The University of Lethbridge
Faculty of Arts & Science - Department of Sociology
Sociology 4850
Spring, 2011 – Tuesdays and Thursdays, 12:15 – 13:30, Room B716
Eugenics to Genetics – Social Issues
Professor: Dr. Claudia Malacrida
Office hours: Tues. 3-4 p.m.
Office: C890
Telephone: 329-2738 or by appointment
Fax: (403) 329-2085
Email: claudia.malacrida@uleth.ca
COURSE OVERVIEW
This course will provide an introduction to some recent thinking about the social control of bodily difference, and scientific and governmental discourse and practices relating to bodily difference: in short, we will examine genetics and eugenics as a set of social experiences and institutions. As well, we will explore some of the social, cultural and historical processes that shape our understandings of eugenics and genetics. Particular attention will be paid to that which is perceived to be “natural” and “normal,” the assumptions underlying social understandings of dealing with bodily difference, and the implications of those assumptions for social change.
COURSE OBJECTIVES
This course will offer students the opportunity to critically reflect on historical and contemporary ways of responding to and constructing embodied differences. Students will consider the ways that social processes and institutions shape our ideas and practices relating to difference, choice, risk, responsibility, freedom, human rights, and reproductive processes. As well, students will be encouraged to understand the ways that power and oppression are attached to these constructs.
REQUIRED TEXTS
- The Mismeasure of Man: Revised and Expanded. Stephen Jay Gould.
- In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Daniel J. Kevles.
- Sociological Perspectives on the New Genetics (Sociology of Health and Illness Monographs), Peter Conrad and Jonathan Gabe, eds.
- Course readings (may be available in Course Pack or via alternate formats)
ATTENDANCE & ETTIQUETTE
This course is structured as a seminar, so your attendance and preparedness to discuss course materials are essential. Students will be expected to participate in class discussions, identify key issues in the readings, and evidence a willingness to intellectually engage with the materials. You are invited to ask questions, raise relevant points of view, and give examples where appropriate. You are advised that some of the materials covered in this course are controversial and are from a disability advocacy perspective. If you are not comfortable viewing, discussing and thinking about this type of material, it is suggested that you not continue with this class.
To encourage open discussion each class member, as the basis of their participation, will agree to the following guidelines:
- We acknowledge that ableism, racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism and ethnocentrism exist. We are not to blame for theses “isms” in Canadian culture, but we ARE responsible for examining our attitudes and actions that relate to them.
- We will not use ableist, racist, sexist, classist, heterosexist and ethnocentric language or ideas to convey our points.
- We will share information and insights in ways that do not demean, devalue or leave others feeling unsafe.
- We will comply with a class member’s requests that their comments will not repeated outside of the classroom. This space must be safe for all members to exchange information and ideas.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS
a. Analytic Book Review 30%
DUE: Gould, Feb. 3rd; OR Kevles, Feb. 17th
b. Seminar Presentation 15%
DUE: TBD first class
c. Presentation Written Critique/Report 15%
DUE: Day of your presentation
d. Class Participation 10%
e. Research essay 30%
DUE: Last class, Tuesday, April 12th.
Students are responsible for all readings specified in the course outline, as well as all lecture materials (including films, guest speakers, etc.). A passing grade in this course requires that all assignments be completed.
a. Short Analytic Papers
Students will provide a written review of the books by either Gould or Kevles. Although we will only cover portions of each of these books in class, you will be responsible for reviewing your chosen book in its entirety. These reviews should be 8 pages long (typed, double-spaced font of 12) and should be more than a simple summary of the core concepts in the books:
- Summarize the content of the reading in three to five pages
- Tie this reading to CONCEPTS and materials covered in lecture, other course readings, and where appropriate theorists on the body
- Outline a critical commentary about what this book contributes towards our understanding of the body and difference as a social and political construct.
- What does this article do to add to our critical thinking about bodies, normalcy, knowledge, power and the control of difference?
- Which theories does it most rely on or invoke, and how? What are its strengths/weaknesses?
Reviews must be handed in at the beginning of the class. Reviews of Gould are due February 3rd, while reviews of Kevles are due February 17th. Papers handed in after that time will have 10% deducted for each calendar day.
b. Presentation and Written Critique/Report
Each student will present one reading for seminar discussion and will, in addition, provide a written report on that reading. Written reports should be no longer than 6 pages typed, double spaced, with font size 12. They are due the Tuesday of the week of your presentation. You oral presentation should be about 20-25 minutes long. This presentation will form the basis for class discussion of the readings.
Your presentation of the readings and your write up should clearly and briefly summarize the main points, and reflect critically on the material. This involves identifying those taken-for-granted assumptions about normalcy, difference, knowledge, power, privilege, and responsibility, for example that are challenged (or not) by the authors. In other words, does the reading help one think about eugenics/genetics in a different light, and if so, how? Are there important issues that go unaddressed? What questions for discussion does the material raise?
Research Essay
Each student will prepare an essay that is 12 pages (double spaced, using a font size of 12), not including references or title page. You will be required to integrate at least four refereed journal articles that are not part of your course materials as references for your paper (you may use course readings as references in addition to the four articles you have located yourself). This paper is due in class on Tuesday, April 12th.
Explore one issue relevant to eugenics, genetics, and the social control of difference. Make connections between the political, historical, economic, or cultural and the ‘natural’. How does the social understanding and handling of the issue constrain or produce certain kinds of beliefs, understandings, identities and practices? What kind of ‘natural’ is produced? What interests are best served by this social construction? What interests are denied? Examine the ways that knowledge and power are used to produce certain truths, and explore the play of power that is contained within the issue.
Some possible research questions are outlined below. You may choose from this list or – perhaps even better – select your own topic. We will have a brief discussion of our topics in a later class to help ‘brainstorm.’
- Explore anti and pro-choice arguments as they relate to genetic testing. Whose rights should be held as paramount? Why/not? Write about the connection between traditional eugenic formats and current genetic testing.
- Write about the connection between traditional eugenic formats and current ‘newgenic’ practices.
- Why was Alberta such a ‘successful’ eugenic model? Are there other jurisdictions where eugenics persisted, and what commonalities and differences exist between these jurisdictions?
- What are the implications of risk, responsibility and choice in terms of New Reproductive Technologies and genetic screening?
- Compare and contrast traditional versus current eugenic practices. What would major Sociology of the Body theorists say about each model?
- Compare and contrast the social control of specific, targeted groups (males, females, racialized, ethicized groups), and speculate on why each is targeted, and again, what body theorists might say about this.
- What role has the medical/psychiatric community played in shoring up our ‘common sense’ belief in two sexes? Discuss the ethics, pro and con, of intervention with intersexed babies.
- What role has the medical/psychiatric community played in shoring up our ‘common sense’ belief in health and normalcy? Discuss the various tools – formal and informal – that have been used to construct and enforce such categories.
- Explore the reproductive/existential privileges inherent in ‘normality’ – legal, social, political. Conversely, examine the challenges and risks involved in failing to meet ever-expanding categories of ‘normal’.
NOTE: Any student who intends to engage in research/interviews/observations with human participants as part of their course work MUST have previous ethics clearance from the Sociology Ethics Review Committee.
Class Participation
Based on attendance and quality of class contributions relating to the required readings (all students will be expected to contribute to each class).
COURSE GRADE ASSIGNMENT
Grade Percentage Grade Point Value and Description
A+ 90-100 4.0 Excellent
A 85-89 4.0
A- 80-84 3.7
B+ 77-79 3.3 Good
B 74-76 3.0
B- 70-73 2.7
C+ 67-69 2.3
C 64-66 2.0 Satisfactory
C- 60-63 1.7
D+ 56-59 1.3 Unsatisfactory
D 50-55 1.0
F 0-49 0 Fail
COURSE SCHEDULE
The following is a tentative schedule of topics for class discussion, the accompanying readings, and the test and assignment timetable. This schedule may be changed if unforeseen circumstances arise.
Date Topic Readings, pages
Thurs., Jan. 6 Introduction to the course
Tues., Jan. 11 Concepts, Pre-Darwin to Gould, pp. 51-113
Galton
Tues., Jan. 18 Brains & Bodies Gould, pp. 114-175
Tues., Jan. 25 Hereditarian Theory Gould, pp. 176-221
Binet & IQ Tests Gould, pp. 222-263
Tues., Feb. 1 Scientific Enthusiasms Kevles1-20, 41-68,
Film: World without Bodies
Gould Book Reviews Due, In Class, Thursday, Feb. 3rd
Tues., Feb. 8 Eugenic Enactments Kevles, 71-95, 96-112, 113-128
Tues., Feb. 15 Eugenic Enactments Kevles, 129-147 Local Heroes McLaren, 127-150 Film: Freedom Tour
Kevles Book Reviews Due, In Class, Thursday, Feb. 17th
Reading Week February 21-15 (No classes)
Tues., Mar.1 Local heroes Park & Radford, 317-342
Wahlsten, 185-198
Veit, Muir vs. Alberta, 1-20
Tues., Mar. 8 Why Stop There? Proctor, 170-196
Transitions Hollander, 53-61
Green & Paul, 117-125
Tues., Mar. 15 Transitions Morita, 765-771
Brady, 433-461
Newgenics & Disability Parenting Stehlik, 370-392
Tues., Mar. 22 Newgenics & Disability Parenting Kallianes & Rubenfeld, 203-221 Genetics - Contentions Tremain, 576-609
Newgenics & Disability Parenting Carlson, Taylor, Wilson, 14 pp.
Tues., Mar 29 Genetics – Truth Claims Conrad & Gabe, 1-36, 37-58
Goodey, 548-554
Tues., Apr. 5 Genetics – Prenatal Screening Conrad & Gabe, 60-79,171-
(as eugenics) 190,191-208
Tues. Apr. 12 (only) Eu/Genetics – Full Circle Overboe, 219-235
[FINAL ESSAY DUE IN CLASS, TUESDAY, APRIL 12TH]
RESCHEDULING TESTS AND ASSIGNMENTS
Students should note the regulations in the University of Lethbridge Calendar covering rescheduling examinations and tests. These regulations will also apply to tests and assignments in this class. Those who are unable on medical or other acceptable grounds to provide their presentation or hand in assignments at the time they are scheduled MUST notify the instructor that they will be absent, and MUST product medical certificates or other appropriate documentation when they come back to the class. Late presentations and assignments without appropriate documentation will have 10% deducted per day late; nonetheless, all assignments must be completed in order to achieve a passing grade in this course.
A student who is ill on the day of their reading presentation must leave a phone and/or email message for me prior to class, with as much advance notice as possible. A make-up presentation may be arranged in this case.
INTELLECTUAL HONESTY
Intellectual honesty is the cornerstone of the development and acquisition of knowledge and requires that the contribution of others be acknowledged. As a result, cheating or plagiarism on any assignment or examination are regarded as extremely serious academic offenses. Students are advised to consult the University Calendar, which presents a Statement of Intellectual Honesty, definitions of plagiarism, cheating and other academic misconduct, and the penalties associated with these offenses.
RETURN OF ASSIGNMENTS TO STUDENTS
Term assignments will be returned to students individually, during class, or during the instructor’s office hours; uncollected term assignments may be retrieved from the main Sociology office. For the final research paper, students may provide the instructor with a LARGE stamped, self-addressed envelope to be used for the return of the assignment.
It is the student’s responsibility to keep an extra copy of any assignments or papers handed in.
READINGS FOR SOCIOLOGY 4850 – SPRING, 2010
Weeks of: Tues., Jan. 11, Tues., Jan. 18, Tues., Jan. 25:
Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of man. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Weeks of: Tues. Feb 1, Tues. Feb 8, Tues. Feb. 15:
Kevles, D. J. (1995). In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity (3rd Printing ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Week of Tues., Feb. 15:
McLaren, A. (1986). The creation of a haven for 'human thoroughbreds': The sterilization of the feeble-minded and the mentally ill in British Columbia. Canadian Historical Review, LXVII(2), 127-150.
Week of Tues., Mar. 1:
Park, D. C., & Radford, J. P. (1998). From the case files: Reconstructing a history of involuntary sterilization. Disability & Society, 13(3H Fund), 317-342.
Wahlsten, D. (1997). Leilani Muir versus the philosopher king: Eugenics on trial in Alberta. Genetica, 99, 185-198.
Veit, J. (1996). Muir v. the Queen in right of Alberta (Vol. 132 D.L.R. (4th) 695 Court File No. 8903 20759 Edmonton, pp. 1-20): Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.
Week of Tues., Mar. 8:
Proctor, R. N. (1995). The destruction of "lives not worth living". In J. Terry & J. Urla (Porter and (eds.)), Deviant bodies: Critical perspectives on difference in science and popular culture (pp. 171-196). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hollander, R. (1989). Euthanasia and mental retardation: Suggesting the unthinkable. Mental Retardation, 27(2), 53-61.
Green, B., & Paul, R. (1974). Parenthood and the mentally retarded. University of Toronto Law Journal, 24(2), 117-125.
Week of Tues., Mar. 15:
Morita, K. (2001). The eugenic transition of 1996 in Japan: From law to personal choice. Disability & Society, 16(5), 765-771.
Brady, S. M. (2001). Sterilization of girls and women with intellectual disabilities: Past and present justifications. Violence Against Women, 7(4), 432-461.
Stehlik, D. (2001). A brave new world? Neo-eugenics and its challenge to difference. Violence Against Women, 7(4), 370-392.
Week of Tues., Mar. 22:
Kallianes, V., & Rubenfeld, P. (1997). Disabled women and reproductive rights. Disability & Society, 12(2), 203-221.
Tremain, S. (2010). Biopower, styles of reasoning, and what's still missing from the stem cell debates. Hypatia, 25(3), 577-609.
Carlson, G., Taylor, M., & Wilson, J. (2000). Sterilisation, drugs which suppress sexual drive, and young men who have intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 25(2), 91-102.
Week of Tues., Mar. 29:
Conrad, P., & Gabe, J. (1999). Introduction. In Sociological perspectives on the new genetics. Conrad, P., & Gabe, J. (Eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 1-14.
Martin, P. (1999). Genes as drugs: The social shaping of gene therapy and the reconstruction of genetic disease. In Sociological perspectives on the new genetics. Conrad, P., & Gabe, J. (Eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 15-36.
Ettore, E. (1999). Experts as ‘storytellers’ in reproductive genetics: exploring key issues. In Sociological perspectives on the new genetics. Conrad, P., & Gabe, J. (Eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 37-58.
Goodey, C. F. (2003). On certainty, reflexive and the ethics of genetic research into intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47(7), 548-554.
Week of Tues., Apr. 5:
Hallowell, N. (1999). Doing the right thing: Genetic risk and responsibility. In Sociological perspectives on the new genetics. Conrad, P., & Gabe, J. (Eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 97-120.
Shakespeare, T. (1999). Losing the plot? Medical and activist discourses of the contemporary genetics and disability. In Sociological perspectives on the new genetics. Conrad, P., & Gabe, J. (Eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 171-190.
Nelkin, D. and L. Andrews. (1999). DNA identification and surveillance creep. In Sociological perspectives on the new genetics. Conrad, P., & Gabe, J. (Eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 191-208.
Tues., Apr. 12:
Overboe, J. (2007). Disability and genetics: Affirming the bare life (the state of exception). The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 44(2), 219-235.