman Law to Digital Age, eds. M. Eysymontt, C. Lázaro Guillamón, Dom Wydawniczy ELIPSA, Warszawa 2022. Google Scholar
Sokalska E., Searching for Progress: Progressivism and the U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence (some remarks), “Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego” 2020, vol. 5 (57), doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2020.05.33. Google Scholar
Sokalska E., The U.S. Supreme Court and the Establishment of the ‘Separate but Equal Doctrine’, [in:] Contemporary Problems of Human Rights Selected Aspects, eds. M. Mamiński, M. Rzewuski,Wydawnictwo Naukowe UKSW, Warszawa 2019. Google Scholar
Soloway R.A., Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Declining Birthrate in Twentieth -Century Britain, University of North Carolina Press 1995. Google Scholar
Soloway R.A., The ‘Perfect Contraceptive’ Eugenics and Birth Control Research in Britain and America in the Interwar Years, “Journal of Contemporary History” 1995, vol. 30, no. 4. Google Scholar
Stern A.M., Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America, University of California Press 2016. Google Scholar
Stone D., Breeding Superman, Nietzsche, Race and Eugenics in Edwardian and Interwar Britain, Liverpool University Press 2002. Google Scholar
Stromquist S., Reinventing “The People”: The Progressive Movement, the Class Problem, and the Origins of Modern Liberalism, University of Illinois Press, Urbana-Chicago 2006. Google Scholar
Thelen D.P., Social Tensions and the Origins of Progressivism, “The Journal of American History” 1969, vol. 56, no. 2. Google Scholar
Wiebe R.H., The Search for Order, 1877-1929, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York 1967. Google Scholar
Yudell M., Race Unmasked: Biology and Race in the Twentieth Century, Columbia University Press 2014. Google Scholar
CASE LAW Google Scholar
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Google Scholar
Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889). Google Scholar
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). Google Scholar
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Google Scholar
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). Google Scholar
