Sexuality and Individuals who have
an Intellectual Disability

“Although the carrot of sexual activity is often held out to students, in reality
there is always ‘one more skill’ a person must master before earning the right to
be sexual” (Johnson, 1987, p. 63)


Chapter One
1.1 Introduction
At the end of the twentieth century the sexual freedoms of people with an
intellectual disability are still, to some degree controlled by laws enacted at the
end of the nineteenth century (Section 138, Crimes Act 1961, Government
Printer) (see Appendix A). Yet the disability rights movement, which sprang
from international rights covenants, has increasingly tried to bring to people with
disabilities the same freedoms that other citizens enjoy (Oliver, 1996). There in
lies a dichotomy. With reference to New Zealand, on the one hand the rights of
people with intellectual disability are progressing in line with international
covenants and human rights legislation enacted in New Zealand. On the other
hand legislation that was enacted a hundred years ago has precedence over
human rights legislation (see Appendix B). This review concerns that conflict
between the two viewpoints. It will endeavour to clarify the situation regarding
people with an intellectual disability that wish to be involved in a sexual
relationship.

In 1996 in a landmark case in Wellington a man was convicted of having sex
with a ‘severely subnormal woman’ (see Appendix C). Under section 138 of the
Crimes Act 1961 it is an offence for a man to have sex with a woman or girl who
is severely subnormal. In this particular case, which was held in the High Court
in Wellington and so set a precedent for other cases that would follow, the judge
decided that any woman defined as mentally subnormal was ‘severely
subnormal’. By this decision the judge effectively made it illegal for a woman
with an intellectual disability to have a sexual relationship with ‘any’ man
including those men with intellectual disability.

1.2 Rationale for monograph
In view of the historical and philosophical issues that deny sexual freedom to
people who have intellectual disability the purpose of this monograph is to
explore issues and identify how the rhetoric of human rights in this area is not
being implemented. This review will discuss the following themes in chapter
form.

1.3 Outline of chapters
Chapter One provides an introduction to and the purpose of the monograph,
outlining the reasons why the investigator pursued the topic. It will also provide
a definition of intellectual disability and definitions of sexuality.

Chapter Two examines the historical and philosophical issues that denied
sexual freedom to people who have intellectual disability. Included in the
chapter is an overview of the eugenic period that was considered to have ended
in New Zealand the 1930’s (Fleming, 1981). Chapter Two also examines the

---

2
period from the 1950’s until the 1970’s reviewing the literature on eugenics
philosophy.

Chapter Three will then describe the challenges to the denial of sexual
expression. It will describe the effect that Human rights legislation and
international covenants have had on the right of sexual expression for people
with disabilities within the New Zealand context. It will review the impact that the
philosophy of Normalisation (Nirje, 1999), the theory of Social Role Valorization
(Wolfensberger, 1991) and theories of social oppression (Shakespeare,
Gillespie-Sells & Davies, 1996) have had on the lives of people who have an
intellectual disability, specifically in the area of sexuality.

Chapter Three will also examine the data concerning the move away from
institutional to community care. With the move to empty institutions in the
1980’s and 1990’s, of the intellectually disabled, segregation of the sexes, which
had been common in institutions became more problematic (Shakespeare et al,
1996). With the movement towards integration into the wider community the
notion that intellectually disabled people would wish to have sexual relationships
has to be faced and dealt with.

Chapter Four discusses whether issues of sexuality are issues of rights, needs,
or human nature? This chapter examines the conflicting forces in the field of
intimacy and sexual relationships for people with intellectual disability (Craft,
1978, Craft, 1987, Shakespeare et al, 1996). The gathering momentum of
human rights for people to enjoy experience and express their sexuality in
contrast to the eugenics beliefs surrounding fitness to breed and the
stereotypical views that people with an intellectual disability are not competent
to engage in sexual relationships nor able to consent to sexual activity will be
examined. An issue is whether competency and consent are used as devices
to protect vulnerable people from exploitation, often compared with the way
children are protected, or whether they are used to prevent intimate
relationships from developing. Further that people with intellectual disability are
childlike and therefore asexual. Chapter Four will also outline the implications
for the future.


1.4 Definitions
In New Zealand the definition most commonly used to identify people who have
an intellectual disability is that of the American Association on Mental
Deficiency. It states that intellectual disability is, “significantly sub-average
general intellectual functioning resulting in deficits in adaptive behaviour, and
manifested during the developmental period” (New Zealand Law Commission,
1994, p. 37).

Sexuality is variously defined, sometimes narrowly as concerning only the
sexual act or the thought of sexual acts (Cornelious, Chipouras, Makas &
Daniels, 1982). More widely it is seen as “the total characteristics of an
individual, social, personality and emotional, that are manifest in his or her
relationships with others and that reflect his or her gender-genital orientations “
(Shopes, 1975, p. 3).

1.5
Rationale for the investigation
This investigation occurred as a consequence of the author’s work, which has
involved her with people who have an intellectual disability and who, are usually

---

3
in crisis situations. Such work requires a holistic approach to problem solving.
People supported by the author have not obtained socially valued roles within
the community. Lack of value is most apparent in the area of intimacy and
sexual relationships where people have been denied the opportunity to find and
freely experience rewarding intimate relationships, including the right to marry
and the right to have and to raise children (Craft, 1978).

Craft (1978) states:

giving and receiving love, including physical satisfaction, is not the
prerogative of those above a certain IQ level; being incapable of
anything more than a superficial relationship is not an inherent feature
of mental handicap (p. 49).

Although the process of normalisation has been in progress for more than two
decades, the authors involvement with people who have an intellectual disability
tends to reinforce what researchers (Craft, 1978, Shakespeare et al, 1996)
assert which is that there has been little progress in either normalising the lives
of the intellectually disabled or in protecting their ‘human, civil and political’
rights with regard to sexuality.

Human rights are based on the belief that all people are human and have
inalienable human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948), states in the preamble “…the people’s of united nations having
the Charter reaffirm their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and
worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women” (p. 1).
Human rights documents reviewed in this monograph include, “The United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Mentally Retarded (1971)”, “The United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (1975)” and “The
Standard Rules (1993)”. The basic tenor of these declarations is that people
with disabilities are entitled to the same rights and freedoms, including sexual
rights and freedoms, as other citizens. Also that it is the task of government to
ensure these rights and freedoms. New Zealand is a signatory to these
declarations. These conventions will be examined more closely later in the
review presented in the monograph. The review of literature explores and
considers the reasons why people who have intellectual disability are not given
the opportunity to freely express their individuality through sexuality
(Shakespeare et al, 1996).

McLean (1997) describes the 1960’s when civil rights for marginalised people
became an issue first in the United States and subsequently in other nations.
Craft (1987) asserts that the 1960’s were a time of societal revolution where the
“new social order was aimed at emancipating large and diverse groups” (p.
112). These changes underpinned the changes in the treatment of people with
intellectual disability, their place in society and “their rights as fellow human
beings in that society” (p. 113). Following on from these points Wolfensberger
(1997) takes the view that all people have intrinsic value that cannot be given or
taken away by virtue of their humanity.

1.6 Summary
The contention that competency and the ability to consent to sexual
relationships seems alien in an environment which is moving towards greater
opportunities, rights, and self determination for people with intellectual
disabilities including those of a sexual and intimate nature. However the other

---

4
view of the competency argument, simply allowing people with intellectual
disability to find and form their own intimate relationships, can also be
interpreted as a control mechanism because of the lack of opportunity and lack
of skills of people with intellectual disability. For instance some people with
intellectual disability may be educated in the biological aspects of sexuality but
not the social skills needed (Shakespeare et al, 1996).

The third option of providing the supports necessary so that people with
intellectual disability can learn to initiate, experience and enjoy intimate
relationships seems both sensible and the optimum way to gain success. If
people with intellectual disability are to become a real part of the community
then forming various types of close personal relationships will become the basis
of their acceptance (Johnson, 1987; van Zijderfeld, 1987).



Chapter Two

Historical and philosophical issues that have denied sexual freedom to
people who have intellectual disability.

“Opportunities for loving interchange are needs as fundamental to human
beings as are sun and water to plants.”(Craft, 1978, p. 22)

2.1 Introduction

This chapter will examine the treatment of people with intellectual disabilities
over the last century. It will outline the use of segregation, institutionalisation,
sterilisation and the use of law to prevent this freedom from occurring. It will
begin with the ‘Eugenics era’ which began at the end of the 1800’s and is
considered to have ended during the 1930’s (Fleming, 1981; Trent, 1994). It will
then view that period of time after the close of the Second World War seeking to
find other methods that may have been used to prevent and justify the
prevention of sexual freedom for this group of people.

2.2 Eugenics

The principle of eugenics is that the human race can improve itself intellectually
and physically by breeding from ‘fit’ human stock and preventing the breeding of
the ‘unfit’ (Craft, 1978; Hardin, 1960). People with intellectual disability have,
throughout history, been devalued (Wolfensberger, 1991), though the
devaluation was not specifically related to their fitness to breed. However the
eugenics era systematised their devaluation and disposal. Wolfensberger
(1988) asserts that it was the professional and academic groups that initiated
the attack, their purpose being to prevent the degeneration of humanity by
preventing ‘the unfit’ from breeding. This period was a calamity for people with
intellectual disability (Judge, 1987).

Darwin’s work on evolution in the middle 1800’s is considered to have given rise
to other theories regarding human evolution. In fact evolutionary theories were
quite common at that time (Kevles, 1985). As an example Spencer wrote in
regard to ‘survival of the fittest’ and was concerned with the notion of purifying
and perfecting the human race. Judge (1987) asserts that many who followed in
Darwin’s wake “came to conclusions more general and facile than Darwin’s
intensely scientific study” (p. 40). Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin

---

5
had theorised about hereditary, but his book ‘Hereditary Genius’ was
considered by Darwin to be without intellectual merit (Judge, 1987).

Others whose work supported the theory of eugenics included Gregor Mendel
who worked in the area of genes and inheritance (Judge, 1987). Another
Cesare Lombroso ( Lombroso and Ferrero, 1895) worked towards bringing the
fields of biology and criminology together and show that criminal activity could
be laid at the door of biological inheritance.

The ‘unfit’ included the mentally ill, epileptics and the intellectually disabled.
They were, at this time, being fitted into a number of devalued categories. Of
particular interest is the category known as ‘moral imbecile” defined as those
unable to control their impulses. It was perceived that these people were
criminally and sexually impulsive (Trent, 1994).

2.3 Eugenics movements

Though statistically few people were involved in eugenics movements they
tended to wield great political and academic influence. They included
politicians, university professors and other academics, health professionals and
those involved in the care of the defectives (Fleming, 1981; Trent, 1994).

Research was used to reinforce the perception that the intellectually disabled
and other ‘defectives’ posed a danger to society, through breeding degenerate
offspring. Some families of intellectually disabled people had their family trees
investigated specifically to prove that point, that marriage and procreation
between or with intellectually disabled persons inevitably led to the entire family
becoming degenerate. Some of this research used dubious methodologies
(Sheerenberger, 1983). Such studies started from the hypothesis that people
who were deviant, such as prostitutes and criminals were likely also to be
mentally defective. A review of the literature from studies and surveys carried
out in correctional institutions validated this hypothesis (Scheerenberger, 1983).
It was a case of creating fact out of myth. Two studies often cited at the time
were of the families ‘Kallikaks’ and ‘Jukes’. The research into the Jukes actually
found that, though there were a large number of the family with mental
deficiency, the main cause of their problems had been poverty. However
supporters of eugenics believed that the cause of the degeneracy was due to
mental deficiency and ignored the parts of the study that did not suit them
(Kevles, 1985). Trent (1994) identifies how researchers used new assessment
methods to reinforce the already perceived threat from the intellectually
disabled, thus reinforcing the myth of ‘dangerousness’ to society and human
advancement.

The need to house ever increasing numbers of ‘deficient’ people in institutions
began at the end of the nineteenth century. Up until this time the ‘mentally
deficient’ had been seen primarily as a burden upon society (Trent, 1994). In
the early part of the twentieth century the ‘mentally deficient’ came to be
identified as the principal cause of the evils associated with a perceived decline
in the moral and physical aspects of the citizenry (Trent, 1994). It was argued
that through heredity the mentally retarded, who were considered to be prolific
breeders of other retarded people, were placing the western world in jeopardy
(Tennant, 1996). Superintendents of institutions for the mentally deficient used
and actively reinforced the fear created by the eugenics movement to gain extra
funding for larger institutions and research into the problems associated with

---

6
mental retardation. Many of those working in this field were proposing the total
institutionalisation of the intellectually disabled as a means of combating the
deterioration of the racial stock (Trent, 1994).

Judge (1987) quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes, “the great American jurist” in
relation to a court case for sterilising a woman with intellectual disability, who
had given birth to an intellectually disabled child and was herself the daughter
an intellectually disabled mother. He is quoted as saying:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerative
offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can
prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…
three generations of imbeciles are enough (pp. 49-50).

Western society continues to lack understanding in how to deal with people who
need supervision and care and those with intellectual disability were, in many
institutions simply relegated to the ‘back wards’ (Judge, 1987). The institutions
where the so-called ‘defectives’ were housed grew larger (Hartley, 1995) and
the imagery attached to the institutions helped perpetuate the myth of the
inmates being a threat to society (Oliver, 1990).

2.4 The New Zealand experience

In New Zealand the scientific data from England and America on Eugenics was
accepted without question by supporters of Social Darwinism (Fleming, 1981).
What was done to the intellectually disabled was almost entirely the
responsibility of people in powerful positions who supported the eugenics theory
(Fleming, 1981).

New Zealand believed that its problems were the same as those of the British
Empire (Fleming, 1981). New Zealand believed that the very safety and security
of the empire depended upon responding to a perceived threat from Asia, but to
do this required the Empire to deal with internal threats first. A major threat was
identified as the increasing number of people defined as ‘unfit’ (Fleming, 1981).
Such theories had a very harmful effect on the way people with intellectual
disability were viewed (Tennant, 1996).

As occurred overseas, the professional, academic and political powers became
extremely interested in eugenics (Fleming, 1981). Fleming describes a work by
a New Zealand born surgeon, W.A. Chapple, who went on to become a
politician. The book titled, “The Fertility of the Unfit” was described as being
hair-raising (Searle, cited in Fleming, 1981). However more concerning was that
leading political figures accepted its arguments, among them “the Chief Justice,
Sir Robert Stout” (p. 12). In this work the author drew together the strands of
“crime, insanity and pauperism” and identified the cause as “that society was
breeding from ‘defective stock’” (p. 12). The book called for the state to play a
role in preventing the breeding of the ‘unfit’.

Amongst other recommendations made by Chapple was the creation of a board
that would issue marriage certificates, but only to the ‘fit’. Fleming (1981)
asserts that it is difficult to know the extent of the influence of Chapple’s work,
though he does identify that New Zealand doctors were still quoting the book
twenty years after its publication.

---

7
New Zealand Eugenics societies had the support of very prominent people
including university professors, vicars, doctors and politicians. The Wellington
committee included a city mayor, MPs from both government and opposition
parties, medical and academic leaders, the Inspector-General of Mental
Hospitals and other civic leaders, including Truby King and Sir Robert Stout
(Fleming, 1981).

The Eugenics Education Society of New Zealand had access to ministers of the
crown and was able to promote the message of eugenics. It also used public
forums on other issues to advance the message. Fleming (1981) cites one
such meeting, where the then Attorney-General of New Zealand, the
Honourable J.G. Findlay, used a speaking opportunity on urbanisation to
discuss the problem of the falling birth rate of the ‘fit’ and “the steady
multiplication of weeds and degenerates” (p. 23). He was also coincidentally
the President of the Eugenic Society.

2.5 Social policy

The eugenics movement in the United Kingdom had difficulty recruiting
members and supporters from the ranks of politicians. This was not the case in
New Zealand. The movement in New Zealand enjoyed a strong relationship
with politicians and during parliamentary debates on the Mental Defectives Bill
(1911) the Eugenics Society received much praise from the Prime Minister,
William Massey, who identified with pride his Honorary vice-presidency of the
Eugenics Society (Fleming, 1981). This interrelationship between politicians
and the eugenics movement allowed the dissemination of the threat of the ‘unfit’
to be maximised and to have the idea taken seriously. Fleming (1981) also
identifies the natural expectation, on the part of the eugenics movement, for the
state to ‘do something’ because of its previous record in enacting social
legislation.

Reinforcement of the problems of the ‘unfit’ came due to the First World War,
when approximately two thirds of the “recruits for the New Zealand
Expeditionary Forces…were rejected as unfit- a sign that the country’s
pioneering stock had rapidly deteriorated” (Fleming, 1981, p. 33).

2.6 Sterilisation and other responses

Though in reality the perceived deterioration of human ‘fitness’ to breed had
nothing to do with the intellectually disabled they were included as a major
cause of the problem, primarily the intellectually disabled female (Fleming,
1981). The levels of concern continued to rise and led to a Committee of
Inquiry into Mental Defectives and Sexual Offenders in 1924 and in 1928 to the
Mental Defectives Amendment Act. Again the females were seen as the main
problem because of their propensity for criminal behaviour, prostitution and
prolific breeding (Fleming, 1981).

Options were discussed and advocated for the prevention of further
degeneration of New Zealand society which included sterilisation of the mentally
deficient, having to obtain marriage certificates from medical boards identifying
the couple as ‘fit’ to breed, and sterilisation of sexual offenders (Fleming, 1981).

In 1923, the triple concerns of sexual crimes, incipient mental illness and the
breeding of the mentally defective prompted the New Zealand Government to
establish a committee to examine mental defectives and sexual crimes. The

---

8
committee called the Committee of Inquiry into Mental Defectives and Sexual
Offending (Fleming, 1981) was comprised of many medical, political, justice and
health professionals. Many witnesses were called and questionnaires were also
sent out. Replies from health professionals clearly called for euthanasia to be
the main response to the problem of the mentally defective. In line with the
overseas pseudo research into families of mentally defective people ‘evidence’
was given of New Zealand counterparts. The final report was ambiguous in that
it asserted on one page that through the use of sterilisation and segregation
mental deficiency could be eliminated from society, and on another identified
that it could never be totally eliminated (Fleming, 1981). The report was
decidedly biased in favour of a eugenics answer such as sterilisation and
segregation. It quoted a great deal of eugenics material in support of its findings
and reinforced again the connection between the intellectually disabled and
criminal offending, primarily sexual. Sexual offending must also be examined in
the context of the times. The main purpose of sexual activity was identified as
primarily for procreation. This moral code was in line with Victorian standards. In
this era there were women’s patrols that checked parks and such like places to
prevent promiscuity among the younger population (Fleming, 1981).

Van Zijderfeld (1987) discusses how that even in institutions males and females
with intellectual disability were kept separate “in such a way that men and
women never met each other” (p. 112). People with intellectual disability were
educated to understand that they were barred from engaging in sexual
relationships and were taught to fear the consequences of sexual activity. Van
Zijderfeld identifies that for women the consequences included pregnancy and
violent and painful experiences, while for the men it meant criminal charges and
the probability of going to prison.

Though the period of eugenics appeared to end in the 1930s it did not end for
all people with intellectual disability and others described as defective. During
the Second World War 70,000 mentally deficient people were put to death in
Germany, the first groups by firing squad (Kevles, 1985). Such carnage can be
attributed to the idea of eugenics and the extermination of the ‘unfit’.

2.7 The new eugenics

The barbarousness of NAZI policies eventually provoked a powerful
anti-eugenic reaction, but the reaction, perhaps because of its
pervasive power, obscured a deeper historical reality: many
thoughtful members of the British and American public had already
recognized that a good deal was wrong with mainline eugenics
(Kevles, 1985: p. 118).

Though eugenics as a term fell into disrepute after the Second World War the
theories that it encapsulated have been brought into the second half of the
century using different names. Such subjects as ‘biological determinism’,
‘Germinal Choice’ may be described as the ‘New eugenics’.

2.7.1 Prejudice
Before examining the themes relating to the ‘new eugenics’ it is important to
recognise the role that prejudice has had in the treatment of people who have
an intellectual disability. Wolfensberger (1991) states that it is universal and has
been found in all societies throughout recorded history and remains so to the
present day. If that is so then it remains a negative force in the lives of people

---

9
with intellectual disabilities. Wolfensberger (1991) asserts that there are many
negative roles that have defined the existence of intellectually disabled people.
Some of these roles include pre-human, menace, object of ridicule, object of
pity, charity, childlike, diseased, dying and dead. It would be a mistake to
understate the impact that prejudice has upon the lives of people who have an
intellectual disability. These people have been made inferior, powerless and
dependent.

2.7.2 Legislation

Section 138 of the Crimes Act 1961 is a direct descendent of legislation passed
during the eugenics period and remains in force today (see Appendix B). The
section prohibits males whether or not they are intellectually disabled from
engaging in sexual activities with ‘severely subnormal women or girls’. The
legislation and precedents set in the High Court of New Zealand clarifies
severely subnormal to mean any woman with intellectual disability who is not
able to care for herself (“Severely Subnormal,” 1996). The decision in that
particular case (Bogard, 1995) centered on the mental incompetence of the
woman to consent to sexual activity. In a case regarding the same person the
court found that she was also unable through mental incompetence to consent
to marriage. Bogard (1995) states that:

a marriage made in 1991 was declared void in 1994 (even though it
was nearly four years later, and the marriage had produced a child)
because the woman involved clearly had no idea what marriage
meant because of her disability and she had not been able to
consent to it (p. 96).

Though couched in terms of protection for the woman the effect of this
legislation is to prevent women with intellectual disability from engaging in
sexual behaviour with males. One can speculate that as it is descended from
eugenics legislation its real intent is to prevent the breeding of the unfit. This
section 138 of the Crimes Act, 1961 also reinforces the idea that people with an
intellectual disability are seen as being the ‘eternal child’ and children are not
considered to be sexual therefore it follows that people who have an intellectual
disability cannot be sexual (Craft, 1987; Gates & McCarty, 1998).

New Zealand continues to permit the sterilisation of females who have an
intellectual disability. A High Court decision in 1990 in New Zealand found that
parents of young women with intellectual disability did not need a court’s
permission to have their daughters sterilised (“Court Rules,” 1990).

2.7.3 Biological determinism

Biological determinism is the belief that biological influences determine human
actions (Kevles, 1985). As previously shown the eugenics movement suffered
a reversal in popularity at the end of the Second World War because of the
slaughter of 70,000 people considered mentally or physically defective carried
out in Nazi Germany between 1934 and 1945 (Kevles, 1985). However work in
eugenics did not cease at the end of the Second World War. Believers in the
theory still participated in working towards strengthening the eugenics
movement but changed the language that they used.

One example is that of Konrad Lorenz a German biologist who worked in the
field of eugenics in Nazi Germany. Lorenz continued his work after the Second

---

10
World War and became a leader in the field of genetics. In 1973 he was
awarded the Nobel Prize for this work. Lerner (1992) quotes Lorenz who said “I
am by inheritance obsessed with eugenics” (p. 51).

The field of genetics provided the eugenics movement with a way forward. The
1960’s and 1970’s saw numerous prominent scientists asserting those eugenic
ideas should be applied to social policy. Hermann J. Muller, a Nobel Prize
winner in the field of genetics, pleaded for germinal choice. This meant the
storing and use of sperm from ‘fit’ humans with the inevitable result in the
increased breeding of ‘fit’ stock. His plan involved improving the quality of
human stock by storing only the sperm of Nobel Prize winners (Kevles, 1985).
Some years after his death a sperm bank, named after him was set up in the
United States with that intention. Hardin (1960) calls the use of sperm banks
‘positive eugenics’, a mechanism he supported.

Another scientist Robert L. Sinsheimer, a distinguished molecular biologist
believed that a new eugenic era was beginning. He asserted that human beings
would be able to design their descendants (Kevles, 1985). Ripley (1998)
argues that a prerequisite for happiness is a healthy body. By using this
justification, the prevention of unhappiness, society can preclude the existence
of imperfect foetuses.

Ripley goes further and argues that to prevent the unhappiness and
disadvantage of imperfect people society should prevent their existence. He
supports the belief of Sinsheimer and asserts that soon society will have the
ability to “determine exactly what future generations will be like” (p. 265).
Arthur Jensen, a noted psychologist believed that there was a connection
between race and intelligence and that it could be proved. Research that he
undertook in IQ testing showed a marked difference in scores between white
and African Americans (Jensen, 1977). This was an influential finding and it
allowed supporters of eugenics to use scientific evidence to strengthen their
arguments that intelligence was related to heredity. William Shockley, argued
that welfare programmes in the United States were causing racial degeneracy
in the United States. However the resurgence of this kind of thinking was not
confined to America. Kevles (1985) identifies Sir Keith Joseph, Minister for
Education in a Thatcher government, who contended that the poor were leading
Britain down the path to a similar degeneracy.

2.7.4 Socio-biology

Socio-biology is the study of the biological basis of the social behaviour of all
creatures, including human beings. Edward O. Wilson wrote at length
concerning socio-biology in the 1970’s. He maintained that a formula could be
devised to indicate the probable behaviour of people through the genetic
evolution of their ancestors (Kevles, 1985). In other words if women are
mentally deficient or have criminal tendencies then their offspring are likely to
be of a similar nature. The similarities between eugenics and socio-biology are
quite apparent. Lerner (1992) supports this view and asserts that the basis of
eugenics and socio-biology are in essence based on the same doctrine of
biological determinism.

This generalised but dispersed tendency toward thinking in terms of creating
improved human beings has added to the pressure placed on ‘parents to be’.
Economic and peer pressure has been put on parents who had defective

---

Document Outline

• ÿ
  • ÿ
• • ÿ
    • ÿ
      • • ÿ
    • • ÿ
    • ÿ
      • • ÿ
          • • ÿ
  • ÿ
• ÿ
  • ÿ
  • ÿ

---