EUGENICS W

Welfare State
AND THE
N o r w a y , S w e d e n , D e n m a r k , a n d F in la n d

Edited by Gunnar Broberg and Nils Holl-Wansen

E u g e n ic s
AND THE
W e l fa r e S tate
 E u g e n ic s
AND THE
W e l fa r e S tate
S ter iliza t io n P olicy in D en m a r k , Sw ed en ,
N orway , and F in la n d

E d ited b y G u n n a r B ro berg a n d N ils R o ll -H a n s e n

Michigan State University Press

East Lansing
© The paper used in th is pub licatio n m eets the m inim um req u irem en ts o f A N SI/N ISO Z39.48-1992
(R 1997) (Perm anence o f P aper).

M ichigan S tate U niversity Press

East Lansing, M ichigan 48823-5245

P rinted and b o u n d in th e U nited States o f America.

11 10 09 08 07 06 05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ISBN to the revised p aperback ed itio n 0-87013-758-1

The 1996 hardcover ed itio n was originally catalogued by th e L ibrary o f Congress as follows:

L IB RA RY O F C O N G R E S S C A T A L O G IN G -IN -P U B L IC A T IO N DATA

Eugenics and th e w elfare state : sterilization policy in D enm ark, Sweden, N orway, a n d Finland / edited by
G unnar Broberg a n d N ils Roll-H ansen
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references an d index.
ISBN 0-87013- (alk. paper)
1. Eugenics— S candinavia— H istory. 2. Sterilization, Eugenic— G overnm ent policy— Scandinavia— H istory.
3. Welfare state— H istory. I. Broberg, G unnar, 1942- . II. Roll-H ansen, Nils, 1 9 3 8 - .
HQ755.5.S34E94 1995
363.9'2'0948— dc20
95-17633
CIP

Uppsala Studies in H isto ry o f Science, Volum e 21.

Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in D enm ark, Sweden, Norw ay, a n d Finland was p ro d u ced
w ith the financial s u p p o rt o f th e U ppsala Studies in the H isto ry o f Science Series.

Cover design by H eath er Truelove A iston.

green M ichigan S tate U niversity Press is a m em b er o f th e G reen Press Initiative and is com m itted

g Fn rT^At^ve to developing an d encouraging ecologically responsible p u b lish in g practices. For m ore in fo r­

m ation about th e G reen Press Initiative an d th e use o f recycled p ap er in b o o k publishing, please visit

www.green p ressi n itia ti ve. co m.

Visit M ichigan S tate U niversity Press on th e W orld W ide Web at ww w .m supress.m su.edu
C o n t en t s

Preface to the 1996 Edition

Preface to the 2005 Edition

Scandinavia: An Introduction
Gunnar Broberg

Something Rotten in the State of Denmark:

Eugenics and the Ascent of the Welfare State
Bent Sigurd Hansen

Eugenics in Sweden: Efficient Care

Gunnar Broberg and Mattias Tyden

Norwegian Eugenics: Sterilization as Social Reform

Nils Roll-Hansen

From Race Hygiene to Sterilization:

The Eugenics Movement in Finland
Marjatta Hietala

Conclusion: Scandinavian Eugenics in the International Context

Nils Roll-Hansen

Bibliography
Preface to 1996 Edition

T his book, Eugenics and the Welfare State, is the first real attempt to cover the
story o f the Scandinavian, including Finnish, history o f eugenics. It has
been told in rather similar ways to make comparisons possible. The book starts
with a general in tro d u c tio n , which is follow ed by separate chapters on
Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. Finally, there is a conclusion bringing
the Scandinavian experience into a broader European context. Considering
that so m uch o f our story has been unknown, we have allowed ourselves rather
extensive descriptions and documentation. As Scandinavian welfare has often
been given prominence in European and American discussions we feel that this
story warrants attention. Clearly, it offers a different picture of Scandinavian
history than is generally known.
We would like to thank those who have checked our English (Dag Blanck
and others) as well as NOS-H for a generous grant and Wissenschaftskolleg zu
Berlin for funding a seminar on eugenics and the welfare state.

Gunnar Broberg
Nils Roll-Hansen
'
Preface to the 2005 Edition

T
he science of hum an heredity is unavoidably tied to social politics. In our
experience, this also very much applies to the historiography of the subject.
A year after this book was first published, its story—the practice o f sterilization
in the Scandinavian welfare state— was sensationalized in the world’s mass
media. This media event in the autum n of 1997 dem onstrated both how his­
torical interpretation can be a powerful weapon in political struggles and how
a com bination of political fashion and media attention can distort historical
accounts. The event raised, in a sharp and interesting way, questions concern­
ing truth, honesty, and appropriate behavior for scientists and politicians as
well as for journalists. This tim e the focus was not on the social responsibility
and moral integrity of natural science (in this case genetics), but on that of
humanistic sciences. Perhaps the event can be taken as a rem inder of the close
interdependence of natural and humanistic sciences: that they will fall or stand
together and that the widening ideological gulf between them is a serious
threat to a productive social role for the Western scientific tradition— taking
science in the broad continental enlightenm ent sense including the natural as
well as the humanistic sciences.
On 20 August 1997 Dagens Nyheter, one of Sweden’s most influential
national newspapers, announced that tens o f thousands of Swedes were steril­
ized under compulsion; across Europe only Nazi Germany has exceeded these
num bers.1The somewhat m ore restrained article substantiating this claim was
based on the well-known fact that 63,000 Swedes were sterilized in the period
between 1935 and 1975 in accordance with the sterilization law that was
enacted by parliament in 1934 and modified in 1941, and that similar laws and
policies were typical of D enm ark and Norway. This story and the comparison
to Nazi Germany caught like wildfire during the following weeks. The Wash­
ington Post wrote about “a 40-year Nazi-style campaign of forced sterilization.”
A Reuter telegram asserted that “Social democratic Swedish governments ster­
ilized 60,000 women to rid society of ‘inferior’ racial types and to encourage
Aryan features.” “The laws . . . could have come out of a Nazi text book”
declared the Guardian. The Times explained that “Most dam ning o f all was the
Swedish governm ent’s willingness to sterilize women because they did not con­
form to the Aryan image o f blonde hair and blue eyes.”2
Apparently the willingness to associate Scandinavian social democracy with
Nazism was inspired by a trend of criticism of the welfare state, exposing its
authoritarian and anti-liberal aspects. The political message impacted more
than a transitory public opinion; the view that Scandinavian countries, led by
social democratic regimes, carried out large scale compulsory sterilization as
part of a eugenic population policy is now widespread in scholarly literature.3
The spectre of Nazi eugenics hovers over today’s public debates on genetic
technologies in hum an reproduction. Since the 1970s the word eugenics has
become strongly associated with Nazism. To characterize a practice or idea as
eugenic has been to condem n it as totally unacceptable. Only recently have
many philosophers, medical doctors, and others begun to argue for a broader
view of eugenics. They have pointed out that new techniques that are now rap­
idly being introduced have effects, more or less consciously aimed for, that can
properly be called eugenic. Some have claimed that policies and practices that
improve the genetic quality o f a population can be for the greater good, pro­
vided they are based on a well-informed free choice by the individuals involved.4
But so far the willingness or interest am ong historians to approach the com­
plexity in the history of eugenics has been limited. An influential exception is
Daniel Kevles, who wrote a 1985 treatise on eugenics in America and Britain.5
He emphasized the difference between what he called m ainline and reform
eugenics; he defined the form er as the segment dominated by authoritarian
politics and negligent of the new science of genetics, and the latter as more lib­
eral and observant of individual rights as well as eager to base its policies on
the m ost advanced genetic knowledge.
In America mainline attitudes and laws about sterilization dom inated from
the early tw entith century until eugenics went out of fashion by the late 1930s,
and in England no sterilization laws were enacted. Scandinavian sterilization
laws were introduced m ainly in the 1930s under Social Democratic regimes in
close consultancy with scientific experts, and the practice of sterilization con­
tinued at a high rate there well after WWII. This raises im portant questions
about the nature of the eugenics that was associated with Scandinavian sterili­
zation laws and about the nature of Scandianvian sterilization practices. Were
sterilizations there based on free choice or coercion? Were the criteria for them
primarily eugenic in a biological sense or were they prim arily social, linked to
central goals of welfare policy, like proper care and upbringing of children,
family planning, and women’s liberation? It seems obvious to make a com par­
ison with Nazi Germany, where a sterilization law was introduced in 1933. How
did the content of laws and the practice of sterilization in these places differ?
What was the effect of different political and legal regimes— liberal democracy
versus authoritarian dictatorship?
A main goal of our 1996 book was to shed some light on these questions and
to stimulate further research.6 A num ber of substantial new studies on Scandi­
navian sterilization and eugenics have been published since, but unfortunately
they have so far been published only in Scandinavian languages; only sum ­
maries have been published in English. In Racehygiejne i Danmark 1920-56
Lene Koch outlines the history of Danish lawmaking and the involvement of
scientific and social institutions in sterilization practice, in particular in the ster­
ilization of the mentally retarded. On the scientific side Tage Kemp played a cen­
tral role. He became head of the Institute of Hum an heredity at the University
of Copenhagen when it was established in 1938, and in 1956 he organized the-
First International Congress of Human Genetics in Copenhagen. Koch also
describes and discusses extensively the relation o f sterilization to social causes
other than eugenics, as well as the problematic and changing balance between
free choice and coercion. The paternalist moralism that still reigned in the 1930s
gradually gave way to a liberal emphasis of individual rights that by the 1960s
and ’70s produced new sterilization laws and quite different practices.7
Steriliseringar i folkhemmet (Sterilizations in the peoples home) by Maja
Runcis focuses on the situation of women. More than 90 percent of the 63,000
people sterilized in Sweden were women. Runcis shows how sterilization was
linked to the social status and role of women, and in particular to the suppres­
sion of female sexuality. She presents gripping and tragic stories about young
women who were sterilized. Runcis also argues that there was a strong connec­
tion between the rise of the Swedish welfare model, on one hand, and the ster­
ilization program , on the other.8
In 1997 a Swedish government commission was set up to investigate sterili­
zation practices between 1935 and 1975. This led to a parliamentary decision in
1999 to give restitution to persons who had been subjected to compulsory ster­
ilization. As part of the commission’s investigation Mattias Tyden conducted a
thorough historical study Fran politik tillpraktik. De svenska steriliseringslagarna
1935-1975 (From politics to practice: The Swedish sterilization laws, 1935—
1970). Tyden claims there was a gradual change in attitude starting in the 1950s.
A widespread culture of paternalistic coercion gave way to free individual
choice, and motives shifted from eugenic and biological to individual and
social: “sterilizations in the interest of society were replaced by sterilizations in
the interest of the individual.”9 Mental retardation often was a main criterion in
cases where a person was deemed not capable of making a voluntary decision
or where coercion was applied to a degree that today is considered unacceptable.
Tyden points out that officially the Swedish sterilization laws were based on vol­
untary consent. Forced sterilization like that in Nazi Germany was repudiated
by the Swedish parliament, and the National Board of Health in its regulations
emphasized voluntary cooperation. But clearly the standards for voluntary con­
sent nevertheless were different in the 1930s and ’40s, with less emphasis on
protecting the rights of the individual, than they were toward the end of the
twentieth century. For instance, in the earlier period sterilization was frequently
set as a condition of release from institutions for the mentally retarded.10A cen­
tral them e in Tyden’s study is the way in which the sterilization policy was trans­
formed throughout the policymaking process. In part, the personnel at the
National Board of Health implemented the laws at their own discretion, as did
various officials and groups and individuals at the local levels.
A similar study was commissioned by the Norwegian government. In Ster-
ilisering av tatere 1934-1977 (Sterilization o f traveling people, 1934—1977) Per
Haave presents a corresponding description and analysis of Norwegian law­
making and sterilization practice that contains a similar story of change from
sterilization as a means of social control to sterilization as a means of individ­
ual freedom. From the 1960s there was a very rapid increase in Norwegian ster­
ilizations as they became a popular m ethod of birth control. This trend was not
limited to Scandinavian countries; in the United States in 1988 close to half of
all w om en between the ages of 35 and 44 either had themselves been sterilized
or had partners who were.11 One conclusion o f Haave’s Norwegian study is that
at no point had there been a governm ent policy of eugenic sterilization: “there
was never a systematic sterilization of mentally retarded based on political
decisions or political administrative instructions.”12 Tyden similarly concluded
that “the sterilizations in Sweden in 1935-75 cannot be understood as the o u t­
come o f one specific political program or goal.”13 Consequently, both Haave
and Tyden reject the now com m on view that Norwegian and Swedish steriliza­
tion practices were the result of eugenic policies launched by Social Democrats
in the 1930s and the post-war period.14
 In a study of eugenics in Finland, Kansamme parhaaksi (In our nation’s best
interest), Markku Mattila points out that eugenic sterilization there peaked
around 1960, considerably later than in the other Nordic countries. Different
socio-political conditions could be one explanation. A civil war after the Russ­
ian revolution where “whites” suppressed “reds,” followed by wars with the
USSR in 1939-44, shaped a more authoritarian political climate there than in
the other Nordic countries.15
All the Nordic countries introduced quite similar sterilization laws in the
period from the late 1920s into the 1930s. But there are im portant differences
in the practice of these laws. For instance, sterilization for medical reasons was
included in the Swedish law but not in the Norwegian law. And while the N or­
wegian law allowed sterilization for purely personal purposes, like birth con­
trol, the Swedish law did not. D enm ark had two laws: one for sterilization of
the mentally retarded, and one for sterilization of people with norm al m ental
faculties. This pluralism makes it difficult to compare statistics in the four
countries, but it also provides interesting comparative insights.
An im portant statistical investigation o f Danish sterilizations of the m en­
tally retarded has been carried out by Lene Koch and published in her book
Tvangssterilisation i Danmark 1929-67. The 1934 law about treatm ent o f the
mentally retarded included rules for sterilization, and altogether 5,579 steril­
izations were registered under this law from 1934 to 1968. Koch classified these
sterilizations into three categories according to motivation: purely eugenic,
partially eugenic, and non-eugenic. Eugenic was defined in a restrictive sense
as referring to assumptions about possible hereditary properties of potential
offspring. Non-eugenic m otivations were “too many pregnancies, poverty,
exhaustion, amoral or asocial behaviour, etc.”16 The analysis showed that the
num ber of purely eugenic sterilizations was very low throughout the period.
The num ber of mixed cases (“partly eugenic”) grew until around 1950,
remained at a level of about half until 1960, and then fell to about a quarter by
the end of that decade. The total num ber per year was relatively stable until
1950 and fell quickly from then on. These two developments together indicate
an increasing belief in hereditary causation of m ental retardation as well as
belief in the practicability o f eugenics as social policy up to around 1950, which
apparently corresponds with developments in Sweden and Norway.17
Sterilization was not the only field o f social policy where eugenic consider­
ations played a role. The effects on legislation about marriage and abortion in
Norway has been studied by 0 y v in d Giasver. The Norwegian marriage act of
1918 contained a clause prohibiting marriage for the insane. This clause
appears to have been based mainly on social considerations. Medical expertise
had warned that eugenic arguments were highly uncertain and should not be
taken into serious consideration. But when the law came up for revision in the
1950s, the governm ent commission preparing the law proposed a prohibition
clause that included the mentally retarded and drug addicts in addition to the
insane; exceptions could be made on condition of sterilization. This proposal
was supported by a statement from the commission’s psychiatric expert,
dem onstrating a strong belief in the im portant role o f heredity in various
forms of insanity and mental retardation. By the tim e the law was passed in
1969, skepticism about sterilization and eugenics, as well as paternalistic health
and other social policies, was growing, and as a result the sterilization proviso
was dropped and the marriage ban remained virtually unchanged. In a 1991
revision the marriage ban for the mentally ill was finally discarded.18 A parallel
paper on abortion legislation claims that arguments about eugenic effects were
largely absent from Norwegian abortion debates b u t appear to have been more
im portant in Sweden and Denm ark.19 However, a high point in the belief of
hereditarianism am ong psychiatrists around 1950 appears well documented.
An extreme example is a project launched in 1945 that attempted to reveal
detrimental hereditary dispositions among traitors and others disloyal to the
country during the 1940-45 war with Germany.20
Switzerland has special comparative interest because o f similarities to Scan­
dinavia. It shares cultural as well as geographical borders with Germany and
has a strong liberal democratic tradition. In the 1990s political concerns about
abuse of sterilization on eugenic grounds resulted in a num ber of government-
commissioned studies of sterilization practices. News from Sweden had a stim ­
ulating effect on public debate here as it did in other countries. The lack of
comprehensive national statistics of the kind that exits in Scandinavia is a seri­
ous limitation in assessing both the total num ber of sterilizations and their dis­
tribution on different motivations. Nevertheless, there are indications that
total num bers as well as the distribution of indications were comparable.
Genevieve Heller and collaborators in Rejetees, rebelles, mal adaptees inves­
tigate public debate and practice of nonvoluntary sterilization through the
twentieth century in Francophone Switzerland. They define cases where the
proposal to sterilize comes from someone other than the person to be sterilized
as nonvoluntary. The typical nonvoluntary case is an inm ate of an institution
for the mentally ill or handicapped. The canton of Vaux in 1928 adopted a law
regulating such sterilizations, which had been practiced for some years before.
This was the first such law in Europe, and the only one in Switzerland. Other
 cantons, like Geneva, where the problem was also m uch discussed, introduced
no such laws. Here the situation was analogous to England: “Sterilization, even
that of persons with limited powers of judgment, was considered an entirely
private problem, where the decision falls on the doctor alone.” While Geneva
tended towards political and medical liberalism, Vaud “was quite favourable to
state control of the individual.”21 It is not sterilization as such that is problem ­
atic, state the authors, noting that, after all, it is the m ost used method of con­
traception in the world today. It is the motives and procedures leading to the
operation that can be problematic.22 They stress that nonvoluntary steriliza­
tions always had multiple motives. Eugenic concerns about the risk o f trans­
m itting hereditary disease were im portant in the interwar period, but even
during this period they were neither sufficient nor dom inant. Lacking ability
to take care of children was a central motive throughout the whole period.23 It
was also found that in the m ajority of cases of nonvoluntary sterilization the
file indicated that the person had agreed— for example, by signing a document.
However, the validity of this consent was often contested.24 Altogether, the pic­
ture is very similar to the Scandinavian one.
In a study of compulsion (“Zwang”) and eugenics in psychiatry and social
welfare in the canton of Zurich, Thomas H uonker found that in the period
from 1920 to 1934 the maternity hospital of Zurich alone carried out 1,957
abortions, 1,395 (71%) of which were combined with sterilization.25 These
cases belong to a different category from the nonvoluntary sterilizations of
Heller et al., since it was not the institutionalized, mentally ill, or retarded that
were being sterilized. These sterilizations were based on medical indications,
ostensibly efforts to protect the life and health of the women. To what extent
such operations were voluntary or done under some degree o f compulsion or
coercion is unclear and disputed. Medical sterilizations were regulated by law
only in Sweden and Finland, and they made up m ore than two thirds of the
63,000 lawful Swedish sterilizations during the period from 1934 until 1975.
H uonker’s num bers raise questions about the frequency o f medical steriliza­
tions in countries other than Sweden and Finland. Haave has estimated that in
Norway the num ber of sterilizations perform ed outside the law was probably
m uch larger than that of those within,26 and Koch indicates that around 1960
the num ber o f medical sterilizations outnum bered by several times those car­
ried out under the sterilization laws.27 This begs the question how many steril­
izations were perform ed, with medical or other justifications, in countries that
had no sterilization law?
In Eugenics and the Welfare State we wanted to explore the role of eugenics
and sterilization in the development o f the Scandinavian systems of social wel­
fare in the middle decades of the twentieth century. We felt that comparison
with Germany both before and after the Nazi takeover in 1933 would yield
interesting insights into the relationship between scientific expertise and poli­
tics under both liberal dem ocratic and totalitarian regimes. Comparisons to
Scandinavia, in particular between Sweden and Nazi Germany, are frequently
m entioned in the scholarly literature, though detailed comparisons are still
few. W hat we find distressing is that the picture of Scandinavia in this litera­
ture is so highly influenced by the mass media distortions of 1997 and so little
inform ed by the detailed research briefly reviewed above. There is a language
barrier since most of the research is only published in Scandinavian language.
But even a careful reading of w hat is published in English, including our 1996
book, ought to make authors m ore sensitive of precise inform ation and im por­
tant differences. This, we think, is a good reason for this reissuing of our book.
For example, a passing reference in a Swiss official report to the fact that “in
social democratic Sweden in the period 1935 to 1976 around 63,000 mentally
handicapped persons, mainly women, were sterilized”28 is simply not correct.
Less than a quarter of this num ber were mentally handicapped.29 This mistake
may be an accidental slip, but it fits the mass media picture of large scale
eugenic sterilization. Similarly, a generally very sober and balanced discussion
of ethical questions in the application o f gene technology to hum an reproduc­
tion m entions the “tens of thousands of Swedes” that fell victim to eugenic
sterilization.30
We hope that the strong politicization of the history of sterilization and
eugenics in Scandinavia will stimulate new careful scholarly research from a
comparative international perspective. It is our opinion that a thorough and
nuanced analysis of the disagreements, the general debates, the lawmaking, and
the changing practices of sterilization in the Scandinavian countries can pro­
vide useful background knowledge for handling parallel problems likely to be
raised in the future, such as the problems that arise with respect to the regula­
tion of applications o f genetics in hum an reproduction, in balancing individ­
ual rights and interests against com m on social goals in the distribution of
public social welfare, etc. One area where there is a serious lack of data and pre­
cise knowledge is the extent o f sterilizations, in particular the “medical steril­
izations” carried out at the discretion o f medical doctors. There are indications
that such sterilizations have been com m on in most countries in Europe and
N orth America. Perhaps the total num ber of sterilized people, relative to the
population, through the period from 1935 to 1975, and particularly in the
period after the second world war, was not so very different in Sweden, Eng­
land, The Netherlands, France, the United States, etc.? The extensive use of
sterilization in third world countries also needs investigation. More generally
the history of sterilization and eugenics is a good place for developing an
understanding of the interaction between science, ideology and politics— not
least the role of liberal democratic discourse as a brake on the distortion and
misuse of scientific results and authority.

N o tes

1. The text on advertising leaflets for the paper said: “Sverige tvangssteriliserade 10,000-tals—
endast Nazi-Tyskland var varre i Europa” (C om pulsory sterilization of 10,000s o f Swedes—
only Nazi Germ any was worse). T he title of a prom inently placed sum m ary on the paper’s
front page was: “Rashygien i folkhem m et. 60,000 steriliserades. I Europa tillam pade endast
Nazi-Tyskland en hardare politik an Sverige m ot oonskade medborgare” (Racehygiene in
the peoples hom e. 60,000 sterilized. In Europe only Nazi Germany adopted a harsher pol­
icy towards its citizens).
2. For m ore details see G unnar Broberg and M attias Tyden, “N ar svensk historia blev en vard-
snyhet. Steriliseringspolitiken och media,” Tvdrsnitt. Humanistisk och samhallsvetskaplig
forskning, no. 3 (1998): 2-15.
3. Peter Weingart in his paper “Science and Political Culture: Eugenics in a C om parative Per­
spective,” Scandinavian Journal o f History 24 (1999): 163-77, finds “a virtual identity o f the
eugenic and race-hygiene discourse in Sweden and G erm any as well as a striking similarity
in the sterilisation practice.” W eingart’s historical account, particularly his use o f statistics,
has been critically examined in N. Roll-Hansen’s “Eugenic Practice and G enetic Science in
Scandinavia and Germany: Som e C om m ents on Peter W eingart’s Com parison o f Sweden
and Germany,” Scandinavian Journal o f History 26 (2001): 75-86. Similar interpretations of
sterilization practice in Sweden an d other Nordic countries as the result o f eugenic social
policy prom oted by ruling Social D em ocrats can be found in T. Etzemiiller, “Sozialstaat,
Eugenik u n d N orm alisierung in Skandinavischen D em okratien,” Archiv fu r Sozialgeschichte
43 (2003): 492-509; A. Spektorokowski, “The Eugenic Tem ptation in Socialism: Sweden,
Germany, and the Soviet Union,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 46 (2004): 84­
106; and P. Zylberman, “Eugenique a la scandinave: le debat des historiens,” M edicine/
Sciences 20 (2004): 916-25.
4. See, for instance, A. Caplan, G. McGee, and D. M agnus, “W hat Is Im m oral about Eugen­
ics?” British Medical Journal 319, no. 1-2 (13 Novem ber 1999); A. Buchanan et al., From
Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice (Cambridge: C am bridge University Press, 2000); and
D. Gems, “Politically Correct Eugenics,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20: 201-213.
5. D. Kevles, In the Name o f Eugenics: Genetics and Uses o f H um an Heredity (New York: Alfred
Knopf, 1985).
6. See also N. Roll-Hansen, “Eugenic Sterilization: A Prelim inary Com parison o f th e Scandi­
navian Experience to that of Germany,” Genome 31 (1989): 890-95.
7. Lene Koch, Racehygiejne i D anm ark 1920-56 (Kobenhavn: Gyldendal, 1996).
 8. Maja Runcis, Steriliseringer ifolkhem m et (Stockholm: O rdfront, 1998).
9. M atthias Tyden, Frdti politik till praktik. De svenska steriliseringslagarna 1935-1975 Stock­
holm Studies in History, 63 (Stockholm: Alm quist and W iksell International, 2002),
584-90.
10. Ibid., 528f, 586ff.
11. Tyden, Fran Politik till praktik, 12, quotes this inform ation from John M. Last and Robert
B. Wallace, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 13th ed. (N orw alk, Conn., 1992), 1104.
12. Per Haave, Sterilisering av tatere 1934-1977 (Oslo: Norges Forskningsrad, 2000), 388.
13. Tyden, Fran Politik till praktik, 588.
14. This m eans that Tyden’s interpretation partly has changed since the original publication o f
Eugenics and the Welfare State in 1996.
15. M arkku M attila, Kansamme parhaaksi (Helsinki: Bibliotheca H istorica, 1999), 421-29.
16. Lene Koch, Tvangssterilisation i Danmark 1929-67 (Kobenhavn: Gyldendal, 2000), 32-33,
(English sum m aries) 343-55.
17. See Bibliotek fo r Lceger 193 (2001): 190-252 for a discussion o f Koch’s book.
18. 0yv in d Giaever, “M arriage and Madness: Expert Advice and the Eugenics Issue in Twentieth-
C entury N orw egian M arriage Legislation,” Science Studies 16 (2003): 3-21.
19. 0 y v in d Giaever, “A bortion and Eugenics: The Role of Eugenic A rgum ents in Norwegian
A bortion Debates an d Legislation, 1920-1978,” Scandinavian Journal o f History 30 (2005):
267-92.
20. 0 y v in d Gieever, “T he Psychiatry of Quislingism: Norwegian Psychiatric Research O n the
Collaborators o f W orld W ar II,” Science in Context 17 (2004): 267-92.
21. Genevieve Heller, Gilles Jeanmonod, and Jacques Gasser, Rejetees, rebelles, mal adaptees.
Debats sur Feugenisme. Pratiques de la sterilisation non volontaire en Suisse romande au XXe
siecle (Paris, 2002), 414.
22. Ibid., 2, 131.
23. Ibid., 419.
24. Ibid., 420.
25. T hom as Huonker, Anstaltsanweisungen, Kindewegnahmen, Eheverbote, Sterilizationen, Kas-
trationen. Fiirsorge, Zwangsmassnahmen, “eugenikk” und Psychiatrie in Zurich zwischen
1890 und 1970, Bericht von Thomas H uonker verfasst im A uftrag des Sozialdepartements
der Stadt Zurich (Z urich 2002), 127.
26. Haave, Sterilisering av tatere, 277-81. Haave’s judgem ent is based on a study o f m edical
journals at some o f the largest m aternity hospitals. It would be interesting to see correspon­
ding studies from countries like France, The N etherlands, E ngland, Italy, Germany after
1945, the U nited States, Canada, etc.
27. Koch, Tvangssterilisation, 312-17, 326, and fig. 29.
28. J. Tanner, M. Meier, G. Hiirlim ann, Zwangsmassnahmen in der Zurcher Psychiatrie
1870-1970 (Zurich: E nde Dezember 2002), 5.
29. Broberg and Roll-H ansen, Eugenics and the Welfare State, 109-10.
30. A. Buchanan, D. W. Brock, N. Daniels, and D. Wilder, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and
Justice (Cambridge: C am bridge University Press, 2000), 35. The Eugenics Issue in Twentieth-
C entury Norwegian M arriage Legislation,” Science Studies 16 (2003): 3-21.
S c a n d in a v ia : A n I n tr o d u c tio n
G u n n a r B r o b er g

candinavia is often looked upon as a unit, yet surprisingly little has been
S w ritten about the com m on history o f its various countries. Historically and
ethnically, th e area is c o m p arativ ely h o m o g e n e o u s, in p a rt b ecause the
Scandinavian peninsula provides natural borders. It also gives rise to separate
centers: the Norwegian population looks out on the Arctic Ocean, while the
Swedish face the Gulf o f Bothnia; between Norway and Sweden lies a range of
m ountains. Contacts between towns on the east coast o f Sweden and those on
the west coast o f Finland have occurred, with the sea form ing a link— and for
hundreds o f years Finland was a part o f Sweden. A large num ber of Swedes (or
Finnish Swedes) also live in Finland, where they often have had em inent posi­
tions. D enm ark, projecting southward from the m ainland, took part in the cul­
tural life o f the continent earlier than did its neighbors to the north.
Ethnically, the population has rem ained relatively hom ogenous, especially
in Sweden and Norway; the exception in those countries, as in Finland, has
been the Sam i, w ho live in th e n o rth and n u m b e r 30,000-40,000 people.
Finland also has had its Swedish community, which som etim es was compared
w ith the “Asiatic” Finns. D enm ark’s ethnic profile has been rather unmixed,
and possibly that is why eugenic endeavors never came to play the same role
there as in other Scandinavian countries. In Iceland— which lies outside this
survey— the Nordic idea was at least equally prom inent, a result, in part, o f the
country’s Viking history.
The notion o f a “pure” Nordic race was a m yth exploited with great persis­
tency in propaganda. Historically, however, Scandinavia, particularly Sweden
and D enm ark, has seen a great deal of im m igration. Germ ans, Walloons, Scots,
and m any other groups have settled there from the M iddle Ages to the present.
G erm an im m igrants and trade w ith G erm an cities were especially im portant
factors in determ in in g the developm ent o f Scandinavian culture. The large
n u m b e r o f b o rro w e d G erm an w ords is ev idence o f th o se links; even so,
Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian can be seen, basically, as dialects o f the same
language. There have been viable Jewish m inority groups in D enm ark since the
seventeenth century and in Sweden since the end o f the eighteenth century.
Nevertheless, with few exceptions, the im pression o f Scandinavia until recently
is one o f relative ethnic homogeneity.
Politically, the countries have been allied in a num ber o f different ways, with
D enm ark dom inating during the Renaissance and Sweden taking over during
the seventeenth century. Denm ark, Norway, and Sweden formed a union from
1389 to 1521, with som e interruptions. Finland and Sweden had been joined
since the early M iddle Ages; D enm ark-N orw ay was one country until Norway
becam e Swedish through the Congress o f Vienna in 1815, a union that was dis­
solved after a referendum in Norway in 1905 (368,200 Norwegians voted for
d isso lu tio n and 184 against). P an-S candinavianism was strong a ro u n d the
m id d le o f th e n in e te e n th century, b u t it m et w ith a severe setback w hen
Bismarck’s Prussia seized the D anish provinces o f Schleswig and Holstein in
the 1864-65 war.
W ith the celebration o f a “G o th ic” past, a significant p atrio tic ideology
em erged d u rin g the era o f the great w ars o f the seventeenth cen tu ry and,
m utatis m utandis, developed into speculations a b o u t a G erm an o r N ordic
“m aster race.” Racism is partly the consequence o f colonial struggle, but only
D enm ark had colonies in the m odern era; the last one, in the West Indies, was
relinquished in 1917. Greenland, however, is still a Danish dom inion. By the
tw entieth century, nationalism and racism had become intricately interrelated
concepts.
In regard to religion, Scandinavia as a whole has been prim arily Lutheran.
Beside the faith of the m ajority, Finland also h arb o red the Greek O rthodox
church, unlike the other countries. The Protestant churches are state establish­
m ents, a fact of vital im portance for an understanding o f Scandinavian history.
The developm ent o f an efficient state organization was made possible by the
cooperation o f spiritual and secular authorities. In the context o f this book, it
is im p o rtan t to note th at consensus an d cooperation are param ount in medical
affairs as well as in other areas.
The church has favored literacy, insisting that the whole population should
be able to study the Holy Writ. Over a period o f tim e this has resulted in the
attainm ent of a high level of education in secular areas as well. A round the year
1900, typical Scandinavian plans for popular education (Swedish folkbildning)
were in evidence w ith roots in the D anish movement for centers for adult edu­
catio n started by N. E. S. G ru n d tv ig . “Physical e d u catio n ” in the form o f
Lingian gymnastics was w idespread beginning in the m id-nineteenth century.
For b o th G rundtvig and H enric Ling, Nordic mythology, com bined with an
interest in folklore, was a central tenet. Academics involved in popular lectur­
ing on a comprehensive scale struck a nationalistic tone while also em bracing
th e b e lie f in scien ce t h a t w as ty p ic a l at th e tu r n o f th e c e n tu ry . T he
Scandinavian willingness to com prom ise m ight have had som ething to do with
this co m b in atio n o f n atio n alistic ideals an d hopes for m o d ern izatio n and
dem ocratization.

♦ ♦ ♦

The changes which took place in the whole of the Western world around 1900
cam e a b o u t in a p a rtic u la rly strik in g way in Scandinavia. D en m ark and
Sweden, especially, moved very rapidly from an old-fashioned agrarian econ­
omy to an industrial one. We could even speak o f a Scandinavian “wonder.”
Copenhagen, Stockholm, Oslo, and Helsinki all took on their present character
at this tim e, growing into metropolises, Copenhagen w ith a population o f half
a m illion, Stockholm w ith a population of 400,000, and Oslo (Christiania until
1924) w ith a population o f a quarter o f a million, and Helsinki w ith nearly
100,00 inhabitants.
U rbanization was only one side o f the dem ographic change that occurred at
this time; the other was em igration. Rural areas in particular lost m any o f the
younger generation. Approxim ately two m illion Scandinavians em igrated to
the U nited States, b u t th ere were also those w ho w ent to S outh A m erica,
Australia, and Germany. For a while, Chicago came to be the second largest
“Swedish” city, while there was a viable Norwegian colony in New York. Many
Finns m oved to St. Petersburg, Florida. Despite the drain, the population in
the Scandinavian countries increased to over twelve m illion people at the turn
of the century, a figure th at should be com pared with G erm any’s fifty-six m il­
lion and France’s thirty-eight million.
W ith new railroads, m odernization o f tran sp o rt, and the telephone, dis­
tances dim inished. The Oslo-Bergen line, which reached an elevation o f 1,300
meters, was completed in 1909. The m ining in the north o f Sweden p u t new
life into the economy; it also gave rise to a feeling that there were alm ost inex­
haustible natural resources. The rising price of tim ber favored both Swedish
and Finnish industry. In D enm ark, the Schleswig War (1864) had resulted in
the last o f a series o f m ilitary defeats. W hat followed was intensive reclam ation
of m oor land and land w on from the sea. Scandinavia shrank and stretched at
the same tim e, both geographically and as a m ental concept. The m odern era,
characterized by both nationalism and a belief in science and technology, had
reached the north.
 D u rin g th e la tte r p a r t o f th e n in e te e n th cen tu ry, the lab o r m ovem ent
became established in the Nordic countries— a m ovem ent which was to direct
the course o f society in th e twentieth century. Its characteristics are the collab­
oration o f the Social D em ocratic parties, the cooperative m ovem ent, and the
fairly u n ified tra d e u n io n s. In its early stages, social dem ocracy was to rn
between revolutionary an d parliam entary ideologies, but a few years into the
new century Scandinavian social democracy, w ith its willingness to com pro­
mise, had taken form. As early as 1920, Sweden saw its first Social Democratic
governm ent, with the sam e form ation com ing into power in D enm ark in 1924
and Norway in 1935.
The N orw egian independence from Sweden in 1905, Finnish opposition
to Russia, and various social problem s o f the p erio d are reflected in the cul­
tural debate th at o ccu rred around the tu rn o f the century. In the area o f liter­
ature, th e D anish lite ra ry histo rian , G eorg B randes, preceded the new era
w ith his d em an d th a t lite ra tu re should “p u t p roblem s u n d e r debate” and
thus be o rien ted to w a rd c o n tem p o rary questions an d n atu ralism . W riters
w h o d e a lt w ith p r o b le m s in B r a n d e s ’s s e n se w ere H e n rik Ib se n a n d
B jo r n s tje r n e B jo r n s o n (N o b e l P riz e w in n e r ) in N o rw a y a n d A u g u st
S trindberg in Sweden. In m usic we find nationalism m ingling w ith political
radicalism in the w orks o f Edward G rieg, Carl N ielsen, Jean Sibelius, and
Vilhelm Stenham m ar. A nd in the fine arts the N ordic light anim ated a series
o f works th at now are considered classical. Having been m ore or less assimi-
lators in the cultural exchange until then, the N ordic countries displayed an
impressive num b er o f cultural figures in their own right, a factor o f im por­
tance for both self-reflection and self-esteem.
The advance in science is particularly striking and exemplified in people
such as the chemist Svante A rrhenius and the inventor Alfred Nobel (Sweden),
the philosopher H arald H offding and explorer K nud Rasmussen (D enm ark),
the exp lo rer A. E. N o rd e n sk io ld an d th e so cio lo g ist E dvard W esterm ark
(Finland), the explorers Roald A m undsen and Frithiof Nansen and the m eteo­
rologist Vilhelm Bjerknes (Norway). The explorers, whose struggles against the
arctic environm ent extended m an’s horizons as never before, were those who
attracted the greatest attention. The organization o f science gives evidence of
sim ilar advances at the tu rn of the century, as show n in the building o f the
“City o f Science” in S tockholm and the various institutes o f the Carlsberg
Foundation in C openhagen. The Nobel prizes, given since 1901, added m oney
and status to science, th e arts (literature), and in tern atio n alism (the peace
prize). Thus, there were m any good reasons to believe in progress when World
War I changed conditions.
 Except for Finland, Scandinavia was spared active involvement in the war.
D uring the Finnish civil war, governm ent forces received aid from G erm any
and the socialists received aid from Russian Bolsheviks; it ended with the vic­
tory o f governm ent troops under G eneral Carl G ustaf M annerheim in May
1918, and the following spring, Finland becam e an independent republic. The
war years m eant a general consolidation o f social dem ocracy in the N ordic
cou n tries, b u t they also m eant the p o stp o n e m en t o f social im provem ents.
Thus, universal suffrage was introduced in Finland in 1906, in Norway in 1913
(1898 for m en), in D enm ark in 1915, b u t not until 1918 in Sweden. In general,
the end o f the war involved a num ber o f social changes in Scandinavia as in
o th er parts o f the w orld. Scandinavian eugenic laws belong to the interw ar
period, during the phase which, in this book, is called “reform eugenics” and
connected with the beginning of the welfare state.
Swedish peace— in sharp contrast to the earlier history o f the country— was
put to the test in 1922 w hen the unp o p u lar decision was taken to follow the
recom m endations of the League of N ations and let the Aland Islands become
F in n ish . In th e 1920s th e U n iv ersal E c o n o m ic C o n feren c e was h eld in
Stockholm , not only as a sign of the central position held by the archbishop
and Nobel Prize w inner N athan Soderblom but also o f the continued secular­
ization o f the country. The welfare state cam e to the forefront w hen P. A.
H ansson, a Social D em ocrat, launched the concept o f a “people’s hom e” in
1928. The tranquil developm ent in Sweden was not the least result of the h ar­
m ony th a t came to characterize the relations betw een em ployers and trade
unions, as in the basic agreement signed in 1938, regulating negotiations and
strike actions. That other countries took an interest in Scandinavia is apparent.
For instance, Sweden: The Middle Way (1935), by the A m erican jo u rn a list
M arquis Childs, had som e influence o n Roosevelt’s New Deal, with its praise o f
Swedish welfare policies. A country w ith rational, organized education, light
veneer or steel furniture, kindergartens, cleanliness, and order— that is how
Sweden looked, at least from a distance.
Development in Denmark, under the direction o f a strong Social Democratic
party, m ore or less paralleled that of Sweden. As early as 1920, Minister of Justice
(later M inister for Social Affairs) K. K. Steincke outlined the future welfare state.
Transportation w ithin this island kingdom was simplified by bridge construc­
tions, making life easier for, among others, farmers. Agrarian products were, and
are, fundam ental for the Danish economy and the Danish “good life.” D enm ark
was no doubt the least puritanical of the Scandinavian countries. The temperance
m ovem ent never gained political power, and so, to the consternation o f other
Scandinavians, Danish women drank beer and smoked a cigar now and then.
 Such extravagances were rare in Norway. M uch less centralized, the econ­
om y d e p e n d e d on tra d itio n a l a g ric u ltu re — th o u g h N orw ay’s geography
allowed less than 3 percent o f the total area for farm land. The fishing industry
was, and is, im portant. W haling in its m odern phase is very m uch a Norwegian
specialty. In the far north, Norway incorporated after international agreement
the isles o f Spitzbergen (Svalbard) in 1925. In contrast, in 1933 parts of east
Greenland were lost through negotiations w ith Denmark. But, despite its dis­
tin c t p ro file, N orw ay to o k p a rt in th e sam e social program s as the o th e r
Scandinavian countries.
In Finland, legislation was introduced in the 1920s stipulating public educa­
tion, m ilitary service, and freedom in m atters o f belief. The Finnish-Swedish
population nourished fond hopes o f greater political freedom, which did not
pay off but m eant continual tensions w ith the Finnish nationalists. Between
1919 and 1934 a Prohibition Act was in force. In a new situation the old eco­
nomic bonds with Russia rem ained a problem . Finland entered a non-aggres­
sion pact w ith the Soviet U nion in 1932 but underlined in 1935 its Scandinavian
o rie n ta tio n . T his geographical duality, as well as F indland’s being the one
republic in Scandinavia, gave Finnish history its own dramatic individuality.

♦ ♦ ♦

The favorable Nordic developm ent came to an abrupt end w ith the Germ an
o c cu p atio n o f N orw ay an d D en m ark o n 9 A pril 1940; again, Sweden was
spared active involvement in the war. Swedish neutrality could only be kept up
by means o f certain concessions to the superior G erm an forces, however, such
as allowing the transit o f Germ an troops through Sweden. O n the other hand,
Sweden provided hum anitarian aid for its neighbors both during and after the
war. Thus, practically the whole Jewish co m m unity (some 7,000) o f D enm ark
escaped to Sweden in O ctober 1943. In Norway, the Nazi regime under Vidkun
Quisling left a bitter aftertaste, while in D enm ark, the Danish Nazis were kept
from political power— at the price of collaboration, however, which was exten­
sive at tim es. All the same, it was only in th e last phase o f the war that the
G erm ans a n d their Danish henchm en to o k over the state adm inistration. In
general, Nazism only attracted m inor groups in the Nordic countries during
the war years. Finland came to suffer m uch m ore, losing a large part of its male
population in the devastating war against the Soviet Union in the w inter of
1940. In th e “War o f C ontinuation,” Finland allied itself with Germany; suc­
cessful at first, it then had to cede large territories in eastern Karelia as well as
the northerly Petsamo area in the peace o f 1944, and pledge to pay substantial
w ar reparations. The war went on into 1945 in the north, now against G erm an
troops— again, a complicated tu rn in Finnish history.
A fter the war, Scandinavia received aid th ro u g h the M arshall Plan, and
N orw ay and D enm ark jo in ed NATO. T he discussion o f a N ordic alliance,
which had been lively at times, died out. Finnish foreign policy was character­
ized by careful balancing in the shadow of the Soviet Union; the two countries
signed an Agreem ent of Friendship, C ooperation, and M utual Assistance in
1948. Sweden c o n tin u e d on a n e u tra l co u rse, w ith eco n o m ic ties to th e
W estern w orld. Lately, discussions ab o u t jo in in g the E uropean E conom ic
C om m unity have been more and m ore intense, w ith D enm ark in, Finland and
Sweden entering, and Norway staying out. There were few em ploym ent restric­
tions for Scandinavians m oving betw een the N ordic countries, but in the early
1990s the situation changed because o f econom ic turbulence in Scandinavia as
well as in Europe as a whole.
In the eyes o f the rest of the w orld, Scandinavia probably still represents
peace and prosperity. Its welfare program continued and accelerated after the
war. People live longer and are w ealthier than elsewhere. In m any areas, the
Nordic countries have come to stand for “quality”— Finnish glassware, Danish
furniture, Swedish cars, and Norwegian scenery. While not altogether positive,
concepts like Swedish and Danish (but not Norwegian) “sin” have become c u r­
rent; in fact, such conceptions can perhaps be traced to population policies of
the kind that are described in this book. O n the dark side is an exceptionally
high suicide rate, especially in Sweden; this criticism is dismissed in Sweden,
however, as based on an erroneous interpretation o f statistics. One could argue
th at there are too m any statistics and too m uch cold rationalism in the n o rth —
and answer that m odern society and m odern science are conjoined twins. All
the same, in a w orld where the alternatives were often depicted in black and
w hite, w here East and West w ere seen as irreconcilable, the Scandinavian
m odel often appeared as a reasonable m iddle course.

♦ ♦ ♦

Sum m ing up and looking ahead, we could say that Sweden has enjoyed the m ost
peaceful way through the twentieth century. Finland’s history has been the m ost
dram atic, while Norway has had the clearest “Nordic” profile and D enm ark the
m ost European. Iceland, far off in the Arctic, is a microcosm o f its sister coun­
tries. The countries were wrenched apart during the wars, but that their affinity
is still great will be apparent from the studies presented here. The purpose o f this
short introduction is simply to underline their com m on ground.
 Here, then, is a brief sum m ary of the them es in this book, some of which
have already been hinted at: one is the im portance o f hom ogeneous geography
and history for political and social solutions. A nother is the effect o f “middle-
o f-th e -ro a d ” p olitics so typical for tw en tieth -cen tu ry Scandinavia and the
Nordic consensus which often makes pure political analysis uninteresting; a
third is the role o f science in the m odernization o f the Nordic countries, bring­
ing about b o th econom ic prosperity and a particular “m entalite.” Large-scale
social experim ents are typical o f the welfare policies we are studying, making
medical politics a “scientific” p art of m o d ern ism in a som etim es risky way.
Finally, the rath er long perspectives in these essays clarify questions of continu­
ity in eugenics and tw entieth-century biom edical politics.
All in all, eugenics and sterilization policy are p art of m odern history and
reflect im p o rtan t aspects of it in Scandinavia and the Western world. The his­
tory of eugenics is thus a challenging study, b ringing together a num ber of
themes connected w ith contem porary history an d future development.
S o m et h in g R o t t en in t h e Sta te of D enm ark:
E u g en ic s and the A s c en t of the W e l f a r e S tate
B e n t S igu rd H a n s e n

ow im p o r ta n t it is to tr a c e th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f e u g e n ic s in each
H Scandinavian country can be debated. Still, a reasonably good case can be
made for exam ining Denm ark, which in many ways offers useful contrasts to
the other countries that so far have been studied in detail: the U nited States,
G reat Britain, an d also, in recent years, G erm any1— all countries that were
great powers at the beginning of the century, and w here eugenics had a consid­
erable following.
The fact that a country considered itself a great power, or a power sliding
from first to second rank, was in itself a factor that affected the development of
eugenics. Certainly, the defeat o f G erm any in W orld W ar I strongly affected the
G erm an attitude tow ard eugenic measures; another example is the striving for
“national efficiency” in Great Britain in the years before this war.2 In contrast,
D enm ark was not, and did not aspire to be, a great power. Its last pretensions
in th is d irectio n w ere lost, to g e th e r w ith the fleet— and N orw ay— in the
N apoleonic Wars, a conflict that literally bankrupted the country. A nd the area
o f Denm ark was further depleted w hen Holstein and Schleswig were, in effect,
ceded to Prussia after the Second Schleswig War (1864-66).
At the beginning o f the tw entieth century, D enm ark was a country with a
sm all hom ogeneous population, w ith o u t the antagonism betw een different
eth n ic groups th a t influenced th e eugenics m o vem ent in o th e r countries.
D en m ark was th e only S candinavian coun try w ith colonies. But her West
Indian colonies were transferred to the United States during W orld War I, and
her rem aining colony, Greenland, was so remote, so sparsely populated, and of
such little econom ic im portance, th a t its effect o n D anish attitudes toward
other races and peoples was negligible.3
After the first W orld War, d u rin g which D enm ark rem ained neutral, the
Social D em ocrats slowly gained ascendancy w ith o u t violent political con­
frontations. Labor relations were also peaceful during the lean years im m edi­
ately after the w ar, at least w h en co m p ared to th o se in o th e r E uropean
countries. A kind of truce developed betw een the Social Dem ocrats and the
traditional parties o f the center and right and, as a consequence, a large n u m ­
ber o f reform laws could be carried o u t during the 1920s and 1930s, n o t unani­
mously, b u t w ithout violent confrontations. Chief am ong these laws was the
great social reform law com plex that m arks the beginning o f the D anish wel­
fare state.
T he preconditions th a t have been postulated for the developm ent o f the
eugenics m ovem ent— ethnic antagonism , social unrest, conservative opposi­
tion to social relief—seem to have been absent, or only weakly represented in
D enm ark. Yet D enm ark was the first European state to introduce national leg­
islation concerning eugenic sterilization in 1929.

B io lo gica l D eterm in ism in D en m a r k : T he N in e t e e n t h C e n t u r y

M ost o f the powerful biological m yths prevalent in the Western w orld in the
nineteenth century can be found represented in Denm ark. There was a general
belief in the strong influence o f heredity, coupled w ith an alm ost com plete
ignorance o f actual genetic m echanism s. A picture of the confusion in this area
can be gained from the prize-w inning essay Arvelighed og Moral (H eredity and
M orals), which appeared in 1881. The author, Karl Gjellerup, was not a scien­
tist b u t a poet and novelist, w ho was later awarded a Nobel Prize in literature.
Today, he is alm ost com pletely forgotten, even in D enm ark. The essay was
entirely derivative, w ith Prosper Lucas, Augustine Morel, H erbert Spencer, and
Charles Darwin as m ain sources, and strongly influenced by a contem porary
book by Theodule Ribot.4 M uch o f the essay was anecdotal material, concern­
ing alleged examples o f w hat Ernst Mayr has called “soft inheritance,”5 cases
where heredity was supposed to have been directly influenced by the environ­
m ent, the so-called Lamarckian heredity. Though not a professional scientist,
on this point Gjellerup reflected the general consensus o f contem porary m ed­
ical and biological expertise.
A particular version o f hereditary determ inism , the belief in degeneration,
was widely shared in D enm ark. It was given scientific legitimacy by the French
psychiatrist Augustine Morel, but the concept itself is m uch older. The psychia­
trist Frederik Lange, who him self belonged to a well-known liberal, patrician
family, introduced the ideas o f M orel in his doctoral thesis o f 1881.6 His last
book, published two decades later, rem inisces ab o u t his experience as the
lead er o f M id d elfart P sy ch iatric H o sp ital, an d is a stran g e and h a u n tin g
d e sc rip tio n o f th e last re p re se n ta tiv es o f th e d eclin in g great fam ilies he
observed.7 More a w ork o f art than a scientific treatise, it has been overshad­
owed by a w ork o f fiction th a t conveyed the same m elancholic im pression,
H erm an Bang’s H abbse Slxgter (D escendants W ithout H ope) published in
1882, a p o ig n a n t, p artly au to b io g ra p h ic a l, acco u n t o f a y o u n g m an w ho
regards him self as the last degenerate m em ber o f such a declining family.8 This
them e was popular in nin eteen th -cen tu ry fiction, and other exam ples from
Danish literature can be cited. Belief in degeneration, o f course, presupposed
belief in hereditary determ inism , and, at the sam e time, belief in the— mostly
negative— effects o f bad behavior, drinking, sexual excesses and so on.
References to Darwin and D arw inism were widespread, but m ostly in asso­
ciation with evolution in general and w hat D arw in himself called “descent with
m odification.” Phrases such as “struggle for existence” and “survival o f the
fittest” were bandied about in the contem porary literature and applied, rather
vaguely, to hum ans and h u m an society. But no com plete account o f social
Darwinism — selectionist ideas applied to social relations and social stratifica­
tion— can be found before J. B. Haycraft’s Darwinism and Social Improvement
appeared in translation in 1894.9 The m ain thesis o f this w ork was th at the
m ost valuable parts of the population reproduced at the lowest rate, while the
part of the population that was “inferior,” mentally and physically, reproduced
at the highest rate— the concept o f differential reproduction. Furtherm ore, this
tendency was characteristic o f civilized, as opposed to “natural,” society and
was reinforced in particular by the progress in m edicine and various types of
social relief. References to H erbert Spencer, regarded by m any as the original
inventor o f social Darw inism , can o f course be found m uch earlier. But it is
characteristic that a work from 1881, where he was one of the prim ary sources,
used his ideas of a general organic evolution and connected these ideas with
the G erm an theories o f th e cell-state.10 W hat has often sim ply been called
Darw inism was, in D enm ark, as in other countries, a confusing web o f partly
overlapping and partly conflicting biological ideas and myths.
Virtually all of the authors that used or referred to these ideas were regarded,
and regarded themselves, as liberals or progressives. Many were radical followers
o f Georg Brandes, the great European literary critic, who was the leader o f what
has been called “the M odern Breakthrough” in D enm ark— both a literary and a
political m ovem ent directed against rom anticism and reaction. A surprising
n u m b e r o f th e intellectuals a ttra c te d to biological d eterm in ism w ere also
attracted to the ideas o f H enry George. Gustav Bang, the m ajor intellectual ide­
ologue o f the D anish Social D em ocrats, w ho at th a t tim e represen ted the
extreme left in the political spectrum , wrote a doctoral thesis on the decline and
degeneration o f the old D anish nobility. A nother young socialist intellectual
arranged lectures for the workers o f Copenhagen during the great lockout in
1899. And what were the lectures about? Darwin, Spencer, and Weismann, of
course.11 D enm ark h a d its share o f cultural pessim ists, and they could find
plenty to be pessimistic about, from the defeat in the Schleswig Wars and the
subsequent loss o f territo ry to the general decline in taste, literacy, and morals.
But there were no exam ples of the blend o f cultural pessimism, conservatism,
chauvinism, and biological and racial determ inism that could be found further
south, n o r of the exaltation o f “N ordic” ideals com bined w ith political reaction.

P h ysic a l A n th ro p o lo g y

A certain legitim ating o f this w orship of the “N ordic” physical and m ental
type can be found in th e discipline o f physical anthropology, which had been
established as a legitim ate science in the last half o f the nineteenth century with
the Swede, A nders R etzius, as one o f the founding fathers. A review o f the
developm ent of this discipline in Scandinavia noted th at D enm ark was poorly
represented com pared to other Scandinavian countries, and attributed this to
the generally mixed character of the Danish population th at made studies of
racial characteristics so unrew arding.12 M ost of the w ork that was done was
statistical in nature, a n d several papers were very critical toward some o f the
accepted m ethods, in p articu lar the use o f the cranial index established by
Retzius.13
Physical anthro p o lo g y was never established as an independent scientific
discipline at the university. A Danish anthropological com m ittee was estab­
lished in 1905 with the physician Soren Hansen, first as secretary, then as chair­
m an o f the com m ittee. Soren H ansen was the closest D enm ark cam e to a
full-tim e physical anthropologist. He obtained grants to study physical an th ro ­
pology, visited several o f the famous European anthropologists, and published
num erous works on physical anthropology. But the p o in t is that he never actu­
ally had the o p p o rtu nity to be a full-tim e anthropologist. He never achieved an
academic position; he was forced to do his doctoral work in a completely dif­
ferent field and to su p p o rt him self as a police doctor. In D enm ark, physical
anthropology never achieved the prestige it had in o ther countries.14
Physical an th ro p o lo g y could be regarded as the biological science about
m an, correlating physical and m ental characteristics o f the different races and
types o f m an. Eugenics was defined by m any as h u m an biology, applied with
special regard for futu re generations. So it was n o t surprising that there was a
great overlap between physical anthropologists and eugenicists. Soren Hansen
was only one o f th e m an y physical anthropologists w ho attended the First
In tern atio n al Eugenics C onference, an experience th a t converted him to a
prolific advocate of eugenics. But, as he was the only physical anthropologist
in D enm ark, he was alm ost the only eugenicist. O ne o f the reasons for the
absence o f a more broadly based eugenics m ovem ent in D enm ark m ight be
the weak standing o f physical anthropology.

E u g e n ic s a n d t h e In stitu tio n s

U nfortunately, only a very small p a rt o f the literature on eugenics deals

explicitly with institutions for the m entally retarded and the mentally ill— the
hospitals, prisons, and schools— where an increasing num ber o f these people
were segregated from norm al society. But institutional leaders were am ong the
first to use eugenic argum ents. N ot only were the “inferior” kept in an isolated
and protected environm ent where they could do no harm and could be put to
some use, but they were also prevented from transm itting their “inferiority” to
any progeny. Surgery for eugenic or p artly eugenic purposes was first p er­
fo rm ed in th e in s titu tio n s , an d it was th e in s titu tio n a liz e d g ro u p s w ho
re m a in e d th e p rim a ry ta rg e t o f eu g en ics le g isla tio n in m o st c o u n trie s.
Institutional staff occupied a unique position where they could provide the
observations and the scientific data th at justified eugenic m easures, p u t the
eugenic proposals into practice, and even evaluate the benefits o f the eugenic
measures they perform ed.15
In several cases the m edical experts at the institutions challenged the exist­
ing legislation. In som e cases they sim ply carried out sterilizing operations
w ithout the sanction o f th e law, as Edwin H edm an, the head of an institution
for the m entally retarded in Finland, did in 1911. In D enm ark, it was the leader
o f the institution for the m entally retarded in Thisted that, m ore cautiously,
forw arded the first form al application for eugenic sterilization.16
O f course, the institutional leaders were also in a position where they could
effectively block eugenic measures, if they disapproved o f them for religious or
hu m an itarian reasons. C ertainly, the early sterilization data for the U nited
States, as depicted in th e surveys o f H arry F. Laughlin and J. H. Landm an,
shows th at institutions in the same state differed widely in the zeal w ith which
they carried out sterilizations. This tren d proceeded well into the 1950s, as the
example o f Sonoma State H om e in California dem onstrates.17
It is generally accepted th at the first to carry out eugenic sterilization (vasec­
tomy) was H arry Sharp, w ho perform ed these operations at the Jeffersonville
State Prison in Indiana. But these first operations were perform ed prim arily for
non-eugenic purposes, namely, to suppress excessive m asturbation. According
to Sharp, the operation seemed to repress n o t only m asturbation but also other
kinds o f sexual activity. H e em phasized th at the operation, as an additional
benefit, w ould prevent reproduction.
Sharp carried o u t a large num ber o f such o p eratio n s even before 1907,
when his experiences becam e the basis o f a sterilization law in Indiana, the first
m o dern eugenic sterilizatio n law. It is interesting to note th at virtually all
experts since 1920 have claim ed that the effects o f vasectomy on sexuality are
m inor and m ainly psychological. It could have been this psychological effect on
the prisoners that Sharp observed; alternatively, he him self m ight have been
deluded by his expectations.18
Even before Sharp’s first operation in 1899, however, straightforw ard castra­
tions had been perform ed at several institutions for the mentally retarded: at
Elwyn in Pennsylvania u n d er Isaac Kerlin and later under M artin W. Barr; in
Winfield, Kansas, und er F. Hoyt Pilcher, and in other American institutions.19
O f Sharp, Barr wrote:

M uch distressed by the debasing habits rife am ong the children of this institution,
and having exhausted every means of reform ation through discipline, he, after con­
sultation, castrated fifty-eight boys, with a resulting gain in alm ost every case of
marked im provem ent both mental and physical.20

But, in all cases the im m ediate reason for the operation was m asturbation.
Revulsion toward the various kinds o f em erging sexuality th at were possible
under the conditions im posed by the institutions m ade the radical intervention
of the surgeon’s knife acceptable. And, later, other benefits, am ong them the
eugenic effects of asexualization, added to the rationale for the operation. No
doubt the institutions for the mentally retarded, like m any other organizations,
were easier to run w ithout the further com plications o f sexuality, b u t ironically,
the problem that was solved by the operation was created by the very nature of
the institution.21
Barr and his coworkers from Elwyn also subm itted a law proposal dealing
with the castration of the mentally retarded. They stressed the double advantage
of the operation: both th a t the individual operated on became “m ore docile,
more tractable . . . a gelding or an ox loses nothing b u t becomes in every respect
more docile, m ore useful and better fitted for service” and that reproduction
was prevented: “It m ust be rem em bered that these idiots always m ust be depen­
dents . . . the state therefore has a right to act in place o f a parent and also to
take measures to prevent their propagation.”22 The eugenic benefits expected
from this law can also be seen from the fact that Barr called it a proposal “for
the prevention o f idiocy.” It was passed by both the legislative cham bers of
Pennsylvania, but was then vetoed by the governor in 1904, to the great dismay
of Barr.
In the same period, the psychiatrist and sexual reform er August Forel also
ex p erim en ted w ith c a stra tio n at th e psychiatric ho sp ital o f Burgholzli in
Switzerland. The targets were violent patients, whose behavior he hoped to
m odify and control with the operation. It was also in the 1890s that the new
operation ovariectomy, female castration, was used as a cure against hysteria by
the inventor o f the operation, the professor o f obstetrics at Freiburg, Alfred
Hegar.23 Another example o f this conjunction between mentally ill patients and
radical interventionist surgery was the craniectomy operations that enjoyed a
brief popularity. For some tim e, several em inent neurologists had m aintained
that m ental retardations could be caused by a too early closing o f the cranial
su tu res. C raniectom y, th e reo p en in g o f these su tures, was suggested as a
m ethod to restore normalcy. The operation was widely prom oted in the p o p u ­
lar press, and in 1890 about fifty operations were undertaken in Europe and
the United States. The operations were a dismal failure; about 15-25 percent o f
the patients did n o t survive the operations, and no significant im provem ent
could be detected in the surviving group.24
D uring the last years o f the nineteenth century, the utopian hopes of edu­
cating and essentially curing the m entally retarded had largely been a b an ­
doned. More and m ore, the institutions became places where the inmates were
kept isolated from the rest o f society, where they could be trained in certain
skills according to the way they had been classified, and where a reasonable
am ount o f work could be extracted from them , under hum ane conditions and
for the benefit o f society. The teacher and the am ateur philanthropist became
su b o rd in a te to th e p hysician, th e ex p ert w ho could classify the m entally
retarded and determ ine the extent of mental retardation, and subsequently the
am o u n t o f instruction required.
The social niches where the m entally disabled could m aintain an existence
were slowly disappearing, and m ore and m ore people were being flushed out
into a strange w orld w here accelerating industrialization and urbanization
m ade them helpless. The m entally retarded were no longer figures o f fun; the
old crude ways were disappearing, succeeded by the m odern, “hum anitarian”
attitude— that they should be kept out o f the way. The result was that pressure
on the institutions increased; and to m ost observers, it appeared that the n u m ­
ber o f the mentally retarded was increasing.25 Craniectom y m eant that the last
hope o f curing the m entally retarded had to be abandoned; b u t other, less dan­
gerous types of surgical intervention still held out the hope th a t the feared
increase in their nu m b er could be checked.
 T he I n stitu tio n s in D en m a rk — C h ristian K e l le r

At th e tu r n o f th e c e n tu ry , th e D an ish in s titu tio n s fo r th e m en ta lly

retarded form ed a small, close-knit com m unity. They had all started out as
privately funded p h ilanthropic organizations, b u t now an increasing part of
their budget was being provided by the state. They form ed a loose organiza­
tion, Abnormvassenet (care o f the abnorm al), w ith the schools and institu­
tions for the deaf and blind, b u t there was very little cooperation w ith the
psychiatric institutions, w hich had m uch closer ties to the regular hospitals—
and m uch higher prestige w ith in the m edical com m unity.
The in stitu tio n s for the m entally retarded were slowly being secularized
and professionalized; physicians were gaining ascendancy as experts, while
the philanthropic clergym en an d the far-too-optim istic educators were being
relegated to m in o r roles. N evertheless, fo r a long tim e these in stitu tio n s
retained an old-fashioned, nonprofessional air com pared to the regular m ed­
ical w orld. Leadership o f th e institutions ten d ed to ru n in families in a rather
feudal way. T he K eller fam ily is a good exam ple o f th is: th e fa th e r and
founder, Johan Keller, a p h ila n th ro p ic clergym an, had established in stitu ­
tions for th e m entally retard ed , the “K eller-institutions,” w hich later were
m oved to Ju tla n d , w h e re th e larg e m o d e r n in s titu tio n B reg n in g e was
founded. W hen he died, th e in stitutions, at th a t tim e still officially private
property, were divided up a m o n g his family, w ith the m ain responsibility
resting w ith his son, P ro fesso r C h ristia n Keller, w ho was to becom e the
acknowledged leader in the field in D enm ark. O ther sons and relatives were
pu t in charge of m inor in stitu tio n s. W ith these strong family ties in m ind, it
was p e rh a p s n o t s u rp ris in g th a t C h ristia n Keller re m a in e d a convinced
hereditarian all his life.26
T h o u g h these in stitu tio n s rem ain ed isolated from th e regular hospital
w orld and the centers o f m edical research in D enm ark, close links to similar
institutions in other countries were m aintained. There was w idespread coop­
eration betw een the different Scandinavian institutions b u t also m uch con­
tact w ith in stitu tio n s in o th e r co u n tries. In m any places, B regninge was
regarded as a m odel in stitu tio n , and international visitors were frequent.
The D an ish in stitu tio n s w ere co n fro n ted directly w ith th e pro b lem of
asexualization in 1897, w hen a group o f doctors from Elwyn, headed by Dr.
Barr, circulated a questio n n aire o n asexualization,27 addressed to sixty-one
in stitu tio n s in the U nited States and E urope, including th e Scandinavian
countries:
 1. In what proportion of the inmates of your institution do you consider procre­
ation advisable?
2. In what proportion of the inmates of your institution do you consider procre­
ation possible?
3. What would be the probable effect of asexualization upon their mental and
moral condition?
4. What effect upon their physical condition?
5. What operation would you advise upon a male— removal of the testes, ligation
of the cord, or ligation of the vas deferens?
6. What operation would you advise upon females?
7. At what age would the operation be most effective?
8. Have you had practical clinical experience in this matter?
9. Should a state law be enacted to legalize this operation? If so, what would you
suggest in regard to such a law?28

U nfortunately, only twelve in stitu tio n s resp o n ded, three E uropean and no
Scandinavian. W hen C hristian Keller chose to com m ent on this reaction some
years later in a short review of Barr’s book M ental Illness and Social Policy, he
suggested that one o f the reasons for the p o o r response was that Europe did
not have experience with operative asexualizations on a larger scale, but he also
considered the possibility that Europeans were m uch m ore reticent toward
asexualization and sexuality in general than the Americans:

The American reasoning— that the already existing mentally retarded cannot be cured,
and that all effort therefore should be directed towards inhibiting the production of a
new generation of the mentally retarded— can probably obtain general approval in
Europe. But the chosen road leaves the Europeans wondering and doubting, as long as
one does not realize, that the American institutions to a large degree are dominated by
“moral imbeciles” either with or without a defect in intelligence. With regard to the
mentally retarded according to European usage, confinement— eventually for life—
should be enough. Their role in the procreation of the race is not so im portant that it
justifies the radical American therapy. We can get through with less.29

This negative reaction from the leading representative o f the Danish institutions
apparently caused some consternation on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Keller was answered by Dr. S. D. Risley in the Journal o f Psycho-Asthenics, and in
an editorial by Barr in the sam e issue.30 Barr described his experience with
eighty-eight cases of emasculation of the m entally disabled patients: violent and
dangerous individuals became mild and docile; for the epileptics, seizures were
considerably reduced; sexual “perversions”— n o t specified— disappeared, and
sexuality as such was m uch reduced— obviously a good thing. Again, w ithout
using the w ord eugenics, Risley accurately sum m ed up the eugenic p o int o f
view: the mentally retarded and the habitual criminal should not be allowed to
perish according to the law o f natural selection, but m odern altruistic treatm ent
o f these unhappy persons should not include a free license to procreate. Society
m ust be allowed to h inder their u n lim ited propagation which w ould lead to
even m ore degenerate progeny. To this, Risley added that m asturbation, wide­
spread am ong the mentally retarded, was generally recognized as an ethiological
factor in epilepsy, neurasthenia, an d o th e r nervous disorders. He also com ­
m ented darkly on other aspects of the lack of sexual restraint am ong the m en­
tally retarded. Asexualization, w hich in th e case of Elwyn m eant castration,
could remove the troublesom e sexuality and, at the same tim e solve the prob­
lem o f the increasing num ber o f the m entally retarded.
Risley and Barr were quoted extensively by Keller. He him self added only a
brief com m ent on the pessimism and fatalism that characterized the American
p o s itio n , b u t he was n o t im p re sse d a n d certa in ly n o t conv in ced by th e
A m erican arguments.
N e ith e r Keller n o r an ybody else fro m A bnorm vassenet chose to argue
directly against asexualization. Perhaps it was self-evident to him and to others
why intern m en t was preferable to m ore radical measures; or perhaps he and
others were simply reluctant to write about a subject so closely connected with
h u m a n rep ro d u ctio n . Some years later, however, one o f Keller’s colleagues
from Bregninge, H other Scharling, b ro u g h t up the subject again. Scharling
accepted both the eugenic indication for asexualization and the other reason,
the violent and unrepressed sexuality o f som e of the m entally retarded. He did
not com pletely agree with Keller’s ab ru p t rejection o f the American practices,
b u t he could n o t accept surgical c a stra tio n s— th e o p e ra tio n was far from
harm less, particularly w ith regard to w om en (this was before antibiotics and
contem porary statistics bore him out on this point). Furtherm ore, the opera­
tion m ight interfere w ith functions o f the sexual glands other than the m ainte­
nance o f reproductive capacity. Finally, he adm itted to a certain revulsion
tow ard the removal o f a healthy functioning organ.31
Scharling touched o n an im p o rtan t point. Castration, and particularly male
castration, was a subject th at was difficult to approach w ith a rational, enlight­
ened spirit. M any people w ould regard it as m utilation, a barbaric penalty
rather th an a mere medical intervention; in principle, it was equivalent to the
cutting off o f an ear or a finger, only m ore cruel. Later critics o f sterilization
and castration used the same argum ents repeatedly, and always it was male cas­
tratio n th at seemed m ost objectionable.
 Instead, Scharling advocated x-ray treatm ent for women and vasectomy for
men. He found this operation “rather attractive” and no doubt less frightening
than com plete castration. He m aintained that the operation did n o t interfere
with sexuality, but he did not subm it any references as proof. However, it is
unlikely that his main source was Sharp, since Sharp’s argum ent for the opera­
tion was exactly the reverse: th at it did suppress sexuality.
In 1910 a young fem ale p hysician w orking at Bregninge, B odil H jo rt,
obtained a grant that allowed her to visit several o f the more famous American
institutions for the mentally retarded. Elwyn was am ong them, b u t probably
her m ost im p o rta n t visit was to V ineland, M assachusetts, w here H enry H.
G oddard resided.
Several articles by an d a b o u t G o d d a rd su b seq u e n tly a p p e a re d in N yt
Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet. T he subject o f eugenics was n o t m en tio n ed
directly, but heredity was em phasized as the m ost im portant factor in the etiol­
ogy o f mental retardation. Though the usual family trees made their appear­
ance, M endelian factors were n o t yet m entioned. In general, the influence of
G oddard strengthened the scientific approach toward the m entally retarded, as
could be seen in the use of advanced texts (for example, the Binet-Sim on intel­
ligence tests), strong em phasis o n family research, and the in tro d u c tio n o f
advanced pedagogical m ethods. The im portant thing was to accurately deter­
m ine the type and extent o f m ental retardation; then the am ount o f education
could be adjusted accordingly.32
G o d d ard becam e one o f th e au th o rities m ost frequently q u o te d by the
Danish eugenicists during the following decades, w ith the Kallikak family fea­
tu re d prom inently. A lthough his w ork was seriously criticized d u rin g this
period, and he himself adm itted to misgivings about the strong hereditarian
views in his earlier works, no Danish source has been found that reflects this
criticism .33
The subject o f eugenics was brought up again before a m uch broader audi­
ence at the 6th Nordic Conference on the Welfare o f the H andicapped in 1912
in Helsinki. Edwin H edm an, leader o f the Bertula institution for the mentally
retarded near Helsinki, underlined the im portance o f eugenics in his speech.
The Finnish psychiatrist Bjorkm an argued strongly for sterilization as the only
effective prophylactic against the threatening increase in the n u m b er o f the
m entally retarded. At the very end o f the m eeting, a third Finnish speaker,
Professor Georg von Wendt, was scheduled to speak on “A theoretical view of
defective-support, seen in the light o f eugenics.” According to H edm an, hardly
an unbiased observer, the subject seem ed incom prehensible to m ost o f the
audience, in particular to the num erous clergymen and those in the audience
mainly concerned w ith the blind and the deaf. N ot m any registered that von
Wendt, at the end o f his speech, put forw ard a resolution calling for eugenics
legislation, su p p o rt o f eugenic research, and c o m m itm e n t to the eugenic
cause.34
H edm an later did his best to obtain support for this resolution in the pages
o f N y t Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet. H e received a negative reaction from
Sweden. The leader o f the Swedish delegation did n o t reject eugenics outright;
instead he opposed the resolution for m ore formal reasons: this was outside the
scope o f the meeting, th e participants had not been chosen for such a purpose,
etc. H edm an did receive an enthusiastic reply from Bodil H jort, but not the
m uch m ore im portant endorsem ent o f Professor Keller, w ho for the m om ent
rem ained silent on th e subject.35
There is no explanation for the strong interest in eugenics in Finland, which
at that tim e enjoyed sem i-autonom ous status as a Russian principate. It is per­
haps im p o rta n t th at all the advocates o f eugenics belonged to the Swedish­
speaking m inority.36 In 1915 H edm an described eugenic operations that had
been carried out at B ertula since 1912. The operations were vasectomies, per­
form ed o n male inm ates; the purpose o f the operation was sterilization as well
as a reduction o f sexuality, just as originally recom m ended by Dr. Sharp.37
The p e rio d 1911-12 can be reg ard ed as th e first b rea k th ro u g h for the
eugenic ideas in D enm ark. Apart from the meeting in Helsinki and the fresh
impulses that Bodil H jo rt brought to the institutions for the mentally retarded,
the first Danish book o n the subject appeared in 1912. This was De Velbarne og
de Belastede, a slim tract by the dentist Alfred Bramsen, whose earlier produc­
tion included sim ilar w orks on correct diet and o n the correct m eth o d of
chewing. In 1913 A ugust Forel’s The Sexual Question, which also introduced
the concept o f eugenics, was translated.38
W hat was m ost im p o rta n t was p ro b ab ly th a t th e an th ro p o lo g ist Soren
H ansen, at that tim e pro m o ted to chairm an o f the D anish anthropological
com m ittee, particip ated in the First In ternational Eugenics Conference and
returned a convinced eugenicist. From then on, he becam e almost a one-m an
eugenics m ovem ent. H e gave interviews, lectured, and wrote, both to the spe­
cialist periodicals a n d th e daily new spapers.39 H is w ritings touched on all
aspects o f hum an heredity, population science, and eugenics. He consistently
cam paigned for m ore scientific research into hum an heredity; among the pro­
jects he w anted su p p o rt for was, naturally enough, his own anthropological
laboratory, a collection o f anthropological and genetic data that he had been
accum ulating and th a t he im agined w ould one day grow into a perm anent
general registration o f all hereditary afflictions. (This goal was finally achieved
when the Institute o f H um an Genetics was founded in 1938 under the leader­
ship o f Tage Kemp.40)
W hen co n sid erin g th e eugenic m eth o d s th a t sh o u ld be applied, Soren
Hansen was m uch less consistent. In some o f his earliest writings on the sub­
ject he seemed to favor sterilization— but in other contributions he pulled back
and found it was still prem ature to consider this remedy. In the same way, he
som etim es seem ed to favor eugenically based restrictions on m arriage, then
later argued that m arriage laws o f this kind so easily could be circumvented
that the eugenic effect was negligible. (The subject tu rn ed up in 1911 when the
Interscandinavian M arriage Com mission actually introduced the official use of
the concept of eugenics in its very cautious recom m endations.41)
A persistent motive in Soren H ansen’s w riting was the declining birthrate.
Since this decline took place am ong the best-educated and m ost intelligent
groups, even a sm all decrease in th e p o p u la tio n m ig h t co n stitu te a large
decrease in its quality. For this reason, he also opposed any kind o f birth con­
trol and even argued that the use and dissem ination o f contraceptive devices
and m ethods should be legally restricted.42
In 1915, a supporter o f eugenics, the educator Vilhelm Rasmussen, entered
the Danish Parliam ent. He was a m em ber of the Social Dem ocrats, but in tem ­
p er and conviction seem ed closer to the radicals w ho had gathered around
Georg Brandes at the end o f the nineteenth century. He espoused a num ber of
slightly outdated ideas like Darwinism and atheism and m ust have been som e­
thing of an em barrassm ent to the form er radicals who, at this m om ent, were
leading the governm ent (Brandes’s brother was secretary o f finance). Vilhelm
Rasmussen was bright and had very advanced ideas, b u t unfortunately not very
m uch com m on sense. He repeatedly annoyed his parliam entary colleagues, lec­
turing, pontificating, and digressing during the yearly budgetary debates. In
him , eugenics had gained a spokesman, but perhaps n o t a very effective lobby­
ist.43
Nineteen-fifteen was also the year when H edm an again brought up the sub­
ject o f eugenics in the pages of N yt Tidsskrift for Abnormvcesenet by announcing
that he had perform ed several vasectomies since 1912. He proceeded to prod
and pressure his Danish colleagues, particularly Keller, to declare themselves
for eugenics. There is evidence that, during this period, Keller was becoming
convinced of the benefits o f eugenics, but in public he rem ained silent.44
Two groups o f patients particularly interested Keller. O ne was the dangerous
and violent, sexually aggressive male, the other the female counterpart, the sex­
ually irresponsible, prom iscuous female. These two groups corresponded very
well to the two types o f surgical therapy that later were included in the Danish
law o f 1929. Males becam e the m ain target o f castration, while females pre­
dom inated in the group that was sterilized. For the latter group, one often gets
the im pression that this behavior in itself becam e one of the indications of
mental deficiency; that poor and ignorant females ran a greater risk o f being
com m itted if they gave birth to too m any illegitimate children o r in other ways
proved sexually active.
These two groups often ranged in the upper intellectual scale o f m ental defi­
ciency. They were too active an d too norm al to be kept under strict supervision
in a closed section o f an in stitu tio n , and if they were placed in open wards,
they very often ran away and caused trouble, each in their fashion. Keller found
the solution to the problem: an island, not too big and n o t too small, would
accom m odate each o f these groups o f troublem akers. Here they could walk
freely am ong the surroundings, yet it was impossible to get away. He succeeded
in securing such an island for the males in 1910 b u t was not able to obtain a
similar island for the females until 1920, and, by that time, he had abandoned
the idea that this or any other k in d o f isolation could be regarded as an alterna­
tive to castration and sterilization.45
Apart from these special categories of inmates, the biggest problem s for the
institutions were overcrowding and lack of space. So, beside the m ore distant ide­
alistic goals o f eugenics— reduction of the num ber o f the mentally retarded and
general im provem ent o f the p o p u latio n — the surgical solution offered some
immediate advantages to the institutions, including the possibility of releasing
some of the inmates or at least relaxing the strict and expensive controls.
In 1917 Keller chose to translate a lecture by the famous W alter Fernald,
superintendent of the M assachusetts School for the Feeble-Minded. He painted
a dism al picture o f the n u m b e r o f paupers, prostitutes, and crim inals that
could be characterized as the m entally retarded. To him, it was indisputable
th at the m ajority of the m entally retarded had inherited their defects— and
they would go on multiplying, pam pered and protected in our civilized society,
if they were not segregated and ultim ately sterilized.
This was, o f course, the standard type of eugenic argum ent, n o t very differ­
ent from the argum ents o f Barr an d Risley in 1906. But this tim e Keller did not
dismiss it w ith a few adverse rem arks; he just let it stand. O ne o f the conse­
quences— perhaps not quite u nintended— was th a t several people, including
K. K. Steincke, took it to be Keller’s own opinion.46
Then, in 1918, the leader o f one o f the smaller provincial institutions asked
w hether he was allowed to sterilize one of the inm ates for eugenic reasons. The
application was rejected. According to the authorities, this kind o f operation
could not be regarded as a norm al therapeutic procedure, and it could not be
allowed w ithout special legislation. W ith this decision, D enm ark joined the
m ajority of the countries that had considered the question o f eugenic steriliza­
tion. Only in some o f the Swiss cantons was it accepted that eugenic steriliza­
tions and castrations could be regarded as a part o f the do cto r’s individual
responsibility. It was w ith this background that in 1920 C hristian Keller for­
w arded his a p p licatio n : o n b eh alf o f all th e in stitu tio n s for the m entally
retarded, he asked th at an expert com m ission be assem bled to consider the
question of their sterilization.47

W ilhelm J o h a n n sen

W ilhelm Johannsen was not only the leading Danish expert in genetics, he
was one of the principal architects o f the new M endelian genetics that arose
after the rediscovery o f M endel’s works at the tu rn o f the century. Famous all
over the world for his w ork on the pure lines o f the brow n bean, he also coined
the expressions gene, genotype, and phenotype.
In his book, Arvelighed i Historisk og Eksperimentel Belysning (Heredity in
historical and experim ental light), published in 1917, Johannsen devoted a full
chapter, forty pages, to the subject o f eugenics. In the historical introduction,
he m entioned Plato and his utopian eugenics, and he did n o t hide his distaste
for the idea o f “h u m an stockbreeding plans w ith systematic control, fraudu­
lently organized m arriage lottery, ab o rtio n and exposure as eugenic m ea­
sures— dreamers and fanatics from the prohibition and eugenics movements o f
our own period can see themselves as in a mirror.”48
This negative attitu d e also pervaded the chapter th at dealt directly w ith
eugenics. Johannsen em phasized the fact th at eugenic ideas had developed
before the advent o f m odern genetics. For that reason the eugenic literature
was full o f outdated concepts such as stigmata, atavism, telegony, Lamarckian
inheritance, and, n o t the least, the expressions degeneration and degenerate.
He showed that the use o f these term s could be traced back to M orel’s theories
and sim ilar sources. Their use was extremely subjective and often im plied a
doubtful value judgm ent, and the application of these term s was particularly
inap p ro p riate w hen h u m an s were com pared to d o m esticated anim als and
plants. In that type o f com parison— a favorite w ith m any eugenicists— the
term degenerate was used both to designate the supposedly weak and inferior
hum an and organism (anim al or plant) that had reverted from domesticated to
the natural form — that is, in m ost respects, the superior organism .49
Johannsen m ade a distinction betw een M endelian eugenics and w hat he
called G alton eugenics, the eugenics o f Pearson and his biom etrical school.
W hen Johannsen published his w ork on beans, dem onstrating th at a stable
genotype can correspond to a con tin u o u s variation in phenotype, Pearson
regarded it as a personal insult an d published a violent rejection o f the work.
Furtherm ore, w hen Johannsen visited England and asked to see Pearson, he
received an arrogant reply. So Johannsen had no particular reason to be gentle
in his criticism o f Pearson an d his colleagues w hen he provided several exam­
ples o f how flawed argum ents h ad led them to false conclusions. According to
Johannsen, their use of sophisticated statistical techniques was meaningless as
long as the data were collected on the basis o f faulty and outdated ideas of
inheritance. He also found Pearson’s eugenic argum ents callous in the extreme:
“The whole idea o f heredity is w rong . . . there is no reason to assume that the
weak and the sickly would represent the genetically inferior stock— they might
be individuals possessing the sam e value as children from higher social classes,
who are better cared for.”50
B ut J o h a n n se n also e x p re sse d sk e p tic ism to w ard th e a ttitu d e o f th e
M endelian eugenicists. He especially criticized Charles D avenport for trying to
fit all the different kinds o f pathological sym ptom s into sim ple patterns of
dom inant or recessive inheritance. Since these symptoms, in m ost cases, could
be regarded as an interaction betw een the genotype and the surrounding con­
ditions, they should not autom atically be treated as hereditary units or unit-
characters. The distinction betw een genotype and phenotype provided his
m ain argum ents against eugenics. The genotype could n o t always be derived
from the phenotype, not even in cases where one looked at only a single set of
characters with a simple p attern o f inheritance. How m uch m ore difficult then
to make estimates o f the genotype, when so little was known o f hum an genetics
in general and o f the inheritance o f m ental illness in particular.51
And then there m ight be cases o f false inheritance: transfer o f some patho­
logical trait in a m anner that m im icked true heredity but in reality represented
a completely different m echanism . This was one o f Johannsen’s favorite sub­
jects, and for several pages he tried to dem onstrate that the familiar examples
of the transfer of alcoholism in families and the degeneration o f family lines
due to alcoholism represented instances o f false inheritance.52
Johannsen’s argum ents were only partly technical. In m any cases he applied
com m on sense argum ents, appealing to the reader’s ow n experiences from
daily life. And he tried to m ake even the m ore technical argum ents easy to
understand by illustrative examples, often from plant physiology, his original
specialty:
 various hereditary m alform ations in some poppies can be avoided if the earth is
changed for the young plants . . . we are here contem plating a sensitive period d u r­
ing the developm ent where the surrounding conditions have a decisive influence
on the phenotype acquired by the individual. A closer investigation of these m at­
ters does not exist for hum ans, b u t we are approaching the problem o f education.53

Johannsen was very m uch against all attem pts to favor the propagation of
the “better, healthier, nobler— in short, ideal m em bers o f hum anity. But what
is the ideal? W ho shall be responsible for the decision? The complexity o f soci­
ety makes it im possible th at one single h u m an type should be the best. We
need all different types o f humanity.”54
This was w hat he called positive eugenics. He was m ore inclined to accept
negative eugenics, where th e procreation o f individuals w ith strongly flawed
genotypes was inhibited. But he emphasized th at it would be very difficult and
com plicated to carry this o u t in a responsible fashion. He certainly did not
approve o f “th e h ap h azard surgical ste riliz a tio n m e th o d s” applied in the
United States:

There can be no doubt that negative eugenics has a future. T hat will come when
first the medical profession accepts the responsibility and tries to cover all the dif­
ferent aspects. But a general legislation will easily be prem ature and might cause
much unhappiness and injustice. Legitimate individual rights are here irrevocably
opposed to the interests o f society as a whole.55

It is te m p tin g to cast Jo h an n sen as th e c h ie f adversary o f eugenics in

D enm ark because o f his polemics against the eugenicists. Yet, as we have seen,
he was not opposed to eugenics as a whole b u t to the part o f eugenics that was
founded o n w rong or o u td ated ideas. Thus, w hen he joined the Perm anent
In tern atio n al C om m issio n on Eugenics in 1923, his m em bership was n o t
inconsistent w ith his views. O ne o f the m ost active m em bers o f the com m is­
sion, the N o rw eg ian Jon A lfred M joen, celeb rated it as a great triu m p h .
A cco rd in g to a rev iew o f S c a n d in a v ia n e u g e n ic s w r itte n by M jo e n in
Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte in 1930, Johannsen experienced a complete
conversion, an d from then on defended eugenics with the same zeal as he had
attacked it.56 M joen is n o t a particularly truthful or reliable witness, and the
written sources certainly give no indication o f this sudden conversion.
W hat we do know is th at in these years Johannsen becam e m ore involved
w ith eugenics an d hum an genetics. In 1922 he assum ed responsibility for a
special governm ent grant th at would cover the prelim inary investigation of
the possibility o f establishing D anish research in “hum an genetics and eugen­
ics.”57 The first example of D anish eugenics legislation, the m arriage law, was
carried through in 1922, and o th e r form s o f eugenics legislation were being
considered. In 1924 Johannsen actually was asked to join the com m ission on
castration and sterilization, and accepted. W ith this developm ent in m ind, it
w as a cle a r a d v a n ta g e to h av e a D a n ish m e m b e r o f th e I n te r n a tio n a l
Com m ission on Eugenics, and Johannsen was the obvious choice.
In Johannsen’s w ritings o n eugenics in the 1920s he hardly appears as a
zealot for the cause. He toned dow n his criticism of the biom etrical school b u t
devoted some effort to dem onstrating how little effect even very strict selection
w ould have on recessive genetic diseases. He still rejected w hat he called posi­
tive eugenics b u t found negative eugenics acceptable, when it was applied with
caution.58 The same attitude is apparent in his contributions to the negotia­
tions o f the com m ission on castration and sterilization.59

D a n ish G e n e t ic is t s an d E u g en ics

Several other Danish scientists were interested in genetics and eugenics. The
pathologist O luf Thom sen introduced hum an genetics into the medical c u r­
ric u lu m an d also did research in to th e in h e rita n c e o f b lo o d types. A fter
Johannsen’s death, T hom sen to o k over the responsibility for the university
g ran t set up to establish research in genetics and eugenics in D enm ark. He
becam e deeply involved in the negotiations w ith the Rockefeller Foundation
that eventually led to the establishm ent o f the University Institute o f H um an
G enetics in 1938. It was also T h o m sen who, earlier, had h an dpicked Tage
Kemp as the prospective leader o f Danish research into hum an genetics. The
psychiatrist August W im m er was am ong the first to introduce the concept of
eugenics in Denm ark, but n o t w ith o u t a certain skepticism; and he attem pted
M endelian analysis of m ental illnesses as early as 1920.60 In 1918 and 1922 he
re p re s e n te d D e n m a rk in th e P e rm a n e n t I n te rn a tio n a l C o m m issio n on
E u g en ics. B oth T h o m s e n a n d W im m e r w ere c o n v in c e d h e re d ita r ia n s .
T hom sen was m uch im pressed by th e w orks o f the G erm an crim inologist
Johannes Lange, but both were initially skeptical about eugenics. O n the steril­
ization com mission, W im m er— like Johannsen— seems to have been a m o d er­
ating influence; b u t later he cam e out strongly in favor o f eugenic measures,
and Thom sen also argued in favor o f eugenics at the beginning of the 1930s.
W im m er played an im portant role as a m em ber of the medico-legal council,
where he was able to influence the revision o f the sterilization legislation in
1935 as well as participate in the decisions on individual sterilization cases.
 After Johannsen’s death, the mycologist 0 iv in d Winge was regarded as the
leading Danish geneticist. He came o u t in favor of eugenics in the 1930s, w hen
the Danish sterilization law was revised, but his textbook and other publica­
tions contained very little about h u m an genetics and eugenics.61
The psychiatrist Jens Christian Sm ith should also be mentioned. He cooper­
ated w ith Johannsen in a short paper on the connection between alcohol and
heredity, a paper th at argued against the widespread belief in hereditary degen­
eration caused by alcohol. The paper did not directly attack eugenics, b u t it
attacked people like A ugust Forel an d Agnes Blum , w ho were w ell-know n
eugenicists. Considering the well-established connection between the p ropa­
ganda for teetotalism, prohibition, and eugenics, this review could be regarded
as another, m ore oblique attack against the exaggerated propaganda for eugen­
ics, but not against the eugenic principle itself. Smith was also responsible for
the first genetic investigation o f tw ins in D en m ark and published several
papers on the inheritance o f m ental illnesses. Later he becam e the genetic
expert on a special board that ruled o n sterilization o f the mentally retarded, a
pow erfu l p o sitio n w here he becam e responsible for the m ajor p o rtio n o f
eugenic sterilizations in Denm ark in the years p rior to World War II. From his
surveys of these sterilizations it was clear that eugenic considerations played a
m ajo r role, and he also argued for the in tro d u ction o f a m ore undisguised
eu g en ic in d ic a tio n in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e s te riliz a tio n o f th e m e n ta lly
retarded. Though Sm ith never seems to have been involved in the political side
o f th e eugenics issue, it was he, together with the institutional leaders, who
shaped the eugenics policy that would be carried out w ithin the fram ework o f
the law o f 1934 concerning the m entally retarded.62

K. K. Steincke, the P o litician

The professionalization o f the institutions was only one example o f a gen­

eral trend in the social sector, where the philanthropist, the am ateur busybody,
and do-gooder— often w ith ecclesiastical affiliations— gave way to the profes­
sionals: the physicians, o f course, b u t also the professional reformer, planner,
and adm inistrator. As noted, it was a change that took place at a different pace
in different parts o f the social system; and there were great differences between
the Scandinavian countries, with D enm ark as the m ost secularized, and— for
obvious geographical reasons— the m ost centralized.
K. K. Steincke was one of the new breed o f adm inistrators. As a young m an,
he had joined the Social Democrats w hen they were still regarded as a party o f
uncouth trade unionists. He was one o f the few intellectuals in the party at that
time, but unlike m ost o f them , he always identified w ith the reformist wing of
the party. W hen he obtained his law degree, he started out by adm inistering
municipal p o o r relief and m ade a spectacular career at a tim e when m em ber­
ship in the Social D em ocrats still constituted a handicap for a civil servant. The
Byzantine system o f poor relief, with its num erous different boards and its ju n ­
gle o f paragraphs, m ade a strong im pression on him , and in 1920 he single-
handedly produced a blueprint for a general stream lining and rationalization
of the social sector, Fremtidens Forsergelsesvcesen (Social relief of the future), in
reality, a general outline of the coming welfare state.63
Of the 200 pages that constituted the book, twenty-eight pages were devoted
to eugenics. A nd Steincke was not a recent convert to the cause. He was a hered-
ita ria n f ro m th e b e g in n in g , p o n tif ic a tin g a b o u t p o p u la tio n th e o ry ,
M althusianism, and the dangers of differential reproduction, in Socialisten, the
monthly review for socialist intellectuals. He believed that the duty o f the more
intelligent p art o f the population— a group in which he definitely included him ­
self—was to produce as m uch progeny as reasonably possible, at least m ore than
the average two children which he believed to be a bane to civilized society.
Practicing w hat he preached, he co n su lted a specialist, the psychiatrist
August W im m er, before his own m arriage in 1907. He was w orried about a
neurasthenic strain running in his own family; but W immer, sensibly enough,
advised him to go on w ith the marriage. The sound peasant stock of his fiancee
would m ore than com pensate for his own nervous frailties. So Steincke m ar­
ried and subsequently went on to father five children, doing his part against the
dangers o f differential reproduction.64
The m o st im p o rta n t foreign source for S teincke’s book was G eza von
Hoffman’s Die Rassenhygiene in den Vereignigten Staaten von Nordamerika, a
glowing recom m endation o f American eugenic practices. He also quoted Soren
Hansen’s Retten og Racehygiejnen (Eugenics and law) from Denmark; and he -
quoted extensively from Biologiske Causerier (Biological essays) by the Swedish
author R obert Larsson, an entertaining little book, translated into Danish in
1918, th at popularized m ost of the recent advances in genetics but also came
down firm ly on the side of eugenics.65
But Steincke was also strongly influenced by W ilhelm Johannsen. A large
part of the chapter on eugenics is simply a paraphrase of Johannsen’s negative
views on D arw inian selection, his rejection o f Lamarckian inheritance, his crit­
icism o f the prevailing m yths regarding th e connection between alcoholism
and heredity, and his account of M endelian genetics and the fundam ental dif­
ference betw een genotype and phenotype. N o w onder this chapter m et with
Johannsen’s approval.
 Steincke also p arap h rased m any o f Joh an n sen’s critical rem arks against
eugenics. Still he made no attem pt to reconcile the violently conflicting views
o f Johannsen and Geza von H offm an and the other eugenicists he quoted. He
started by introducing the concept o f eugenics and the A merican experience,
echoing the views o f von H offm an. H followed with a remark to the effect that
there is som e truth in this, b u t it m ight be exaggerated, and then switched to
the views o f Johannsen. T h e effect is th a t Steincke, after th e first reading,
appears m oderate and cautious, critical tow ard the extreme eugenicists, but
nevertheless convinced th at eugenic measures will be im portant and necessary.
Undoubtedly, this was how Steincke saw himself, but the overall result was an
im pressive piece o f eugenic propaganda. O nly a close reading reveals th at
Steincke in fact accepted the eugenic premises completely, a position very far
from Johannsen’s skepticism.
Steincke and most of th e Danish followers o f eugenics can be regarded as
m oderate o r “reform ” eugenicists, since they openly stated th at they disap­
proved o f the m ore violent eugenics propaganda and o f the early A m erican
practice of sterilization, particularly as it was done in California. But when we
take a closer look at their views— the belief in horror stories about the “Jukes”
and the “Kallikaks,” the acceptance of the dangers of differential reproduction,
and their uncritical hereditarianism — they do not appear particularly moderate.
However, Steincke differed from the m ore extreme eugenicists in one way.
He did not regard eugenics as an alternative to social relief and social legisla­
tion. Rather, he regarded the two concepts as complementary. Just to abandon
the unfit and helpless w ould be callous; allowing them to breed unhindered
w ould be folly— b u t eugenics solved the problem . You could afford to be
hum ane and generous tow ard them , feed them and clothe them , as long as
eugenic m easures ensured th a t they did not increase in num ber. Steincke was a
self-proclaimed anti-D arw inist, m ore or less because he identified Darwinism
with social Darwinism; but though he did n o t accept the social D arw inist con­
clusion that selection should be allowed to proceed unhindered by social legis­
lation, it appears that he accepted the prem ise that social relief in itself was
dysgenic, harm ful for future populations.
Steincke also differed from the extremists in his view on the value o f eugenic
propaganda:

Now when some people regret that the great part o f the population is too ignorant to
be interested in eugenics, then I am tempted to regard it as a big advantage. For could
anything be m ore fatal to both a responsible effectuation of the sensible part o f these
ideas (the practice steps tow ard future race im provem ent) and to m aintaining a
 healthy outlook am ong the population, with conservation o f the ethical values— than
if large segments of the population became infatuated with eugenics.
If we shall advance in a responsible way, it has to be on an irreproachable scien­
tific basis, free from em otions, agitation and stockbreeding argum ents; whereas
these ideas, freely dissem inated and discussed in newspapers and at public m eet­
ings, doubtless w ould have a brutalizing effect, when the prevailing intellectual
level of the population is taken into consideration.66

These sentim ents were n o t uncom m on at the time, yet it is surprising to find
them expressed by a Social D em ocrat and politician. T hough Steincke was a
great seeker o f publicity for himself, he m aintained, through his long political
career, that the m ajority o f the population was stupid and ignorant, and that
the mass media were sensational and corrupting. This attitude also contained a
strong puritanical elem ent. Interference w ith reproduction was still, in 1920, a
delicate matter, not som ething to be bandied about in the press and on every
street corner. This p u ritanism also influenced his attitude toward eugenics and
sterilization. If he disapproved of sexual license, then he was revolted by “the
bestial scenes that take place in the m ental hospitals and the asylums” as well as
the “horrible and saddening examples o f the unlim ited breeding that takes
place am ong the inferior strata.”
The revolting acts an d th eir equally revolting consequences were fused
together in an em otional argum ent for eugenics. This extrem e revulsion at the
thought o f the sexual activity of the m entally retarded has already been m en­
tioned in connection w ith the first American castrations. Sentim ents similar to
Steincke’s can be found am ong his fellow eugenicists and in many other con­
tem porary sources. In these cases, sterilization, the surgeon’s knife, could not
be regarded as in h u m a n ity ; tru e in h u m a n ity w o uld be to disregard “the
unhappy descendants . . . allowing all kinds o f irresponsible and defective indi­
viduals to propagate freely.. . . ”67
Eugenics was necessary , b u t h a d to be left to th e ex p erts. T h erefore,
Steincke’s final suggestion was that a special com m ission should be set up con­
sisting o f representatives o f the various institutions— the medical, legal, and
genetic experts. This idea was not new; similar suggestions had been p u t for­
ward since 1915 by Vilhelm Rasmussen. But Steincke carried m ore weight than
Rasmussen, both w ithin the Social D em ocratic Party and in general; and he
had also chosen a m ore opportune m om ent. In 1920 Keller had forwarded an
official proposal, sim ilar to Steincke’s, on behalf of the D anish institutions for
the m entally retarded; in th at same year, radical surgical solutions to social
problems were p u t forw ard from another front.
 T he W o m en ’s P etitio n

In his application, Keller had not specified the exact character o f the asexu­
alization operation b u t left it to the medical experts. While this application was
still pending, the parliam ent received a petition, signed by m ore than 100,000
people from the W omen’s N ational Council w hich was m uch concerned with
the increase in the num ber of sexual offenses.
W hether, as these wom en claimed, there h ad been an actual increase in sex­
ual offenses is still unclear; perhaps only th e n u m b er of reported cases was
increasing as society became m ore civilized an d genteel. But the distinction
between the dangerous, violent sexual offender and more harmless exhibition­
ist types was hopelessly confused in the subsequent discussion. The women
regarded the offenders, in p articular the recidivists, as a perpetual threat to
women and children, and they w anted som ething done about it. They were not
interested in draconian or spiteful solutions, for they were not o u t for revenge
but w anted som ething that could neutralize the offenders perm anently; here,
castration was m entioned as an alternative to in ternm ent for life.68
It was still a daring thing for a woman to give public support to a demand
for asexualization, and those w ho signed the petition were not extremists and
fanatics, but m em bers of the solidly middle-class core o f the Danish women’s
movement. Some physicians— such as the prison doctor Georg C. Schroder—
also supported them , but the public prosecutor August Goll had grave reserva­
tio n s, as did o th e r legal ex p erts. The w hole p ro b lem was referred to the
comm ission on crim inal law reform (the third since 1905). This commission
again asked for advice from the medico-legal council (which counted August
W im m er am ong its members); it was told that only castration w ould be of any
use tow ard sexual offenders, a n d th at the u npredictable side effects of this
operation m ade the medical experts regard it in a very negative light.
Consequently, the com m ission gave a negative reply. It could n o t recom ­
m end castration as a penalty or as a substitute for a penalty. In his thoughtful
review of the problem , August Goll left a door open. The com m ission had not
ruled out castration in all cases; it had just rejected it as a part o f criminal law.
Use of this and other operations in a medical and social fram ew ork was not
excluded by the decision.69
This same year, 1923, actually saw the first D anish example o f eugenics leg­
islation. The m entally retarded and the seriously mentally ill w ould have to
obtain perm ission from the m inister of justice in order to marry. Though the
law could be seen as an inducem ent to live together w ithout a m arriage license,
still a very serious thing at that tim e, there were n o t m any protests. If any party
could be regarded as the eugenics party, it was the Social Democrats, b u t the
governm ent accepted the recom m endations o f the experts.

" S o cia l M e a s u r e s " a n d "D e g e n e r a t iv e ly D isp o se d I n d iv id u a ls "

In 1924 the first Social D em ocratic governm ent took office. The secretary
o f justice was K. K. Steincke, and he soon succeeded in putting together a
com m ission in accordance w ith the principles he had outlined in 1920. The
com m ission was to consider C hristian Keller’s request regarding sterilization
o f the m entally retarded, as well as the castration of certain groups o f sexual
offenders.
As Steincke had suggested in 1920, the commission included physicians, sci­
entists, an d legal experts. W ilhelm Johannsen represented the legal expertise
to g e th e r w ith the p sychiatrist A ugust W im m er. C h ristian Keller becam e a
m em ber o f the com mission, and another member, the physician Estrid Hein,
had close links to the W om en’s N ational Council, even though she officially
represented expertise in social insurance. Therefore, both groups that had pres­
sured for radical surgical procedures were represented on the com m ission.
D enm ark’s greatest expert on reproductive endocrinology, the physician Knud
Sand, was not originally a full m em ber o f the com m ission but functioned as its
secretary. He joined the com m ission as a full m em ber when he became a full
professor in forensic science. Along w ith Keller, five m em bers o f the com m is­
sion represented in stitu tio n s concerned w ith various deviant groups. There
were four physicians and four legal experts, including August Goll. The only
politician, and the only m em ber that could be regarded as a layman, was the
m ayor o f Copenhagen, a peaceful, elderly Social D em ocrat who was not likely
to disagree with this awesome collection o f experts. As it turned out, he cer­
tainly h ad fewer misgivings about sterilization than Johannsen and W immer,
the experts in genetics.
The report from the com m ission was finished and published in 1926. Today,
the title o f the re p o rt seem s cu riously euphem istic: Betcenkning Angaende
Sociale Foranstaltninger Overfor Degenerativt Bestemte Personer (Social m ea­
sures tow ard degeneratively predisposed individuals). After all, the subjects
were castration and surgical sterilization, em inently biological forms o f in ter­
vention— which of course could have various social effects. Deliberate dissim u­
lation was probably not intended, but “social” was just a handy, vague phrase
that could be used to cover a variety o f purposes, including those intended by
eugenics. O n the other hand, it was probably intentional that the phrases steril­
ization and castration were not used in th e title.70
 “Degeneratively” could not be considered a very happy choice. It had no
precise m eaning in h u m an genetics. “D egenerate” was used popularly as a
catch-all, covering everything from declining nobility to the mentally retarded,
and very often used to designate unorthodox sexual behavior. In any case, it
was confusing that the commission was considering two very different types of
surgical o p e ra tio n s, w ith very d ifferen t effects, directed against different
groups. The am biguous title o f the report only increased the confusion and
reinforced th e p o p u la r o p in io n th a t all sexual offenders were genetically
afflicted or that all the mentally retarded were potential sexual offenders. It was
Johannsen who argued against using the word “degenerate” and instead had
suggested “degeneratively afflicted.” Initially, this caused more confusion, since
some mem bers of the com m ission took it to m ean th at all carriers o f afflicted
genes should be considered targets o f the legislation; and for the laym an,
“degeneratively” still carried the same connotations as “degenerate.”
M o st o f th e re p o r t co n sisted o f factual in fo rm a tio n . A large sectio n
reviewed the law, proposals, and reports concerning eugenics in o ther coun­
tries. C haracteristically, the D an ish com m ission co u ld draw n o t only on
American or Swiss experience, b u t also on governm ent reports from Norway,
Finland, and Sweden, for D enm ark was the last o f the Scandinavian countries
to consider the sterilization question in detail. In the United States, the survey
o f H arry F. Laughlin in 1922 dem onstrated that the situation there was much
more complicated than described by Geza von H offm ann and other propagan­
dists; several laws had been repealed, found unconstitutional, or been very dif­
ficult to administer.
In the two sections o f the report w ritten by the genetic specialists, Wilhelm
Johannsen reviewed Mendelian genetics in general, and August W immer, the
heredity of m ental illness, including m ental retardation.
Johannsen’s co n trib u tio n contained his usual m ixture o f m oderation and
com m on sense. Again he em phasized the distinction between genotype and
p h en o ty p e , a n d th e consequences for eugenics— th a t m anifest ab n o rm al
individuals could be genetically healthy and, conversely, that seem ingly n o r­
mal and healthy people could be genetically afflicted. He briefly tried to illus­
trate the num erical relationship betw een the afflicted and the carriers of a
recessive disease: if only one in ten th o u san d w as afflicted, carry in g two
copies o f the harm ful gene, then one in one h u n d red w ould be carrying one
copy o f the gene and be norm al an d healthy. T his was in fact a very brief
sum m atio n o f w hat is know n to d ay as the H ardy-W einberg rule, and the
consequences for h u m an genetics h ad been realized by several M endelians,
notably by R. C. P u n n e t in 1917; b u t it was n o t discussed in m o st o f the
contem porary eugenics literature, and it was also absent from the Danish w rit­
ings on eugenics.71 Johannsen concluded: “Calculation o f this type d em o n ­
strates in a disquieting fashion the extent of the genotypical deficiencies in the
population; and it shows the en o rm o u s difficulties inherent in carrying out
eugenic measures. It is one thing to attem pt to change the race, but an entirely
different thing to intern and sterilize people with a degenerative phenotype in
order to keep them from doing any harm to society.”72 So Johannsen did not
rule o u t sterilization b u t em phasized th a t the purely eugenic benefits o f the
operation would be very small.
August W im m er listed the different types of m ental disorders and the type
a n d p a tte rn o f in h e rita n c e th a t th e y follow ed. A ccording to h im a n d his
sources— no references were given— the manic-depressive psychosis followed a
well-defm ed pattern close to the d o m in an t m ode of inheritance. Schizophrenia
exhibited a m uch m ore com plex picture because no direct inheritance from
paren t to progeny could be detected, while uncles, aunts, and siblings often
ex h ibited the disorder. W im m er co n clu d ed th a t schizophrenia show ed an
“extrem ely recessive” m ode o f inheritance. Epileptics, the m entally retarded,
and psychopaths did n o t as groups exhibit well-defined patterns, yet his con­
clusion was th at at least in som e cases these afflictions were in h erited: the
m ajority o f the psychopaths had probably inherited their “defects,” while per­
haps only a small percentage of the epileptic cases observed were hereditary in
character. For the m entally retarded he referred to a Danish survey— probably
the observations o f H. O. W ildenskov that were published in an extended ver­
sion in 1931— where the conclusion h ad been th at about 50 percent o f the
cases were inherited, b u t he also noted that recent G erm an sources gave lower
num bers. For these three groups he concluded that the total am ount o f m ental
illness in the family should be taken into account.
He finished his survey with a cryptic paragraph:

For mental defectives, habitual psychopaths, and epileptics, the limited possibilities
o f a general hereditary prognosis should be evident. But it m ust be emphasized for
these, as for the well-defined disorders, th at estimates over the m ore theoretical
possibilities not in practice have to be decisive or relevant, for example, with regard
to eugenic measures. It is the balanced judgm ent in the concrete cases that m u st be
o f importance. And with the necessary regard for all the individual facts, evaluated
on the basis of our general knowledge o f the laws of heredity, one should in m any
cases be able to reach a decision with such a degree of probability that it should be
justified to use it as a basis for certain eugenic measures, including sterilization if
necessary.73
It is not very d e a r w hat W im m er was trying to say here, or what he m eant by
“theoretical,” “in practice,” and “balanced judgm ent.” But what w orried him
was the lack o f certainty in the genetic prognosis. Should a decision be reached
based o n probabilities and could this be explained to the public? T he only
thing that was clear was that W im m er, after listing all the doubt and all the dif­
ficulties, reluctantly came dow n on the side of an active, negative eugenics, i.e.,
sterilization.
From all these deliberations the commission concluded that w hat it called
“legislation directed towards a general racial im provem ent” was n o t feasible at
the tim e. Sterilization and other types o f eugenic measures directed against the
procreation o f certain classes o f the phenotypically afflicted— it again used the
expression “degeneratively” disposed— would not significantly decrease these
afflictions. O n the other hand, the com m ision held, it should be legitim ate to
sterilize certain groups, including m entally ill persons who were incapable of
raising and educating their progeny under acceptable conditions, progeny that
also had a great probability o f being genetically harm ed:

Such a progeny, badly e q u ip p ed from b irth and equally badly raised, w ould
often be predestined to a dismal existence, a b urden to themselves and to soci­
ety, n o t contributing anything o f value to the com m on good, on the contrary
representing a heavy social load on society, and a reservoir of p rostitution, crim e
and shiftlessness.74

Clearly, in the com m ission’s view, society was better off w ithout these peo­
ple. By suggesting this mixed social and eugenic indication for sterilization, the
comm ission dodged a very im p o rtan t argum ent against eugenic sterilization:
the fact that it was difficult to distinguish w ith any certainty the genetically
sound from people w ith a flawed genotype, a fact th at Johannsen had pointed
out and one that had worried W im m er. Given a purely eugenic indication for
sterilization, it would have been necessary either to lie about the certainty of
the genetic prognosis or to introduce the concept o f probability into the legis­
lation, a difficult thing to explain properly or perhaps even to justify. But now,
instead o f saying that a woman w ould have a 50 percent probability o f giving
birth to m entally retarded children, one could argue in this fashion, following
the commission: this w om an is slightly m entally retarded, shiftless, lazy, and
sexually prom iscuous; clearly, she will be unable to raise the children w ho may
also becom e m entally retarded. In this way eugenic considerations were let in
thro u g h the backdoor, though “legislation directed towards a general racial
im provem ent” was rejected.
 The com m ission suggested further restrictions. Sterilization should be lim ­
ited to people confined to institutions. This was n o t strictly logical, since this
group already was subjected to a fair dose o f control, enough to make procre­
ation a difficult affair. A nd even if pregnancy occasionally occurred at these
places, this was hardly th e group that constituted “a reservoir of prostitution,
crime, an d shiftlessness.” However, w hen sterilization was introduced at the
institutions, supervision and control could be relaxed and the load on institu­
tional resources reduced. Furtherm ore, sterilization o f citizens leading a nor­
mal life w ould have been m uch m ore controversial th an sterilization at these
rem ote places.
The oth er half o f th e same law proposal covered castration. It was suggested
that sexual offenders could be castrated if their sexual disposition was so strong
or so abnorm al that repeated offenses were to be expected, and if they o r their
guardians applied voluntarily. No distinction between violent sexual offenders
and other types, such as homosexuals and exhibitionists, was made in the pro­
posal (and this continued to be the case both in the final text of the law o f 1929
and in the subsequent, revised law o f 1935), and several individuals from this
latter category were sterilized according to the law in the following years. The
proposal distinguished between castration (for sexual offenders) and steriliza­
tion (for social and p artly eugenic reasons), but the public continued to con­
fuse the two concepts. This was not surprising given the preoccupation with
the sexuality of the m entally retarded in the discussion o f eugenics.
It was also proposed that the law was to be regarded as an experimental law,
scheduled to be valid for at most five years before revision. Perhaps for this rea­
son the applications for sterilization h ad to follow a rather complicated route
before a decision could be reached. The secretary o f justice had to give every
case his approval, and, p rior to that, tw o authorities, the medico-legal council
and the d epartm ent o f health, had to give recom m endations. The doctor in
charge o f the institution or the local medical officer had to forward the appli­
cation; and in all cases where the persons to be sterilized could understand the
effect o f the operation, they had to give their consent. If they were unable to
understand it, a special guardian acting o n their behalf had to be appointed.
W ith respect to the indications for sterilization, th at is, the types o f mental
illness and their severity, the text of the law provided no details. O f course the
original report gave som e advice, b u t there was m uch room for interpretation
and only advice was offered, not specific guidelines. In effect, the doctors for­
warding the application, those from the medico-legal council and the health
departm ent, were free to formulate their own rules, w ith the minister o f justice
as the only controlling party.
 The voluntary character of the sterilization or castration operations was not
questioned (neither in the proposal n o r in the definitive law text). This aspect
o f the law was later regarded as one o f the fundam ental differences separating
it from the German law “Zu V erhtitung Erbkranken Nachwuchses” passed in
1933.75 But what does it really m ean that an act is voluntary? Completely free
will is not present when one is in a school, a m ilitary camp, a prison, or a sim i­
lar institution. A person may be asked to make his or her own decisions, b u t if
those decisions are not m ade in accordance with the powers that be, that p er­
son will sooner or later have to face the consequences. And who, in this case
were the people expected to reach such a complicated decision? They were not
even average ignorant laymen, b u t people who were seriously m entally dis­
turb ed or who had m arked difficulties o f com prehension. Nevertheless, they
were expected to stand up to the considerable authority invested in the medical
profession as well as the very real pressures o f their confinement.

P a r lia m en ta r y D e b a tes a n d th e P assin g o f th e S ter iliza tio n L aw

Though the com m ission’s report w ith the proposal for the law appeared in
1926, political complications, unconnected with the problems of eugenics and
s te riliz a tio n , delayed th e fin al a p p ro v a l o f th e law to 1929. T h e Social
D em ocrats stepped down in 1926 and were followed by a governm ent o f the
Agrarian Party, Venstre. This was the last governm ent in D enm ark to represent
the landed interests, and it has generally been regarded as the most reactionary
governm ent in the tw entieth century. But when first the new governm ent had
been established, the progress o f the sterilization and castration law was not
im peded, dem onstrating the bip artisan character o f the issue. As far as the
record shows, the only really convinced eugenicists in the Danish Parliam ent
were K. K. Steincke and Vilhelm Rasmussen, now in opposition, and Steincke
frequently com plained about the lack o f interest in eugenics am ong his fellow
politicians. W hat in particular irritated him was the indifference o f the m em ­
bers o f the Agrarian Party; they especially should know the value of good stock
and sensible breeding. Their indifference was not due, however, to any u n d e r­
lying aversion, and the great m ajority o f the Danish Parliament accepted the
argum ents o f the experts and eventually was convinced.
The debate in the Parliam ent in 1928 shows that the only real opposition
cam e from a very small group w ithin the Conservative Party— led by the young
clergyman Alfred Bindslev. He was one o f the young Conservatives w ho had
g a th e re d a ro u n d th e m o v e m e n t called D et U nge D a n m a rk (T h e Young
D enm ark), and for a period he had been editor o f the movement’s periodical
den N y Tid (The New Times). He was also a popular priest in Copenhagen and
som ething of a society figure. In his attack on th e law, Bindslev succeeded in
touching on a n u m b er o f sore spots:

I w o u ld re c o m m e n d , o n b e h a lf o f a m in o rity w ith in m y ow n p a rty , th a t

Parliam ent n o t approve this legislation because o f th e instinctive aversion that
one experiences tow ards this type o f experim ent, w hicht interferes with the m ost
secret riddles o f life itself; and also because know ledge still has not advanced fur­
th er th an the experim ental stage w ith respect to eugenics. We know to o little
about these things; we have no t yet thoroughly explored the hum an w orld, n o r
the h u m an psyche.76

Bindslev also quoted the statem ent by W im m er ab o u t the limited am ount of

knowledge concerning the different kinds o f m ental illness. And he reserved his
strongest attack for th e part of the law dealing w ith castration.
The m inister o f health and welfare answered th a t the law actually showed
great restraint; it was form ulated as an experim ental law with a lim ited dura­
tion precisely because so little was know n. He stated emphatically that it could
not be regarded as a eugenics law, a law that used eugenic indications for steril­
ization. Several o th er speakers used the same argum ent. A similar interpreta­
tion was offered by August Goll, the director o f public prosecutions who had
been a m em ber o f th e com m ission.77
It was true that the commission had em phasized that “legislation directed
toward a general racial im provem ent” was not feasible at the m om ent. N or did
the word “eugenic” appear in the text o f the law. It was not directly stated in
the law that people could be sterilized for eugenic reasons; instead, the follow­
ing w ords w ere u sed: “ . . . w here su p p re ssio n o f re p ro d u c tio n m u st be
regarded as being o f great im portance to society.” Certainly, however, consider­
ations about the heredity of various m ental illnesses were very m uch part of
the law, and when we look at the way it was carried out, it m ust be regarded as
a eugenics law. This was definitely the im pression o f Knud Sand in 1935 when
he reviewed the cases o f sterilization perform ed according to the law o f 1929.
He stated .xplicitly th a t all decisions regarding sterilization had been based on
three tyj ; of considerations: eugenic, social (the potential benefits for soci­
ety), and individual (potential advantages for the person involved— for exam­
ple, release from confinem ent). Tage Kemp arrived at similar conclusions when
he discussed the law in 1933.78 W hat was rem arkable was that some o f the peo­
ple that had put together the text o f the law disagreed am ong themselves about
the interpretation. But the im portance of this disagreem ent m ust n o t be exag­
gerated; it was about the m eaning o f words, notably the word “eugenic,” not
about w hat actually could be done according to the law. The vagueness o f the
law’s text may not have been deliberate, b u t it certainly assisted in making the
law acceptable to the m ajority in 1929.
B in d slev v o ted ag ain st th e law, as d id five o f his colleagues from the
Conservative Party, but to no avail. The law was passed by both chambers of
the D an ish P arliam en t, w ith only m in o r an d u n im p o rta n t m o d ificatio n .
Bindslev proceeded in the following years to fight the various eugenics laws
that were presented to the Danish Parliam ent— but always in vain. The Danish
version o f eugenics seemed to com m and agreem ent am ong all political parties.

T he M en t a lly R e t a r d e d : T he L aw o f 1934

W hile the experim ental law was still valid, a complex law dealing with all
aspects o f the m entally retarded and th e ir in stitutions— including steriliza­
tion— was put forward by K. K. Steincke, who was functioning as m inister of
health and welfare. So far, the confinem ent o f the m entally retarded had been
voluntary— it was the family or the guardian that decided w hether the m en­
tally retarded should be com m itted— b u t the new law listed a num ber o f indi­
cations for com m itm ent, and it now becam e the rule th at all the m entally
retarded covered by these rules should be com m itted. Furtherm ore, it became
the d u ty of teachers, medical officers, and other social authorities to report sus­
pected cases of m ental disability.
Two conditions for sterilization were included in the new law. The m entally
retarded could be sterilized if they were judged unable to raise and support
children, or if the sterilization could facilitate their release from confinem ent
or their transfer to a m ore relaxed kind o f supervision.
This law differed from the law o f 1929 on a num ber o f points: m inors could
be sterilized according to the new law, sterilization o f the m entally retarded was
no longer lim ited to people confined to institu tions, and consent from the
mentally retarded was not needed. The decision to apply for sterilization was
m ade by th e d o c to r in charge an d h a d to be ap p ro v ed by an a p p o in te d
guardian. It was forwarded through the departm ent for the m entally retarded
and, if approved, p u t before a specially appointed board o f three including one
medical expert— a psychiatrist or a physician associated with institutions for
the m entally retarded.
The law did not explicitly contain any eugenic indication, nor even a mixed
indication such as the 1929 law. But one o f the criteria for forcibly m aintaining
co n fin e m e n t was, “if th ere existed a clear dan g er th at they [the m entally
retarded] m ight have children.” This was a sweeping statem ent covering, in
theory, all th e mentally retarded of a fertile age. Taken together with the indica­
tions for sterilization, it m eant that all the mentally retarded could be forcibly
confined from the onset o f puberty an d th en sterilized because sterilization
might facilitate their release— and the sterilization could be perform ed w ithout
their consent.79
The w ord eugenics had been purged from the law, but the idea remained.
The danger not only o f bearing children b u t o f bearing m entally retarded chil­
dren was included in th e considerations w hen com pulsory confinem ent was
discussed. T he hereditary disposition was taken into account w hen applica­
tions for sterilization were considered. M ost o f the physicians associated with
the dep artm en t of the mentally retarded were strong hereditarians and positive
toward eugenics; certainly, this was tru e o f H. O. Wildenskov, who had fol­
lowed C hristian Keller as the leader o f the asylums in Jutland. Wildenskov had
a strong influence on the form ulation o f the law; it was according to his recom ­
m endations that sterilization of the m entally retarded was dissociated from the
general law on sterilization and castration (to be revised in 1935), and that the
decision should be approved by an independent board, not by the medico-legal
council. T he first physician to sit on this board, Jens Christian Smith, was also
favorably inclined tow ard eugenics. In his later evaluation o f the law, he recom ­
m ended the introduction o f a direct eugenic indication.80 Finally, the m inister
of health and welfare was one of the m ost dedicated eugenicists in the country.
There was some opposition to the passing of the law, but not very much.
Bindslev cast the single vote against the law in the lower chamber; in the more
conservative upper cham ber there were three votes against. The representative
of the A grarian Party did not like the fact that people could be forcibly steril­
ized, b u t accepted it, characteristically, because the law concerned only the
m entally retarded. The medico-legal council was dissatisfied because the m en­
tally retarded were rem oved from its authority, but its protests were in vain.
It m u st be em phasized that the largest nu m b er o f sterilizations occurred
under this law and not the revised Sterilization Act of 1935. Until 1945 about
78 percent o f those sterilized were the m entally retarded, and o f these there
were twice as many w om en as men.
But people were never entirely reconciled to the law. Teachers were worried
when slow b u t otherwise norm al pupils fell below the IQ m inim um and were
removed to an institution, and there were difficulties w hen parents refused to
leave th eir children to the authorities— in one case, the forcible removal o f two
children caused a small riot because the local population felt the children were
com pletely n o rm a l.81 In these cases, th e reaction was against the forcible
internm ent, rather than against the eugenic aspect of the law; but awareness o f
the sterilizatio n s th a t to o k place ten d e d to reinforce the opp o sitio n . T he
authorities ascribed reactions such as these to ignorance, and the physicians
who m ade the decisions insisted on their expertise in the face o f all criticism.

T he R ev isio n o f th e S t e r iliza tio n L aw in 1935

Finally, in 1935 the scheduled revision o f the law took place. The new law
still covered castration as well as sterilization, but the distinction between the
character and the effect o f the two types o f operations was emphasized m ore
strongly in the new law. The new law m ade com pulsory castration possible in
certain cases. Apart from this, the greatest difference between the two laws was
that the m entally retarded were covered by the Mentally H andicapped Act of
1934. M ore th a n 90 p e rc e n t o f th e p e o p le sterilized fro m 1929 to 1934
belonged to this category. The indications for sterilization were described with
the same vague phrases as in the form er law; sterilization could be undertaken
“with regard to the interests of society,” b u t a distinction was made between the
“n o rm al” an d the “ab n o rm a l” applicant. T he m entally “n o rm al” applicant
could be sterilized if special reasons favored the operation, particularly if a
danger existed that progeny could be genetically afflicted. For the m entally
“abnorm al” the criteria were even vaguer, b u t the operation could be u n d er­
taken only if it would benefit the applicant. This m eant th at the operation
could n o t be undertaken w ith sole regard to the interests o f society and against
the interests o f the individual.
The final decision concerning each application was still left in the hands o f
the m inister o f justice, but now he could act on advice from only one side, the
medico-legal council. The applicant had to be advised o f the consequences o f
the operation and give consent. In cases w here persons were unable to com pre­
hend the effects of sterilization, a guardian could be appointed to act on their
behalf.
The purely eugenic criterion had been accepted at last, b u t only for people
who were judged m entally “norm al.” Actually, the m ajority o f the people to be
sterilized were not mem bers o f this group, b u t they could be sterilized anyway,
in accordance w ith the vaguer criteria applied to the m entally “abnorm al,”
and the eugenic benefits could be achieved w ithout use o f the eugenic crite­
rion. In fact, all applications for sterilization had to be accom panied by—
am ong o th er relevant inform ation— an estim ate o f the hereditary disposition.
And later reviews of the law have agreed th a t eugenic considerations played an
im p o rta n t p a rt in d ecisions regarding th e m entally “ab n o rm al.” But th e
provocative concept o f eugenics was n o t used m ore than necessary in the text
o f the law and, at the same tim e, the difficult question of the hereditary char­
acter o f the different m ental afflictions was circum vented. T he law did not
p rovid e detailed guidelines for w h at c o n stitu te d an existing danger, w hat
kinds o f hereditary afflictions were covered by the law, or w hat was m eant by
the general interests o f society and the benefits to the individual.82
T his in fo rm a tio n was p ro v id ed in a lengthy review u n d ertak e n by the
medico-legal council and signed by the chairm an o f the council, Knud Sand. In
addition to chairing this council, Sand was also a professor o f forensic m edi­
cine and at that tim e generally regarded as D enm ark’s greatest expert on the
endocrinology of the sexual glands, a subject that included the effects of steril­
ization and castration. Consequently, he could influence the cases o f castration
and sterilization in a double capacity, as chairm an o f the advisory board and as
medical specialist. O ther prom inent m em bers o f the medico-legal council d u r­
ing this p erio d were the psychiatrist A ugust W im m er and the leader o f the
institutions for the m entally retarded in the eastern part of D enm ark, Johannes
N orvig.83
The review covered both the experience o f five years of castration and steril­
ization and recom m endations for the future. D uring the five years, 108 persons
had been sterilized, eighty-eight w om en and tw enty men. O f these 108, 102
were m entally retarded patients from the institutions, the group that in the
fu ture w ould be taken care o f by th e special law for the m entally retarded
passed in 1934. The rest, all six o f them , represented the group th at in the
future w ould be covered by the revised sterilization law of 1935.
Because o f the small sample, the sterilization experience from the experi­
m ental law o f 1929-35 was not particularly relevant for the future application
o f the revised law. Nevertheless, the authors stated that the experience with
sterilizations had been positive, and proceeded to make a num ber o f sweeping
recom m endations in their review: schizophrenics and certain cases of epilepsy
as well as a num ber o f well-defined hereditary neurological diseases, including
H untington’s chorea, should provide indications for sterilization. The authors
would also have preferred to include hereditary blindness and hereditary deaf­
ness in this group, but realized that this m ight be too extreme to be acceptable
to the general public. W ith respect to psychopaths, alcoholics, and even habit­
ual crim inals o f norm al intelligence, the au th o rs found th at sterilization in
many cases would be preferable:

[the psychopaths] are often— to a larger extent th an for example, the mentally
re t a r d e d — a so cial o r a n tis o c ia l (c r im in a l) ; a n d th e ir e ro tic a c tiv ity an d
 inventiveness, considered together w ith th e ir fertility— often extram arital— is
considerable. . . . W ith respect to hereditary tainted progeny the psychopaths are
com parable to the m ore well-defined m ental diseases, even though the pattern o f
inheritance is still unknow n.84

The review m aintained therefore that th e law should allow for the steriliza­
tion o f th e m ost extrem e o f these cases, especially w here hypersexuality was
in d ic a te d “by the existence o f several illegitim ate ch ild ren su p p o rte d by
society.”85
The sam e considerations applied to th e habitual alcoholics. According to the
authors, available docum entation (not supplied) dem onstrated that the m ar­
riages o f such persons tended to be m ore fertile than average, and their steril­
ization, concurrent w ith their release from prison, w ork-house, or institution,
w ould seem a reasonable m easure. C rim in als o f n o rm al intelligence, they
stated, were often genetically afflicted a n d provided very bad conditions for
their often num erous progeny. Sterilization o f this group should under no con­
ditions be used as a kind o f supplem entary penalty or a penalty substitute, but
was preferable for both social and h u m an itarian reasons.86 The authors also
recom m ended that sterilization be perform ed as early as possible and the age
limit im posed by the law o f 1929 be removed.
Finally, they considered the consent dem anded by the law. They found the
inclusion o f this co n d itio n u n d erstan d ab le. They w ould have preferred to
modify it, so consent could be dispensed w ith in special cases, but again they
realized th at this was m ore than the general public would accept.87
The whole docum ent is a curious m ixture o f a review o f the Sterilization Act
of 1929 w ith recom m endations and guidelines for the revised law of 1935 and
criticism o f this law w ith suggestions for further revisions. And the authors
were the very same people that constituted the final authority with respect to
castration and sterilization. In effect, the medico-legal council used the o p p o r­
tunity to make their intentions clear w ith regard to the new law.
The docum ent dem onstrated that the leading medical experts in 1935 were
ready to go very far in their pursuit o f eugenic goals and social control o f the
marginal groups of society When the review appeared in the periodical o f the
Danish Medical Association (Ugeskrift fo r Iceger), there were no adverse reac­
tions. In 1929, when th e first sterilization law was introduced, the editors
received a few letters in protest, b u t th is tim e the m edical world seemed to
agree w ith the conclusions.
 E u g e n ic s a n d S o cia l C o n tr o l — D ev e lo p m e n t s in th e 1930 s

There was indeed evidence for a hardening attitude among the eugenicists
as well as growing public support for eugenics in the period from 1929 to 1935.
A n u m b er of books appeared at this tim e. August W im m er’s Sindsygdommenes
Arvegang og Raceforbedrende Bestrcebelser (The heredity o f m ental diseases and
racial im provem ent) and K nud H ansen’s Arvelighed hos M ennesket (H um an
heredity) are two examples. Hansen’s book strongly emphasized race biology,
the superiority of the white race, and the threats against its dom inant position;
the considerable num ber of references in the book revealed a strong inspiration
from G erm an sources.88
Axel G arboe, a clergyman with an enduring interest in social work, wrote
Arvelighed og Socialpolitik (H eredity an d social policy) in 1931. D uring the
same p eriod, he w rote num erous reviews for Socialt Tidsskrift th a t dem o n ­
strated his extensive knowledge o f the international eugenic literature, and he
also w rote accounts o f the developm ent o f eugenics in Germany, the fate of
Boeters’ eugenic proposals— the fam ous “Zwickauer Gesetze”— and the eugen­
ics legislation o f the N ational Socialist governm ent.89
O luf T hom sen published a textbook o f hu m an genetics in 1932, which cov­
ered eugenics in considerable detail. A nd finally, as a crowning achievement,
Arv og Race (H eredity and race) appeared in 1934, followed one year later by
T heodor Geiger’s Sam fund og Arvelighed (Society and heredity). In addition,
there were num erous shorter articles an d reviews by Wildenskov, W immer,
Steincke, August Goll, Tage Kemp, and Soren Hansen, both in the specialist
periodicals and in the m ore popular m edia. But there was not very m uch real
debate, apart from a few conservative and Catholic dissenters.90
The b o o k A rv og Race was a celebration o f this Danish consensus. Here,
em inent authorities laid down the law on genetics, eugenics, and social policy,
and o n race and racial biology. Included were 0 jw in d W inge w ho was the
expert in genetics, O luf Thom sen the specialist in hum an genetics, August Goll
the legal expert and crim inologist, August W im m er the psychiatrist (who was
also regarded as an expert on the genetics o f m ental illness), Axel Garboe the
clergym an an d social worker, and finally, K. K. Steincke. It w ould dem and
m ore th an a norm al am ount of courage to dissent from the com bined weight
of these authorities.
The N ational Socialists’ concept o f race and particularly their anti-Semitism
was criticized in this book, b u t th ere was n o com parable criticism o f the
G erm an sterilization law. Authors such as W im m er and Goll, w ho earlier had
recom m ended extreme caution w ith regard to eugenics, came dow n in favor of
 the G erm an law and were ready in certain cases to accept com pulsory steriliza­
tion also in D enm ark. Everybody seemed to agree that a eugenics policy was an
urgent necessity in a m odern society b u t th a t eugenics should com plem ent
ra th e r th a n rep lace th e social se c u rity sy stem , th e reb y c o n c u rrin g w ith
Steincke’s original argum ent.
Even though A rv og Race was a popular book, m eant to be read by the lay­
man, it is curious that alm ost no new scientific evidence was presented. The
famous crim inal families w ho had served th e case o f eugenics so well— the
Jukes, the Kallikaks, and their com panions— were discussed again, and a cer­
tain am ount o f anecdotal m aterial was offered, along with loose estimates of
the num ber o f people that should be sterilized in different countries. Though a
m ajor reevaluation o f eugenic premises was taking place in the English-speak­
ing countries in these years, no trace of this debate can be found in Arv og Race.
Another strange omission was that not one o f the authors considered that
the eugenics legislation m ight be biased against the poor and the lower classes.
O n the surface the laws seemed indifferent to econom ic status but w hether you
were an alcoholic, a psychopath, or bordering o n m ental retardation, you were
much m ore likely to become a client o f the social apparatus— and subsequently
to become eligible for sterilization— if you were poor. Only one author seemed
to note this aspect o f eugenics, the German sociologist Theodor Geiger, who
had em igrated to D enm ark in 1934. Geiger also questioned the widespread
assum ption that only the public social security system was a burden on society,
and claimed that people m aintained by their family or by private philanthropic
organizations placed the same drain on national resources.
Though Geiger was a convinced eugenicist, his book Samfund og Arvelighed
c ritic iz e d m a n y o f th e eu g en ic a s su m p tio n s. O f all th a t was w ritte n in
D enm ark in these years, it m ust be considered th e m ost original contribution
to the eugenic literature. But though Geiger was a sociologist of international
stature, his opinions on eugenics did not have m uch im pact on the Danish
debate and the Danish legislation. In this area he rem ained an outsider.91
Changed attitudes tow ard eugenics can be registered both in the eugenic lit­
erature and in the parliam entary debates of the 1930s. C om pulsory steriliza­
tion of the m entally retarded was now regarded as acceptable, together with
com pulsory castration o f sexual offenders. A nd there were many, including the
m edico-legal council and several o f the leading experts, that recom m ended
com pulsory sterilization for other groups. W hile everybody up to and during
the passing o f th e 1929 law had recom m ended caution, they now spoke of
eugenics legislation as som ething that was urgently needed.
 This corresponded to a general hardening of attitudes toward the poor and
the w orking class (two groups that w ere often confused), and the m arginal
m em bers o f society in general. U nem ploym ent had risen dramatically follow­
ing th e w orld crisis in the early 1930s, th e new carefully prepared social legisla­
tion cam e under attack, and there was a clam or for m ore draconian measures
including the death penalty. There was m uch talk about D enm ark is being a
feeble a n d dying nation w ith a declining population. Unem ploym ent relief was
criticized; female em ancipation was attacked, and it was also viewed as a direct
cause o f unem ploym ent.
T h e co st o f m a in ta in in g th e u n p ro d u c tiv e segm ent o f the p o p u la tio n
becam e a favorite topic. Supporters o f th e new social legislation, a group which
included m ost of the eugenicists, did in m any cases accept the argum ent th at
such people imposed a heavy burden o n society, but argued that the social leg­
islation actually represented a m ore rational m anagem ent and control o f the
m arginal mem bers of society, and that eugenics was needed to ensure that the
problem and the burden did not increase w ith time.
The sam e attitudes were present in the other Scandinavian countries at this
time, an d also in Germany. In the last years o f the Weimar Republic, politicians
from m ost parties, even from the Catholic Center Party, adopted a m ore posi­
tive attitu d e toward eugenics; a eugenic policy was officially accepted by the
Protestant relief organization Innere M ission at the Treysa Conference in 1932.
Here, too, the cost o f m aintaining the retarded was m uch discussed, and the
participants endorsed the policy of the social m inim um , the concept th at the
retarded should not cost m ore than the lowest am ount spent on the healthy
and able-bodied. These beliefs were accepted in a very broad segment o f the
population. They were not only associated w ith national socialism, though the
Nazis provided the m ost demagogic version of the argum ent.92
The difference between D enm ark and these other countries should n o t be
exaggerated. In all cases, preparations for eugenics legislation were begun well
before the onset o f the w orld crisis, an d everywhere the crisis made state in ter­
v e n tio n a n d reso lu te legal m easu res m o re acceptable. However, o n ly in
D enm ark did the supporters o f eugenics succeed in squeezing a eugenic steril­
ization law through the legislative apparatus before the crisis had m ade itself
felt.

S tr a n g e B e d f e l lo w s : E u g e n ic s a n d B irth C o n tro l

M o s t o f th e D a n ish e u g e n ic ists m e n tio n e d th u s far w ere e m in e n tly

respected people, occupying relatively high and influential positions in Danish
 society. They were involved with eugenics in a professional capacity as psychia­
trists, geneticists, social workers, institutional leaders, etc. Even though m any
had a medical education, there is not enough evidence to conclude that eugen­
ics was particularly attractive to physicians as a professional group, only that
m any physicians in their w ork becam e directly o r indirectly occupied w ith
eugenic problems.
But oth er eugenicists were less respected. T hit Jensen was already well-
know n as an au th o r and feminist lecturer when she became acquainted with
Margaret Sanger and her work for birth control in 1923. T hit Jensen became
probably the m ost effective p ropagandist for the cause in D enm ark, for a
period touring the Danish provincial towns almost continuously. She cooper­
ated with the Danish League for Sexual Reform, and through it, with the paral­
lel com m unist organization. Her agitation also led to a break with the Danish
fem inist organization (D ansk Kvindebevaegelse), w here the m ajority did not
want to be too closely identified with sexual reform and birth control.
Eugenics was m ore o f a side issue for Thit Jensen, but right from the start
she used the eugenic argum ent for birth control and inform ation about birth
control: that it would reduce the num ber of births o f afflicted children. This
argum ent was used in conjunction with other argum ents: that birth control
liberated women from the perpetual fear of conception and from dependence
on men, that it functioned as a check on the threatening overpopulation, and
that it secured a well-planned and prosperous family with better opportunities
for the children. She becam e quite notorious d uring this period, and to the
anti-fem inists she epitom ized everything that was w rong with feminism. She
was also, quite w rongly b u t not unexpectedly, accused o f encouraging loose
m orals and promiscuity.
For Thit Jensen, the eugenic argum ent and the argum ent for the small, but
prosperous, family occasionally merged; she seemed to believe that the better-
fed, better-raised, and better-educated children w ould also be genetically supe­
rior— or, rather, she was not aware o f any distinction between the physical and
m ental health o f a person and his or her hereditary potential, between pheno­
type and genotype. In this way her argum ents acquired a Lamarckian flavor
which did not m ake them less convincing to the laym an, but set her further
apart from the official professional consensus.
A nother radical eugenicist was held in even lower esteem. Jonathan H 0 gh
Leunbach, a physician and cofounder o f Magnus Hirschfeld’s League for Sexual
Reform, was also a fervent agitator for birth control and sexual education, so
m uch so that for a period he form ed his own Sexual Reform Party, loosely affili­
ated with the C om m unist Party. He himself ran twice on the Com m unist ticket.
He started courses in sexual physiology and birth control in the 1920s, and later,
after he had received m any requests for abortions, he founded a clinic where
pregnancies could be term inated. This brought him into conflict both with his
fellow physicians and w ith the law, and in 1930 the authorities, after several
attempts, secured a conviction an d three m onths o f im prisonm ent.
Since that tim e m any com m entators have had difficulty understanding why
tw o such progressive an d co u rag eo u s people w ere a ttracte d to th e “reac­
tio n ary ” idea o f eugenics. But as we have seen, hereditary determ inism and
eugenics were supported by progressives, both m oderate reform ers and radi­
cals. Indeed, there are num erous examples o f radical supporters o f birth con­
trol and sexual em ancipation w ho were strong eugenicists: Victoria W oodhull,
A ugust Forel, the D rysdales, H avelock Ellis, M argaret Sanger, a n d M arie
Stopes. They believed that w om en and men were rational beings that should be
allowed to control reproduction— then why not the quality o f the progeny?
Leunbach published a book in 1926 called sim ply Racehygiejne, a rather
crude tract even when com pared to m ost of the contem porary literature, advo­
cating both positive and negative eugenics and w ith the usual argum ents based
on social Darwinism and the degeneration concept. Leunbach later denied that
the w ord “race” in “racehygiejne” had anything to do with the superiority and
inferiority of the different races an d m aintained that the word race denoted the
hum an race. It is true that the expressions race and racial were used w ith this
m eaning— that racial quality in m any cases sim ply m eant biological quality,
and had nothing to do w ith racism , and that “racehygiejne” as used by many
eugenicists sim ply m ean t th e (genotypical) health of the h u m an race. But
Leunbach left him self wide open for charges o f racism when he spoke of the
struggle between the races, the inferiority o f the colored races, and the dangers
of miscegenation.93
To th e m o re respected eugenicists, people such as L eunbach a n d T hit
Jensen w ere an e m b a rra ssm e n t: th ey b ro u g h t eugenics in to d isre p u te by
associating it w ith ab o rtio n , free love, and com m unism : they were the types
o f people Steincke had in m in d w hen he w arned against irresponsible p ro ­
paganda. But the disagreem ent was n o t only a question o f style. Both S0 ren
H ansen and Steincke were pronatalists; they firm ly believed th at the declin­
ing birth rate represented a grave danger, n o t only because the total num ber
o f people declined b u t even m ore because th e decline o f the “s u p e rio r” part
o f th e p o p u la tio n was b eliev ed to be d is p ro p o rtio n a te ly high, since the
“in fe rio r” segm ent o f th e p o p u la tio n was less likely to use b irth control.
Propaganda for b irth control could only accelerate this process o f differen­
tial rep ro d u ctio n . In a quite v io le n t letter th a t appeared in the periodical
 published by the association o f D anish physicians, Soren H ansen attacked
Leunbach: he did n o t know w hat he was saying and doing, and the best
th in g he could do was to close u p shop as soon as possible.
Leunbach’s reply was that all forms o f eugenic policy had to be voluntary to
be successful; as long as only the educated strata knew how to control repro­
ductio n , the effect w ould be dysgenic, but balance w ould be restored w hen
everybody knew how to do it.
G iven the prem ises th a t these o p p o n en ts shared, prem ises th at are n o t
regarded as valid today, Soren H ansen probably got the better o f the argument.
But the interesting thing is th at Leunbach, a C om m unist and presum ably a
dedicated collectivist, stressed the im portance o f individual free choice, while
Soren Hansen, m uch m ore orthodox politically, was ready to resort to coer­
cion, prim arily indirect coercion based on m aintaining ignorance, but in some
cases even direct coercion, for instance, the suppression and prohibition o f the
use o f contraceptives. Here, he p u t the interests o f the collective, the state,
higher than the right o f the individual to free inform ation. Soren Hansen’s atti­
tude cannot be said to be typical o f the Danish eugenicists, w ho rarely dis­
cussed eugenics in these terms, but m ost o f them did agree with the pronatalist
argum ent, and m ost of them favored a strengthening o f the state apparatus and
the possibilities of state intervention for eugenic purposes.
O ne reason for these differing viewpoints could be the different pictures the
o p p o n e n ts had fo rm e d o f th e w o m an th a t used c o n tra c e p tio n . To Soren
H ansen— and Steincke— she was the m odern pam pered and spoiled w om an
who preferred enjoym ent and luxuries to children; to Leunbach and other sup­
porters o f birth control, she was the poor and prem aturely aged woman who
lived in perpetual fear o f yet another conception.
In defense of the respected eugenicists, it m ust be said that their lack o f con­
fidence in people such as Thit Jensen and Leunbach can appear reasonable in
view o f their other activities. Thit Jensen was notoriously eccentric and diffi­
cult to w ork with, an d becam e increasingly preoccupied w ith spiritualism .
Leunbach appeared sounder, and he did not becom e a follower o f W ilhelm
Reich, as did m any from his circle. But he did in tro d u ce H ans H o rbiger’s
Welteislehre in D enm ark— an eccentric cosmological theory that all respectable
scientists regarded as a flagrant piece of pseudoscience.94 It is not completely
unjustified to say th a t Leunbach and T hit Jensen, together w ith the earlier
Alfred Bramsen and perhaps Vilhelm Rasmussen, represented the eccentric
and cranky side of eugenics in Denmark.
 R a c e a n d E u g en ics

W ith th e exception o f th e b o o k by K nud H ansen in 1929, and perhaps

L eunb ach ’s Racehygiejne in 1926, th e D anish lite ra tu re o n eugenics was
remarkably free from racial considerations and racial nationalism . In Germany
this was certainly not the case, b u t even com pared with the other Scandinavian
countries, the Danish eugenicists seemed fundam entally uninterested in race
and seemed to consider it irrelevant to eugenics.
There is one p rom inent exception, which, when exam ined closely, actually
confirm s this im pression. In 1919 the periodical D et Nye Nord was founded.
Originally it represented a form o f “m odern” businesslike conservatism with a
strong em phasis on Scandinavian cooperation. Beginning in 1920, a special
section, “D en N ordiske Race,” was added. This section was edited by the
Norwegian Jon Alfred M joen and covered two o f his favorite subjects, eugenics
and race. The section was very well w ritten, contained co n trib u tio n s from
m ost o f the w orld’s leading geneticists, and dem onstrated M joen’s talent as a
journalist and p ropagandist— after all, he had represented his ow n eugenic
ideas as “T he N orw egian P ro g ra m ” at th e m eetings o f th e In te rn a tio n a l
Federation o f Eugenics, despite having been ostracized by the professional
Norwegian geneticists.
Nevertheless, “D en N ordiske Race” fell flat in D enm ark. There were very
few Danish contributions an d none from the prom inent Danish eugenicists,
while H arry Federley from Finland and H erm an Lundborg from Sweden con­
trib u te d several tim es. T h ere were also rem arkably few references to “Den
Nordiske Race” in the contem porary Danish literature. After a while, m ore and
m ore o f the content was w ritten by Mjoen himself, his family, and his cowork­
ers at his own private research institute.95
Later attem pts to interest the Danes in their racial heritage did not meet
with m uch success. The contributions to A rv og Race in 1934 that dealt with
the concept of race were uniform ly negative tow ard race-nationalistic ideas,
and Soren Hansen even repudiated the N ational Socialist concept o f race. The
atte m p t by the N atio n al Socialists in G erm any to stim u late N ordic ideals
through the establishm ent o f “Nordische Gesellschaft” was not successful in
D enm ark. In general, the D anes were n o t m uch interested in race, and the
eugenicists were actively trying to dissociate the concept o f eugenics from all
association with race biology an d race nationalism .96
 O p p o sitio n to E u g en ics

After Casti Connubii,” the papal bull o f 1930, Catholics everywhere tu rn ed

strongly against eugenics. M any Catholics had already expressed criticism o f
the eugenics movement; G. K. C hesterton’s Eugenics and Other Evils, published
in 1922, is one of the more entertaining examples.97 In Denmark the Catholics,
a very small m inority, were virtually the only organized group that persistently
criticized eugenics and the sterilization acts.
The attacks were led by the science histo rian Gustav Scherz, w ho had a
background in biology and a good eye for the scientific shortcom ings o f eugen­
ics. Scherz m ain tain ed th at the know ledge o f heredity, particularly hu m an
heredity, was still very incomplete. He also underlined the principal Catholic
argum ent against sterilization, th at it violated the body created by God. This
m ust not be confused with the hum anitarian argum ent. Catholics were quite
ready to accept castration as a penalty, just as Alfred Bindslev, another consis­
tent adversary o f eugenics, defended capital punishm ent; but they were not
ready to accept inactivation or rem oval o f a healthy part of the body as a thera­
peutic m easure. A nother fam iliar argum ent, also used by Scherz and o ther
Catholics, was that im m orality and prom iscuity w ould increase w hen the fear
o f pregnancy disappeared. Obviously, this argum ent applied mainly to women.
It was also taken seriously by the eugenicists. Both So ten Hansen and Steincke
w arned against sterilization as being “abused” or used for frivolous reasons by
people who did not w ant to m arry or have children. The sexually irresponsible
w om an with a string o f illegitimate children constituted a heavy econom ic b u r­
den but with her reproductive capability removed, the same woman m ight pre­
sent an even graver m oral danger, threatening the very foundations o f society,
marriage, and the family. Leunbach, of course, believed that the option o f ster­
ilization should be completely free.98
Finally, Scherz and other Catholics argued that it was inconsistent to sup­
press reproduction in any way when the population already was declining at an
a la rm in g rate. Scherz used s tro n g w o rd s such as “the w hite d e a th ” a n d
national suicide, and adm itted he found the N ational Socialists’ policy m ore
consistent; although they introduced sterilization, at least they m ade an effort
to encourage population growth.99
It is striking that the Catholic critics in m any ways shared the outlook o f the
m ore respected Danish eugenicists. They did not disagree with the hereditary
determ inism o f the eugenicists, w hich was essentially conservative; and like
Soren Hansen and Steincke, they were pronatalists. In fact, eugenics w ithout
sterilization could be quite acceptable to Catholics, and they had quite early
(1928) translated and printed a series o f lectures on family and reproduction
given by the Jesuit geneticist Father M uckerm ann, at that tim e leader o f the
eugenics dep artm en t at the Kaiser W ilhelm Institut in Berlin. Several o f these
tracts espoused eugenic principles, but M uckerm ann passed over the contro­
versial subject o f sterilization and emphasized positive measures such as greater
family allowances and the value o f stable, fertile fam ilies.100
It m ust also be n o ted th at the attacks o n eugenics legislation took place
against a background o f extrem e conservatism , n o t only vehement anticom ­
m unism b u t also a general antisocialism that even included the very m oderate
Danish Social D em ocrats. The political heroes o f the Catholic weekly Nordisk
Ugeblad fo r Katolske Kristne were A ntonio Salazar, Gil Robles, Ignatz Seipel,
and Engelbert Dollfuss. Parliam entarism was frequently alluded to as “the dic­
tatorship by num bers,” and the organic corporative state recom m ended in its
place. In m any contributions, though not in the w ritings o f Scherz, an unm is­
takable undercu rren t o f anti-Sem itism is discernible.
One often has the impression from the argum ents o f Scherz that the real tar­
get was n o t so m uch the Danish eugenics legislation but all the phenom ena that
he associated w ith eugenics: female em ancipation, free love, state socialism,
general secularization, and the concepts o f “m o d ern” and “progressive.” His
attitude tow ard eugenics legislation was shared by a few conservative columnists
who also seemed to aim their attacks against the eugenics of Leunbach rather
than against the respected Danish eugenicists. But this conservative opposition
never am ounted to m uch, and it certainly never dom inated the Conservative
Party or the Agrarian Party, the two leading parties of the Right.
There was no trace o f an organized opposition to the sterilization acts from
the L utheran D anish state church. Bindslev, w ho was against them , was, of
course, a m em b er o f th e clergy, b u t so was th e pro-eugenic Axel G arboe.
Neither could be regarded as typical or representative of the Danish religious
com m unity. O f greater im p o rtan ce was th e a ttitu d e o f the physician H. I.
Schou. Schou was the leader o f one of the few D anish institutions where reli­
gious a ttitu d e s still p red o m in ated . Schou h im self was an u n o rth o d o x b u t
devout believer, b u t he had argued in favor o f the law o f 1929 when he was
consulted by th e parliam en tary politicians. A ccording to several statem ents
during the parliam entary debates, m any people w ho initially had grave reser­
vations were convinced because a m an such as Schou could sanction eugenics.
Some opponents argued against the legislation from a hum anitarian posi­
tion. To th em sterilization and particularly castration were m utilations and
represented a retu rn to an older, m ore barbarous legislative tradition, whether
they were called therapy or n o t.101 The people w ho defended the sterilization
laws called this an em otional argum ent, as opposed to their own realistic, no­
nonsense approach. From the parliam entary debates we know that m any speak­
ers adm itted that they initially had shared this revulsion, but that they had been
converted by the careful argum ents o f the experts.102 C astration evoked more
revulsion than sterilization, and sterilization of disabled b u t “norm al” blind and
deaf people inspired m ore com passion than operations on the mentally dis­
abled. Very few people seemed to be able to sympathize with this group. One
who did raise her voice on their behalf, the pedagogue Sophie Rifbjerg, did not
really try to argue against the sterilization of the mentally retarded. Though she
had extensive experience with late developers, she considered it futile to argue in
the prevailing climate o f opinion, but she did emphasize that these people could
have a full and happy life in spite o f their disability.103

T he G er m a n S ter iliza tio n L aw in D a n ish P e r s p e c t iv e

In 1933 the new N ational Socialist governm ent in G erm any issued a barrage
o f new laws. One o f them , Gesetz zur Verhutung Erbkranken Nachwuchses (Law
c o n c e rn in g the p re v e n tio n o f h e re d ita rily afflicted p ro g en y ), concern ed
eugenic sterilization. Later, com m entators such as Tage Kemp strongly em pha­
sized the difference betw een the G erm an law and its Danish cou n terp art.104
The G erm an sterilization law was founded on coercion which was exerted by a
quasi-legal apparatus o f local courts m ade up o f experts in hum an genetics and
legal advisers; people could be sterilized against their will, if the decision from
the Erbegerichtshof (H e re d ita ry C o u rt) and th e succeeding appeal to the
Erbeobergerichtshof (H ereditary U pper Court) went against them. The indica­
tions for sterilization were also m uch more formalized than in Denm ark. No
fewer than nine different categories covering sterilization for eugenic reasons
were outlined in the law.
C om m entators after W orld War II have characterized the law as a typical
Nazi law, and have seen it as the first step down the road to euthanasia and
genocide, but m ost o f the contem porary Danish eugenicists regarded the law
favorably, an attitude th at in no way could be interpreted as sym pathy with the
Nazi policy in general. In the m onth before the passing o f the G erm an law, the
Danish newspaper Politiken published a series of features on eugenics by Tage
Kemp, August Goll, an d Soren H ansen.105 All had taken pains to dissociate the
concept o f eugenics from the Nazi doctrines o f race, and S0 ren H ansen had
severely criticized the Nazi concepts o f racial purity and anti-Sem itic propa­
ganda. His later reaction to the G erm an sterilization law was quite different:
 [it has been expected] . . . th a t Germany w ithout doubt in the near future would
acquire a sterilization law, w hich has been carefully prepared by prolonged and
detailed deliberations— and this has come to pass. The law was accepted the 14 July
and was as good as expected. . . . Already the title Gesetz z u r V erhiitung Erbkranken
Nachwuchses demonstrates th at this is a purely eugenic measure, and that is all it is.
A num ber of hereditary diseases are listed as indications for sterilization, where
medical expertise might decide that im m inent danger exists o f progeny with severe
physical or mental “Erbschaden.” It is doubtful whether a substantial im provem ent
of the racial quality of the G erm an people can be expected from the application of
the law, b u t it m ust be acknow ledged th a t the law is carefully considered and
clearly and distinctly phrased.106

August Goll, who had lectured about the Danish law in Germany, adm itted
that “There is a connection betw een the law and the new national socialist idea
o f racial purity,” and he did n o t approve of the com pulsory sterilization of the
deaf, the blind, and the physically invalid, that could be carried out according
to the G erm an law. But he did believe th a t following the G erm an law and
introducing the com pulsory sterilization o f chronic alcoholics and psychopaths
would be preferable in certain cases. Finally, he claimed th at “there can be no
doubt that at least the younger generation am ong the G erm an physicians are
supporting the law, which thus can be regarded as evidence o f the enorm ous
progress o f the m ovem ent for sterilization in the last five years.” 107
This was also the im pression o f H. I. Schou, the pious director o f Filadelfia,
an institution for epileptics. He quoted the famous G erm an psychiatrist Bumke
as approving the law and another, anonym ous G erm an psychiatrist who had
confirm ed that the m ajority o f his colleagues supported the law and that the law
was carried out slowly and carefully.108 Steincke com m ented on Schou’s article,
but merely to correct the im pression that the Danish law— as opposed to the
Germ an— only allowed for voluntary sterilization. As Steincke correctly stated,
the law of 1934 concerning the mentally retarded actually contained provisions
for carrying out sterilizations against the will o f the individual.109
Tage Kemp thought the G erm an organization with local courts preferable to
the m ore cum bersom e D anish decision process, b u t he did n o t com m ent on
the G erm an prov isio n s fo r co m p u lso ry sterilization a t th a t tim e .110 Even
Leunbach, the revolutionary socialist, could not find anything to criticize in
the G erm an law except th e fact that sterilization w ithout the consent of the
Erbegerichtshof was expressly forbidden.111
August W immer, w ho a few years before and only w ith extreme reluctance
had com e o u t in favor o f sterilization, now th o u g h t th a t D en m ark should
adopt at least part of the G erm an practice— the com pulsory sterilization of
psychopaths, alcoholics, and criminals. W ithout sterilization o f this group, it
would not be possible to effect the “purification of the social body o f inferior
elem ents” (an expression he had borrow ed, with obvious approval, from the
Germ an psychiatrist Robert G aupp).112
Axel Garboe was condescending, but also impressed by the G erm an efforts:

That this contains correct ideas cannot be doubted. That difficulties are ignored
and [that] the impact of genetical research for the present is overestimated are also
easy to see. . . . But a grand experiment seems to be on the way. Tim e will tell what
the results will be. W hen the high-sounding phrases and the naivete that causes
affront are removed, there will still be left som ething to learn and apply, with the
necessary modifications, in o ur own country.113

The m ost critical reaction came from Professor H. O. Wildenskov, usually

regarded as a hardliner in his attitude tow ard eugenics. In his com m entary,
w ritte n b efo re the D a n ish M entally H a n d ic a p p e d Act o f 1934 h ad been
approved by Parliament, he criticized the G erm an law on two principal points.
First, he protested that by insisting on the strict eugenic indication, the law
dem anded the impossible from the medical authorities. The hereditary charac­
ter o f the different afflictions listed in the Germ an law could be proved with
certa in ty o n ly in very few instances. S econd, he o p p o sed th e p a rt o f the
G erm an law allowing for com pulsory sterilization. In a m ore practical com ­
mentary, he stipulated that, according to the text of the law, G erm any would
need a ro u n d 2,600 p h y sician s w ith ex p ertise in h u m a n genetics, an d he
doubted that so many were available or could be available at short notice.114
Wildenskov’s com m ents are interesting w hen seen in the light o f the 1934
law on which he had been a m ajor influence . In the Danish law there was no
eugenic indication— the w ord eugenic was n o t m entioned once— though there
definitely was a eugenic intention. And, o f course, the same law actually did
allow for com pulsory sterilization, though in a more circum spect way than the
G erm an law.
The Danish reaction is n o t really surprising when we concentrate on the letter
of the Germ an law, w ithout using hindsight. True, the G erm an law did specify
that the hereditary the m entally retarded, schizophrenics, manic-depressives,
hereditary epileptics, hereditary deaf, hereditary blind, people suffering from
Huntington’s chorea, and alcoholics could be sterilized. The Danish laws o f 1929,
1934, and 1935 did not specify anything as detailed. But if we look at the recom­
m endations o f the Danish medico-legal council from 1934, we find a similar list,
excluding only the manic-depressives. Together with the sterilization of habitual
alcoholics, the Danish group also found sterilization o f psychopaths, and even
mentally “norm al” habitual criminals, desirable.115
The G erm an law did contain a provision for com pulsory sterilization, but
so did the Danish law o f 1934 concerning the m entally retarded. If we reexam­
ine the com m entary o f the medico-legal council on the 1935 legislation, we see
it quite openly states that com pulsory sterilization w ould be desirable for some
categories o f criminals an d psychopaths. Individual com m ents from different
experts show the same tendency; attitudes hardened considerably in the inter­
val from 1929 to 1935, as even earlier skeptics such as August Goll and August
W im m er now seemed to approve of m ore draconian measures. We m ust con­
clude that the differences between the G erm an law and the D anish legislation
were smaller than we have since been led to believe. A nd the differences were
even smaller between the G erm an law and the wishful thinking o f some of the
Danish eugenicists.
It is difficult to envision a developm ent analogous to the G erm an practice in
Denm ark. Even if the effects o f the world crisis had increased in severity and
the political situ atio n h a d been m ore polarized, m ass sterilization of large
groups in the population th at were not institutionalized w ould n o t have been
acceptable to the majority. However, if we consider the rhetoric o f the leading
experts, it is not quite as im possible to imagine a situation in which institu­
tionalized groups, habitual criminals, psychopaths, and alcoholics could have
been subjected to sterilization, com pulsory or partly com pulsory, on a large
scale. The example o f H am burg is not encouraging. This part o f Germany had
been closest, in attitudes an d adm inistration, to the Scandinavian model. Even
during the Nazi years, racial ideology played a m inor role in H am burg com ­
pared to the rest o f Germany. Yet H am burg was also the area th at carried out
the largest proportion o f sterilizations and deportations o f “antisocial individ­
uals” to concentration cam ps.116
From their G erm an colleagues the Danish eugenicists received the impres­
sion that the G erm an law was applied cautiously, and that in reality it repre­
sented continuity w ith the W eimar adm inistration which actually had set up a
comm ission to consider proposals for a sterilization law in 1932. There is some
tru th in this view; the sterilization law that was enacted after the Nazi takeover
owed m uch to w ork d o n e in the last p eriod o f the W eim ar Republic, even
though the W eimar com m ission had considered only voluntary sterilization.117
The real difference betw een the Germ an law and the various Danish steril­
ization laws lay in the way they were applied. In D enm ark 1,380 people had
b een sterilized fro m 1935 to 1939, 1,200 o f th e m m e n ta lly retard ed . In
Germ any about 200,000 people were sterilized from the beginning o f 1934 to
the m iddle of 1937, a staggering 7,000 per m onth. But neither these facts—
w hich can have been no secret to th e Danish m edical com m unity— n o r the
passing o f the N urem berg Laws o f 1935 “To Safeguard G erm an B lood and
H onor,” caused any o f the D anish eugenicists to reevaluate or criticize the
G erm an sterilization program in public.

F u r th er E u g e n ic s L eg islatio n

O ne o f the m ost controversial laws o f the 1930s was the abortion law first
put forward in 1937 and then, after extensive revision, passed in 1939. The law
was an offshoot o f the many recom m endations o f the M yrdal-inspired popula­
tion commission. It did contain a provision for eugenic indication: the right to
have an ab o rtio n perform ed w hen im m in en t danger existed th a t the child
w ould be suffering from mental illness, m ental deficiency, severe neurological
illness, epilepsy, or severe somatic illness due to hereditary causes. In connec­
tio n w ith an a b o rtio n , a w om an could be sterilized if she was genetically
afflicted. But the debate about this issue, which norm ally would have been
quite controversial, was overshadowed by the violent public debate about abor­
tion in general, and about the social indication for abortion in particular.118
N ineteen thirty-eight saw a revision o f the m arriage law. By this tim e, the
law o f 1922 was regarded as inefficient with respect to eugenics by som e o f the
medical experts, and together w ith Steincke, still m inister of health and welfare
in 1938, they w anted to widen the indications for prohibition of m arriage to
include the hereditary blind and th e hereditary deaf. At the same tim e, this
group wanted to include a provision for com pulsory divorce in cases in which
m a rrie d couples, w ho fulfilled th e general re q u ire m e n ts for ste riliza tio n
according to the law o f 1935, refused to be sterilized. This proved too much.
There was an outcry in the press an d am ong the m ore conservative politicians;
and finally, Steincke had to settle for a clause specifying that marriage could be
prohibited if people who fulfilled the sterilization requirem ents refused to be
sterilized. Sterilization and castration could be accepted, but an established
m arriage was still sacrosanct.119

T age K em p a n d th e U n iv e r s it y I nstitu te o f H uman G e n e t ic s

In th e 1930s Tage Kemp g ra d u a lly rose to beco m e the acknow ledged

ex p ert o n h u m an genetics in D en m ark . As previously m entioned, he was
handpicked for this position by his m entor, the pathologist O luf T hom sen.
The governm ent g ran t that was in stituted in 1922 to prepare for the estab­
lis h m e n t o f te a c h in g a n d re s e a rc h in “r a c e h y g ie jn e ” at C o p e n h a g e n
University had passed into the custody o f T hom sen in 1927 w hen W ilhelm
Johannsen died. At th a t tim e p art o f the grant was set aside for the specific
pu rpose o f ed u catin g a prospective can d id ate for a chair in eugenics and
hum an genetics. T hom sen chose the thirty-o n e-y ear-old medical researcher
Tage Kemp, who had already done som e w ork on chrom osom e cytology but
not on anything related to eugenics. In 1932 Kemp started publishing work
o f this type beginning w ith the biosocial treatise, “A Study of the Causes of
P rostitution, Especially C oncerning the H ereditary Factors.” Kemp presented
this w ork at the T h ird International Congress o f Eugenics in 1932 and later
published it as a m o n o g rap h .120
In this period, Kemp’s research career was funded largely by the Rockefeller
F o u n d a tio n . T his fo u n d a tio n h ad m o re o r less saved genetic research in
Germany during the lean years after the war and was also supporting genetic
research in o th e r places in E u ro p e, n o ta b ly th e G a lto n L a b o ra to ry and
Penrose’s Institute at Colchester.121 In 1932 Kemp received a grant that enabled
him to study genetics in the United States and Europe, and in 1934 he received
another grant that allowed him to visit various institutes o f genetics in Europe.
D uring these visits he also fu n c tio n e d as an o b serv er for the Rockefeller
Foundation which h ad voiced concern about the ideological com m itm ent of
some o f the G erm an researchers. Kemp visited, am ong others, O th m ar von
Verschuer, famous for his use o f tw in m ethods in h um an genetics, and stated
that he was “a keen national socialist, completely honest, however, I feel, so one
can rely u p o n his scientific research as being objective and real. He works espe­
cially w ith tw in investigations, and is doing this research very thoroughly and
systematically.”122
From 1933 on, Kemp wrote regularly on the subject o f hum an heredity and
eugenics. In accordance w ith Johannsen’s ideas, he was skeptical o f positive
eugenics and tho u g h t m ore concrete results could be obtained by concentrat­
ing on negative eugenics, preventing the propagation o f harmful genes. Like
Soren H ansen, he regretted the declining b irth rate and considered it p art of
eugenic policy to encourage childbirth, although he did not recom m end state
interference with the distribution and use o f contraceptives and other drastic
measures. He did n o t criticize the G erm an laws openly at the tim e o f their
appearance, but he m aintained a certain distance. He spoke of the sterilization
law that “was applied very energetically” and stressed the difference between
the dictatorship, where the interests o f the state overruled the interests of the
individual, and the democracies, where it was accepted that society owed all
individuals a tolerable existence. He was also very critical o f the different
American state laws and found that m any o f them had been carried out too
hastily an d w ith o u t th e p ro p er genetic in sig h t.123 Kemp did not, as a rule,
advocate coercion and perhaps did not realize that the law of 1934 in effect was
com p u lso ry Instead he em phasized the need for m ore specific inform ation
about the nature o f heredity and eugenics, advocating specific prognoses in
individual cases so people could judge the risk o f having children with heredi­
tary disabilities. Once people had been given proper inform ation, they could
be expected to act in conform ity w ith the general interests of society.124
In 1938, after prolonged negotiations in w hich O lu f T hom sen and Tage
Kemp were very involved, the Rockefeller Foundation founded the Institute of
H um an Genetics and im m ediately handed it over to Copenhagen University.
Tage Kemp becam e th e first d irecto r and, in accordance w ith his ideas, it
became the center for the registration o f genetic diseases and genetic investiga­
tions. D enm ark had an honorable tradition in genetics but was not particularly
stro n g in th e area o f h u m a n genetics. T he R ockefeller F o u n d a tio n chose
D enm ark for the establishm ent of the institute m ore for its social organization
than for its research tradition. D enm ark, along w ith the other Scandinavian
countries, offered unique opportunities for research into hum an genetics. The
civil records were alm ost com plete, the population was stable and hom oge­
neous, and the distances small; and together w ith the advanced state of the
social health program s, these factors m ade family studies and larger surveys
easy to complete. W ith the foundation of this institute, D enm ark was chosen
to be the m ajor hum an genetics laboratory in the world.
Genetic registration became the central activity of the new institution. This
was supported by the governm ent, which in 1939 recom m ended th at all people
w ho were adm itted to the institutions for m ental disabilities and m ental ill­
nesses fill o u t questionnaires and forw ard them to the Institute for H um an
Genetics. In a way, this w ork represented a co n tin u atio n o f S0 ren Hansen’s
anthropological registration, and the archives o f his anthropological laboratory
were in co rp o rated into the new institute. Indeed, the institute represented
what he had fought for, for m ore than a quarter o f a century.
Along w ith the genetic registration, the institute conducted family research
and other types of research into hum an genetics; m ore traditional anthropo­
logical research was also carried out, to a lim ited extent. Finally, the institute
also perform ed experim ental research into pathological genetics, prim arily on
mice. Besides being a research institution, it functioned as a center for genetic
counseling— probably the first in the world— dispensing advice o n marriage,
sterilization, abortion, and other problem s o f genetic interest.125
 W hile research into hum an genetics was firmly established, interest in the
subject o f eugenics faded after 1935. Kemp gave popular lectures on the sub­
ject, and Soren Hansen published occasional articles. There was some debate in
the press about the eugenic changes in th e marriage law in 1938, b u t the con­
troversy was m ore about the violation o f m arriage than the subject o f eugenics.
The eugenic laws took their course, independent o f the general interest in the
subject: in the five-year period from 1929 to 1935, 108 people were sterilized;
during th e next five years the num ber was 1,380. As tables 1-3 show, m ore than
tw ice as m any w om en as m en w ere sterilized, an d far m ore the m entally
retarded th an all the other categories p u t together. And these num bers proba­
bly underestim ate the tru e p roportion o f the mentally retarded. A later survey
by Kemp, covering sterilization from 1945 to 1950, dem onstrates that the m ore
seriously retard ed and those b o rd e rin g o n m ental retard atio n co n stitu ted
about 40 percent of the people sterilized according to the law o f 1935, the law
that prim arily covered sterilizations n o t connected w ith the institutions for the
m entally retarded.126

Table 1. Total number of legal sterilizations in Denmark 1929-50.

Period W omen Men Total
1929-34 88 ^ 20 108~
1935-39 975 405 1,380
1940-45 1,510 610 2,120
1946-50 1,771 561 2,332

Source: T. Kemp, Arvehygiejne, Kobenhavns Universitets Arsskrift (Copenhagen: Kabenhavns

Universitet, 1951), 45.

Table 2. Legal sterilizations in Denmark (mentally retarded excepted).

Period W om en Men Total
1929-34 4 I 5
1935-39 150 30 180
1940-45 510 110 620
1946-50 902 96 998

S ource: T. K em p, A rv e h y g ie jn e , K o b e n h a v n s U n iv e rsite ts A r s s k r ift (C o p e n h a g e n :

Kobenhavns Universitet, 1951), 45.
 Table 3. Legal sterilizations in Denmark of the mentally retarded.
Period__________ W omen___________ Men__________ Total
1929-34 84 19 103
1935-39 825 375 1,200
1940-45 1,000 500 1,500
1946-50 869 465 1,334

Source: T. K em p, A rv e h y g ie jn e , K e b e n h a v n s U n iv e r site ts A r s s k r ift (C o p en h ag en :

Kobenhavns Universitet, 1951), 45.

L a te r D ev e l o p m e n t s : E u g en ics a f t e r W o r ld W a r II

D enm ark was occupied by Germany from 1940 to 1945, but the occupation
did not lead to any change in the Danish eugenic policy. The G erm an occupy­
ing power did not interfere in this area, and though the Danish governm ent to
a certain extent collaborated with Germany, it was ideologically very far from
national socialism. There was no equivalent to the Norwegian Quisling govern­
m ent and its introduction o f a m ore extrem e eugenics legislation.
After W orld War II, the word “racehygiejne” had outlived its usefulness, and
even the w ord eugenics was not used very often. But the horrible revelations of
the genocidal racial policy o f the Third Reich did not lead to any recrim ina­
tions ag ain st the D an ish eugenics legislation and the D anish eugenicists.
Eugenics disappeared as a concept that was at least occasionally discussed in
public, a gradual process that had already started before the war.
There was criticism against the Mentally H andicapped Act o f 1934, but the
criticism was not in any way connected to the condem nation o f the German
sterilization policy. There had always been a certain resentm ent against the
adm inistration of the law and its com pulsory character, provoked m ostly by
the sum m ary removal o f children from their hom es b u t also by the knowledge
o f sterilizations that took place in the institutions. There had also been unfor­
tunate publicity about som e cases of late developers who had been released and
reclassified as norm al— after sterilization had been perform ed. A claim for
damages in such a case had been rejected by the courts, b u t it all contributed to
the general dissatisfaction with the law.
This dissatisfaction had already led to an inquiry in 1941, and in 1954 it
became possible to appeal decisions (m ostly regarding com pulsory institution­
alization) to the regular court system, where previously this decision had rested
with the m inister o f health and welfare. The same year another commission
was founded to consider the problem s o f the m entally retarded; and in two
reports, from 1957 and 1958, the com m ission recom m ended that m ost o f the
com pulsory elements in the M entally H andicapped Act be elim inated.127
A ccording to th e law o f 1934, th e m en tally retarded could be in tern ed
against their will if there existed im m ediate danger that they would have chil­
dren. The com m ission had this com m ent:

A bout this indication it should be noted th at the text makes it very extensive, m ak­
ing com pulsory confinem ent possible for every nonsterilized the mentally retarded
person o f fertile age. In practice, the clause has only been applied in very few cases,
while it may have been of great im portance indirectly. The possibility that a patient
could be detained at the institution with a view to sterilization, or just the knowl­
edge that such a detainm ent was legal, probably has facilitated many sterilization
applications.128

The com m ission recom m ended th a t this special indication be discarded, so

th e o n ly c o n d itio n for c o m p u lso ry c o n fin e m e n t was if n o n c o n fin e m e n t
im plied a m ajor disadvantage for the m entally retarded person. A bout the
conditions for sterilization in the M entally H andicapped Act of 1934 the com ­
m ission com m ented:

The com m ittee finally wants to emphasize that the rules concerning sterilization
allow for com pulsory sterilization, but that direct compulsion never has been used
and never ought to be used in the fu tu re.129

This was tru e enough, b u t even in Nazi G erm any direct com pulsion was used
only in very few o f the sterilization cases. A rule allowing for com pulsion did
no t have to be used to be useful. The com m ents o f the com m ission m ade it
clear th a t it did not approve o f involuntary sterilization and w ould have pre­
ferred to have the paragraph removed, b u t this revision of the law was post­
poned because another com m ission was set up in 1958 in order to consider
the w hole problem o f sterilization an d castration. W ith this exception, the
revision o f the law regarding the in stitu tio n s for the m entally retarded was
passed in 1959. Sterilization still rem ained, but the part of the law th at had
opened the way for eugenic sterilizations, nam ely the possibility o f com pul­
sory confinem ent for all m entally retarded individuals o f fertile age, had been
removed.
In 1956 th e F irst In te rn a tio n a l C o n g ress o f H u m a n G en etics m et in
C o p e n h a g e n . A m ong th e lu m in a rie s p re se n t w ere J. B. S. H aldane, L. S.
P enrose, a n d H. J. M uller, th e disco v erer o f the genetic effect o f ionized
radiation. Tage Kemp was chairm an o f the organizing com m ittee and gave the
opening speech:

W ithin recent years very m uch attention has been drawn to the dangers which our
load o f mutations involves for the hum an race; the risk o f reduced fitness and even
the perils of genetic death have been strongly emphasized. Beyond a definite inten­
sity, further increase in radiation presents a potential danger to the hum an race as
well as to plant and anim al life. The most serious and effective precautions to pre­
vent and control this risk and this danger m ust be taken. O n the other hand, the
danger m ust not be overestim ated and unnecessary anxiety ought to be avoided.
This is why the study o f hereditary lesions is o f such great consequence. The knowl­
edge o f the conditions effected makes it possible to follow and control their devel­
o p m en t and flu ctu atio n in the p o p u la tio n , and to ascertain th e b eh av io r o f
hereditary diseases dow n through the ages.130

There was no m ention o f eugenics, no m ention of the dangers o f differential

reproduction, and the baby boom after the war had m ade all talk about the
dangers o f depopulation obsolete. “Load of m utations” was one o f the expres­
sions o f the new age, and it indicated another way of looking at the genetics of
hum an populations. It also expressed the new threat against hum anity that had
been conjured up in th e last days o f the w ar— the atom ic bom b. Kemp still
believed that m oderate negative eugenics was possible and preferable,131 but he
d id n o t th in k th a t th e survival o f n a tio n s o r th e fate o f th e h u m a n race
depended on it.

T he F in a l A c t : T he R ev isio n o f th e S t e r iliza tio n L aw

The com m ission regarding sterilization and castration delivered its final
report in 1964, and the law was revised in 1967. The m ost obvious change from
the earlier laws was that all sterilizations were put under the same law, but what
was regarded as the m ost im portant change was that com pulsory sterilization
(and com pulsory castration) was removed from the law, o n recom m endations
from the com m ission.132 The disappearance o f direct coercion from the law was
approved by all the political parties, though the smaller parties were more o u t­
spoken in their condem nation o f the older law. The com m ission pointed out
that it would still be possible after the revision o f the law to exert a certain indi­
rect pressure on the m entally retarded to make them apply for sterilization,
since release from the institutions, according to the law, could still depend on
previous sterilization. This was noted and approved by the m inister o f health
and welfare and by several o f the other party representatives. Only representa­
tives o f the smaller parties w orried about the possibilities of indirect coercion.133
The revision of the law was an indication o f a general change in the attitude
tow ard the mentally retarded, and probably this change was m ore im portant
than the actual change in the law. The num ber o f mentally retarded sterilized
declined rapidly, from 275 in 1949 to 80 in 1962. D uring the same period, the
safeguards concerning sterilization of this group had been im proved. Appeal to
a judge had been instituted as well as legal guardians (who could n o t be associ­
ated w ith th e in s titu tio n s ). T he o rg a n iz a tio n o f frien d s o f th e m entally
retarded, Evnesvages Vel, h ad been actively involved both in the revision of the
sterilization law in 1967 an d in the earlier revision o f the laws concerning the
m entally retarded in 1959. It was now becom ing accepted th at the m entally
retarded should also be allowed the right to a full sexual life.134
One thing that was n o t discussed in the parliam entary debates in 1967 was
the topic o f eugenics. T he closest the discussion came to the subject was a
rem ark from the representative o f the Popular Socialist Party, a smaller party to
the left o f the Social D emocrats:

You will see that the racial hygienic value o f sterilization and the value o f racial
hygiene as such were debated with complete seriousness in 1928. The discussion
proceeded in 1934 and 1935, even though the m ore sober-m inded regarded all that
race talk as a passing fad.135

It is clear that the speaker associated racial hygiene w ith race biology and
racism in general; one can assum e from the debate th at eugenics had been
completely left behind, b u t this was not the case. The eugenic indication was
m aintained for m entally norm al, and eugenic considerations still had to be
included in the considerations for the sterilization of the m entally abnormal.
The University Institute o f H um an Genetics also m aintained a m oderate nega­
tive eugenics as part o f its objective, in so far as it was com patible with “dem o­
cratic c o n d itio n s w ith th e h ig h degree o f p ersonal freedom we prefer.” 136
Eugenics therefore continued to be a p art o f the health policy in Denm ark.
Still, eugenics was n o t a very im portant part: the num ber o f sterilizations
w ith eugenic in d icatio n com p ared to social in d ication was declining long
before the law revision in 1967. In 1973 free sterilization and abortion were
legalized: everybody w ho w anted to be sterilized or have an abortion could do
so, w hich m ean t th a t th e possibilities for exerting a eugenics policy were
reduced even further. The introduction of chemical alternatives to sterilization
also reduced the im portance o f the sterilization legislation.
 Eugenic sterilization was introduced in Danish legislation with the utm ost
caution in 1929; some would say it was done by stealth. It seems to have disap­
peared from the Danish consciousness in the same clandestine way. There was
no general debate, no confrontation w hen the sterilization law was revised in
1967; n o t even the in troduction o f am niocentesis tests in D enm ark in 1970
sparked any discussion. Later, in the wake o f the general debate on biotechnol­
ogy in the 1970s, D enm ark joined in the discussion, but by that tim e every­
body seemed to have forgotten that eugenics also had a history in D enm ark.

N o tes

T he classical review o f the d e v e lo p m e n t o f eugenics in D en m ark is T. K em p,

Arvehygiejne, K ebenhavns Universitets A rsskrift (Copenhagen: Kobenhavns U niversitet,
1951). This has been treated more briefly in G. Koudahl, Om Vasectomi med Sterilisation for
0je, dissertation (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1967). A more recent treatment of the subject
is B. S. Hansen, “Eugenik i Danmark, den Blode Mellemvej,” Niche 4 (1984): 85-102. The
subject has been treated in connection w ith the general attitude tow ard the m entally
retarded in B. Kirkebaek’s detailed Abnormbegrebet i Danm ark i 20.erne og 30.erne m ed Sxrlig
H e n b lik p a E u g en iske Bestrcebelser og Scerlig i F orhold til A n d ssva g e, d is s e rta tio n
(Copenhagen: Danmarks Laererhojskole, 1985) and in her “Staten og den Andssvage 1870­
1935, fra Filantropi til Kontrol,” Handicaphistorie 1 (1987): 45-56.
A nother work that treats the concept in an institutional setting is F. E. A ndersen’s
“Diskurs og Discrimination,” Agrippa 3 (1982): 338-60. An extremely interesting discussion
of the relationship between eugenics and the other social biological ideologies and the devel­
opm ent of social hygiene in general is presented in L. H. Schmidt and J. E. Kristensen, Lys,
L u ft og Renlighed: Den M oderne socialhygiejnes fedsel (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag,
1986), esp. 89-114.
The related concept of castration has been treated by L. LeMaire in his dissertation Legal
Kastration i Strafferetslig Belysning (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1946).

1. For an overview of the literature dealing with the United States and Great Britain,
see D. J. Kevles, In the N am e o f Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses o f H um an Heredity
(N ew York: Alfred E. Knopf, 1985); L. Farral, “The H istory of Eugenics: A
Bibliographical Review,” A nnals o f Science 36 (1970): 111-23; for literature on
Germany, see P. Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics between N ational
U nification and N azism , 1870-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1989); P. Weingart, J. Kroll and K. Bayertz, Rasse, B lut un Gene. Geschichte der
Rassenhygiene in Deutschland (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1988); R. N. Proctor,
Racial Hygiene: M edicine under the N azis (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1988); G. Bock, Z w a n g sste rilisa tio n u n d N a tio n a lso zia lism u s. S tu d ie n z u r
Rassenpolitik und Frauenpolitik (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1986); J. Muller,
Sterilisation und Gesetzgebung bis 1933 (Husum: Matthiesen Verlag, 1985).
 2. For examples, see G. Searle, Eugenics and Politics in Britain (Leyden: Noordhoff
In ternational, 1976); S. F. Weiss, Race H ygiene a n d N a tio n a l Efficiency: The
Eugenics o f W ilhelm Schallmayer (Berkeley: University of California, 1987).
3. The Danish administrators in Greenland often behaved in the high-handed and
condescending way th a t Europeans used tow ard native populations, b u t the
effects in Denmark of these attitudes were marginal and cannot be compared to
the effects Belgian and D utch colonies had on their m other countries. In some
ways, Greenland and the Greenlanders can be compared to the northern parts of
the other Scandinavian countries and their indigenous population, the Lapps. But
while there are examples of eugenic literature in both Sweden and Norway, which
are concerned about the effects of miscegenation with the Lappish population, I
have not been able to find similar examples in the Danish literature with respect
to the Greenlanders. Perhaps the generally positive attitude toward these people
was partly a result of the immense popularity of the explorer and ethnographer
Knud Rasmussen, who himself was partly descended from a Greenlander family.
O f course the Danish are not immune against racist prejudice. As a large number
of young Greenlanders started moving to D enmark in the sixties and seventies,
the accompanying social problems have caused a decidedly racist reaction.
4. K. Gjellerup, Arvelighed og M oral (Copenhagen: Andreas Schous Forlag, 1881); T.
Ribot, Sjcelsevnernes Arvelighed (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1899).
5. E. Mayr, The Growth o f Biological Thought (Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 1982),
687-92.
6. F. R. Lange, O m A rvelighedens indflydelse p a Sindsygdom m ene (Copenhagen:
Gyldendal, 1881).
7. F. R. Lange, Sliegter, Iagttagelser fra en Sindssygeanstalt (Copenhagen: Gyldendal,
1904). This was translated as Degeneration in Families: Observations in a Lunatic
A sylum (London: Kimpton, 1906).
8. H. Bang, H abbse Slcegter (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1882).
9. J. B. Haycraft, Darwinism and Social Im provem ent (London: S Sonnenschein and
Co., 1894). This was translated the sam e year into D anish as D arw inism og
Raceforbedring (Copenhagen: Jacob Lunds Forlag, 1894).
10. C. W ilkens, Sam fundslegem ets G rundlove (C openhagen: Wroblewskys Forlag,
1881).
11. G. Bang, Den Gamle Adels Forfald (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1897); O. Hansen,
Udviklingslcere (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1900).
12. J. P. Steensby, “Forelobige betragtninger over D anm arks R aceantropologi,”
Meddelelser om D anm arks Antropologi 1 (1907-1911): 83-172.
13. See, for example, W. Johannsen, “Uber Dolichocephalic und Brachycephalie. Zur
Kritik der Index-Angaben,” Archiv fu r Rassen und Gesellschafts-Biologie 4 (1907):
171-88; C. Burrau, “Om Hovedets Form og Storrelse,” Meddelelser om Danmarks
Antropologi 1, no. 2 (1908): 241-74.
14. The fate and status of other Danish scientists who dem onstrated an interest in
physical anthropology exemplify this lack of prestige. The economist K. A. Wieth-
Knudsen tried to merge economics, population science, and physical anthropology
 in his dissertation Formerelse og Fremskridt. 0konom isk~D em ografisk-biologisk
Syntese (Copenhagen: Julius Gjellerup, 1908), but the biological part of his argu­
ment was criticized strongly. W ieth-Knudsen felt that he was being excluded from
scientific positions in Denmark and ended up as a professor at the business school
in Trondheim, in what he himself considered an exile from Denmark. K. A. Wieth
Knudsen, M it Videnskabelige Livs D ram a eller Universitetets Bescettelsesregler og pro­
fessor L. V. Birck (Copenhagen: Reitzel, 1930). Fr. C. C. Hansen had a scientific
position as professor of anatomy at Copenhagen University and he had cooperated
with the famous Swedish anthropologist Carl Fiirst, b u t he was also a notable
eccentric and his later works of anthropology— attempts to reconstruct the phys­
iognomy of Danish medieval notables based on the skeletal remains— did not
enhance the prestige of the discip lin e. Fr. C. C. H ansen, ld e n tifik a tio n og
R e k o n s tr u k tio n a f h isto risk e P ersoners U dseende p a G ru n d la g a f S k e le tte t
(Copenhagen: Kobenhavns Universitet, 1921).
15. P. Reilly, “The Surgical Solution: The W riting of Activist Physicians in the Early
Days of Eugenical Sterilization,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 26 (1983):
637-56.
16. For Hedman’s role, see E. L. Hedman, “Sterilisation, Nogen Erfarenhetsron,” N y t
Tidsskrift for Abnormvcesenet 17 (1915): 107-15; O. E. Hedman, “Nagra Ron ur
den i Praktiken tillampade Sterilisation,” N y t Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet 26
(1924): 127-28. For the D anish exam ple, see C. Keller, “K 0 nsl 0 sg 0 relsens
Problem,” N y t Tidsskrift for Abnormvcesenet 23 (1921): 6-9.
17. H. Laughlin, E ugenical S teriliza tio n in the U nited States (Chicago: Chicago
Psychopathic Laboratory, 1922); E. S. Gosney and P. Popenoe, Sterilization fo r
H u m a n Betterm ent: A Sum m ary o f 6,000 Operations in California (New York:
MacMillan, 1929); J. H. Landman, H u m a n Sterilization (New York: MacMillan,
1932). An American example of a powerful institutional leader was F. A. Butler,
the medical director and superintendent o f Sonoma State Home in California,
where 4,310 inm ates were sterilized from 1919 to 1943; see F. A. Butler, “A
Q u arter of a C entury of Experience in Sterilization o f M ental Defectives in
California,” Am erican Journal o f M ental Deficiencies 50 (1945): 508-13; see also
Reilly, “The Surgical Solution.”
18. H. C. Sharp, “The Severing of the Vasa D ifferentia, and Its R elation to the
Neuropsychiatric Constitution,” N ew York Medical Journal (1902): 411-14.
19. F. E. Daniel, “Emasculation of M asturbators— Is It Justifiable?” Texas M edical
Journal 10 (1894): 239-44; see also M. W. Barr, M ental Defectives (Philadelphia: P.
Blakiston’s Son and Co., 1904), 196.
20. Barr, M ental Defectives, 196.
21. This criticism against surgical sterilization had already been raised by Prince
Krapotkin at the First International Eugenics Congress. Krapotkin spoke with a
certain authority, since he was w ithout doubt the only participant who had exten­
sive experience with penal institutions observed from the other side of the bars.
See Problems in Eugenics 2: Report o f Proceedings o f the First International Eugenics
Congress (London: Eugenics Education Society, 1912), 50-51.
22. Barr, M ental Defectives, 194.
23. A. F orel, D e t sexuelle spergsm al (C o p en h ag en : G yldendal, 1913), 451-52;
W eindling, H ealth, Race and German Politics, 84-87; Muller, Sterilisation und
Gesetzgebung bis 1933, 37; P. Nacke, “Die Kastration bei Gewissen Klassen von
Degenerirten als ein wirksamer socialer Schutz,” Archiv fu r Kriminalanthropologie
und Krim inalistik 3 (1900): 58-84. A. Mayer, A lfred Hegart und der Gestaltwandel
der Gynakologie seit Hegar (Freiburg: Herder, 1961).
24. A. Rogers, “Futility of Surgical Treatment,” Journal o f Psycho-Asthenics 3 (1898):
93-95. See also Barr, M en ta l Defectives, 182-88. I have not been able to find a
recent historical treatm ent of this interesting episode.
25. For a characteristic expression of this sentim ent, see H. M. Boies, Prisoners and
Paupers (New York: Putnam , 1893). For a Danish example, see C. Keller, “Hvad
K an d e r G ores for at F o rrin g e de A n d ssv ag es T a l,” N y t T id s s k r ift fo r
Abnormvcesenet 19 (1917): 19-24, 33-37.
26. The general development and character o f the Danish institutions for the mentally
retarded is described in B. Kirkebaek, “Staten og Den Andssvage 1870-1935, fra
Filantropi til Kontrol,” Handicaphistorie 1 (1987): 45-56 and in B. Kirkebaek, Da
de Andssvage blev Farlige (Copenhagen: Socpol, 1993). The strong ties between the
institutions and the Keller family have been detailed in the same manuscript (20­
21, 103).
27. Barr, M ental Defectives, 192.
28. Ibid., 196.
29. C. Keller, “Andssvaghed,” N yt Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet 7 (1905): 104-7.
30. M. W. B arr, “S terilizatio n o f the U n fit. A sex u alizatio n — A ttitu d es o f the
Europeans: Results of Asexualization,” Journal o f Psycho-Asthenics 9 (1905): 127­
29; S. D. Risley, “Is A sexualization Ever Justifiable in the Case o f Im becile
Children?” Journal o f Psycho-Asthenics 9 (1905): 92-98 (partly translated in C.
Keller, “Den Andssvages Konslosgorelse,” N y t Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet 8
[1906]: 161-71).
31. H. Scharling, “Bidrag til D iskussionen om Andssvages Konslosgorelse,” N y t
Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet 11 (1909): 188-92. For the development of the idea
of x-ray sterilization, see Muller, Sterilisation und Gesetzgebung bis 1933, 22-25.
32. Examples of the articles dealing with or directly translating Goddard’s work are C.
Keller, “Studiet af Normale og Abnorme Born,” N y t Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet
13 (1911): 1-12; H. H. Goddard, “Andssvaghedens Arvelighed” (translated by B.
H jort), N y t Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet 13 (1911): 257-70; B. Hjort, “Familien
Kallikak,” Nyt Tidsskrift for Abnormvcesenet 15 (1913): 1-7; and C. Keller, “Fra
Vineland Laboratories” N y t Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet 15 (1913): 125-26.
33. W. Fern aid, “After-care Study o f the Patients Discharged from Waverley for a
Period of Twenty-five Years Upgraded,” A m erican Journal o f M ental Deficiency 4
(1919): 62-81; H. H. G oddard, “Feeblemindedness: A Question of Definition,”
Journal o f Psycho-Asthenics 33 (1928): 219-27. For examples of the kind of criti­
cism directed against G oddard’s results and against eugenic sterilizations in gen­
eral, see R. Pearl, “The Biology of Superiority,” A m erican M ercury 47 (1926):
 257-66; and A. Myerson, “Some Objections to Sterilization,” Birth Control Review
12 (1928): 81-84.
34. A. Bjorkman, “O m Forekom sten a f Svagsintheten i Finland og Nagra d ar av
Foranledda Reflexioner,” N y t Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet 15 (1913): 72-73; E. L.
H edm an, “Andesvagsvardens Betydelse och Uppgift i Social och Rashygienisk
A v seen d e,” N y t T id s s k r ift fo r A b n o rm v c e se n e t 15 (1913): 73-78; F ran
Helsingforsmodet, “Sammendrag af Forhantlingarna vid Andesvagesektionerne,”
N y t Tidsskrift for Abnormvcesenet 15 (1913): 65-71.
35. See the exchange in N y t T id s s k r ift fo r A b n o rm v ce se n e t 14 (1912): 241-45
(Hedm an), 284-285 (Bodil H jort), 328-29 (Astrand); and in N y t Tidsskrift fo r
Abnormvcesenet 15 (1913): 24-26 (Hedm an), 83-84 (Astrand).
36. For the develo p m en t in F inland, see M. H ietala, “ From Race H ygiene to
Sterilization: The Eugenics Movement in Finland,” in this volume.
37. Hedman, “Sterilisation, Nogen Erfarenhetsron”. See also Hedman, “Nagra Ron ur
den i Praktiken tillampade Sterilisation.” Hedman’s vasectomy operations were
first reported in Denmark in a brief notice in N y t Tidsskrift for Abnormvcesenet 15
(1913): 29.
38. A. Bramsen, De Velbaarne og de Belastede (Copenhagen: Martins Forlag, 1912);
Forel, D et sexuelle sporgsmal.
39. See, for example, S. Hansen, “Eugenicsbevaegelsen,” Ugeskrift for Lceger 35 (1912):
3-7; S. Hansen, “Om Raceforbedring,” N ationabkonom isk Tidsskrift (1912-13):
11-30; S. H an se n , “ En U n d e rsa g e lse a f D a v stu m h e d e n s A rv elig h ed i
Racehygiejnisk O jem ed,” M anedsskrift fo r Sundhedsvcesen (1913): 97-106; S.
H ansen, “Degenererer Overklasserne?” M anedsskrift fo r Sundhedsvcesen (1914):
97-99; S. Hansen, “Racehygiejne,” M anedsskrift for Sundhedsvcesen (1915): 163-71.
40. S. Hansen, “Om en Registrering af Andssvage,” N y t Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet 17
(1915): 82-85; S. Hansen, “Det Racebiologiske Laboratorium,” Naturens Verden 4
(1920): 271-75; see also J. Mohr, “H um an Arvebiologi og Eugenik,” in Kebenhavns
Universitet 1479-1979, vol. 7, Det Lcegevidenskabelige Fakultet, ed. J. C. Melchior et
al. (Copenhagen: Copenhagen: Kobenhavns Universitet, 1979), 241-52.
41. See S. Hansen, “Andssvages Giftermal,” Ugeskrift for Retsvcesen (1923), 153-56,
and compare this with S. Hansen, “Retten og racehygiejnen,” Juridisk Tidsskrift 1
(1915): 761-80, 2 (1916): 8-23,66-81.
42. See Hansen, “Retten og racehygiejnen,” 766-67.
43. V. Rasmussen, Rigsdagstidende, Folketinget (1915-16): 196-97.
44. H edman, “Sterilisation, Nogen Erfarenhetsron.” See also E. L. Hedman, “O ppet
Brev til Herr Doktor Soren Hansen,” N y t Tidsskrift for Abnormvcesenet 17 (1915):
22-23. For Keller’s attitude toward eugenics, see V. Rasmussen, Rigsdagstidende,
Folketinget (1915-16): 196-97.
45. C. Keller, “Liva-Maend,” N y t Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet 14 (1912): 1-13, 42-45,
79-91, 142-65; C. Keller, “Livo. Maendenes 0 , ” N y t Tidsskrift fo r Abnormvcesenet
22 (1920): 93-95; C. Keller, “‘Sprogo’ som Kvindernes 0 , ” N y t T idsskrift fo r
A b n o rm v ce se n e t 22 (1920): 95-98; C. Keller, “S p rog 0 ,” N y t T id s s k r ift fo r
Abnormvcesenet 23 (1921): 43-47, 129-30.
46. C. Keller, “Hvad Kan der Geres for at Forringe de Andssvages Tal,” N y t Tidsskrift
fo r Abnormvcesenet 19 (1917): 19-24, 33-37 (translated from W. Fernald, “The
Burden of Feeble-mindedness,” Journal o f Psycho-Asthenics 17 [1912]: 89-111);
K. K. Steincke, Fremtidens Forsorgelsesvcesen (Copenhagen: J. H. Schultz, 1920),
241.
47. C. Keller, “K anslosgerelsen’s Problem ” (with a copy of Keller’s petition), N y t
Tidsskrift for Abnormvcesenet 23 (1921): 6-9. For development in Switzerland, see
M uller, Sterilisation und G esetzgebung bis 1933, 37-40; B. Z urugzoglu, “Die
Problem e der Eugenik U nder B esondere B eruchsichtigung der V erhiitung
E rbkranken N achw uchses,” in V erh iitu n g E rb k ra n k en N achw uchses, ed. S.
Zurugzoglu (Basel: Birkhauser, 1938).
48. W. L. Johannsen, Arvelighed i Historisk og Eksperimentel Belysning (Copenhagen:
Gyldendal, 1917), 4-5.
49. Ibid., 259-68, esp. 264.
50. Ibid., 269-74. For the controversy between Johannsen and Pearson, see N. Roll-
Hansen, “The Death of Spontaneous Generation and the Birth of the Gene: Two
Case Studies of Relativism,” Social Studies o f Science 13 (1983): 481-519.
51. Johannsen, Arvelighed i Historisk og Eksperimentel Belysning , 268, 275.
52. Ibid., 278-87.
53. Ibid., 277.
54. Ibid., 287-88.
55. Ibid., 289.
56. J. A. Mjeen, “Rassenhygiene in den Nordischen Landern,” Nationalsozialistische
M onatshefte (6 October 1935): 874-85, 875-76 (remarks about Johannsen).
57. Mohr, “H um an Arvebiologi og Eugenik.”
58. W. Johannsen, Arvelighed i Historisk og Eksperimentel Belysning. 4. omarbejdede og
forogede udgave (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1923); W. Johannsen, “Racehygiejniske
Problemer,” Naturens Verden 11 (1927): 214-35.
59. B etcenkning A ngaende Sociale F oranstaltninger O verfor D egenerativt Bestemte
Personer (Copenhagen, 1926), 20-23; material from “Kommissionen Angaende
Sociale F o ranstaltn in g er overfor D egenerativt Bestem te P ersoner,” D anish
National Archive.
60. O. Thom sen, “Sterilisering med Racehygiejnisk Formal, Nordisk Tidsskrift for
Videnskab,” K unst og K ultur 11 (1935): 115-23; O. Thomsen, “Forbrydelse som
Skaebne,” Politiken, 22 December 1928, 4; A. W im mer, “^gteskabslovgivning og
R a c e h y g ie jn e ,” G ads D a n sk e M a g a sin (1 9 1 1 -1 2 ): 91-96; A. W im m er,
Sindsygdommenes Arvegang og Raceforbedrende Bestrcebelser (Copenhagen: Levin
og Munksgaard, 1929).
61. 0 . Winge, “Er der Fare for Samfundets Arvelige Degeneration,” Naturens Verden
17 (1933): 106-19.
62. J. C. S m ith , “D e m e n tia Praecox og M a n io d e p re ssiv e P sy k o sers
A rv e lig h e d s fo rh o ld ,” H o s p ita ls tid e n d e 64 (1 9 2 1 ): 152-58; J. C. S m ith,
“Sterilisation af Andssvage. Forelebige Erfaringer pa Grundlag af den danske lov
af Maj 1934 om Foranstaltninger vedrorende Anddssvage,” Nordisk Tidsskrift for
 Sinnesslovard 38 (1936): 97-107. See also A. B ruun and J. C. Sm ith, “Om
S te rilisa tio n a f A n d ssva ge i h en h o ld t il lov nr. 117 a f 16. maj 1934 om
Foranstaltningeer vedrorende Andssvage,” Socialt Tidsskrift (1939): 369*81.
63. Steincke, Fremtidens Fors0 rgelsesvcesen. Steincke has left an extensive, five-volume
biography which only makes the need for a critical biography more acute (K. K.
Steincke, Ogsa en Tilvcerelse [Copenhagen: Fremad, 1945-49]). For a bibliography
of his considerable literary output, see T. Kjoller-Pedersen, K. K. Steincke, En
Bibliografi, dissertation (Copenhagen: The Danish Library School, 1977).
64. K. K. Steincke, Ogsa en Tilvcerelse: M inder og M eninger (Copenhagen: Fremad,
1945), 245-46.
65. G. von Hoffman, Die Rassenhygiene in den Vereignigten Staaten von Nordamerika
(Munchen: J. Lehmann, 1913); R. Larsson, Biologiske Causerier (Copenhagen:
Gyldendal, 1918).
66. Steincke, Fremtidens Forsergelsesvcesen, 251-52.
67. K. K. Steincke, “Sociallovgivning og Racehygiejne,” Ugeskrift fo r Lceger 90 (1928):
1138-45.
68. J. A renholt, “Ssedelighedsforbrydelser mod Born,” K vinden og S a m fu n d e t 37
(1921): 101-21. See also the debate in the same volum e, 34-35, 42-43 (M. B.
Westenholz) and 44, 53-54, 60-61 (L. B. Wright).
69. A. Goll, “Sterilisation af Forbrydere,” Nordisk Tidsskrift fo r Strafferet 11 (1923): 1­
20; G. E. Schroder, Ufrugtbargerelse som Led i M oderne Forbryderbehandling,
Tilskueren 39 (1922): 88-112.
70. Betcenkning A ngaende Sociale Foranstaltninger O verfor D egenerativt B estem te
Personer, 11-14, 20-23.
71. For the history of the H ardy-W einberg law, see W. B. Provine, The Origin o f
Theoretical P opulation Genetics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1971). See
also R. C. Punnett, “Eliminating Feeblemindedness,” Journal o f Heredity 8 (1917):
464-65.
72. Betcenkning A ng a en d e Sociale Foranstaltninger O verfor D egenerativt B estem te
Personer, 20-23.
73. Ibid., 23-27; H. O. Wildenskov, Investigation into the Causes o f M ental Deficiency
(Copenhagen: Levin og Munksgaard, 1934).
74. Betcenkning A ng a en d e Sociale F oranstaltninger O verfor D egenerativt Bestem te
Personer, 28.
75. See Kemp, A rvehygiejne, K ebenhavns U niversitets A rsskrift, 27, 31-32. For a
detailed tre a tm e n t o f th e G erm an law, see Bock, Z w a n g sste rilisa tio n u n d
Nationalsozialismus; Muller, Sterilisation und Gesetzgebung bis 1933; Weindling,
Health, Race and German Politics-, and Weingart et al., Rasse, B lut und Gene.
76. V. Rasmussen, Rigsdagstidende, Folketinget (1928-29): 3069-76.
77. R a sm u ssen , Rigsdagstidende, Folketinget (1 9 2 8 -2 9 ): 3 0 5 0 -9 4 , 4 6 7 7 -8 8 , 4746-77,
5749-55; A- G oll, “ S terilisatio n slo v en a f 1. Ju n i 1929 og d e n s R e su lta te r,” Politiken
(9-12 Ju n e 1933).
78. T. Kemp, “Sterilisation og Racehygiejne,” P olitiken (28 June 1933); K. Sand,
“Sterilisation af Syge, Abnorme og Forbrydere,” Politiken (23 January 1935).
79. Regarding the law of 1934, see Betcenkning om Andssvageforsorgen, Betcenkning nr.
204 (Copenhagen, 1958), 101-12; Betcenkning om Sterilisation og K astration,
Betcenkning nr. 353 (Copenhagen, 1964), 19-20, 25, 29. For an unusually blunt
statement regarding the application of the law, see R. Marthinsen, Andssvaghed og
Andssvageforsorg (Ribe: Eget Forlag, 1957), 102.
80. A. Bruun and J. C. Smith, “O m Sterilisation af Andssvage i Henhold til lov nr 117
af 16. maj 1934 om Foranstaltninger Vedrorende Andssvage,” Socialt Tidsskrift
(1939): 369-81.
81. For a more detailed description of this episode, see Kirkebaek, Abnormbegrebet i
D anm ark i 20.erne og 30.erne m ed Scerlig H enblik pa Eugeniske Bestrcebelser og
Scerlig i Forhold til Andssvage, 144-47. The fact that workers attacked a law enacted
by the Social Democratic government was noted, not without malice, by several
conservative newspapers.
82. E. Schibbye, Lov nr 176 a f 11 m aj 1935 om A dgang til Sterilisation og Kastration
(Copenhagen: J. H. Schultz, 1952); Betcenkning om Sterilisation og Kastration,
Betcenkning nr. 353, 112-66.
83. K. Sand, “Den Danske Sterilisationslov af 1. Juni 1929 og dens Resultater, med
Overvejelser om Lovens Revision,” Nordisk Tidsskrift for Strafferet 23 (1935): 31­
86. The review appeared with Sand listed as the only author, but it represented the
opinion of the whole medico-legal council.
84. Ibid., 78.
85. Ibid.
86. Ibid., 78-79.
87. Ibid., 81.
88. A. W im m er, S indsygdom m enes A rvegang og Raceforbedrende Bestrcebelser; K.
Hansen, Arvelighed hos M ennesket (Nykobing F.: Eget Forlag, 1929),
89. A. Garbo, Arvelighed og Socialpolitik (Copenhagen: P. Haase og Sons Forlag,
1931). The “Zwickauer Gesetzte” was a controversial eugenic proposal forwarded
by Gerhard Boeters, the municipal physician o f Zwickau, Sachsen, in 1923. See
Muller, Sterilisation u n d Gesetzgebung bis 1933, 60-63; and W eindling, Health,
Race and German Politics.
90. O. Thomsen, Lcerebog om M enneskets Arvelighedsforhold (Copenhagen: Levin og
Munksgaard, 1932); O. Thom sen, Arvelighedsforhold hos Mennesket, a series of lec­
tures that were broadcast by Danish Radio (Copenhagen: Levin og Munksgaard,
1930); 0 . Winge et al., Arv og Race (Copenhagen: M artin’s Forlag, 1934); T.
Geiger, Sam fund og Arvelighed (Copenhagen: M artin’s Forlag, 1935).
91. Geiger, esp. 122-79 and 257-78. See also the anonymous review of Geiger’s book
in Socialt Tidsskrift 11 (1935): 121-24.
92. For the changing attitude in Germany under the impact of the world crisis, see
Muller, Sterilisation und Gesetzgebung bis 1933; and Weindling, Health, Race and
German Politics. A detailed description of the reaction in the religious com m uni­
ties is given by K. N owak, “E uthanasie” und Sterilisierung im “D ritten Reich"
(Gottingen: Vandenhoech und Ruprecht, 1978).
 93. For d escrip tio n o f the b irth c o n tro l m o v em en t in D enm ark, see B. Lau,
Bernebegrcensningsbevcegelsen i D a n m a rk i 1920erne og 1930erne, dissertation
(Aarhus: Aarhus University, 1972); B. Borgen, Thit Jensen’s Samfundsengagement
(Copenhagen: Vinten, 1976); P. Hertoft, Det er maske en Galskab (Copenhagen:
Gyldendal, 1985); and f. H. Leunbach, Racehygiejne (Copenhagen: M artin ’s
Forlag, 1926). For the polemic between Soren Hansen and Leunbach, see Ugeskrift
for Lceger 87 (1925): 42-43, 64-65, 91-92, 114, 138. Thit Jensen stated her view on
birth control and eugenics in T. Jensen, Frivilligt Moderskab (Copenhagen: Kria,
1923), a small tract containing a lecture first given in the small provincial town
Kolding, 5 November 1923.
94. The history of this eccentric cosm ology has been treated in B. N agel, Die
Welteislehre. Ihre Geschichte und ihre Rolle im “Dritten Reich” (Stuttgart: Verlag fur
Geschichte der Naturwissenschaft und der Technik, 1991).
95. “Den Nordiske Race” was published as a feature in Det Nye N ord from 1920-25,
but it appeared as an independent periodical in Norway. For a m ore detailed
treatm ent of Mjoen, see N. Roll-Hansen, “Eugenics before W orld W ar II: The
Case of Norway,” History a nd Philosophy o f the Life Sciences 2 (1980): 269-98.
96. See R. Sparck, “Racebegrebet Biologisk Set,” in A rv og Race, 0 . W inge, et al.
(Copenhagen: M artin’s Forlag, 1934), 27-36; G. Hatt, “De Menneskelige Racer,”
in A rv og Race, 0 . Winge et al. (Copenhagen: M artin’s Forlag, 1934), 37-61; A.
Olsen, “Den Jodiske Race,” in A rv og Race, 0 . Winge et al. (Copenhagen: M artin’s
Forlag, 1934), 129-43; S. H a n se n , “ R a cern e,” P o litik e n (19 Ju n e 1933).
Paradoxically, Gudmund Hatt wrote in support of Germany during the occupa­
tion of Denm ark. The fate o f “N ordische Gesellschaft” is described in H. J.
Liitzhoft, Der Nordische G edanke in D eutschland 1920-1940 (Stuttgart: Klett,
1971). Virtually the only prom inent Dane who was active in this enterprise was
W ieth-K nudsen, the econom ist and anthropologist who had been exiled to
Norway (see note 14).
97. G. K. Chesterton, Eugenics a nd other Evils (London: Cassel and Co., 1922).
98. G. Scherz, “Sterilisation og Racehygiejne,” Nordisk Ugebladfor Katolske Kristne 82
(1933): 38-42; G. Scherz, “Til hvad Gavn er Sterilisation,” Nordisk Ugeblad for
Katolske Kristne 82 (1933): 720-24; Hansen, “Retten og racehygiejnen,” 762-71;
Steincke, Fremtidens Forsorgelsesvcesen, 246-47
99. Scherz, “Til hvad Gavn er Sterilisation.”
100. H. M uckerm ann, F am ilien og F olket, pam phlets 1-5 (C openhagen: Katolsk
Ungdom, 1931).
101. M. Pedersen, “Nogle B etrag tn ing er, saerlig V ed reren d e Laegers S tilling til
Sterilisationsloven,” Ugeskrift for Lceger 91 (1929): 194-95.
102. V. Rasmussen, Rigsdagstidende, Folketinget (1934-1935), 5127-31, 5141-43.
103. S. Rifbjerg, Udviklingshcemmede Bern (Copenhagen: Levin og Munksgaard, 1935),
194-95.
104. Kemp, Arvehygiejne, Kebenhavns Universitets Arsskrift, 27, 31-32. For details of the
German sterilization act, see W eindling, Health, Race and German Politics and
Muller, Sterilisation und Gesetzgebung bis 1933.
105. Kemp, “Sterilisation og Racehygiejne”; Goll, “Sterilisationsloven af 1. Juni 1929 og
dens Resultater”; Hansen, “Racerne.”
106. S. Hansen, “De Tyske Sterilisationslove,” Ugeskrift for Lceger 95 (1933): 912-13.
107. A. G oll, “De A rvesyge og S a m fu n d e t,” in A r v og R a c e , 0 . W in g e et al.
(Copenhagen: M artin’s Forlag, 1934), 89.
108. H. I. Schou, “Sterilisation af Sindssyge og A bnorme i Tyskland,” Ugeskrift for
L xger96 (1934): 1248-49.
109. K. K. Steincke, letter, Ugeskrift for Lceger 96 (1934): 1248-49.
110. T. Kemp, letter, Ugeskrift fo r Lceger 95 (1933): 965.
111. J. H. Leunbach, letter, Ugeskrift for Lceger 95 (1933): 925. Leunbach’s advocacy of
free sterilization drew strong criticism from Soren H ansen (S. Hansen, letter,
Ugeskrift for Lceger 95 (1933): 964.
112. A. W im m er, “ M o d e rn e R a c e h y g ie jn e ,” in A r v og R a ce, 0 . W inge et al.
(Copenhagen: M artin’s Forlag, 1934), 108-17.
113. A. Garboe, “I Anledning af den Tyske Sterilisationslov,” Socialt Tidsskrift9 (1933):
396.
114. H. O. Wildenskov, “Sterilisationslovens Revision,” Socialt Tidsskrift 10 (1934): 1­
13, esp. 5-8.
115. Sand, “Den D anske Sterilisationslov af 1. Juni 1929 og dens Resultater, med
Overvejelser om Lovens Revision.”
116. See A. Ebbinghaus, H. Kaupen-Haas and K. H. Roth, Heilen und Vernichten in
M ustergau H a m b u rg . B evdlkerungs u n d G e su n d h e itsp o litik im D ritten Reich
(Hamburg: Konkret Literatur Verlag, 1984).
117. W. Kopp, “Arvelighed og Racehygiejne i Det Tredie Riges Lovgivning,” Juristen 19
(1937): 249-60. C o m p are the views o f Schou (“Sterilisation af Sindssyge og
Abnorme i Tyskland”) and Goll (“De Arvesyge og Sam fundet”). This argument
was reiterated after the war by several German geneticists. See, for example, H.
Nachtsheim , “Das G esetzt zur V erhiitung erbkranken Nachwuchses aus dem
Jahre 1933 in heutiger Sicht, Artzliche Mitteilungen,” Deutschen A rtzteblatt 33, no.
59 (1962): 1640-44; H. Harmsen, “The German Sterilization Act,” Eugenics Review
45 (1954): 227-32.
118. The population commission had originally recommended a limited social indica­
tion for abortion b u t was overruled by the Minister of Health and Welfare, K. K.
Steincke, who also overruled other recommendations, including the institution of
sexual counseling. See H ertoft, D e t er m aske en Galskab; Steincke, Ogsa en
Tilvcerelse, and A. Myrdal and G. Myrdal, Kris i Befolkningsfragan (Stockholm:
B onniers, 1934). T he effect of this influential b o ok in D enm ark and o th er
S can d in av ian c o u n tr ie s has b een d e sc rib e d by A. C. C arlso n , K ris i
Befolkningsfragan, dissertation (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota, 1978).
119. V. Rasmussen, Rigsdagstidende, Landstinget (1937-1938), 172-74, 458-85, 786-802,
829-35.
120. T. Kemp, “A S tu d y o f th e C auses o f P ro s titu tio n , E specially C o n cern in g
Hereditary Factors,” in A Decade o f Progressive Eugenics, Scientific Papers o f The
Third International Congress o f Eugenics, ed. N. Perkins et al., (Baltimore: The
 Williams and Wilkins Co., 1934), 255-63; T. Kemp, Prostitution, A n Investigation
o f Its Causes, Especially with Regard to Hereditary Factors (Copenhagen: Levin og
Munksgaard, 1936).
121. P. W eindling, “The Rockefeller Foundation and German Biomedical Science
1920-1940: From Educational Philanthropy to International Science Policy,” in
Science, Politics and the Public Good: Essays in H onour o f Margaret Cowing, ed. N.
Rupke (Basingstoke: MacMillan, 1988), 119-40. See also Kevles, In the N am e o f
Eugenics, esp. 209-10.
122. “Report to the Rockefeller Foundation of visits to various Institutes, Laboratories,
etc. for H u m an G enetics in E u ro p e Ju ly -O c to b er 1934, by Tage K em p ,”
Rockefeller Archives, transfer file 713A.
123. T. K em p, “A k tu elle E u g en isk e P ro b le m e r,” L e d e tr a d ved F o lk elig
Universitetsforskning, no. 41 (Copenhagen: Levin og Munksgaard, 1936). T. Kemp,
“Den Moderne Arvelighedsforskning,” Nordisk Tidsskrift for Vetenskap, Konst och
Industri (1939): 394-409.
124. Kemp, Arvehygiejne, Kobenhavns Universitets Arsskrift, T. Kemp, “The Frequency
of Diseases Affected by Heredity in Denmark,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposium in
Quantitative Biology 15 (1952): 129-40.
125. The University Institute provided genetic counseling from 1939. The Heredity
Clinic at the U niversity o f M ichigan was established in 1940 and the D ight
Institute in 1941 at the University of Minnesota (Kevles, In the N am e o f Eugenics,
251-54). O f course, Eheberatungsstellen and similar institutions had provided
genetic advice even earlier.
126. Kemp, Arvehygiejne, Kobenhavns Universitets Arsskrift, 50 table 9.
127. Betcenkning afgivet a f det a f Arbejds og Socialministeriet nedsatte Udvalg angaende
den m od Berne og Andssvageforsorgen offentligt frem forte K ritik (Copenhagen,
1941); B etcenkning om A ndssvageforsorgens P roblem er, betcenkning nr. 185
(C openhagen, 1957); Betcenkning om Andssvageforsorgen, betcenkning nr. 204
(Copenhagen, 1958), 104-11.
128. Betcenkning om Andssvageforsorgen, betcenkning nr. 204, 105.
- 129. Ibid., 111.
130. T. Kemp, “Address at the Opening of the First International Congress of Human
Genetics,” Acta Genetica at Statistica 6 (1956-57): xii-xiii.
131. T. Kemp, “Genetic-Hygienic Experiences in D enm ark in Recent Years,” The
Eugenics Review 49 (1957): 11-18.
132. B etcenkning om Sterilisa tio n og K a stra tio n , B etcenkning nr. 353, 24, 71-72;
Folketingets Forhandlinger (1966-1967), 52-55, 925-43.
133. Betcenkning om Sterilisation og Kastration, Betcenkning nr. 353, 29-30; Folketingets
Forhandlinger (1966-1967), 927 (lb Thyregod, the Agrarian Party), 941-942 (the
Minister of Justice, K. Axel Nielsen, the Social Democrats). For an example of the
anxiety concerning the indirect coercion on the mentally retarded, see Folketingets
Forhandlinger (1966-1967), 932 (H anne Reintoft, The Socialist People’s Party).
134. Betcenkning om Sterilisation og Kastration, Betcenkning nr. 353, 20-21 and table
page 19.
135. F olketingets F orhandlinger (1966-1967), 932 (H anne R eintoft, The Socialist
People’s Party).
E ug en ic s in S w e d e n : E f f ic ie n t Ca r e
G u n n a r B r o b er g and M attias T y d e n

A m ong all the N ordic countries, Sweden was w here eugenics m et w ith its
greatest success. This is true both in term s of the early institutionalization
o f the m ovem ent an d the eugenic practice as it was m anifest in sterilization
policies between 1930 and 1960. This relative success is connected w ith the
unusually rapid developm ent o f Sweden from a n ation w ith an agrarian econ­
om y to an industrialized urban society, hence from a culture dom inated by tra ­
d itio n al L utheran C h ristian values to one d o m in ated by a secularized and
m odern lifestyle. As this essay aims to show, eugenics in Sweden is linked to
both these traditions and also belongs, though in an altered shape, to w hat has
been called “the Swedish model.”
This essay begins w ith the general background o f race biology in Sweden. It
discusses the developm ent and institutionalization o f Swedish eugenics in the
first decades of the tw entieth century and takes a closer look at the develop­
m ent and application o f Swedish laws on sterilization. Finally, we briefly follow
the changes in eugenics in the postw ar period and conclude with a discussion
o f the context of the eugenics m ovem ent in Sweden.

T he T u r n o f t h e C e n t u r y : T he A go n ies o f M o d e r n it y

A Swede living at the tu rn o f the century felt the w inds o f change. Although
an Am erican observer stressed “the extraordinarily rapid, tranquil, and suc­
cessful m odernization o f Sweden”— and this may have been so— the “tranquil­
lity” should not be exaggerated.1 T his “m o d ern ization” involved econom ic
growth, urbanization, political dem ocratization, increased social planning, and
an im proved standard o f living. But it also entailed growing social complexity
and diversity, a faster paced “m aelstrom of m odern life,” and a growing senti­
m ent that society had reached a stage where old solutions and old m orals no
longer applied.2
 T he tu rn -o f-th e-cen tu ry Swede confronted a n um ber o f m ajor historical
events. The first was em igration: from 1870 to 1914, an estim ated one m il­
lion— or one-sixth o f the population— emigrated from Sweden, principally to
the U nited States. Some felt that this was draining the nation o f its best young
m inds. The union betw een Sweden and Norway— long considered degrading
by Norwegians— was broken, after lengthy negotiations, in 1905. Some Swedes
w anted to take up arm s to ro u n d u p their wayward brothers, but m ost simply
felt an increasing national im potence. The political and social m obility o f the
tim e— the labor m ovem ent, the w om en’s rights m ovem ent, the tem perance
m ovem ent, the free-church m ovem ent— gave rise to further anxiety in conser­
vative quarters. In an atm osphere o f weakness and national defeat, the statisti­
cian G ustaf Sundbarg sought to capture “the Swedish national character” in
the Official Report on Em igration (1911), bearing dow n on Swedish tim idity
and insufficient self-esteem while aim ing a blow at pushy Denm ark. In 1914,
influenced by a farm ers’ rally, King G ustaf V tried in vain to check parliam en-
tarianism and reestablish a secure position for the m onarchy with his so-called
C ourtyard Speech. Sven H edin, the well-known explorer, attem pted to arouse
the nation to political p articipation and military preparedness w ith his 1914
p am p h le t Ett varningsord (A w arn in g )— o f w hich one m illion copies were
p rin te d for a p o p u la tio n o f less th a n six m illion. For H edin, as for other
Swedes— and this had been so since the seventeenth century— Russia was the
m ain enemy. Sweden was the eastern outpost of European civilization-, con­
fronting the Asian “heath en s” on its border. Historically, its m ission was to
safeguard European culture and the Lutheran faith. W hen W orld W ar I broke
out, Sweden was spared but, as elsewhere, there were hunger riots and fear for
the future of the nation.
All these developments pulled at the Swede around the tu rn o f the century.
This does not mean that the average Swede considered the real problem s the
m ost im portant ones. Instead, he got caught up in pseudo-phenom ena, such as
the fear of the consequences for Swedish culture o f im pending im m igration
(the foreign workers in Sweden num bered only 1,678 in 1907). It was held that
industrialization led to higher costs for society, increasing the num ber o f m en­
tally retarded and m entally ill, and enabling some— the crim inals— to profit
from this unhealthy developm ent. Living und er stress, pressed for tim e, a
grow ing num ber o f people were said to develop neurasthenia— th o u g h this
disorder could be viewed as a self-serving invention o f an expanding medical
profession. But the industrialization of the country also caused a cheapening of
ideals as never before. In evaluating the effects o f living in a new, industrial
society, the starting point was a form o f unreflective Lamarckism th at assumed
 that the period’s great environm ental changes would lead to swift (and most
often undesirable) changes in m an.
This emphasis on ongoing degeneration was typical of the times. Central to
it were medical ideas o f degeneration, fleshed out with anthropological cultural
philosophy and a full m easure o f old-fashioned m oralism . The an tid o te to
degeneration was to be found in inform ation and hygiene. “The breakthrough
o f the m odern era” in the Nordic countries, from the 1880s to W orld War I,
could be called a new period o f enlightenm ent, characterized, am ong other
things, by broad endeavors in the field o f social hygiene.3
A m ong the radical form ations o f the 1880s was, for example, the student
association Verdandi— a nam e taken from Nordic mythology. It published a
w idely circulated series o f p am p h lets dealing w ith co n tem porary subjects.
Early issues dealt w ith such topics as “The Decline in the M ortality Rate of
Sweden and Its Causes,” “The E xternal Diseases o f Dom estic A nim als and
T heir Treatm ent,” “O n the Care o f Infants,” “How O ur Body Protects Itself
against Germs,” and “Bathing Spells Health.” Thus, the population was taught
cleanliness in order to be better suited for the requirem ents of the new society.
This opening up o f private life for social ends gave society an o th er form of
control, but the opposite trend was also there, o f course; visits to the b ath ­
room , for example, became an ever m ore private matter. Propagation and p o p ­
ulation policies were im portant areas o f instruction, but not the only evidence
o f this trend. The eugenics m ovem ent is only a subdivision o f the hygiene
m ovem ent. Indeed, for m any people, the striving for health coupled w ith a
belief in progress becam e som ething o f a religion. The physician o r scientist
came to replace the m inister as the central figure in the intellectual life o f rural
com m unities. In public situations he becam e the indispensable expert on social
questions; he is also the m ain character in H enrik Ibsen’s En folkefiende (A
public enemy) published in 1882 and in August Strindberg’s I havsbandet (By
the open sea) published in 1890. The various reports on which m o d ern social
policies were to be based were largely the result o f the work of scientists. Thus
the educated m iddle class gained m ore influence in society than ever before.
The foremost cultural figure in Sweden at the end o f the nineteenth century
was Viktor Rydberg, w riter and cultural historian. As it happened, his last p u b ­
lication was a long introduction to an 1895 Swedish edition of Benjamin Kidd’s
Social Evolution, entitled “The Downfall o f the W hite Race.” Dissenting from
Kidd’s D arw inian optim ism , Rydberg envisioned European culture being over­
throw n by the Chinese. He predicted th at the downfall would come in the very
near future and w ould come a b o u t because o f m oral degeneration, d e m o ­
graphic conditions, and the ensuing defects in the population. Rydberg’s belief
in a swift, negative transform ation has clear Lam arckian features, but the cure
th at he suggests is n o t initially eugenic o r biological; instead, he advocates
moral rearm am ent. W ith the pathos o f a prophet, he really sees no other possi­
ble outcom e than his ow n death and. the death o f his race.4
The them e of degeneration reappears in Sveriges adel (Swedish nobility), a
comprehensive investigation o f the Swedish nobility published between 1898
and 1903 by the political scientist a n d p h ilan th ro pist Pontus Fahlbeck. The
rules o f the foundation that he established later to p rom ote inquiries into “that
great subject, the decline and fall o f peoples, nations, and cultures” are charac­
teristic for his own intellectual profile. The tim es were evil, in his religiously
colored view; yet he sought to do all th a t he hum anly could to tu rn the tide
through research and inform ation. O n and off in his w ork he refers to Adolphe
Q uetelet’s I’hom m e moyen, setting against h im “n o t only the su p erh u m an
genius b u t probably also the subhum an b orn crim inal”; as is evident, the ideas
o f L om broso h ad fo u n d acceptance. T he te rm “d egeneration,” so h a rd to
define, is given th ree m eanings: physical degeneration, m oral degeneration,
and deficient generative power— the latter leading to weak offspring or none,
sterility, an d finally th e end o f a lineage. T h ro u g h statistical, genealogical
research, Fahlbeck showed that the “generative pow er” o f the nobility was on
the decline. T he reaso n was n o t o n ly v o lu n tary contraceptive m easures—
Fahlbeck was opposed to neo-M althusianism — b u t also physiological factors
hitherto unknow n. The fact was that a “reflective” lifestyle, such as that o f the
nobility, did not fu rth er fertility. In addition, by living for themselves and not
for the race, they set a dangerous exam ple for the lower classes. N or would
regeneration from the m iddle class suffice to tu rn the downward trend. What
was needed was a “pow er o f a higher o rd er” which, alone, could make people
forgo com forts for th e sake o f society and the future. “This power is religion,”
Fahlbeck states, “the sense of duty stem m ing from the cause of all things.” He
then ends w ith a neo-K antian, religiously inspired vision which, with its focus
on decline, com bines fin de siecle philosophy with social Darwinism.5
A voice very d ifferen t from th at o f th e conservative Fahlbeck was Ellen
Key’s, the grand old lady o f the m ovem ent for w om en’s rights in Sweden and
an im portant conveyor o f contem porary international opinion. Barnets arhun-
drade (The century o f the child), published in 1900, appropriately, makes m an­
ifest an interest in eugenics, and in Lifslinjer (Lines o f life), published in 1903,
she professes a form o f sensual eugenics:

We should again preserve family history, b u t not only th at written in the old family
Bibles, with the im p o rta n t dates for b irth, marriage, an d death; no, th at which
 takes up also the circumstances which caused birth and death. We should again
begin to cast horoscopes, but less by the signs in the sky— though they may regain
som e o f their earlier significance— than by those on earth, and not only by the
signs at birth, but long before it. As alchemy became chemistry; astrology, astron­
omy; such interpretation o f signs will probably prepare for w hat— while waiting for
a w ord with a deeper significance than G alton’s eugenics and ontogeny— one could
call erotoplastics: the principle o f love as a consciously creative art instead o f a
b lin d , generative pow er. It w ould be o f im m ensely g rea te r consequence for
m ankind if the majority o f those women w ho transform their experiences into half
honest and wholly inartistic poem s com posed completely tru e family chronicles
and entirely honest confessions for the use o f science.6

Few, however, followed Key’s idealistic erotoplastics; w ith its request for
family chronicles and honest confessions, it involved a eugenic research p ro ­
gram of sorts, the results o f which would have proved fascinating for later his­
to ria n s. A lth o u g h her w ritin g co u ld be lin k ed to co n te m p o ra ry science,
however, as was the case with Rydberg and Fahlbeck, and although Key could
be num bered w ith the adherents o f eugenics, her m oral and religious argu­
m ents carried the m ost weight.

A n th r o p o lo g y , G e n e t ic s , a n d E u g e n ic s

The idea that there are superior Nordic virtues is com m on in Swedish tra d i­
tion and is rooted in the classics and in Viking history and Gothic traditions. It
was given a suprem e expression in O lof Rudbeck’s Atlantica (1679). The idea o f
an especially prom inent Nordic “race” is o f a later date, however. Linnaeus, o f
course, in his Systema naturae (1735), linked m an to a biological concept o f
race or variation and thus laid the g roundw ork for physical anthropology.7
This fact was often recalled during the heyday o f race biology in order to stress
th at research into racial characteristics was a particularly Swedish concern. In
th at tradition Anders Retzius was to make an im portant contribution, in tro ­
ducing a cephalic index aro u n d 1840, w ith th e ensuing creation o f ty p o lo ­
gies— a m ethod of m easurem ent used internationally in physical anthropology
into this century. If we move on a few decades, we find de Gobineau, the race
ideologist and French m inister to Sweden, in Stockholm; it is not known, how ­
ever, if his race theories influenced the Swedes m ore directly. To view m an b io ­
logically, in accordance w ith D arw in ian o r social D arw in ian m odels, was
alread y c o m m o n ; so was a n ti-S e m itism , b o rro w ed m o stly from G erm an
sources, and theories o f the psychology o f crim e taken over from the Italian
school. In addition, as previously m entioned, general pessimistic notions o f
cultural degeneration were widely spread.
In 1882 the Swedish Society for A nthropology and Geography was estab­
lished; the physiologist G ustaf Retzius (the son o f Anders Retzius) was one of
its leading m en, along w ith the explorer Sven H edin. Following up surveys
characteristic o f the tim e the society made arrangem ents in 1897-98 for a study
of the Swedish population. References were m ade to similar research in Central
Europe; it was then pointed out that “ [i]n o u r country, the birthplace o f m o d ­
ern a n th ro p o lo g y , no such co m prehensive inv estigation has b een m ade.”
Furtherm ore, the m atter was urgent in view o f the m arked changes in the po p ­
ulation due to m igration. The study was carried o ut, with the greatest effi­
ciency, o n so m e 4 5,000 r e c ru its a n d r e s u lte d in a h a n d s o m e v o lu m e,
Anthropologia suecica (1902). An increase in height was recorded; it was also
noted that the Swedish race was n o t quite so N ordic— so “dolicocephal,” to use
Anders Retzius’s term — as one m ight have believed and hoped. To a later gen­
eratio n th e fin d in g s ap p ear relatively in sig n ifican t, considering the w ork
involved. Accum ulating data tended to becom e an end in itself. Anthropologia
suecica exposes a science which, while waiting for a tenable theory, contents
itself w ith the collecting o f material.
The anthropological trad itio n in Swedish eugenics should be given some
weight, but it was to be eclipsed m ore and m ore by the advance o f genetics.
An institute for p lant breeding was established at Svalof in southern Sweden
in 1886 an d was then given governm ent grants in 1894. Because o f its achieve­
ments, the “Svalof m eth o d ” becam e a term used worldwide at the tu rn of the
century. The so u th ern Swedish plant breeding institutes became im portant for
the in tro d u ctio n o f M endelism into Sweden, and at the University o f Lund the
botanist Bengt Lidforss, specialist on the Rubus genus, wrote popular science
articles close to his subject, not infrequently w ith eugenic or even racist fea­
tures; the latter regrettably, in p art because Lidforss m ust be considered one o f
Sweden’s forem ost essayists. At the University o f Lund, too, H erm an Nilsson-
Ehle was tra in e d , a botanist w ho p roduced an epochal dissertation on the
polym erism o f cereal grasses (1910-11) in which he developed an im portant
branch o f M endelian genetics. N ilsson-E hle was to be aw arded a personal
chair in genetics, attached to Alnarp, and was influential in the developm ent
o f Swedish plant breeding thro u g h o u t his long career. He will appear later as a
supporter o f the eugenics m ovem ent. The im pression that Swedish genetics
was a concern first and forem ost in southern Sweden is strengthened by the
fact th a t good relations h ad been established w ith W ilhelm Johannsen in
Copenhagen.
 It was inevitable, th e n , th a t th e first Swedish genetics association, the
Mendel Society, was form ed in Lund (1910). This was early indeed: only two
years before, Erwin Baur had established the first genetic journal, Zeitschrift fu r
induktive Abstam m ungs- und Vererbungslehre. (After 1920, the society p u b ­
lished its own periodical, Hereditas, a forum for the N ordic countries.) Its
mem bers were mainly specialists, and Nilsson-Ehle was naturally the central
figure. As a m atter o f fact, the initiative had really come from Robert Larsson, a
w riter who, although lacking an academic degree, knew the field well and was
an im portant popularizer of new ideas in the areas o f genetics and eugenics.
His relish for eugenics is apparent from a passage in a letter to the leading
Swedish m an of the m ovem ent, H erm an Lundborg: “You are the pathfinder,
the pioneer, pointing o u t possible new routes. You and Ehle (in his field). I am
o f a m ore receptive n a tu re .” A nd ind eed , race biology and eugenics b o th
appeared on the program of the Mendel Society— when Lundborg was there,
for instance (1916), and w hen Baur visited in 1920 and 1922.
In its early days the eugenic m ovem ent liked to favor the notion o f a distinct
Nordic race and established a connection with both anthropological research
and the dawning understanding of hereditary matters. The medical profession
especially was to b ecom e involved. A m ong early p ro p a g an d ists, m en tio n
should be m ade of Torsten Thunberg, physiologist and hygienist, who gave an
inaugural lecture on “C onditions o f Hygiene and N atural Selection” at his
installation in Lund (1906); after a glance at population figures, he inexorably
moved on to the threat o f counterselection in m odern society divined by the
eugenicists. The anatom ist Vilhelm H ultcrantz, one o f those involved in the
w ork on Anthropologia suecica, expounded on nature’s “cruel b u t beneficial
com petition” (1907). It was becom ing inoperative, he felt; therefore one had to
put a stop to “the generating o f the unfit, the parasites o f society.” Such nega­
tive eugenic m easures should be supplem ented with positive ones, however;
the law should be followed by the gospel. Subsidies should be given to families
w ith m a n y c h ild re n as w ell as to th o s e in th e h o m e ste a d m o v e m e n t—
H ultcrantz spoke at the opening o f the Uppsala allotm ent gardens and appar­
ently found pungent eugenic remarks suitable for that idyllic occasion.8
In 1909 the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Svenska sallskapet for rashy-
gien) was form ed in Stockholm. The m ajority of its founding m em bers already
belonged to the Internationale Gesellschaft fur Rassenhygiene, whose Swedish
contingent almost equaled the Germ an at the time; a register from 1910 lists 46
Swedes am ong its 290 m em bers.9 Thus, it was quite natural for the society to
join the G erm an association rather th an its rival, the International Eugenic
C om m ittee, in corpore. Its m em bership was never large— at no tim e did it
exceed 100— but recru itm en t took place am ong highly esteem ed academics;
Donald MacKenzie’s thesis th at early eugenic associations functioned as interest
groups, prom oting the social aspirations o f their m em bers, thus finds some
support here.10 The chairm an was the zoologist Vilhelm Leche, a Liberal and a
Lamarckist; the deputy chairm an was Hultcrantz. The founder of Swedish crim ­
inology, O lof Kinberg, an d Svante A rrhenius, w inner o f the Nobel Prize for
chemistry in 1903, were o n the board. Lectures were given and research funded
on a small scale. On a few occasions bills were subm itted to the society, as when
contraception was a topical issue in 1910. The hesitantly positive stance of the
b o a rd m e t w ith little re sp o n se , how ever; in fo rm a tio n on co n tracep tiv es
rem ained prohibited in Sweden until 1938. Nor was the society all that success­
ful in influencing public opinion— its greatest achievement was to come in the
years after W orld War I, w ith a series of popular works— but its mere existence
is illustrative for biomedical reform ideas during the first decades of the century.
At ab o u t the same tim e— d u rin g the years preceding W orld W ar I— the
Swedish physician and psychiatrist H erm an Lundborg began to preach eugen­
ics as the salvation o f the nation. Although he scarcely wanted to reject envi­
ro n m en tal-ty p e reform s, he stressed, m ore th a n others, the principle that
“heredity is everything.” H e shared the widespread w orry about w hat was hap­
pening to the country, b u t at the same tim e he possessed the zeal o f a popular
educator and the conviction o f a religious enthusiast. Eugenics, and hygienics,
had become som ething o f a secularized religion in these circles.
As the m ain character in Swedish race biology Lundborg deserves a few
introductory lines. Shortly before the tu rn of the century he began an investi­
gation o f a hereditary disease in a farming family in southern Sweden, and in
1913, in a sizable w ork given the somewhat unwieldy title Medizinisch-biologis-
che Familien-Untersuchungen innerhalb eines 2232-kdpfigen Bauerngeschlecht in
Schweden, he was able to show that m yoclonus epilepsy was transm itted in
accordance w ith M endelian recessive laws. In this pioneer w ork Lundborg
made use of a historical-genealogical m ethod and succeeded in isolating the
various stages o f a disease th ro u g h labo rio u s archival research. The swift
decline o f a family was n o t all that was brought to light, however, but also that
o f a region, due to u n fortunate genetic m aterial and thoughdess interm arry­
ing. The result was at once genetic and sociological. The m ethod will be recog­
nized: it was D ugdale’s, in his fam ous investigation o f the fukes, and also
Charles D avenports, in his strenuous study of pedigrees at the Eugenics Record
Office in Cold Spring H arbor.
Clearly Lundborg belonged to D avenport’s generation; moreover, he was of
a similar tem peram ent, devoid of hum or, possessed o f a like conviction that
eugenics was the only real so lu tio n to m o st o f life’s p ro b le m s an d , like
Davenport, his diligence had its roots in the Protestant work ethic. No one—
least o f all Lundborg him self—doubted his role as the leader of the Swedish
e u g e n ic s m o v e m e n t. T h e fo llo w in g q u o ta tio n fro m “ T h e T h re a t o f
D egeneration” (1922), an essay o n the ever m ore u n fortunate trends in the
structure o f the Swedish population, will show the preacher in him ; an apoca­
lyptic atm osphere is evoked from a position o f agrarian rom anticism , and then
it is tim e for the eugenic gospel:

The strong increase o f the bo tto m strata forms the m ost dangerous p art o f the
whole process, for it is their physical and spiritual deficiencies that are such distinct
features in their make-up— the higher strata am ong the workers are n o t affected by
this judgm ent, of course. Since the middle class is shriveling up at the same time,
and the upper class, which is to be found predom inantly in the cities, has but few
descendants, it is clear th a t the po p u latio n becom es p roletarianized and, as a
whole, o f poorer racial quality than before. In other words, a host o f more or less
poorly equipped in d iv id u a ls com e in to being, a n d they w ill soon m a ke their w ill
known, especially in periods o f unrest or unem ploym ent. . . . The racial power of our
old farming stock is worth m ore than gold. It m ust not be ravaged. W e m ust not
only save that precious capital, however, in wise solicitude, bu t increase it if possi­
ble. O f what avail are whole piles of gold, even all the riches in the world, if, for
their sake, we head for great disquietude and m eet with degeneration in a com para­
tively short time. It is not easy for an individual to resist all the tem ptations that are
evoked by wealth and luxuries. It is perhaps even m ore difficult for a whole people
to choose a course of self-denial, to do w ithout comfort, to forgo diversions and
pleasures and instead live frugally and work hard for the sake o f im provem ent.
W here, then, is salvation to be fo u n d , one m ight ask. Surely th e w hole o f
m ankind is not doomed to destruction? The answer is: We m ust pay attention to
the genotype to a far greater extent than hitherto; that is, we m ust w ork far more
than is being done now for the lineage and the race, for good families and healthy
children. The individual m u st learn to see this and make real sacrifices for his
descendants, as our forefathers did for us. It is true that m odern individualism is
not so inclined, but there will surely be a new age, taking a different direction; it
has already begun to set in although most people have not noticed it.11

T he I n stitu tio n a liza tio n o f R a c e B iology

After W orld War II the various branches o f science were being reorganized,
in Sweden as in the other N ordic countries.12 In 1918 Lundborg in his letters
discussed plans for a cu ltu ral academy, “The Royal Swedish Society for the
Study o f the People an d C ulture o f Sweden,” where race biology was to be
strongly represented. T he Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene was revived, and
in the next few years a successful p o p u la r science series was issued, w hich
included contributions o n the aims and m ethods o f eugenics, the sterilization
issue, m odern genetics, an d on Lundborg’s diseased farm ing com m unity as a
w arning to the population o f Sweden.
Lundborg was also to edit a more substantial piece o f propaganda for the
society, The Swedish Nation, which was published in English, probably in order
to appeal to wealthy A m erican patrons— there was n o t m uch to be hoped for
from G erm any after th e war. In 1918 L undborg organized “an exhibition of
racial types,” which was to tour Swedish cities and tow ns that year. The p u r­
pose was patriotic and educational in the traditional vein, evoking Swedish his­
tory, b u t th e re w ere also links to m o d e rn science in th e fo rm o f tables,
photographs of different races, and scientific lectures. Officially it was uniquely
successful: “perhaps n o exhibition h ad received so m uch patronage in our
country,” read the com m entary; “one can say that the Exhibition brought out a
real national assembly.” T he statements suggest that the Swedish public enjoyed
listening to race rhetoric. O ne example th at supports this idea, a result o f the
exhibition, was a beauty contest held in 1921 to “bring to light and define a
Swedish-Germanic racial type'.’ Lundborg was on the jury, which awarded the
prize to a handsom e bicycle repairm an from the west o f Sweden.
In D ecem ber 1918, F ritio f L ennm alm , p rofessor at th e Royal C aroline
Institute o f Medicine, proposed that a Nobel institute for race biology be estab­
lished. After the m atter had been mulled over, it was rejected by a small m ajor­
ity, officially for formal reasons; according to Lundborg, the rebuff was due to
the personal anim osity o f some of the faculty. Instead a state institute was pro­
posed in th e form o f a b ill in tro d u c e d in b o th c h am b ers o f the Swedish
Parliam ent in 1921 signed by representatives of all the parties, from the conser­
vatives on the Right to the Social D em ocrats o f the Left. The degree o f consen­
sus an d the w ide su p p o rt th at the bill o b tained indicate th at lobbying had
taken place, ultim ately from L undborg’s side. As was standard procedure, a
com m ittee was set up to discuss the bill; it was unanim ous in recom m ending
the establishm ent o f an institute and also proposed th at the bill be subm itted
to the.universities. There, too, it m et w ith enthusiasm .
The debate in Parliam ent was lively. Those advocating the passage of the bill
pointed to the value o f preserving the Swedish stock and the possibility that an
institute o f this kind m ight prove as useful as the existing ones for plant breed­
ing. Two statem ents m ade by the future m inister o f education and ecclesiastical
affairs for the Social Democrats, A rthur Engberg, will show the tenor: “We are
lucky to have a race which is as yet fairly unspoiled,” he said, “a race which is
the bearer of very high and very good qualities.” Not surprisingly, therefore, he
found it “odd that while we are so very particular about registering the pedi­
gree o f o u r dogs and horses, we are not at all particular w hen it comes to trying
to preserve o u r ow n Swedish stock.” Deference was show n to the problem s
within this particular science, and Lundborg was apostrophized as a prom inent
scientist worthy of support, who had to be kept in the country. The opponents
stressed the prevalent financial crisis, which called for cautiousness with regard
to lo n g -term c o m m itm en ts. T here was no risk th a t the bill w ould n o t be
passed, however, and so the first state institute for race biology in the world was
created .13 W hen it o pened its doors in Uppsala in 1922, w ith Lundborg in
charge, this was with authority invested by the Swedish people through their
elected representatives and ratified by the king. That also lent it status interna­
tionally. W hen the institute found itself in financial difficulties in 1928, Eugen
Fischer w rote from Berlin, testifying to its im portance and declaring that its
organization had inspired the Kaiser W ilhelm Institut fiir Rassenhygiene.
This breakthrough on a broad front should come as no surprise to anyone
w ho has followed th e in tern atio n al history o f eugenics. In considering the
Swedish debate just after W orld War I, it is the war that forms the springboard.
The Social Democrats, program m atically international, had becom e ever m ore
national during the w ar years. Anything that appealed to Swedish values was
incontestable to m ost people and belonged to what could be called a national
“superideology.” Equally incontestable were references to science as an im por­
tant factor in the transform ation o f society and as an agent for m oral im prove­
ment. Furtherm ore, the fact that genetics and race biology were new branches
of science was to their credit, and so they should be tried. In this m anner m o d ­
ernism could be com bined with traditionalism in national m atters. Then, since
calculations showed th at race biology would involve only m odest costs while it
m ight yield substantial returns, few objections could be raised. Nor, contrary
to w hat was sometimes stated, was the subject particularly difficult to u n d er­
stand; it was fully intelligible to race rom antics as well as to m athem atically
inclined social engineers. The element o f popular education in eugenics also
had its appeal. Indeed, Nils Hanson, the minister o f agriculture, whose state­
m ent was seen to carry particular weight, said that research in race biology
would be the start o f “self-education am ong our people.”
Quite clearly race biology held a comparatively strong position, but it had to
gain further credit as a science. Lundborg’s interest in m odern genetics seems
to have cooled in tim e, but he liked to refer not only to the usefulness o f the
 subject b u t also to its great com plexity and its character o f “p u re” research.
Accordingly, he suggested th at a num ber o f geneticists be aw arded the 1922
Nobel Prize.14 Behind his suggestion, quite likely, lay a wish to assert that race
biology was a wholly respectable branch o f science, w orthy o f being evaluated
in o th er th a n coarse econom ic term s. To act th e way he did was o f course
politic. It was n o t until 1933, however, th at T. H. M organ was awarded the
prize, the first geneticist to be so honored.
By an act o f the Parliam ent, Swedish eugenics had been provided with an
institutional base and also w ith a nam e and status. This is n o t to say that the
in stitu te was a g ran d estab lish m en t. Its staff consisted o f the professor in
charge, th a t is, L und b o rg , a statistician , a m edical assistant (at one tim e,
G unnar Dahlberg, who was later to ru n the institute), an anthropological assis­
tan t (m ost p rom inent am ong them , W ilhelm Krauss, a Jewish refugee from
Vienna), a genealogist, a w om an traveling assistant, and a photographer; all in
all seven employees, and a yearly budget of 60,000 Swedish kronor. The insti­
tute was ru n by a board o f seven directors appointed by the Swedish govern­
ment; am ong them were Lennm alm , Nilsson-Ehle, Hultcrantz, and Lundborg
himself, soon to be joined by Nils von Hofsten, a zoologist and geneticist who
was to play one of the leading parts when sterilization became a m ajor issue in
Sweden. The chairm an o f the board was the governor of Uppsala county, for­
m er Prim e M in ister H ja lm a r H am m arskjold. T hus, the In stitu te for Race
Biology stood on a solid base and could start its work w ith considerable self­
esteem. All the same it was largely a one-m an institute, run alm ost entirely by
Lundborg. In view o f its later developm ent, the actual establishm ent of the
Swedish In stitute for Race Biology was the highw ater m ark o f th e eugenics
m ovem ent in Sweden.
Its first im p o rtan t task was to make a com prehensive survey o f the Swedish
population, a counterpart, then, o f Retzius’s and Fiirst’s Anthropologia suecica.
In one year 100,000 Swedes were measured, o f w hom tw o-thirds were recruits,
5 percent teacher trainees, 4 percent patients in hospitals o r sanatoria, and a
fairly large group prisoners. Statistics were collected and photographs taken
endlessly, but the investigation was com pleted w ithin a reasonable period of
time. The result was at h an d by Christm as 1926, a bulky volum e in English
entitled The Racial Character o f the Swedish Nation. It received a great deal of
praise: “This is, for the first tim e, a really definitive anthropological study of a
nation,” said E. A. H ooton; “ [n]o other n atio n has produced anything that
can approach it,” asserted P. Popenoe. The w ork was spread internationally;
from as far away as Java there came an order for fifty copies. In 1927, an illus­
trated popular version was issued in Swedish (Svensk Raskunskap), and it sold
well— the p o rtra it gallery may, for the voyeur, have held som e appeal. The
G erm an tra n sla tio n , th e Rassenkunde des schwedischen Volkes, w hich the
Gustav Fischer Verlag published in 1928, was also, despite considerable cuts,
an impressive volume. H ere the bicycle repairm an who was awarded a prize
for his N ordic character appears in the nude, while the illustrations o f the
Sami people are of m iddle-aged models. Photography was used in a seductive
way in this case, as it often was elsewhere in contem porary physical anthro­
pology. In o th e r respects th e findings w ere sim ilar to those presen ted in
Anthropologia suecica, th o u g h given in greater detail; there was also a slight
upw ard adjustm ent o f th e height o f the population.
At the same time, Lundborg continued working on an investigation of the
race biology of the Swedish Sami, which he had em barked upon before the war.
The area itself is a classic training ground for anthropologists from the Nordic
countries, but Lundborg’s plans w ent further than any previous attem pt. W hat
he had in m ind was nothing less than a complete inventory. For long periods
he stayed in Lapland, wholly absorbed in his research, far from the cares of the
institute, which ceased to function in his absence. The object was to investigate
the consequences o f m erging one people w ith another, “w hile there is still
tim e”— th e consequence o f “m iscegenation,” in o ther w ords. A w earisom e
search of public records was begun, covering m aterial from the beginning of
the eighteenth century on; at the same tim e the present generation was being
m easured during countless visits to Sami teepees and fairs. Besides measure­
ments (taken in accordance w ith Rudolf M artin’s tables) and photographs in
profile and en face, serological tests were m ade on a regular basis from the m id­
dle o f the 1920s on. The investigation was to have been com pleted by 1930, but
the first p art of it was n o t presented until 1935 and the second part in 1942.
O ther work, too, at the institute, was concentrated on the problem o f misce­
genation. H ere L un d b o rg collab o rated w ith S. J. H olm es at Berkeley and
Charles D avenport in Cold Spring Harbor, planning to establish institutes for
research and propaganda in C entral America and Africa. O ne o f the results was
L u n d b o rg ’s a n n o ta te d b ib lio g rap h y , D ie R assenm ischung beim M enschen
(1931), an erudite but biased work. The quotation with which he ends the bib­
liography, taken from Fritz Lenz, suggests his involvement: “W ir glauben nicht,
dass das der nordischen Rasse drohende Schicksal unabw endbar sei” (We do
no t believe that the th reaten in g fate o f the N ordic race is final).15 A nother
result was th at Krauss, th e in stitu te’s anthropologist, was sent to Hawaii in
1934 to study miscegenation there. W riting hom e, Krauss com m ented on the
excellent collections at D avenport’s institute, but felt that the Swedish Institute
for Race Biology could well bear com parison— if only one could move into
new premises. (This wish is expressed tim e and again in the annual reports of
the institute.)
A high point for the w ork o f the institute was the 1925 Nordic Conference
on Race Biology a n d A n th ro p o lo g y , w hich was a rra n g e d in U ppsala and
attracted aro u n d fo rty delegates o f som e prom inence. Sim ilar inter-N ordic
arrang em en ts had been u n d e r discussion previously, at m eetings held for
Nordic scientists. It was decided at the conference to form a Nordic association
for anthropology, and Norway, with Jon Alfred M joen, was given the task o f
arranging a future conference. N one was ever held, however; the feeling o f
affinity was hardly overwhelming. In fact, there was antagonism both o f a per­
sonal and o f a scientific nature. As his correspondence shows, Lundborg had
established good co n n ectio n s especially w ith his Finno-Sw edish colleagues
H arry Federley, Jarl H agelstam , Ossian Schaum an, and Kaarlo H ilden, who
valued the Swedish example; am ong his Norwegian contacts J. A. M joen was
too m uch of a dilettante and also a com petitor when it came to public appeal,
and O tto Lous M ohr was hardly a reliable supporter. His contacts w ith the
Danes were sporadic. It was of course essential for him to have Johanssen on
his side, but Johanssen wavered in his attitude tow ard eugenics. Lundborg’s
relations w ith the G erm an representatives o f the subject were businesslike.
They knew his w ork well, especially his Familienforschung, and also needed his
su p p o rt in the h ard years after the war. As a m em ber o f the International
Eugenics Comm ittee, w hich m et in Lund in 1923, he worked for their adm is­
sio n to th e c o m m iss io n a n d re fu se d to a tte n d l ’ln s t i t u t I n te r n a tio n a l
d ’A nthropologie th e follow ing year in Paris, since G erm any had n o t been
invited. His attitude was typical of the strong p ro-G erm an sentim ent which
was prevalent in academic circles in Sweden from the nineteenth century up to
World War II.
An im portant p art o f the institute’s agenda was public lectures, which were
given from 1922 on, num bering ten a year. Here Lundborg could make use of
his international connections. In 1923 the future Nazi race ideologist Hans F.
G unther had business at the institute in Uppsala and gave a lecture; in 1924
Eugen Fischer, soon to be director o f the Berlin Institute for Racial Hygiene as
well as rector o f the University o f Berlin, was there; in 1925 Uppsala was visited
by Fritz Lenz of M unich, coauthor, w ith Ernst Baur and Eugen Fischer, of the
G erm an standard w ork o n the subject o f eugenics. H erm ann M uckerm ann,
W alter Sheidt, E rn st K retschm er, Egon von Eickstedt, a n d a h o st o f o ther
Germ ans found their way to the institute, lecturing on genetics, anthropology,
social hygiene, race philosophy, evolution, and p lan t an d anim al breeding.
Nordic scientists, too, instructed the Uppsala audience which, it was always
stated, was large and appreciative— this was the golden era o f the public lec­
ture. The talks or readings in the groves o f academe and the great notice they
attracted were surely im portant propaganda for the institute.

T he M id -T h ir t ie s : T he W in d s o f C h a n ce

The year 1933 marks a shift in the history of Swedish race biology. The insti­
tute reached a crisis point, due to the im pending change o f director. The affair
b ro u g h t o th e r w ork alm ost to a standstill for several years. The board was
preparing a new program but its m em bers could not agree with one another or
with Lundborg. Partly in reaction to him personally, the press had been cold
toward the institute for some time; on several occasions, it was downright hos­
tile. In the prevailing difficult budgetary situation, Parliament cut the sum allo­
cated to the institute year by year, so that the suggested total for 1933 was 30,000
kronor, h alf o f the original am ount— which had in itself been totally inade­
quate. The sum was increased on the initiatives of the ever helpful members of
Parliam ent Alfred Petren and Nils Wohlin, and several attem pts were made to
raise m oney by subscription in order to put the institute on a sound footing;
but all such measures were wearing for those whose loyalty had already been p u t
to the test. The developments in Germ any and Lundborg’s increasingly desper­
ate p roposals gave rise to the th o u g h t, in som e quarters, th a t the institute
should be closed down. The alternative was vigorous regeneration.
The creation of a new program linked to the question o f the directorship
was a tiresom e issue. O ne part of the discussion centered around w hether the
person w ho was to ru n the institute had to be com petent in as many areas as
Lundborg was said to be— in psychiatry, statistics, anthropology, and genet­
ics— o r if specialization in one area w ould be sufficient. In 1932 the board
insisted th at the institute’s anthropological study o f the Sami be continued to
its conclusion, but it also recom m ended comprehensive medical research into
the links between feeblemindedness and certain eye diseases, the inheritance of
deaf-m utism , etc. It was pointed out th at the institute had long been subordi­
nate to plant and anim al breeding institutes, and one way out would be to seek
a division into three departm ents and so gain larger funds; Nilsson-Ehle sup­
ported such a change, hum bly stating that his own grants were seven times the
size o f those of the institute in Uppsala, although his research was “immensely
less im portant.” Obviously, the board really believed in the institute and was
prepared to fight for it.
W hen th e tim e cam e to ap p o in t a new head, the b o ard was faithful to
Lundborg and his ideas, after all. Chosen for the office but not yet installed was
Torsten Sjogren, who was trained in psychiatry and had worked periodically at
the institute. A num ber o f studies in the same vein as Lundborg’s— especially
his thesis concerning w hat cam e to be called Sjogren’s syndrom e, a juvenile
form o f am aurotic idiocy and its inheritance— had qualified him for the post.
The rival candidate was G unnar Dahlberg. Trained in medicine, the latter had
worked at the institute along w ith his wife durin g its first few years, but had
later found him self in open opposition to Lundborg. Dahlberg’s dissertation, a
study o f tw ins, was an im p o rtan t piece o f research, too, b u t directed toward
statistical refinem ent rather th an traditional race biology. Politically, Dahlberg
stood to the Left, often in a challenging m anner. Thus he and Sjogren were two
very different candidates; the board was not only choosing a departm ent head,
but also deciding the future direction o f the institute.
As a consequence, the procedure of consulting a num ber of experts to have
them rank the candidates became a protracted affair. Four general experts were
chosen: H a rry Federley from F in lan d an d O lu f T hom sen from D enm ark,
Charles D avenport from the United States, and Ernst Rtidin from Germany. Two
specialists were called in: one a statistician and one a psychiatrist. Before the m at­
ter had proceeded that far, a num ber o f ballots had been taken at the various uni­
versities. In one instance, the medical faculty o f the University o f Uppsala had
disallowed Lundborg’s vote. Dahlberg also challenged the fact that Riidin had
been selected as one o f the experts: Dahlberg had sided with Karl Sailer’s eugenic
program on several occasions, which had been criticized from the Nazi camp by
Riidin; insidiously, Dahlberg pointed out that Riidin would risk reprisals if he
handed in a positive report. The experts’ recom m endation was a score of 3-1 for
Sjogren— but the ballot taken at the University o f Uppsala swung the figures to
10-4 for Dahlberg. The board o f the Institute for Race Biology was the more
decidedly for Sjogren, marking up 7-1 in his favor, after long deliberations; von
Hofsten, for instance, would have preferred a professorship for each of the candi­
dates, thus following up the earlier suggestion that the institute be expanded.
The views o f the board should have settled the m atter; it took a different
turn, however, and Dahlberg was appointed in som ething of a deus ex machina
fashion. His political connections proved effective: G unnar M yrdal, a good
friend of his am ong the Social D em ocrats, spoke to the m inister concerned,
and so the question, which had come up as early as 1933, was finally decided in
June 1936. N either o f the applicants left the fight unsullied; D ahlberg, for
example, worked behind the scenes to quite som e extent, against the institute,
an d his a p p o in tm e n t was clearly m ade on political ra th e r th a n scientific
grounds— the very basis for his accusation against Riidin. Indeed, the whole
affair shows the complexity o f eugenics and politics at the time.
 Dahlberg proved equal to the task that lay ahead. The distressing business—
and Dahlberg estim ated that it took five and one-half years— was also a tu rn ­
ing p o in t for Swedish eugenics in its older form . It lost its hom e, for the
Institute for Race Biology soon became very different from what it had been
under H erm an Lundborg, and eugenics also lost its position of authority in the
public debate. In G erm an quarters it was held that it had fallen am ong thieves
and become a center for “wiedervolkische W irken des M arxismus” (the anti-
Volkish effects o f M arxism ).16
The change can be dem onstrated through a few additional remarks about
the representatives o f Swedish eugenics who have appeared in the discussion.
Among them H erm an Lundborg has been pointed to as a m ember o f the old
school, convinced o f the advantages o f the Nordic race, opposed to industrial­
ization and its effects on the energy and m orals o f the population. In tim e
Lundborg was to subscribe to anti-Semitism, coming to hold, for instance, that
the Institute for Race Biology m et w ith opposition because the m edia were
under Jewish control, and profess him self an adherent o f Nazism. In 1938 he
received an honorary doctorate at Hans F. G unther’s University of Heidelberg.
Herm an Nilsson-Ehle followed the same course, m isled by a m ind th at was at
times clouded. He was an active m em ber of the Swedish-German Association,
mainly a group o f academics, and evidence of the strength o f the old cultural
connections between the two countries. Although he never wrote extensively
about eugenics, he adm ired Lundborg unreservedly and belongs in the same
fold. Their attitudes are almost a coarsening of what has been labeled “m ain­
line eugenics,” if by that term we m ean the belief in the different w orth o f dif­
ferent races, the im m ediate usefulness o f eugenic reform , the limited effect of
environm ental influence, and the decisive role of heredity. In another political
quarter we find the Social D em ocrat Alfred Petren, w ho prom oted the estab­
lishm ent o f the institute and the introduction of sterilization laws. Trained in
medicine, he represented a social dem ocracy which em phasized the im p o r­
tance o f science in the restru ctu rin g o f society. Given his age, Petren, too,
belonged to the generation which em braced m ainline eugenics.
The zoologist Nils von Hofsten can be placed in this same category, though
in a partly contradictory way. A m em ber o f the b oard o f the Institute for Race
Biology and a lecturer on genetics, he was conversant w ith the history o f the
subject. Politically he can be labeled a social liberal, w hose radicalism was kin­
dled in the Uppsala o f Verdandi, the student association. He was an extreme
supporter of positivism, though his belief in science was balanced by a strong
interest in literatu re and in the h u m anities. The p e rio d during w hich von
Hofsten served eugenics— from the 1910s to the 1950s— began long before and
ended long after the transitional decade of the 1930s, and yet no clear influence
from reform eugenics can be found in his writings, n or can any explicit oppo­
sition to traditional eugenics. He to o k it for granted that comprehensive nega­
tive eugenic m easures were o f value, especially in the case o f th e m entally
retarded. Nils von Hofsten is a key figure, then, w ho fits into both periods. He
was the inco rru p tib le academ ic expert and the perfect public servant all in
one— conscientious, idealistic, an d in most instances honorable. The stance he
took as rector o f the U niversity o f Uppsala against the G erm an invasion of
Norway is one example o f his high morals.
G unnar Dahlberg belonged m ore unequivocally to the advocates o f the new
era. In addition to w hat has been w ritten earlier, his writings in the areas of
social m edicine and politics should be m entioned. Foremost is his 1937 Svensk
politisk handbok (A handbook o f Swedish politics), on which he collaborated
w ith H erbert Tingsten, one o f the m ost prom inent spokesmen for the Left in
the contem porary debate. D ahlberg could be called a Swedish m em ber of the
“visible college,” m ade up o f B ernal, H aldane, N eedham , and Snow, which
existed in C am bridge.17 A q uotation from his A rv och ras from 1940 (English
edition, Race, Reason and Rubbish, 1942) shows how he felt th a t the debate
should be conducted:

It is always more or less uncongenial and somewhat ridiculous to a m an o f science

when matters bearing on his own field are transferred to the plane o f party politics,
and become the topic of excited controversy among a wider public. To som e extent
discussion m ust then descend to a lower level. . . . Time will come when public dis­
cussions, such as those we now have about race, will be looked upon as . . . queer.
Meantime the problems of hum an inheritance are im portant to posterity; and it is
natural that we should be interested in them. Scientific men have no claim to rank as
a caste with the peculiar privilege o f pronouncing judgm ent on difficult questions.18

In spite o f everything, then, there was a limit to how far D ahlberg was will­
ing to extend his work outw ard and “dow nw ard”; he did not accept a place on
any governm ent com m ission, for example. There is a strain o f the intellectual
aristocrat in him , and he ran his institute at least as autocratically as Lundborg.
In 1936 he studied similar institutes abroad and then launched a plan which
excluded the old an thropological bran ch altogether. Medical investigations
based on hospital records and inform ation in archives were now to be con­
ducted on a statistical basis, and tests on animals were to be used to trace the
heritability o f tuberculosis, am ong oth er things. Dahlberg tu rn ed away from
the attention paid to diseases th a t were “o f interest only as curiosities” and
to w a rd th e com m o n diseases o f th e everyday w orld. T he b o a rd was not
pleased, but that was the course th at was followed.
Thus, given the diffuse nature o f the terms, it should be pointed out that the
shift from race biology to hum an genetics occurred long before the Institute
for Race Biology was renam ed in 1958. The transform ation could be described
as one in which physical anthropology gave way to genetics and where field
studies were replaced to an ever larger degree by experim ental laboratory work.

P opu latio n P o lic ie s in t h e 1 9 3 0 s : F rom Q u a lity to Q u a n tity

Sweden entered the m odern era w ith vigorous strides. Since the tu rn of the
century an old agrarian nation had become an industrial one, ever m ore pow­
erful economically. D uring W orld W ar I there had been a severe shortage of
supplies, but as a neutral country Sweden had still m anaged better than other
nations. The economic depression at the end of the 1920s left fewer scars than
in oth er parts of the W estern world. T hough it was hardly viewed in such posi­
tive term s at the time, com paratively steady progress had been made. It could
be said, perhaps, that the people caught up with the m odern era in stages. The
them e o f degeneration in literature was replaced by a new form o f vitalism,
linked to the success o f the proletarian writers in the 1920s. The advance of
social democracy provided fuel for positive visions o f the future. The strides
m ade in popular education, such as the m any courses arranged by the ABF
(the Workers Educational Association) at Brunnsvik, its center for adult educa­
tion, were im portant for the p rom otion o f belief in the future and in rational­
ism which have long been characteristic o f the Swedish labor movem ent.
The year 1930 is generally chosen to signify the start o f a new era when
the Stockholm Exhibition launched functionalism w ith its sim ple, rational
design. Its m otto was “accept”— accept change, th a t is, and m odernism . In
1928 th e Swedish m o d e l fo r th e w elfare state was lab eled “th e p e o p le’s
hom e” by the prim e m inister, P. A. H ansson, in a fam ous speech in which he
e m p h a siz e d th e n eed fo r s o lid a rity b etw een th e social classes b u t also
stressed a traditional paternalistic family structure. The C hurch o f Sweden,
too, was vitalized, the result, in p art, o f the inspired leadership o f Nathan
S o d e rb lo m , a rc h b is h o p a n d N o b e l Peace P riz e w in n e r. T h e U niversal
C h r is t ia n C o n fe re n c e o n Life a n d W o rk a r r a n g e d by S o d e rb lo m in
Stockholm and Uppsala in 1925 led to som e relaxation th ro u g h o u t the rigid
old establishm ent. So in m any ways the scien tist and ex pert c o n trib u te d
substantially to the fo rm atio n o f th e country. Soderblom ’s re p u ta tio n was
probably at its peak at this tim e. “I know o f no co untry where there has been
so close a relation b etw een research an d application as in Sweden,” w rote
one o f th e officials o f th e Rockefeller F o u n d atio n .19
In the mid-1930s the A m erican journalist M arquis Childs published a book
on Sweden, in which th e country was seen, enthusiastically, to represent “the
middle way,” com bining, o n a small scale, great rational solutions with respect
for the individual; particu lar attention was paid to the cooperative movement.
But Childs also suggested historical-biological reasons for the successful com ­
promise; “A long, long struggle for existence toughened the Scandinavians,” he
says, “and always with a lan d for the m ost part bleak and harsh.” He refers to
the Vikings, but also to an ancient trad itio n of democracy, before he sums up;

This is hardly to suggest th a t it is Utopia, o r even an approxim ation o f Utopia. But

out o f an organic growth there has come, o r so it appears to-day, a certain whole­
ness, a certain health, th a t is rare in the present period. It is a m achine civilization;
there are proportionately m ore telephones, more electrical devices, m ore m otor
cars in Stockholm than in any other European city; the rural areas are m ore com ­
pletely electrified than anyw here else in the world, unless perhaps it be certain can­
tons in Switzerland. But th e machine is n o t the master. From the past there has
been preserved, if only in symbol, the pledge of m an’s ancient debt to earth and
sea; his dependence u p o n elemental form s o f production, the fertility of the soil
and the fecundity of anim als.20

The p ictu re m ust n o t be m ade to ap p ear wholly u n ifo rm , however. Childs

could have added a few w ords about the Swedish interest in the rational pro­
duction o f men, or eugenics, or an only slightly concealed xenophobia. In its
program s, the A grarian Party stressed th e defense o f the Swedish race. The
Sami population in the n o rth was often dismissed as exotica for the tourists,
while the Gypsies, nu m b erin g a m odest 600 or so in 1945, were treated as a
danger to the Swedish way o f life. The group was the subject o f an official gov­
ernm ent report in 1941, which contains plentiful evidence o f racist and ethno­
centric views. The a ttitu d e tow ard im m ig ran ts was often negative in spite
of—or due to— the fact th a t they were so very few. A notorious case was the
negative stance taken by the Uppsala Students U nion in a statem ent m ade in
1939 before the arrival o f a small group o f Jewish physicians. The students may
only have been looking after their own interests, b u t it is hard to disregard the
element o f racism th at was present; som ew hat later, the union at Lund m ade a
similar statem ent, as d id medical students in Stockholm. W hen it is pointed
out th a t th e Nazi p a rtie s played so m arginal a role in Sweden, it m u st be
rem em bered that this was only because o f their factionalism. Racial hostility as
 well as pro-G erm an sentim ent can easily be docum ented in Sweden in the
1930s. The form er was hardly a guiding principle in the debate on Swedish
population policies, however, which began in earnest around the m iddle of the
decade.21
Then, for a few years, the declining birthrate was considered a question of
vital im portance. At the turn of th e century the average family had four chil­
dren; a few decades later, only two. The vision that was conjured up was one of
a dying nation. In the 1930s, however, this decline did not strengthen the posi­
tion o f eugenics as it had before; the three decades had weakened it— or trans­
lated it from biology into sociology. After econom ists and statisticians had
m ade their voices heard, Alva and G unnar Myrdal in 1934 published their Kris
i befolkningsfragan (Crisis in th e p o p u la tio n q u estio n ), which gave rise to
renewed discussion. The reorientation that had occurred was considerable; the
interests of wom en had been m oved to the forefront, for instance, in term s of
ab o rtio n and m aternity benefits. In order to educate the public, a vigorous
cam paign was launched, based on the idea that biological quality was far less
scientific a concept than statistical quantity.22
The break w ith the old era and th e changing over to “reform eugenics” thus
occurred w ith Dahlberg, who had an ally in G unnar Myrdal. The latter was
wholly oriented to the West. It is tru e that Kris i befolkningsfragan advocates
eugenic measures in term s which— com ing from two future Nobel Prize w in­
ners— may seem strange to latter-day readers; old eugenic solutions are also
recom m ended (and comprehensive ones at that), even though less im portance
is attached to them than to other reform s. The Myrdals, however, were not out
to protect the “race”; they did not care in the least for Teutonic race mysticism.
Invariably they saw the population less as a biological entity than a mathematical
or physical quantity. “Race” was a qualitative concept o f no use in politics. Clearly,
G unnar Myrdal was influenced by the Uppsala school o f philosophy, by what was
called “value nihilism” (its international counterpart being “emotivism”), which
sorted out emotional and qualitative statements as “unscientific.”23
Hence G unnar Myrdal was a prim ary source of inspiration for the art o f social
engineering in Sweden, but also, as a consequence, an agent for the removal of
biology from the debate in the 1930s.24 His thoughts on racism would become
clearer by and by as Germany continued on its course. From 1938 o n he was
involved in work on An American Dilemma (1944), where he gives a bright pic­
ture o f the American tradition and where the race problem constitutes a dark
anom aly which is hard to explain. It is evident that both Myrdal and Dahlberg
regarded the problem o f a diminishing population as a social matter rather than
a biological one. This philosophy was also the o p eratin g p rin cip le for the
Swedish Com m ission on Population (1935-38). Its chairm an, Nils Wohlin, was a
man of the old school, it is true, but he had to accept that times had changed.
Let us sum u p the position of Swedish eugenics aro u n d the m iddle o f the
1930s— the tim e o f a change in leadership at the Institute for Race Biology, the
first Swedish sterilization law, and the Nazi breakthrough in Germany: Swedish
social dem ocracy was stable and embarked on a course o f welfare policies. These
no longer concerned the working class only, whose basic demands had been met,
but a growing m iddle class, too. New tactical and rhetorical maneuvers were
employed, which older Social Democrats at times found hard to accept. A new
group o f Social D em ocrats steered society onto the course it has stayed on since
then, by and large. The state and the public sector were to be strengthened. This
could affect particular individuals adversely; but then, as was generally pointed
out, strong centralization was a requisite for freedom o f choice, lest the rights of
the weak be adversely affected. This way o f viewing the m atter rendered it possi­
ble, paradoxical as it may seem, to both increase the rights of the state vis-a-vis
the individual in one context— as in the case of sterilization— and show great
solicitude for her in another. Although such a policy m ay be based on the best of
intentions it never quite works, as will become apparent.

E u g e n ic L eg isla t io n : T he C a s e o f S t e r iliza tio n

In Sweden, legislation on sterilization is the prim e example of how eugenic

theory was transform ed into political action. The first Swedish law on steriliza­
tion came into force in 1935, and was expanded in 1941. The mentally retarded
were sterilized o n a large scale up to the early 1950s. However, as we shall see,
sociopolitical and econom ic perspectives also influenced the developm ent of
the sterilization program .
A lthough occasional sterilizations for m edical reasons were perform ed in
Sweden at the tu rn o f the century, with one reported as early as 1895,25 the first
sterilization o n eugenic grounds took place in 1906. T he patient— a severely
retard ed m o th e r o f tw o— h ad been se n t to a w o m e n ’s clinic in so u th e rn
Sweden by the local authorities. A second instance on eugenic grounds was
reco rd ed by th e sam e phy sician in 1914, th e p a tie n t being an ep ile p tic
woman.26 As long as there was no legislation pertaining to sterilization, how­
ever, operations perform ed on other th an purely m edical grounds were for­
mally illegal. T hro u g h o u t the 1910s the attitudes tow ard eugenic sterilization
were m arked by uncertainty and even skepticism. T hus, although eugenic ster­
ilizations were obviously perform ed, the debate on eugenic legislation began
not with sterilization, b u t as a discussion o n the im pedim ents to marriage.
 The topic arose in 1908 as a m em ber of P arliam ent, Edvard Wavrinsky,
introduced two bills seeking to prevent that “infectious and hereditary diseases
be transm itted through marriage.” Wavrinsky suggested com pulsory medical
exam ination before matrim ony, as well as a future study to determ ine the dis­
eases that would make a nullity o f marriage possible. The bills did not pass;
Parliam ent’s C om m ittee on Civil Law Legislation stressed that th e proposal
involved an intervention by the state in the personal sphere that could only be
justified by “absolutely necessary circumstances, o r if it is in accordance with
the prevalent opinion.” According to the com m ittee, neither o f these condi­
tions was at hand.27
The following year the principles o f race biology and race hygiene were for
th e firs t tim e p r e s e n te d in d e p th in th e S w e d ish m e d ic a l jo u rn a l
Lakartidningen. In contrast to the Committee o n Civil Law, the author, district
m edical officer A. M. Selling, perceived ch an g in g attitudes: “T he tim e of
absolute freedom, as proclaim ed in theory by the French Revolution, has since
long passed, an d every infringem ent on the p ersonal freedom is considered
permissible, if in the interest o f th e public good.” Selling forcefully stressed the
im portance o f eugenically based m arriage restrictions, as well as economic
reforms to facilitate the “m arriage and propagation am ong the physically and
mentally, intellectually and morally, better equipped.” One may note that the
author also referred to the legislation introduced “w ith youthful courage” by
som e A m erican states, in p a rtic u la r the In d ian a sterilization law o f 1907,
although it seems th at Selling doubted that it w ould be p u t into practice.28
Vilhelm H ultcrantz showed greater hesitation tow ard sterilization in a paper
on eugenics p u b lish e d in 1911. A lthough en th u siastically e n d o rsin g race
hygiene, “the religion o f the future,” the author lim ited his recommendations
to marriage restrictions and, in cases o f insanity an d severe alcoholism, to per­
m an en t deten tio n . As to sterilization, opinions w ere divided, according to
Hultcrantz: “In o u r country the tim e is far from ready for any general legisla­
tion in this direction.” Even H erm an Lundborg shared this view in a report on
Germ an eugenics published in Lakartidningen in 1912. The question o f steril­
ization had been raised too early, he claimed, and eugenics had to grow much
stronger before any com pulsory m easures could be considered.29
Evidently, this was also the conclusion draw n by the various com m ittees
that at the same tim e were preparing a general revision of the Swedish m ar­
riage laws. The m edical aspects o f marriage were discussed in a report by the
Medical Faculty o f Uppsala University in 1911. A ccording to the faculty, a law
on sterilization could not be introduced “w ithout the support o f a well-pre­
pared public opinion.” In the proposal for changed legislation on m arriage, put
forw ard by the parliam entary law -drafting committee in 1913, the question of
sterilization was not discussed. Based o n the Medical Faculty report, however,
the proposal officially introduced race hygiene as a motive for legislation. Thus
it was stated th at “contem porary race hygiene, eugenics, with grow ing force
dem ands legislation to protect future generations and in order to m aintain and
im prove the hum an race.”30 The m arriage laws finally instituted in 1915 listed
three im pedim ents to m arriage aim ed at preventing the transm ission o f hered­
itary diseases: m ental retardation, m ental illness, and epilepsy “which is caused
predom inantly by inner factors.”
The attitudes toward eugenic sterilization were gradually becoming m ore pos­
itive. In 1915 Lakartidningen published a paper presented to the Lund medical
society by a professor of medicine, Elis Essen-Moller. Fourteen sterilizations were
described in detail, including the two m entioned earlier performed on eugenic
grounds in 1906 and 1914. Referring to the insufficient scientific knowledge on
heredity, as well as the attitudes am ong the public, Essen-Moller did n o t speak in
favor of a sterilization law. Yet, he described sterilization as a more hum ane alter­
native than marriage restrictions or institutional care (“it appears to m e incom ­
prehensible that sterilization can be designated as brutal”).31
To cite a final example, one may p o in t to Nils von Hofsten s 500-page work
on genetics published in 1919, Arftlighetslara. In th e last ch apter o n race
hygiene, von Hofsten stated th at it was tim e for careful eugenic reform s in
ad d itio n to the 1915 m arriage laws. “Segregation” o f the m entally deficient
could be used m ore frequently, and in cases o f “severe hereditary degeneration”
there was no reason to recoil from “such a radical, though at the sam e tim e
hum ane, measure as vasectomy.” Nils von Hofsten did stress the im portance of
caution and remarked that the sterilizations carried o u t in the United States—
according to the author m ore than 620 prior to W orld War I— reflected atti­
tudes that went far beyond w hat could be legitimated from the standpoint of
eugenic science: “In m any cases, even th e most radical form of eugenics cannot
possibly eradicate an undesirable characteristic, and is far less capable o f check­
ing its propagation than anyone w ho is unfam iliar w ith the M endelian laws of
inheritance usually imagines.”32
By the early 1920s the way had been paved for a m ore outspoken debate on
eugenic sterilization. As shown earlier in this chapter, the lobbying effort for
race biology and race hygiene had been intensified in Sweden th ro u g h o u t the
1910s. Beginning w ith th e fo u n d atio n o f the Society for Racial H ygiene in
1909, continuing with publications, lectures, and exhibitions, the cam paign
gained m om entum as the State Institute for Race Biology opened in 1922. Yet,
w hile the general principles o f race hygiene were enthusiastically em braced,
genetics still did not offer any clear guidelines for eugenic sterilization. The
proponents o f sterilization solved this problem, however, by turning to non-
eugenic argum ents. Thus, w hen the issue first came up for discussion in the
Swedish Parliam ent in 1922, em phasis was placed on the social and economic
aspects o f a sterilization program . From an econom ic point o f view, it was
argued, the institutional care o f the m entally retarded and mentally ill placed a
heavy burden on society. From a social point o f view, it was claimed, the m en­
tally retarded— irrespective o f the possible “eugenic dangers inherent in their
propagation”— were unfit to raise children.
The 1922 bill proposing a law o n sterilization was introduced by the psychi­
atrist Alfred Petren and signed jo in tly by Social Dem ocrats, Liberals, and a
m em ber o f the Agrarian Party. Petren argued for systematic sterilization o f the
m entally retarded, although the bill also discussed the possibility o f sterilizing
epileptics, the m entally ill and, in special cases, rapists and other sexual offend­
ers. There was no question o f com pulsory measures, however; in Petren’s opin­
ion leg islatio n in this area sh o u ld be re stric te d to d e te rm in in g w h en an
operation would be permissible.33
By 1922 the eugenic discourse was w ell-established. The p arlia m en ta ry
com m ittee to which the sterilization bill was referred approved o f the various
argum ents put forward by Petren, b u t also started off with a general approval
o f race hygiene: “To keep the h u m an race in good order, and to im prove it, is
naturally o f considerable interest to the state.” Parliam ent reached a decision to
set up a comm ission to investigate the issue, w ithout putting the question to a
vote.34
In the following years, however, n o political actions to forward a sterilization
law were taken, alth o u g h o th e r activities c o n tin u ed . A booklet discussing
eugenic sterilization was published by the Society for Racial Hygiene in 1922, at
the sam e tim e as Petren in tro d u c e d his p arliam en tary bill. Special reports
regarding future legislation on sterilization were delivered by the Institute for
Race Biology in 1923, and by the N ational Board o f Health (Medicinalstyrelsen)
in 1924. The latter u n d erlin ed th a t “sterilization o f the insane, th e feeble­
m inded, and epileptics m ust now be reconsidered in earnest.” Eugenics, includ­
ing the question o f sterilization, was given a special section in a comprehensive
survey on social questions, Social handbok, published by the Society for Social
W ork (C entralforbundet for socialt arbete) in 1925. In the same year steriliza­
tion was discussed by the Swedish Society o f Medicine (Lakaresallskapet).35
In D ecem ber 1927 the Swedish governm ent finally set up a C om m ission
on Sterilization consisting o f four experts (two professors o f m edicine, Einar
Sjovall and Elis Essen-M oller; a lawyer, G ustaf Lindstedt; and a psychiatrist,
Victor W igert). The m inister for social affairs stressed, however, that the m a t­
ter was extrem ely delicate and intricate. O ne w ould have to proceed cau ­
tiously an d define, as narrow ly as possible, th e g roups th at were to come
u n der the future law. In a report presented in 1929 the com m ission, quite
unexpectedly, p ro p o sed a very restrictive law, lim ited to voluntary steriliza­
tion on genetic g rounds. The com m ission did n o t consider sterilization on
purely social grounds. Society, it was held, was responsible for the u p b rin g ­
ing o f the children o f antisocial individuals, w ho m ight grow up to be useful
citizens.36
Due to the one-sided focus on hereditary diseases and its voluntary principles,
the 1929 report m et w ith severe criticism when it was subm itted to a num ber of
medical institutes an d public organizations. Thus, the proposed law was rejected
by the N ational B oard o f Health as well as by the N ational Board o f Social
Welfare (Socialstyrelsen). Any future law, it was held, should deal first and fore­
most with involuntary sterilization; indeed, some o f the replies advocated com­
pulsory sterilization o f specific groups, such as the m entally retarded.37
Reviving the issue in 1933, Petren convinced Parliam ent to investigate the
m atter anew. The task was given to Ragnar Bergendal, professor o f crim inal
law, w ho needed only a few m onths to prepare a second proposal for a law.
W ith Bergendal’s re p o rt, the principle o f v o lu n tary sterilization was aban­
doned. His proposal opened the d oor to sterilization o f legally incom petent
individuals (i.e., persons considered unable to make a legally valid decision of
their own) w ithout their consent. The rights o f the individual were explicitly
subordinated to the interest o f society. Thus it was proposed that sterilization
of m inors be p erm itted even if their parents were opposed; sterilization was
not to be prevented for “reasons which, from society’s point of view, m ust be
considered irrelevant.” In some instances, Bergendal stated, it m ight be better
not to inform the p atien t of what kind o f operation he or she was to undergo.38
The sterilization bill put before Parliament in 1934 by the Social Democratic
governm ent by and large followed Bergendal’s report. The government m ain­
tained that there w ould be no question o f “com pulsory sterilization, properly
speaking,” since th e proposed law did n o t provide for coercive m easures to
achieve its object. It was said that “a private interview, suited to their com prehen­
sion,” could be used to prepare the mentally retarded for the operation; “in most
cases that should do to overcome whatever reluctance may have existed initially.”
Persuading a patient to accept sterilization was thus the m ethod recommended
by the government.39
The bill was p assed by P arliam ent, an d Sw eden’s first S terilization Act
entered into force o n 1 January 1935. Sterilization w ithout the consent o f the
 patient was now perm itted in the case o f “m ental illness, feeble-mindedness, or
other m ental defects” if the patient had been declared incapable of consenting
to the operation (legal incompetence). A prerequisite was that the person who
was to be sterilized was “incapable of caring for children” (social indication) or,
due to defective genes, w ould “transm it m ental illness or feeble-mindedness”
(eugenic indication). Applications for sterilization were to be subm itted to the
N ational Board o f H ealth. If the o p eratio n concerned a m entally retarded
patient, two physicians could decide jointly w ithout consulting the board.40
C onsidering that th irteen years passed before A dolf Petien’s 1922 parlia­
m entary bill led to legislation, the hesitation regarding eugenic sterilization
should not be underestim ated. Why were there doubts about this kind of legis­
lation? First, scientific knowledge did not provide any simple guiding princi­
ples for eugenic sterilization. This was noted repeatedly, although the need for
race hygiene was usually stressed in general term s at the same time. Thus,
when the sterilization law was discussed and prepared in the 1920s, eugenic
sterilization was not considered to have an effect on the com position o f the
Swedish population, mainly because m any diseases stem from recessive genes
spread am ong healthy carriers. It was believed th at a decrease might follow
from systematic sterilization only w ith regard to m ental retardation. In this
perspective, race hygiene in a “proper sense” was n o t the motive behind the
Swedish sterilization program . Einar Sjovall, a m em ber o f the 1927 committee,
pointed o u t in 1929 that a sterilization law w ould probably lead to disappoint­
m ent “am ong those who, tinged with em otion, expect a great and immediate
effect on ‘racial hygiene.’” Nils von Hofsten, in principle an ardent advocate of
sterilization, rem arked in 1931: “Sterilization, and negative race hygiene in
general, are Sisyphean tasks if one tries to aim at race im provem ent.”41
But the reluctance regarding legislation h ad other grounds as well. It was,
for instance, held by som e leading physicians that sterilization was a m atter
for the m edical profession alone, not for ju rists or politicians. In spite o f the
form al ban, operatio n s were perform ed in th e 1920s w ith o u t legal conse­
quences. Thus, a physician in Stockholm reported twenty-seven cases from
1927-29, o f w hich n in e co n c e rn e d m e n ta lly re ta rd e d p a tie n ts. A p u blic
bureau for assistance to the m entally deranged in Stockholm also referred
patients for sterilization in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Included am ong
them were tw enty-one m entally retarded, as well as som e epileptics and m en ­
tally ill. A ccording to th e Swedish Society o f M edicine a n d the C aroline
Institute o f M edicine (Karolinska Institutet), it was questionable if any law
on sterilization was needed, since it w ould lim it the rights o f physicians to
perform such operations.42
 A n im p o rta n t arg u m en t was th a t sterilizatio n could be regarded as an
encroachm ent on personal rights. Yet this was not a salient feature in the con­
te m p o ra ry Swedish d eb ate. It is tru e th a t th e advocates fo r steriliz a tio n
th ro u g h o u t the 1910s took it for granted th a t public opinion was n o t “pre­
pared” for eugenic legislation. The task, however, was to prepare it. Indeed,
severe criticism was delivered occasionally. Thus, G unnar H edren, professor o f
forensic medicine, published an article in Lakartidningen in 1922 objecting to
the idea o f a sterilization law. W ith such legislation, he argued, there was a risk
that the sense o f w hat was lawful would be stretched successively, “so that, with
regard to the right of disposal of the individual, euthanasia, for example, might
in tim e becom e a lawful m easure and perhaps also the taking o f life in other
instances, whenever it appears desirable for eugenic or other social reasons.”
Similar argum ents were p u t forth in Parliam ent in the same year when Carl
Lindhagen o f the Socialist Party ironically stated: “Why shall we only deprive
these persons, o f no use to society or even for themselves, the ability o f repro­
duction? Is it not even kinder to take their lives? This kind o f dubious reason­
ing will be the outcome o f the m ethods proposed today.” Yet this was a lone
voice crying in the wilderness.43

S ter iliza t io n a n d S o c ia l R efo rm s

D uring the 1930s su p p o rt for the sterilization program gained m om entum

am ong Swedish politicians. To explain this development one m ay point to the
intense debate on the so-called population crisis in these years, w ith Sweden
recording the lowest birthrate in the w orld in 1934. Furtherm ore, eugenics was
incorporated into the social policy developed by the Social D em ocrats from the
1930s on. Let us once m ore tu rn to Alva and G unnar Myrdal, in the vanguard
of social engineering, and examine their argum ent for sterilization.44
Indeed, the Myrdals were not racists. O n the contrary, their im portant work
on the population crisis, Kris i befolkningsfragan, placed population and family
problem s in a socioeconomic context, and was, consequently, a plea for social
and econom ic reforms. They evidently regarded eugenics with some suspicion:
“The eugenicists, who in p art are responsible for the investigation of the quali­
tative aspects of population questions, have m ade im portant contributions in
special fields. As to m ore general guiding principles, their contributions, in
part, have been of questionable value.”45
Still the Myrdals regarded forced sterilization as a part of population policy,
and in Kris i befolkningsfragan they advocated “quite ruthless sterilization poli­
cies” for the mentally retarded.46 As technical development and the dem and for
efficiency proceeded in industrial society, the question o f hum an quality became
urgent. M odernization made a small b u t growing part o f the population second-
rate, they argued. This “social substratum ” was not to be regarded as a separate
social group, but rather as a layer of defectives recruited from all social classes. In
cases o f “eugenically doubtful parentage,” society had the right to intervene, not
with any aim to improve the race, b u t for social reasons and for the com m on
interest. As the welfare state developed, Alva Myrdal wrote in 1941, the question
of undesirable children would become increasingly im portant:

In our day of highly accelerated social reforms the need for sterilization on social
grounds gains new m om entum . Generous social reforms may facilitate hom e-m ak­
ing and childbearing m ore than before am ong the groups o f less desirable as well as
m ore desirable parents. This may not be regretted in itself as the personal h appi­
ness o f these individuals and the p rofitable rearing o f those o f th eir children
already born are not to be neglected. But the fact that com m unity aid is accom pa­
nied by increased fertility in some groups hereditarily defective or in other respects
deficient and also the fact that infant m ortality among the deficient is decreasing
dem ands some corresponding corrective.'17

T h r o u g h K ris i b e fo lk n in g sfra g a n , a n d th r o u g h th e ir w o rk o n th e
C om m ission on P o p u latio n — ap p o in ted in 1935 w ith G u n n ar M yrdal as a
m em ber and Alva Myrdal as a consulting expert— the Myrdals obviously influ­
enced Swedish population policy, although the com m ission sometimes leaned
to th e rig h t in a way th a t G u n n a r M yrdal disavow ed— “It has a sm ell o f
Nazism,” he wrote in a 1938 letter discussing the final report o f the com m is­
sion. Clearly, Alva an d G unnar M yrdal spoke about sterilization, and about
“desirable parents” an d “unfit,” in the same m anner as m ost debaters o f the
time. In matters o f eugenics, they based their opinions on contem porary scien­
tists such as G unnar Dahlberg and Nils von Hofsten. W hat is w orth noting,
however, is the way they p u t sterilization in the context o f social reform s.
Rejecting traditional race hygiene and anything rem iniscent o f racism , Alva
and G unnar Myrdal regarded sterilization o f the deficient as an inevitable con­
sequence of, as they p u t it in Kris i befolkningsfragan, “the great sociological
process o f adjustm ent” to m odern industrial society.
In 1936 the C om m ission on Population presented a special report on steril­
ization, the most im p o rtan t prelim inary work leading to the 1941 Sterilization
Act. First, one may note that the com m ission did n o t even find the m oral or
ethical aspects of eugenic sterilization w orth discussing: “The question if steril­
ization, for other than strictly medical reasons, is justified from a legal or ethical
point of view, does not need to be touched u p o n here.” According to the com­
mission, the opinion am ong the public and authorities had changed dram ati­
cally in the past two decades: “Today it is hardly denied by anyone th at it is not
only justified but also desirable to prevent the procreation o f a sick o r inferior
offspring by means of sterilization.”48
Second, although rejecting simplistic notions o f heredity and race hygiene,
the com m ission stressed the value o f eugenics:

. . . it has earlier been a rather com m on belief that sterilization am ong hereditary
sick and inferior hum an beings would result in a strong and rapid im provem ent of
hum ankind, and erase m ental diseases, feeble-mindedness, and other cases o f severe
inferiority. This belief is n o t correct. However, this is not to say that sterilization
does not have an im portant effect in this respect. Even an initially insignificant and
slow but gradually increased im provem ent is nonetheless desirable and urgent; in
any case a possible d e te rio ra tio n o f the h u m a n stock can be p rev en ted . . . .
W henever an eugenic sterilization is carried out, however, in the specific case the
operation will prevent the b irth o f sick or inferior children or descendants. Owing to
this, sterilization of hereditary sick o r inferior hum an beings is still a justified mea­
sure, beneficial to the individual as well as to society.49

As to the m entally retarded, the com m ission expected a “favourable eugenic

effect” from sterilization m easures, i.e., a reduction in num bers. In m ost other
cases o f hereditary diseases an d defects, the outcom e o f sterilization would be
less im portant from a eugenic p o in t of view. O n the other hand, the commis­
sion emphasized that the social aspects of sterilization were vital from a practi­
cal point of view. A broadened social indication for sterilization was proposed
in order to increase the nu m b er o f sterilizations where m ental retardation, or
deficiency of other kinds, were proven not to be hereditary.50
To sum marize, there were three im portant elem ents in the discussion which
helped legitimatize sterilization as an acceptable policy during the 1930s. In the
first place, the target group for which sterilization was considered was enlarged
sig n ifican tly as social m a la d ju s tm e n t b ecam e a focus o f a tte n tio n . The
Com m ission on Population considered the sterilization o f “certain work-shy
individuals, such as prostitutes, vagrants, etc.” At the same tim e the biological
im portance o f sterilization was stressed m ore forcefully as the debate on popu­
lation focused on the “qualitative” aspects o f the low birth rates. It was fre­
quently held th at sterilization w ould dim inish the n u m b er o f the mentally
retarded. Finally, the right o f the state to enforce sterilization was no longer
questioned. The com m ission argued that com pulsory sterilization in the future
m ight be considered even am ong the “psychologically inferior, though n o t for­
mally legally incom petent, w ith asocial disposition.” In its final report in 1938
the com mission stressed that social reforms, so far, had to be the central point
in population policy, “while genetic research prepares grounds for a perhaps
m ore systematic eugenic policy in the future.” Obviously, the com m ission was
ready to consider a m uch m ore radical sterilization policy if needed, and if
eugenic theory m ade progress.
W hen the 1941 Sterilization Act was discussed by the Swedish Parliam ent,
race rhetoric still was quite accepted. M inister of Justice K. G. W estman charac­
terized the proposed law as “an im p o rtan t step in the direction o f a purifica­
tion of the Swedish stock, freeing it from the transm ission o f genetic material
which would produce, in future generations, such individuals as are undesir­
able am ong a sound and healthy people.” The chairm an of the Com m ission on
P opu latio n , Nils W ohlin o f th e A grarian Party, saw it as a w elcom e m ove
to w a rd “keep in g th e Swedish sto ck so u n d an d v igorous for th e fu tu re .”
According to Social Dem ocrat Karl Johan Olsson, the law would be justifiable
even if “one or two anti-social individuals who m ight be ‘fit for breeding p u r­
poses’” were to be sterilized: “I thin k it is better to go a little too far,” he said,
“than to risk bringing unfit and inferior offspring into the world.”51
Among the m em bers o f Parliam ent there were even those w ho advocated
more radical and coercive legislation than that proposed. A bill signed by thirty-
three Social Dem ocrats, seven Agrarians, two Liberals, and one Conservative
called for an investigation into “com pulsory sterilization of certain anti-social
individuals.” Four Social Democrats suggested that the law should be am ended
to allow coercion: once a decision had been made, those who refused to undergo
the operation should be brought to the hospital by the police. Discussing the
question of com pulsion Social D em ocrat H ildur Nygren remarked: “we m ust
not be so taken up with the idea o f freedom and civil rights for each and every
person in this generation, that we forget the just dem ands of the next.”52
Still, critical voices were also raised. G ustaf M osesson o f the Liberal Party
feared th a t physicians as well as social w orkers w ould resign ra th e r th a n
enforce the Sterilization Act. Social D em ocrat Georg Branting emphasized that
social reform s could n o t be replaced by eugenic measures; the advocates o f
c o m p u ls o ry s te riliz a tio n w ere th e v ic tim s o f a fad. Set P ersso n o f th e
C om m unist Party spoke o f tendencies which “bear an unpleasant resemblance
to that im provem ent of the race which one seeks to achieve in some totalitarian
countries by m eans o f the scalpel.” A lthough this b lu n t critique led to some
discussion on the definition o f the social indication in the law, it caused no
change in the governm ental proposal.53
 The 1934 Sterilization Act dealt only w ith sterilizations w ithout consent,
p e rfo rm e d o n in d iv id u a ls classified as legally in c o m p e te n t. It h ad been
assum ed that voluntary sterilization was perm issible on medical grounds, or
w hen there were “sound reasons o f a eugenic, social, hum anitarian, or crim i­
nological nature.”54 As a result, in 1935-41 only som e 20 percent of the steril­
izations were su b m itted to the N ational Board o f H ealth for approval. The
basic reason for extended legislation was to regulate all sterilization cases by
law.
The contents o f the sterilization law enacted in 1941 can thus be sum m a­
rized as follows: The eugenic indication was extended so that, in addition to
individuals suffering from m ental retardation or m ental illness, it also applied
to persons suffering from severe physical diseases o r defects o f a hereditary
nature. The social indication was broadened to include “an anti-social way of
life,” as well as m ental illness and m ental retardation. Finally, sterilization of
w om en for medical reasons also came under the new law. If prerequisites of
eugenic or social sterilization were at hand, the operation could be perform ed
w ith o u t consent fro m the p atien t if he or she, d ue to m ental disturbance,
lacked the ability to make a legally valid approval. O nly in one respect was the
1941 act m ore cautious than the preceding law; the possibility for two physi­
cians to decide on sterilization o f the m entally retarded, w ithout subm itting an
application to the N ational Board o f Health, was abolished.55

T he I m plem en tatio n

T he Swedish laws on sterilizatio n were in tro d u c e d at the same tim e as

D enm ark, Norway, and Finland enacted similar legislation. W hen it came to
im plem entation, however, Sweden was far m ore efficient than its Scandinavian
neighbors. Nearly 3,000 people were sterilized while Sweden’s first Sterilization
Act was in force (1 January 1935-30 June 1941).56 Regulated by the act of 1941,
the n u m b er o f sterilizations rose significantly d u rin g the 1940s, reaching a
peak in 1949 w hen 2,351 operations were reported to the National Board of
Health. A slow decline followed in the next decade. From the 1950s to the early
1970s, between 1,500 and 1,900 operations were reported each year. D uring the
whole period that the sterilization laws were in effect (1935-1975), some 63,000
sterilizations were reported. Related to the Swedish population, the num ber of
operations was 0.9 p er 10,000 in 1940, 3.3 per 10,000 in 1950, and 2.2 per
10,000 in 1960 (table 1).
 Table 1. Reported Sterilizations in Sweden, 1935-1975.
Year Eugenic Social Medical Total Percent
indication indication indication w om en

1935 — — — 250 94
1936 — — — 293 93
1937 — — — 410 91
1938 — — — 440 93
1939 — — — 523 94
1940 — — — 581 83
1941 — — — 746 69
1942 959 67 135 1,161 63
1943 1,094 52 181 1,327 65
1944 1,437 21 233 1,691 65
1945 1,318 78 351 1,747 73
1946 — — — 1,847 —
1947 1,210 65 845 2,120 86
1948 1,188 53 1,023 2,264 87
1949 1,078 44 1,229 2,351 91
1950 858 17 1,473 2,348 94
1951 629 48 1,657 2,334 95
1952 405 73 1,635 2,113 95
1953 330 75 1,434 1,839 96
1954 204 72 1,571 1,847 96
1955 159 76 1,602 1,837 97
1956 172 76 1,520 1,768 97
1957 149 90 1,546 1,785 97
1958 — — — 1,786 96
1959 — — — 1,849 95
1960 75 120 1,455 1,650 . 96
1961 62 118 1,619 1,799 96
1962 33 94 1,558 1,685 98
1963 48 96 1,605 1,749 97
1964 34 70 1,655 1,759 98
1965 11 22 1,475 1,508 99
1966 9 26 1,500 1,535 99
1967 1 42 1,465 1,508 99
1968 13 20 1,545 1,578 99
1969 19 58 1,496 1,573 99
 Table 1. Reported Sterilizations in Sweden, 1935-1975 (cont.)
Year Eugenic Social Medical Total Percent
indication indication indication women

1970 20 46 1,797 1,863 99

1971 13 63 1,826 1,902 99
1972 12 45 1,559 1,616 99
1973 17 19 1,328 1,364 99
1974 21 6 1,487 1,514 99
1975 14 3 1,011 1,028 99
1935-1975 62,888 93

Source: Sveriges Offentliga Statistik: A llm an hdlso- och sjukvard (Stockholm: Statistiska cen-
tralbyran, 1935-1976) [Annual reports on health published by the Swedish Central Bureau
of Statistics].]

O n w hat grounds were these operations perform ed? The social indication for
sterilization was used in only a few percent of th e cases according to official
statistics. In the 1940s and 1950s some 50 to 100 sterilizations were reported
each year, but there were never such clear distinctions between social and other
grounds as the statistics seem to indicate. As to the mentally retarded, a ran­
dom sam pling shows that frequently both eugenic and social indications were
noted in the applications th at were subm itted to the Board o f H ealth.57
T he eu genic in d ic a tio n , w h ich was ap p lied p rim a rily to th e m entally
retarded, was originally considered the most im p o rtan t and was used exten­
sively in the early years o f the sterilization p rogram (82 percent o f the total
n u m b e r o f cases in 1942; 75 percent in 1945). But sterilization on eugenic
grounds decreased rapidly durin g the 1950s; in 1955, 159 eugenic sterilizations
were reported, m aking up less th an 10 percent o f the total num ber.
As to sterilization on eugenic grounds, the basis for the evaluation o f the Board
o f Health was the probability, expressed in statistical terms, th a t a particular
disease would be inherited. In sim ple cases, where the hereditary transmission
was well-know n, the exact risk could be calculated (as for hem ophilia), but
m ore often the board tu rn e d to a hypothetical, em pirically based index. In
1940 Nils von Hofsten explained the principles o f the board in the following
m anner:

O ur basis is the general statistical probability that a disease, abnorm ality, or defect
(epilepsy, feeble-mindedness, etc.) is hereditary or predom inantly hereditary, or,
 from a slightly different viewpoint, the probability that it will appear in children or
other relatives (the risk o f m orbidity). Thus, when a case is to be decided (steriliza­
tion, abortion, marital capacity), the statistical probability is decisive. T hat is to say,
when the rate is sufficiently high, the burden of proof rests upon the person whose
claim it is that, for him or her, the disease or quality . . . has an extrinsic cause so
that his or her case is not to be judged by the general statistical risk.58

The norm applied was that there were sufficient eugenic grounds for steril­
ization if the risk of transm itting a disease was assum ed to be at least 10 per­
cent. According to this principle, it was held, there were clear eugenic reasons
for the sterilization o f the m entally retarded and o f schizophrenics. For rare
recessive defects, such as hereditary deaf-m utism , where the risk o f inheritance
was assum ed to be under 1.5 percent, there were grounds for sterilization only
in the case of marriages between kin. For epilepsy the risk of inheritance was
estim ated between 5 and 8 percent, an uncertain border area. Since epileptics
were not allowed to marry, however, and only those who were infertile were
exem pted from that ban, their applications were usually approved.59
The num b er o f sterilizations based on the m edical indication, w hich as
noted above applied only to w om en, rose rapidly at the end o f the 1940s. In
the 1950s some 80 percent o f all operations were carried out for m edical rea­
sons. O ne im portant purpose o f th e medical indication was to m ake it possi­
ble for overworked m others w ith large families, living in socially distressful
situations, to avoid repeated pregnancies by m eans o f sterilization. Thus, the
m ajority o f cases were women w ho were sterilized n o t due to physical diseases
o r defects, but because o f “weakness.” Indeed, the m ost im portant change in
the postw ar application o f the 1941 Sterilization Act was the replacem ent of
eugenic sterilizations o f the m entally retarded by operations perform ed on so-
called “exhausted m others” and “w eak” women. D uring the 1950s this cate­
gory m ade up o n e -h a lf o f th e to ta l cases while in 1945 it stood a t only 6
percent.
Since sterilizations on eugenic g rounds decreased ju st as ra p id ly as the
m edical ones increased, the total n u m b e r o f cases rem ained fairly constant
from the 1950s on. The first conclusion to be draw n, then, would be th at the
idea o f race hygiene and eugenic sterilization lost som e o f its attraction during
the 1950s. Given the fact that the n u m b er of sterilizations o f m entally retarded
patients decreased rapidly in the postw ar period, this is in part correct. The
history o f Swedish eugenics, however, is m arked by continuity rath er th a n by
swift changes; eugenic sterilization continued to the late 1960s, albeit on a
smaller scale than before. Furtherm ore, the change from eugenic to medical
sterilizations m ight to som e extent have been cosm etic; cases which had previ­
ously been referred to as eugenic were now labeled m edical.
Let us com pare th e statistics from the early 1940s w ith the figures from the
late 1950s. From 1942 to 1945 a total of 2,795 w om en were sterilized due to
m ental illness or m ental retardation. O f these cases 2,733 operations were per­
form ed with reference to the eugenic indication, w hereas only 62 sterilizations
(2 percent) were labeled medical. In the period 1955-1958 1,672 wom en classi­
fied as m entally ill or mentally retarded underw ent sterilization. In these four
years, however, 1,276 (76 percent) of the operations were perform ed with ref­
erence to the m edical indication. Still, this shift in labeling does n o t alter the
overall pattern o f a change from sterilization of the m entally deficient to steril­
ization o f “exhausted mothers.” O f the total nu m b er o f medical sterilizations
perform ed from 1955 to 1958 (6,549), the m entally retarded and mentally ill
com prised 25 percent, whereas the w om en labeled “weak” made up 56 percent.
The rem aining 19 percent suffered from epilepsy, physical diseases, or physical
defects.60
Let us finally address the issue of sterilization o f the mentally retarded, the
basic motive for the sterilization program in the 1930s and 1940s. As late as
1947 the N ational B oard o f H ealth stated the follow ing in its “Advices and
Directives” on the Sterilization Act;

Mental retardation holds a special position. Due to its prevalence, its early m anifes­
tation, the im portant role played by heredity, and o th er circumstances, there is a
possibility that, by preventing reproduction, one can effect a significant reduction
even within a few generations. This can only be achieved if all feeble-minded per­
sons, or at least the great m ajority o f those who are n o t confined adequately in
institutions, are sterilized, and if this is done before they have children. The im por­
tance of this is even m ore obvious, since the social m otives are as strong as the
eugenic ones.61

A total o f 1,113 o p eratio n s involving m entally reta rd e d patients were p er­

form ed in the period 1936-1941 u nder the first Sterilization Act (there are no
figures for 1935). In addition, num erous operations were carried o u t without
reference to the law, mentally retarded patients having been classified, some­
tim es erroneously, as legally com petent.62 Thus, approxim ately h alf o f those
sterilized in the years o f the first Sterilization Act were mentally retarded.
The criticism leveled at the 1934 Sterilization Act concerned, am ong other
things, the principle that it applied only to those w ho had been declared per­
m anently legally incom petent. It was held that the “slightly subnorm al would
 not be sterilized on a sufficiently large scale. Consequently, for a brief time
after the introduction of the 1941 act, the num ber o f sterilizations o f people
classed as m entally retarded rose sharply, so that they formed alm ost 70 per­
cent o f th e to tal n u m b e r o f cases in 1942. A fter th at, however, th eir share
declined steadily. The figures most likely continued to drop in the late 1950s,
although we lack clear evidence since statistics showing sterilization on medical
indication do not separate mentally retarded from m entally ill from 1954 on
(table 2).

Table 2. Reported Sterilizations, 1942-1957,

Mentally Retarded and Mentally 111.
T otal n u m b er o f
sterilizations d u e to
M ent. ret. M ent. ill m en tal co n stitu tio n
Year Eug. M ed. Eug. M ed. N u m b e rs Percent Percent
m edical o f total
1942 779 0 118 7 904 <1 78
1943 899 0 175 4 1.078 <1 81
1944 1.034 0 305 7 1.346 <1 80
1945 926 1 296 38 1.261 3 72
1946 — — — — — ____ ____

1947 775 0 329 40 1.114 3 54

1948 836 1 256 43 1.136 4 50
1949 680 0 292 41 1.013 4 43
1950 548 1 212 51 812 7 35
1951 423 1 150 149 723 20 31
1952 277 3 90 248 618 41 30
1953 235 3 75 269 582 47 32
1954 139 ? 32 ? 474 64 26
1955 113 ? 19 ? 484 73 26
1956 106 ? 36 ? 323 56 18
1957 101 ? 25 ? 511 75 28

Source: Sveriges Offentliga Statistik: A llm an hixlso- och sjukvard (Stockholm: Statistiska cen-
tralbyran, 1942-1957) [Annual reports on health published by the Swedish Central Bureau
of Statistics].

The table can be sum m arized as follows: Sterilization o f the m entally retarded
shows a significant decline from the late 1940s on; from the mid-1940s some
300 to 400 sterilizations o f the m entally ill are reported annually (although 263
in 1950); am ong the m entally ill, there is a rem arkable shift from eugenic to
m edical labeling from the early 1950s on; the total num ber o f people sterilized
due to their mental constitution declines from 1949 on, both in relative and
absolute num bers.
The decrease in num bers might be explained in part by the fact that the most
urgent cases of the mentally retarded liable to sterilization— according to physi­
cians, welfare com m ittees, and p oor law boards— had already been sterilized
during the 1930s and the beginning o f the 1940s. In the first period o f the new
legislation references were m ade to an “accum ulated stock” o f the m entally
retarded, where sterilization should be effected rapidly. More likely, though, the
change reflects a gradually more restrictive attitude toward sterilization among
physicians and social-service workers generally, as well as a more cautious stance
by the National Board of Health. Such caution is evident in the fact that more
atten tio n was paid to th e possibility o f late m aturation am ong the m entally
retarded. In a special circular addressed to institutions for the slightly retarded in
1948, the Board of H ealth saw fit to stress “the im portance of careful considera­
tion” w hen deciding a case: “In the experience of the Board of Health, there have
been cases, and not infrequently, where people who have been sterilized at an
early age due to feeble-mindedness have reached a considerably higher or nor­
mal m ental age after a few years and have been well-adjusted socially.”63
Even though the Board of Health had become more wary, however, sterilization
of the mentally retarded continued, although at a slower rate than before. Thus, in
the first six months o f 1960, eighty-three applications for sterilization o f mentally
retarded patients on eugenic or social grounds were approved by the Board of
Health. Most of them, fifty-three cases, concerned people in special homes or hos­
pitals. M ore than half of the applications received were for people under twenty-six
years o f age; twenty-four of them were between sixteen and nineteen 64

C o m p u lso r y S t e r iliz a t io n ?

D id th e Swedish legislation involve com pulsory sterilization? According to

the law m akers it did not. It was m ain tain ed that in principle the laws were
based o n voluntary measures, since those who were legally com petent could
not be sterilized w ithout their consent, an d to force som ebody to the operating
table was prohibited. The Germ an sterilization law o f 1933, with far-reaching
possibilities for co m p u lso ry sterilizatio n , was n o t seen as a m odel for the
Swedish sterilization program . D iscussing the G erm an legislation briefly in
1936, th e Com m ission on Population stated: “To adm it sterilization w ithout
consent to the extent o f the Germ an law would probably be inconsistent with
the Swedish conception o f justice.”65 In a debate broadcast on Swedish radio in
1946 Nils von Hofsten strongly condem ned German race hygiene, while at the
same tim e defending the Swedish sterilization program : “O ur law on steriliza­
tion is very different from the one the Germans had. In im portant aspects its
principles are totally th e opposite.”66
It is tru e that the possibilities o f enforcing eugenic sterilization, as well as
the far-reaching d efinitions of “hered itary diseases” (including severe alco­
holism ), m ade the Nazi legislation different from the Swedish laws. Yet one
should not forget th at th e original m otives for laws o n sterilization were the
same in Germany and Sweden: to sterilize the mentally retarded. Furtherm ore,
in Sweden as well as in G erm any the essence of the sterilization program was to
accomplish sterilization whenever such an action was regarded desirable to the
com m on interest, i.e., from the point o f view of the state. W hen von Hofsten
got on to the question o f coercion, in a 1942 radio talk about the Swedish
Sterilization Act, he justified the regulations in the following way:

Sterilization is such an im p o rtan t o p eratio n that the individual should n o t be

allowed to decide the m atter for himself. Very many o f those w ho should be steril­
ized are feeble-minded o r mentally ill and are therefore n o t even able to under­
stand w hat it is all about, or cannot, at least, judge the reasons. Most of the time
they w ould not want an operation at all; n o r would they agree to one. T hat is why
regulations are needed.67

In Sweden, however, th e au th o rities advocated persu asio n , n o t force. The

Swedish sterilization p rogram contained several procedures by which involun­
tary sterilization was carried out. The legally incom petent, to begin with, could
be subjected to sterilization w ithout their consent according to the 1934 and
1941 laws. How was this category defined? According to instructions circulated
by the Board of Health in 1947, a person should be able to understand “the
meaning and the consequences” of the operation to be declared legally com pe­
tent. But: “Such an understanding is n o t at hand only because he knows that he
cannot have a child after a sterilization; it must furtherm ore be required that
he to som e extent com prehends the im portance o f sterilization for him self and
for society.” As to the m entally retarded, legal incompetence was said to prevail
if he or she could be com pared intellectually with a person twelve years old or
younger.68
In cases o f resistance the following m ethod was recom m ended by the Board
of Health in 1947:
 Thus, if a [legally incom petent] person who, it is felt, should be sterilized is asked
in advance and refuses to consent, no attention should be paid to his decision; the
d o c u m e n ts sh o u ld be p re p a re d an d sen t in. If, once s te riliz a tio n has been
approved, he definitely refuses to subm it to the operation, it m ust n o t be carried
out by force, however. O ften, it appears, the knowledge that a decision has been
taken by the N ational B oard o f Health will convince those w ho were previously
reluctant to subm it to the operation. As a rule, the best way to treat such patients
w ould seem to be to consider it m ore or less self-evident that the operation is to be
perform ed once the Board has given permission; should they ask outright, how­
ever, it m ust not be kept from them, of course, that it will not be carried o u t by
force.69

T here are no statistics sho w in g to w hat extent p eople classified as legally

incom petent were sterilized in Sweden w ithout their own approval. From 1935
to the end of June 1941 a total o f 1,338 sterilizations were carried o u t in accor­
dance w ith the 1934 Sterilization Act, which applied only to the legally incom­
petent. In some 20 percent o f these cases, however, the patient signed his own
application (table 3). By com parison, 1,615 sterilizations o f legally competent
persons, perform ed w ith o u t reference to the 1934 law, were reported in the
same period.

Table 3. Applications for sterilization submitted to the National Board of

Health, 1935-1939
Application subm itted by______ .____________ Percent
The patient 21
Parents and guardians 14
Physicians and superintendents o f institutions 32
Poor law boards and child welfare committees 32

Source; N. von Hofsten, “Steriliseringar i Sverige 1935-1939, Nordisk M edicin 7, no. 34

(1940), 1421. The table is based on a selection of applications (785).

The right to apply for sterilization on behalf o f others was broadened in

1941. In addition to paren ts, guardians, physicians and superintendents of
institutions, poor law boards and child welfare committees, the right was now
also given to several groups o f physicians employed by the state, such as county
medical officers. In circular letters sent out by the Board of H ealth in 1947 it
was emphasized to be the duty of a physician who was so authorized to work
for sterilization. O n being inform ed o f a case in which “sterilization would
 appear to be required from society’s p o in t o f view,” he was to investigate the
m atter and then, if there was sufficient cause to perform an operation, see to it
that an application was sent to the Board o f Health.70
In tim e, however, the great bulk o f applications cam e to be signed by the
p erso n s actually co n cern ed by the p e titio n s. In 1950 th e Board o f H ealth
received only 143 applications sent in by others, half o f them by superinten­
dents o f reform schools and institutions, o u t of a total o f 2,176.71 One explana­
tion for this shift is to be found in the increased p roportion of cases in which
legally com petent wom en were sterilized w ith reference to the medical indica­
tion und er the 1941 law. At the same tim e, the “voluntariness” of inmates of
asylum s an d special schools m ust o f cou rse be q u e stio n e d , alth o u g h the
patients signed their own applications. The Board of Health recommended that
those w ho were to be sterilized apply for the operation themselves whenever
possible: both “practical and psychological reasons” speak for such a proce­
dure, it was stated in the “Advice and Directives” concerning the Sterilization
Act. W henever a person could be persuaded to sign his own application, his
legal incom petence did n o t have to be proven.72
Evidently, a com m on m ethod was to sterilize the m entally retarded before
they left special hom es, special schools, o r hospitals, on parole or discharge.
According to a study published in 1962 som e 36 percent (527) of all girls leav­
ing Swedish special schools between 1937 and 1956 were sterilized. The rate
rose m arkedly in the 1940s only to fall sharply in the next decade. In nine out
o f th e tw enty-eight schools that were included in the study, alm ost h alf or
m ore than half of those who left were sterilized.73 At times, hospitals and insti­
tutions even made sterilization a condition for discharge. It is impossible to say
how com m on this procedure was, b u t according to a statem ent by officials at
the N ational Board o f Social Welfare in 1955: “the application of the [1941] law
was earlier so that sterilization in several cases was perform ed although the
operation was later show n to have been unnecessary. By this we have in m ind
especially cases where sterilization on social indication have been made a con­
dition for discharge from reform schools or other institutions.”74
Occasionally, the w ording in the applications subm itted to the Board o f
Health reveals the m ethods being used: “ [I have] proposed discharge on trial
on condition that a sterilization first is carried out. [The patient] has co m ­
p lie d w ith th is d e m a n d ” (a p h y sician sig n in g an a p p lic a tio n in 1936);
“S terilizatio n approved. S in n essju k n am n d en [the Local Board on M ental
Health] stipulates sterilization as a condition for discharge on trial” (1940). A
mentally retarded w om an who, according to the docum ents sent in, applied
for sterilization herself, later appealed to the Board o f Health not to have to
undergo the operation: “W hen I . . . was in hospital in 1942, they kept on at
me so as to get m e to sign the papers that I d o n ’t know if I even read what I
signed. . . .” Discussing a w om an in her early twenties, in a hospital in 1950, a
d o cto r states: “Even th o u g h every m e th o d has been used to convince her
about the im portance o f the operation, she stubbornly refused. For this rea­
son there was nothing else to do than to give u p the operation.”75
If, then, inm ates o f asylums, special schools, etc., were pressured to apply for
sterilization, indirect com pulsion was also used in other cases. Irrespective of
their form al legal com petence, certain categories o f women were forced to
accept sterilization in order to be granted ab o rtio n (which will be discussed
later), as were certain categories o f people in o rd er to be able to marry. As
noted earlier, the Swedish marriage laws from 1915 on included im pedim ents
to m arriage for epileptics if the disease had “a predom inantly inner cause,” for
the m entally retarded, and for the m entally ill. Epileptics could, however, apply
for exem ption as could the other two categories beginning in 1945, if there was
evidence o f “an ability to adjust to society.”76
The principle that came to be applied by the Board of Flealth in the 1940s
was to gran t perm ission to m arry on the condition that the applicant under­
w ent sterilization. It is tru e th a t such co n d itio n al perm issions were few in
num ber, yet they reflect the unyielding attitudes as far as eugenics was con­
cerned.77 In the 1950s, however, there was a clear softening of the b o ard’s prac­
tice, esp ecially re g a rd in g e p ile p tic s, a n d th e la st tim e s te riliz a tio n was
stipulated before m arriage was in 1962. T he shift came after a study by the
Swedish geneticist Carl H enry Alstrom was published in 1950, showing that
hereditary epilepsy was considerably less com m on than previously had been
assum ed.78 Yet the p rohibition o f m arriage was n o t abolished for epileptics
until 1968; for those suffering from m ental illness or retardation, 1973.79
D uring the 1950s the National Board o f Health occasionally received letters
which m u st have caused som e discom fort; applications for re-fertilization
arrived from people who regretted the operation or could not understand on
what grounds they had been sterilized. Thus, a w om an sterilized in 1941 at the
age o f tw enty-three, labeled “feeble-minded— probably congenitally” and “sex­
ually highly unreliable,” turns to the Board o f H ealth in 1950, when she had
been m arried for five years: “Since I m yself did n o t sign the application for
sterilization and really did not know w hat the whole thing was about, I would
like to know now why I was sterilized.”80 A girl o f twenty-one, sterilized at the
age o f fifteen after a few m onths in a m ental hospital in 1944, tu rn s to the
Board o f H ealth for inform ation about the operation. She states that her life
has been largely spoiled: “It seems incredible to m e that the Board o f Health,
which has been appointed to watch over the safety of the citizens, could allow
such an operation o f a fifteen-year-old girl, w ho was also a virgin, and that
after only three m onths of sickness. . . . Since I am perfectly healthy and self­
supporting, I feel that the best thing would be if I could be operated on again,
so that I could feel like a hum an being in the future.” The board replies that the
girl had approved the operation herself (“Your signature is attested by two w it­
nesses”), adding that the likelihood that she w ould transm it hereditary defi­
ciency had been estim ated as “considerable.”81
And furtherm ore in 1950: “Help me. How can I help a boy o f twenty-five
whom I am engaged to, and w hom I plan to m arry next year? He underw ent an
operation, so he cannot have children.” Reply: “The Board of Health can take
no action in the m atter o f your letter.”82 “I was taken to [m ental] hospital
March 3, 1948 and released in September. I was sterilized th e re .. . . Now I w on­
der if there is any hope for me, won’t you help m e to have a child. You m ust
help me. Have changed m y m ind. . . . If you help me you have saved a life.
Yours faithfully, N. N.” Reply: “No action can be taken.”83
In spite o f the brief replies, the Board o f H ealth obviously was influenced by
the letters. An application for re-fertilization in 1960 caused a m em ber of the
board to co m m en t to his colleague: “O nce again a sad case.”84 The letters
showed that the Sterilization Act was applied far too uncritically, and at the
Board o f H ealth it was felt th at greater care h ad to be taken. After several
decades of com m ittee work at the Board of Health, Nils von Hofsten in 1963
looked back upon the application of the Sterilization Acts and his impression
was that the board, “after the first few years, was somewhat m ore restrictive in
granting perm ission. . . . If that was the case, it was true first of all for very
young people and am ong those mainly the feeble-minded.”85 Considering the
lower rates o f sterilization am ong the mentally retarded, and the more cautious
position regarding sterilization as condition for marriage or abortion, the gen­
eral im pression is thus one o f slowly changing attitudes toward the sterilization
program from the mid-1950s on.

W ho B eca m e "th e O t h e r "? G en d e r in t h e Im plem en ta tio n o f the

S ter iliza tio n L aw s

S terilizatio n was in tro d u c e d as a ra tio n a l an d even h u m a n — as it was

claimed— solution to overcome social and eugenic problem s in the interwar
period. Today, however, rationality or hum anity are hardly the words that come
to m ind when reading the applications for sterilization, which are kept in the
archives of the National Board of Health. Medical certificates are characterized
by bureaucratic and scientific thoroughness, extensive case histories according
to specific formulas and expert’s reports. Yet personal opinions cloaked in scien­
tific term inology were frequent: “the whole family is subnormal,” “the sick girl’s
father seems degenerate,” etc. “According to the neighbours her hom e is a hang­
out for various riffraff, and she is the great attraction,” it was stated in an appli­
cation from 1935. “Father ‘adventurous’ an d extravagant; m other nervous and
hysterical; n o t said to have a great reputation for honesty” (an application on
behalf o f a seventeen-year-old, 1946); “Father a vagrant and a loafer, handy with
a knife, has a bad reputation and is tho u g h t to be an imbecile” (1946).86 These
examples are not unique.
W hen the right to bear children becam e an arena for state intervention,
hereditary disposition was n o t the only g round for action by the authorities.
O bviously questions of m orals and life style were also taken into account as
criteria for the judgm ents; in practice th e im plem entation o f the sterilization
laws cam e to focus on persons perceived as different. The topics of eugenics
and social control are dealt w ith elsewhere in this book by Bent Sigurd Hansen,
who also notices that although rarely discussed— or observed— in the contem ­
porary debate on the laws and their application, the Scandinavian sterilization
laws had a clear bias toward the lower classes.87
A n o th e r bias co n cern s gender. T h ere was no ra tio n a l reason to m ake
women a m ore im portant subject for the sterilization policy than men. O n the
contrary, considering the surgical m eth o d s available and the know ledge o f
heredity at the time, a focus on m en w ould have been logical. First, while steril­
ization o f m en was a simple affair, the operation was far m ore complicated and
dangerous when perform ed on women. T he greatest risk occurred when a ster­
ilization was com bined w ith an abortion, a procedure which became frequent
in the 1940s.88 The second reason concerns genetic theory. In the 1940s it was
estim ated that at least 75 percent of all m ental retardation was o f a hereditary
nature. According to estimates m ade by Nils von Hofsten in 1944, three genes
were particularly im portant. O ne of the genes was supposed to be sex-linked
an d recessive, an d m e n ta l re ta rd a tio n m o re p rev alen t am ong m en th a n
w om en.89
Yet m ore than 90 percent o f the people sterilized in Sweden between 1935
and 1975 were women. In the early 1940s m en comprised less than one-third
o f the cases; from the 1950s on they co n stitu ted only a small percent. The
increasing num ber of w om en reflects the progressively m ore com m on steriliza­
tion o f “exhausted m others” in the postw ar era. As m entioned earlier, the m ed ­
ical indication introduced in the Sterilization Act of 1941 was applicable only
to w om en. Regardless o f category, however, the women form ed the majority.
 For instance, some 65 percent o f th e cases in the 1940s classed as m entally
retarded were w om en, and in the next decade that figure increased to m ore
than 80 percent.
How can this strong imbalance be explained? The Swedish historian Yvonne
H irdm an has stressed the subordinate social position o f w om en. Her analysis
o f the em erging Swedish welfare state in the 1930s focuses on the utopian
visions am ong leading Social D em ocratic intellectuals. She underscores their
strong belief in the social sciences an d rational techniques as im portant ele­
ments in the construction o f a “good society,” and describes the consequences
as private life becam e instrum entalized. Life was “laid in order,” to use her
words, by means o f social engineering. The rights o f w om en, H irdm an argues,
were particularly easy to violate. The “good life” was defined through male
standards and norm s, and as social reforms such as the sterilization program
focused on “the others,” w om en as such became a prim e target. The standards
for negligence or deviance were m ore rigid for women than for m en.90
O ne could perhaps go one step further, as has been suggested by others, and
surm ise that the sterilization program reflected the perception— and fear— o f
female sexuality. Rem arks about “hyper-sexuality” an d licentiousness, espe­
cially am ong the m entally retarded, were often used as argum ents for steriliza­
tion, both in official com m ents on the legislation and in the actual applications
for sterilization. The sterilization laws, in this perspective, becam e a tool to
control and regulate the sexuality o f w om en. The laws themselves were not
constructed to be applied prim arily to w om en, but m ale physicians tu rn ed
them against wom en, and not against their own sex.91
This contrast betw een intentions and practice is w orth noting. In fact, the
im balance between m en and w om en was a cause o f concern for the central
authorities, as is shown in the com m ents by the National Social Welfare Board
in 1940 which stated that “this paradoxical disproportion” dem ands “a more
satisfactory application o f the legislation.”92 Nevertheless, the uneven distribu­
tion increased dram atically in the following years. W hether perceived or not,
gender bias was p resen t in the legislation. O ne exam ple o f this is the link
between sterilization and abortion.
The question o f sterilization frequently arose w hen w om en came into con­
tact w ith hospitals and physicians in connection w ith a pregnancy or an abor­
tion. A pplications for sterilization and abortion were usually sent in to the
Board o f Health at the same time, and it seems likely th at physicians or social-
service workers w hom the applicants encountered som etim es advised or per­
suaded them to apply for sterilization as well as abortion. It should be repeated
th a t physicians w ho becam e aware o f cases in w hich “sterilizatio n w ould
 appear to be required from society’s point o f view” were obligated to investi­
gate the case and apply for sterilization if appropriate.93
Thus, a considerable n u m b er o f sterilizations were com bined w ith an abor­
tion, especially in the latter h alf o f the 1940s and in the 1950s. In the period
1951-55 one wom an out o f four who had an abortion was also sterilized (in
a b so lu te n u m b e rs b etw een 1,000 an d 1,500 each y ear). T he co n n e c tio n
becomes even m ore apparent if we compare the num ber o f wom en whose ster­
ilization was com bined w ith an abortion and the total num ber o f wom en who
were sterilized: between 60 an d 70 percent o f the women who were sterilized in
the years 1951-55 underw ent the operation in conjunction with an abortion.94
M oreover, according to th e 1938 A bortion Act, an a b o rtio n granted on
heredity grounds w ith the w om an as the carrier was to be perform ed only in
com bination w ith sterilizatio n — otherw ise she m ight retu rn repeatedly for
eugenic abortions, a procedure which the experts involved in form ulating the
law h ad deem ed “offensive.”95 T h u s w om en applying for an a b o rtio n for
eugenic reasons had to choose abortion and sterilization or no abortion at all.
As Nils von Hofsten p u t it in 1944: “. . . the wom an is forced to m ake a choice:
either to give birth to the expected child or have no children at all in the future.
That way the seriousness o f her intentions and motives is p u t to a useful test.”96
At least in the 1940s the N ational Board of Health obviously reacted strongly to
cases o f abortion w ithout sterilization if a eugenic indication had been cited. It
was stressed in 1944 th a t “ [sjterilizatio n m u st n o t . . . be o m itte d on the
grounds that the w om an refuses to undergo the operation and that it would be
better to perform an abortion than no operation at all.”97
The num ber o f abortions th at were conditional on sterilization increased
throughout the 1940s, from som e 180 per year in 1942 to some 500 in 1949. A
great m any of them concerned m entally retarded w om en.98 A round the mid-
1950s the Board of H ealth stipulated sterilization in 40-50 cases per year, but
after that it did so only rarely. The last abortion granted on condition that the
patient underw ent sterilization was perform ed in 1964. Hence, between 1941
and 1964 a total of 4,000 w om en were sterilized in accordance w ith this stipu­
lation in the A b o rtio n Act. Still, the regulations o f the 1938 act were not
repealed until 1974 when a new law on abortion came into force.99
The m ost obvious explanation for the predom inance of wom en am ong the
sterilized in Sweden is the change in the im plem entation of the sterilization law
in the postw ar period. Even th o u g h the imbalance between sexes existed from
the beginning, it was at its lowest in the early 1940s when the sterilization pro­
gram was focused on the m entally retarded (see table 1). As described earlier
the developm ent from the m id-1940s is characterized by the shift from eugenic
to medical sterilizations, and by the predom inance of women sterilized because
of “weakness.” In part, this change may be explained by a transform ed labeling
of deviants and outsiders, a change from a eugenic to a sociomedical discourse.
Primarily, however, the shift shows that the sterilization law came to be applied
to a new category of persons: w om en living in social distress.
The question may be posed w hether certain categories o f w om en in the
postw ar period began using sterilization as a m eans of contraception. This, at
least, seems to be the explanation given by Nils von Hofsten, w ho later made
the com m ent that in the 1940s “the knowledge o f sterilization as a m ethod to
prevent pregnancy soon was spread am ong exhausted mothers, w ho were often
encouraged by physicians to undergo it.” Men, on the other hand, according to
von H ofsten, “rarely wish to be sterilized an d rather frequently oppose the
operation.”100 In part, this assum ption is confirm ed by a survey o f sterilizations
perform ed between 1950 and 1953. The study shows that am ong the applica­
tio n s approved for m en, alm ost 17 percent were never carried o u t, either
because of resistance or because the applicant simply had changed his mind.
Among the women, only 10 percent of the operations were not carried out. If
the figures are divided into subcategories, however, a different picture emerges.
Among wom en sterilized w ithout any connection with abortion, resistance was
as com m on as am ong men: 16.5 percent o f the applications did not lead to an
operation. W hen, on the other hand, sterilization was applied for in connec­
tion with— but not as a condition for— abortion, the resistance seems to have
been at its lowest; or to p u t it differently: the degree of voluntariness seems to
have been high (table 4).

Table 4. Approved applications for sterilization, 1950-1953.

Category Approvals No sterilization carried out
Men 470 16.8% (79)
Women 8,364 10% (850)
Sterilization combined with abortion 4,373 6% (266)
Sterilization as condition for abortion 1,254 10.5% (133)
Sterilization without abortion 2,733 16.5% (451)

Source: N. von Hofsten, Steriliseringnr i Sverige 1941-1953, Socialmedicinsk tidskrifts skrift-

serie 28 (Stockholm: Socialmedicinsk tidskrift, 1963), 41.

W hat conclusions can be drawn? That the interpretation o f sterilization as a

means to fulfill eugenic visions, or as a tool for repression of outsiders, reflects
only a part o f this complex phenom ena? That sterilization could also be used as
an individual relief? In fact, this was the opinion o f Elise Ottesen-Jensen, the
well-known Swedish-Norwegian sex educator who in the 1930s fought her own
campaign against bigotry and ignorance am ong the m oralizing elite in Swedish
society. In h e r view th e p ro b lem was th a t th e rig h t to be sterilized was
restricted— by m en in pow er w ith no know ledge w hatsoever of the lives of
ordinary w om en.101
This is not to deny, o f course, that the im plem entation o f the sterilization
laws was a question o f “intervention into w om en’s lives and bodies.”102 Indeed,
the dilem m a identified by Elise Ottesen-Jensen underscores the fact th at the
sterilization program was conceived and carried out prim arily by men. And
since the possibility to use medical sterilization as contraception applied only
to wom en, this o p p o rtu n ity for “relief” clearly cannot be characterized as a
gender-neutral solution. It is im portant to note, however, th at gender bias was
m anifested in d ifferen t ways at different tim es an d according to different
motives underlying the sterilization program . The analysis o f the sterilization
o f the m entally retarded in the 1930s and 1940s m ust be separated from the
analysis o f postw ar im p lem en tatio n o f th e sterilization law. To answer the
question w hether the history of eugenic discourse, in which the debate on ster­
ilization began, could be w ritten as a history o f gender-biased beliefs and val­
ues— and it probably could— requires a study o f its own.

T he P e r s is t e n c e of R a cism : T h e S w ed ish "T r a v e l e r s "

Let us change focus from gender to race. We have earlier stressed the trans­
form ation from m ainline to reform eugenics in the 1930s, according to which
old notions o f race, an d theories about the danger o f “miscegenation,” were
replaced by genetics searching for hereditary diseases. It is im portant to note,
however, that this developm ent of a nonracist “welfare state eugenics,” which
threw the ballast o f race mysticism overboard, first and forem ost was an acade­
mic affair. Beside those geneticists who came to outline the reform eugenics of
the 1930s and 1940s, an d beside intellectuals such as Alva and G unnar Myrdal,
others seem ingly adh ered to the forceful catchw ords o f early eugenics. The
m ore nuanced view o f sterilization which later evolved am ong specialists was
not always noted in the propaganda for eugenic reforms. As we have seen, as
late as 1941 leading Swedish politicians characterized sterilization as a means of
“purification” of the Swedish stock.
The picture o f Swedish “welfare state eugenics” thus seems ambiguous. The
racist discourse of the early twentieth century was not completely abandoned
in the 1930s. This is obv io u s by the w idespread tendency to regard social
misbehavior as a question o f genetic inferiority; in short to define social prob­
lems as racial problem s. Early on, it was a m atter o f dispute w hether alco­
holism and vagrancy were hereditary. Still, it was assum ed th at the “lowest
stratum o f society,” as it was referred to, was at least partly recruited from, as
Nils von Hofsten put it in 1933, “genetically inferior individuals [who sank]
into it due to their inferior qualities.” The roots of antisocial behavior, it was
thus claimed, were to be found in personal defects, “inferiority.” The National
Social Welfare Board stated the argum ent in the following way in 1939: “expe­
rience [lends] ever stronger su p p o rt to the view that severe alcoholism and
other form s of pronounced antisocial behaviour in an orderly com m unity gen­
erally arise from an inferiority of some kind inherent in the person in question,
and this inferiority often becomes manifest in his offspring as well.”103
Provided that a segm ent o f the population was doom ed to vagrancy and
social misbehavior by its hereditary characteristics, the idea that even a certain
“race” o f social outsiders existed was close at hand. Indeed, this conclusion was
drawn as the discussion on antisocial behavior came to focus on the itinerant
Swedish group known as “travelers,” or Tattare. Initially a nam e for different
transient groups, such as the Gypsies, the word Tattare in the nineteenth century
came to be used exclusively for a domestic group of families living isolated on the
fringe o f the agrarian society. This equivalent to itinerant groups such as the Irish
Tinkers, or the German Gauner, traveled the Swedish countryside and supported
themselves through horse-dealing, small-scale trade, crafts, or, in older times, as
hangmen. Although characterized by certain cultural traits and, to some degree,
by interm arriage, the Tattare hardly constituted an “ethnic group”; rather the
travelers were a social outcast form ed by continuous exclusion from the majority
population. Even though certain Tattare families held together for several genera­
tions, there were always new m embers who assimilated into the older groups.104
In Swedish folklore the label Tattare had a clear-cut meaning. The travelers
were supposed to be im m oral and idle, and to look “dark” and “southern.” At
the same tim e there was a rom antic idea o f the independent, wayfaring Tattare
living a life o f ease, a character used in novels and on the screen. In the press
the travelers were usually associated w ith alcoholism, violence, and crim e as
late as in the 1950s. The notion o f the Tattare as a specific race, or sub-race,
was established as the science of race biology was institutionalized at the begin­
ning o f the tw entieth century. A com m on view was th a t the travelers were
descended from mixed m arriages o f Gypsies and the local Swedish population,
an o p in io n held for instance by H erm an Lundborg, w ho added th a t “it is
unfortunately not uncom m on that they are proletarians o f a very complex her­
itage, w ith a bent for criminality.”105
 In th e em erging Sw edish welfare state the Tattare u n d o u b ted ly were an
anomaly; their irregular lives were considered a severe social problem. In the
interw ar years the so-called Tattare question drew increasing attention from
the authorities. A nationw ide survey carried out by the Poor Law Commission
(F a ttig v a rd sk o m m itte n ) in 1922 id e n tifie d 2,575 in d iv id u a ls as Gypsies,
Tattare, or “equated w ith Tattare!’ It is w orth noting that while the commission
considered sterilization to be a possible future solution in some lim ited cases of
vagrancy, it doubted th at eugenic measures could be used to solve the general
problems associated w ith the itinerant groups. Instead the com m ission recom ­
m ended education o f the Tattare and stated that it was crucial for the attitudes
toward Tattare to change.106
W hen a second survey was conducted in 1942 by the N ational Board of
Social Welfare, 7,668 Tattare were recorded. The reason for this rem arkable
increase seems to be th at the practice am ong authorities to label vagrants, or
other people living irregular lives, such as Tattare, becam e m ore com m on in
the interw ar period. As has been pointed out in a genealogical study by sociol­
ogist A dam H eym ow ski, th e Tattare d id n o t c o n stitu te a single, coherent
group. Beside the “genuine” traveling families, other Swedish Tattare “acquired
that label not because o f th eir origin but because of their behavior (occupation
and crim inality), so m etim es com bined w ith a certain physical appearance
(dark complexion, etc.) an d a surnam e identical w ith a nam e borne by a trav­
eler family. The percentage o f such cases is probably quite high. The persons
involved do n o t constitute any group or isolate, their only com m on trait being
the tattare label applied to them by some authority.”107
One conclusion to be draw n, then, is that the Tattare were m ore or less cre­
ated as an out-group as th e m odernizing industrial state tu rn ed its searchlights
toward the periphery o f society. Moreover, it is striking how the discussion on
vagrancy in general, and o n the Tattare in particular, tu rn ed m ore racist in the
same period. Obviously th e notion o f the alien Tattare as a biological reality,
and as a biological as well as a social threat, was strengthened between the
1920s and the 1940s. It m ay seem paradoxical, of course, th at Swedish race
hygiene shifted toward reform eugenics during the same years. But parallel to
the change in scientific genetics, it is possible to notice a persistence, or even a
sharpening, of m ainline eugenic ideas and concepts; the older notions of races,
established by physical anthropology, were still used in the interpretation o f the
surrounding world. W hether this is to be explained by a w idening gap between
genetic science and race biology in its popular form, by som e degree o f influ­
ence from Nazi G erm any, o r simply by the fact th at it takes a long tim e to
change hum an thinking, are questions th at rem ain to be answered.
 At the end of the 1930s the N ational Board o f Social Welfare described the
Tattare as a genetically distinguishable and inferior group o f people incapable
of social adjustm ent. In official letters in 1937 and 1940 the board argued for
a racial investigation o f the group and sterilizations on a regular basis. “Both
from a biological an d a social p o in t o f view they are a bu rd en to Swedish
society,” th e b o ard sta te d in 194 0 .108 Studies p u b lish ed by th e ed u cato r
M an n e O h la n d e r in 1942 a n d 1943, by th e so c ial w elfare o ffic er Tor
Jacobsson in 1944, an d as a dissertation by the linguist Allan Etzler in 1944,
also stressed the biological aspects o f the Tattare question. According to the
study by O hlander, published in Swedish periodicals for pedagogues and psy­
chologists, a m en tal level below th e average was a “racial ch a ra c teristic ”
am ong Tattare. O n the basis o f school records and some intelligence tests, the
au th o r claim ed that am ong 117 individuals classified as Tattare, 55 percent
had an IQ lower than 0.80. A lthough he adm itted th at it w ould prove diffi­
cult to generalize the results, O hlander concluded that “regarded as a race, it’s
obvious th at the Tattare are inferior to the Swedish stock. This m ay probably
be concluded from the fact th at proportionally m ore Tattare than Swedes are
taken into custody in to prisons, special hom es, treatm ent units for alcoholics
o r s im ila r i n s t i t u t i o n s fo r c r im in a l a n d n e g lig e n t in d iv id u a ls .” (As
Heym owski later com m ented, O hlander never considered the possibility that
persons belonging to these categories a priori were m ore likely to be stigm a­
tized as Tattare.) As to future actions, O hlander recom m ended sterilizations
“w ith o u t scruples.”109
Since their genetic taint was still unproven by m ore accurate scientific m ea­
sures, however, the social indication for sterilization added to the Sterilization
Act o f 1941 was regarded as a solution for the Tattare. D uring the debate in
Parliam ent in 1941, the Tattare had explicitly been m entioned as a target for
the extended Sterilization Act, and according to a statem ent m ade by Nils von
Hofsten in 1943, the social indication for sterilization introduced in 1941 was
w ithout question applicable to the Tattare.

An effective use o f the Sterilization Act tow ard the Tattare is no doubt desirable
and possible. . . . O ne step that can be taken immediately, it w ould appear, is that
the National Board o f Social Welfare is given the task to direct the attention of cer­
tain central and local authorities, at least then each and every poor law board and
child welfare com m ittee, to the fact that it is im portant th at measures are intro­
duced to sterilize Tattare who, due to mental inferiority or an antisocial way o f life
alone, are unsuitable for caring for children.110
In order to shed new light on the heritage of the Tattare, an “anthropom etric
study” was carried out in 1944 in collaboration with the State Institute for Race
Biology Perform ed by G unnar Dahlberg, the investigation, am ong other things,
contained body and head m easurem ents o f sixty-six individuals labeled as
Tattare. Obstacles turned up, however, since, according to Dahlberg, “ [s]everal
refused and in m any cases could only be examined after they had w ith some dif­
ficulty been convinced that it was a purely scientific investigation. .. .” As to the
results o f the study, Dahlberg concluded:

From a theoretical po in t o f view, it is interesting th at there is a tolerably good

agreement between tattare and other Swedes as regards the structure o f the body.
Nevertheless, tattare seem to constitute a selection o f persons w ith a small brain
and so-called asthenic bodily structure with narrow shoulders.
From a practical point o f view, it may finally be stated that the investigation has
definitively showed it to be im possible objectively to separate o u t tattare from
other Swedish citizens. It can n o t be proved by an anthropological investigation
that a person is a tattare, an d the investigation has not given any support to the
assumption that, from a racial point of view, the tattare differs from the rest of the
Swedish people. The social problem s of the tattare cannot be isolated from the gen­
eral problem s occasioned in o ur com m unity by the existence o f persons leading
vagabond and asocial lives.111

Dahlberg’s study quite obviously dem onstrated th at eugenic measures were

useless to solve the Tattare problem . The National Board o f Social Welfare also
had to concur in this opinion. Yet the case o f the Swedish Tattare is a good
example o f the persistence o f racial thought. Thus, in 1945 the Board o f Social
Welfare suggested th at the Tattare group m ight consist o f two categories, one of
which possessed “alien racial traits.” Moreover, despite the fact that linguistic
and genealogical research d uring the 1940s and 1950s confirm ed the nonracial
notion of the Tattare, individual scholars continued to describe them as a race
o f semi-Gypsy origin predisposed to crime and violence. W ithout doubt, this
was also the widespread popular opinion at least up to the 1950s.112
Was the discussion o f the Tattare and their origin purely theoretical, or did
it affect the im plem entation o f the sterilization laws? A couple of cases o f steril­
ization, from the 1940s and 1950s, might suggest the latter. In an application
for sterilization, m ade o n behalf of a fifteen-year-old girl in 1940— of Tattare
heritage, according to the child welfare com m ittee— it was stressed that “for
the last 25 years the m unicipality of H olm edal has provided work for the N.
family w ithout being able to say that its m em bers have contributed in the least
to society. . . . It is safe to say that to sterilize this person would be an act of
mercy, for herself, for society, and perhaps m ost of all for the offspring she will
surely bring into the w orld if an operation is not perform ed.”
In the medical report that accom panied the application, the girl’s alleged
origin was the central point. She was said to “appear dull,” but at the same tim e
she is characterized as attentive and aware o f her spatial and tem poral situa­
tion; her m em ory and m ental processes were said to be accurate, and testing
showed a m ental age o f 13.9 years. “However, the patient appears far m ore
retarded than this figure indicates,” th e physician stated. “In view o f the fact
that the applicant is o f a Tattare family, w here it has been hard to accept a regu­
lar life in society for generations, and in view of her feeble-mindedness, I feel
that I should approve the application for sterilization.” The Board o f Health
authorized the operation.113
The cited case from 1940 is hardly typical. Nevertheless, due to the heavy
stigma, in other cases, being categorized as a Tattare was a contributing, though
not sufficient, reason for sterilization. In these cases the applications reflect the
general stereotypes attached to the group: “Dark, typical Tattare in looks. . . .
Typical Tattare mentality: evasive, untruthful, and coward” (application for a
seventeen-year-old girl, 1943); “o f Tattare stock, w ith generations o f p ro ­
nounced antisocial behavior . . . has the friendly, polite m anner of Tattare, with
a goodly measure of ingratiation. Cheerful. Plenty o f self-pity. . . .” (1942); “A
blonde o f Tattare extraction, well aware o f the im portance of the [intelligence]
test in relation to the application for sterilization. Tense and quite nervous fac­
ing the test situation but tries to make her inadequate answers sound know l­
edgeable by means o f a ready tongue and a great m any words. M ovem ents
uncoordinated, speaks vulgarly and nasally in a nonchalant tone. . . . Suggested
step: H er extremely glib attitude in com bination with her previous antisocial life
motivate sterilization, in spite of an IQ o f 73. Apparently she has none o f the
qualities required for m otherhood and the responsibility it entails” (a twenty-
one-year-old w om an for w hom the p o o r law b oard sent in an application,
1950). In this last case no operation was perform ed since the woman refused.114
According to a case from the late 1950s, Tattare was still a relevant concep­
tion: w hen a woman in her late twenties, reportedly suffering from “social and
m oral incapacity,” applied for an abortion in 1957, there was some discussion
as to w hether sterilization should be stipulated before an abortion was granted.
There m ay have existed “a certain eugenic taint,” according to the m inutes of
the Board o f Health; the wom an was b o rn to unknow n parents, but “her father
is said to have been o f Tattare or Gypsy family, which may be confirmed by her
exotic appearance.” 115 T he follow ing year Torsten R om anus, the B oard of
Health adviser on questions o f sterilization, makes the ambiguous com m ent to
the m inutes that the theory o f the genetic inferiority of the Tattare “so far, at
least, has no solid scientific sup p o rt.” It was n o t o u t o f the question, then,
according to Romanus, that such su p p o rt w ould appear in the future.116
Statistics do n o t show how m any Tattare were sterilized in Sweden. As a
group the Tattare were never subjected to sterilization on a regular basis, even
if this was frequently suggested in the debate. A nd yet the “Tattare question”
disappeared in the postw ar period; “the travellers as a group are doom ed to
disappear in the near future,” predicted Adam Heymowski in his 1969 study.117
On one hand, the welfare state obviously had no room for the itinerant way of
life; on th e o th e r h an d , th e folklore c o n trib u tin g to the categorization of
Tattare slowly vanished. And although old concepts evidently survived longer
than m ight be expected, race biology as such lost ground. W hen eugenics no
longer provided solutions to social problem s, th e concept o f Tattare disap­
peared as individuals earlier labeled as travelers were incorporated into the
postw ar welfare reform program . The case o f the Tattare, then, first and fore­
most, shows how race biology created its own reality.

P o stw ar T r a n s fo r m a t io n s : F rom E u g e n ic s to M ed ica l G e n e t ic s

In the 1950s and 1960s the ideas that had sustained the old type o f eugenics
gradually faded from the scientific debate in Sweden. The general view changed
too, even though argum ents based on race were to be found in schoolbooks,
for exam ple, into the 1950s at least.118 In the course o f time, w ords such as
“race,” “racial hygiene,” “ Tattare,” “Lapp,” “Negro,” “genetically deficient,” and
“inferior” lost currency except as historical concepts, placed within quotation
marks. In their place paraphrases came to be used, and are being used, which
has led to som ething o f a sem antic shift, rendering the form er m eaning invisi­
ble, b u t perhaps not completely gone. An im p o rtan t factor in this change was
the Statem ent on Race issued by UNESCO in 1950: in this statem ent the bio­
logical concept of race was dismissed, n o t only because it was com prom ised
b u t also because it was unscientific. In stead th e sociological term “ethnic
group” was launched. Two Swedish specialists— G unnar Dahlberg and G unnar
Myrdal— were involved, and both were well-qualified for the w ork.119 Indeed,
Dahlberg had focused on the vagueness o f the concept o f race in a num ber of
articles in the 1940s. In Sweden, official repudiation of the race concept fol­
lowed the UNESCO statem ent; thus Verdandi, the same radical student associ­
ation that had advocated eugenics in accordance w ith a more D arw inian model
at the tu rn o f the century, arranged a roundtable conference on race in 1953,
and also published the proceedings from the m eeting. The example shows the
change th a t had taken place w ithin a leading academ ic group, from a p ro ­
nounced biological view toward sociological n o tio n s.120
Ever m ore rarely, then, was m an discussed as a biological entity. Traditional
Darwinism reached its peak around the tu rn o f the century, and eugenics was
well established a few decades later; after that, however, the public debate made
surprisingly few references to a biological w orld view.121 Neither ethology nor
sociobiology attracted m u ch atten tio n from anyone other th an specialists.
Consequently it is hard to make comprehensive statem ents about the attitude
o f Swedish geneticists toward the reductionist tendencies in m odern biology or
the recent inroads made by biology into sociology.
The research conducted at the Institute for Race Biology u n d er G unnar
Dahlberg in the postw ar years did not attract attention as before. The subjects
that were handled were m ainly sociomedical and medical: the inheritance of
TB and cancer and less spectacular afflictions such as anemia, defective m etab­
olism, and eczema. Increasingly m athem atical, eugenics became a field for the
specialist. Jan Arvid Book, who succeeded D ahlberg in 1956, was trained in
Lund and clearly drawn to m ainline eugenics, as he had shown during the war.
Before his appointm ent he published a m anifesto in support of Dahlberg’s pro­
gram, however, emphasizing the need to revise the taxonomy o f various dis­
eases by m eans o f genetic analysis and also to investigate the relationship
between pathological genes and biochemical processes. As a final point he gave
prom inence to the study o f the distribution o f genetic diseases in different seg­
ments o f the population and their relation to various dem ographic features—
part of the stock-in-trade o f the old type o f race biology; however, this was
actually the only point derived from it. At the same time, in 1956, the institute
changed its nam e to the D epartm ent of Medical Genetics.122
Thus eugenics in the 1950s elim inated the old notions of anthropology and
com prom ised race mysticism. The great threat was no longer degeneration or
“biological erosion” but the effects of radioactive fallout; to deal with the new
problem, international cooperation and u p-to-date genetic research were advo­
cated. In practice, however, Book’s own w ork cam e to be linked to Lundborg’s
studies o f isolates. Their genealogical-statistical m ethods have rem ained a vig­
orous branch o f eugenic research. All in all, genetics was to expand consider­
ably in S w eden d u rin g th e 1960s an d 1970s. As th e n u m b e r o f know n
hereditary diseases increased (from 412 in 1958 to som e 2,300 in 1975), scien­
tists and physicians paid greater attention to medical genetics. Units similar to
the D epartm ent o f Medical Genetics in Uppsala were established in Stockholm
in 1970 and in Lund in 1975.123
 The tren d toward continuity rather th an a complete break with the past is
evident if we look at the various editions o f a textbook by Arne M iintzing,
Arftlighetsforskning (1953, 1960, 1964, 1971, 1977; the English tran slatio n ,
published in 1961, bears the title Genetic Research: A Survey o f Methods and
M ain Results). Throughout, M iintzing, w ho was professor o f genetics at Lund
University, showed great respect for “genetic hygiene” (renam ed “eugenics” in
1971, “medical genetics” in 1977). Thus, 80 percent o f the patients in m ental
hospitals in Sweden (som e 45,000 in the 1953 edition) were said to suffer from
hereditary illness— good grounds, all by itself, for Swedish sterilization policies.
A study by H. O. Akesson was cited (in 1964) to show th at only 27 percent of
the children o f mentally retarded m others were norm al. All in all, 3 percent of
the total population were o f such low intelligence that they could not lead a
norm al life. M iintzing em phasized the cost this entails and advocated that such
dangerous inheritance be registered in accordance w ith Tage Kemp’s Danish
model. It is interesting that he suggested that the change that took place in the
reasons given for sterilization, from “g enetic” to “m edical,” were, to som e
extent, n om inal.124
Finally, let us m ention criminology, a science halfway between research and
concrete social questions. O lof Kinberg, the m ost prom inent crim inologist in
the first half of the tw entieth century, believed strongly in eugenics. W hen the
sterilization issue was being discussed, sexual psychopaths had been grouped,
from the very start, with those who w ould come under the new law; w hether
the grounds were to be social or eugenic was a m atter o f opinion. For Kinberg,
however, it went w ithout saying that eugenics could also reduce crim inality in
the long run. In 1942, w ith one of his students, G unnar Inghe, he published a
broad investigation of the problem o f incest in Sweden, offering glimpses of
w retched social environm ents. Steps should be taken to elim inate those, o f
course, b u t Kinberg and Inghe also advocated a more radical sterilization pol­
icy than that in existence; they pointed o u t that 3 percent o f those involved suf­
fered from oligophrenia, for example. Inghe and Kinberg were hardliners, but
they were not alone. Thus, in 1944 a law o n castration was introduced, a law
th at could hardly have been instituted in the period between the wars, and one
which dem onstrates Kinberg’s influence; it belongs in the severe climate of the
w a r y e a rs, a lo n g w ith th e S te riliz a tio n Act o f 1941 a n d th e V ag ran cy
Com m ission o f 1942. The law on castration was applied less with each passing
year, however (43 cases in 1944; 36 in 1945; 11 in 1946). The decrease could
have been the result o f a dim inishing need for the measure, but it could also
have been due to a change in attitudes.125 In the field o f crim inology itself, such
a change was gradual, m anifest only in the 1960s w ith the appearance o f the
sociologist G ustaf Jonsson, whose launching o f the term “the social heritage”
had a trem endous im pact on the Swedish discussion o f biological determ inism
in the 1950s and 1960s.126

A ba n d o n in g E u g en ic S ter iliza tio n

The change in the application o f the Sterilization Act o f 1941 has already
been m entioned. D uring the 1950s sterilization on eugenic grounds gradually
decreased, as did sterilization o f the mentally retarded. An im portant question
is w hether the eugenic principles were relinquished eventually because o f new
scientific findings or for some other reason. Sweden’s m ost im portant contri­
b utio n in this field probably was C. H. Alstrom’s 1950 study on epilepsy, in
which the heritability o f the disease was toned down. From available statistics it
would appear that A lstrom ’s findings had an almost im m ediate effect on actual
practice. It was some tw enty years later, however, that they led to a proposal for
new legislation.
Apparently, old beliefs in eugenics changed slowly, allowing the Swedish
sterilization program to continue into the 1950s and 1960s, w hether justified
by medical, social, or genetic reasons. Moreover, sterilizations no longer drew
much public attention. The lack o f discussion was a result o f several develop­
ments: the invasion o f the specialists; the fact that laws had already been insti­
tuted; the conventional view that “one doesn’t talk about things like th a t”; and
Sweden having a fairly clear conscience for not having been involved in the
atrocities o f W orld War II. Looked upon as a question for the specialist, steril­
ization o f the m entally retarded continued, although to a lesser extent than
before, causing little or no reaction. These were measures where the authority
had been transferred from the central level to the one where physicians, social
workers, experts, and institutions had the power o f decision and where public
control consequently was limited.
At a political level, however, it is possible to discover a changing attitude
toward sterilization in the 1950s and 1960s, m ost likely connected to an altered
view o f the relations betw een state and individual. The national perspective
became less prom inent in the debate on population policies, where the discus­
sion m oved from the general level to the specific, to th at o f the individual. (It is
significant, in this context, that the term “population policies” was discredited
after W orld W ar II; it was replaced by “fam ily p o licies” in the 1950s.)127
Arguing that sterilization was a “significant m utilation” whose effects on m en­
tal health could be serious, Parliament stressed the need for caution, stating, in
1955, th a t the o p e ra tio n should be resorted to only w hen o ther m eans of
im plem enting social policies were likely to prove ineffective. A few years later,
in 1960, Social D em ocrat O lof Palme noted in Parliam ent that “the theories at
the back of the eugenic indication [for sterilization] would appear somewhat
questionable.” He added th at “society should avoid intervening by m eans of
com pulsion in such very personal matters.”128
Thus, sterilization came to be looked upon as a personal right, rather than a
tool for population policy There are several reasons for that change. Society at
large was being transform ed, and a num ber of factors led to a higher degree of
individualization at the expense o f b o th class consciousness and belief in estab­
lished authorities. O ne was the rapid economic growth in Sweden; alm ost every­
body b en efited from it, an d th e risin g sta n d a rd o f living en ab led greater
individual freedom and autonomy. Another factor was that Swedish welfare pro­
grams placed considerable emphasis on the independence of the individual; this
was true in such areas as housing, social assistance, and the family. Yet another
element was the rise in the general level of education, which meant greater politi­
cal involvement on the p art o f the individual, enabling him to make himself
heard in the public debate or to deal with state officials.129 (As a m atter of fact,
the interaction between individuals and institutions became increasingly infor­
mal from the 1960s on.) Finally, a weakening of the older, traditional forms of
social control worked in the same direction, giving room for individualization.
All these developm ents, some longstanding but accentuated in the postwar
period, m ust have u nderm ined the foundations for a large-scale sterilization
program o f the coercive type. At the same tim e new techniques, such as the
in trau te rin e contraceptive device an d the contraceptive pill, probably con­
tributed to m aking sterilization an outdated m ethod. Furtherm ore, there were
growing doubts as to the effectiveness and scientific justifiability o f eugenic
sterilization. The change is evident, for example, in M iintzing’s sum m ary of
what is otherwise an enthusiastic plea for sterilization: the measure can “only
influence and im prove the average genetic m ake-up o f a population to a very
small degree,” he states. Instead th e idea is to “prevent or ease h um an suffer­
ing” in particular cases. The phrase appears for the first time in the 1964 edi­
tion of M iintzing’s book.
It was not until 1967, however, that the N ational Board of Health adm itted
that the policy of sterilizing m entally retarded patients had been im plem ented
because o f a som ew hat exaggerated belief in the im portance o f heredity: “a
gradual shift in the etiology of feeble-m indedness [has] brought about the real­
ization that other factors than genes can be influential.” At the same time, it
was said, sterilization o f the m entally retarded was m ost often legitim ate on
social grounds.130 The situation was not reconsidered in earnest until the early
1970s when Karl Grunewald, a N ational Board of Health official, leveled sharp
criticism at the sterilization of m entally retarded patients. A num ber o f case
studies were published, obviously show ing th a t the m entally retarded were
sterilized on questionable g rounds.131 The 1941 Sterilization Act was replaced
in 1975, when all sterilizations w ith o u t the consent o f the person concerned
were prohibited. Thus all forms o f involuntary sterilization came to an end in
Sweden, and since that date only voluntary operations take place, m ostly as a
m eans o f family planning.

E u g e n ic s , S ter iliza t io n , a n d th e S w ed ish M o d e l : S um m ary

The eugenics m ovement m ade rapid headway in Sweden at the beginning of

the tw entieth century. Eugenics becam e institutionalized at an early date and
racial hygiene was put into practice in the Sterilization Acts of 1934 and 1941.
As far as eugenic sterilization was concerned, Sweden actually held a leading
position, Germany excepted, a fact som ewhat unflattering for Swedish tw enti­
eth-century history. W hat, then, were the characteristics of Swedish eugenics,
and how may its spectacular breakthrough and position be explained?
First o f all it m ust be stressed th a t racial hygiene never was a G erm an-
Swedish specialty— although in b o th co u n tries there flourished a d u b ious
obsession w ith th e so-called “N o rd ic race.” In the early tw entieth cen tu ry
eugenics was established in countries such as the United States, Great Britain,
and the Soviet Union. Furtherm ore, and as shown elsewhere in this book, ster­
ilization laws similar to those in Sweden were passed throughout Scandinavia
during the 1930s. As to the Swedish sterilization program , the U nited States,
rather than Germany, served as a m odel.
Nevertheless, it may be ap p ro p riate to speak o f a form o f “welfare state
eugenics” in Sweden which, because o f its progressive character and freedom
from race mysticism, differs in p art from that in other countries. A central fea­
ture in the policies developed in the 1930s by the Social D em ocrats was the
com bination of social welfare and efficiency. The idea was that preventive social
measures, such as equal education and health care, m ade for rational use of
“hum an resources.”132 It is plain to see that applied race biology, too, could be
incorporated into this political idea. It was a widely held view in the 1930s that
eugenics, and not least a large scale sterilization program , could yield consider­
able econom ic gains for the state. The systematic sterilization of the m entally
retarded would reduce the cost o f institutional care, special schools, and poor
relief. Indeed, in the Swedish Parliam ent, the Social Democrats were am ong
those who advocated sterilization the m ost vigorously.
 Sterilization was only one com ponent in a com prehensive Swedish program
concerned w ith population questions. The program was governed in part, but
not wholly, by eugenic principles. The “population crisis” o f the 1930s steered
the debate to the question o f quality versus quantity. The extensive em igration
in the previous decades, the threatening im m ig ration o f people who, it was
said, belonged to “inferior racial groups,” an d th e extrem ely low birth rate
caused p articu lar worry. The m arriage laws in tro d uced early in the century
provide clear evidence that eugenic ideas had taken root even then. The 1940s
legislation o n a b o rtio n was in ten d ed to p reclude rep ro d u ctio n am ong the
genetically least suitable, as were the laws on sterilization. M aternity benefits
(1937) and the governm ent child allowance (1948), on the other hand, were
reforms aim ed at increasing the birthrate o f the population at large.
It was n o t difficult, then, to find room for eugenics in the restructuring of
Swedish society that was taking place in the 1930s and 1940s. The resources of
the state were m obilized to build the new folkhem (“the people’s home,” the
m etaphor used from the 1920s on), m odernity was an honored term , and race
biology a m odern and untried science. Hygiene was another key concept, and
eugenics— racial hygiene— only one side o f th e passion for cleanliness and
health. The am b itio n to clear away w hat was old, dirty, and diseased could
range from a com m itm ent to physical hygiene to an aspiration to create, by
means o f a eugenic program , a sound and healthy people free from defective
genes.133
W ithout doubt, the eugenics m ovem ent was a complex phenom enon, polit­
ically as well as scientifically. The Swedish example shows clearly that eugenics
was not the exclusive dom ain o f a right-w ing ideology. As we have seen, Social
Democrats, Agrarians, and Conservatives all took an interest in eugenics at an
early stage. From a scientific point o f view, the shift from m ainline (or, perhaps
better, “traditional”) to reform eugenics during the 1930s should be stressed.
Physical anthro p o lo g y and racial mysticism were replaced by genetics. Less
inspired by biology (social Darw inism ), eugenics tu rned to m athematics, sta­
tistics, and physics (social engineering). G unnar D ahlberg represents the new
era as director o f the Institute for Race Biology from 1936 on, as do the w rit­
ings on p o p u latio n policy by Alva and G u n n ar M yrdal. By the same token,
sterilization was to a lesser extent regarded as a m eans for “race im provement,”
but as a m easure applicable to individual cases o f genetic (or social) deficiency.
On the whole, it is im portant to stress the social aspects o f the Swedish steril­
ization p ro g ra m , b u t th is tra n sfo rm a tio n was far from absolute. The old
notions o f race were indeed tenacious, as is show n by the conception o f the
Swedish Tattare.
 As to the question o f the connection between the professional profile of a
natural scientist and his attitude tow ard politics and social conditions, there is
no simple answer. H erm an Lundborg, as we have seen, became a supporter of
the T hird Reich, which w ould seem to harm onize with his scientific pursuits.
H erm an Nilsson-Ehle apparently to o k a sim ilar course. G u n n ar D ahlberg’s
research, too, clearly accords w ith his position as a Social Dem ocrat. We m ust
not take such consistency for granted, however. O lof Kinberg’s Liberal leanings
and his w ork as a crim inologist seem truly discordant.
Nils von Hofsten, in som e respects the epitom e o f Swedish eugenics, is
interesting from several points of view. Indeed, von Hofsten was no fanatic in
the m atter o f race; as rector of the University of Uppsala, and as a cultural fig­
ure keen to do battle, he was to repudiate Nazism in the war years. His long
involvement in the sterilization issue, where he worked as a consultant with the
diligence o f a civil servant, dem onstrated his great conviction and showed his
motives were not all political: he strongly believed in the im portance o f science
and the expert in organizing society. T hat belief he never abandoned. To an
unusually high degree, von Hofsten represents a Swedish alliance between aca­
demic research and public responsibility.
The application of sterilization laws appears to have been particularly con­
sistent an d determ ined in Sweden. From the 1930s and well into the 1950s
th ere w ere co n sid erab ly m o re ste riliz a tio n s in Sweden th a n in N orw ay,
D enm ark, or Finland, b o th in absolute num bers and in relation to population.
W hen it came to putting the eugenic ideas into practice, then, this was done
with custom ary Swedish thoroughness: an efficient bureaucratic organization
was available; extensive form s were filled in before each sterilization; experts on
genetics stood by in debatable cases; in the field, there were energetic physi­
cians and social workers.
F rom a m edical p o in t o f view, th e sterilization q u estio n was new and
exciting, and the great interest th at the m edical profession took in the m atter
is an im p o rta n t facto r w h en it com es to explaining th e d e v e lo p m en t in
Sweden. The 1930s saw the emergence o f som atic m ethods in the treatm ent
o f m ental illness. Electric shock treatm en t and insulin shock were two of the
therapeutic m ethods used m ost frequently in the period. Given the assum p­
tion that m ental disorders were related to organic defects, it was tem pting to
look for sim ple and practical form s o f treatm ent. Referring to the statistically
calculated risk of transm ission, the advocates o f sterilization held th at it was
a concrete step which h ad an im m ediate effect. Thus, the sterilization p ro ­
gram was seen as a technical solution to medical, social, and econom ic pro b ­
lem s. W h a t was h u m a n e an d e ffic ie n t was c o m b in e d , it w as said ; the
in hum an and costly in stitu tio n s o f older tim es no longer had a function to
fill, b u t were to be replaced by quick and painless operations.
The historical perspective shows a different picture, however, far removed
from that clinical vision: w hat we see is the blurred use o f authoritarian mea­
sures and anonym ous violence. The treatm ent of the m entally retarded and the
socially m aladjusted was rem oved from public view and carried out w ithout
interference. The fact th a t physicians came on the scene did not m ean that the
attitudes toward these groups had changed. If efficiency and rationality were
keywords in the discourse, the im plem entation o f the sterilization program
shows other driving forces as well. First, the right to bear children became a
m oral question to a high degree. Clearly, what was labeled asocial and inferior
behavior was instead different behavior, as the discussion o f the Tattare reveals.
Second, the question o f gender m ust be central to an understanding of how the
sterilization program was carried out. The argum ent p u t forward by feminist
researchers that the sterilization program reflected male norm s, and that male
physicians used sterilization as a tool against wom en, seems plausible. Again,
the question of who was different is a central point.
The Swedish debate o n sterilization focused on the advantages for the state,
and the national interest united the separate political groups. The individual
was either useful or useless, a resource or an en cum brance, a being o f full
w orth or, in the parlance o f the day, inferior. The idea th at people should have
the rig h t to decide a b o u t th e ir ow n bod ies was reg a rd ed in 1936 by the
Com m ission on Population as “an extremely individualistic view.”134 Postwar
developm ents, how ever, caused a fu n d am en tal shift in th o u g h t from the
n a tio n a l level to th a t o f th e in d iv id u a l: s te riliz a tio n b ec am e— a n d has
rem ained— a personal m atter. Population policies were replaced by family poli­
cies, an d sterilization, instead of being looked u p on as a state instrum ent,
becam e an individual right. The process reached its final stage with the 1974
Sterilization Act. It is possible, of course, that the change, at least in its first
phase, was prim arily a change in rhetoric. The question is to what extent the
talk o f sterilization as “an individual right” reflects a real change in outlook
with regard to eugenics an d population policies; or, to p u t it differently, how
tenacious the old notions are.
 Figure 1 . Reported Ste riliza tio n s in Sweden, 1942 - 1974 , and Indications

Source: Sveriges Offentliga Statistik: A llm an Halso- och sjukvdrd (Stockholm: Statistiska cen-
tralbyran, 1935-1976) [Official Statistics of Sweden: Health], Note: no information available
for 1946 and 1958-59.

One has to consider Sweden’s historical situation w hen discussing continu­

ity. The fact that the country stood apart from W orld War II m eant that the
eugenic features o f its population policies were n o t automatically re-examined
after the war, as was the case in Germany. N or was there anything to impede
continuity w ith regard to individuals— physicians and specialists— or institu­
tions. Furtherm ore, throughout the twentieth century Sweden has been char­
ac teriz ed by c o n tin u ity , co n se n su s, an d c a u tio u s change. C o n sid e r the
following characteristics: a developm ent free from open social conflict; basic
agreement about the concept o f the welfare state; the growth o f the public sec­
tor; a stable power structure. All o f these factors either contributed directly, or
at least did n o t hinder continuity w ith regard to the values that were behind
Sweden’s p o p u latio n policies and attitudes tow ard eugenics, o r the way in
which they were p u t into practice.
 A b b r e v ia t io n s in N o tes

AKM Riksdagstrycket, A n d ra kam m aren: m otion [The Swedish Parliam ent, Second
Chamber bill]
AKP Riksdagstrycket, A ndra kam m arens protokoll [The Swedish Parliament, Minutes of
the Second Chamber]
ALU Riksdagstrycket, A ndra lagutskottet [The Swedish Parliam ent, Second Standing
Committee on Civil Law Legislation]
FKM R iksdagstrycket, F orsta k a m m a re n : m o tio n [The Swedish P arliam ent, First
Chamber bill]
FKP Riksdagstrycket, Forsta kam m arens protokoll [The Swedish Parliament, Minutes of
the First Chamber]
FLU Riksdagstrycket, Forsta la gutskottet [The Swedish Parliam ent, First Standing
Committee on Civil Law Legislation]
LU Riksdagstrycket, Lagutskottet [The Swedish Parliament, Committee on Civil Law
Legislation]
MA Riksarkivet, Medicinalstyrelsens arkiv, Rattspsykiatriska nam nden [The National
Archives of Sweden (Stockholm), Archives of the National Board of Health, Board
o f Forensic Psychiatry]
P Riksdagstrycket, Proposition [The Swedish Parliament, Government bill]
SA Socialstyrelsens arkiv, Socialpsykiatriska namnden [Archives of the National Board
of Social Welfare (Stockholm), Board of Social Psychiatry]

N o tes

1. Q uoted in S. Sorlin, Framtidslandet: Debatten om N orrland och naturresurserna

(Umea: Carlsson, 1988), 15.
2. M. Berman, A ll That Is Solid M elts into Air: The Experience o f M odernity (London:
Allen Lane, 1982).
3. D. Pick, Faces o f Degeneration: A European Disorder c. 1848-c. 1918 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989).
4. G. Broberg, “Lamarckismen i Sverige,” Lychnos. Lixrdomshistoriska sam fundets ars-
bok 1988 (Uppsala: Almqvist 8c Wiksell International, 1988).
5. P. Fahlbeck, Sveriges A del (Stockholm: Gleerup, 1898), 1:438-48.
6. E. Key, Lifslinjer (Stockholm: Bonnier, 1903), 1:129.
7. G. Broberg, “Linnaeus As an A nthropologist,” in Linnaeus: The M an a n d H is
Work, ed. T. Frangsmyr (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).
8. T. Thunberg, De hygieniska forhallandena och det naturliga urvalet, Var tids livsfra-
gor 43 (Uppsala: Appelberg, 1906); J. V. Hultcrantz, according to Upsala N ya
Tidning, 28 May 1907.
9. A ccording to a circu la r le tte r p u b lish ed by the D eutsche G esellschaft fur
Rassenhygiene, 1910.
10. D. MacKenzie, “Eugenics in Britain,” Social Studies o f Science 6 (1976).
11. H. Lundborg, Degenerationsfaran och riktlinjer fo r dess forebyggande, Svenska
Sallskapets for Rashygien Skriftserie 9 (Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & Soners, 1922),
21-22, 24-25.
12. The following section is based on G. Broberg, “Rasbiologiska institutet— tillkom-
staren,” in Kunskapens tradgardar, ed. G. Broberg et al. (Stockholm: Atlantis,
1988), where further references are given.
13. AKP 1921 no. 42,48-66.
14. His proposal com prised four different constellations: De Vries, C orrens, and
Tschermak— who rediscovered M endel’s work; Johannsen and Bateson— who
introduced the paired concepts genotype/phenotype, and the term genetics;
Morgan and his school— who renewed laboratory research; and Nilsson-Ehle and
Baur—who were prom inent in the area of genetics and plant breeding.
15. H. Lundborg, Die Rassenmischung beim Menschen (The Hague: Martinius Nijhoff,
1931), 170.
16. W. K., “Professor H erm an Lundborg,” Die Sonne. M onatsschrift fu r Nordische
Weltanschauung und Volkische Lebensgestaltung 15, no. 7-8 (1938): 177.
17. G. Worskey, The Visible College (London: Verso, 1985).
18. G. Dahlberg, Race, Reason and Rubbish (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
1942), 15-16.
19. T. B. Kittredge, according to W. A. Jackson, “The M aking of a Social Science
Classic: G unnar M yrdal’s A n A m erican D ilem m a ,” Perspectives in A m erican
History, New Series vol. 2 (1985): 234. See also D. W. Southern, Gunnar M yrdal
and Black-W hite Relations: The Use and Abuse o f “A n A m erican D ilem m a” 1944­
1969 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987); G. Myrdal, Historien
om “A n American D ilem m a” (Stockholm: SNS forlag, 1987); M. Curti, “Sweden in
the American Social Mind o f the 1930s,” in The Im m igration o f Ideas: Studies in
the North A tlantic C om m unity: Essays Presented to O. F ritiof Ander, ed. J. I. Dowie
and J. T. Tredway (Rock Island, Illinois: Augustana Historical Society, 1968).
20. M. Childs, Sweden: The M iddle W ay (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936),
xiv-xv.
21. On Nazism in Sweden, see U. L indstrom , Fascism in Scandinavia 1920-1940
(Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1985); H. Loow, H akkorset och
Wasakarven: En studie av nationalsocialism en i Sverige 1924-1950 (Goteborg:
Avhandlingar fran Historiska Institutionen i Goteborg, 1990). On refugee policy
an d a ttitu d es to w a rd im m ig ra n ts, see T. H am m ar, Sverige a t svenskarna:
Invandringspolitik, utldnningskontroll och asylratt 1900-1932 (Stockholm: Caslon
Press, 1964); H. Lindberg, Svensk flyktingpolitik under internationellt tryck 1936­
1941 (Stockholm: Allmanna forlaget, 1973). For a survey o f the history o f the
Swedish Jews during the 1930s and 1940s, see S. Koblik, The Stones Cry Out:
Sweden’s Response to the Persecution o f the Jews 1933-1945 (New York: Holocaust
Library, 1988).
22. On Swedish population policy in the 1930s, see A. Hatje, Befolkningsfragan och
valfiXrden: Debatten om fam iljepolitik och nativitetsokning under 1930- och 1940-
talen (Stockholm: Allmanna forlaget, 1974); A. Kalvemark, M ore Children o f Better
 Quality? A spects o f Sw edish P opulation Policy in the 1930's, Studia H istorica
Upsaliensia 115 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1980); A. Ohlander,
“The Invisible Child? The Struggle over Social Democratic Family Policy,” in
Creating Social Democracy: A C entury o f the Social Dem ocratic Labor Party in
Sw ed en , ed. K. M isgeld, K. M o lin , an d K. A m ark (U n iv e rsity P ark: The
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992); A. Carlson, The Swedish Experim ent in
Family Politics: The M yrdals and the Interwar Population Crisis (New Brunswick:
Transaction, 1990).
23. S. K jallstrom , D en gode nihilisten: A xel H dgerstrom och striderna krin g upp-
salafilosofin (Kristianstad: Raben & Sjogren, 1986).
24. On social engineering in Sweden in the 1930s and 1940s, see Y. H irdm an, A tt
lagga livet tillrdtta: Studier i svensk folkhemspolitik (Stockholm: Carlssons, 1989).
25. L. Oberg, B arnm orskan och lakaren. Kom petens och K o nflikt i Svensk forlossin-
ingsvdrden 1870-1895 (Stockholm: Ordfront, 1996).
26. E. Essen-Moller, “Bidrag till fragan om steriliseringens berattigande u r medicinsk
och rashygienisk synpunkt,” A lim , svenska lakartidningen 12, no. 1 (1915); E.
Sjovall, “Diskussionen om det svenska forslaget till steriliseringslag,” N ordisk m ed­
icinsk tidskrift2 , no. 25 (1930).
27. AKM 1908 no. 2 and no. 31; LU 1908 report no. 9.
28. A. M. Selling, “Rasbiologi och rashygien: Nagra grundlinjer,” A llm dnna svenska
lakartidningen 7, no. 6-7 (1909).
29. J. V. Hultcrantz, “Naga ord om rashygien (eugenik),” Social tidskrift 11, no. 7-8
(1911): 297-98; H erm an Lundborg, “Rashygieniska strafvanden i u tlan d e t,”
A llm dnna svenska lakartidningen 9, no. 30 (1912): 643.
30. Lagberedningens, Lagberedningens forslag till revision av Giftermalsbalken och vissa
delar av arvdabalken, vol. 1 (Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & Soners, 1913) [The law-
drafting committees proposal for changed legislation on marriage, including the
report by the Medical Faculty of Uppsala University], 131, 596.
31. Essen-Moller, “Bidrag till fragan om steriliseringens berattigande ur medicinsk
och rashygienisk synpunkt.”
32. N. von Hofsten, Arftlighetslara (Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & Soners forlag, 1919),
494.
33. FKM 1922 no. 38.
34. ALU 1922 report no. 24, 12.
35. E. Essen-Moller, Sterilisationsfragan, Svenska sallskapets for rashygien skriftserie 10
(Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & Soners, 1922); G. H. von Koch, ed., Social handbok:
O v e r sik t av o ffe n tlig t och e n s k ilt sa m h a llsa r b e te i S verig e (S to ck h o lm :
Centralfdrbundet for socialt arbete, 1925); Svenska lakaresallskapet, Forhandlingar
vid Svenska lakaresallskapets sam m ankom st dr~1925 (Stockholm: Svenska lakaresall­
skapet, 1925), 97-121 (in which the report from the Board of Health is cited).
36. Socialdepartementet, B etankande med forslag till steriliseringslag, Statens Offentliga
Utredningar no. 1929/14 (Stockholm: Socialdepartementet, 1929).
37. Justitiedepartementet, Forslag till lag om sterilisering av vissa sinnessjuka, sinnessloa
■eller av annan rubbning av sjalsverksamheten lidande personer, Statens Offentliga
 Utredningar no. 1933/22 (Stockholm: Justitiedepartementet, 1933), 30-63; state­
m ent by the Board of Health published in Svenska Lakartidningen 28, no. 45-48
(1931); statement by the National Board o f Social Welfare published in Sociala
Meddelanden, no. 12 (1931).
38. FKM 1933 no. 188; Justitiedepartementet, Forslag till lag om sterilisering av vissa
sinnessjuka, sinnessloa eller av annan rubbning av sjalsverksamheten lidande per-
soner.
39. P 1934 no. 103,28.
40. Kungl. Maj:t, Lag om sterilisering av vissa sinnessjuka, sinnessloa eller andra som
lida a v ru b b a d sja lsv erksa m h et, Svensk fo rfa ttn in g ssa m lin g no. 1934/171
[Sterilization Act of 1934] (Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & Soners forlag, 1934).
41. E. Sjovall, “Steriliseringsfragans lage i Sverige,” Nordisk medicinsk tidskrift 1, no.
19 (1929): 300; N. von Hofsten, A rftlighetslarans grunder, vol. 2 (Stockholm:
Albert Bonniers forlag, 1931), 369.
42. Sjovall, “Diskussionen om det svenska forslaget till steriliseringslag”; H. Forssner,
“Sterilisationsproblemet i Skandinavien med nagra reflexioner av en praktiker,”
Nordisk medicinsk tidskrift 2, no. 11 (1930); H. Sjogren, “Erfarenheter inom ett
poliklinilddientel betraffande sterilisering,” in N ionde nordiska m otet i Stockholm
1936 fo r undervisning och vard av blinda, dovstum m a, epileptiker, sinnessloa och av
talrubbningar lidande (Stockholm: O. Eklund, 1938), 503-9.
43. G. Hedren, “Nagra reflektioner med anledning av den vid innevarande riksdag
vackta m otionen om utredning rorande sterilisering av sinnessloa m.fl.,” Svenska
lakartidningen 19, no. 14 (1922): 276; C. Lindhagen in FKP 1922 no. 42, 46.
44. See especially A. M yrdal and G. M yrdal, K ris i b e fo lkningsfragan, 4th ed.
(Stockholm : Albert Bonniers forlag, 1935), 245-66. Cf. Carlson, The Swedish
E xperim ent in Family Politics, esp. 81-95.
45. Myrdal and Myrdal, Kris i befolkningsfragan, 17.
46. Ibid., 263.
47. A. Myrdal, N ation and Family: The Swedish Experim ent in Democratic Family and
Population Policy (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1968 [1941]), 215.
48. Befolingskom missionen, B etankande angaende sterilisering, Statens Offentliga
Utredningar no. 1936/46 (Stockholm: Socialdepartementet, 1936), 8-9, 58.
49. Ibid., 14-15.
50. Ibid., 14-17.
51. AKP 1941 no. 25, 48 (W estm an); FKP 1941 no. 24, 28 (W ohlin), no. 24, 33
(Olsson).
52. FKM 1941 no. 105 and AKM 1941 no. 144 (same wording); AKM 1941 no. 37;
AKP 1941 no. 25, 44.
53. FKP 1941 no. 24, 47 (Branting); AKP 1941 no. 25, 51-52 (Mosesson); AKP 1941
no. 25, 55 (Persson).
54. P 1934 no. 103, 23.
55. Kungl. M aj:t, Lag om sterilisering, Svensk forfattningssam ling no. 1941/282
[Sterilization Act of 1941] (Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & Soners forlag, 1941).
56. If not otherwise stated, all the statistics presented in the following are based on
annual reports published by the Swedish Central Bureau o f Statistics: Statistiska
centralbyran, Sveriges Offentliga Statistik: A llm an Halso- och sjukvard (Stockholm:
Statistiska centralbyran, 1935-1976) [Official Statistics of Sweden: H ealth]. It
should be noted that the figures refer to the number of reported sterilizations for a
particular year, not the factual num ber o f operations performed.
57. The data on the im plem entation o f the Swedish sterilization laws, presented in
this article, are based on docum ents in the Archives o f the National Board of
H e a lth and the N a tio n a l B oard o f Social W elfare (b o th in S to c k h o lm ).
M ethodology and results of our study are presented in detail in G. Broberg & M.
Tyden, Odnskade i folkhem m et: Rashygien och sterilisering i Sverige (Stockholm:
Gidlunds Bokforlag, 1991).
58. Minutes, 6 October 1940, MA vol. Al, 11.
59. Medicinalstyrelsen, Rad och anvisningar rorande tillampning av 1941 ars steriliser-
in g sla g och a b o rtla g en , M e d d e la n d e n fran K ungl. M e d icin a lsty re lse n 93
(Stockholm: Medicinalstyrelsen, 1947), 5; N. von Hofsten, Steriliseringar i Sverige
1941-1953, Socialmedicinsk tidskrifts skriftserie 28 (Stockholm: Socialmedicinsk
tidskrift, 1963), 47.
60. The significant shift from eugenic to medical labeling is partly explained by the
fact that the two clusters include eugenical sterilization of the mentally retarded, a
category which decreased dramatically in the 1950s. This group must be included
in the comparison, however, since the statistics showing medical sterilization in
the late 1950s do n o t separate the m entally retarded from the m entally ill.
Nevertheless, if the mentally retarded women are excluded from the 1942-1945
cluster, the pattern rem ains; only 8 percent of a total num ber of 750 women
classed as mentally ill were sterilized on medical grounds in this period.
61. Medicinalstyrelsen, R ad och anvisningar rorande tillampning av 1941 ars steriliser-
ingslag och abortlagen, 5.
62. N. von Hofsten puts the figure at 226 for the years 1935-1939. See N. von Hofsten,
“Steriliseringar i Sverige 1935-1939,” N ordisk medicin 7, no. 34 (1940).
63. Medicinalstyrelsen, “Kungl. Medicinalstyrelsens cirkularskrivelse till forestandare
och lakare vid vardanstalter for bildbara sinnessloa” [unpublished circular],
Typescript, 1948, Stockholm, Archives of the National Board of Social Welfare.
64. Card index of sterilizations, 1960, SA vols. D ili, 5-6; Applications for sterilization,
1 January to 30 June 1960, SA vols. El, 303-13. On the m entally retarded in
Sweden, see M. Soder, A nstalter fo r utvecklingsstorda: En historisk sociologisk
beskrivning av utvecklingen (Stockholm: Ala, 1979), vols. 1-2.
65. Befolingskommissionen, Betankande angaende sterilisering, 22.
66. N. von Hofsten, et al., “Falska analogier: Ett radiosamtal om vetenskapens popu-
larisering i U ppsalastudion,” T ypescript, 7 March 1946, Uppsala U niversity
Archives, Files of N. von Hofsten, vol. 504:E1.
67. N. von Hofsten, “De arvshygieniska verkningarna av sterilisering,” Typescript, 1
April 1942, Uppsala University Archives, Files of N. von Hofsten, vol. 504:G2.
68. Medicinalstyrelsen, R ad och anvisningar rorande tillampning av 1941 ars steriliser­
ingslag och abortlagen, 3-4.
69. Ibid., 14.
70. Kungl. Maj:ts kungorelse m ed tillampningsforeskrifter till lagen den 18 maj 1934 (nr
171), Svensk forfattningssam ling no. 1934/521 (Stockholm: P.A. N orstedt &
Soners forlag, 1934); Kungl. Maj:ts kungorelse med tillampningsforeskrifter till lagen
den 23 maj 1941 (nr 282), Svensk forfattningssamling no. 1941/387 (Stockholm:
P.A. N orstedt &. Soners forlag, 1941); Medicinalstyrelsen, R ad och anvisningar
rorande tillampning av 1941 ars steriliseringslag och abortlagen, 6.
71. Diaries on applications for sterilization, 1950, SA vols. EIc, 5-6. With reference to
documents on the Swedish sterilization program in the Social Welfare History
Archives, University o f Minnesota, Philip R. Reilly writes that among the steriliza­
tions performed in Sweden 1948-49 “about h alf’ were involuntary— a statement
not confirm ed by docum ents kept at the Swedish N ational Board o f Social
Welfare. P. R. Reilly, The Surgical Solution: A History o f Involuntary Sterilization in
the United States (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 109, 177.
72. Medicinalstyrelsen, Rad och anvisningar rorande tillampning av 1941 ars steriliser­
ingslag och abortlagen, 9.
73. K. Grunewald, “Graviditet och sterilisering hos svenska sarskoleflickor under aren
1937-1956,” Psykisk utvecklingshdm ning no. 1-2 (1960). The Board o f Health
stated in 1950: “If there seem to be reasons for sterilization, it is of course natural
that this is taken into consideration before parole” (Minutes, 19 April 1950, SA
vol. A, 2).
74. Cited in FLU 1955 report no. 23, 14. Further comm ents on persuasion in H.
Forssman, “Sterilisering och befolkningspolitik,” Socialmedicinsk tidskrift 35, no. 4
(1958): 136; von Hofsten, Steriliseringar i Sverige 1941-1953, 21.
75. A p p licatio n s for s te riliz a tio n , 1936, 1940, 1942, MA vols. E lb, 2, 9, 18;
Applications for sterilization, 1950, SA vol. El, 61.
76. Outlines and minutes on marriage cases, 21 September 1949, SA vol. BII, I.
77. To give some examples: On 1 July 1948, the right to grant exemptions from the
prohibitions of marriage was transferred from the governm ent to the Board of
Health. In the second half of that year, the Board issued thirty-three marriage
licenses; in nine cases sterilization was stipulated. In 1950, the same stipulation
was made for ten o f the forty-four cases that came before the board (Outlines and
m in u te s on m a rria g e cases, 1948-1951, SA vols. BII, 1-2). Cf.
J u s titie d e p a rte m e n te t, M e d ic in s k a a k te n sk a p sh in d e r , S ta te n s O ffen tlig a
Utredningar no. 1960/21 (Stockholm: Justitiedepartementet, 1960).
78. Seen in relation to the total num ber of sterilizations, those that were occasioned
by epilepsy were few. In the period o f the first Sterilization Act, there were proba­
bly some thirty sterilizations per year, most of which were voluntary and hence
not subject to the control of the Board of Health. In the 1940s there was a slight
increase; the greatest num ber reported for epileptics was in 1944 (ninety cases,
eighty-eight of which were eugenically indicated). Around the middle o f the 1950s
some twenty-five to thirty-five epileptics were sterilized per year. See von Hofsten,
 “Steriliseringar i Sverige 1935-1939” and Statistiska c en tralb y ran , Sveriges
Offentliga Statistik.
79. On sterilization as condition for marriage: C. H. Alstrom, A Study o f Epilepsy in Its
C lin ic a l, S o c ia l a n d G e n e tic A sp e c ts, A cta P sy c h ia tric a et N e u ro lo g ica
Supplementum 63 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1950); Outlines and minutes on
m a rria g e cases, 19 A u g u st 1955, 13 M ay 1960, SA v o l. B11, 4, BII, 7;
Justitiedepartem entet, M edicinska aktenskapshinder, including an appendix,
“A ktenskapsarenden i M edicinalstyrelsen,” by N. von H ofsten; T. Romanus,
“Verkningar av det i abortlagen uppstallda steriliseringsvillkoret,” enclosure to
Minutes, 8 December 1967, SA vol. A, 16.
80. Reports on sterilization, 1941, MA vol. EIc, 14; Applications for sterilization,
1950, SA vol. El, 63.
81. Applications for sterilization, 1944, MA vol. Elb, 76; Applications for sterilization,
1950, SA vol. El, 76.
82. Applications for sterilization, 1950, SA vol. El, 81.
83. Applications for sterilization, 1950, SA vol. El, 83.
84. Note enclosed to Applications for sterilization, 1960, SA vol. El, 313.
85. Von Hofsten, Steriliseringar i Sverige 1941-1953, 53. Cf. M inutes, 2 September
1955, SA vol. A, 3.
86. Applications for sterilization, 1935, MA vol. Elb, 1; Applications for sterilization,
1946, MA vols. Elb, 100-1.
87. See Bent Sigurd Hansen, “Something Rotten in the State of D enm ark,” in this
volume.
88. The mortality rate for women was 3 per 1,000 operations in the 1940s, but lower
in later years (von Hofsten, Steriliseringar i Sverige 1941-1953, 42-44.) The imbal­
ance in d e a th ra te s w as n o tic e d a lread y in th e 1940s (see v o n H o fsten ,
“Steriliseringar i Sverige 1935-1939,” 1429-30).
89. N. von Hofsten, “De arvsbiologiska verkningarna av sterilisering,” Nordisk medi-
cin 21, no. 1 (1944): 179-80.
90. Hirdman, Atf lagga livet tillratta, esp. 229-34.
91. This argum ent is emphasized by Li Bennich-Bjorkman and Jeanne Freiburg in
com m ents on earlier versions of our work on Swedish sterilization policy (L.
Bennich-Bjorkman, “S3 tuktas en argbigga: Den svenska steriliseringspolitiken,”
K vinnovetenskaplig tid skrift no. 2 [1992]; J. Freiburg, “C ounting Bodies: The
Politics of Reproduction in the Swedish Welfare State,” Scandinavian Studies 65,
no. 2 [1993]). On eugenics and gender, see also N. L. Stepan, “The H our o f
Eugenics”: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin America (Ithaca & London: Cornell
University Press, 1991).
92. “Forslag till lag om arb etsfo stran m.m . Socialstyrelsens u tla ta n d e ,” Sociala
Meddelanden, no. 10B (1940): 806-7.
93. Minutes, 12 February 1954, SA vol. A, 3. Cf. von Hofsten, Steriliseringar i Sverige
1941-1953 , 34.
94. In addition to Statistiska centralbyran, Sveriges O ffentliga S ta tistik, see von
Hofsten, Steriliseringar i Sverige 1941-1953, 33-37.
 95. Justitiedepartem entet, Betankande m ed forslag till lagstiftning om abrytande av
h a v a n d e s k a p , S ta te n s O ffen tlig a U tre d n in g a r no. 1935/15 (S to ck h o lm :
Justitiedepartementet, 1935), 120-21.
96. Minutes, 31 January 1944, MA vol. Al, 15.
97. M inutes, 31 January 1944, MA vols. Al, 15. Cf. Minutes, 8 December 1943, 16
February 1944 and 23 March 1944, MA vol. Al, 14-15. The “im portant stipula­
tion” was stressed in the “Advice and Directives” of the Board of Health concern­
ing ab o rtio n s, as well (M ed ic in a lsty relse n , R a d och a n v is n in g a r ro ra n d e
tilla m p n in g av ste rilise rin g s- och a b o rtla g a rn a , M ed d eland en fran K ungl.
M e d ic in a lsty re lse n 84 [S to ck h o lm : M e d ic in a lsty re lse n , 1939], 6;
Medicinalstyrelsen, R ad och anvisningar rorande tillampning av 1941 drs steriliser-
ingslag och abortlagen, 17).
98. In the period 1950-53, some 65 percent o f those women whose abortions were
conditional upon sterilization were mentally retarded, some 17 percent “psy­
chopaths,” and some 11 percent mentally ill, according to a study by von Hofsten
(von Hofsten, Steriliseringar i Sverige 1941-1953, 37).
99. Statistiska centralbyran, Sveriges Offentliga Statistik. In the statistics these condi­
tional cases were labeled, not very clearly, “Sterilizations in connection with an
abortion.” It is apparent, however, from what is stated elsewhere in the official
statistics and from a comparison with the figures compiled by von Hofsten him ­
self, that these were abortions where sterilization had been stipulated.
100. N. von Hofsten, “Steriliseringarna och aborterna,” in Medicinalvasendet i Sverige
1813-1862, ed. W. Kock (Stockholm: Nordiska bokhandeln, 1963), 515, 517.
101. O n Elise O ttesen-Jensen, see M. Sodling, “Svenska kyrkan och trettio talets
b e fo lk n in g sfra g a ,” T y p escrip t, 1993, D e p a rtm e n t o f T heology, U ppsala
University, 105.
102. Freiburg, “Counting Bodies,” 232.
103. N. von Hofsten, Steriliseringsfragan ur rasbiologisk synpunkt, Svenska foreningens
for psykisk halsovards smaskrifter 5 (Stockholm: Albert Bonniers forlag, 1933),
48; The National Social Welfare Board cited in P 1941 no. 13, 16.
104. O n the Swedish Tattare, see A. H eymowski, Swedish “T ravellers” and Their
Ancestry, Studia Sociologica Upsaliensia 5 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1969); I.
Svanberg, ed., I samhallets utkanter: O m “Tattare” i Sverige, Uppsala Multiethnic
Papers 11 (Uppsala: Centre for M ultiethnic Research, 1987); M. Tyden and I.
Svanberg, “I nationalismens bakvatten: H ur svensken blev svensk och invandraren
fram ling,” in Bryta, bygga bo: Svensk historia underifran, ed. G. Broberg, U.
Wikander, and K. Amark (Stockholm: Ordfronts forlag, 1994).
105. H. Lundborg, Rasbiologi och rashygien, 2nd ed. (Stockholm: P.A. N orstedt &
Soners, 1922), 161.
106. Fattigv& rdslagstiftningskom mitten, Forslag till lag om liisdrivares behandling,
Statens Offentliga U tredningar no. 1923/2 (Stockholm: Socialdepartem entet,
1923), 342. Sterilization was, however, recom m ended by some local police dis­
tricts from which the Commission received statements.
107. Heymowski, Swedish “Travellers,” 109.
108. “Forslag till lag om arbetsfostran m .m . Socialstyrelsens u tla ta n d e ,” Sociala
Meddelanden, no. 10B (1940): 807.
109. M. Ohlander, “Zigenare, Tattare och hjalpskolan,” Hjalpskolan, Organ for nordiskt
hjalpskolefiirbund 21 (1943): 79-80, 82; M. O hlander, “Begavningsfdrhallanden
hos T attare,” T id skrift fo r Psykologi och pedagogik 1, no. 2 (1942): 109, 113;
Heymowski, Swedish “Travellers,” 27.
110. FLU 1943 report no. 41, 22 [supplement by von Hofsten].
111. G. Dahlberg, “A nthropom etry of “T attare,” a Special Group o f Vagabonds in
Sweden,” Uppsala Lakareforenings Forhandlingar, New Series 50 (1944): 72, 79.
112. “Tattarnas antal och levnadsforhallanden,” Sociala Meddelanden, no. 5 (1945):
379. O n the racial notion o f Tattare, see for instance A. Etzler, “O m tattarnas
harstam ning,” Sociala M eddelanden, no. 1 (1957) and B. L undm an’s critical
review o f H eym ow ski’s, “Swedish ‘T ravellers’ and T heir A ncestry,” Svenska
landsmal och svenskt folkliv 93 (1970): 122-24.
113. Applications for sterilization, 1940, MA vol. Elb, 9.
114. Applications for sterilization, 1942, MA vol. Elb, 18; Applications for sterilization,
1943, MA vol. Elb, 35; Applications for sterilization, 1950, SA vol. El, 61.
115. Minutes, 22 February 1957, SA vol. A, 4.
116. Minutes, 30 May 1958, SA vol. A, 4.
117. Heymowski, Swedish “Travellers,” 112.
118. L. Olsson, Kulturkunskap i forandring: Kultursynen i svenska geografibiicker 1870­
1985 (Malmo: Liber, 1986), 112-20.
119. A. Montagu, Statem ent on Race: A n A nnotated Elaboration and Exposition o f the
Four Statem ents on Race issued by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
C ultural Organizations , 3rd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1972). The
choice of a third Swede is baffling, however. It fell on “Professor Joseph Skold,
Stockholm University,” who, it was said, was unable to attend due to sickness. The
person referred to is the linguist [Jo]Hannes Skold, active in Lund, who died in
1930.
120. Bordssamtal i rasfragan, Verdandis skriftserie 3 (Uppsala: Verdandi, 1955).
121. There are exceptions, of course. In the recent period, mention could be made of
Bjorn Kurten, the Finland-Swedish paleontologist; Bengt Hubendick, the marine
biologist; Bjorn Afzelius, the cytologist; and Marianne Rasmusson, the geneticist;
in addition there are a great many popular works in translation (by Julian Huxley,
Desmond Morris, and by critics such as Stephen Jay Gould).
122. J. A. Book, “Medicinsk genetik,” Nordisk medicin no. 56 (1956): 1087.
123. J. Lindsten, et al, Klinisk genetik (Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen, 1976).
124. A. M untzing, Arftlighetsforskning (Stockholm: LTs forlag, 1953); A. Muntzing,
Arftlighetsforskning, 2nd ed. (Stockholm: LTs forlag, 1960); A. M untzing, A rft­
lighetsforskning, 3rd ed. (Stockholm: LTs forlag, 1964); A. Muntzing, Arftlighets­
forskning, 4th ed. (Stockholm: LTs forlag, 1971); A. Muntzing, Arftlighetsforskning,
5th ed. (Stockholm: LTs forlag, 1977).
125. O. Kinberg, G. Inghe, and S. Reimer, Incestproblemet i Sverige (Stockholm: Natur
& Kultur, 1943). Cf. R. Qvarsell, Utan vett och vilja: O m synen pa brottslighet och
 sinnessjukdom (Stockholm: Carlsson, 1993). There were other voices, however:
when the Swedish Society of Medicine discussed the matter in 1933, Bror Gadelius
and Bernhard Jacobowsky, leading representatives of the psychiatric profession,
for example, pointed out that many character defects which appeared constitu­
tional were in fact caused by temporary environmental factors.
126. See G. Jonsson’s dissertation, Delinquent Boys: Their Parents and Grandparents,
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Suppl. 195 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1967).
127. As noted in Ohlander, “The Invisible Child,” 255.
128. FLU 1955 report no. 23, 18-20; FKP 1960 no. 13, 27.
129. Cf. O . P e te rsso n , A. W e sth o lm , an d G. B lo m b erg , M e d b o rg a rn a s m a k t
(Stockholm: Carlssons, 1989), 325-80.
130. Minutes, 8 December 1967, SA vol. A, 16.
131. K. Grunewald, “Kritisk granskning av ansokningar om sterilisering av mentalt
defekta,” Lakartidningen 67, no. 44 (1970); K. Grunewald, “Indikationerna for
sterilisering av psykiskt utvecklingsstorda maste andras,” Lakartidningen 67, no.
44 (1970).
132. For an analysis o f the Social D em ocrats’ welfare program , see K. Misgeld, K.
Molin, and K. Amark, eds., Creating Social Democracy: A Century o f the Social
D em ocratic Labor P arty in Sweden (U niversity Park: The Pennsylvania State
University Press, 1992).
133. O n hygienism in Sweden in the early tw en tieth century, see E. Palm blad,
M e d ic in e n som sam h a llsla ra (G oteborg: D aidalos, 1990); K. Jo h an n isso n ,
“Folkhalsa: Det svenska projektet fran 1900 fram till 2:a varldskriget,” Lychnos.
A rsbok fo r idehistoria och vetenskapshistoria (Uppsala: Swedish Science Press,
1991).
134. Befolingskommissionen, Betankande angaende sterilisering, 46.
N o r w eg ian E u g en ic s :
S t er iliza t io n as S o c ial R efo r m
N ils R o l l - H a n s e n

I n tr o d u ct io n : A C l a s s ic a l L ib e r a l V er s u s an In str u m en ta l V iew o f S c ie n c e

M
uch of the recent historiography o f eugenics is built on an instrum ental
in te rp re ta tio n o f science. Science is seen as a to o l by w hich society
achieves its economic and social aims, while its role in the cultural and political
activities which form these aims is neglected. Efficiency and not tru th becomes
the purpose of science. This conception o f science as an expression o f “instru­
m ental reason” which aim s to “rationalize” social activity was developed in
particular by Germ an philosophers and social scientists around the beginning
of the twentieth cen tu ry Max Weber’s ideal of a “value-free” and m eans-ori­
ented science and a deep distinction between science and politics expressed a
fundam ental change taking place in the view of science. Though he was him self
a transition figure w ho was ambivalent toward a full-blown instrum ental view,
his writings have been a constant source o f inspiration for such interpretations.
Since the 1960s and th e “student revolution,” these ideas, which were partly
shared and anticipated by logical em piricism and pragm atism , have also made
a great im pact on the theory o f science in the Anglo-American world.
In this instrum ental view, science, and natural science in particular, tends
to be seen as a separate dom ain o f h u m an activity concerned w ith efficient
ways o f m anipulating natural and social phenom ena an d neutral to the values
o f o u r “Lebenswelt”— the world we live in. The theoretical conceptions devel­
oped by science are interpreted as constructs of h um an im agination with no
descriptive relation to the real w orld. They may be useful for m anipulating
o ur experiences but give no deeper insight and understanding o f the world.
The instrum ental view o f scientific knowledge was coupled to an emotive or
voluntarist view o f ethics which em phasized the im possibility o f drawing n o r­
m ative conclusions fro m descriptive prem ises. It was im possible to derive
“ou g h t” from “is,” as David H um e had claimed. N either o f these views won
full acceptance. The th eo ry o f biological evolution is one obvious example o f
how science continued to influence the goals and norm s o f our social behav­
ior. Together, th e in s tru m e n ta l in te rp re ta tio n o f scientific th e o ry and the
insistence on a fundam ental break between o u r ideas about w hat is and what
ought to be drive us tow ard a picture o f science as an esoteric an d magical
activity w hich mysteriously produces powerful technology.
This instrum ental W eberian view of science was absorbed and popularized,
for example, by the neo-M arxist Frankfurt School o f Sociology in the 1930s
and 1940s. The dangers o f technocracy and uncontrolled technological devel­
opm ent were stressed. A pessimistic picture of a w orld gradually succumbing
to a disastrous dictatorship o f experts was draw n. It was in m any ways the
dystopia m irroring the socialist utopia o f this period. The faint hope of these
pessimistic critics of m odern civilization was that catastrophe could be blocked
by asserting the prim acy o f politics and achieving co ntrol o f technological
developm ent through democracy.
An alternative to the instrum ental view o f science is to consider it as funda­
mentally a cultural activity aim ing to gain knowledge o f the world. According
to this view, science is a m ain source o f ou r understanding o f the h um an con­
dition and a m ain factor in form ing the specific values and aims o f our social
activities, including politics. It is not merely a m eans to achieve aim s that have
other sources. In this classical liberal view, science is an extension o f our ordi­
nary knowledge. It describes the world we live in, and its legitim ization is fun­
dam entally d ep e n d e n t u p o n th is link to o u r “Lebenswelt.” By denying or
neglecting the role of science in the form ation of social and political values and
goals, instrum entalism underm ines this side o f science and may easily have the
effect of strengthening the threats of technology that it pretends to com bat. By
severing the links to com m on sense, science becomes less comprehensible, less
usable as a guide, and m ore difficult to control.
The im print o f the instrum ental conception of science is found, for instance,
in the sociology o f knowledge approach taken by Peter Weingart, et al., in their
account o f eugenics in G erm any, Rasse, B lut und Gene (1988). In an earlier
paper I pointed out how the instrum ental conception of science leads to a con­
fusion o f science w ith politics in W eingart’s account o f G erm an eugenics.1
W hen links to the com m on sense picture o f the world are severed, the political
implications become arbitrary and the enlightening role of scientific knowledge
is lost. Sheila Weiss’s study o f Wilhelm Schallmayer and his legacy emphasizes
the in stru m e n ta l p erspective even in th e title, Race Hygiene an d Rational
Management o f National Efficiency. Benno M uller-Hill describes the generally
smooth cooperation of the G erm an scientific com m unity with the Nazi govern­
m ent on population and race policies,2 and he attributes this to the inherent
am oral or “value-free” nature o f science. Salvation can only come from adding
something that is foreign to the scientific tradition, namely, hum an m oral val­
ues. “It is the plight o f scientists to become schizophrenic,” sighs M uller-Hill.3
A broader and m ore differentiated perspective o n the social role o f eugenics,
em phasizing th e cultural, norm ative, and political effects o f accum ulating
knowledge and n o t only the instrum ental connection, is found, for example, in
Kenneth Ludm erer’s book on genetics and society in America (1972) and in
Daniel Kevles’s book on eugenics in America an d England (1985). G arland
Allen’s com plaints about the laissez-faire attitude and withdrawal of geneticists
from public debates in the period between the w orld wars also imply a basic
belief in the enlightening role o f science.4 W ith p e rtin e n t reservations with
respect to uncertainty and lack of knowledge, scientists have an obligation to
tell the public in a clear way w hat is true and legitim ate knowledge on contro­
versial issues.5
The interpretation o f science as instrum ental and “value-free” fits quite well
with the attitudes and practices o f a num ber o f leading G erm an geneticists
during the Nazi period. For instance, Eugene Fischer, Fritz Lenz, and O tm ar
von Verschuer were highly adaptable to the ideology o f the political system that
took over in 1933. They used the rhetoric of the instrum ental and ethically
neutral, “amoral,” view o f science to justify their actions and detach themselves
from possible m oral blame. At the same tim e they also cultivated a normative
role for biological visions o f an ideal hum an being. The latter often im plied a
narrow kind o f scientific perspective which, u n d er the given circum stances,
reinforced Nazi ideology.
But there were also exceptions to this disgraceful submission o f science to
current politics in the Germany o f the 1930s. H erm ann M uckerm ann, one of
the m ain pioneers o f the Kaiser W ilhelm Institute for Anthropology, H um an
Genetics and Eugenics, and the director o f one o f its divisions, was prom ptly
discharged from his post after the Nazi takeover. He was a Catholic priest as
well as a scientist. He supported a m oderate eugenics program . But he also had
a com m itm ent to social responsibility and specific h u m an values th at were
incom patible w ith the dem ands o f the Nazi governm ent on the institute.6
T h e q u e stio n o f th e a d eq u acy o f th e in s tru m e n ta l view o f science in
accounting for the developm ent of eugenics in N orw ay is the underlying con­
cern of this essay. C entral them es are the views an d the behavior o f scientific
experts. We will look at their views o f the social role o f science and the respon­
sibility of the scientist and at the way they used scientific insight to argue for or
against specific social policies. M ost o f them w ere w hat we can call Social
D em ocrats in a b ro a d sense. Irrespective o f w h e th e r th ey su p p o rte d the
Norwegian Labor Party, the Liberals (Venstre) or the Conservatives (H oyre),
they were com m itted to the construction of a social welfare state. The m oder­
ate version o f eugenics which they adhered to was an integral part o f program s
for social reform.
The population question caused m uch concern in the 1920s and 1930s, in
Norway as in other N ordic countries. There was a widespread feeling that con­
curren t with a halt in population grow th was an increase in the num ber o f the
m entally disabled, insane, and o th er groups w ith low social capabilities. This
social degeneration was generally conceived as genetically determ ined and a
result o f the accum ulation o f p oor hereditary m aterial.7 The established way of
preventing the procreation o f “inferior” social groups was institutionalization.
Sterilization was proposed as a m eans that w ould be m ore h u m ane by not
restricting any other aspects o f behavior than procreation. It was also argued
th at sterilization was m ore effective in this respect than restrictions on m ar­
riage o r confinem ent in in stitu tio n s. F urtherm ore, sterilization w ould save
m oney by making possible the release o f m any institutional inm ates. But in
spite o f these argum ents, sterilization was not introduced in Norway during
the early phase o f eugenics— m ainline eugenics— w hen racism and rather sim ­
plistic views o f in h eritan ce were p red o m in an t. In Norway, as in the o th er
N ordic countries, sterilization laws w ith eugenics as an im p o rtan t aim were
introduced only in the 1930s. This m ain achievement of the Norwegian eugen­
ics m ovem ent came at a tim e when British and Am erican eugenics had entered
a period of decline and waning influence.8
How is the tim ing o f the in troduction of eugenic sterilization in Norway to
be explained? W hat m ade it possible for a procedure that was not acceptable in
the first decades of the century, and w hich was again rejected by the 1960s, to
be introduced by law in the 1930s? H ere we will discuss some factors th at were
influential in this developm ent. First, there was the progressing secularization
o f social life w ith a g rad u al u n d e rm in in g o f tra d itio n a l C h ristian ethical
norm s. This made sterilization easier to accept. Second was a rising belief in
scientifically based social planning which may have culm inated in the period
between 1930 and 1960. This belief provided support for eugenic sterilization.
One factor that worked against eugenic sterilization was the growing insight
into h u m an genetics. T hroughout the period in question this growth in scien­
tific knowledge was largely disappointing to eugenic enthusiasts. Biological and
m edical research contradicted the idea of a genetically caused degeneration of
the p o p u la tio n an d show ed th a t m any o f th e p ro p o sed eugenic m easures
w ould have less effect than had originally been hoped. A second factor that
gradually underm ined eugenic program s was an ideology o f individualism , a
growing emphasis on individual rights against the interests of the state or col­
lective. The frightening experience w ith Nazi population policies in the period
from 1933 to 1945 enhanced the reactions against eugenic thinking in general.
The enlightening and educating role o f science is a central topic o f this dis­
cussion. Even in the case o f eugenics, where science was deeply involved in the
form ation and execution o f activities which we strongly condemn, it was also
the source o f the reliable knowledge and insight necessary for an effective criti­
cism and rejection o f Nazi policies. The historiography that depicts the evils of
eugenics under Nazism appeals n o t only to our general ethical norm s b u t also
to tru e science as opposed to the faulty science on which Nazi eugenics was
based.
This account will try to present evidence for the enlightening role o f science.
W hat im pact did results from research and critical scientific discussion have on
the form ation o f policy goals and n o rm s o f behavior? Was such a role dis­
cernible and im portant, or was science merely an instrum ent in the hands of
political forces? And what was the tem poral scope for this guiding and critical
role o f science? Were the results com prehended, accepted, and used as soon as
they were published, or did it take decades before they were sufficiently widely
understood and integrated into public thinking to have much effect? This study
aims to draw attention to the “enlightening” aspect o f science as a co u n ter­
weight to the instrum ental interpretations currently popular in science studies.

T he B eg in n in g o f N orw egian E u g en ics

Public interest in eugenics, or race hygiene as it was usually called, reached a

high poin t in the years before W orld War I. At this tim e two main proponents
w ere th e p h arm acist Jon Alfred M jo en an d th e psychiatrist R ag n ar Vogt.
A nother psychiatrist, Johan Scharffenberg, who was to become a m ain propa­
gandist for the 1934 Sterilization Law, was also active. And the young medical
doctor and biologist O tto Lous M ohr m ade a brash entry in 1915 through his
sharp criticism o f M joen’s approach to eugenics.9
Jon Alfred Hansen Mjoen (1860-1939) studied abroad for many years after
obtaining his pharm aceutical degree in Norway in 1881. His interest in race
h y g ie n e w as s tim u la te d an d d e v e lo p e d in G e rm a n y w h ere h e b e c a m e
acquainted with Alfred Ploetz in 1897. In 1901 he was elected a m em ber o f the
Norwegian Academy o f Science o n the basis of work in organic chemistry. In
1906 he founded a private research institute for eugenics, Vinderen Biological
Laboratory, which never developed into a scientific institution o f any im por­
tance, however.
 In M ay 1908 M joen spoke before the M edical Society in Oslo on “Race
Biology an d Hygiene o f R eproduction.”10 The m eeting was organized by the
later general secretary o f the Norwegian Medical Association, Jorgen Berner.11
It m arked th e b eg in n in g o f M joen’s activity as a propagandist for eugenic
reform s in Norway. T h e message was th at the th re a t o f genetic and social
degeneration dem anded a change in social policy. So far, all attention had been
c o n c e n tra te d o n th e e n v iro n m e n t a n d b io lo g ic a l in h e rita n c e h a d been
neglected. M joen presented the first version of w hat later came to be know n as
“The Norwegian P rogram for Race Hygiene.” Like o ther contem porary eugenic
program s it distinguished three form s— negative, positive, and prophylactic
race hygiene.
M joen’s first, and probably his m ost rem arkable, success in Norwegian pol­
itics was th e in tro d u c tio n o f a progressive system o f taxation o f alcoholic
drinks according to th e ir alcohol content. Earlier taxation had been based on
the price o f the raw m aterials used. M joen argued th a t it should be based on
the character o f the product, i.e., its alcohol content. His main argum ent was
built on the harm ful effects o f alcohol, in p articular the effect on biological
heredity. O f a fo u r-m an com m ission nam ed by th e m inistry of the interior,
M joen was alone in m aintaining that alcohol dam aged biological heredity. But
his system for the classification and taxation of beer was included in the law
th at was u n a n im o u sly passed by P arliam en t in 1912,12 and is still p a rt of
Norwegian daily life. '
Ragnar Vogt (1870-1943) was the founder of m o d ern psychiatry in Norway.
He was elected a m em ber of the Norwegian Academy o f Science in 1913, and
in 1915 he became the first Norwegian professor o f psychiatry. He shared the
com m on belief o f the period that m ental illness was strongly determ ined by
biological heredity. A pparently the belief in heredity as a main cause of m ental
illness reached a high p o in t toward the end of the nineteenth century. In 1857,
according to the classification of new patients at N orw ay’s main m ental hospi­
tal, G austad, the m o st im p o rtan t cause was m a stu rb atio n , w ith fifty-three
cases. The second m ost frequent cause was drunkenness and intoxication, with
thirty-five cases, an d in third place was hereditary inclination, w ith twenty-
one. In 1892 the relative im portance o f environm ental (social) and hereditary
(biological) causation was reversed; there were 263 cases attributed to heredi­
tary inclination and only four to m asturbation.13 M ost likely this move from a
moralizing social explanation to a hereditary biological one helped the patients
to liberate themselves from authoritarian oppression in their local com m uni­
ties. It was a change th at strengthened the rights o f the individual relative to
those o f authorities representing society.
 Investigating the heritability o f manic-depressive m ental illness, Vogt con­
cluded that it was not a dom inant trait in the M endelian sense, but perhaps a
recessive trait: “Most o f the children of o u r patients appear to have escaped the
pathological inheritance, which is in good harm ony w ith a theory of recessive­
ness.” In his conclusions from this investigation, Vogt also emphasized that the
manic-depressive condition did not cause either “idiocy, epilepsy, alcoholism,
or paranoia” in the offspring.14 He was, in other words, critical of the then-
popular view that there was a com m on hereditary basis for a broad spectrum
of m ental illness, m ental retardation, asocial behavior, and m oral depravity.
In his studies of h um an genetics, Vogt had an earlier local tradition to draw
on. In the 1880s and 1890s the Norwegian physician W ilhelm Uckerman had
stud ied the dependence o f deaf-m u tism on consanguineous m arriage and
found consanguinity to be four tim es m ore frequent am ong the parents of
deaf-mutes than of norm al children. Uckerman did n o t w ant legislation to for­
bid consanguineous m arriage, but he hoped this inform ation would influence
behavior and that better com m unication would break the isolation of small
com m unities and reduce the frequency of such m arriages.15
Vogt’s critical attitu d e tow ard m any popular prejudices about biological
heredity was also evident in his lecture to the Norwegian Students Association
(D et Norske Studentersam fund) in O ctober 1912. H ere he m aintained th at
there was no firm evidence to show that the use of alcohol affected biological
inheritance. He also pointed out that the eugenic benefit from sterilization of
conditions caused by recessive inheritance was small. T he frequency would
decrease only marginally even after m any generations.16 In contrast to M joen
he kept abreast of contem porary research in hum an genetics. W hen Mjoen lec­
tured on eugenics to the Academy of Sciences in February 1914, Vogt stood up
and explained th e n a tu re o f recessive tra its. A nd he m a in ta in e d th a t the
“socially most im portant hereditary diseases, like deaf-m uteness, feeblemind­
edness and mental illness” were, m ost likely, recessive17
However, Vogt was in no way free from the com m on prejudices of his time.
Apparently he did not even think o f questioning the biological basis o f his own
racism and antifeminism. In a book on genetics and race hygiene, Vogt took it
for granted that blacks were biologically inferior to w hites, in particular to
N o rd ic s, a n d th a t w o m e n w ere m a d e fo r th e ta s k s o f th e h o m e a n d
procreation.18
Vogt’s attitudes strikingly illustrate the limitations which science can never
hope to escape. Its dependence on the com m on world view o f its times can only
be severed to a limited degree. But the difficulty in launching fundam ental and
w ide-ranging criticism o f curren t w orld views does n o t im ply that scientific
criticism cannot be o f great im portance. As already indicated, Vogt was also a
sober scientist who w arned against alarmist attitudes and hysterical reactions.
W ith respect to the degeneration o f the race th at was so widely feared, Vogt
m aintained that there was so far a complete lack o f evidence for such a phe­
nom enon. He was, however, w orried that the tendency am ong the upper classes
to have few children could cause a lowering o f average hereditary quality in
coming generations.
N eith er M joen n o r Vogt w an te d to in tro d u c e sterilizatio n at this stage
except on a voluntary basis. M joen did not w ant to antagonize public opinion.
Vogt wrote that one should n o t use harsher m eans than were necessary. Only if
contraception or prohibition o f marriage did not w ork should sterilization or
even confinem ent be considered.19
Johan Scharffenberg (1869-1965) visited the famous hygiene exhibition in
Dresden in 1911 and w rote an article in the daily newspaper o f the Norwegian
Labor Party. Socialists, he declared, had to understand th at n o t only was an
im provem ent in environm ental conditions necessary but also a “purification of
the hereditary material itself th ro u g h rational h um an breeding.” He added that
some American states already had laws that m ade it possible “to sterilize the
m ost inferior individuals (feeblem inded, vagabonds etc.), from w hom there is
reason to expect offspring th at will be a burden to society.”20 Scharffenberg was
a staunch individualist w ith a critical scientific spirit. His u n o rth o d o x views
and untiring polemics had considerable im pact on Norwegian public debate
th ro u g h o u t his long life. M ost fam ous, perhaps, are his candid attacks on
Hitler and Nazism both before and during the G erm an occupation o f Norway,
1940-45. A series of new spaper articles in 1933, w arning that H itler was “a psy­
chopath of the prophetic type— o n the verge o f insanity,” resulted in consider­
able G erm an diplom atic pressure on the Norwegian governm ent to stop him .21

T h e A tta ck on Mjo e n

M joen was successful in attractin g public atte n tio n abroad as well as at

home. He was a prom in en t participant at the First International Congress of
E ugen ics in L o n d o n in 1912 a n d b ecam e a m e m b e r o f th e P e rm a n e n t
International Com m ittee for Eugenics which was elected at this congress, with
Leonard D arw in as c h a irm a n .22 N orw egian m edical and biological experts
were beginning to w orry ab o u t the im pact that M joen m ight have on research
and legislation. He was an active m em ber of the Liberal Party which formed
the governm ent from 1913 to 1920. At the national convention o f the party in
June 1914, M joen lectured on “the question of m aking race- and folk-diseases
a state responsibility.” In the ensuing debate the m inister of justice said th a t he
agreed w ith m any o f M joen’s views on eugenics and that he had “very radical
plans” for a revision of the penal code.23
W hen in late 1914 M joen published a pop u lar book on race hygiene, the
young medical doctor O tto Lous M ohr attacked him in a newspaper review.
M ohr (1886-1967) had received his m edical degree in 1912 and studied cytol­
ogy abroad d u rin g the year 1913-14. The essence o f his criticism was th at
M joen was a dilettante in m edicine and biology, that he obscured im p o rtan t
issues, and misled the public by spreading unrealistic hopes about the effective­
ness o f the proposed eugenic measures. M ohr was not against eugenics in gen­
eral an d he did n o t react to th e racist tendencies in M joen’s book. O n the
contrary, he pointed to the book by Vogt as a sound and scientifically reliable
alternative to M joen.24
Kristine Bonnevie was the first female professor in Norway and a specialist
on cytology and genetics. She joined the attack on M joen, stressing th at her
criticism was not directed at the principles o f eugenics that M joen advocated,
b u t at the uncritical and m isleading way in w hich he presented them . For
instance, he pretended that by preventing the lowest race elements from p ro ­
creating, society w ould, w ithin o n e or two generations, save large sum s o f
m oney on social institutions, police, the judicial system, support for the u n e m ­
ployed, etc. It was irresponsible to m ake such prom ises w ithout presenting
proof for one’s claims, wrote Bonnevie. W hen M joen tried to defend som e of
his proposals in a reply, she was unw illing to continue the debate. M joen’s
book had already “for too long occupied the attention o f the public.”25
Mjoen’s supporters, who were laypeople and not experts in medicine or biol­
ogy, also believed in enlightenm ent through science. They objected to the sm ug­
ness and arrogance o f his scientific critics. O ne lawyer protested the insulting
treatm ent that Mjoen had received and m aintained that he had at least m ade an
effort to bring knowledge to the public, in contrast to the purely academic activ­
ities o f p eople such as M o h r.26 T h is b ro u g h t a sh arp reply from K ristian
Schreiner, a professor o f anatom y and a p ro m in ent physical anthropologist,
entitled “A W ord on Science and D ilettantism .” People such as Mjoen did not
understand that the young science o f eugenics was not yet ripe for application
in practical politics, wrote Schreiner. As long as there appeared to be no danger
that “the m atter would be politicized,” M joen’s w arm enthusiasm had been dis­
arm ing. But his international appearance as an expert on eugenics had m ade
“the few experts that we have in this area” react. Schreiner attacked with indig­
nation the lack of respect for science upon which M joen’s defense seemed to be
based. M joen appeared to believe th at “social interests and political activity”
provided a sufficient platform for a leading role in scientific matters and that it
“exempts the person from factual criticism.”27 In other words, Schreiner could
no t accept M jo en ’s a ttem p t to bypass the sc ru tin y o f scientific experts by
addressing him self directly to the public.
In April 1916 Parliam ent decided to establish an institute for genetics. The
p ro p o sa l aim ed to exclude M joen, to secu re a so u n d scientific basis for
research, and to avoid dilettantism . Eugenics was a m ain argum ent for the new
institute. Knowledge about hu m an genetics was expected to have im portant
applications to social policy in the future. This was em phasized by the four
authors o f the proposal,28 in the statem ent o f th e executive com m ittee o f the
university (“D et Akademiske Collegium ”), an d in the parliam entary debate.
Though some parliam entarians were skeptical o f the high hopes for practical
application expressed in the proposal, there was a clear m ajority in its favor.
The m inister o f health and welfare explained th a t it was im p o rtan t to start
work right away w hen there was a well-qualified person ready to begin, namely
Kristine Bonnevie.29
At the m eeting o f Scandinavian natural scientists (“Det 16. Skandinaviske
N aturforskerm otet”) in July 1916, Kristine Bonnevie gave an introductory lec­
ture to a discussion o f “H um an Genetics, Aims an d Means o f Research.” She
pointed to the isolated, small populations in rem ote Norwegian valleys as par­
ticularly interesting m aterial for genealogical studies, a source that was quickly
disappearing w ith new and better co m m unications. An extensive survey of
such p o p u latio n s was being organized by the newly established Institute o f
Genetics at th e U niversity o f K ristiania (O slo ).30 In fact, Bonnevie had for
some years been investigating a variety o f h u m an anomalies such as harelip,
hem ophilia, polydactyli, and dwarfism.31
Thus M joen was ostracized from the good society o f medical and biological
experts on genetics and his attem p t to o btain state support for his eugenic
research was stopped. But the establishm ent o f the first university Institute of
Genetics in Scandinavia dem onstrates the im portance o f eugenics for the early
institutionalization o f genetics. A main purpose o f Bonnevie’s institute was to
gain insight into h u m an genetics as a guide to eugenic policies.
This early controversy also illustrates how eugenics in Norway, as in other
countries, was closely integrated w ith a general progressive m ovem ent for
social reforms. The details of M joen’s Norwegian program included allowances
for m others, and fights against alcohol, narcotics (such as tobacco), and envi­
ronm ental poisons (such as lead). There was at this tim e a strong tendency to
explain social phenom ena in biological terms. This was not peculiar to the sci­
entific com m unity b u t part of a generally held w orld view.
 To interpret the attack on M joen in the spring o f 1915 merely as a defense of
the professional interests o f the experts w ould be to discard the expressed
motives o f the actors and attribute to them a false consciousness. No doubt one
effect was that the access and influence o f an outsider, M joen, was curtailed.
But in accordance w ith th e classical liberal ideal o f science the experts con­
ceived themselves to be acting in the public interest. They would have scorned
any suggestion th at they were merely furthering their own private interests. It
was in the interest o f the public to prevent M joen’s eugenic proposals from
being realized, as well as to stop him from o b taining state funding for his
research and educational work. The experts argued that M joen’s advice was sci­
entifically unsound and that it would therefore be futile or dangerous to follow.
In hindsight it is difficult to disagree w ith this judgm ent.
The role of the scientific experts in the controversy over M joen’s book in
1915 and the establishm ent of the Institute for Genetics in 1916 illustrate the
active p o litical en gagem ent o f m any N orw egian scientists in this period.
Together with scientific knowledge, the experts drew on both political ideals
and ethical norm s in form ing their judgm ents on social policy. And these views
were highly respected and influential am ong the general public. This central
political role of the experts was based on a com m on view o f science and its
social role. It was the task o f science to help clarify the political aims as well as
the consequences of different choices o f action. From the beginning of the dis­
cussions about eugenic policies in Norway, this guiding and critical role of sci­
ence was central. It was taken for g ranted by all participants in the debate
about eugenics. For M joen and his supporters the necessity of eugenics sprang
from scientific knowledge. The m ain argum ent o f the opponents was that the
know ledge was n o t yet sufficiently clear and certain and th a t the tim e for
im plem entation had n o t yet come. T he in stru m en tal aspect o f science was
peripheral in these debates. But it was present, for instance, in the discussions
about the effectiveness o f certain means in attaining specific ends.

B irth C o n tro l a n d W o m e n ' s L ib era tio n

W hile eugenics was never m ore than a m in o r issue in N orwegian general

politics, b irth control and associated problem s o f family planning were m ajor
issues during the first decades of the century. A m ain figure in the birth control
m ovem ent was Katti Anker Moller.32 An im portant part of her program was the
establishm ent o f b irth control clinics (“m odrehygienekontorer”) to provide
inform ation on child care, contraception, sexual hygiene, etc. The first such
public clinic was established in Oslo in 1924. M oller also campaigned to abolish
 th e law th a t m ad e a b o rtio n a crim e. In a lectu re on “T he L ib eratio n o f
M otherhood,” in January 1915 (a few m o n th s before M ohr’s attack on M joen),
she argued th at the fetus should be considered a part o f the w om an’s body and
under her jurisdiction. This was, at the tim e, a very radical view, and M oller’s
concluding words, “we love motherhood, we w ant it to prosper, but in fu ll free­
dom and under our own responsibility,” did n o t prevent a deluge of protests. She
was bitterly attacked even by some o f her collaborators in the women’s rights
m ovem ent.33
In June 1914 O tto Lous M ohr m arried Katti Anker M oller’s daughter, Tove,
who was to becom e a medical doctor and continue her m other’s work for birth
control an d sexual education. O tto Lous M o h r also became deeply involved in
this cam paign. Among other things he played an active part in the introduc­
tion o f sexual instruction in Norwegian schools.
Katti Anker M oller’s participation in th e London eugenics congress in 1912
was disappointing from her feminist point o f view. Mjoen introduced her to the
German eugenicist Alfred Ploetz, whose views on women she found appalling.34
Ploetz, in his lecture to the congress, attacked neo-M althusianism ,35 and gener­
ally lo o k ed u p o n w om en as “b irth -m a c h in e s for the state,” according to
M o lle r.36 M jo e n , in his 1914 b o o k o n ra c e hygiene, also a tta c k e d n eo -
M alth u sian ism and w om en’s liberatio n . In M joen’s view these m ovem ents
would reinforce the trend toward degeneration through a predom inant decrease
in reproduction by the m ost valuable elem ents in the population.37 He counted
women’s em ancipation am ong the m ajor dissolving forces in society because it
distracted w om en from their essential role in reproduction.38 M joen w anted
biological enlightenm ent but emphasized th at his aim was not to provide “sex­
ual instruction in the schools.”39 Such education was, in his view, part of a dan­
gerous cultural radicalism.
As in o th er countries the questions o f b irth control and sexual instruction
were serious sources o f division w ithin the eugenics m ovement. Mjoen and his
wing o f the Norwegian eugenics m ovem ent continued to be strongly opposed
to the radical approach in family politics. T he experts’ wing o f the m ovem ent
generally had a positive attitude, though Vogt, for example, no doubt retained
some o f his early antifem inist attitude.40 Katti M oller’s campaign was inspired
by an ideology that emphasized the rights o f the individual. M joen’s views on
eugenics an d wom en’s liberation were g rounded in the traditional rights o f the
collective to regulate the life o f the individual and dem and subordination to its
interests.
 T he T h r ea t o f A lco ho l a n d t h e E t h ic s o f R is k - ta kin g

The struggle for tem perance or complete abolition of alcohol was perhaps
the m ost pervasive and pow erful p o p u lar m ovem ent in N orw ay in the late
n in eteen th and early tw en tieth century. As already m en tioned, M joen was
engaged in alcohol research before W orld War I. The social m isery produced by
alcoholism was evident and M joen shared the widely held view th at a main
cause was the dam aging effect o f alcohol on the hereditary m aterial. If true,
this hypothesis could give eugenics a powerful ally. However, scientific research
failed to confirm it.
M ohr, in c o n tra d ic tio n to M joen, gave th e co m fo rtin g assu ran ce th at
drinking alcohol did n o t damage the hereditary material. There was no scien­
tific basis for the com m on belief th at children conceived u n der the influence
of alcohol tended to be inferior, he argued: “The sins o f the parents are not
inherited by the children in the form o f a reduction in the value o f hereditary
potential.”41
M joen condem ned this lenient attitude toward alcohol as an irresponsible
handling o f scientific results by a “spectacle-wise” academic. M ohr was guilty
o f neglecting the risk involved by the uncertainty o f the results, argued Mjoen.
He adm itted that no effects on the hereditary material had been proven. But
the lack o f scientific p ro o f in no way justified the lack o f action. “We have every
reason to believe that alcohol is a m uch m ore serious enemy for the family, the
people and the race than one has so far considered it to be!”42
T he arg u m en t o f u nacceptable risk was often used by M joen to justify
eugenic measures. The risk incurred by not acting was so serious that it was
morally irresponsible n o t to take im m ediate action even on the basis o f quite
u n certain knowledge. H e also justified steps against race crossing w ith the
same kind o f argum ent. He adm itted uncertainty about the detrim ental effects
and agreed that m ore knowledge m ust be sought, but in such a situation it was
safest to say, “ Until we have acquired sufficient knowledge be careful/”43

Human G enetics and Eugenics in the 1920 s and 1930 s

The Norwegian eugenics m ovem ent continued to be divided along the lines
o f the 1915 debate. The medical and biological experts organized themselves
into the Norwegian Genetics Society (“Arvelighetsforeningen”), whose leading
m em bers were Mohr, Vogt, Bonnevie, and Scharffenberg. M joen was excluded
fro m th e good society. In a d d itio n to his sm all an d d ile tta n te g ro u p o f
 researchers at the V in d eren Biological L aboratory, M joen organized “The
Consultative Eugenics C om m ittee of Norway,” which included m en o f prom i­
nent public standing. N ordal Wille, professor of botany at the University of
Kristiania (Oslo) and one o f the central figures in N orw egian science at the
time, was chairm an until his death in 1924. From 1920 to 1931 M joen interm it­
tently published a journal titled Den Nordiske Rase (The Nordic Race),44 and he
continued to be an active m em ber of the international eugenics committee.
At the Second In te rn a tio n a l Congress o f Eugenics in New York in 1921,
Mjoen was greeted by H en ry Fairfield O sborne, president o f the congress, as a
“leader in the vigorous m ovem ent of race hygiene in Scandinavia.”45 Mjoen’s
lecture on the detrim ental effects of race crossing received considerable public­
ity in the local Am erican press. His empirical bases were experim ents with rab­
bits and investigations o f individuals b orn o f the crossing between Lapps and
Norwegians. He showed pictures of “disharm onic” rabbits w ith one hanging
and one upright ear and o f “half-breeds” th at he believed appeared clearly infe­
rior when contrasted w ith Nordic heroes such as F ridtjof Nansen or Charles
Lindberg.46 But M joen’s investigation o f hu m an race crosses rem ained, to a
large extent, at the anecdotal stage. He did not make serious efforts to provide
a representative survey o r to correct for differing social circumstances. His lec­
ture nevertheless becam e the starting point for a discussion o f the harmfulness
of race crossing am ong A m erican geneticists.47
Kristine Bonnevie lectured at the New York eugenics congress on the inheri­
tance o f fingerprints.48 T he inheritance and developm ent o f the papillary pat­
terns o f hum an fingertips was to remain a central p art o f Bonnevie’s research
interests for the next two decades. Her w ork in hum an genetics attracted con­
siderable international interest, and she participated in w riting and editing the
big Handbuch der Erbbiologie des Menschen published in Berlin in 1939-1940.
However, the optim istic hopes for significant applications of hum an genet­
ics, w hich ch aracterized th e fou n d in g o f the In stitu te for G enetics at the
University o f Kristiania (O slo) in 1916, were soon m uch subdued. There is lit­
tle explicit discussion o f eugenics in the publications o f Bonnevie after 1920,
though her fundam ental attitude was obviously still positive. Presumably her
view was th at when a m o re thorough knowledge of hu m an heredity had been
attained, eugenic policies w ould become a natural thing. She saw m ental retar­
dation and other kinds o f psychic abnorm ality as having a large hereditary
com ponent and th o u g h t th a t a correlation betw een such traits and certain
types of fingerprints could be dem onstrated.49
In the early 1930s inheritance and development o f finger and palm patterns
were m ain research to p ics in O tm a r von V erschuer’s g ro u p at the Kaiser
Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, H um an Genetics and Eugenics in Berlin.
T he w ork o f B onnevie fo rm e d p a rt o f th e ir scientific b asis.50 H er pupil,
Thordar Q uelprud (born 1901), worked at the Kaiser W ilhelm Institute with
Verschuer and others from 1931 to 1934. Q u elp ru d ’s specialty in this period
was ear forms. The idea of using these easily observable traits as markers for
m ore im p o rta n t b u t not so easily observable traits, for instance, psychical
properties, was the same as in Bonnevie’s w ork.51 After his return to Norway,
Q uelprud conducted a large study of H u ntington’s chorea. He w ent back to
Berlin for a short period o f study in 1938-39.
In 1927 the American geneticist, Charles D avenport, m ade an attem pt to
re c ru it B o n n ev ie as a m e m b e r o f th e C o m m issio n o f th e In te rn a tio n a l
Federation of Eugenic Organizations. D avenport wrote to Bonnevie that if he
was to succeed Leonard D arw in as head of this organization, he would want
m ore “scientific persons” to participate actively in its work.52 But Bonnevie was
reluctant. She did not w ant to enter as an individual, and the “com petent orga­
nizations” in N orway w anted m ore info rm atio n on the “positive plans and
purposes o f the Com m ission” before they were willing to appoint a representa­
tive. U nder present circum stances “our organizations are n o t very m uch in
favor o f g o in g in as m e m b e rs o f th e C o m m is s io n ,” she r e p lie d .53 T he
Norwegian biological and m edical experts were apparently reluctant to join an
organization in which Mjoen was a prom inent participant and views similar to
his were influential.
Bonnevie’s prudent approach to eugenics is exemplified in a brief popular
article on “H ered ity in M an ” published in 1931, w hich describes various
genetic m alform ations and diseases. In conclusion she confirm s a m oderate
eugenic program : We m ust study hum an heredity because it is im portant for
our understanding of social and individual behavior. Through “education and
social reform s” we m ust protect “good and valuable inheritance” and provide it
w ith pro p er co nditions for developm ent. At th e same tim e we m ust try to
“limit the spread, or at least check the developm ent o f less valuable genes.”54
Again, it seems clear that Bonnevie was m ore concerned w ith the enlightening
than with the instrum ental role o f science. As a scientist she was prim arily con­
cerned with setting the right aim s by producing as correct a picture of the real
situation as possible. That science is a source o f technical m eans would follow
as a m atter o f course when, som e tim e in the future, it was able to provide a
valid and comprehensive description of the m aterial structures and causal rela­
tionships o f biological inheritance.
By the early 1920s O tto Lous M ohr had acquired m uch m ore knowledge of
genetics and developed a m uch m ore critical view of eugenics th an he held in
 1914. He had w orked w ith T hom as H u n t M organ in N ew York for a year,
1918-19, and had become fam iliar w ith the m ost recent advances in chrom o­
som e research. It is likely that the growing doubts of M organ and other leading
A m erican geneticists concerning the eugenics movement m ade an impression
on the young M ohr.55 Likewise, his interest in social questions, stim ulated by
his wife and m other-in-law, probably contributed to his critical attitudes. By
the 1920s M ohr was both a first-rate geneticist and an active advocate o f birth
c o n tro l and o th er fem inist an d radical social causes. His interest in social
reform s no doubt increased his sense o f the scientific weaknesses of m ainline
eugenics.
Internationally M ohr counted as one o f the founders o f medical genetics.56
A fter his year w ith M organ at C olum bia University, M ohr w orked on defi­
ciency m utations in D rosophila for a n u m b er o f years. Later he made im p o r­
tan t contributions to the study o f lethal an d sublethal m utations in cattle and
in m a n .57 At the 1932 Intern atio n al Congress of Genetics M ohr was elected
chairm an o f the com m ittee responsible for the next congress. He thus becam e
strongly involved in the politics surrounding the planning and subsequent can­
cellation o f the international congress planned for Moscow in 1937. This close
contact w ith the events in the Soviet U nion in the 1930s reinforced his m oral
stance on the autonom y o f science relative to politics. The unwillingness o f the
Soviet governm ent to include hu m an genetics in the program was a m ain rea­
son for m oving the congress to Edinburgh.
In a popular book on genetics published in 1923, M ohr briefly discussed
w hat this science had to say o n the subject o f m an. He rejected negative as well
as positive eugenics as practicable policies for the tim e being and pointed out
the conservative im plications o f m any o f the proposed measures. In the present
situation, he emphasized, it is m uch m ore im portant to improve the conditions
under which children are raised than to try to improve their biological inheri­
tance. Regarding the threat o f degeneration, he saw no scientific evidence that
the European race was degenerating genetically.58 In general, M ohr m aintained
th at o u r knowledge o f the genetic factors that determ ine hum an physical and
spiritu al health was still quite insufficient for the fo rm ulation o f a sensible
eugenics program .59 The popular analogy w ith plant and anim al breeding was
m isleading, he argued. N ot only w ould it be unacceptable politically and eth i­
cally to apply the same m ethods to hum ans, but it was also unlikely that any
agreem ent could be reached on w hat properties to breed for.60
M ohr sharply criticized the doctrine th at race crossings may be harm ful. He
gave a quotation from T. H. M organ to su p p o rt his view on this question:
 The possibility that a certain mixed line may be m ore valuable than either o f the
pure lines from which it originated, is sufficient to make us wary o f the popular
doctrine about so-called racial purity. W hatever advantages certain pure hum an
races might have from a political, religious or military point o f view, this m ust not
make us blind to the biological advantages of certain mixtures.61

Again we see that M ohr’s general objection to the eugenic proposals was that
they were scientifically ill-founded. In some cases there was good evidence that
the consequences would be contrary to the claims; in others the evidence for
positive effects was simply lacking. M ohr was n o t opposed to eugenics on prin ­
ciple. His social perspective was in m any ways deeply biological, as can be seen
in h is p r o g r a m m a tic a r tic le o n h u m a n b re e d in g u n d e r c u ltu r e
(“M enneskeavlen u n d er k u ltu r”). H ere he saw overpopulation as the m ain
cause o f “hou sin g shortage, u n em p lo y m en t an d p erm an en t u n re st on the
labour market.”62
M joen and M ohr represented opposite poles in the N orw egian eugenics
debate from 1915 until M joen’s death in 1939. M joen was the enthusiastic rep­
resentative of popular and national sentim ents and M ohr was the critical scien­
tist supporting a radical program for social reform. Repeatedly, M ohr’s appeals
to scientific knowledge and critical m ethod clashed with scientifically superfi­
cial but popular views supported by Mjoen.
M ohr’s message was that the im provem ent o f the environm ent was by far
the m ost im p o rta n t im m ediate task. But the environm ental factors th a t he
m entioned were to a large extent biological: hygiene, nutrition, proper physical
exercise. A similar biological view o f society was found in most liberal and left-
wing social thinking o f this period. A representative example is G unnar and
Alva M yrdal’s book, Krisen i befolkningssporsmalet (Crisis in the population
question), which was published in a Norwegian translation in 1936.63

S o cial R a d ic a lism V er su s R u r a l R om anticism

As we have seen, the rejection o f the popular eugenics m ovem ent by estab­
lished m edical and biological experts was a rejection o f w hat was seen as
excesses and unscientific attitu d es and n o t a rejection o f the basic ideas of
eugenics. W hat Bonnevie, Vogt, M ohr, and the others prim arily objected to
was the prem ature and unscientific application o f genetics to man. T hat society
could and should be im proved by applying sound scientific knowledge, includ­
ing h u m a n genetics, they d id n o t d o u b t. T hey had a stro n g b e lie f in the
progress of science and its positive effects on social progress.
 The people in M joen’s camp were m uch m ore skeptical of m odern technol­
ogy and the general cultural effects o f a mechanistic natural science. Their bio­
logical perspective was o f a m ore rom antic and holistic character. They saw
m odern industrial society with its u rb an culture and associated m aterialistic
view o f life as a m ajor threat against a happy future for hum anity. It was typical
that hum anistic idealists such as C hristen Collin, professor of literature, and
Alfred Eriksen, clergyman and for a period parliam entary leader of the Labor
Party, joined M joen’s Consultative Eugenics Com m ittee o f Norway.
In th e 1920s and 1930s the scientific expertise tended toward a policy of
m ore or less radical social reforms while M joen’s group was conservative. In
both groups we find reservations against the introduction o f sterilization as a
eugenic measure— reservations which were considerably weakened by the early
1930s.
In addition to the traditional m oral scruples am ong the scientific experts,
there was a growing d o u b t about the efficiency o f eugenic measures. O ther
im p o rta n t ideological factors were ideals about the free developm ent o f the
individual which gradually increased in influence, especially among intellectu­
als. New norm s of behavior, prom oting a free upbringing and sexual liberation,
made a breakthrough in the 1930s, effectively propagated by enthusiastic “cul­
tural radicals.” This developm ent served, on the one hand, to weaken the system
of traditional m oral no rm s that was a hindrance to the introduction of steriliza­
tion, but on the other hand, it strengthened the ideology o f individualism which
was later to become a m ain factor in the abolition of eugenic sterilization.
D o u b ts about th e m o ral acceptability o f sterilization were im p o rta n t in
M joen’s group. In ad d itio n to a respect for traditional C hristian ethics there
was a reaction against th e new individualistic m oral ideas o f the cultural radi­
cals— a w orry that the existing m oral order would be broken down. A bortion
was a particularly h o t issue. Cultural radical and progressive social reformers
such as the M ohrs were in favor of a liberalization o f the practice while conser­
vatives such as M joen resisted. W ilhelm Reich becam e a focus in this cultural
conflict during his stay in Norway between 1934 and 1939.64 Characteristically,
the cultural radicals an d the liberal experts were in favor o f the free right o f an
individual to be sterilized on dem an d , while th e m o re conservative group
aro u n d M joen was m ostly against this. The latter was interested m ainly in
eugenic sterilization an d saw it as a concern of the collective and not as a place
for the expression o f individual rights.
M joen’s group w o rried about the neo-M althusianism aspect o f steriliza­
tion— th a t it would reduce the total n u m b er o f babies. This was one reason
for o p p o sin g th e rig h t to ste riliz a tio n on p e rso n a l d em an d . T he fear o f
d e p o p u la tio n was stro n g in th e 1930s an d M jo en ’s conservative ty p e of
eugenics drew su p p o rt from this sentim ent.
H istorians seem to agree on a general decline o f eugenics in the English­
speaking w orld after the 1920s, b u t G. R. Searle also notes that there was a
revival of eugenics in Britain in the 1930s. According to Searle, an im portant
factor in this new popularity o f eugenics was the su pport of liberal or left-wing
social reform ers such as C. R Blacker, J. S. Huxley, and J. B. S. Haldane, who
were opposed to the conservative social views typical o f the older generation of
eugenicists. In particular they objected to racist and antifem inist elements in
eugenic thinking. They also em phasized th e need to take into account the
newest results o f scientific research and m aintained th at m any o f the older
eugenic proposals were scientifically untenable. Searle calls these liberal and
left-wing supporters o f eugenics “reform eugenicists.”65
Daniel Kevles has used the distinction between the old, conservative “m ain­
line eugenics” and the new “reform eugenics” as a m eans o f periodization:
mainline eugenics dom inated up to the 1920s and reform eugenics took over in
the early 1930s.66 This periodization points to an im portant historical change
which can also be discerned in Norway, and I will therefore use the term s in
approxim ately the same sense as Kevles. But it is also clear in the Norwegian
case that this distinction does not quite correspond to the two cam ps in the
debate over eugenics. The split between Mjoen and the experts which took place
in 1915 was certainly a reaction against conservative social politics as well as a
lack of scientific knowledge. O n the other hand, some o f the people in the anti-
Mjoen camp, e.g., Vogt and Scharffenberg, continued to support views that can
be characterized as m ainline rather than reform eugenics well into the 1930s.

T ow ard a S t er iliza tio n L aw

The introduction o f sterilization, both for the purpose of race hygiene and
as a treatm ent for habitual sex criminals, becam e a hotly debated issue in the
1920s. An im portant source of inspiration for this debate was the intensifica­
tion o f sterilization practices in California in the years just after W orld War I.
In Norway the question of sterilization was treated in the first report of a
governm ent com m ission for revision o f the penal code published in 1927.67
This com m ission was set up by the M inistry o f Justice in 1922. The chairm an
was Jon Skeie, professor o f law, and am ong the nine m em bers were Ragnar
Vogt and Tove Mohr, as well as a third medical doctor, Ingeborg Aas.
In an appendix to the first report, Aas argued strongly in favor o f sterilization,
castration, and vasectomy, as a means o f protection against sexual criminals. In
m any cases such operations would also m ean a cure and a relief from abnorm al
tenden cies, she argued. S terilizatio n an d castratio n could also save m uch
m oney for the state by m aking it possible to pacify violent persons and thus set
them free from asylum or prison. She saw a close connection betw een the
penal and the race hygienic applications since the latter very often concerned
persons who had com e into conflict w ith the law and had been im prisoned.
According to Aas, public opinion had been m uch shaken by the sexual crimes
in im m ediately preceding years and was likely to accept relatively harsh laws.
Vogt, in another appendix, took a negative view o f the efficiency o f steriliza­
tion as a way of treating sexual crim inals. Vasectomy had very little effect on
sexual behavior and was therefore quite useless in this connection. Castration
had quite uncertain and usually small effects if the person had already reached
sexual m aturity. For race hygienic purposes, on the other hand, vasectomy was
the rig h t operation and castration b o th unnecessary and ethically unaccept­
able. Vogt emphasized that race hygiene as such was outside the dom ain of the
penal code, but added th at penal law should not unnecessarily hinder a care­
fully m onitored introduction o f race hygiene.
T he com m ission prod u ced a th o ro u g h discussion o f eugenics against an
international background. A separate appendix to the report contains a sum ­
m ary o f H arry Laughlin’s survey, Eugenical Sterilization in the United States.
The com m ission concluded that sterilization could n o t be recom m ended either
as punishm ent or as a means of security against habitual sex criminals. But it
announced a future rep o rt recom m ending voluntary sterilization to be clearly
e n title d by law. Race hygienic ste riliz a tio n was ap p aren tly less to p ical in
Norw ay than in Sweden, D enm ark, an d Finland. Aas wrote in her appendix
that as far as she knew such operations had not been carried out in Norway. Yet
w hen the day came, she continued, it was im portant that there be a clear legal
basis.
The com m ission for revision o f the penal code continued to w ork on the
question o f sterilization and presented a proposal for a new law in January
1932; however, there were also oth er initiatives that prepared the way for the
sterilization law that was passed in 1934.

P r o p o sa ls fo r a L aw

M joen’s Norwegian Consultative Eugenics Com m ittee sent a proposal to the

M inistry of Justice in August 1931. It was a description of the principles that the
com m ittee thought ought to form the basis of a law and not a concrete proposal
for a law text. M joen’s com m ittee was little more than a paper organization with
 a letterhead, b u t its public influence should n o t be underestim ated. Its effect as
a pressure group consisting o f prom inent citizens may have been considerable,
and it did at least give M joen’s activities som e legitimacy. According to the let­
terhead o f 1931 the com m ittee then had eight members. Mjoen was the chair­
m an and W ilhelm Keilhau, later professor o f economics at the University of
Oslo, was the secretary. The other m em bers were: Jorgen Berner, general secre­
tary of the Norwegian Medical Association; Halfdan Bryn, medical doctor and
president o f the Royal Academy of Science in Trondheim; Alf Guldberg, profes­
sor o f mathematics; Klaus Hansen, professor o f medicine; Fridtjof Mjoen, doc­
tor o f m edicine (and the son o f Jon Alfred M joen); and H arald Noregaard,
barrister o f the high court.
M joen’s com m ittee proposed that in order to prevent psychically abnorm al
persons from procreating at the existent rate, one should introduce com pul­
sory segregation and voluntary sterilization. As a m eans o f segregation, work
camps in the countryside were recom m ended. Persons who were not danger­
ous to society in other ways could regain freedom by undergoing voluntary
sterilization. The statem ent o f the com m ittee em phasized th at the situation
was now so serious that society could no longer rem ain passive. To wait for
genetic research to definitively clarify the laws o f inheritance for all psychic
defects was n o t acceptable.68 Again M joen appealed to w hat has m ore recently
been term ed “the precautionary principle”— that with uncertain knowledge
and possibility o f great risk, it is best to be careful and err on the safe side.
In January 1932 the proposal for a sterilization law form ulated by the com ­
mission for revision of the penal code was published. This proposal followed
up the earlier intention to provide a legal fram ew ork for voluntary steriliza­
tion. W ith respect to sexual criminals, the com m ission w anted to make it pos­
sible for prisoners to choose to undergo castration in their own interest, that is,
to regain freedom. A nother m ajor conclusion was that sterilization ought to be
perm itted o n the request o f the person involved or w ith the agreem ent o f a
person’s guardian for purposes other than prevention of sexual crimes. Under
this heading were included eugenic and social reasons. Sterilization on medical
grounds was already covered by existing law. In order to make eugenic and
social sterilizations legal a special law on sterilization was needed. Though
eugenic m otives were not explicitly m entioned in the law text and were given
relatively little attention in the report o f the com m ission, it is clear that eugen­
ics was an im portant motive for passing the law.
According to the second paragraph in the proposal, any person over twenty-
one years o f age could be sterilized at his or her own request given a “respectable
reason” (“respektabel grunn”). This key phrase was introduced by Ragnar Vogt69
and indicated a moral lim itation on the right of the individual to decide her or
his own sterilization. For instance, sterilization merely for means o f contracep­
tion was not considered a “respectable reason” at this time. It only became so in
the postw ar period. The third paragraph o f the proposal stated: “Persons who are
insane or are mentally defective can be subjected to sexual surgery at the request
o f a guardian, when there is reason to assume that the person will not be able to
provide for the needs of self or offspring, or that a mental disease or grave physi­
cal defect will be passed on to the offspring, or that because o f abnorm al sexual
instinct he is likely to com m it sexual crimes.” This passage was included with
insignificant change in the law that was passed two years later.
The 1934 Sterilization Law thus provided for sterilization m otivated by a
consideration for the direct offspring, either on social indications, because the
paren t was unfit to take care of the child, or on genetic indications, because
there was a likelihood that a hereditary disease would be passed on to the child.
There were two passages expressing special protection for the rights o f the indi­
vidual. O ne said that an insane person should not be sterilized if there was
hope o f a cure or substantial im provem ent in the condition. A nother said that
a m entally disabled person could n o t be sterilized against his own wish or con­
sent if he had reached or could be expected to reach the m ental level o f a nine-
year-old.
D uring the same m onth, January 1932, Johan Scharffenberg published his
own law proposal in the daily new spaper o f the Labor Party.70 The m ain differ­
e n c e s f ro m th e p r o p o s a l o f th e c o m m is s io n on p e n a l law w ere th a t
Scharffenberg explicitly m entioned eugenic reasons in the text o f the law, and
he was less strict in dem anding the agreem ent of the guardian in the case o f
m inors or other persons w ithout full legal rights. There was, in other words, a
stronger elem ent o f coercion in Scharffenberg’s proposal. He also emphasized
th at he considered this to be only the first step in the direction o f a full-blown
eugenic social program . He expected m ore radical measures to be dem anded in
the future, “when the public has u n d ersto o d th at hum an breeding m ust be
m ade as efficient (‘rasjonell’) as plant an d anim al breeding.” But one had to
proceed gradually. According to Scharffenberg, both his own proposal and that
of the com m ission for revision o f the penal code were m ore radical than the
few laws that had so far been passed in Europe, i.e., in D enm ark and a few
Swiss cantons.71
The Consultative Eugenics C om m ittee also form ulated a draft for a steriliza­
tion law. In a statem ent w ritten in August 1933 for the medical faculty o f the
university at the request o f the M inistry o f Justice, Ragnar Vogt com pared this
proposal w ith that of his own com m ission and the newly introduced G erm an
law, “Gesetz zur V erhiitung erb kranken Nachwuchses.” He em phasized th at
M joen’s proposal, like the G erm an law, was based on a principle o f com pulsory
(“tvungen”) sterilization in contrast to the voluntary (“frivillig”) sterilization
that his com m ission had proposed.
As long as the initiative, o r at least a right to veto, rested w ith the person
concerned or a guardian, Vogt tho u g h t that sterilization was essentially volun­
tary and that there was little danger o f misuse o f the law. According to M joen’s
proposal, an initiative for sterilization could be taken by the heads o f m ental
hospitals or other similar institu tio n s, and the guardian could n o t veto but
only appeal to an expert com m ittee. The proposal did not say w hat should be
done in the case where the person to be sterilized resisted. In Vogt’s opinion,
M joen’s proposal was in this respect halfhearted, in contrast to the G erm an law
which explicitly stated that “direct force” could be used if necessary. Vogt also
characterized M joen’s proposal as a “class law” since it made it possible for rich
people to evade sterilization by letting themselves be privately hospitalized.
Essentially the same points were m ade in a shorter report by O tto Lous M ohr.72

T he B ro ad C o n se n su s on S ter iliza tio n

C haracteristic o f Norway, as well as the o th e r Nordic countries, was the

broad support for a mild form o f eugenics. There was hardly any opposition in
principle to th e Sterilization Law o f 1934. It was a m oderate law, however,
m oderate also com pared to the views of m any of its supporters.
From the late 1920s onward, Scharffenberg was very active in cam paigning
for a sterilization law. In 1932 he published a popular book on genetics which
was strongly pro-eugenics. This book of 1932 bore greater sim ilarity to Vogt’s
book o f 1914 than to M ohr’s w ork o f 1923. Scharffenberg ascribed an im por­
tan t role to genetic factors as causes o f m ental illness and retardation as well as
various types o f social m isbehavior from vagrancy to theft and other kinds of
crime. He had worked in m ental hospitals and was for many years physician at
the state penitentiary in Oslo. But Scharffenberg also declared th a t he stood
clearly on the side of those geneticists who worked “strictly scientifically.” He
regretted the m any false or unsubstantiated claims and the m any “im practica­
ble o r psychologically and ethically unacceptable proposals” th a t had been
m ade in the nam e of eugenics since the days of Plato.73
Scharffenberg criticized som e aspects of the G erm an law o f 1933. A m ain
objection was th at it did not p erm it sterilization on social grounds b u t only for
eugenic or purely medical indications. In Scharffenberg’s judgm ent this one­
sided concern w ith biological hered ity was th e m ajor weakness o f the law.
U nder the G erm an law, if mental retardation did not have a genetic cause, the
person could not be sterilized, but Scharffenberg felt that the mentally retarded
were never fit to raise children. He also found the list o f conditions that the law
considered to be hereditary too inclusive. Alcoholism, for instance, is usually
caused by environm ent and not by heredity, he m aintained. Still he considered
the law to be an interesting experim ent, the effects o f which ought to be fol­
lowed with attention, “provided it is applied w ith reason.”74
The Sterilization Law o f 1934 was also acceptable to left-wing Socialists such
as Karl Evang, a young medical doctor and prom inent Socialist intellectual. The
staunch individualist and uncom prom ising m oralist Scharffenberg was one of
his idols, and as a student he was an assistant to O tto Lous M ohr for a short
time. Later Evang was to serve as a very powerful and influential director o f the
public health service in Norway, from 1938 to 1972, m inus the years of Germ an
occupation (1940-45). He was a colorful and charism atic person and an ardent
spokesman for a scientifically based and centrally planned social welfare state.75
In his 1934 b o o k o n race politics and reaction (Rasepolitikk og Reaksjon),
Evang violently attacked Nazi racism but accepted the Norwegian sterilization
law with only m inor objections. The idea o f lim iting the num ber of carriers of
poor genetic m aterial is rational and has always been supported by socialism, he
wrote, and he m aintained, though the socialist is well aware o f the negative role
that eugenics plays in a capitalist society, he is also aware o f the im portant posi­
tive role that eugenics can play in a rationally planned socialist society.76 Evang
was less o f a biological determ inist than Scharffenberg. Like M ohr he em pha­
sized the im portance o f the environm ent. He did, however, support a eugenic
policy under Socialist auspices, provided it was based on sound science. This
was a com m on view am ong intellectuals belonging to the political Left.
Even from the church there was little if any public criticism. The feeling was
that this was a m od erate law which could n o t be resisted. Pastor Ingvald B.
Carlsen, leader o f a mission for vagrants (O m streiferm isjonen), published an
article, “M odern Eugenics and the Christian View o f Life,” in the main Christian
journal for general political and cultural questions. He found that the proposed
law “signified a radical break” with earlier Christian norm s for social work. So
far, according to Carlsen, Christian ethics had seen the miserable individuals in
society— the feebleminded, insane, morally defective, etc.— solely as objects of
Christian spiritual care and mercy. Now it was dem anded that one should help
p re v e n t such in d iv id u a ls fro m b ein g b o rn . T h e tra d itio n a l o b jec tio n o f
Christians was that life is sacred— m an should not interfere with the w ork of
God. Still, Carlsen found the proposed law acceptable considering how m uch
suffering it would help prevent. To interfere in favor o f existing life against life
which did not yet exist m ust be permissible, he argued. And degeneration was a
real threat, it was “absolutely necessary to do som ething,” thought Carlsen.77
The fear o f degeneration was still strong and w idespread in the early 1930s
and appears to have been a m ajor m otivating force in the passage o f the 1934
Sterilization Law. The econom ic and social crises, w ith high and persistent
unem ploym ent, created an atm osphere where such ideas thrived. Mohr, Vogt,
Bonnevie, and other experts on hu m an genetics had repeatedly emphasized
that there was no tenable scientific justification for the claim that such degen­
eration had taken place or was presently occurring. This did not prevent most
people from feeling that there was a strong threat, and that it was “necessary to
do som ething” to avert it. Apparently the experts held what we would consider
to be relatively m oderate and sober views on eugenic sterilization com pared to
general public o pinion. T here was also a divergence o f opinion am ong the
experts, for instance, betw een M o h r and Scharffenberg. M o h r’s daughter
rep o rted p ersisten t an d lo u d discussions betw een the two o f th em in her
father’s study during the 1930s.78

P a ssin g th e L aw

In Parliam ent, too, the fear o f degeneration was felt, and the need to act was
strongly expressed and m et w ith little objection.79 The spokesman for the law
proposition was a representative from the Farmers Party (Bondepartiet), Erling
Bjornson. He was a strong nationalist, the son o f the Norwegian national poet
Bjornstjerne B jornson, and becam e a m em ber o f the Norwegian Nazi Party
after the G erm an occupation in 1940. Being a farm er himself, Bjornson com­
pared the m anagem ent of a country’s population to the m anagem ent o f live­
stock on a farm . Personally he w ould have liked a m ore radical law in the
direction o f com pulsory sterilization, similar to the one that had recently been
passed in Germany.
B jornson m ad e a special p o in t o f expressing g ratitu d e to the m en and
women who had prepared the Norwegian people so that “the law today is sure
to pass.” He had in m ind particularly the N orwegian Consultative Committee
for Eugenics and “its untiring leader Dr. Alfred M joen, who through the pass­
ing of this law will receive the recognition in o u r country that he has long ago
gained abroad.” Bjornson did not m ention any o f the medical or biological
experts such as Vogt, Aas, or Scharffenberg.
Only one voice opposed the law in Parliament. This was the single represen­
tative o f the Social Rights Party (Sam fundspartiet). He found the law to be a
dangerous attack on the rights o f the individual. It is not biology b u t social
conditions that create crim inals, he argued, and only by changing social condi­
tions can crime be reduced. The law completely neglected the results reached
by m o d ern psychology, and in particular by psychoanalysis. He found this to
be “one o f the most dangerous law proposals that have ever come to light in
this country.” A p arliam en tarian o f th e Labor Party, Judge Carl Bonnevie,
found this criticism highly exaggerated: o f course the rights of the individual
should be respected, but they had to be weighed against the interests o f society.
This law sprang from “a m ore profound view of the interests of society as well
as responsibility for future generations.”80
After a brief debate the law was passed w ith one dissenting vote.

L a t e r C h a n c e s in L aw a n d P ra c t ic e

The law of 1934 rem ained in force until 1977, w ith a m inor change taking
place in 1961. The m ain poin t of the 1961 change was to emphasize the rights
of the individual. The consent of a guardian, or corresponding authority, was
to be sufficient only “if the person is incapable of deciding on the operation.”
In the 1977 law the initiative was placed even more firmly with the person to
be sterilized or som ebody w ith a close personal relationship to th at person.
A nother m ajor change in the 1977 law was that voluntary sterilization o f per­
sons over twenty-five years o f age and w ith full legal rights became a private
issue between the patient and his doctor. The official application was no longer
necessary in such cases.
In spite of the clear shift from collective to individual interests, there is a great
deal of continuity in the Norwegian laws on sterilization. The law of 1977, like the
one o f 1934, makes it legal to sterilize persons of certain categories even if they
have no wish to be sterilized. At present, as in 1934, a person can be sterilized on
the initiative of a guardian if there is “considerable danger” that children will
inherit a “serious illness or deformation,” or if the person is incapable o f provid­
ing properly for children. In other words, there is still a genetic and a social justi­
fication for such sterilization. But as already stressed, the conditions for taking an
initiative for such an operation are m ore narrowly circumscribed now than in
1934, emphasizing that sterilization should be as voluntary as possible.
T he legal status o f th e person to be sterilized and the source o f initiative
divides sterilizations according to the 1934 law into three categories: (1) steril­
izatio n o n the ap p licatio n o f th e p e rso n concerned (those w ith full legal
rights); (2) sterilization on the application of the person with the consent o f a
guardian; and (3) sterilization on the application of a guardian or correspond­
ing au thority (for those incapable o f applying).81 ( fig.l) If we take categories 2
 and 3 to be representative of eugenic sterilization, we see a gradual increase in
the 1930s to a high level in the 1940s and a decrease in the 1950s. The statistics
also show a dram atic increase in sterilizations on the application of the person
concerned after 1945. The latter rise reflects the gradual introduction o f steril­
ization as a means of contraception and has nothing to do with eugenics.

--------- Applications submitted by the patient (for persons with full legal rights)
............. Applications submitted by the patient with consent of a guardian or correspond­
ing authority
--------- Applications submitted by guardian or corresponding authority (for persons inca­
pable of applying)

Source: K. Evang, Sterilisering etter lov av 1. ju n i 1934 om adgang til sterilisering m .v.
(Sarpsborg: F. Verding, 1955).

The statistics o f the four Nordic countries are not easy to compare due to dif­
ferent categorization an d differing degrees o f com pleteness in the available
material. For instance the Norwegian law, and the corresponding statistics, do
n o t include sterilizations on medical indications.82 Sweden has, by far, the best
statistics for the period in question, the 1930s to 1950s. In Sweden the num ber
of sterilizations o f the mentally retarded rose rapidly from about 200 per year in
the late 1930s to a peak of about. 1,000 in 1944 and then declined to about 100
by 1955. As already indicated the trend was sim ilar in Norway though the n u m ­
ber relative to the population o f the country was considerably smaller. There
was a gradual rise in sterilizations of the m entally retarded and the mentally ill
in the first eight years from 1934 to 1942. In the 1930s the average annual n u m ­
ber o f sterilizations in Norway, under the 1934 law, was around seventy-five,
two-thirds o f which belonged to categories 2 and 3. For the feebleminded there
was an average o f eighty-seven sterilizations per year in the period 1945 to 1954,
according to Evang.83 In the years after W orld W ar II the num ber in this cate­
gory fell slowly for women and more rapidly for m en.84 In the period 1965 to
1973 the average num ber was twenty.
The total annual num ber o f sterilizations in Norway had, by 1975, grown to
4,582 while the num ber in categories 2 and 3 was 32. The vast m ajority of ster­
ilizations were thus carried out on persons w ith full legal rights on their own
application. A m ain reason for the introduction o f the 1977 law was to simplify
the procedure for the large m ajority of sterilizations which were then consid­
ered unproblem atic.

Table 1. Sterilizations in Norway, 1934-1976, Granted Applications.

Period N um ber of Percent Annual
Sterilizations______ W omen________ Average
1 June 1934-31 December 1942 653 83 76
1 January 1943-8 May 1945 (Nazi law) 487 84 207
9 May 1945-30 June 1954 2,569 91 283
1 July 1954-1965 8,005 93 696
1966-1976 29,177 62 2,652
1934-1976 40,891 ca 75 951

Source: K. Evang, Sterilisering etter lov av 1. ju n i 1934 om adgang til sterilisering

(Sarpsborg: F. Varding, 1955), 13; The Norwegian Parliament, Government Bill 1976/1977
no 46, “Om lov om sterilisering m.v.,” 16.

Note: No figures for 1 July-31 December 1959. Sterilizations on medical indications are not
included. Higher figures during the Nazi law, some 280 annually, are estimated by Gogstad
(A. Chr. Gogstad, Helse og Hakekors. Helsetjeneste og helse under okkupasjonsstyret i Norge,
1940-45 [Bergen: Alma Mater Forlag, 1991], 209.
 Table 2. Sterilizations, 1945-1954, Mentally Retarded, Mentally 111,
Epileptics, and Others, Granted Applications.
Category Num bers Percent o f Total
Mentally Retarded 782 30
Mentally 111* 184 7
Epileptics 44 2
O thers 1,559 61
Total 2,569 100

’‘Includes the category “formerly mentally ill.”

Source: K. Evang, Sterilisering etter lov av 1. ju n i 1934 om adgang til sterilisering m.v.
(Sarpsborg: F. Varding, 1955), 13, 39.
Note: Sterilizations on medical indications are not included.

E u g en ics D uring t h e G erm an O c c u p a t io n 194 0 -1 9 4 5

In June 1942 the p u p p et regim e o f V idkunn Q uisling substituted for the

1934 law a new law “for the protection of the race” (“Lov til vern om folkeaet-
ten”).85 The comm ission that prepared the law was headed by the Nazi director
o f the health service, H. T horalf O strem , who had supplanted Evang. Among
its m em bers were Klaus H ansen, professor o f m edicine at the University of
Oslo, who had been a m em ber o f M joen’s Eugenics Com m ittee, and G unnar
H iorth, associate professor of genetics at the Agricultural College of Norway.
H iorth was the genetic expert for the Nazi commission.
In accordance w ith Nazi ideology and Germ an political pressure this new
sterilization law em phasized biological inheritance at the cost o f environm ental
factors and social considerations, extended the range o f conditions for steriliza­
tio n , an d gave guidelines for coercion and even th e use o f physical force.
Generally it weakened the protection of individual rights. It has been pointed
out that during the G erm an occupation there was a change in the whole legal
perspective from an individualist standpoint to one in which the individual
was subordinated to the interests o f “the people.” The initiative for sterilization
was then in the hands o f any m edical doctor, or head o f a prison, school, hos­
pital, etc., where the person lived. The guardian had n o veto any m ore, and the
law allowed use o f force.86
In 1942 Thordar Q uelprud was made associate professor and head of a new
In s titu te for B iological H e re d ity (A rvebiologisk In s titu tt) c reated at the
University of Oslo by the Nazi government. This institute was set up as an alter­
native to the Institute for Genetics established under the leadership of Kristine
Bonnevie in 1916. M ohr h ad taken over the leadership of this institute in 1938
and a m odernization o f the laboratory supported by the Rockefeller Foundation
had just been finished w hen the Germans invaded Norway in April 1940. M ohr
was arrested in 1941, forbidden to live in Oslo when subsequently released, and
removed from his professorship in 1943.87 Q uelprud’s scientific and pedagogical
qualifications for the job were not in doubt. He had been warmly recom m ended
for a position as associate professor in genetics by Kristine Bonnevie in 1938.
During the war years Q uelprud, in addition to his university teaching, gave spe­
cial courses on genetics and anthropology for Nazi cadres.88
According to Evang (1955), there was a sharp increase in the n u m b er of
sterilizations under the Nazi law. D uring the years 1938 to 1941 the average
annual num ber was a little below 100 while in 1944 it rose to about 200. While
the total num ber of sterilizations allowed was 663 for the 8.5 years from 1 June
1934 to 31 December 1942, the num ber for the 2.5 years o f the Nazi law, 1
January 1943 to 8 May 1945, was 487.89 But the actual increase in eugenic ster­
ilization was even sharp er th an Evang acknowledged. According to a recent
study, the average annual num b er of sterilizations under the Nazi law rose to
around 280.90
It is th u s clear th a t even in an invaded and occupied c o u n try such as
N orw ay th ere was no stro n g and u n an im o u s reaction o f scientific experts
against the views on biological inheritance propagated by the Nazi m ovement.
A significant part of the Norwegian genetic expertise was willing to cooperate
with the Nazi authorities in carrying out their population policy. The Nazi gov­
ernm ent was able to b oost eugenic sterilization in spite o f a widespread and
growing general resistance to its regime. In the early period of the occupation
there was considerable resistance am ong Norwegian Nazi officials against a
radical sterilization law o n a Germ an m odel, but this resistance weakened as
the war w ent on. Apparently, there was also little or no sabotage of the law by
Norwegian doctors.91

E u g e n ic s a f t e r W o rld W ar II

The experience with Nazi population policies had little im m ediate impact
on the practice of sterilization in Norway after the Second World War. There
was no im m ediate and stro n g change in the attitude o f the proponents of a
m oderate eugenic sterilization program . Vogt’s successor in the m ain chair in
psychiatry wrote in the au tu m n of 1945 th at the law o f 1934 needed revision;
the sterilization of the m entally ill and retarded ought to be used m uch more
than it had been so far— “It is better to prevent than to treat.”92
 According to Evang’s statistics the sterilization of legally incom petent per­
sons reached a plateau in the late 1930s and only started to drop around 1950.
The rise in the num ber of such sterilizations under the Nazi law in the period
1943-45 appears as a sharp outgrow th on an otherwise sm ooth curve of rise
and fall. But no d o u b t the Nazi experience m ade th e m oderate eugenicists
th in k m ore critically about the feasibility and, in particular, the desirability of
system atic program s to im prove h u m a n heredity. The experience was con­
stan tly present in p ostw ar discussions o f eugenics. A nd even if it d id not
change the m ind of old eugenicists very m uch, it was probably quite im portant
in form ing the opinion of the new generation.
As head of the public health service, Evang acknowledged in 1955 the deter­
rent effect of Nazi practice on eugenic sterilization in general: the “em barrass­
ing intermezzo of the lackey service of science to H itler necessarily m u st have
scared m any people.” But he com m ented, hopefully there has now been time
“to w ork this off and discuss the problem s on an objective basis.”93
In a popular article o f 1948 K ristine Bonnevie had no doubts a b o u t the
im p o rtan ce of biological inheritance for differences in social behavior. She
even suggested th a t racial differences in cultural ability may have a genetic
basis. Yet she avoided any explicit m ention of eugenics. She emphasized that
the progress of hu m an society is a cultural phenom enon, and rem arked that
with respect to the progressive (biological) evolution o f m an himself “there is
nothing we can do.”94
In 1951 the eighty-tw o year-old Scharffenberg lectured to the G enetics
Society (A rvelighetsforeningen) o n genetics and eugenics, w arning against
excesses:

. . . many eugenists sustain a fanciful hope of being able to improve the h u m a n race
according to the principles of plant an d anim al breeding, and they overestimate the
influence of heredity com pared to environm ent. They therefore often neglect social
reform work.95

But Scharffenberg still supported th e right o f society to sterilize the mentally

retarded, em phasizing their inability to care for offspring as the m ain reason
for sterilization. His old belief in biological inheritance as an im portant factor
in m uch social m isbehavior was dam pened but not abandoned. His view was
that genetics “should soberly point o u t that the aim o f eugenics is utopian, but
nevertheless it m ust support the use o f sterilization un d er expert control.”96
Evang was am ong those who continued to argue for eugenic sterilization of
the feebleminded. In the 1955 paper on sterilization, to which we have already
referred a num ber o f times, he held th at sterilization could have a significant
effect o n the future num ber of the m entally retarded. In support o f his view
Evang referred to the analysis of the Swedish biologist Nils von Hofsten who was
an advisor to the Swedish government o n sterilization questions. Evang referred
in particular to two papers by von Hofsten published in 1944 and 1951.
Von H ofsten’s 1944 p ap er described the th eo retical genetic basis o f the
1941 Swedish sterilizatio n law. Von H ofsten d id n o t believe in th e sim ple
M endelian inheritance o f m ental retardation th ro u g h one recessive gene. He
suggested the interaction of two to three genes, one o f which was dom inant.
The effect o f sterilization on such assum ptions could be quite significant— not
m uch less than for one recessive gene, he claim ed.97 O n the assum ption that
“75% o f all feeblem indedness is hereditary,” von H ofsten calculated that the
going rate o f sterilization m ight produce a reduction o f the mentally retarded
in the Swedish population from 1 percent to 0.7 percent, or by about 19,000
in two generations. Such a reduction im plied a substantial decrease in social
and econom ic costs, and could by no m eans be called “practically insignifi­
cant,” he argued.98
In his 1951 paper von Hofsten presented a m ore systematic analysis of the
effect th at selection w ould have on different genetic com binations under vari­
ous conditions. He presented the sam e models as in 1944, together with some
new ones, b u t he was less optimistic w ith respect to the social benefits of steril­
ization. To “avoid m isunderstanding,” he wrote, “I have never shared the belief,
once widely spread, that an im portant im provem ent o f the ‘race’ is possible by
means o f sterilization.”99
Evang in 1955 claimed that Norway had “not at any tim e” been affected by
the excessive optim ism concerning the results o f eugenic sterilization that had
been felt “in certain other countries.” It was, on the contrary, a “som ew hat too
strong pessimism” that had been prevalent, he contended, on the basis o f von
Hofsten’s analysis. Evang was a little m ore m oderate in his assum ptions than
von H ofsten was in 1944, however. For in stan ce, Evang w rote th a t “m ost
authors assume that 40-60% of existing feeblem indedness is caused by biologi­
cal h ere d ity ”;100 von H ofsten in 1944 based his calculations on 75 percent
inheritance.
In his belief in the m oderate usefulness of eugenic sterilization, Evang had
su p p o rt fro m lead in g N orw egian p sy ch iatrists. V ogt, Scharffenberg, and
Langfeldt have already been m entioned. 0 r n u lf 0 d e g ard , like Evang, was an
active m em ber o f the Society of Socialist Physicians and held similar views.101
In 1957 Tage K em p, head o f th e In s titu te fo r H u m an G enetics at the
University o f C openhagen, also argued for eugenic sterilization of the mentally
retarded. But unlike von Hofsten in 1944 or Evang in 1955, he did n o t assign
any particular percentage or m odel o f inheritance and thus gave no estim ate of
the expected reduction in the num ber o f mentally retarded.102
It has been argued that the grow th o f knowledge in hum an genetics failed
for a surprisingly long tim e to underm ine the simple theory that m ental retar­
dation depended on one recessive M endelian gene.103 My account confirm s
that belief in a strong genetic determ ination of m ental retardation prevailed
am ong influential hum an geneticists and psychiatrists in the Nordic countries
until well after the Second World War. But this did n o t m ean that they believed
in determ ination by one recessive gene.

C o n c lu d in g R em arks

The science of genetics as a source o f enlightenm ent for social and political
action has been the focus of this study. I have tried to show that for the experts
that were participating in the N orw egian public debate and in the decision
m aking on eugenics, science was prim arily a source o f general understanding
o f the nature and implications o f the eugenics proposal. The medical in stru ­
ments and m ethods used in carrying out eugenic policies, during the period
which we are considering, were rath er simple and did not depend m uch on
advanced genetic research.
The m ain role o f science was to help form a picture o f the situation w ith its
possible threats and its options for action. In a dem ocratic society the basis for
social policy is, o f course, the picture o f the situation generally accepted by
public opinion. W hat science can do is to gradually m odify this picture. It can
to som e degree correct prejudice o n specific questions. But this function pre­
supposes tru st. The respect o f th e general public for the scientific experts
depends on the belief that science, in spite of its fallibility, has the pow er to
c o rre c t o u r p ic tu re o f th e w o rld . T h is e n lig h te n in g fu n c tio n o f science
depends, in turn, on a subtle balance between trust and skepticism. Too easy
acceptance o f hypothetical statem ents from scientists can lead to pernicious
superstitions. It seems that the Norwegian genetic experts were generally quite
well aware of the incompleteness and uncertainty o f their knowledge. It was, in
fact, one o f their m ain argum ents against far-reaching eugenic program s, such
as the proposals of M joen, that the knowledge upon w hich they were based was
too uncertain and incomplete.
This essay has dem onstrated how the scientific experts were prom inent par­
ticipants both in the public debate that set the political agenda and in the fur­
ther decision making process. They were highly influential in form ing the 1934
law an d th e w hole fram ew ork for th e p ractice o f sterilization in Norway.
Because they possessed the technical competence, they also had a large share in
developing the practical procedures and instrum ents and in executing the pro­
gram o f sterilization. T he point is that this “in strum ental” role was carried out
w ithin a fram ew ork originally set, an d later gradually m odified, th ro u g h a
process o f scientifically inform ed p ublic debate. T he role o f the scientific
experts in this latter process is often superficially treated in the recent histori­
ography o f eugenics. Strongly hereditarian views am ong the general public on
m ental retardation, m ental illness, and various kinds o f social m isbehavior are
taken to be the result an d therefore also the responsibility of genetic science.105
U pon closer scrutiny the popular hereditarian views tu rn out to have other
sources as well and to depend in large measure o n simplistic popularizations
which were sharply criticized by scientific experts.
Many historians o f eugenics do not make enough effort to distinguish valid
knowledge and legitim ate expertise from what m erely poses as such. Mjoen,
for instance, was a popularizer with a general scientific status and considerable
public charism a. B ut he was not a reliable expert on genetics. T his lack of
attention to the precise content o f science and thus to its limitations can easily
lead to exaggerated views of its influence and im portance, analogously to the
fanciful “scientific” beliefs on degeneration, race crossings, environm ental poi­
sons, etc. held by M joen and other popular proponents of eugenics. It is true
that som e geneticists did support quite radical eugenic measures and th at most
geneticists o f the 1930s and 1940s were in favor o f a m oderate eugenic policy. It
is furtherm ore tru e th a t some geneticists did not protest but let their expertise
and scientific auth o rity be exploited by the Nazi eugenics programs. But it is
also true that some o f the most effective criticism o f current eugenic proposals
in Norway came from geneticists.
This account has described eugenics as a program for social policy, o r rather
as a set o f several m ore or less conflicting program s. These programs were built
on knowledge about the existing situation as well as on values and aims that
one w anted to realize in the future. In the case of eugenics, knowledge concern­
ing hu m an heredity played a central role, and the m ajor source of new knowl­
edge in th is field w as genetic science, in p a rtic u la r h u m a n genetics. The
question o f w hether o r not eugenics was “pseudoscientific” then becom es a
question o f w hat was sound knowledge about hu m an genetics.
That eugenic policies were in p art based on claims w ithout a sound scien­
tific basis is hardly disputed. Dubious claims were m ade even by persons with
high scientific standings, such as the G erm an geneticists Otto von Verschuer,
Eugen Fischer, and Fritz Lenz.106 In general it is unlikely that these unsound
claims may in the future becom e scientifically w ell-founded. To this extent
there is quite general agreem ent am ong geneticists as well as historical scholars
o f science that a fund o f knowledge about hum an genetics exists which has a
validity transcending particular times and circumstances. There is in this sense
a difference between “g o o d ” and “b a d ” science, or “science” and “pseu d o ­
science,” if one wants to use those term s. Clearly, eugenics cannot be generally
dism issed as a “pseudoscience.” 107 But this is n o t because the d istin ctio n s
between correct (true) and incorrect (false) or between w ell-supported (ratio­
nal) and u n su p p o rte d (irra tio n a l) claim s to scientific know ledge are not
im portant. Eugenics was a set of program s for social policy, and these p ro ­
grams were built partly on sound scientific claims and partly on claims which
were u n so u n d , judging by the state o f genetic science at the tim e. In other
words, eugenics was in p art pseudoscientific and in part scientifically sound.
In contrast to my analysis in term s o f an enlightenm ent project, eugenics
has often been interpreted as a m ovem ent for the rationalization o f hum an
behavior in the service o f the state. This view has been especially developed in
historical studies of G erm an eugenics.
According to Peter W eingart, the history of eugenics and hum an genetics is
“one continuous process o f rationalization.” He reads the story of eugenics as
“the process o f ultim ate rationalization— namely, th at o f hum an rep ro d u c­
tion.” W eingart’s model o f rationalization is built on a conception o f science
with notable relativist elements. He makes little effort to distinguish hypothe­
ses from well-established facts. Scientists “are the first to instill their prejudices
and biases into” the theory o f hum an genetics. In his social, contextual analy­
sis, the tru th or falsity o f scientific claims have subordinate im portance. He
considers beliefs, “labeled as scientific knowledge,” as “the chief resource of
power and legitimacy for th e expert comm unity.”108 A skeptical and relativist
view o f scientific knowledge makes an instrum ental interpretation o f science
natural. It becomes difficult to distinguish the cognitive content o f science
from its actual effects in the short run.
Sheila Weiss claims to have revealed “the logic of Germ an eugenics” through
an analysis o f Wilhelm Schallmayer’s work. The rationale and aim o f Germ an
racial hygiene was “technocratic and managerial rationality.”109 Eugenics em bod­
ied the idea that national power “was a product of the rational m anagem ent of
population” This logic led to Nazi population policies ending in the holocaust of
World War II.110 But even if this logic o f management is the framework o f her
account she also gives room to other and m ore hum ane purposes, such as health
and well-being. One may also ask if economics is not m ore relevant as a source
o f inspiration for managerial efficiency than eugenics and genetics.
 The preceding acco u n t o f N orw egian eugenics does n o t fit well with the
in s tru m e n ta l o r p ra g m a tic view, o f science in h e re n t in th e acc o u n ts o f
W eingart and Weiss. In their view science is prim arily considered as a means to
obtain social ends. Science is im portant because it “works,” not because it tells
us what the world is like. This essay has tried to show that the instrum ental
pictu re o f science a n d its social role is seriously incom plete in the case of
eugenics. W hat W eingart and Weiss see as the co ntribution o f science to social
policy, besides instrum ents, is a general logic of m anagerial efficiency. The role
o f genetic knowledge in form ing political aims is neglected.
According to the classical liberal view o f science, typically held by the actors
in my account, science also has an instrum ental side. However, this technical
usefulness is not the core o f science. Knowledge is the core, and usefulness fol­
lows from having knowledge. Knowledge of the nature o f things and of their
Causal connections is an im portant source o f new and m ore efficient technol­
ogy. But that is by no m eans always the case w ith knowledge about the world.
O ften it provides understanding o f the likely course o f events w ithout the pos­
sibility o f significantly interfering w ith the process. A stronom y is a classic
example. In such cases the understanding of causal connections can neverthe­
less influence behavior, through adaptation to natural and social circumstances
by the form ation o f n o rm s and goals. This is, for instance, a m ain effect of
m odern ecological science. It was also the m ain social role o f hum an genetics
during the first half o f the twentieth century.
At the beginning o f this discussion, the question was posed as to why the ster­
ilization law in Norway, and in the other Scandinavian countries, was introduced
at such a late stage in the development of the international eugenics movement.
This movement had, by the 1930s, entered a phase o f m oderation and decline, at
least in the English-speaking world. Most American sterilization laws, for exam­
ple, were introduced well before 1930. It was suggested that allegiance to tradi­
tional Christian m oral norm s had been the main obstacle at an earlier stage and
also that some of the positive driving forces were still relatively weak.
It is striking how th e in tro d u ctio n o f sterilization laws in Europe in the
1930s was a p h en o m en o n o f Protestant countries. U nder liberal dem ocratic
political conditions such laws were introduced only in countries where the
Lutheran d en o m in atio n was dom inant, nam ely D enm ark, Norway, Sweden,
Finland, Iceland, and Estonia. G erm any has a n o rth e rn Lutheran part and a
southern part d o m in ated by Catholics. Here the sterilization law was intro­
duced only after the Nazis had taken over. In som e other countries with strong
Protestant traditions sterilization laws were up for serious consideration but
rejected, as, for instance in England, Holland, and Czechoslovakia.
 It is also remarkable how the N orw egian sterilization law was passed with
hardly any opposition in Parliament. It was what can be called a consensus law,
or w ith another m etaphor: the least com m on denom inator o f public opinion.
Everybody tended to th in k in eugenic categories, but a law proposal also had to
be to n ed down to satisfy the sm oldering m oral doubts in large parts o f the
population. The law was considered by the eugenics enthusiasts as merely a
first cautious step.
In countries w ith a vigorous opposition, such as H olland and England, the
idea o f a sterilization law was quietly dropped. Pressing such laws through
against a vocal m inority was more o r less impossible. In a liberal dem ocratic
society one needs a high degree o f consensus to act in such morally sensitive
m atters. It seems a likely guess that if a liberal dem ocratic regime had contin­
ued in Germ any after 1933, no sterilization law would have been introduced.
By the 1930s cultural and social m odernization was well-advanced in the
n o rth e rn Lutheran countries of Europe. Norway, Sweden, and D enm ark were
culturally and socially m ore hom ogeneous than m ost other European co u n ­
tries. It was the start o f an era of Labor Party rule. These countries were devel­
oping a social welfare state based on planning and science.111 Secularization,
and a program o f social planning com bined with a lack o f vociferous opposi­
tion, m ade the N orth European sterilization laws possible at just this time. If
we ask why such laws came so m uch earlier in the U nited States, part o f the
answer could be that the state there h ad been secularized and separated from
the church long before. Opposition to im m igration was another very im p o r­
tant factor in the grow th of eugenics in the United States in the early tw entieth
century.
In the Norwegian debate on the sterilization law the church was rem arkably
quiet. The church felt uncom fortable w ith the proposal. But as we saw in the
argum ent o f Pastor Ingvald B. Carlsen, it was also hard to reject a m inim al
eugenics program . In term s of the prevention of suffering, the balance seemed
so obviously positive. It also appears significant that the sterilization law was
introduced at the sam e tim e as m ore liberal views on abortion, sexual educa­
tion, and other things related to procreation were taking hold. The influence of
the tra d itio n a l m o ral no rm s that h in d e re d sterilization had becom e m uch
weaker around 1930.
Yet as the law was being introduced and applied, its scientific rationale was
gradually being underm ined. Both the threat of degeneration and the practical
possibilities o f organizing a positive o r negative eugenics program were turning
o u t to be m u c h less th a n b e lie v e d b y e n th u s ia s ts su ch as M jo e n a n d
Scharffenberg. This advance in the knowledge of hum an heredity was already
 im portant in the 1930s, as is seen in the argum ents o f O tto Lous Mohr. But
much o f the new insight was still quite uncertain. C ontradictory hypotheses,
which gave legitim ization to eugenic sterilization, continued to have scientific
plausibility. We see this in the argum ents o f von Hofsten and Kemp as late as
the 1950s. O ne new piece o f knowledge w ith considerable impact was presum ­
ably the discovery, at the end o f the 1950s, that D own’s syndrome was caused
by the presence o f an extra chrom osom e in the cells.112 W ith this kind o f m ech­
anism m any o f the old considerations concerning the inheritability o f mental
retardation lost their relevance. M ore generally, psychiatry and psychology in
the late 1950s experienced an international wave o f interest in environm ental
factors at the cost o f biological inheritance.113
Eugenics, including sterilization, was p a rt o f the comprehensive program
for social reform aim ing toward the welfare state. Karl Evang was one o f the
m ain ideologists and architects of the Norwegian welfare state. The scientizing
of politics and the responsibility o f the state for the welfare o f the individual
were core p rin cip les in Evang’s id eo lo g y .114 H is lo n g -lastin g s u p p o rt for
eugenic sterilization dem onstrates the integration o f eugenics into a general
program for the welfare state.
From early on, the ideology o f central and large-scale social planning was
opposed by an ideology o f individual freedom. A centralized system was seen as a
threat to the right of the individual to live a life according to his or her own aims
and values. Sterilization was a sensitive and am biguous theme in this respect.
Im p o rta n t ideological changes in the status o f individual rights are also
indicated by studies o f Norwegian legal history. It has been claimed that by the
1930s the balance between society and individual in Norway was shifting in
favor o f society. The law was becom ing a m eans for general social benefit
rather than a protection for individual rights and interests. By the 1970s this
developm ent had been reversed.115 O ne expression o f the reaction against
grow ing sta te p ow er in th e p o stw a r p e rio d w as th e in tro d u c tio n o f the
“om budsm an” system in the 1960s.116
In sum m ary, this account o f the rise an d fall o f eugenic sterilization in
Norway can be fram ed by two hypotheses: (1) by around 1930 secularization
had gone far enough to remove earlier m oral obstacles, and sterilization was
introduced as a part of the general program for a social welfare state; (2) by the
1950s the biological vision o f eugenics had been seriously eroded by new scien­
tific knowledge, and the ideological balance betw een collectivism and individ­
ualism had become unfavorable to nonvoluntary sterilization. Thus the period
from the 1930s to the 1950s appears as a “w indow ” where eugenic sterilization
was possible. This general interp retatio n also im plies that the m ain role of
medical and biological science, and especially genetics, was to inform the pub­
lic about the social im plications o f adopting or rejecting different eugenic poli­
cies rather than to produce in strum ents and justifications o f politically and
ideologically determ ined aims. This enlightening role can be expressed by a
contrafactual claim: If degeneration had turned o u t to be as serious and rapid
as was imagined by the mainline race hygienists, then eugenic measures such as
sterilization would have continued to thrive in the decades after W orld War II.
If hum an biology had turned out to be different, different social policies would
have been in dem and.

N otes

1. N. R oll-H ansen, “Eugenic Sterilization— A P relim in ary C om parison of the

Scandinavian Experience to that o f Germany,” Genome 31 (1989): 890-95.
2. B. Muller-Hill, Todliche Wissenschaft. Die Aussonderung von Juden, Zigeunern und
Geisteskranken 1933-1945 (Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1984); B. Muller-Hill, “Genetics
after Auschwitz,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 2 (1987): 3-20.
3. Muller-Hill, “Genetics after Auschwitz,” 17.
4. G. Allen, “Geneticists, Eugenics and Class Struggle,” Genetics 79 (1975): 36-37.
5. G. Allen, “G enetics, Eugenics and Society: In te rn alists and E xternalists in
Contemporary History of Science,” Social Studies o f Science 6 (1976): 105-22.
6. H. Ebert, “Herm ann Muckermann. Profil eines Theologen, Widerstandskampfers
und Hochschullehrers der Technischen Univej\sitat Berlin,” H um anism us und
Technik 20, no. 1 (1976): 29-40.
7. For examples of the strongly hereditarian attitudes among leading medical doc­
tors in Norway in the 1930s, see A.-L. Seip, “Politikkens vitenskapeliggjoring.
Debatten om sosialpolitikk i 1930-arene,” N ytt Norsk Tidsskrift 6 (1989): 210-25.
8. G. R. Searle describes a revival of the British eugenics movement in the 1930s,
with sterilization as a main cause (“Eugenics and Politics in Britain in the 1930s,”
Annals o f Science 36 [ 1979]: 159-69). But its influence was limited; no serious
attempt to pass a sterilization law materialized. See also K. M. Ludmerer, Genetics
and A m erican Society: A Historical Appraisal (B altim ore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1972); D. Kevles, In the N am e o f Eugenics (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1985); G. Allen, “The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbour,
1910-1940: An Essay in Institutional History,” Osiris 2 (1986): 225-64.
9. A more detailed account of the early Norwegian eugenics debate is found in N.
Roll-Hansen, “Eugenics before W orld War II: The Case of Norway,” History and
Philosophy o f the Life Sciences 2 (1980): 269-98 and N. Roll-Hansen, “Den norske
debatten om rasehygiene,” Historisk Tidsskrift (1980): 259-83.
10. J. A. Mjoen, Rasehygiene, 2nd ed. (Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1938), 270. This is a very
different book from the 1914 edition.
11. J. A. Mjoen, “Det nordiske program for rasehygiene. Fremgangsmater for en social-
biologisk befolkningspolitikk. Et forste skritt,” Vor Verden, no. 5 (1931): 181.
12. Stortingsforhandlinger 1910, vol. 3a, Ot. prp. no. 7, “om utfoerdigelse av en lov om
tilvirkning av ol m. v.” No date. The law was passed 12 July 1912.
13. 0 rn u lf Odegard, A rv og M iljo i Psykiatrien (Oslo: Aschehough, 1952), 46.
14. R. Vogt, “Om arvelighet ved manisk-melankolsk sindsygdom,” Tidsskrift fo r Den
Norske Lcegeforening 30 (1910): 463.
15. V. K. Uckerman, De D ovstum m e i Norge (Kristiania: A. Cammuermeyer, 1896).
16. R. Vogt, “Racehygiene,” N aturen 37 (1913): 65-80.
17. J. A. M joen, “ R a se h y g ie n e ,” F o rh a n d lin g e r (P ro c e e d in g s) D et N o rsk e
Videnskabsakademi i Kristiania, 1914,4-5. •
18. R. Vogt, Arvelighetslcere og Racehygiene (Kristiania: A. Cammermeyer, 1914).
19. R. Vogt, Arvelighetslcere og Racehygiene, 100-1.
20. J. Scharffenberg, “H ygieneuufstillingen i D resden,” S o c ia T D e m o kra ten (25
October 1911).
21. N. J. Lavik, M a kt oggalskap (Oslo: Pax, 1990).
22. O ther members of the Perm anent International Comm ittee for Eugenics were:
Soren Hansen, police surgeon in Copenhagen; Lucien March, director of general
statistics in France; Raym ond Pearl, American geneticist; Yves Delage, French
biologist and historian o f science; and Vernon Kellogg, American zoologist. A
photograph of the com m ittee elected in London is reproduced in J. A. Mjoen,
Racehygiene (Kristiania: Jacob Dybwad, 1914).
23. For more details, see Roll-Hansen “Eugenics before W orld W ar II: The Case of
Norway” and N. Roll-Hansen, “Den norske debatten om rasehygiene.”
24. O. L. M ohr, “Dr. philos. Mjoen og hans racehygiene,” A ftenposten (7 M arch
1915): 2-3.
25. K. Bonnevie, “Om racehygiene og om dr. Alfred Mjdens nye bok,” Tidens Tegn
(24 March 1915): 6-9; J. A. Mjoen, “Segregation av lavvas rdige raceelementer.
Svar til professor i zoologi Bonnevie,” Tidens Tegn (23 April 1915): 9-10; K.
Bonnevie, “Dr. Mjoens racehygiene for siste gang,” Tidens Tegn (24 April 1915): 2.
26. T. Wyller, “Kand. med. M ohr og dr. Mjoen,” Norske Intelligenssedler (31 March
1915): 4. Mohr did not yet have a doctoral degree.
27. K. E. Schreiner, “Et ord om videnskap og dilettantisme,” Norske Intelligenssedler (8
April 1915): 5-6.
28. The authors were K. Bonnevie, R. Vogt, H. H. Gran (professor of botany), and E.
Poulsson (professor of medicine).
29. Stortingsforhandlinger 1916, vol. la, st. prp. no. 7, hovedpost V, 61-64, “Institut
for arvelighetsforskning”; Stortingsforhandlinger 1916, vol. 6a, Inds. s. XXI, 12;
Stortingsforhandlinger 1916, vol. 7a, Forhandlinger i Stortinget (3 April 1916),
618-22.
30. K. Bonnevie, “Indledning til diskussion om arvelighet hos mennesker; forsknin-
gens maal og midler,” D et 16. skandinaviske naturforskermote 1916 (1916): 857-64.
31. K. Bonnevie, “Arvelighetsundersokelser i Norge (Forelopig meddelelse),” Norsk
Magasin fo r Lcegevidenskaben 13 (1915): 1177-1222.
32. See T. Mohr, Katti A nker Moller — en banebryter (Oslo: Tiden, 1968).
33. Ibid., 99-134.
34. Katti A nker Moller, notebook from the 1912 Eugenics Congress in London,
University Library, Oslo, m anuscript collection.
35. Neo-Malthusians recommended contraception and family planning in order to
improve the social standard o f the lower classes.
36. T. Mohr, K atti A nker Moller— en banebryter, 93-94.
37. Mjoen, Racehygiene (1914), 149-57.
38. Ibid., 209-12.
39. Ibid., 195.
40. See, for example, R. Vogt, “Svar til professor M ohr,” Tidsskrift fo r den Norske
Lcegeforening, no. 10 (1935): 577-79.
41. O. L. Mohr, Arvelterens Grundtrcek (Kristiania: Olaf Norlis Forlag, 1923), 75.
42. J. A. Mjoen, “Alkohol som racegift,” Tirfing, nos. 1-2 (1927): 8.
43. J. A. Mjoen, “Harmonic and Disharmonic Racecrossings,” Eugenics in Race and
State, vol. 2, scientific papers o f the Second International Congress of Eugenics,
New York, 22-28 September 1921 (Baltimore: Williams 8; Wilkins Co., 1923), 61.
44. “Den Nordiske Rase” was published in Copenhagen as part of D et N ye N ord ( The
New North).
45. H. F. Osborne, “Address o f W elcome,” Eugenics, Genetics and the Family, vol. 1,
scientific papers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, New York, 22­
28 September 1921 (Baltimore: Williams 8c Wilkins Co., 1923), 1-4.
46. Mjoen “Harmonic and Disharmonic Racecrossings.”
47. W. B. Provine, “Geneticists and the Biology of Race Crossing,” Science 182 (1973):
790-96.
48. K. Bonnevie, “Main Results of a Statistical Investigation of Finger Prints from
25,518 Individuals,” Eugenics, Genetics and the Family, vol. 1, scientific papers of
the Second International Congress of Eugenics, New York, 22-28 September 1921
(Baltimore: Williams 8s W ilkins Co., 1923), 198-211.
49. K. Bonnevie, “Papillarmuster und psychische Eigenschaften,” Hereditas 8 (1927):
180-92.
50. See, for example, G. Geipel, A nleitung zur erbbiologischen Beurteilung der Finger-
und Handleisten (Miinchen: J. F. Lehmanns Verlag, 1935).
51. See, for example, T. Quelprud, “Zur Erblichkeit des Darwinschen Hockerchens,”
Zeitschrift fu r Morphologie u n d Anthropologie 34 (1934): 343-63.
52. L etter from C. B. D av en p o rt to K. B onnevie, 19 M arch 1927, D a v en p o rt
Collection, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia.
53. Letter from K. Bonnevie to C. B. D av en p o rt, 19 M arch 1927, D a v en p o rt
Collection, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia.
54. K. Bonnevie, “Arv hos m enneskene,” Folkehelseforeningens tidsskrift 11, no. 7
(1931): 9.
55. See, for example, G. Allen, “Genetics, Eugenics and Society: Internalists and
Externalists in C ontem porary H istory o f Science,” Social Studies o f Science 6
(1976): 116.
56. See, for example, A. M. Dalcq, “Notice sur la vie et l’oevre de M. O.-L. Mohr.
Correspondant etranger,” Academie royale de medecine de Belgique 7 (1967): 691-98.
57. See, for example, G. H. Waaler, “Professor, Dr. med. O tto Lous Mohr, vitenskaps-
m a n n e n ,” D e t N o r s k e V id e n s k a p s -A k a d e m i i O slo, A rb o k 1967 (O slo:
Universitetsforlaget, 1968), 1-23.
58. Mohr, Arvelcerens Grundtrcek, 62.
59. Ibid., 67.
60. Mohr, “Menneskeavlen under kultur,” Samtiden 37 (1926): 22-48.
61. Mohr, Arvelcerens Grundtrcek, 64. Retranslated by the author from Norwegian into
English.
62. O. L. Mohr, “Menneskeavlen under kultur,” 30.
63. A. Myrdal and G. Myrdal, Krisen i befolkningssporsmalet (Oslo: Tiden, 1936).
64. L. Longum, D ro m m e n om det frie m enneske. N orsk kulturradikalism e og m el-
lomkrigstidens radikale treklover, Hoel— Krogh— Overland (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget,
1986).
65. Searle, “Eugenics and Politics in Britain in the 1930s,” 163ff.
66. Kevles, In the N am e o f Eugenics, 164ff.
67. Ministry of Justice, Innstilling fra den av Justisdepartem entet 11. m ai 1922 opp-
nevnte komite til revisjon av straffeloven. Forste del. (Oslo: O. F. Arnesen, 1923.)
68. Letter from Mjoen and Keilhau to the Ministry of Justice, 19 August 1931, with an
enclosed statem ent, “Forestilling i anledning sterilisasjon og segregasjon av for-
brytere og andre helt lawerdige individer,” Archive, Ministry of Justice.
69. R. Ingebrigtsen, “Sterilisasjon etter lov av 1. VI. 1934 om adgang til sterilisasjon
m.v.,” Nordisk M edicin 54 (1955): 1835ff.
70. J. Scharffenberg, “Forslag til sterilisasjonslov for N orge,” A rbeiderbladet (30
January 1932): 2-3.
71. J. Scharffenberg, “En tysk sterilisasjonslov,” Arbeiderbladet (1 September 1933): 3, 8.
72. Report from Ragnar Vogt to the Medical Faculty o f the University of Oslo, 23
August 1933, 19pp., M inistry o f Justice; Statem ent by O. L. M ohr, no date,
Ministry of Justice.
73. Scharffenberg, H ovedpunkterne i Arvelaren, (Olso: Der N orse A rbeider-partis
Forlag, 1932),109.
74. Scharffenberg, “En tysk sterilisasjonslov,” 3, 8.
75. For a general account of Karl Evang and his professional medical regime in the
health service, see T. Nordby, Karl Evang (Oslo: Aschehoug, 1989).
76. K. Evang, Rasepolitikk og reaksjon (Oslo: Fram Forlag, 1934), 130-31.
77. I. B. Carlsen, “M oderne slektshygiene og kristen livsoppfatning,” Kirke og Kultur,
no. 7, (1933): 401-14.
78. Author’s conversation with Tove Pihl, June 1980.
79. Stortingsforhandlinger 1934, vol. 8, “Lov om sterilisering” (8 May 1934), 157-62.
80. Sam fundspartiet had a single representative in Parliam ent during part o f the
1930s. The party wanted a fundamental reform o f the economic system to reach a
more just society. One idea was to abolish money in favor of “social credit.”
81. I am here following Evang’s (1955) classifications.
82. K. Evang, Sterilisering etter lov av 1. ju n i 1934 om adgang til sterilisering m.v.
(Sarpsborg: F. Verding, 1955), 14.
 83. Ibid., 40.
84. Ibid., 48.
85. See studies by H. S. Aasen, Rasehygiene og menneskeverd. Nasjonalsosialismens ster-
iliseringslov av ju li 1942, no. 4 (Oslo: Institutt for offentlig retts skriftserie, 1989);
and A. Chr. Gogstad, Helse og Hakekors. Helsetjeneste og helse under okkupasjon-
sstyret i Norge, 1940-45 (Bergen: Alma Mater Forlag, 1991).
86. Aasen, Rasehygiene og menneskeverd, 43-55.
87. See Universitet i Oslo, 1911-1961, vol. 1, (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1961), 634-35.
88. Q uelprud became a mem ber of the Norwegian Nazi party “Nasjonal Samling”
(National unity) in 1933 or 1934, but resigned in 1936 because of the biological
ideas propagated in the newspaper of the party. He joined the party again toward
the end of 1941, and resigned finally in September 1944. Soon after that he closed
down his institute. Quelprud’s professional activity during the war years was con­
c e n tra te d on re search a n d teac h in g (T h o rd a r Q u e lp ru d fo ld e r in
“Landssvikarkivet,” Norwegian National Archives, Oslo).
89. Evang, Sterilisering etter lov av 1. ju n i 1934 om adgang til sterilisering m.v., 13. I
have not been able to verify to what categories those sterilized under the Nazi Law
belonged. But since the law did not even provide for sterilization on the applica­
tion of the person to be sterilized it seems quite clear that the proportion sterilized
on purely eugenic grounds and under more or less strong forms of coercion was
higher than earlier.
90. Gogstad, Helse og Hakekors, 209.
91. Ibid., 195-215.
92. G. Langfeldt, “Psykiatriske arbeidsoppgaver i etterkrigstiden,” Tidsskrift for den
Norske Lcegeforening 65 (1945): 307-10.
93. Evang, Sterilisering etter lov av l .j u n i 193, 43.
94. K. Bonnevie, “Slekt, individ og sam fund,” N orsk Slektshistorisk Tidsskrift 11
(1948): 244.
95. J. S ch a rffe n b e rg , “G e n e tik k , arvelaere og e u g e n ik k ,” le c tu re to
Arvelighetsforeningen, 22 March 1951, manuscript collection, University Library,
Oslo, 25.
96. Ibid., 40.
97. N. von H ofsten, “De arvsbiologiska v erkningarna av sterilisering,” Hygiea.
Medicinsk Tidskrift utgiven av Svenska Lakaresallskapet 106, no. 5 (1944): 179.
98. Ibid., 179-80.
99. N. von Hofsten, “The genetic effect of negative selection in man,” Hereditas 37
(1951): 157.
100. Evang, Sterilisering etter lov av 1. ju n i 1934, 37.
101. Odegard, A rv og Miljo i Psykiatrien.
102. T. Kemp, “Genetic-Hygienic Experiences in D enm ark in Recent Years,” The
Eugenics Review 44(1957): 16-17.
103. D. Barker, “The Biology of Stupidity: Genetics, Eugenics and Mental Deficiency
in the Inter-W ar Years,” British Journal for the History o f Science 22 (1989): 347­
75.
104. N. Roll-Hansen, “Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement in Scandinavia,” British
Journal for the History o f Science 22 (1989): 345.
105. See, for example, G. Allen, “Geneticists, Eugenics and Class Struggle,” Genetics 79
(1 9 7 5 ): 29-45; K. R o th , “S choner n e u e r M en sch ,” in D er G r iff nach der
Bevolkerung, ed. H. Kaupen-Haas (Nordlingen: Delphi Politik, 1986), 11-63; S.
Weiss, Race Hygiene & N ational Efficiency: The Eugenics o f Wilhelm Schallmayer
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987); and P. Weingart, J. Kroll, and K.
Bayertz, Rasse, B lut u n d Gene (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988).
106. See, for example, the review by H. J. Muller of the famous textbook on H u m an
H eredity by Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and Fritz Lenz (English translation 1931).
Muller praises the first part of the book b u t finds the second part full of scientific
fallacies due to racist prejudices. As Fischer and Lenz “venture into psychology,
anthropology, history and sociology . . . we soon find them acting as mouthpieces
for the crassest kind o f popular prejudice. Throwing overboard their previously
adm itted principle that environment as well as heredity is of immense importance
in the developm ent o f hum an characteristics, particularly those o f a m ental
n atu re, they readily accept all the superficially apparent differences between
hum an groups as indicative of corresponding genetic distinctions” H. J. Muller,
Studies in Genetics: The Selected Papers o f H. J. M uller (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1962).
107. M. B. Adams, “Toward a Comparative History of Eugenics,” in The Wellborn
Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and Russia, ed. M. B. Adams (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1990), 220.
108. P. Weingart, “The Rationalization of Sexual Behavior: The Institutionalization of
Eugenic Thought in Germany,” Journal o f the History o f Biology 20 (1987): 160.
109. S. Weiss, “Wilhelm Schallmayer and the Logic of G erm an Eugenics,” Iris 77
(1986): 34.
110. S. Weiss, “The Race Hygiene Movement in Germany,” Osiris 3 (1987): 195, 236.
111. The ideological symbiosis between science and the welfare state is now attracting
m uch attention from scholars. For example, Lennart Olausson at the Center for
Science Studies at the University of Goteborg is studying the interaction between
social science and educational policies in Sweden.
112. Kevles, In the N am e o f Eugenics, 244ff.
113. A uthor’s conversation with Einar Kringlen, 11 June 1992.
114. Nordby, Karl Evang.
115. See, for example, R. Slagstad, “Provingsretten i det norske system,” N y tt Norsk
Tidsskrift 6 (1989): 349-50.
116. An ombudsman is a civil official to whom one can appeal administrative decisions
and address other grievances concerning public administration.
F rom R ace H y g ie n e to S t e r il iz a t io n : T h e
E u g en ic s M o v e m e n t in F in la n d
M a r ja t t a H ie t a la

I n tro d u ctio n

inland passed sterilization legislation in 1935 as p art o f a general Nordic

F m ovement, following D enm ark (1929) and Norway (1934), with a Swedish
sterilization law also com ing into effect in 1935. Why was Finland willing to
adopt such a eugenic legislative program?
Finland’s position is particularly interesting for two reasons: there was an
influential Swedish-speaking m inority in the country which considerably influ­
enced the development o f eugenic thinking; and the country did not gain its
independence until 1917 and was still in the process o f building national confi­
dence in the 1930s.
F rom 1809 to 1917 F in lan d was an a u to n o m o u s G ran d D uchy o f the
Russian Empire. During this tim e, the period of autonomy, its adm inistration
was a legacy from pre-1809 Swedish rule, and the Swedish-speaking m inority
(in 1900 12.9 percent) continued to hold m ost influential positions in adm inis­
tration, industry, and commerce. The m ajority of schools in the country were
Swedish-speaking. Even though the position o f the Finnish-speaking po p u la­
tion was gradually gaining strength, actual struggles over language, for example
about using Finnish in university teaching, did not begin to appear on a m ajor
scale until the 1920s.
The Finnish speakers wished to gain improved access to the upper echelons
o f power and were com m itted to the creation of a new national culture w ith its
own independent identity. In general, Finnish society in the nineteenth century
has been described as strongly conservative in outlook and marked by a deep
division between the educated classes and peasantry, a division reflected in
wide differences in levels o f education, learning, and social attitudes. O n the
other hand, due to the work o f the church, literacy was at a high level, educa­
tion was generally accepted as a m eans o f upward social m obility and, as else­
where in the Nordic countries, huge popular movements with educational and
instru ctio n al aim s sp ran g up. D u rin g the closing years o f the autonom ous
period the attitude tow ard the Russians changed from previous loyalty to deep
antipathy, caused by the oppressive measures instituted by the Russians.1
In 1918 the newly independent Finland experienced a civil war, based on
ideological differences between socialists and nonsocialists (the Reds and the
W hites), the im pact o f which continued throughout the 1920s and 1930s, for it
left Finnish society divided into two hostile camps. T he role of the labor move­
m en t becam e a m in o r one. Yet a n u m b er o f new laws were enacted at the
beginning o f th e 1920s th at dealt w ith com p u lso ry education, prohibition,
freedom o f religion, m ilitary service, and land reform s that allowed leasehold
farm ers to purchase th e land they w orked. E lem entary schools spread into
rural areas and th e n u m b er o f secondary schools grew substantially. In the
realm o f higher education Helsinki University was joined by two new universi­
ties, the Swedish language Abo A kadem i in Turku, founded in 1919, and the
Finnish language T urun Yliopisto in Turku, founded a year later. Abo Akademi
becam e the only Swedish language university o u tside Sweden and it had an
im portant role for Swedish speakers in the 1920s.
In the political clim ate of Finland rural peasant values were the cornerstone
o f Finnish identity, an d rural society was the ideal m odel for the whole of
Finnish society. From the very first years of independence the Agrarian League
came to occupy a v irtually co ntinuous place in governm ent. No significant
social refo rm s co v erin g th e in d u s tria l secto r w ere in tro d u ce d ; ag rarian -
in s p ir e d n a t io n a l i s t s c o n c e n tr a te d so lely o n d o m e s tic v a lu e s. M any
Conservatives preferred to concentrate on highlighting Finland’s role as a bas­
tion and outpost o f th e West pitted against the East. In this they drew on the
anti-R ussian sen tim en t and sense o f ethnic su p eriority which had increased
during the nineteenth century, particularly am ong the Swedish-speaking intel­
ligentsia, and which were now adapted to the cause o f anti-Bolshevism.
The various attem pts made to underline a sense o f Finnish identity to com ­
plem ent national independence, and stress the im portance of the Finnish lan­
guage as an ideal m ed iu m for expressing th a t id entity, were linked to the
feelings o f self-confidence which had emerged from gaining independence. It
was argued that only a linguistically hom ogeneous people, one speaking the
sam e national language, could really be assum ed to find a strong sense of
national purpose w hile bilingualism in any form spelled dangerous com pro­
mise. The em ergence o f these ideas led m any Swedish speakers to conclude that
the position o f the Swedish-language m inority was increasingly threatened.2
The Finnish nationalists were interested in other Finno-Ugrian peoples such
as the Estonians an d Hungarians, while the Swedish-speaking Finns endeavored
to develop their links with Scandinavia. At the political level, cooperation with
the Finnish-speaking Right an d Center was not easy for the Swedish People’s
Party, although this party was needed in governm ents for the nonsocialist par­
ties to m aintain a parliam entary majority. M any Swedish-speaking Finns also
felt some apprehension tow ard Finnish Socialists. According to the Swedish
speakers, the only way to help Finland was to forge closer links with Scandinavia
and to safeguard Scandinavian constitutional and political values and the wider
Western cultural inheritance. This eagerness to strengthen the ties w ith Sweden
was increased by all the evidence th at Sweden had experienced a profound
social change.
At the individual level the fight for the Swedish language was not always
considered essential. Finnish id e n tity was m o st im p o rtan t. C onsequently,
m any Swedish-speaking families changed their family names to Finnish ones
and/or sent their children to Finnish-speaking schools. Thus, behind a genuine
Finnish family nam e there could be found a long Swedish-speaking tradition.
But some of the m ost eager gro u p s to m aintain the links w ith the Swedish­
speaking culture were the Swedish-speaking students.3
The struggle between the Swedish-speaking and the Finnish-speaking Finns
can be seen n o t only as a language struggle betw een the m ajo rity and the
m inority, but also as a struggle for the m aintenance of the Swedish-speaking
elite in Finland where the position o f the Finnish-speakers appeared to be gain­
ing strength. This struggle also manifested itself in the attitudes about, and the
willingness to apply, eugenic ways o f thinking.
For it was indeed the question o f the standing o f the two languages th at
form ed the key to the spread o f eugenics in Finland. While the English eugen­
ics m ovem ent showed a strong tendency toward class consciousness, m aintain­
ing the social stan d in g o f th e u p p e r and m id d le classes, and the G erm an
eugenics m ovem ent was driven by anxiety about the decrease in the G erm an
population and falling birthrates,4 the Swedish-speaking m inority in Finland
eagerly em braced racial hygienic principles in the campaign to im prove the
stock of Swedish speakers. But th e Finnish-speaking population also took some
interest in racial hygiene.

A im s o f th e S t u d y

This study will try to explain the birth and development o f racial hygienic
thinking and propaganda in Finland. I will exam ine the differences between
th e tw o lin g u istic groups c o n c e rn in g th e a d o p tio n o f eugenic ideas. T his
approach is inductive. I will analyze those factors which lay behind the laws
and systematically analyze articles, speeches, and discussions in the press as
well as discussions in the professional journals for medical practitioners, social
workers, educators, and lawyers. I will explore w hether there were any political
connections w ith th e Finnish Right, particularly in the 1930s.
W hat was the role o f the G erm an exam ple at that time? W hat happened
during W orld War II? How did the Finns adapt other people’s models in draw ­
ing up their own sterilization laws?
In recent years there has been m uch discussion of professionalism and spe­
cialization. At th e tu rn o f the century, especially in m edicine, innovation,
progress, and scientific advance came to be valued highly. Experts becam e
im p o rta n t in the task o f changing society.5 In F inland, reliance u p o n the
printed text was strong because o f its centralized adm inistration model and
because o f the m onolithic Lutheran state religion. People trusted experts and
professionals. Training and trained people enjoyed high esteem and one o f the
m ost valued groups was the medico-legal experts.
In addition, the dim ension “individual— com m unity” had a special im por­
tance in relation to the issue o f sterilization, for the political philosophy o f
Finland during its struggle for independence was based on the tenets o f J. V.
Snellman, a H egelian philosopher. According to his teaching, the individual
should always make him self subservient to the interests o f the community.
In light o f m y form er research,6 I will consider sterilization in Finland from
the sta n d p o in t o f th e spread o f in n o v atio n s. F innish researchers did n o t
develop the idea o f sterilization but adopted it from o ther sources, applying
innovations and ideas worked out elsewhere. This approach can also be used as
the theoretical p o in t o f departure, if necessary, and it influenced the selection
o f research m aterial and the m ethod o f observation.
Innovations were seized u p o n first by those interm ediaries who have been
described by term s such as “opinion leaders,” “pioneers,” and “pathbreakers.”
As a result o f their ow n experiences, they had knowledge o f the innovation
itself and faith in it. They considered it so w orthw hile that they wanted to con­
vince others o f its value. Yet it may also be th at the role o f actual “convincer”
fell to som ebody else.
N um erous q u estio n s will be explored here, such as w ho brought racial
hygiene to Finland and from which sources. W ho were the opinion leaders in
Finland on this issue— am ong the Swedish-speaking population and am ong
the Finnish speakers? W hat was the m otivational background o f these opinion
leaders? To w hat professional groups did they belong? How had these experts
from different professions become involved in eugenics? In what form did they
introduce the ideas o f racial hygiene and w hat effect did these have on public
opinion? How were they able to convince the Finnish people to the extent that
in 1934 only fourteen m em bers out of a Parliam ent of 200 voted against the
Sterilization Act?

T he Q u estio n o f th e R a c ia l O rig in s o f th e F in n s

Since the eighteenth century Finns have aroused interest am ong anthropolo­
gists and linguists because o f their language. The Finnish language belongs to
the Finno-U gric group o f languages, which are spoken by only tw enty-three
million people even today.
In the circles o f physical anthro p o m etry and craniom etry m any different
opinions were presented concerning the Finns. According to the established
differences am ong European peoples classifications in the nineteenth century,
Finns were considered “inferior” people. At first they were classified as brachy-
cephalous and Mongols; later, however, the concept of an East Baltic race arose
as a com prom ise. In the 1920s the G erm an H ans F. K. G u n th e r began to
employ the term “East Baltic,” b u t as an “Aryan” himself he saw the East Baltic
and, indeed, all eastern peoples in negative terms.
The Swedish-speaking p art o f the population o f the country, however, was
considered to belong to the m ore noble N ordic race. Pro-Swedish elements
even claim ed th at Finnish speakers could n o t be expected to m aintain the
Swedish speakers’ cultural standards.
In an independent F inland the Finnish Academy of Science launched an
extensive anthropological research project in 1924, under th e leadership o f
Yrjo Kajava. A great num b er o f medical students worked on this project which
was financed by an annual state grant, and research was carried o u t among the
p o p u latio n s o f the v ario u s provinces as well as am ong th e Lapps and the
Sw edish-speaking p o p u la tio n in F inland. T h e results o f m e asu rin g som e
15,000 people were published by the academy in printed form which made a
trem endous am ount o f inform ation about the somatic characteristics o f the
Finns available for the first tim e, providing a wealth of material for native and
foreign racial research. This reflected the interest in the racial qualities o f the
Finnish people, typical o f the early days o f an independent Finland, but it was
also connected with the racial theoretical research interests o f th at period.7
In the 1920s the features o f the East Baltic race were first identified with
those o f the Finnish-speaking people. But as research progressed, it was discov­
ered th a t som e c h a ra c te ristic s o f th a t race w ere p re sen t also am ong th e
Swedish-speaking population and that over the years these two races, the East
Baltic and the Nordic, h ad been mixed w ith each other. In his 1940 article,
“Antropologi och demografi,” H arry Federley (who will be discussed later) sug­
gested that the Nordic elem ent was m ore'dom inant am ong the Swedish-speak­
ing Finns. The purest form o f the Nordic type could be fo u n d in the Aland
Islands. The East Baltic race, whose status as an independent race was disputed
am ong anthropologists, differed from the N ordic one m ainly because o f its
lower height, its m ore square facial features, and the shape o f the nose, which
was observed to be often bro ad and slightly snub. The skin was fair but florid,
and the chin was not p ro m in en t as that o f the Nordic race. In the 1930s and
1940s, scientists such as Federley no longer classified the psychological charac­
teristics of these two races, noting merely the existence o f these physical differ­
ences. By im p licatio n , how ever, there em erg ed differences in the level o f
cultu ral developm ent w h ich m anifested them selves in th e state o f general
health and hygienic conditions; this was supported by statistics which dem on­
strated that, for example, infant m ortality was lowest in the areas of the oldest
culture, that is, in southw estern and southern Finland. T he further east and
north one went, the higher the rate of infant mortality.8
By the 1930s and 1940s Finnish speakers reacted with considerable equa­
nim ity to these race classifications.9 But during the civil war in 1918, opinions
in F in lan d a b o u t such su p p o se d differences betw een th e tw o races w ere
inflamed. The victory o f th e W hites was interpreted in Swedish-speaking cir­
cles as a v icto ry for W estern culture w hile th e Reds w ere associated w ith
M ongols.10
The notion of Finns as M ongols remained, for example, in Swedish encyclo­
pedias well into the 1950s,1' even though the belief in the M ongol origin o f the
Finnish speakers began to be refuted systematically in the early years of Finnish
independence. O ne of the m ost obvious public m ethods was the organization
o f beauty contests, the first o f which occurred in 1919 followed by another in
1926, w ith the judging in b o th cases depending entirely on photographs. The
aim was to discover an e n d u rin g ideal o f w om anhood as an expression o f
Finnishness. In this way th e outside w orld’s image o f the Finnish race was
m eant to be rectified and a better image m arketed, for the Finns themselves felt
that their country, so recently independent, had to provide the world with a
more truly representative picture of its inhabitants.
The goal o f the beauty contests was to dispel the prejudices which appeared,
for example, in foreign literature, suggesting that the Finns were an ugly peo­
ple. Independent Finland also needed its national symbols to increase its own
feeling o f solidarity. The w inners of the beauty com petitions were to become
the representatives o f a racially pure Finnish w om anhood in the eyes of the rest
o f the world. Even serious artists, including W aino Aaltonen, the sculptor, are
now believed to have been trying to create in their w ork a new female image
which differed from the prevailing stereotype of M ongol-like Finns. It was a
real triu m p h for Finland w hen Ester Toivonen was declared Europe’s m ost
beautiful wom an in 1934. This victory in the Miss Europe com petition played
a real part in reinforcing a positive Finnish identity.12
The ath letic triu m p h s o f Finns also served th e sam e purpose. F inland
became world famous in 1912 by winning nine gold m edals at the Stockholm
Olympics, thereby taking its place am ong leading athletic nations, a place it
continued to occupy for a num ber of decades. The greatest hero was Hannes
Kolehm ainen, w inner o f th e 5,000-m eter and 10,000-m eter events an d the
m arathon, who was said to have “ru n Finland on to the world map.” Far and
away the m ost famous runner, however, was Paavo N urm i, who won nine gold
medals and three silver medals in the Olympics between 1920 and 1928. At the
Paris Olympics alone he won five gold medals, two o f them on the same day.13
During his career Paavo N urm i also set thirty-one o utdoor track world records.
O nni Okkonen, the art historian and N u rm i’s contemporary, wrote the follow­
ing regarding a statue o f Paavo N urm i: “Paavo N urm i is the symbol o f the
Finnish athletic ideal. This statue em bodies forever the racial type of a quiet,
determ ined and untiring character who steadfastly reaches his goal in life.”14

T he R ole o f E x per ts

In spite o f its north ern geographical location, Finland was not isolated from
developments elsewhere in Europe. D uring the period o f autonom y its intelli­
gentsia m aintained intensive contacts w ith Central Europe, and at the end of
the nineteenth century Finnish doctors and engineers studied for long periods
in G erm an universities. G erm an was widely spoken by Finnish engineers and
technical researchers.
The medical faculty o f Helsinki University, Finland’s only university before
the 1920s, had strong ties with the Germ an-speaking w orld. As late as 1935 a
total o f forty-six out o f sixty medical textbooks used in this facility were w rit­
ten in G erm an.15
In addition, both Swedish-speaking and Finnish-speaking doctors and scien­
tists had their own personal networks o f links with foreign colleagues. Partly as
a result o f growing nationalism , it was in the interest o f the autonom ous state to
expand professional education. An increase in the num ber o f high-level person­
nel well-grounded in science and technology would help to build Finland into a
truly m odern state. Like their counterparts in Germany, m em bers of the Finnish
government believed that scientific achievement was a necessary ingredient in
building up the Kulturstaat. M edical experts in particular had a key role to play
in developing the health, welfare, and hygiene o f the nation.
O n the basis o f the traveling reports of Finnish surgeons, one can calculate
that about tw o-thirds o f all their trips were m ade to Germ an universities. At
the tu rn of the century Finnish doctors often participated in courses there on
hygiene, psychiatry, tuberculosis, gynecology, and pediatrics.16 They were also
in the habit o f touring extensively in Europe to attend congresses w hich in turn
gave rise to subsequent reports, som e of which were very detailed, in one case
reaching a length o f 600 pages.17 Finnish doctors were aware o f the m ain trends
in m edicine and related studies, partly through observations o f th eir own and
partly through professional journals. Finnish tradition dem anded an intensive
following of international developm ents, a custom which provided one of the
m ost im portant foundations for th e country’s subsequent independence.
In contrast w ith these strong ties with the G erm an university w orld, which
continued well into the 1930s, links with British and French academ ic circles
were weak until the m id-1930s.18 Thus, in addition to the G erm an links, the
other m ajor channel for the spreading of new ideas was the keen following of
N o rd ic d ev elo p m en ts. D ue to lin g u istic a n d o th e r c u ltu ra l c o n ta c ts the
Swedish-speaking Finns had w orked in close contact with the o th e r Nordic
countries, and especially with Swedish experts. At its best this can be observed
in th e a ctiv ities o f th e S venska L itte ra tu rs a lls k a p e t an d th e S am fu n d et
Folkhalsan i Svenska Finland. O n the em otional-cultural level, the close con­
nection am ong Swedish speakers was recognized and both Ossian Schauman
and H arry Federley employed the term s “Vart svenska folk” (our Swedish peo­
ple) or “Den svenska stammen ’ (the Swedish tribe) to link Swedish-speaking
people in Finland with those in Sweden.19
From its earliest days the N o rd ic countries w ere closely involved in the
in te rn a tio n a l eu g en ics m o v e m e n t.20 T he N o rd ic race, w h ic h was m uch
adm ired, was also one of the topics at the International Congress o f Eugenics
held in New York in 1921. The T hird Congress o f Eugenics was attended by the
F in n ish p ro fe sso r H a rry F ederley, w hose m e m b e rsh ip was p ro p o se d by
H erm an Lundborg.21 Federley h ad been involved in the eugenics m ovem ent for
som e years, and as early as 1911 he had been approved as a m em ber in the
Internationale u n d Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Rassenhygiene in Germ any.22

T he F ir s t Expressions o f Eugenics in Fin la n d , 1890-1920

At the tu rn o f the century, w hen Mendel’s laws were discovered, biology in

Finland still followed, in part, a strongly Linnaean tradition, b u t Darwinism
 was emerging as the new leading force in natural science. There was relatively
little experimental biology and this probably caused the delay in the acceptance
o f Mendelism. The first detailed presentation of M endel’s rule and its relation
to the newest theories o f heredity was by T. H. Jarvi. At that tim e the first pop­
ular presentation of D arw inism in Finnish also appeared.
The m ajority o f su p p o rters o f the eugenics m ovem ent were followers of
Mendel and attem pted to discover those com binations o f inclinations which,
in certain circumstances, would lead to the development o f antisocial charac­
teristics. Special attention was paid to the role of heredity in the development
o f epilepsy, mild retardation, and o f alcoholism.23 The first signs o f the em er­
gence o f eugenic thinking in Finland date back to 1908 w hen Robert Ehrstrom
gave a lecture on the spread of neuroses in the period 1890-1907. He was con­
vinced o f the hereditary nature of the condition and believed that it was influ­
enced by endogenic factors. According to Ehrstrom there were fewer cases of
neurotic stomach conditions in the Swedish-speaking areas o f Finland. His dis­
course provoked a lively discussion which included, for example, m ention of
the sparsity of population in the Finnish-speaking areas and its possible effect
on m ental health.24 At this tim e eugenic ideas were still o f greater interest to
Swedish speakers than to Finnish-speaking people.
It was, however, only som e years later, after the publication of the reports of
th e C o n g ress o f F am ily R esearch in G iessen in 1912 a n d th e E ugenics
Conference held in L ondon, th at expressions o f racial differences from the
medical point of view arose again. In the same year Georg von W endt wrote a
bo o k , “V ara p lik te r m o t k o m m a n d e slaktled. N ag ra g ru n d d ra g u r den
allm anna rashygienen” (O u r duty to the future generations. Some principles of
general eugenics), in w hich he joined battle with “racially harm ful” elements.25
This w ork was translated into Finnish the same year and it was published in
the Ajankysymyksia series. In his forew ord von W endt stated that “The aim of
this booklet is to be an inspirer. Even if as a result of it only one single degener­
ate individual fewer is b o rn to suffer and to spread suffering to future genera­
tions, then the book will have fulfilled its given task.”26
O n 7 March 1912 the Ekonom iska Sam fundet i Finland gathered to hear a
lecture by Professor A lbert Palmberg on the social and national consequences
o f the current birthrate and rates o f infant mortality. In line with the spirit of
the tim es he also discussed eugenic m easures even though the m ain emphasis
o f his talk was on efforts to lower infant mortality. Palmberg held the opinion
that “It would be fortunate for society if reproduction by idiots, alcoholics and
other degenerate people could be prevented.”27 Like colleagues in o ther coun­
tries at the beginning o f th e century, Palmberg, who had devoted his whole life
to the battle against epidem ic diseases an d the im provem ent o f hygiene, saw
the m entally ill, alcoholics, and people w ith deviant behavior as “degenerate.”
In 1913 Finns were given the o p portunity to hear a lecture by the Swedish
eugenicist Herm an L undborg, then a docent of psychiatry, on trends in eugen­
ics, in c o n n e c tio n w ith w hich he p re se n te d a re p o rt o n his genealogical
research projects.28
In the article “Rashygienen en sam hallsplikt” (Eugenics a social duty), pub­
lished in th e H ufvudstadsbladet on 11 January 1913, strong em phasis was
placed on the degeneration then apparent am ong civilized nations. For exam­
ple, in France, as first n atio n in Europe, the birthrate had fallen below the m or­
tality rates. “W hen this tren d coincides w ith the degeneration o f the people the
situation is m ore alarm ing. This is proved by the decrease in num bers o f men
fit for m ilitary service, th e inability o f m others to breastfeed their babies and
the increase in alcoholism and venereal diseases.”29
The article appealed to the intelligentsia o f Helsinki, asking them to take a
serious view o f eugenics an d not to consider it merely an “elegant epidemic,”
for “w hat do all our cultural achievements mean if they vanish with us and if
our heirs are no longer capable of m aintaining our standards because o f their
physical and psychological weaknesses?”
The idea of sterilization was discussed publicly at the 6th Nordic Conference
on the Welfare of the H andicapped in Helsinki in 1912. On that occasion the
Danish professor Keller, director of the Bregninge Institute for Idiots, suggested
using sterilization in the care of crim inals and “m orons.” At the same meeting
Dr. A lbert B jorkm an, th e n the m edical su p e rin te n d e n t o f the P itkaniem i
Central Institution, suggested the adoption of sterilization “for preventing the
ever increasing incidence o f m ental illnesses, feeblem indedness and m ental
degeneracy.” According to him this m easure should be applied to com m on
criminals, sexual crim inals, “idiots,” genuine epileptics, those long-term m en­
tally ill people who h ad been discharged from an in stitution and, finally, to
alcoholics who had been treated in institutions at least twice. The director of
the Perttula Reformatory, Edwin H edm an, had reached the same conclusions.
According to him society should be allowed the right and power to prevent the
continuation of a degenerate line and he considered sterilization as one effec­
tive m easure.30
Both Albert B jorkm an and Edvin H edm an were accustom ed to following
the international debate. H edm an had also actively participated in Nordic con­
gresses on the treatm ent o f m ental illness and Bjorkm an had studied theoreti­
cal psychiatry extensively in Germany, Switzerland, France, Great Britain, and
Sweden.31
 At a m eeting of the T urku Medical Association on 25 O ctober 1913, Dr.
Strahle suggested that m o d ern eugenics should be included in the topics for
debate at the general sym posium o f m edical practitioners to be held later that
same year. It was considered im p o rta n t to dissem inate in form ation on the
reasons for degeneration a n d possible preventive m easures.32 At th eir next
m eeting the association decided to propose the incorporation o f the them e
in to th e a g e n d a .33 T his s y m p o siu m o f th e F in n ish M edical A ssociation
debated the issue in 1913 an d su p p o rted the idea, though it felt unable to
take any initiative over the fo undation o f an association for racial biology.34
Kalle V aananen, a teacher o f natural sciences, published the first popular,
extensive c o m m e n ta ry b y a F in n ish speaker on th e need fo r eugenics—
“Periytym inen ja ihm issuvun jalostam inen” (H eredity and the cultivation of
the hu m an race by breeding), which came o u t in 1916. The book was based
o n a lecture series given a t th e H elsinki W orkers In stitute in th e previous
year. As his sources V aananen used “H eredity in relation to Eugenics” by
Charles B. D avenport; “P aren th o o d and R aceculture” by Caleb W. Saleeby;
“Fortpflanzung, V ererbung, Rassenhygiene” by M ax von G ruber and Ernst
R iidin; “V ererbung u n d A uslese im L eb en slau f der V o lk er” by W ilhelm
Schallmayer, and “Rasbiologi och rashygien” by H erm an Lundborg.
V aan an en began by discussing th e influence o f D arw in’s Origin o f the
Species, th e n in tro d u c e d th e M en d elian laws, d iscussed th e b re e d in g o f
plants and animals, and m oved to a discussion o f hum an beings in the light
o f genetics. He explored physical qualities, the heredity o f m ental abilities,
illnesses, m alform ations, crim inality, and alcoholism , and ou tlin ed the p ara­
site fam ilies o f the h u m an race, m arriages inside the family, degeneration
and the m ovem ent for racial im provem ent. O n these points he sought sup­
p o rt from G alto n an d o u tlin e d th e genealogical research o f D av en p o rt.
V aananen adopted a clear view in su p p o rt o f negative racial im provem ent:
“It is w rong, and even crim inal, to allow such people w ho have those heredi­
tary qualities harm ful to th e race, to produce children. For the only way to
elim in ate these deficiencies is to p rev en t re p ro d u c tio n by such people.”
Equally “h arm ful to the race” an d to society were hereditary diseases such as
idiocy, epilepsy, venereal diseases, deaf-m utism , as well as crim inality and
alcoholism .35 As a so lu tio n he suggested tw o m easures: lifelong isolation,
either in p riso n or in hospital, and sterilization. V aananen encouraged the
use o f these m ethods sim ultaneously according to circum stances, em phasiz­
ing the good results achieved in Sw itzerland and in the U nited States by the
use o f sterilization. He also appealed to th e general public n o t to accept the
m arriage o f physically o r m entally disabled people. O n the o th er han d he
rejected the very idea th a t p o o r and rich people form two different types of
h u m an beings. Like m an y earlier developers o f eugenics,36 V aananen also
took a stand for an im provem ent in the conditions o f the w orking class. In
line w ith the spirit o f th e tim e— and o f Lundborg— V aananen valued condi­
tio n s in th e c o u n try sid e m uch m ore highly th a n th o se in the tow ns. He
w a n te d to p re v e n t m ig r a tio n to th e to w n s by y o u n g c o u n tr y p eo p le .
Similarly, all physically an d m entally healthy and strong individuals should
be b o u n d m ore closely to their own lan d .37 Finally, V aananen suggested that
an aw ard should be given to all families w ith m ore th a n four or five chil­
dren, proposing th a t a tax should be levied on those w ith only one or two
children.
All this may d em o n strate the variety o f levels at w hich the m ovem ent for
racial im provem ent was perceived in Finland in the 1910s. It m eant “faith in
the fu tu re o f a healthy, stro n g and h ap p y h u m a n race an d w ork in those
term s for future generations.”38 The qualitative im provem ent o f the people
was referred to in several ways, for example, in connection w ith organizing
gym nastics and athletic societies and the tem perance m ovem ent.39 Taavetti
Laitinen w rote a “table o f co m m an d m en ts” for in stru ctio n m aterial called
“Alcoholism and heredity,” which was distributed by the Valistus Association.
It m ay n o t have b e e n m e re c o in c id e n c e th a t in th e firs t issu e o f th e
Valkonauha, a C h ristian m agazine for w om en concerned w ith questions of
m orals and published by Suom en V alkonauhaliitto, the first page was allo­
cated to an article by L. Leidenius, “A little about eugenics.”40 (Later on, the
same association fought against m oral corru p tio n , for exam ple, by attacking
film program s and d em anding censorship.)
The picture th at em erges in Finland durin g the 1910s shows that the m ost
active supporters o f eugenics and sterilization were the chief m edical officers
o f the m ental asylum s, th e directors o f reform atories, and those responsible
for child welfare, alth o u g h som e representatives o f the tem perance m ove­
m ent, such as Taavetti Laitinen, were also involved.

R a cia l Campaign among Swedish-speaking People in the 1920 s

S a m fu n d e t Folkhdlsan i Svenska F inland

In an independent Finland the eugenics m ovem ent received its first sup­
p o rt from the Swedish-speaking doctors an d population. The key figure was
H arry Federley and th e key association, the Sam fundet Folkhalsan i Svenska
F inland (A ssociation o f public health in S w edish-speaking F inland). This
association, which is described as a “Eugenic Society” in D avenport’s papers,
was e sta b lish e d in 1921 to p ro m o te p u b lic h e a lth in S w ed ish-speaking
Finland. Yet eugenic w ork had already been adopted by its forerunner, the
Florinska K om m issionen, w hich had p ro m o te d scientific research on the
m ental an d physical health o f the Swedish-speaking m inority as well as on the
circum stances affecting it.
The S am fu n d et Folkhalsan i Svenska F in lan d em b ark ed on a battle to
m aintain the num ber and quality of the Swedish-speaking part of the Finnish
population. This group felt that its opponents were not only the “blind forces
o f n a tu re ” b u t also the “prim itive n atio n alism ” favored, it believed, by the
Finnish-speaking part o f the population. T he supporters o f the association
consequently adopted the catch phrase, “D et far ej finnas daliga svenskar i
d e tta l a n d ” (T h e re m u s t be no b a d S w ed ish m e n a n d w o m e n in th is
country).41
Following Finnish independence the relative status o f the Swedish-speaking
part o f the population declined. The 1920s were characterized by attem pts to
entrench earlier positions, and the fear o f a deterioration in the share and qual­
ity o f the Swedish-speaking part of the population stim ulated ideas o f racial
hygiene and involved com parisons with the Finnish speakers.
In his article, “Eugenic work in Swedish Finland,” the first chairm an o f the
Sam fundet Folkhalsan i Svenska Finland, Professor Ossian Schauman, claimed:

Finland is inhabited by two different races(not races, people}, the Finnish and the
Swedish. The population o f Swedish origin am ounts at present to 370,000 souls,
thus constituting only 11.5 per cent of the whole population. A bout 10 per cent of
the Swedes are spread in small colonies am ong the Finnish population, while 90
per cent inhabit certain stretches of land along the coast and a m ajor part of the
archipelago. The whole area of Swedish settlements am ounts to 15,000 square kilo­
metres or to 4.5 per cent o f the whole surface o f Finland.

Schaum an m ade his case as follows: “The Swedish culture is o f a considerably

older date than the Finnish. Only 50 or 60 years ago governm ent officials were
still m ostly recruited from the ranks of th e Swedish population. Lately, thanks
to intense Finnish propaganda, an ever increasing num ber o f Finnish schools
have been founded and the Finnish educated classes are steadily increasing in
number.” The battle for m aintaining the privileges o f this m inority in an inde­
pendent Finland involved the publishing o f studies o f the Swedish-speaking
p a rt o f th e p o p u la tio n , th e provision o f statistics on th e d istrib u tio n o f
sc h o o lin g a n d tra in in g places, an d in f o r m a tio n o n th e lo c a tio n o f th e
Swedish-speaking population in the various provinces o f the country. Already
in 1921 it had been noted th at at the University o f Helsinki there were 2,602
Finnish-speaking students and only 666 Swedish-speaking students. Similarly
it was p o in ted o u t th at the university w hich used only Swedish in its teaching,
Abo A kadem i, had taken in only 140 students.42 The Swedish speakers wanted
especially to m aintain their position in the towns. It was claim ed th at in 1930
the percentage o f Swedish speakers living in tow ns was 35.4 percent whereas
only 16.4 percent o f the Finnish-speaking p o p u lation were tow nspeople. It
was p a rt o f their case that the Swedish-speaking population w ished to live in
tow ns and form ed an im p o rtan t p a rt o f the upp er class. This was supported
by educational statistics w hich show ed th at, in 1930, the p ro p o rtio n o f the
Swedish-speaking population w ith m ore th a n elem entary education was 16.1
percent com pared to 5.3 percent for Finnish-speaking people.43 W ith the same
keen in te re s t th e Sw edish sp eak ers also m o n ito re d th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f
b irth ra te s in various p arts o f F inland. In general it was observed th a t the
birth rate was decreasing in the southern provinces and was increasing steadily
tow ard the eastern areas.
B oth O ssian S ch au m an , first c h a irm a n o f th e a sso ciatio n , and H a rry
Federley, its secretary, had close contacts w ith Lundborg and Rasbiologiska
Institutet. Like his Nordic colleagues, Ossian Schauman was also interested in
the tem p eran ce m ovem ent. The S am fundet h ad its own publication and a
n u m b e r o f b ran ch es, for exam ple, in E spoo a n d K irkkonum m i. Eugenic
instruction had been pioneered, however, by the Florinska K ommissionen of
Svenska L itte ra tu rsa llsk a p et i F in la n d (th e Swedish L iteratu re Society in
Finland), which had begun this w ork am ong the Swedish-speaking part o f the
Finnish population in 1912.
In 1911 the Swedish Literature Society received a donation from Miss Jenny
Florin, w hich was used to establish the Pehr U lrik Florin Foundation and, on
13 Ja n u a ry 1912, th e F lorinska K o m m issio n en o f the Sw edish L iterature
Society. Later donations facilitated practical measures by the institution. Thus,
for example, funds donated by the C aptain Bertel Paulig Foundation were used
for special awards for m others from 1919 onward. A donation by the heirs of
W ilhelm Schaum an, counselor of m ining, facilitated the carrying out o f a spe­
cial inform ation campaign in hygiene and the Sam fundet Folkhalsan i Svenska
Finland was able to establish two new sections, one for research and the other
for practical hygiene. D uring the 1920s m uch emphasis was placed in particu­
lar on the activities of the latter section.44
In practice the Sam fundet at first adopted a policy of positive eugenics. As
early as th e 1920s th is com m ission established a total o f eighteen district
nurses’ posts in the country. The district nurses were to work in the Swedish­
speaking areas and one o f their m ain tasks was to instruct the population on
the significance o f eugenics in m atters related to perso n al, dom estic, and
school hygiene. The fu rth er training o f the Folkhalsan district nurses included
lectures on eugenics.45 Special atte n tio n was paid to tem perance w ork and
cam p aig n in g against tu b ercu lo sis. T he association also d istrib u te d som e
60,000 posters, “O u r Ten C om m andm ents,” which encouraged the Swedish­
speaking population o f Finland to display a sense o f responsibility and racial
awareness. By means o f courses and practical advice, expectant m others were
to be instructed in rational childcare and nursing as well as in general hygiene.
Lessons on health care were arranged in elementary schools, pupils were exam­
ined, and homes visited.46
P articular em phasis was placed o n the im pact o f hereditary factors, not
only o n the individual b u t also on the whole o f the p o p u la tio n and its future
developm ent. A special advisory clinic for h e red itary m a tte rs was esta b ­
lished in Helsinki. Eugenic propaganda ( rashygienisk propaganda) was con­
sidered to be especially im p o rta n t and at the same tim e a difficult topic to
teach. In Finland the teaching o f eugenics was th o u g h t to be m ore successful
in the countryside th a n in the towns. After all, co u n try people were by defi­
n itio n dealing w ith anim als! O n th e o th e r h an d , it was discovered th a t
eugenic theories were unappealing to educated people w ith a background in
the hum anities.

A w ards fo r M o thers

M ore efficient than instructional program s in prom oting eugenics were the
aw ards to m o th ers a lre a d y in tro d u c e d by th e F lo rin sk a K om m issionen.
According to the rules o f Sam fundet Folkhalsan i Svenska Finland, in order to
qualify for an award, the m other had to belong to “the Swedish tribe,” she and
her husband had to be from healthy Swedish parents, and they had to have at
least four children betw een four and seventeen years old w ho were mentally
and physically healthy, well-groom ed, and full of vitality. In the course o f eight
years, from 1920 to 1928, a total o f 601 m others were indeed awarded a special
diplom a and 211 m o th ers received a m onetary rew ard.47 Table 1 shows the
regional distribution o f awards from 1920-25.
 Table 1. Awards for Women
Province Year Applications Awarded by Awarded by
Diploma Diploma and
Monetary Rewarc

Turku 1920 115 16 11 (500 FMK)

Uusim aa 1921 379 139 48 (500 FMK)
O strobothnia 1922 385 231 47 (500 FMK)
Aland Islands 1923 — 86* —
Turku 1925 83 42 28 (800 FMK)
Total 962 514 134

Source: Harry Federley, “Beloningar for beromlig modersgarning,’’ Barn och Ungdon
Nordisk socialpedagogisk tidskrift (1926): 5-6.
* Some of these also received money.

In several o f his articles H a rry Federley m a in ta in ed th a t th e basic idea

behind the awards to m others was eugenic, expressing this particularly clearly,
fo r e x a m p le , in th e p ie c e h e w ro te fo r th e A rch iv f u r R a ssen - un d
Gesellschaftsbiologie.4S It was m ade clear that the Sam fundet w anted to offer
encouragem ent only to the best of the Swedish-speaking families in Finland,
those who had able people to give to the fatherland. It was em phasized that the
association was not concerned w ith helping poor or large families b u t that its
aim was to give encouragem ent to the best in their attem pts to move forward.
Such people were a great asset. The social status o f the award w inner was not a
relevant factor but only her biological and social capacity (duglighet).
Federley adm itted, however, that “it is not possible to follow all regulations
to the letter for it would require an anthropological study to be done before­
hand. It is in any case obvious that because the East Baltic and Nordic races
have lived next to each oth er for hundreds of years this m ust have resulted in
racial m ixtures which are now difficult to trace.” Therefore, “belonging to the
Swedish tribe” indicated merely that the Swedish-speaking Finns had linguistic
and cultural rather than racial ties.49
The condition in the regulations that the parents should be m em bers of
healthy families was intended to open people’s eyes to just how im portant the
choice o f the rig h t spouse actually was. The best patrim o n y a child could
acquire was a good genotype. The stipulation o f a m inim um o f four children
was directly aim ed at pro m o tin g the survival o f the Swedish-speaking parts of
the popu latio n in as large a nu m b er as possible. Clerical fam ilies who had
 produced m any o f the great m en in the N ordic countries were m entioned as a
reference group.50
Federley spoke o f a eugenic awakening. For him the well-being o f a country
was dependent on the nature o f its population. “N othing can be achieved if its
genotype is b a d ” and “Those people have a great responsibility w ho amid their
well-being do not think about tom orrow b u t only o f this m om ent— when it is
a question o f the future o f the nation.” It was m ore im portant to take care of
the quality and health o f the future generations than to look after the sick, fee­
blem inded, and im m oral people.51
The em ergence am ong the Swedish speakers o f a strong eugenics move­
m ent is partly explained by the close connections th at the leaders o f the move­
m ent still had w ith the other Nordic countries. Already, for linguistic reasons,
the Scandinavians form ed a reference group. In earlier research papers the rise
and influence o f the Swedish nationalist m o vem ent in the 1920s have also
been emphasized, as well as the nationalism especially evident am ong univer­
sity students.52
In his article, “Det sjunkande fodelsetalet ett varningstecken” (The decreas­
ing population, a warning sign), for example, Federley presented a table which
showed that there was an alarm ing decrease in the birthrate am ong Swedish-
speakers and especially am ong their upper social classes. The decrease in the
birthrate was greater in the Swedish-speaking areas than in areas where Finnish
was m ainly spoken. W hat was lost in quantity needed to be com pensated for by
improved quality.53
Positive eugenics enjoyed extensive su p p o rt am ong the Swedish-speaking
part o f the population. “A people with a strong sense of race survive better in
the fight for existence,” claimed Lars Ringbom, w ho even employed the con­
cept o f “a racial instinct” (rasinstinkt). The eugenic way o f thinking gave sup­
p o rt in this struggle for existence. Eugenics was considered a cultural trend
which would save the nation, or part o f it, from degeneration. Ringbom was in
favor o f m arriage guidance and family planning services as well as the segrega­
tion o f mentally retarded o r “degenerate” people in labor camps ( tydsiirtola).
In the early 1920s the tim e was n o t considered ripe for the establishm ent of a
system o f com pulsory sterilization.54 In 1923 Federley reported on the new
marriage legislation in Sweden which prohibited the marriages o f those suffer­
ing from venereal diseases or epilepsy, and he also welcomed a m otion on ster­
ilization presented to the Swedish Parliament. The m ost im portant thing was
the awakening o f the population to a eugenic way o f thinking.55
This p ro m o tio n o f eugenics on the p a rt o f the S am fundet Folkhalsan i
Svenska Finland belongs, at this stage, to so-called positive eugenics, and its
p ro p a g a n d a w ork can be co m p ared w ith th a t o f th e Eugenic S ociety in
London.

H a rry Federley: Pioneer in the Swedish-speaking Eugenics M o vem en t

The m ost im portant Finnish representative of the eugenic way o f thinking

w as S w e d is h -s p e a k in g H a r r y F e d e rle y (1 8 7 9 -1 9 5 1 ), s e c re ta ry o f th e
S am fu n d et Folkhalsan i Svenska F inland. Born in V iipuri in 1879, he had
from an early age becom e familiar in his ow n home w ith Swedish-Finnish cul­
tural trad itio n s and displayed a keen interest in the arts and sciences. In 1896
he enrolled in the U niversity of H elsinki, joined the Swedish section o f the
U usim aa Student N ation, and began to study his chosen subject, biology. His
first publication dealt w ith botany. Later o n he diverged into zoology, p artic u ­
larly lepidopterology, and published his dissertation on butterflies in 1907. By
th e n he already had so m e n o tio n o f th e significance o f chrom osom es in
heredity, an idea which he h ad come across when researching the relationship
o f chrom osom es in the bastards o f butterfly genera. His extensive treatise on
th e c h ro m o so m a l re la tio n s h ip s in th e s e species’ h y b rid s, e n title d “ Das
V erhalten d er C h rom osom en bei der Sperm atogenese Pygaera anachoreta,
curtula and pigra sowie einiger ihrer Bastarde,” appeared in 1913. This classic
study was published in the leading genetics journal o f the time, Zeitschrift fu r
induktive Abstammungs- und Vererbungslehre, and its im portance was soon
realized wherever genetics were studied.
Federley’s research findings created great interest in the world o f science.
Such m en as the Danish geneticist Johannsen wrote o f “the brilliant research
w ork ” o f Federley an d in 1912 he was invited to becom e secretary o f the
Finnish Academy of Sciences. In 1909 he h ad already been appointed reader in
zoology b u t exchanged this post in 1915 for the readership in genetics, which
had been introduced as a new discipline into Helsinki University’s curriculum ,
and h eld the chair o f genetics from 1923. The research o f the d e p a rtm e n t
focused on chrom osom es. Federley continued his studies o f lepidopteran cyto­
genetics b u t he was also active in other areas of genetics including the role o f
heredity in hum an welfare.56 .
Federley m a in ta in e d close co n tacts w ith a great n u m b e r o f scien tists,
Swedish and German in particular. C orresponding w ith hundreds of them , he
had to m ake 300 offprints o f his articles. Between 1916 and 1919 Federley
stayed in Stockholm w ith the support o f a Rosenberg traveling grant and from
Septem ber 1929 to January 1930 he w orked in Berlin in the laboratories o f
P rofessor R ichard G o ld sch m id t in th e Kaiser W ilhelm In stitu t. The w ide
Nordic contacts Federley had m ade manifested themselves when he was invited
to b e a m e m b e r o f th e A cad em y o f S cien ce in S to c k h o lm , O slo , an d
Copenhagen. In the field o f eugenics he made a notable career as secretary of
the Sam fundet Folkhalsan i Svenska Finland and as its chairm an from 1937 on.
H arry Federley also becam e a popularizer o f eugenic ideas and genetics, and
being a staunch believer in popular education, he was not only a m em ber of
the board o f the Finnish Red Cross b u t also got involved in the w ork o f such
organizations as the Svenska Folkskolans Vanner (Friends of Swedish elem en­
ta ry schools) and th e D ele g a tio n e n fo r Svenska L ite ratu re n s F ram ja n d e
(Delegation for prom oting Swedish literature).
F ederley was m o st a n x io u s a b o u t th e c u rre n t state an d fu tu re o f the
Swedish-speaking p art o f the population, and the ideas he p u t forw ard were
the sam e as those o f his E uro p ean colleagues, such as his frien d H erm an
Lundborg. As has been noted earlier, he did not approve of the sharp decrease
in the birthrate, especially am ong the upper social classes. Federley was also
concerned over degeneration in general. Environm ental factors were secondary
w hen com pared to h ered itary characteristics. If one co n cen trated only on
im proving environm ental circum stances, no perm anent im provem ent would
be achieved. One would only be able to make an im pact in each particular gen­
eration while the choosing o f parents would be m ost im portant for future gen­
e r a tio n s .57 Like H e rm a n L u n d b o rg he also b eliev ed th a t th e risk from
hereditary conditions was greater in cities. Federley thought that a healthier
population stock existed in the countryside, but according to him this healthy
rural population was no longer sufficient to revitalize the u rban population
because the resources o f th e countryside h ad been exhausted. Particularly
alarm ing, in his opinion, was the fact that the poorer strata o f the population
had the largest families.
As early as 1926 Federley suggested that because marriage counseling and
propaganda had proven ineffective, special segregation or sterilization measures
should be considered for those with an “inferior” genetic inheritance. As a m em ­
ber of the state committee on sterilization he returned to these issues in 1927.
In his article, “Degenerations faran och dess aw arjande sterilisation” (Risk
o f degeneration and its rem oval by sterilization), in the same year, Federley
debated w hether the n otion o f sterilization was alien to the W estern concept of
justice. Nevertheless, he believed th at only w ith a law allowing com pulsory
sterilization could real results be achieved. Such a measure alone could have a
positive im pact in the fight against degeneration.58
Federley keenly followed developments in the United States, Sweden, Norway,
and D enm ark, and he was interested in the in stitutes o f eugenics and the
re se a rc h c a rrie d o u t in th e m . H e also c o r r e s p o n d e d w ith th e le a d in g
S candinavian rep resen tativ es o f th e eugenics m o v em en t, such as H erm an
Lundborg and Jon Alfred Mjoen, w ho were the central contact figures in the
Nordic countries. He corresponded extensively with the Norwegian O tto Lous
Mohr, mainly on genetics research, and similarly with Charles Davenport in the
United States.59 After W orld War II M ohr especially seems to have confided in
Federley when criticizing the representatives o f the G erm an eugenics movement.
In Federley’s in tern atio n al com m unications eugenics played only a small
part. Thus the correspondence with Alfred Ploetz, for example, dealt almost
entirely w ith the concerns of lepidopterists, and in the correspondence with
Fritz Lenz eugenics was m entioned only on three occasions— when Lenz is rec­
o m m e n d in g to F e d e rle y th e b o o k “ D ie b io lo g is c h e n G ru n d la g e n d e r
Rasenhygiene” by Siem ens,60 when he m entions the popularity o f a book by
Baur Fischer and Lenz on which he asks Federley to com m ent, and when he
invites Federley to contribute to a festschrift in h o n o r o f Alfred Ploetz.61 In a
1924 letter to Federley, Fritz Lenz expressed his reservations about the activities
o f both Lundborg an d M joen, but at the same tim e he seemed to believe the
m ovem ent for racial hygiene (die rassenhygienische Bexvegung) was becoming
m ore scientific.62
Federley also v isited th e Eugenics In stitu te in U ppsala, Sweden, where
H erm an Lundborg was director, and gave lectures on such issues as criminality
and the study o f twins. Like M joen and Lundborg, he focused his attention on
alcoholism and crim inality.
As his leitm otif Federley m aintained that it was n o t the external circum ­
stances o f a nation but the inner vitality which decided its future development:
A healthy people full o f vitality cannot be destroyed by violent catastrophes or
plagues, b u t will survive however bad th e external circum stances may be.
T herefore, all possible defects h arm fu l to the h u m a n race and influencing
heredity should be eradicated.63
H arry Federley was a serious scientist. He was also a good lecturer who
a ttra c te d h a n d so m e audien ces, co n sid erin g the sm all to tal o f stu d en ts at
Helsinki University in th e 1920s and 1930s. Thus his lectures on general genet­
ics were followed by eight to tw enty-three students an d his first lecture course
on hum an genetics drew an audience o f forty-two.64
D uring the 1920s an d 1930s, any interest in eugenics am ong the medical
profession was slight a n d thus little public criticism em erged with respect to
the eugenic writings w hich he published frequently in the late 1920s and the
first half o f the following decade. At the beginning o f the 1930s, Federley had
to refute prejudices related to eugenics as a m ethod o f prom oting the advance
o f one certain race, b u t it was only during the preparation o f the Sterilization
Act and after the enactm ent o f this law that his ideas m et som e opposition.
A m ong Finnish scientists Federley m aintained close contacts with those study­
ing criminality, such as Veli Verkko, professor o f criminology, statisticians such
as Ernst Lindelof, an d psychologists such as Arvo Lehtovaara.65
In the 1940s, w hen Federley was chairm an o f the Sam fundet Folkhalsan i
Svenska Finland, the activities o f this association expanded. W ith the aid o f a
bequest from O ssian Schaum an, an Institute for Research on H eredity was
established in connection with an institute for training childrens nurses, also
founded by the association. According to Federley, this new institute would
strengthen the links w ith Scandinavia.66
To summarize, eugenic ideas first gained support from the Swedish-speak­
ing Finns in the 1910s, for from th a t point on, such ideas fitted well into a
cam p aig n , stead ily g ain in g in m o m e n tu m , w h ich aim ed a t m ain ta in in g
Swedishness in Finland.67 In 1923, in his article “Rashygieniska syften och m al”
(Racial hygienic aim s and objectives), Lars Ringbom reproached the Finnish­
speaking part o f the population for their indifference tow ard eugenic ques­
tions. According to him , Finnish speakers were interested only in the num bers
o f th e popu latio n a n d n o t in its quality. He also claim ed th a t th e Finnish
sp eak ers’ “racial s e n se ” was in c o n tra st to th a t o f th e Swedish speakers.
Ringbom felt that the conflicts over language were about to damage the future
o f the whole nation.68
O ne may speculate on the reasons for this reluctance on the part o f the
Finnish speaking p a rt o f the population to adopt eugenic ideas. One explana­
tion may be that the Finnish-speakers were, at that tim e, m uch engaged in the
establishm ent of a national identity and in refuting the racial prejudices shown
tow ard Finnish people at the international level.

E u g en ic T h in kin g am ong F innish s p e a k e r s in th e 1 9 2 0 s

People in F inland followed in ten tly the establishm ent o f the Institute o f
Racial Biology in Sweden; for example, an article on this event was included in
Suomen laakixriseuran julkaisuja published by the Finnish Medical Association
in 1921.69 In the same year, on 31 July, Helsingin Sanom at featured an introduc­
tory article, “C oncerning Eugenics,” which described various kinds o f eugenic
measures in different countries. The author of this article considered the theme
topical because th e Swedish Parliam ent had recently decided to establish the
first national institution for racial research and m entioned that there had been
voices in Finland dem anding legislative action to prevent racial degeneration.70
The next year a fascinating exchange of opinions was published in the h um or­
ous colum n o f the Finnish-speaking journalist Tiitus (pseudonym) concerning
the racial p u rity o f Swedish people, o r w hat one bu sin essm an in Sweden
thought about him self and about others. Tiitus gave a sum m ary o f an article
published in the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter, which disapproved o f mixed
m arriages contracted by Swedes, especially with Germans, on the grounds that
in northern Germany there existed a racial m ixture o f Slavs, Celts, and Jews!71
In the 1920s the term “eugenics” began to appear from tim e to tim e in
Finnish public discussion. For example, during the debate on the prohibition
o f w o m en ’s n ig h t w o rk in 1927-28, an article was p u b lish ed in Helsingin
Sanom at w ith the headline, “T he issue o f the p rohibition o f w om en’s night
w ork in industry. Sooner or later this eugenic measure m ust be undertaken.”
Behind these sentim ents one can discern opinions expressed in L undborg’s
writings about industry. At that tim e there was an assum ption that night work
was unsuitable for w om en for eugenic reasons. According to some eugenicists,
factory w ork was b o u n d to lead to debauchery and hedonism . In addition to
the new set of values appearing in factories, it was feared that this w ork would
have adverse effects on m o th erh o o d .72
In the same year eugenic writings appeared in connection with the civil ser­
vants’ salary question. O n 7 Septem ber 1928 Vilho Annala, professor of eco­
nom ics, w rote an article w ith the headline, “The present paym ent o f civil
servants and the degeneration o f the race,” suggesting the consequences to
which the planned reduction o f civil servants’ salaries m ight lead. The author
claimed that civil servants were the elite o f the nation. They included the most
mentally alert, industrious and decent people who had been able to p u t their
children through secondary schools and universities. T heir children would
then in due course becom e civil servants. According to him it was sad that civil
servants’ families would have to rem ain small for economic reasons. “W ho can
g u a ra n te e th a t th o se u n b o r n b ecau se o f c irc u m stan c es w o u ld n o t have
included som e Snellm ans, Kivis and N obel-prize winners? For it has to be
rem em b ered th a t for th e F in n ish -sp eak in g elem ent o f th e p o p u la tio n an
opportu n ity has arisen, for the first tim e in its history, to build up a notew or­
thy intellectual culture over two successive generations.”73

T he Q u estio n o f S ter iliza tio n

At the joint m eeting of the Finnish Association o f Lawyers and the Finnish
Medical Association D uodecim in April 1921, Professor Allan Serlachius sug­
gested that persons congenitally retarded should be prevented from reproducing.
He would not, however, wish these measures to be applied to other groups of
people. At a public meeting on the welfare of “morons,” held in Helsinki in June
1925, th e d ire c to r o f th e D e p a rtm e n t o f C h ild W elfare, B aron A dolf von
Bonsdorff, introduced a debate on their welfare in Finland. In his speech he also
paid some attention to sterilization as a means o f combating mental retardation,
defending the idea o f making sterilization legal by reforming the relevant acts.
He opined that even if the mentally retarded could not be eliminated by making
them artificially infertile, given that most of them had had healthy parents, the
effort should still be m ade to prevent them from bringing children into the
world. Von Bonsdorff suggested that the governm ent should appoint a com m it­
tee to investigate whether it w ould be desirable for an Act to be passed in Finland
allowing the sterilization o f “idiots” and epileptics for social and hum ane rea­
sons, and that if such a need were recognized a committee should produce pro­
posals for such a law. T he suggestions by th e in tro d u c to ry speaker were
unanim ously endorsed by other participants in the meeting.
In 1925 the Medical Association of Turku also discussed sterilization and
Dr. A lbert B jorkm an delivered the in tro d u cto ry address. He suggested that
there w ere a g reat n u m b e r o f m entally ill, re ta rd e d , and psychologically
“degenerate” individuals am ong the people o f Finland. According to him, this
state o f affairs was the underlying reason for financial losses, a num ber of
social problems, m oral deterioration, crimes, etc., which could not but have a
harm ful effect on the future development o f the nation. He took a stand for
both sterilization and segregation as well as institutionalization. The latter, he
estimated, w ould eventually become so expensive for society that any system of
isolation in institutions should be com plem ented with a sterilization program
for such persons “for w hom it would be desirable, provided it were applied
with due consideration.” Bjorkm an also included epileptics in the group in
question.74
By this tim e a considerable body of opinion had also come to favor the use
of sterilization in Finland. In his article “Social reform s which aim to improve
racial health,” published in the Sosiaalinen Aikakauskirja, Federley attem pted to
encourage the em ergence o f pro-sterilization attitudes by pointing out that
because researchers in genetics had been able to gather extensive genealogical
material, for example about psychological deficiencies, it was possible, on the
basis o f this data, to predict w ith considerable probability and in some cases
with full certainty, how the genes peculiar to these conditions would be inher­
ited. Appealing to his readers, Federley drew attention to a m otion already sub­
m itted to Parliam ent which w ould give doctors the right to sterilize m ental
patients, “idiots,” epileptics, and those sentenced for sexual offenses.75
 In th e 1920s the British Eugenic Society carried out an investigation into the
m easures o f sterilization u n d er p rep aratio n in different countries. From its
findings it can be concluded that the N ordic countries, the United States, and
Switzerland were well ahead o f the others. In Indiana, a sterilization act had
already passed in 1907, and in the N ordic countries the planning o f such a law
had reached quite an advanced stage by the 1920s.76
O n 15 April 1926 the Finnish governm ent appointed a com m ittee to p re­
pare a thorough report on w hether a law should be enacted in Finland to facili­
tate the sterilization o f the mentally retarded, the m entally ill, and epileptics,
on social an d hum ane g rounds. C o u n selo r o f Justice W alter A ndersin was
m ade chairm an and the m em bers were the chief medical officer of the Nickby
Lunatic Asylum, Counselor o f M edicine Edvard Johan Horelli; an assistant lec­
turer in th e departm ent o f surgery at th e Helsinki General Hospital, Dr. Arne
Johannes Palmen; and the extraordinary professor o f genetics, Federley. The
first secretary o f the com m ittee was a justice o f the co u rt o f appeal, Lauri
Woipio, w ho was followed, after his death, by Vilho Ebeling, another lawyer.
T he c o m m itte e p re p a re d a survey o f legislation co n cern in g th e m en tally
retarded, m entally ill, and epileptic in the United States, the Nordic countries,
and certain other parts o f Europe. It gathered statistical data on these groups in
Finland and in the course o f its work the com m ittee also invited expert o p in ­
ion o n th e necessity o f sterilizatio n fro m the chief m edical officers o f the
lunatic asylums and institutes for the m entally retarded. Those participating
included not only Finnish speakers and Swedish speakers but also those o f the
latter group who had Finnified their family names. All o f them supported the
main th ru st of the com m ittee’s proposals for legislation provided that the act
a d o p te d th e p rin cip le o f v o lu n ta ry a p p lic a tio n . An exception was A atos
Lehtonen, medical officer at the Lunatic Asylum of Turku Prison. In his view
antisocial psychopaths should be sterilized w ithout their own consent.77 O n
the o th e r hand, the chief m edical officer o f Pitkaniem i C entral In stitution,
Vaino Makela, took a very critical stand against some o f the argum ents for the
proposed bill. According to him , there was n o t enough research to prove the
hereditary elem ent o f schizophrenia, for example, and he proposed that m ore
funds be allocated to genealogical research on topics such as psychosis and
epilepsy.78
The com m ittee report was com pleted o n 4 May 1929 and it supported the
enactm ent o f an act o f sterilization.79 Sterilization should be carried out only
with the consent of the patient himself, however, or, if he was not legally com ­
petent, w ith the consent o f his guardian. It should be restricted to the mentally
retarded, to those with m ental illness or epilepsy, and to the congenitally deaf
and dum b. O n the other hand, criminality, alcoholism, and such behavior as
the misuse o f drugs should not in themselves be argum ents for sterilization,
nor should venereal diseases. In additio n to the racial, hygienic, and social
aims, hu m an advantages were also m entioned. For example, som eone who
might otherwise need to be confined to an institution could be discharged after
sterilization.
In the explanatory m em orandum o f the report, written by Federley, devel­
opm ents w ith regard to sterilization in different countries were described, as
were the causes of racial degeneration. Among these were included m ental ill­
ness, mentally retarded, and epilepsy as well as a predisposition to tuberculosis.
According to the com m ittee, a strong racial degeneration was taking place in
the W estern civilized w orld due to the decrease in the b irth rate am ong the
upper classes; while the proportionate share of the m ost able part o f the p o p u ­
lation was decreasing, the share o f the “inferior” p art was increasing.
The explanatory m em orandum continued, “It hardly needs to be said that
hum an genetic inheritances are different in value. Idiots are nothing b u t a b u r­
den to society and cannot w ork in any way for its benefit, while the mentally
handicapped and criminals can in certain circumstances even endanger soci­
ety’s existence and the developm ent o f its wealth. Thus caring for the progress
o f m ankind rem ains the task o f the gifted and diligent. A m ong the various
races and nations these different groups are not, however, represented in equal
proportions. In general talented individuals do not emerge as readily among
the Negroid races as am ong the w hite races, while, on the other han d the per­
centage incidence of m ental illnesses and feeblemindedness is m uch smaller
am ong the black races.”
The com m ittee also collected Finnish material. It estimated that the num ber
o f m entally ill was some 14,000, the mentally retarded 10,000, and epileptics
3,000. It also collected inform ation on these same groups under the care of the
M inistry o f Social Affairs. The com m ittee inquired how m any o u t o f these
groups were inclined to have sexual intercourse and how m any were therefore
kept in hospital, old people’s hom es, or u n d er supervision w ith in a private
family. Above all, the m em bers o f the com m ittee paid attention to women,
inquiring how many of those belonging to the aforem entioned groups had ille­
gitim ate children, how m any o f such children there were and how m any o f
them had shown sym ptom s o f m ental illness. Replies were received from 529
rural and urban com m unes, the total population o f which was 2,977,413 (the
population of Finland at that tim e was 3,558,000).
The com m ittee envisaged two types o f m easures for checking undesirable
developments. Positive action w ould involve persuading the “best individuals”
to stop lim iting the n u m b e r of their children while negative measures would be
aim ed at preventing b irth s to “inferior individuals.”
The com m ittee’s re p o rt is o f interest for two reasons. It conveyed, with
ex p e rtly ch o sen e x a m p le s, th e latest k n o w led g e o n m ed ical c o n d itio n s
assum ed to be congenital, as well as their incidence in Finland. Its expertise
proved convincing to th e medical profession, m any m em bers o f which had
p rio r know ledge o f eug en ics derived fro m congresses a n d foreign travel.
Federley also received su p p o rt from N ordic colleagues.80
The detailed descriptions of degenerate families contained in the report, and
the accounts o f the m entally retarded being looked after by local authorities con­
vinced public opinion o f the need for sterilization. Following are some examples
of the case studies collected by the comm ittee in which sterilization was held to
be justified for genetic reasons. These were im portant because they were used in
the effort to p u t pressure on local authorities as they m ade decisions. In all,
twenty cases were described of which eleven were w om en and nine were men.
These included not only housemaids but also people w ho lacked any occupation
or any proper trade (the widow of a laborer, for example, as well as an unskilled
worker, a m an born o u t o f wedlock, a tinker, the ward o f a local authority, the
daughter of a butcher, an elderly woman, etc.). It is significant that these exam­
ples do not include representatives of any o f the professions or higher occupa­
tions— this was also the case in the mid-1930s, even though Finnish advocates of
sterilization had emphasized that any application of the Sterilization Act did not
involve considerations o f social class or financial background.

S. R. imbecile, tw enty-seven-year-old daughter o f a butcher; peaceful, could be

nursed in freedom at h om e were it not for her eagerness for sexual intercourse;
therefore recently she had been cared for in a district lunatic asylum; at home, gave
birth to an illegitimate child.
H. F. imbecile, tw enty-one-year-old illegitimate man; as a child ill-mannered
and violent, had been nursed for six years in the Perttula R eform atory for Idiots,
currendy totally calm an d docile; had particularly strong sexuality and, to satisfy it,
had also practised bestiality.
E. S. imbecile, thirty-year-old housem aid, calm, fit to work, had had seven ille­
gitim ate children of w hom five were conceived by her m entally ill father; one of the
children was an idiot, tw o were dead and the rest so young th a t their mental condi­
tion could not yet be estim ated.
J. M. imbecile w om an w ithout occupation, m other had been o f dubious reputa­
tion and odd, the patient had six children all o f them idiots and m aintained by the
local authorities.
 N. N. middle-aged insane m an, who believed he would be cured of his illness if
he were allowed to have sexual intercourse with a virgin or a pregnant woman.
M. L. elderly epileptic w om an with three illegitimate daughters, the eldest of
whom had one and the youngest, three illegitimate children, both of w hom were
again pregnant at the tim e o f reporting.81

These cases were frequently quoted in speeches and in the press. They were
the m ain in stru m en t used in the justification o f sterilization and in all the
attem pts to convince the public of the need for such measures.
The press reported extensively on the inform ation collected in the com m it­
tee report, according to which some 25-30 percent o f the mentally ill, mentally
retarded, an d epileptic in Finland were m aintained by po o r relief. Moreover, it
was claim ed th at the incom pleteness o f the data available possibly obscured
higher num bers and the costs associated w ith them .82
Subsequently, advisory opinions were solicited from the National Board of
Health, the N ational Board o f Prison A dm inistration, provincial governors, the
director o f th e Perttula In stitu te for F eeblem inded, the Inspectors o f Poor
Relief, and the Association for M ental Health. All these groups were already
actively involved in the issue o f sterilization. W ith the exception o f the gover­
nor of the Aland Islands, all those invited to provide an opinion adopted a pos­
itive stance tow ard the idea o f enacting a law on sterilization. The governor of
the Aland Islands, however, advocated a suspension o f the sterilization debate
until adequate inform ation could be gleaned from the application o f steriliza­
tion laws in other countries.83
The com m ittee’s report was m uch m ore cautious in its tone than the subse­
quent 1935 Sterilization Act; therefore, we m ust examine the factors that con­
tributed to the harshness o f that act.

The P u b lic D iscussion o f S te riliza tio n 1929-1935

The com m ittee report was carefully noted in the m ost im portant newspa­
pers, including the rig h t-w in g Uusi Suomi, th e A grarian Ilkka, th e Liberal
Helsingin Sanomat, and th e left-w ing Sosialisti. All gave the news the same
headline, “Statutory sterilization will not be supported. Person’s ow n proposal
or that o f the guardian m ust be required,” and no extensive debate materialized
in the pages o f the m ajor dailies though in the Tyoldis- ja talonpoikaisnaisten
lehti some attem pt was m ade to provoke public discussion on the related issue
o f abortion.84
 The com m ittee report did, however, cause discussion in other arenas. Einar
Book, an expert on social and w orking class issues, suggested in Huoltaja-lehti,
the organ o f m unicipal social welfare and private charity work, that the report
o f the Sterilization C om m ittee dealt only with one group o f measures for pre­
venting the degeneration o f the nation. He also raised the issue o f the need for
fu rth e r special institutions, p articularly for the m entally retarded. M any o f
those in need o f care were either w rongly placed in old people’s hom es or
becam e a burden on the p oor relief an d could not receive proper nursing or
training.85
The report of the Sterilization C om m ittee was also discussed in a num ber o f
professional journals. In m ost of the articles deep concern was expressed about
the increase in the num b er o f the insane and those w ith “inferior” genotypes.
G reater emphasis than ever before was placed on how expensive the care o f the
adults alone would be for the country.
A m em ber of the com m ittee, Edvard Johan Horelli, wrote a tw o-part article
on sterilization in Vankeinhoitolehti in which he suggested that in 1927 the city
o f H elsinki had incurred an expense o f eleven m illion m arks caring for the
insane, the mentally retarded, and the epileptic. He supported sterilization and
the provision of care in a closed in stitu tio n , along w ith a ban on m arriage,
because even in w ealthier countries it h ad not been possible, for reasons o f
cost, to p u t into effect a full policy o f institutional care.86 He emphasized that
the preco n d itio n for eugenic sterilization should be that the condition o f a
m entally ill person was the result of hereditary factors. Horelli was also ready
to adm it that the basis o f crim inality was an inferior com bination o f genes,
w hich m ad e in dividuals u nable to a d a p t them selves to the social o rd e r.87
A nother m em ber o f the com m ittee, A rne Johannes Palmen, then the editor o f
the professional medical journal, Duodecim, also wrote about the report in his
journal observing that race hygiene research was about to leave the realm of
theory and become a practical concern o f everyday life.88
D u r in g th is sam e p e rio d , a tte m p ts to e sta b lish s te riliz a tio n law s in
D enm ark, Sweden, and Norway were followed closely in Finland. The Danish
legislation forbidding the m arriage o f th e mentally retarded was considered an
exem plary m odel,89 and Danish proposals for a sterilization act were set out in
the Vankeinhoitolehti,90 w hile the Swedish Sterilization C om m ittee R eport,
re f e r r in g to th e Sociala M e d d e la n d e n p u b lic a tio n , w as in tr o d u c e d in
Sosiaalinen aikakauskirja.91 The com m ittee reports for Finland and Sweden
were sim ilar in nature. In both, a stand was taken on the principle that the leg­
islation should be based on voluntary action, i.e., the consent o f the patient or
his guardian should be required and th e m easure should not be carried out
before the individual in question had reached m arrying age. Thus in 1929 both
the Finnish and Swedish approaches still differed from the A m erican view
acco rd in g to w hich “a p erso n living in an o rd erly society m u st in m any
respects resign him self to restrictions o f freedom if they are necessary for soci­
ety as a whole.”92 Most of the press articles described in a colorful style the kind
o f cases that placed a burden on p o o r relief.

F ea r of an I n c r e a s e in th e M e n t a lly R eta r d ed

The rep o rt o f the Sterilization C om m ittee did n o t lead to the im m ediate

p u blicatio n o f a bill, though th e m a tte r was u n d e r preparation first at the
M inistry o f Social Affairs and subsequently at the M inistry o f the Interior.
Nevertheless, at the end of the 1920s, a num ber of groups continued to take an
interest in the organization o f care for the mentally retarded.
Certainly during the Depression p o o r relief was becoming m ore and m ore
o f a b u r d e n o n th e lo c a l a u th o r i t ie s . In 1928 th e B o a rd o f th e
Sielunterveysseura (the A ssociation for M ental H ealth) subm itted a petition
dem anding an inquiry into conditions in Finnish workhouses. A year later the
director of the Perttula R eform atory sent two m em oranda to the M inistry of
Social Affairs proposing the expansion o f that reform atory and the ap p o in t­
m ent of a special com m ittee to investigate the organization for the welfare of
“ idiots.” In th e sam e year, 1929, S uo m en ap u k ouluyhdistys (th e F innish
Association for Schools for R etarded C hildren) subm itted a p etition to the
Finnish governm ent pleading for the appointm ent by the state authorities o f a
com m ittee to make an overall survey o f care for the disabled. A similar m em o­
rand u m was also subm itted, again in the same year, by Kenraali M annerheim in
lastensuojeluliitto (General M annerheim ’s Child Welfare League) suggesting
that the governm ent should appoint a com m ittee to investigate issues related to
the m entally retarded and asocial children o f com pulsory school age. In spite
o f su p p o rt from the M inistry o f Education, however, such a com m ittee was
never appointed. Nevertheless, in 1932, Einar Book, the head o f the d e p art­
m ent in the M inistry o f Social Affairs, again made the suggestion th at the gov­
ernm ent should appoint a com m ittee o f experts to discuss the welfare o f the
m entally retarded in the widest sense.93
Sielunterveysseuran aikakauslehti was the jo u rn a l o f the M ental H ealth
A ssociation, established in 1919. O n e o f its m ain concerns was to spread
know ledge o f socio-hygienic w ork, so far the m o st neglected area.94 From
1931 until 1933 Sielunterveysseuran aikakauslehti included articles on eugenics
in every issue. The first in the series was the text o f a talk on society and the
m entally handicapped given by the director o f Perttula Reformatory, Reidar
H edm an, at the spring m eeting o f the M ental H ealth Association.95 In it he
opposed philanthropy, citing the psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin. Like m any o th ­
ers he em ployed as the basis for his estim ates o f the current situation the cal­
culations o f the British M ental Deficiency C om m ittee, according to which the
total o f the m entally retarded was thousands o f th e total British population.
Like m any o f his professional colleagues Reidar H edm an believed in the all­
im portance o f intelligence tests. He thus continued the hard line laid down in
1906 by his father Edvin L. H edm an. The son, too, was o f the opinion that it
was a fallacy to th in k that the m entally disabled could be educated. Like his
father he considered m ental deficiency an incurable illness and wanted to move
away from caring for the results o f degeneration to the elimination o f its cause.
Indirectly, H edm an adopted a stand in favor o f the sterilization o f the inmates
o f re fo rm a to rie s b e fo re th e ir d isch arg e. H e d m a n based this o p in io n on
research by Fritz Lenz and on the efficient G erm an system o f isolating mentally
retarded people so th at they could not contribute to the increase in population,
and, like the D anish C hristian Keller, H edm an also linked crim inality w ith
m ental deficiency. H edm an proposed further m easures aimed at preventing the
birth o f m entally retarded individuals.
Finally, H edm an, at the end o f his discourse, touched on sterilization and
expressed his new view th at as m any o f th e m en tally retarded as possible,
including those sterilized, should be given an o p p o rtunity to receive education,
schooling, vocational training, and other necessary relief and care.
W hen H edm an gave a lecture in Helsinki in 1931 on the them e “Society
and the M entally Deficient,” a lively discussion followed and the m ajority of
the audience took a m ore optim istic stance. It was pointed out, for example,
that even if it were n o t possible to increase intelligence, such characteristics as
diligence an d good will could help the m entally deficient to m anage their
lives.96
In its last issue for 1931 the Sielunterveysseuran aikakauslehti published a
com m ent by the m edical doctor S. E. D onner on the report of the Sterilization
Com m ittee,97 an d every issue in 1932 discussed eugenics at some point. The
first o f these contained an article by Ilm ari Kalpa, another doctor, in which he
discussed preventive measures to be taken against hereditary forms o f m ental
illness,98 as well as a second article by H edm an o n “M ental Health and Public
Health.”99 In this second article he suggested th a t m uch more attention had
been paid to physical health than to m ental health.
Kalpa’s article was based on a talk given at th e 50th A nniversary o f the
Finnish Medical Association, Duodecim , and suggested that a sterilization act
was needed to com plem ent the M arriage Law, even though the latter treated
m ental illness, epilepsy, and idiocy as barriers to marriage.
Toward the end o f 1932 the journal published the texts of two G erm an lec­
tures, one by Professor Ernst Riidin on the significance of the achievements of
psychiatric genetic biology for practical eugenics100 and the other by Professor
Rainer Fetscher on marriage guidance and sexual hygiene.101 Eugenics was also
featured as a topic in a m o n th -lo n g ex tracu rricu lar theoretical course for
trainee psychiatric nurses in 1933. The initiative for arranging this cam e from
the psychiatric nurses themselves and the course took place at the Helsinki
College for Nursing. The program included thirty-five hours on race biology
and eugenics, psychiatry, neuroses, and m ental hygiene along with discussions
o f m ental treatm ent and welfare.102
A m ong the m em bers of th e Sterilization C om m ittee it was Federley and
Arne Johannes Palmen who w rote m ost actively about the dangers o f racial
degeneration and the necessity o f sterilization (vasectomy and salpingectomy).
They also strongly opposed the idea o f using sterilization as a form o f punish­
m ent. Palmen emphasized that in som e special cases, where the sick person
had a particularly strong or m isguided sexual drive, castration should also be
considered.103
At the beginning of 1934 th e debate clearly expanded beyond the mentally
retarded and mentally ill, and new groups became the subject o f debate even
though the form er groups— estim ated to be growing ever larger— rem ained
the center o f interest. The press continually published reports on the increase
in welfare costs and in 1933 the newspaper Uusi Suomi set up an expert inquiry
on w hether the sterilization o f individuals by legal action was desirable or not.
Again Federley was one of the respondents, emphasizing the hum ane purpose
o f sterilization and making a clear distinction between it and castration. He
also tried to rectify the “generally” prevailing opinion that children w ould also
inherit their p aren t’s personal qualities though em phasizing th at no doctor
could cure inherited inclinations.104
In 1934 Huoltaja, the professional journal covering m unicipal p o o r relief,
suggested that Finnish welfare personnel unanim ously agreed about the need
for an act on sterilization.105

P r e v e n t io n of C r im in a l it y : A t t it u d e s C a in M o m e n tu m

At the beginning of the 1930s the debate w idened to include crim e and its
prevention. O n the occasion o f C rim e Prevention Week, 7-13 January 1934,
special attention was paid to th e links between crim inality and racial health
and m ost o f the lectures dealt w ith eugenics. T he lectures were considered
im p o rtan t enough to be given in H elsinki’s H ouse o f Estates, in the form er
Hall o f the Nobility, an d there was full attendance.
Drawing particular attention was a lecture by Federley in which he em pha­
sized that crim inality depended in the first place on genotype and only secon­
darily o n circum stances w hich could only stren g th en o r weaken inherited
inclinations. Federley based his o pinions o n the latest research w ith tw ins.
A cco rd in g to h im , “re se a rc h w ith tw in s h a d s tre n g th e n e d th e h a n d o f
researchers in genetics in a way they could hardly have imagined.” After con­
vincing his audience th a t both mental illness and retardation were hereditary,
Federley proceeded to discuss the w ork o f Johannes Lange, psychiatrist who
worked in Munich.
Federley preached th a t environm ental factors were secondary w hen com ­
pared w ith genetic factors. By attem pting to influence environm ental factors
one could never im prove breeding significantly. For crim e prevention it was
therefore necessary for society to control the reproductive capability o f weak
individuals.106 O th er lecturers such as the Belgian professor A. Ley and the
Swede O lof Kinberg also dealt with the ability o f m edical science to assist in the
prevention o f crim e.107
Some practical aspects o f racial health were also given attention. Federley
himself provided illustrations of some operative m ethods for preventing repro­
duction, presented the findings of the Sterilization C om m ittee on the mentally
retarded, mentally ill, an d epileptics, and em phasized the need for the speedy
adoption o f a sterilization act.108
The lawyer Brynolf Honkasalo, for his part, discussed the biological, crim i­
nal-political, and social reasons for supporting the dem and for the adoption of
ste riliz a tio n .109 As exam ples o f the fertility o f m en tally retarded m o thers,
Honkasalo cited the figure o f six children per family in Rostock (referring to the
studies by Reiter and O sthoff) and presented the figures for Berlin (by Cassel)
and M unich (by Prokein) where the m entally retarded had on average three
children per couple w hereas the average was 1.87 in the case o f normal parents.
The future could hardly be bright if the calculations o f the German profes­
sor Fetscher or the Swedish professor Kinberg becam e a reality. Honkasalo also
extrapolated figures for Finland, w hen presenting exam ples collected by the
Sterilization C om m ittee. Honkasalo took his stand on com pulsory steriliza­
tion, placing the interests o f society before those o f the individual.
During Crime Prevention Week it was also possible to hear a lecture on the
trends and causes o f crim es of violence in Finland by Professor Veli Verkko, a
renowned researcher into criminality w ho attem pted to explain the exceptionally
 high incidence of capital crimes in Finland in terms of the national character and
the soul of the nation.
Yet a n o th e r s p e a k e r w as P aavo M u s ta la , in s p e c to r o f th e P ris o n
Adm inistration. He drew attention to regional differences and opined that the
great m ajority of crim inals came from the “socially and medically weak, ‘loose’
part o f the population.” He also claim ed that unem ploym ent and the use of
alcohol h ad co n sid e ra b ly e n co u rag ed c rim in a lity in recen t y e ars.110 The
m atron o f the Helsinki School o f Nursing, Karin N eum an-R ahn, introduced a
softer, m ore sensitive approach describing the varied advisory and welfare ser­
vices provided in oth er countries for the mentally ill and those with criminal
proclivities. She hoped that similar program s could be launched in Finland.111
Dr. Vaino Makela, w ho had already expressed his doubts about the efficacy
o f such laws when the Sterilization Com m ittee Report was still topical, again
presented his reservations and worries concerning th eir application. Makela
rem inded his audience that the hereditary nature of m ental illnesses was a very
complicated m atter.112
M a k e la ’s o p in io n s m ay, in d e e d , have h a d an e ffe c t o n th e w ay th e
Sterilization Act was applied because he was elected as the m em ber represent­
ing geneticists on the scientific board o f the N ational Board o f H ealth from
1935 to 1937. In 1936 he presented com m ents on the sterilization and castra­
tion legislation o f F inland, the o th e r N ordic co u n tries, and G erm any to a
m eeting o f Finnish m edical practitioners, and a year later he had an article
published in the Archiv fu r Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie journal.113
It was reported th at in the discussion which followed the lectures the quick
enactm ent o f sterilization legislation was generally supported. It is w orth n o t­
ing th at the structure o f these lectures was very similar. They presented the
results of the m ost recent research in the Nordic countries and in Germ any—
research and statistics from Germany were greatly tru sted by the Finnish peo­
ple. Many o f the speakers and participants in the debate had made at least one
or m ore journeys to Germany, and had even studied there for lengthy periods
and personally knew the authors of these studies. In addition, case studies dis­
playing the life histories o f the insane, m entally retarded, and criminal individ­
uals could not but have an effect. The examples presented by the Sterilization
Com m ittee stuck in people’s m inds and gave rise to an increasingly strong con­
cern over the rocketing growth in criminality.
It appears that by 1934 the professionals concerned w ith the welfare o f the
mentally ill and retarded, as well as those responsible for municipal poor relief
had been abundantly inform ed about the act on sterilization and warned about
the degeneration o f the racial quality of the nation. Those working in the prisons
had received detailed descriptions o f “degenerate” families and the work of the
Sterilization Committee. The development of positive attitudes toward compul­
sory sterilization was m ost probably also helped by the statements o f the director
general of the National Board o f Health, Hannes Ryoma, advocating the estab­
lishm ent o f com pulsory sterilization for “idiots,” “imbeciles,” and the “feeble­
minded.” In the course of the year 1934, demands for a sterilization act emerged
from m any quarters against the background o f the passage o f sim ilar acts in
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Germany, while the debate on the sterilization
legislation also led to a discussion o f birth control and abortion.
There were, however, objections to the sterilization legislation and these were
made in two m ain arenas— in Parliament itself during the discussion o f the bill
and in the press. Toward the end of 1934, Tulenkantajat, the organ o f progres­
sive writers, published the com m ents on the issue of two socialist medical prac­
titioners, both of w hom condem ned the idea of com pulsory sterilization.114
The Social D em ocratic jou rn al Soihtu reported a discussion o f sterilization
by the H ungarian doctor Ferenc Jahn in an article, “Fascism and social policy”
w h ic h a p p e a r e d in th e J o u rn a l o f the F ed era tio n o f S o c ia list M edical
Practitioners. The editors o f Soihtu believed that “the great m ajority o f those in
need o f society’s p ro te c tio n are those m ade to feel inferior by th e ir social
standing. . . . It is n o t sterilization but better economic conditions an d a more
all-embracing social policy th at w ould raise those in these lower social strata to
the level o f appreciated hu m an beings.”115

W om en as Promoters o f Eugenics

While the proposed legislation was still under discussion, Kyllikki Pohjola, a
C onservative M em ber o f P arliam ent (M P), w rote an article on th e bill for
Suomen Nainen, the jo u rn al o f the Conservative W om en’s A ssociation. The
message o f Pohjola is evident from the title o f the article “Sterilization Bill,”
where she emphasizes that a society m ust have the right to prevent the birth of
sick people and that sterilization will bring relief for m any social problem s.116
The official crime statistics indicated that between 1927 and 1930 the inci­
dence o f sexual abuse o f children had increased by 70 percent, and in 1933 the
M orality C om m ittee o f the Finnish W omen’s N ational Federation subm itted a
petition to the M inistry o f Justice pleading that the governm ent should under­
take urgent m easures to protect m inors and young people from sexual crimes.
The petition also conveyed the view that women should be appointed as jurors
in the rural district courts and pressed for m ore w om en constables to whom all
police actions concerning girls could be referred.117
 W omen MPs o f the Right, and especially the deputy from the extreme-Right
IKL, Hilja Riipinen, were willing to incorporate into the law the sterilization of
those who had m olested m inors and corrupted children. Hilja Riipinen’s peti­
tionary m otion for the adoption o f castration in order to protect children and
young people from sexual crimes was passed by Parliam ent in the 1934 session.
It also confirm ed th e proposal to increase the n u m b e r o f w om en police.118
D uring the parliam entary debate in 1935 on the contents of the Sterilization
Act, Riipinen called this law the Child Protection Act for, according to her, it
would not only protect living children but also the children o f the future.
T h e o rg an o f th e Social D e m o c ra tic W o rk in g W o m e n ’s F e d e ra tio n ,
Toveritar, had also adopted a positive attitude tow ard sterilization, drawing its
evidence from the U nited States, Germany, and Sweden, where the sterilization
laws had already m ade good progress. H um an breeding was com pared with
that of anim als.119
T his positive a ttitu d e o f w o m en tow ard ste riliz a tio n h a d clearly been
strengthened by recent inform ation concerning the num ber o f sexual crimes.
The Naisen aani (W om an’s voice), which represented the right-w ing women’s
m ovem ent, keenly followed the debate on the sterilization legislation of the
1930s, and its dem ands even included castration. O nce the Sterilization Act
had been passed the journal was satisfied that at least some action had been
taken for child welfare. Not surprisingly, it also approved the allowance of cas­
tration, under a special decree, in cases o f convicted child m olesters.120
Dr. Rakel Jalas was one of those already actively advocating sterilization at
the beginning of the 1930s in Huoltaja. From 1929 to 1937 Jalas worked as the
medical officer in the M inistry o f Social Affairs and as the assistant inspector of
poor relief. As a m em ber o f Huoltaja’s editorial staff she had a readily available
forum for expressing her opinions. She also took an active part in the work of
the M ental Health Association (Sielunterveysseura) and was on the Board of
Turva, a hom e for inebriates. Dr. Jalas served as the vice-chair and later the
chair o f the M orality C om m ittee o f the Finnish W om en’s N ational Federation,
and it was through this channel th a t she forwarded her dem and for the intro­
duction o f castration. Like m any oth er doctors Jalas had m ade study tours in
the Nordic countries and in G erm any and Austria.
The leitm otif o f Rakel Jalas was, “It is not welfare w ork as such, b u t preven­
tive welfare which helps the progress o f our society. We should not so m uch
h e lp th e p o o r m a n as p re v e n t h im fro m b e c o m in g p o o r.” 121 O nce th e
Sterilization Act had been passed she widely publicized birthrates am ong the
various social classes and aimed at drawing public attention to measures p ro ­
m o tin g p o p u latio n grow th, such as family allow ances, m atern ity care, the
possibility o f young p eople’s m arry in g early, organizing o f efficient health
care, and providing early sex education.
As for the position o f w om en Jalas was rather conservative and did not, for
example, support w om en’s careers for, according to her, working outside the
h om e w ould lead to a decrease in fertility an d w ould thus be an adverse
tren d .122 Her basic ideology was social-Darwinian: no longer does society free
itself from weak individuals by the m ethod o f natural selection, the instinct
which com m ands the weaker to give way to the stronger, and so in order to
survive, society m ust resort to m ultifarious o th er m easures and m ainly to
those which aim at preventing the birth o f weak individuals.123

T he S t e r iliza tio n B i l l o f 1935

Early in the 1930s the b urden of m unicipal poor relief was felt to be so heavy
that any measure seemed justified that would bring some alleviation, and the
mentally retarded, who were often cared for in old people’s homes, form ed a
natural target as this issue gained increasing attention. Throughout the 1920s
the burden o f poor relief had been increasing. In 1923, 2.95 percent o f the pop­
ulation received perm anent or casual relief, but by 1932 the total o f those receiv­
ing relief had increased to 6.18 percent o f the w hole p o pulation. Since the
recipients of relief usually had families, it was calculated that by 1932 the total
num ber o f people actually receiving relief was 350,861 or 9.4 percent of the
whole population. This was proportionally equivalent to the figures for 1880!124
It is n o t surprising, therefore, that the Sterilization Bill had an easy passage
at the beginning o f the 1930s. M any parallel tren ds were having an effect
sim ultaneously: the increase in welfare costs, the increase in the n u m b er of
“unfit” individuals, and the increase in crime. All these were to be read from
the statistics on which Finns had learned to rely. Similarly, descriptions of the
unfortunate fates o f basically “inferior” people, the latest research o f scientists,
as well as examples from foreign countries, all influenced the decision makers.
D uring the passage o f the governm ent’s bill on sterilization, extensive argu­
m ents were presented, which basically followed the views already expressed in
the 1929 com m ittee re p o rt.125 In the end th e Sterilization Act was passed—
albeit after hectic d eb ate— w ith th e final vote show ing an overw helm ing
m ajority in favor. O nly fourteen m em bers o u t o f 200 voted against the bill,
though the opponents o f the Sterilization Act considered it a “Class Act” or one
against the law of nature. This was in the parliam entary session o f 1934, fol­
lowing a debate in which m uch use was m ade o f extensive surveys o f foreign
d evelopm ents. T he E conom y C o m m ittee o f th e P arliam en t co n sid ered it
im p o rtan t to enact a law on the basis o f which deficient and criminal elements
in society could be m ade incapable o f reproduction. In this connection it was
m aintained that the desired results could not depend on voluntary m ethods
and therefore sterilization should be m ade compulsory. In borderline cases it
should be left to the officials’ discretion w hether the measure was necessary
w hen taking into account the interests o f society and a com m on sense o f jus­
tice. The com m ittee proposed also th at sterilization should be carried out free
o f charge.126 The m ost debated issue in Parliam ent was the question o f w hether
sterilization should be compulsory. The chairm an of the Economy Com m ittee,
Professor Reinikainen, a Social D em ocrat, emphasized that “idiots” and m en­
tally ill people could not undertake voluntary action in this im p o rtan t m at­
ter.127 The representative o f the extrem e Right Patriotic People’s M ovem ent,
Professor S undstrom (later Salm iala), dem anded, in the name o f a healthy
society, th e co m p u lso ry ste riliz a tio n o f crim in als w ith u n n a tu ra l sexual
instincts who were considered dangerous to other people. He was supported by
other MPs o f the movem ent, such as Eino Tuomivaara and Hilja Riipinen.
The m inister o f the interior, Puhakka, considered the spirit of the bill per­
missive and not binding.128 Some oth er MPs, such as Social D em ocrat Wiik,
believed that the bill was putting p o o r people in an unequal position com pared
w ith m ore wealthy groups. This aspect was the m ost debated point in the par­
liam entary discussions. A m ore exact phraseology to be used in connection
with the application o f the law was therefore dem anded from various quarters
“in order to make sure that the act w ould not be misused.”129
After the bill had been passed in the G rand Com m ittee of Parliam ent its
first section was am ended to include a clause applying the act also to epileptics
if there was a good reason to assume that this disability would be inherited by
any fu tu re children. M any MPs felt th a t progress in the application o f the
Sterilization Act should be cautious and, on the basis o f foreign inform ation,
they were prepared to exclude epileptics from the bill.130 Since 1757, as a legacy
from Swedish law, epilepsy had been an im pedim ent to marriage in Finland. In
the 1929 M arriage Act the statutory im pedim ents also included m ental illness
and idiocy. People suffering from epilepsy, a venereal disease at a contagious
stage, o r deafness and m utism req u ired the perm ission o f the p resid en t of
Finland to marry. For those supporting the sterilization of epileptics, however,
this latter regulation was not sufficiently effective. Some MPs o f the Left were
prepared to reject the Sterilization Act entirely because o f their concern for the
injustice that m ight ensue; others as noted above, considered it a class-m oti­
vated act. Some also opposed the act because it dem onstrated an anti-C hristian
view of the w orld.131
 P ro fe s s o r M a tti V a in o , w ho h e ld a c h a ir in an ato m y , w as o n e w ho
opposed the p rep aratio n o f the act. In the course o f the debate he cited m any
examples o f fam ous m en w ho w ould never have been born if such an act had
been in operation, and sim ilar argum ents were used by other opponents o f
the act.
Lassila was also concerned about the dangers inherent in sterilization opera­
tions, claim ing that in Germ any 2,800 people had died as a result o f them . For
this reason Federley, w ishing to acquire co rrect info rm atio n , w rote to his
friend Lenz w ho expressed his ad m iratio n th at Federley had undertaken to
fight the opponents o f the sterilization laws. He claim ed that the figures pre­
sented by Lassila (5 percent) were exaggerated and th at the real m ortality fig­
ure, w hich m ainly involved sterilized w om en, w as only 3 per every 1,000
sterilization cases and was actually decreasing. Lenz agreed with Lassila’s other
p o in t, h o w ev er, th a t th e h e re d ita ry n a tu re o f sc h iz o p h re n ia re m a in e d
unproved, an d claim ed th a t sterilization in G erm any had been carried out
mainly o n the m entally retarded whose illness certainly was hereditary.132

T u rn in g t h e I d ea o f S te r iliza tio n in to R eality

The Sterilization Act, which became effective on 13 June 1935, was first dis­
cussed in the press by the director general o f the N ational Board o f Health,
Hannes Ryoma, in the Huoltaja and by Dr. Arne J. Johannes Palm en in the
Sosiaalinen Aikakauskirja.133 The latter article was also quoted in the Suomen
Poliisilehti, a journal for policem en.134
The Sterilization Act also allowed the voluntary sterilization o f legally com ­
petent persons if there was a justified fear that, w hen m arried, they would p ro ­
duce “in ferio r” children or if, because o f their ab norm al sexual drive, they
would be a danger to those surrounding them . The act actually went further
than the com m ittee had proposed six years earlier by adopting the policy of
com pulsory sterilization. It decreed th at “idiots” (w ith a m ental age less than
six), “imbeciles” (with a m ental age o f six to fourteen), and the insane (e.g.,
those suffering from schizophrenia or m anic-depression) could be m ade inca­
pable o f reproduction on two grounds: first, if there was reason to assume that
their disability could be transm itted to the next generation, or second, if it was
probable that their children would n o t be cared for because of such disability.
The capacity to reproduce would also be removed from those persons who had
been proven, by a non-appealable judgm ent, guilty o f a crime or an attem pted
crime dem onstrating an unnatural sexual drive either in terms o f its strength
or its direction.
 The Sterilization Act and the subsequent statute stipulated that an applica­
tio n for sterilizatio n h ad to be m ad e in w riting to the N ational B oard o f
H ealth. An initiative could be taken by the director o f a m ental hospital or
other similar institution and in other cases by the m unicipal board o f health. If
the person concerned was in a penal establishm ent the right to initiate the
application was vested in the director o f that in stitution, and sim ilar rights
were enjoyed in the countryside by the bailiff or district police superintendent
and in the towns by the public prosecutor or the police inspector. In the com ­
plem entary statute to the act, it was fu rth er stipulated that the sterilization
application should be processed by the N ational Board o f Health, which was to
investigate each case separately and satisfy itself that the measure was neces­
sary. The person for w hom sterilization was proposed, as well as his o r her
spouse or guardian, was also given th e o pportunity to express an opinion on
the case. Sterilization itself could be carried out by using salpingectomy, vasec­
tomy, or castration, and had to be done in a hospital approved by the N ational
Board o f Health.
Regarding children still under age it was the duty o f the school inspectors to
provide inform ation on such cases so th at these children could be freed from
com pulsory education. It was left to the m unicipal boards of health to investi­
gate the possible need for sterilization.135
The m ajor difference between this Finnish act and the Swedish one was that
the latter covered a w ider range o f cases, for it referred also to persons who
could be assumed, w ith good reason, to be unable to care for their children
because o f m ental illness, m ental retard atio n , or o th e r m ental disturbance.
Nevertheless, the involuntary nature o f sterilization un d er the 1935 Finnish act
m eant that it was a m ore far-reaching measure. O n the other hand, a decision
by th e N ational Board o f Health in Finland was required for any op eratio n
w hereas th e decision o f two d o cto rs was at first sufficient in Sw eden. In
D enm ark the power o f decision-m aking was vested in the Ministry of Justice.
Interestingly enough, in contrast to their reaction to the committee report,
the press now paid little attention to th e com pulsory nature o f the new act. The
new spaper o f the Social D em ocratic Party, Suomen Sosiaalidemokraatti, and
the press o f both the Center and A grarian parties sim ply reported that the act
had becom e law.136
From the very beginning the new Sterilization Act was criticized as being too
harsh. Yet many people felt that the act was likely to prove ineffective because it
could not prevent callous, shocking “acts o f violence caused by the sexual drive”
and in 1943 a committee, under the leadership of Brynolf Honkasalo, m et to
suggest possible am endm ents. One indicator of the “inefficiency” of the act was
the fact that by 1943 only 500 people had been sterilized even though the total
num ber o f m entally disabled who could be the object of such sterilization was
15,500 and o f these the num ber o f actual “idiots” was over 4,000. In the face of
these statistics and citing experience gained by Turunen in Germany, the com­
m ittee proposed th a t the act should be enforced m ore efficiently. In order to
reduce sexual crim es castration was proposed a n d the issue o f abortion also
arose.137
The workings o f the Finnish Sterilization Act have been discussed in detail
by C. A. Borgstrom , who w rote his m aster’s thesis under the supervision of
Federley h im self a n d was a m em b er o f the co m m ittee on sterilization. He
wrote his doctoral dissertation on the im plem entation of the act, discussing
those sterilizations perform ed by perm ission o f the Finnish National Board of
H ealth.138 (table 2) Borgstrom took a hard-line approach to the application of
the sterilization laws.
As early as the beginning o f the 1930s Federley had arranged contacts for
Borgstrom with leading members o f the Germ an eugenics movement and, when
Borgstrom w rote an article for the Archiv fu r Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie, it
was Federley who persuaded Lenz and Riidin to accept it.139 Borgstrom’s disser­
tation o f 1955 contains an extensive com parison o f the application o f the laws
enacted in the various Nordic countries during the 1930s.

Table 2. Amount of Sterilizations with Permission of the Finnish Board

of Health, 1935-1955
_____________ Year______________ Total________ percent of those w om en
1935-36 54 85.2
1936-37 102 76.5
1937-38 121 81.0
1938-39 112 72.3
1939-40 32 65.6
1940-41 37 78.4
1941-42 27 74.1
1942-43 24 91.7
1943-44 42 88.7
1944-45 37 83.8
1945-46 67 89.6
1946-47 84 91.7
1947-48 73 89.0
1948-49 82 85.4
Table 2. Amount of Sterilizations with Permission of the Finnish Board
of Health, 1935-1955 (cont.)
Year ____________ Total________ percent of those w om en
1949-50 102 86.3
1950-51 189 92.1
1951-52 136 94.1
1952-53 162 87.0
1953-54 201 86.1
1954-55 224 86.2

Source: C. A. Borgstrom, Tillampningen av lagen om sterilisering i Finland 13.6.1935­

30.6.1955 kastreringarna obeaktade, Bidrag till kannedom av Finlands N atur och Folk 103
(Helsingfors: Finska Vetenskapssocieteten, 1958), 50.

The total num ber of people sterilized between 1935 and 1955, w ith the per­
mission o f the Finnish Board o f H ealth, was only 1,908, of w hom 276 were
men. D uring that period the N ational Board o f Health considered 2,286 steril­
ization cases. In 199 cases it declined the petition for an order to sterilize or the
request for sterilization, while in 2,087 cases the decision was in the affirm a­
tive. W ithin this latter group the actual operation was perform ed in 1,908 cases
but not in the rem aining 179. O n average 95.4 persons were sterilized annually.
O f the 1,908 subjects who were sterilized, 1,461 had been ordered to undergo
the o p eratio n , while 447 (23.4 p ercent) had requested it them selves. Both
orders and perm issions increased in num ber after W orld War II.
O f those sterilized, 58.6 percent were m entally retarded, 14.5 percent were
schizophrenics, 9 percent were epileptics, and 5.1 percent were psychopaths.
A m ong th o se w ho successfully req u ested p erm issio n for ste riliz atio n the
epileptics form ed the largest group, followed by psychopaths, schizophrenics,
and the m entally retarded in th at order.140 The total num ber o f feeblem inded
w ithout any other abnorm al m ental condition was 1,119. The indication for
sterilization was eugenic in origin in 61.1 percent o f the ordered cases and in
67.8 percent o f personal applications.
How did the im plem entation o f the law differ am ong the Finnish-speaking
and the Swedish-speaking com m unities? In those w ith a purely Finnish-speak­
ing population the num ber o f individuals sterilized per 100,000 was 28.0 and
in com m unities with a largely Swedish-speaking population the corresponding
figure was 15.5. In Aland the local authorities did not bring forward a single
petitio n for sterilization, w hich was n o t surprising given the negative com ­
m ents o f the governor o f that province. According to Borgstrom, “It seems rea­
sonable to infer th a t the Swedish-speaking population in Finland is m uch less
inclined than the Finnish-speaking population to adopt such a measure as ster­
ilization.” It rem ains an open question w hether Swedish-speaking medical offi­
cers working in Finnish-speaking regions were m ore efficient than those who
could use their native tongue with the patients.
The petition to sterilize was brought by com m unal boards of health in 54.1
percent o f cases, by m edical directors o f m ental hospitals in 25.0 percent, by
social boards in 12.4 percent, and by rural com m une medical officers, directors
of m ental institutions, or others in 8.5 percent of cases.141 O f sterilized people
77 percent were from rural com m unes, 18.7 percent from towns, and 4.3 per­
cent from urban districts (m arket towns). In 250 o f the 548 com m unities local
authorities did n o t m ake a single sterilization petition; 10 or more applications
had been made in 12 com m unities.
The m ajority o f b o th sterilization applications and o f actual operations con­
cerned wom en (1,632); the num ber o f m en am ounted to only 14.5 percent of
the total o f 1,908. T here was an assum ption that w om en had an exceptionally
strong sexual drive, which was deduced from the n u m ber o f their illegitimate
children. It was also m ade clear that w om en’s sterilization involved m oral argu­
ments. O f all the sterilized women w ith neuropsychiatric disturbances, a total
of 200, or 12.7 percent, were already pregnant when action was taken.
Borgstrom calculated that the total of 1,908 sterilized at that tim e already
had 3,247 children o f w hom 2,900 had survived; o f those 366 were mentally
retarded. He also estim ated that the sterilization o f those under tw enty-six
years o f age had p revented the b irth o f som e 575 children. Borgstrom sug­
gested th a t th e a n n u a l target for sterilization sh o u ld be set at 700.142 The
Finnish results revealed the overw helm ing m ajo rity o f the sterilized to be
women; these results are parallel to those of international investigations.143
From the sterilization applications sent to the N ational Board of Health, it
emerges th at small, p o o r com m unes were the first to take advantage o f the
Sterilization Act, a fact ignored by Borgstrom in his study. Behind these appli­
cations there was often a real anxiety about the financial ability o f the com ­
m une to sustain the m entally retarded as well as apprehension at the increasing
growth o f their families.
The re p o rt o f th e co m m u n al m ed ical officer o fte n tells the tale o f an
unhappy childhood and o f the m isfortunes encountered subsequently.
 Case A: An Inmate of an Old People’s Home
Heredity: Parents nervous, no mental illness; inclined to steal and to sell alcohol
illegally
Interrelationship o f th e parents: N ot related to each other
Damaged at birth: No
Physical, especially head, injury: None
Periods: Regular
Pregnancies: 2 births; no miscarriages
Misuse of alcohol and narcotics: None
Ability/special talents: Backward
Sexual drive: Strong
First years: Cared for at hom e when child, passed two form s o f the elem entary
school; worked as a servant and spent the last four years at the old people’s
home
W hen examined: 8 xii 1935
Physical examination: Physically fit
Psychiatric examination: Behavior, posture, movements norm al; m ood, sensitive,
gets easily angry; aware o f the time and place; weak judgm ent

In his final com m ent the doctor stated: “Because XX has a strong sexual
drive and has b ro u g h t into this w orld two physically and m entally disabled
children and because she herself wishes to be sterilized I support her applica­
tion for it on the basis o f the 2nd section of the Sterilization Act.”

Case B: A Twenty-Eight-Year-Old Woman of an Almshouse

A nother case was a twenty-eight-year-old w om an from a family o f nineteen
m em bers. She had to go to the alm shouse after giving birth to an illegitimate
child because her sister no longer wished to give her a hom e. H er father had
been killed by the Reds during the civil war and her m other had died. The doc­
to r observed th a t th e p atien t h ad weak ju d g m en t an d erotic inclinations.
“Because the sexual drive is very heightened her thoughts appear often to cir­
culate round these m atters,” and recom m ended her to be sterilized.
T hese and sim ila r d o c u m e n ts are pain fu l to read , for th e in d iv id u als
involved were fully at the mercy o f society. The m ost disturbing, perhaps, were
the objective tests used for evaluating the m ental developm ent o f the subjects.
These tests contained m any factual questions to which those with a limited or
nonexistent education were unable to find a correct answer. Thus, one inmate
was questioned about who was ruling Finland and w hen he said that it was
God the answer was considered a wrong one. Similarly, they had to explain in
these tests the message o f various proverbs.144

Positive Eugenics among Finnish Speakers D u rin g the 1930 s

In addition to the Sterilization Act, which can be classified as a m easure of

negative eugenics, ideas o f positive eugenics w ere also developing. Anxiety
am ong Finnish-speaking Finns about the decrease in the population became
an im portant topic in the 1930s, when the question was m uch discussed in the
press and m any statisticians an d social scientists participated in the debate.
G unnar and Alva M yrdal’s books were often referred to in Finland. Parliament
received m any political m otions which b o th drew attention to the problem s
brought about by the p o pulation decrease and touched on the eugenics move­
m ent. In 1937 a special com m ittee was established to exam ine issues related to
population. These m atters becam e especially topical after the outbreak o f the
W inter War in 1939.145
Discussing the latest population problem s in 1940 Armas N iem inen, senior
lecturer and later professor in social policy, spoke o f the disadvantages caused
by decreasing birthrates. He argued that history had proved that stagnation in
the increase o f pop ulatio n was a sym ptom o f the weakening o f the political
im portance o f a n ation an d th a t any decrease in the population was always
linked to the degeneration th at leads to the destruction o f a n ation.146
The task of im proving the Finnish-speakers’ quality and quantity belonged
to the program o f Vaestoliitto (the Population and Family Welfare Federation),
founded in 1941. The objectives set out for this new organization were to dis­
seminate inform ation concerning population policy and to prom ote positive
attitudes toward family life. The federation also pioneered a genetic instruction
service. It was expected to pursue a population policy which aim ed at provid­
ing greater social security.147
Although the tasks o f the federation centered on measures for the pro m o ­
tion o f quantitative p o p u la tio n grow th, the qualitative aspect and eugenics
were already being touched u p o n during the establishm ent phase o f the orga­
nization. “The aim o f the F ederation is to dissem inate in fo rm atio n on the
im portance of both the size o f the population and its quality not only for the
survival o f the nation b u t also for its m aterial and intellectual progress.” In
conjunction with Helsinki University’s Institute of Genetics, Vaestoliitto estab­
lished a clinic for genetic consultation.
In Finland the qualitative aspect of the population question was linked with
the question o f the vitality o f the nation. D uring the war years som e isolated
public rem arks attracted attention not only in relation to the num erical growth
o f the population b u t also to its quality.148 The ingredients for a healthy nation
emerged clearly from the discussion o f population politics; these ingredients
were to be fo u n d in the countryside, and in line w ith the practice in other
N ordic co u n tries, eugenic p ro p ag an d a in F in land was linked to the fight
against industrialization and urbanization.
At the level of regional policy this m eant continuing the task started in the
1930s o f settling the m ost rem ote parts of the country, such as Lapland. After
the war thousands o f small holdings and war veteran settlements were created
in these backwoods. The joint program of the Agrarian and Center parties, in
particular, included the decentralization of governm ent offices and institutions
as well as the im provem ent of operational prerequisites for light industries and
hand icrafts in th e countryside. The tren d to w ard u rb a n izatio n had to be
slowed dow n because it was supposed to have a negative im pact on the quality
o f the people.

The 1950 Ste riliza tio n , C astratio n , and A b o rtio n A c ts

After W orld War II a general feeling of rootlessness was increasingly evident.

Public opinion, however, had n o t become m ore tolerant or permissive. On the
contrary, the increase in sexual and violent crim es had a strong im pact on pub­
lic attitudes and there emerged dem ands for stronger measures such as castra­
tion for sexual offenders. In principle the 1935 act had allowed such castration
and it had been applied in fifty-four cases.149
The justification for the acts on sterilization and castration was the claim
that “Society m ust be able, even by force, to prevent any act o f reproduction
which m ight produce individuals who are not only totally incapable o f leading
a norm al social life but are also bound to increase the burden society has to
bear in caring and providing for such people.”150
The 1950 Sterilization Act stipulated that sterilization could be carried out
on eugenic, social, or general medical grounds. If medical reasons were cited
the operation could be executed on the decision o f a consultant and a surgeon
nom inated by the N ational Board o f Health. In other cases the decision was
vested in the board itself. In cases of emergency abortion, a qualified doctor
could, in certain circumstances, make a personal decision on sterilization.151
The fact th a t sterilizations could be m ade for m edical reasons w ith the
authority o f two physicians increased the yearly n um ber o f sterilizations (see
table 3). O n th e basis o f th e statistics o f th e F innish N ational B oard of
Health it is possible to analyze different categories for sterilizations w ith the
perm ission o f the board. Typical o f th e application o f this act, sterilizations
were usually carried o u t o n w om en o n m edical grounds. The p ro p o rtio n of
m ale sterilizations rem ained betw een 1 and 2 percent.152

Table 3. Sterilizations in Finland, 1951-1970.

Year Total Medical Eugenic % of Social % of
reasons* reasons” total reasons" total
1951 780 569***
1952 1009 777***
1953 1061 813***
1954 1068 733***
1955 1236 1014***
1956 1582 1582 362 22 23 1
1957 1727 1727 372 22 21 1
1958 2206 1767 413 19 26 1
1959 2596 1921 436 17 239 9
1960 3197 2362 514 16 321 10
1961 3193 2353 463 15 377 12
1962 3388 2612 411 12 365 11
1963 3511 2729 380 11 402 11
1964 3297 2676 216 7 405 12
1965 3206 2713 237 7 258 8
1966 3543 3012 271 8 260 7
1967 4022 3521 269 7 232 8
1968 4294 3817 218 5 259 6
1969 5437 4983 298 5 156 3
1970**** 5727 2385 141 5 101 3
total 56080 44066 5001 3445

Source: Public Health and M edical Care, The Official Statistics of Finland XI, 1950-1970.
* Either based on a consensus decision of two doctors or on the evidence of somatic
disease or defect as agreed by a statem ent o f the National Board of Health.
** Statement of the National Board of Health.
*** With authorization of two doctors.
**** 1.1.-31.5. Based on sterilization law o f 1950; 1.6.-31.12. Based on new sterilization
law of 1970.

As table 3 makes clear, the annual num ber o f sterilizations carried o u t in

F inland in the period 1951-1970 was ten times the num ber during the m ost
active period of sterilizations in the 1930s. From 1951-1970 approximately 70-
75 percent of all sterilizations were m ade w ith the authorization of two doc­
tors; m ost o f these were in conjunction w ith interruption o f a pregnancy. In
1970 th e n u m b e r o f sterilizations decreased and the n u m b e r o f ab o rtio n s
increased. The new law on abortion, w hich became effective in 1970, widened
the range o f possibilities; some believe th at abortions were used as a co n tra­
ceptive device. The last years o f the 1960s can also be described as a period o f
general sexual liberation.
W hile sterilizations on eugenic indications reached their peak in 1958 (19
percent o f all sterilizations) and then steadily decreased tow ard the end o f the
1960s, social grounds were employed m ost often in 1961 and 1964 (12 percent
o f all sterilizations).
In the explanatory m em orandum for the C astration Act, it was emphasized
that such m easures had been carried o u t far too rarely and that the reform
aim ed at m aking the application of the law m ore efficient. Indeed, the spirit o f
this act was considered to be similar to th a t o f the 1935 sterilization legislation.
In the 1950 C astration Act it was stipulated that castration could be car­
ried o u t as an act o f crim inal policy an d o n h u m anitarian grounds. In rela­
tion to com p u lso ry castratio n it was stated th a t “A person, who has been
fo u n d guilty o f . . . a [sexual] crim e o r o f an attem p ted crim e, and w ho,
because o f th eir sexual drive, is dangerous to another person can be castrated
w ithout their own agreem ent.” The sam e applied to people even in in stitu ­
tional care w ho were dangerous because o f their sexual drive, or were m e n ­
tally retarded or perm anently m entally ill. A castration proposal for a person
in in stitutional care was m ade by the principal o f th at particular institution
and in o th er cases by the local police su p erin ten dent. As to certain sexual
o ffe n d e rs th e issue h a d always to be s u b m itte d fo r th e decision o f th e
N ational Board o f H ealth.153
The C astration Act m et with strong opposition. The opponents laid great
em phasis on the apparent anom aly th a t ju st as the death penalty was being
abolished such a m easure o f co m p u lso ry castratio n was to be ad opted in
Finland. Critics like Professor Bruno Salm iala, w ho was m entioned earlier,
drew atten tio n to the unwelcom e publicity the act was attracting abroad.154
The m ost criticized point, however, was the stipulation that a decision on cas­
tration could be reached w ithout hearing the person concerned. This was con­
sidered quite a sensitive m atter though in some cases one could appeal to the
Supreme C ourt. Because of the strong criticism directed toward the C astration
Act this m easure was hardly applied. In the period 1951-1968 a total o f 2,777
ap plicatio n s w ere m ade b u t the o p e ra tio n was carried o u t in only n in ety
cases— and all ninety occurred during the early part o f the period, betw een
1951 and 1958. After 1958 no castrations were perform ed, because attitudes
had changed (see table 4).155

Table 4. Castrations, 1951-1968.

Year Petitions for castration Decisions made on castration
(Total) Total Rejected Carried out
1951 126 26 15 11
1952 184 38 18 20
1953 168 51 29 21
1954 179 50 29 18
1955 132 24 7 14
1956 133 7 3 3
1957 152 5 3 2
1958 147 1 — 1
1959 143 — — —
1960 154 1 — —
1961 202 — — —
1962 211 — — —
1963 152 — — —
1964 114 — •— —
1965 128 — — —
1966 164 — — —
1967 165 — — —
1968 123 — •— —
Total 2,777 203 104 90

Source: R aim o L ahti, V uoden 1970 a b o rtti-, ste rilisa a tio - ja k a stra a tio -la in sa a d a n to ,
Helsinki 1970,88.

Finally, according to the 1950 A bortion Act, abortion could be allowed on

medical, social, criminal, and eugenic grounds.

The 1970 Ste riliza tio n , C a stra tio n , an d Ab ortio n Legislation

In the face o f changing public attitudes, reform of the 1950 legislation was
dem anded. In the 1960s Finland experienced profound changes in its indus­
trial structure, and u rbanization and m ig ratio n from the countryside had a
strong im pact on public opinion at m any levels.
 A firm im petus was given to such a reform by a num ber o f jo in t Nordic
m otions. As early as 1954 a m otion had been presented for a standardization of
the legislation. The plan failed, however, when the Norwegian abortion law was
enacted in 1960. The m a tte r becam e topical again w hen a com m ittee was
appointed in Sweden to revise its abortion law and in 1966 D enm ark, Sweden,
and F inland subm itted a m em bers’ m o tio n on such subjects at the N ordic
level. T hus the reform ed Finnish act o f 1970 resembles closely the relevant
Danish act.156
The 1970 act no longer recognized com pulsory sterilization o r castration.
According to the explanatory m em orandum , com pulsory m easures were be
avoided unless they could be considered unconditionally required by society.
Anybody under the age o f eighteen was n o t be sterilized at all. The special per­
mission of a guardian or trustee was needed for sterilizations of m entally ill or
retarded persons. Furtherm ore, this could only happen under very special cir­
cumstances.
Sterilization could be carried out at the request o f the person concerned, if
there were good reasons to believe that:

(1) his/her children would be mentally retarded and that they would suffer from or
develop a serious illness or physical disability;
(2) because of his/her illness or disturbed mind or because of some other circum­
stance there would be a serious impediment to his/her ability to take care of the
children;
(3) when, considering the lifestyle and other circumstances of the person and
his/her family, the birth and care of children would be a considerable burden;
(4) his/her possibilities of employing any other forms of birth control would be
exceptionally difficult.

Similarly, a w om an could be sterilized, at her own request, if her life o r health

would be endangered because o f pregnancy, or due to her own physical defi­
ciency or weakness.
The rules governing sterilization were revised to such an extent th at the pos­
sibility o f carrying out the o p eratio n in con ju n ction w ith an a b o rtio n was
restricted even further. The criteria to be applied under item 4 were used on
occasion to emphasize the preferential use o f contraceptive m ethods.157
In the 1970 A bortion Act great em phasis was placed on m ental hygienic,
social, a n d psychological facto rs w h en d ecid in g o n a possible a b o rtio n .
Moreover, m uch attention was paid to the great num ber o f illegal abortions.
According to the A bortion Act, abortion was possible if the continuation of
pregnancy or delivery w ould endanger the w om an’s life or health because of
illness, physical deficiency, o r weakness; if giving b irth to and caring for a
baby would be likely to prove a considerable burden, taking into account the
lifestyle and oth er circum stances o f the w om an and her family; if the illness or
disturbed m ental state o f either o f the parents or any o ther com parable factor
w ould seriously lim it their ability to take care o f the child. A bortion was fur­
ther perm itted if th e m o th er was u nder seventeen or over forty years o f age or
if she already had fo u r children.158
T his act reflects th e b reak d o w n in tra d itio n a l values th a t o ccu rred in
Finland during th e 1960s and 1970s as a result o f changes in the industrial
structure, urbanization, and m odernization.

C o n clu sio n

In Finland, as in o th er countries, the eugenic way o f thinking was linked,

b o th am ong th e F in n ish an d Swedish speakers, w ith anxieties a b o u t the
decreasing population and its qualitative deterioration. The biological sciences
seemed to offer solutions to social problems. The m edical experts contributed
a great deal to the m odernization o f the nation. In the face o f such challenges,
why did people tu rn to the latest research displaying evidence on heredity as a
factor in m ental illness, epilepsy, alcoholism and, later, also in criminality?
I have endeavored to examine the source m aterial w ithin the context o f the
spread of innovations, for the Finnish developers o f racial hygiene did not usu­
ally produce new inform ation in support o f eugenics but applied the already
existing results o f foreign research to Finnish circum stances. Nor was the racial
hygienic way o f th in k in g linked w ith any p articu lar political m ovem ent in
Finland. The in fo rm atio n that inspired it came from m any sources and was
provided at m any different levels in form s ranging from scientific research
reports (Federley) to popular presentations (V aananen).
A key issue in the spread o f eugenics in Finland was the esteem that profes­
sional experts such as medical doctors enjoyed in Finnish society. People were
accustomed to relying on expert opinions. This echoes the conclusions o f Paul
W eindling concerning Germ any.159 N or did the m ajority of people have any
opportunity to dispute “scientific” results even if they entertained some doubts
about their effects. This state of affairs was aided by the fact that the majority
o f medical practitioners in Finland, including the head o f the National Board
o f H ealth, w ere p ro -ste riliz a tio n . T here was, th erefo re, hardly any public
debate on these issues at all.
No special eugenics institute in the style o f the Swedish Institute for Eugenic
Research was ever established in Finland, n o r were there special organizations
o r periodicals, even though those m ost actively involved in the w ork o f the
Sam fundet Folkhalsan i Svenska Finland did have plans for such ventures.
Finland’s Swedish-speaking m inority, one o f the m ost prom inent m em bers
o f which at that tim e was a professor o f genetics, H arry Federley, felt their own
position to be particularly threatened and had begun to be m ore concerned
th an ever before about the quality o f their com m unity. In a first attem p t to
tackle such issues, this m inority adopted such measures o f positive eugenics as
awards to m others, giving relevant in stru ctio n b o th in schools and am ong
adults, and the special training o f key groups such as district nurses.
C ontinuing such a policy of concentrating on positive eugenics, inform ation
was dissem inated in Finland through num erous Swedish-language magazines
and journals, which dwelt especially on the risks o f alcoholism and the im por­
tance of choosing a suitable spouse. Perhaps as a result, once the Sterilization Act
became law, relatively few applications for sterilization were received from com ­
m unes w ith a Swedish-speaking population even though Harry Federley himself
was, from the mid-1920s, a supporter of sterilization, and one of the m ost active
and influential figures during the process o f drafting the legislation. Due to his
wide network of foreign contacts he was able to convey the latest research results
which he then popularized for a wide variety of audiences. In the 1930s Federley
in particular placed great faith in the results o f research on twins.
Finnish scientists had learned the principles of a solid positivistic scholarly
approach from the G erm an cultural sphere. In Finland as in the U nited States
social workers saw sterilization legislation as a means o f reducing the num bers
o f the “u nfit” elements in the population. D uring the Depression small com ­
m unes in particular became aware o f the econom ic burden laid upon them by
the care o f the m entally retarded, the m entally ill, and epileptics. The argu­
m ents and predictions o f Federley, lawyers, and a num ber o f medical officers in
m ental institutions and prisons, concerning the increase in the “inferior” ele­
m ents o f th e population helped to convince the social workers o f the local
authorities an d others o f the need for such legislation. Moreover, exam ples
d raw n fro m th e U n ited States a n d th e o th e r N ordic co u n tries as w ell as
G erm an m odels had an indirect influence on public opinion. Consequently, in
1934 the Sterilization Act was placed on the statute book with alm ost u n a n i­
m ous support; o f the fourteen o u t o f 200 m em bers o f Parliament w ho voted
against it, all were drawn from the extrem e Left.
To summarize, measures o f positive eugenics were carried out by Swedish­
speaking Finns beginning early in the century. The m ore categorical negative
measures such as the Sterilization Law did not gain wide support until the 1930s
and then mainly am ong Finnish speakers, including not only the supporters o f
the A g rarian P a rty b u t also su p p o rte rs o f th e Social D em ocrats and the
Conservatives.
D uring the 1930s, however, under the influence o f the Swedish economist
G unnar Myrdal, a m ore extensive debate also began am ong the Finnish-speak­
ing com m unity, touching not merely on population policies but also on possi­
ble positive eugenic measures, such as aiding the choice o f a suitable spouse.
The establishm ent o f V aestoliitto was a p rim e exam ple o f this. Vaestoliitto
adopted a program o f aid for large families and established an advisory service
on issues connected w ith heredity. In order to p rom ote a healthy increase in
p o p u la tio n th e o rg an izatio n en couraged u rb a n fam ilies to have four, and
country families six, children.
Between 1935 an d 1955 a total o f 1,908 people were sterilized in Finland
with the perm ission o f the National Board o f H ealth, the great m ajority being
w om en w ith only 276 m en u ndergoing th e o p e ratio n . In all, the N ational
Board o f H ealth received 2,286 sterilization applications, concentrated m ost
heavily in the closing years o f the 1930s. The Finnish-speaking com m unes put
forw ard p ro p o rtio n ately m ore applications th an the Swedish-speaking ones
with Swedish speakers apparently placing greater tru st in the positive m ethods
of racial hygiene. D uring the period 1935-55, 61 percent o f all sterilizations
were eugenic. After th e enactm ent of the new Sterilization Act in 1950 medical
grounds increasingly became the basis for sterilization decisions. It was possi­
ble to p e rfo rm sterilizatio n s w ith th e a u th o riz a tio n o f two doctors. This
increased the n u m b er of sterilizations by 100 to 120 percent per year. The total
num ber o f sterilizations between 1951 and 1970 was 56,075, approximately 99
percent o f which were perform ed on women.
D uring the w ar th e value placed on each individual was exceptionally high
and the num ber o f sterilizations decreased. Nevertheless, in the 1940s the opin­
ion was often expressed th at the aims o f the 1935 act were too modest, and
articles were published in the press calling for m ore rigorous measures to fight
criminality. In particular there was a call for the castration o f sexual criminals.
The 1950 Sterilization Act and Castration Act were com piled in the same spirit
as the 1935 Sterilization Act and com pulsory sterilization and castration were
to be abolished only by the act o f 1970 which also provided wider opportuni­
ties for abortion. T he enactm ent of this law is connected with the change in
values and no rm s in Nordic society and especially in Finland, which experi­
enced a profound change in its industrial structure in the 1960s: the country­
side became em pty while the cities grew.
From the stan d p o in t of the spread o f innovations this study suggests that
Finland adopted th e use o f sterilization in th e sam e way as it adopted and
applied other international innovations at that tim e. Behind the gaining of her
independence lay a solid body o f cultural activity. European and other interna­
tional developm ents had been followed keenly, a n d attem pts were m ade to
apply these developm ents efficiently in a Finnish context, often w ithout any
adequate questioning o f the reliability o f the new inform ation.
In general the interm ediary in the transm ission o f new inform ation was
typically some high-ranking civil servant who had personally shared the expe­
rience o f the relevant processes in various countries and who, moreover, had
m aintained personal contacts w ith foreign experts. O ften this interm ediary
also had the role o f convincer, influencing decision-makers by m ethods which
seem highly efficient even by present-day stan d ards. O n the one hand, he
w ould present th e new est research results and statistics and, on the other,
appeal to his audience’s em otions by presenting individual case studies of, in
this instance, “degenerate” or sick people, accounts th at often included nega­
tive forecasts about the future as well.
In Finland pragm atism governed both the search for and the application of
this new inform ation. A scholarly analogy of w hat occurred would be that too
often applied research was unsupported by basic research. In addition, the lat­
est research findings appeared to support the n otion th at the nation’s existence
could be safeguarded by breeding its people m ore insightfully. This seemed
only a small step fu rth er than the earlier prevalent belief that the same goal
could be achieved by education and the application o f new innovations.
Finnish thinking in the field o f race hygiene, w hich led to the enactm ent of
the sterilization law, does not appear to have had any conscious links with any
particular ideology. Nevertheless, it may well be that the values and world view of
the intermediaries were similar to those that prevailed among their colleagues in
Europe and especially in Germany, where many o f them had previously studied.
The nearest analogy to the Finns’ eagerness to em ploy sterilization can be
found in their ready acceptance o f the Prohibition Act in 1919, which was one
o f th e first significant actions by the Parliam ent o f the newly independent
Finland. Both o f these laws were passed w ithout any significant opposition.
(In te re stin g ly e n o u g h , it was th e Swedish P e o p le ’s P arty w h ich was the
strongest adversary o f the p rohibition legislation.) Both o f these acts had a
similar objective: the strengthening o f the new n ation’s existence. In the case of
prohibition a reference group was found in the U nited States, which dem on­
strates that, in spite o f the cu ltu ral bond w ith G erm any, innovations were
adopted from any country where they could be fo und as long as they were in
accord with the Finnish people’s own needs. There are many examples of such
Finnish pragm atism in exploring and adopting innovations.
 C o n c e n tra tio n o n th e a d o p tio n o f the in n o v atio n s o f oth ers saves the
resources o f a small cou n try and accelerates her progress. This certainly hap­
pened in Finland. The negative side o f the matter, however, is that innovations
can be too readily adopted on unexam ined or even false grounds. This was,
indeed, w hat happened w ith both the Sterilization Act and earlier in the m atter
o f prohibition. N ot surprisingly, therefore, the Prohibition Act was eventually
rescinded by a referendum in 1931, even though it still had quite widespread
popular support, especially in the countryside. The abolition o f com pulsory
sterilization had to wait until the 1970s, w hen society had adopted a new, more
liberal set o f values and w hen the m o d ern welfare system was able to cope with
the m ost difficult cases.

N o tes

1. J. Paasivirta, F inland a n d Europe: The Early Years o f Independence 1917-1939

(Helsinki: Finnish Historical Association, 1988), 14-15.
2. Ibid., 242-43, 322. On prohibition, see J. Kallenautio, “Kieltolaki ja sen kum oam i-
nen puoluepoliittisena ongelm ana,” A lkoholitutkim ussaation fulkaisuja , no. 31
(1979).
3. Paasivirta, Finland and Europe, 324-25, 333.
4. See, for example, K. Pearson, “On the Relationship of Intelligence on Size and
Shape of Head and to O ther Physical and Mental Characters,” Biometrika (1906):
105-46; S. W ise m a n , ed ., In te llig e n c e a n d A b ility : S e le cte d R e a d in g s
(H arm ondsw orth: Penguin Books, 1967), 1-13; D. A. MacKenzie, Statistics in
B ritain 1865-1930: The Social Construction o f Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 1981). About attitudes o f the middle class, see M.
Freeden, “Eugenics and Progressive Thought: A Study in Ideological Affinity,” The
Historical Journal 22, no. 3 (1979): 645-71.
5. On professionalism in medicine, see G. E. Markowitz and D. Rosner, “D octors
in Crisis: Medical Education and Medical Reform during the Progressive Era
1895-1915,” in Health Care in America: Essays in Social History, ed. S. Reverby
an d D. R osner (P h ilad elp h ia: T em p le U niversity Press, 1979); R o n ald L.
Numbers, “The Fall and Rise of the American Medical Profession,” in Sickness
and Health in America: Readings in the H istory o f M edicine and Public H ealth, ed.
). W. Leavitt and R. L. N um bers (M adison: U niversity o f W isconsin Press,
1985).
6. M. Hietala, Services and Urbanization at the Turn o f the Century: The D iffusion o f
Innovations, Studia Historica 23 (Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1987); H.
Saarinen, “Studien und Bildungsreisen von Finnen nach Berlin 1809-1914,” in
M iscellanea, Studia 33, ed. A. T am m isto , K. M u stakallio and H. S aarin en
(Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1989), 203-48.
 7. A. Kemilainen, “Mongoleista eurooppalaisiksi 1900-luvun rotuteorioissa,” in
Mongoleja vai Germaaneja? Rotuteorioiden suomalaiset, Historiallinen Arkisto 86,
ed. A. Kemilainen, M. Hietala, and P. Suvanto (Helsinki: Finnish H istorical
Society, 1985), 295-389.
8. H. Federley, A n tropologi och dem ografi: Den svenska fo lk sta m m e n i F in la n d
(Helsingfors: Nordiska Forlags AB, 1940).
9. V. Tallgren, “Rotuopesita roduntutkim ukseen Suomen ‘alymyston’ aikakausle-
hdistossa (Arvi Grotenfeltin, Tor Karstenin ja Kaarlo H ildenin kasityksia),” in
Mongoleja vai Germaaneja? Rotuteorioiden suomalaiset, Historiallinen Arkisto 86,
ed. A. Kemilainen, M. Hietala, and P. Suvanto (H elsinki: Finnish H istorical
Society, 1985), 351-405.
10. P. Kalevi Hamalainen, “Suomenruotsalaisten rotukasityksia vallankumouksen ja
kansalaissodan aikoina,” in Mongoleja vai Germaaneja? Rotuteorioiden suomalaiset,
H isto riallin en A rkisto 86, ed. A. K em ilainen, M. H ietala, and P. Suvanto
(Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1985), 407-20.
11. T. Aro, “Suomalaisten rotu saksalaisissa ja pohjoismaalaisissa tietosanakirjoissa,”
in Mongoleja vai Germaaneja? Rotuteorioiden suomalaiset, Historiallinen Arkisto
86, ed. A. Kemilainen, M. Hietala, and P. Suvanto (Helsinki: Finnish Historical
Society, 1985), 195-247.
12. M. Hietala, “Suomalaisen naistyypin etsim inen,” in Mongoleja vai Germaaneja?
R otuteorioiden suom alaiset, H istoriallinen Arkisto 86, ed. A. Kemilainen, M.
Hietala, and P. Suvanto (Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1985), 431-46.
13. Paasivirta, Finland and Europe, 342-52.
14. O. Okkonen, Vaino Aaltonen 1915-1925: Tutkielma (Helsinki: Otava, 1925), 51.
15. T. Makinen, “Yhdysvaltojen ja Suomen valisten tieteellisten kontaktien kehitys
1917-1970,” unpublished master’s thesis, Departm ent o f History, University of
T urku, 1980, 32; P, W eindling, H e a lth , Race a n d G erm an Politics: B etw een
National Unification and Nazism, 1870-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989), 2-4, 15-25.
16. Laakintohallitus, Matkakertomukset 1896-1925, The National Archives of Finland
[National Board of Health, Travel Reports, 1896-1925]; M. Hietala, “Berlin und
andere Grossstadte als Vorbild fur die Selbstverwaltungen von Helsinki u n d
Stockholm um die Jahrhundertwende,” in Blicke a u f die deutsche Metropole, ed. G.
Brunn and J. Reulecke (Essen: Reimar Hobbing, 1989), 201-24.
17. See M. Hietala, “The Diffusion of Innovations: Some Examples of Finnish Civil
Servants’ Professional Tours in Europe,” Scandinavian Journal o f History 8, no. 1
(1983): 23-36; M. H ietala, “In n o v a a tio id e n ja k a n sa in v a listy m ise n
vuosikym m enet,” in Tietoa, taitoa, asiantuntem usta: H elsinki eurooppalaisessa
kehityksessa 1875-1917, vol. 1, Historiallinen Arkisto 99:1/Helsingin kaupungin
tie to k e s k u k se n tu tk im u k sia 1992:5:1 (H elsin k i: F in n ish H is to ric a l
Society/Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus, 1992).
The Finnish district surgeon Konrad Relander wrote a 600-page report when he
visited water works, sewage plants, slaughterhouses, disinfection institutes and
 hygiene institutes in cities all around the E urope in 1895-1896 (K. Relander,
“Kertomus hygieniselta opintomatkalta Eurooppaan 1894-1895,” Laakintohallitus,
M atkakertomukset 1894-1895, The National Archives of Finland [National Board
o f Health, Travel Reports, 1894-1895].
18. Paasivirta, Finland and Europe, 335-41.
19. J. Hagelstam, M innestal over Ossian Schaum an vid Sam fundets arsm ote den 30
m ars 1922 (Helsingfors: Skrifter utgivna af Sam fundet Folkhalsan i Svenska
Finland, 1922), 8-13; H. Federley, Antropologi och demografi: Den svenska folk-
stam m en (Helsingfors: Nordiska Forlags AB, 1940).
20. Scandinavians responded to racial hygiene w ith the greatest enthusiasm . Ernst
Riidin recruited from Norway and Sweden thirty-three members to the Deutsche
Gesellschaft fur Rassenhygiene in 1907 and 1909 (See Weindling, Health, Race and
German Politics, 150).
21. In 1.932 the U.S. Executive Committee of the Eugenics Research Association nom ­
inated Federley to represent Finland on an Advisory Board of the Eugenical News.
In 1920 Federley was invited as a representative m em ber o f F inland in the
International Federation of Eugenic Organizations.
22. Alfred Ploetz to Harry Federley, 31 August 1928, and Harry H. Laughlin to Harry
Federley, 16 January 1934 and 23 May 1934, Papers of Harry Federley, Helsinki
University Library; Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics, 150.
23. P. P ortin and A. Saura, The Im p a c t o f M e n d e l’s W ork on the D evelopm ent o f
Genetics in Finland, Folia Mendeliana 20, Supplementum ad Acta Musei Moravie
Scientiae Naturales LXX (Brno: Moravske Musei Moravie, 1985), 41-45.
24. R. Ehrstrom, “Ar rasdifferensen af betydelse for frekvensen af de funktionella neu-
roserna i landet,” in Finska Lakaresallskapets H andlingar (Helsingfors: Finska
Lakaresallskapet, 1908), 527-37.
25. G. von W endt, Vara p likter m o t k o m m a n d e slaktled. Nagra grunddrag ur den
allm anna rashygien (Borga: Soderstrom &. CO Forlagsaktiebolag, 1912).
26. G. von W endt, Tehtavam m e tulevia sukupolvia kohtaan: Eraita yleisen rotuhygien-
ian peruspiirteita, Ajankysymyksia 2 (Porvoo: W erner Soderstrom OY, 1912).
27. A. Palmberg, “Nativitetens och barndodlighetens speciala och nationella bety­
delse,” in E konom iska Sam fundet i Finland: Foredrag och Forhandlingar, vol. 7
(Helsingfors: Ekonomiska samfundet, 1912). Palmberg’s book on public health,
A llm an halsovardslara (Borga: W erner Soderstrom OY, 1889), was translated into
English, Spanish, and French.
28. “Rashygienen: Socialpoliticens vapenbroder,” N ya Pressen, 18 January 1913.
29. “Rashygienen en samhallsplikt,” Hufvudstadsbladet, 11 January 1913.
30. A. Bjorkman, “Forekomsten av sinnesslohet i Finland och nagra darav foranledde
reflexioner,” in Sjdtte nordiska m otet for abnormsaken i Helsingfors 24-27, ju h 1912
(Helsingfors: Helsingin Uusi kirjapaino-osakeyntid, 1915), 308-30; paper presented
by Dr. I. Kalpa, medical superintendent of Pitkaniemi hospital, at a conference of
Finnish welfare workers in Vaasa on 27 July 1934, Huoltaja, no. 16 (1934): 325-31.
31. Albert Bjorkman visited institutions for mental health in Berlin, Heidelberg, Basel,
N euchatel, Geneva, Lausanne, Bern, M iinsingen, Zurich, Baden, Strassburg,
 Bonn, Diisseldorf, D ortm und, Bielefeld, Bremen, K openhamn, London, Paris,
Leipzig, Lund, Kristinehamn, Stockholm (Laakintohallitus, Matkakertomukset,
1896-1925, The National Archives o f Finland [National Board of Health, Travel
Reports]).
32. “Fran vara lakareforeningar i landsorten: Utdrag ur Abo Lakareforenings p ro ­
tokoll den 25 Oktober 1913,” Finska Lakaresallskapets handlingar 56, (Helsingfors:
Finska Lakaresallskapet, 1913).
33. “Fran vara lakareforeningar i landsorten: Utdrag ur Abo Lakareforenings p ro ­
tokoll den 7 December 1913,” Finska Lakaresallskapets handlingar 56 (Helsingfors:
Finska Lakaresallskapet, 1913).
34. A. W allgren, “Finska Lakaresallskapets allm anna m ote i Abo den 19 och 20
Septem ber 1913,” Finska Lakaresallskapets handlingar 57 (Helsingfors: Finska
Lakaresallskapet, 1913).
35. K. Vaananen, Periytyminen ja ihm issuvun jalostam inen (Helsinki: Otava, 1916),
137.
36. See, for example, D. Paul, “Eugenics and the Left,” Journal o f the History o f Ideas
(1984): 567-90.
37. Vaananen, Periytyminen ja ihmissuvun jalostam inen, 140-47.
38. Ibid., 150.
39. H. Federley, “Rashygien: Foredrag hallet vid Nordiskt forbundet for kvinnogym-
nastik kongress i Ekenas den 25 Juli 1924,” F.F.F. Svenskt forbund for fysisk fostran
fo r F in la n d s k v in n o r (1924): 139-53; A. H alila, S u o m e n n a isv o im iste lu ja
urheiluseurat vuoteen 1915: Suomenkielisten miesvoimistelu-ja urheiluseurojen syn-
nysta, perustajien yhteiskunnallisesta koostumuksesta ja emaseuroista, Historiallisia
tutkimuksia 53 (Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1959), 12-20.
40. L. Leidenius, “Vahan rotuhygieniasta,” Valkonauha: Suom en naisten kristillinen
siveellisyys- ja raittiuslehti, no. 1 (1916).
41. H. Federley, “Det sjunkande fodelsetalet: Ett varningstecken,” Forsamlingsbladet,
no. 7(1924).
42. O. Schauman, Eugenic W ork in Swedish Finland: The Swedish N ation in World and
Picture (Stockholm: Hasse W. Tullberg Co., 1921), 3.
43. H. Federley, Antropologi och demografi: Den svenska folkstam m en (Helsingfors:
Nordiska F5rlags AB, 1940).
44. J. Hagelstam, M innestal over Ossian Schaum an vid Sam fundets arsmote den 30
m ars 1922 (Helsingfors: Skrifter utgivna af Sam fundet Folkhalsan i Svenska
Finland, 1922). H erm an Lundborg was the first co rresp o n d en t m em ber o f
S am fundet folkhalsan i Svenska F in lan d (see H. Federley, B erdttelse over
S a m fu n d e ts v erksam het under dr 1921-1922 [Helsingfors: Skrifter utgivna af
Samfundet Folkhalsan i Svenska Finland, 1922]).
45. H. Federley, “Rassenhygienische Propaganda-arbeit u n ter der schwedischen
Bevolkerung Finlands,” A rchivfur Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie 24 (1930): 326­
33; H. Federley, Folkhalsan i Svenska Finland: drftlighetens betydelse for folkhalsan
(Helsingfors: Svenska Litteratursallskapet i Finland, 1920), 9-30; “Program for
 Samfundets Folkhalsan i Svenska Finland teoretiska kompletteringskurser 1927”
[program for a training course], The In stitu te o f Genetics, Papers o f Harry
Federley, Helsinki University; G. Wellin, Folkhalsan i Svenska Finland: O m barnens
vard (Helsingfors: Svenska Litteratursallskapet i Finland, 1920), 31-47; “Vara
svenska halsosystrar,” Svenska Pressen, 10 January 1931.
46. H. Federley, “Sam fundet Folkhalsan 1921-1931,” in S a m fu n d e t Folkhalsan i
F inland: B erdttelse avgiven a v S a m fu n d e ts sekreterare Federlay (Helsingfors:
Samfundet Folkhalsan, 1932), 10-19.
47. H. Federley, “B eloningar for berom lig m o d ersg arn in g ,” B arn och Ungdom.
N or disk socialpedagogisk tidskrift (1926): 1-7.
48. H. Federley, “Rassenhygienische P ropaganda-arbeit unter der schwedischen
Bevolkerung Finlands,” Archiv ftir Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie 24 (1930): 326­
33.
49. H. Federley, “Ans och vard at de friska barn,” in Barnens by (Helsingfors: A.B.F.
Tilgmanns tryckeri, 1926), 8-10; H. Federley, Sam fundets moderspremiering och
dess syfte (Helsingfors: Samfundet folkhalsan i Svenska Finland, 1946), 127-35.
50. H. Federley, “Beloningar for berom lig m o d ersg arn in g ,” Barn och Ungdom .
Nordisk socialpedagogisk tidskrift (1926): 1-7.
51. H. Federley, “Ans och vard at de friska barn,” in Barnens by (Helsingfors: A.B.F.
Tilgmanns tryckeri, 1926), 8-10.
52. See, for example, M. Klinge, Vihan veljista valtiososialismiin: Yhteiskunnallisia ja
kansalllisia nakemyksia 1910- ja 1920-luvuilla (Porvoo: Werner Soderstrom OY,
1972), 45-56.
53. H. Federley, “Det sjunkande fodelsetalet ett varningstecken,” Forsamlingsbladet,
no. 7-8 (1924).
54. L. Ringbom , “Rashygieniska syften och m al,” A bo underrdttelser, 20 February
1923.
55. H. Federley, “Folkhalsan och rashygien,” Nylanningen (1933): 15-16.
56. “H arry Federley 70 ar,” Hufvudstadsbladet, 22 March 1949; “Professor Federleys
d o d ,” H ufvudstadsbladet, 14 N ovem ber 1957; interview with Professor Esko
Suomalainen, 6 June 1987.
57. H. Federley, “I sterilisationsfragan,” Tidskrift utgifven av Stiftelsen fo r psykisk hitlsa
7, no. 1-2 (1934).
58. H. Federley, “Degenerationsfaran och dess aw arjande genom sterilisation,” Finlands
Roda Kors (1927): 6-21; H. Federley, “Sterilisering i rashygieniskt syfte,” Medicinska
Foreningens Tidskrift, no. 9 (1929): 223-37; H. Federley, “Arftlighetslara och rashy­
gien,” in Halsa och sjukdom (Helsingfors: Soderstrom & Co Forlagsaktiebolag,
1930), 239-310; H. Federley, “I sterilisationsfragan,” Tidskrift utgiven av Stiftelsen for
psykisk halsa 7, no. 1-2 (1934): 1-16; H. Federley, “Sterilisaatiokysymys ja sen kehitys
Suomessa,” Suomen Punainen risti, no. 3 (1935): 55-60; H. Federley, “Rashygieniska
synpunkter pa oss var framtid,” Finlands Roda kors, no. 4 (1935): 1-6; H. Federley,
“Ras, rasbiologi och raspolitik,” N ya Argus, no. 17 (1935): 223-27.
59. Federley received sixteen letters from H erm an Lundborg, fifteen letters from
Alfred Mjoen, twenty-one letters from Otto M ohr, thirty-eight letters from Fritz
 Lenz and three from Alfred Ploetz (Papers of Harry Federley, Helsinki University
Library).
60. Fritz Lenz to H arry Federley, 19 D ecem ber 1917, Papers of H arry Federley,
Helsinki University Library.
61. Fritz Lenz to H arry Federley, 30 D ecem ber 1929, Papers o f H arry Federley,
Helsinki University Library.
62. Federley had asked Lenz about his opinion on Mjoen and Lundborg. Lenz wrote:
“Was ihre Bemerkungen iiber die Rassenhygieniker betrifft, muss ich Ihnen leider
R echt geben. M joen ist ein recht zw eifelhafter Gewinn. Auch was Sie uber
Lundborg sagen diirfte wohl zutreffen. Aber trotzdem habe ich ein Eindruck, dass
die Rassenhygienische Bewegung sich wissenschaftlich m ehr u n d m eh r kiart”
(Fritz Lenz to Harry Federley, 3 March 1924, Papers of Harry Federley, Helsinki
University Library).
63. “Tvillingsforskning: Arv och miljo, Prof. Federleys rasbiologiska forelasningar,”
Upsala N ya Tidning, 25 O ctober 1934; “Arvsanlagen och krim inaliteten: Nya
resultat av tvillingsforskning, Professor Federleys forelasningar om tvillingsforskn­
ing,” N ya Dagligt A llehanda, 25 October 1934. Cf. H. Federley, “Brottsligheten
som biologisk foreteelse. Foredrag hallet den 7, januari 1934 under den bekam-
pande avbrottsligheten a n o rd n an d e foredragsveckan i H elsingfors,” Psykisk
Hygien, no. 1-2 (1935): 21-30.
64. E. Suomalainen, K rom osom itutkim uksen ja klassillisen perinndllisyystieteen aika
1923-1949 (Helsinki: Institutum Geneticum, Universitas Helsingiensis, 1983), 14­
23.
65. Interview with Professor Esko Suomalainen, Helsinki, 6 June 1987.
66. “Harry Federley ordforande i Samfundet folkhalsan i Svenska Finland,” Svenska
Pressen, 7 O ctober 1940; “Folkhalsan far in stitu tet for arftlighetsforskning,”
H ufvudstadsbladet, 2 A pril 1942; “Svenskt in stitu t for arftlighetsforskning,”
Svenska Pressen, 1 April 1942.
67. J. Tegengren, “Finland: En halsning till 20-arige,” Allsvensk Samling, 6 June 1921.
68. L. Ringbom, “Rashygieniska syften och m al,” A bo Underrattelser, 20 February
1923.
69. H. Andersson, “Ett svenskt statsinstitut for rasbiologi: Dess tillkom sthistoria,”
Finska Lakaresallskapets H andlingar 62-63 (Helsingfors: Finska Lakaresallskapet,
1921).
70. “Rotuhygieniasta,” Helsingin Sanomat, 31 July 1921.
71. T iitus [pseud.], “M ieltakiinnittava ajatustenvaihto ‘ruotsalaisesta ro tu p u h -
tauoesta’ eli m ita yksi riikin ru o tsalain en laakem ies voi itsestansa ja m uista
ajatella,” Helsingin Sanomat, 7 October 1922; B. Gripenberg, D rom m en om folkvil-
jan (Helsingfors: Holger Schildts forlag, 1918).
72. E. Book, “Kysymys naisten yotyon kieltamisesta teollisuudessa: ‘Ennem m in tai
myohemmin on ryhdyttava tahan rotuhygieniseen toimenpiteeseen,’” Helsingin
Sanomat, 7 March 1929.
73. V. Annala, “V irkam iehiston nykyinen palkkaus ja rodun h u o n o n tu m in e n ,”
Helsingin Sanomat, 1 September 1928.
74. A. von Bonsdorff, O m varden av andesvaga barn i Finland, M eddelanden utgivna
av socialm inisteriet i Finland 21 (H elsingfors: V altioneuvoston kirjapaino,
1925).
75. H. Federley, “R o d u n terveytta p a ra n ta v a t y h te isk u n n a lliset u u d istu k se t,”
Sosiaalinen Aikakauskirja, no. 5 (1924): 375-91; H. Federley, “I sterilisationsfra-
gan,” Tidskrift utgiven av Stiftelsen fo rp sykisk hdlsa7, no. 1-2 (1933-34): 1-16.
76. C om m ittee for Legalising Eugenic Sterilisation. O ther C ountries 1929-1932,
P ap ers o f the E u g en ics Society, L o n d o n U niv ersity C ollege, Eug/ D 208;
M emoranda concerning various laws. Dr. J. Crowley Board of Control, Papers of
the Eugenics Society, London University College, Eug/ D 226.
77. Aatos Lehtonen had visited hospitals for mentally ill in G ermany during three
m onths in 1913. Later he visited the mental hospitals in Stettin, Dresden, Colditz,
Leipzig, N e rm sd o rf, M u n ch en , B erlin , and S tra lsu n d (L a a k in to h a llitu s,
Matkakertomukset 1896-1925, National Archives of Finland).
78. Vaino Makela followed keenly discussions on laws of sterilization in various coun­
tries. In 1907, 1911, 1924-25, 1929, and 1930-32 he made professional study tours
to Germany, in 1929 to Sweden, in 1930 to Austria and in 1938 to Norway. He did
research on schizophrenia in the 1930s and published a book on the subject, Die
Psychopatologien der Schitzophrenie, in 1936.
79. Komiteanmietinto [Committee Report], no. 5 (Helsinki, 1929).
80. W hen the com m ittee report was published, Federley sent a copy to Herm an
Lundborg, deploring the fact that the Finnish state ties had not for reasons of
economy published it in Swedish although the major bulk of it had already been
written in Swedish (H arry Federley to Herman Lundborg, 19 May 1929, Papers of
H erm an Lundborg, Uppsala University). The Finnish com m ittee report stated
that the number of sterilizations performed under the law in the United States was
8,515, until 1 January 1928. Of these, 4,517 were performed on men, and 3,998
were perform ed on w om en. The m ajority of cases (5,820) were reported in
California (Komiteanmietinto [Committee Report], no. 5, 17).
81. Komiteanmietinto [Committee Report], no. 5.
82. A. J. Palmen, “Kysymys vajaakelpoisten sterilisoimisesta maassamme,” Sosiaalinen
Aikakauskirja, no. 11 (1933); A. J. Palmen, “Komiteanm ietinto vajaakelpoisten
sterilisoimisesta,” Duodecim , no. 11 (1929): 957-63.
83. The Parliamentary Publications of Finland [henceforth P.P.], Vuoden 1934 val-
tio p a iv a t, H a llitu k sen esitys E d u sk u n n alle ste rilisa a tio la ik si, no. 112, 14
[Government bill on sterilization].
84. “ L a k im aaraista s te rilis o im is ta ei p u o lle ta ,” U u si S u o m i, 5 May 1929;
“Tylsamielisten, mielisairaiden ja kaatumatautisten sterilointi ehdotetaan saadet-
tavaksi vapaaehtoiseksi,” Uusi Suomi, 7 May 1929; “Lakimaaraista sterilisaatiota ei
puolleta,” Ilkka, 6 May 1929; “Sterilisoimista koskeva lakiehdotus valmis: Komitea
ei puolla lakim aaraista sterilisointia, Steriloim isluvan antaa laakintohallitus,”
H elsingin Sanom at, 7 M ay 1929; “Lain m aaraam aa steriliso in tia ei puolleta:
Vaadittava itse henkilon tai hanen holhoojansa ehdotus,” Sosialisti, 6 May 1920;
 Maskuliini [pseudon.], “Rikosko aitiytta vastaan? Ajattelemisen aihetta tyolais-
naisille,” Tyolais- ja talonpoikaisnaisten lehti, no. 4-5 (1929).
85. E. Book, “Heikkomielisten hoito,” Huoltaja, no. 14 (1929): 233-38.
86. E. J. Horelli, “Sterilisoimiskysymyksesta I,” Vankeinhoito, no. 10 (1929): 166-67.
87. E. J. Horelli, “Sterilisoimiskysymyksesta II,” Vankeinhoito (1929): 12-13.
88. A. J. Palmen, “Komiteanmietinto vajaakelpoisten sterilisoimisesta,” Duodecim , no.
11 (1929): 957-63.
89. “Tiedonantoja ulkomailta: Sterilisoimiskysymys,” Sosiaalinen Aikakauskirja , no. 4
(1929): 200-2.
90. W. L. Telkka, “Tanskan steriloimislaki,” Vankeinhoito, no. 11 (1929): 190-91.
91. “ S te riliso in tik y sy m y s R u o tsissa ” (E x trac t fro m th e Sw edish Sociala
Meddelanden),” Sosiaalinen Aikakauskirja, no. 10 (1929): 535-36.
92. E. Ehrnrooth, “Perinnollisyydesta ja sen vaikutuksesta erinaisten mielisairauksien
sy n ty y n ,” S ie lu n te r v e y s s e u r a n a ik a k a u s le h ti, no. 1 (1 9 2 9 ): 1-11;
“Sterilisoimiskysymys Pohjoismaissa: Erittainkin Norjan oloja silmalla pitaen,”
paper of Henr. O uren presented at the social philanthropic conference in Helsinki
4-6 July 1930, Huoltaja, no. 2 (1931): 23-29, no. 3 (1931): 44-47.
93. Promemoria from the Board of the Association for Mental Health, 11 April 1928;
Prom emoria from the head of Perttula Reformatory to the M inistry o f Social
Affairs, 11 April 1928; Promemoria from the Association of Schools for Retarded
in Finland to the Council of the Finnish Government, 30 November 1929; peti­
tion from the M annerheim League for the Welfare of Children to the Finnish
Government, 10 December 1929; letter from the Ministry o f Social Affairs to the
M in istry o f E d u c a tio n , 9 M ay 1930, p u b lish e d as a su p p le m e n t to
Komiteanmietinto, no. 5 (1929); Einar Book, “O nko vajaamielisten hoidon jar-
jestamistsa koskevan kysymyksen selvittely tarpeellinen,” Huoltaja, no. 23 (1932):
410-14.
94. Advertisement for subscription, Sielunterveysseuran aikakauslehti, no. 1-2 (1933):
2.
95. R. Hedman, “Yhteiskunta ja vajaaalyiset,” Sielunterveysseuran aikakauslehti, no. 31
(1931): 9-21.
96. “Vajaaalyisyys sosiaalisena kysymyksena: Katsauksia,” Huoltaja, no. 10 (1931):
192-95.
97. S. E. D o n n er, “L au su n to steriliso im isk y sy m y k sesta,” S ielu n terve ysse u ra n
aikakauslehti, no. 2 (1931): 9-21.
98. I. Kalpa, “Mielisairauksien ja sielullisten hairiotilojen periytymisesta ja periytyviin
m ielisairauksiin k o h d istu v ista eh k aisy to im en p iteista,” S ielunterveysseuran
aikakauslehti, no. 1-2 (1932).
99. R. Hedman, “Sielunterveys ja kansanterveys,” Sielunterveysseuran aikakauslehti,
no. 1-2 (1932): 20-26.
100. “Psykiatrisen perinnollisyysbiologian saavutusten m erkitys kaytannolliselle
eugeniikalle,” paper o f Professor Riidin presented at the Congress o f Mental
Hygiene in Bonn 21 May 1932, Sielunterveysseuran aikakauslehti, no. 3 (1932): 3­
14.
 101. “Avioliittoneuvonta ja sukupuolihygienia,” Sielunterveysseuran aikakauslehti, no. 4
(1932): 3-11.
102. “Tietopuolinen oppijakso mielisairaanhoidossa,” paper of Professor Ietscher pre­
sented at the Congress of Mental Hygiene in Bonn 21 May 1932, Sielunterveysseuran
aikakauslehti, no. 1-2 (1933).
103. A. J. P alm en , “R o d u n h u o n o n tu m in e n v aatii to im e n p ite ita . K ysym ys
vajaakelpoisten sterilisoimisesta,” Terveydenhoitolehti, no. 2 (1934): 28-30.
104. “Sterilisoimislain tarpeellisuus,” Huoltaja, no. 6 (1933): 121-22.
105. “Sterilisoimiskysymys meilla ja muualla: Saksan uusi sterilisaatiolaki,” Report of
the German Sterilization Law, H uoltaja, no. 1 (1934): 18-19; “Ehdotus steril -
isoimislaiksi Ruotsissa,” (Proposal for a Sterilization Law in Sweden,) Huoltaja,
no. 9 (1934): 196; “ R u o tsin m ielisa iraid e n ste riliso im ista koskeva la k i,”
Sosiaalinen aikakauskirja, no. 11 (1934): 700-1.
106. H. Federley, “Brottsligheten som biologisk foreteelse: A paper read during the
Crime Prevention Week in Helsinki, 13 July 1934,” Psykisk Hygien, no. 1-2 (1935):
21-30.
107. The papers by Ley and Kinberg were published in Sielun terveys, no. 4 (1935).
108. H. Federley, “Sterilisoimiskysymyksesta,” Sielun terveys, no. 1-2 (1935): 10-17.
109. B. Honkasalo, “Sterilisoinnista,” Sielunterveysseuran aikakauslehti, no. 1-2 (1934):
5-33.
110. P. M ustala, “M ita rik o llisu u d en vastustam isessa olisi o tettav a h u o m io o n ,”
Sielunterveysseuran aikakauslehti, no. 1-2 (1934): 34-38.
111. K. Neuman-Rahn, “Rengas rikollisuuden ehkaisytyossa,” Sielun terveys, no. 1-2
(1935): 23-29.
112. V. Makela, “Mita voimme tehda tulevien sukupolvien henkisen terveyden kohot-
tamiseksi,” Sielun terveys, no. 1 (1936): 11-13.
113. V. Makela, “Die Sterilisations- und Kastrationsgesetzgebung Finnlands,” A rchiv
fu r Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie 31 (1937): 420-50.
114. “Pakollinen sterilisaatio: Vaarallinen lakiehdotus,” Tulenkantajat, 6 October 1934;
“Kaksi tunnettua laakaria sterilisaatiolainsaadannosta,” Tulenkantajat, 30 October
1934.
115. “Merkintoja,” Soihtu, no. 3 (1935): 45.
116. K. Pohjola, “Sterilisoimislaki,” Suomen nainen, no. 1 (1935).
117. “A laikaisten ja n u o rte n h e n k ilo id en suojelem inen su k u p u o lisiita vakival-
lanteoilta,” Huoltaja, no. 8 (1933): 151-53.
118. “Lasten ja nuorten suojelem inen siveellisyysrikoksilta: Eduskunta hyvaksynyt
toivomusaloitteen,” A jan Suunta, 17 February 1934.
119. “Ihmisrodun jalostaminen,” Toveritar, no. 3 (1934): 28.
120. K. W. O. “Eduskunnan tyokaudelta,” Naisten aani, no. 10 (1935): 10-11.
121. R. Jalas, “Mielisairaus ja koyhyys,” Huoltaja, no. 8 (1931): 137-40.
122. R. Jalas, “Syntyvaisyyden saannostelysta,” Huoltaja, no. 22 (1935): 469-76.
123. R. Jalas, “M uutam a sana steriloim isesta ja sterilisoim islaista,” K otiliesi , no. 7
(1935): 270-71.
124. K oyhainhoitotilasto 1932, Suom en V irallinen T ilasto 21 (H elsinki: C entral
Statistical Office of Finland, 1935), 15 [The Official Statistics of Finland].
125. P.P., Vuoden 1934 valtiopaivat, Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle sterilisaatiolaiksi,
no. 112 [Government bill on sterilization].
126. P.P., Vuoden 1934 valtiopaivat, Talousvaliokunnan m ietinto, no. 11 [Report of
the Economy Committee of the Parliament].
127. A member of the Finnish Parliament, Oskari Reinikainen, criticized the bill on the
sterilization act because the proposal was born of the draft of one private specialist
(P.P., Speech of Reinikainen in the session of the Parliament, 11 December 1934).
128. P.P., Speech of the minister of the interior, Yrjo Puhakka, in the session of the
Parliament, 11 December 1934 and Speech of Bruno Sundstrom in the session of
the Parliament, 11 December 1934.
129. P.P ., Speeches o f K arl W iik a n d B ru n o S u n d stro m in th e session o f the
Parliament, 11 December 1934.
130. P.P., Speeches of Bruno Sarlin, Karl Wiik, Eero Rydman, Oskari Reinikainen in
the session of the Parliament, 22 February 1935.
131. P.P., Speeches o f Reinhold Swentorzetski, Vilho Kivioja, Mikko Ampuja, in the
sessions of the Parliament, 11 December 1934, 22 February 1935, and 5 March
1935.
132. Fritz Lenz to H arry Federley, 7 D ecem ber 1935, P apers of H arry Federley,
Helsinki University Library.
133. H. Federley, “Prof. Lassilas angrepp pa steriliseringslagen” The In stitu te of
Genetics, Papers of Harry Federley, Helsinki University; The Sterilization Act of
13 )une 1935, T he Statute Book of Finland; H. R yom a, “S terilisoim islaki,”
H uo lta ja , no. 10 (1935): 201-5; A. J. Palm en, “S uom en steriliso im islak i,”
Sosiaalinen aikakauskirja, no. 7 (1935): 431-33.
134. “Sterilisoimislaki,” Suomen Poliisilehti, no. 15 (1935): 339.
135. The Sterilization Act of 13 June 1935.
136. “Sterilisoimislaki vahvistettu: Laakintohallitus kasittelee saadetyssa jarjestyksessa
kaikki ste riliso im ista p a u k se t,” S u o m e n S o sia lid e m o k ra a tti, 14 Ju n e 1935;
“Sterilisoimislaki vahvistettu,” Helsingin Sanomat, 14 June 1935; “Sterilisoimislaki:
Tasavallan presidentti vahvisti sen eilen,” llkka, 14 June 1935.
137. Sterilisoimislain taytantoonpanomaaraysten muuttamista ja taydentamista varten
asetetun komitean mietinto, no. 16 (Helsinki, 1944) [Committee Report, Proposal
on Castration Act].
138. C. A. Borgstrom, Tillam pningen av lagen om sterilisering i F inland 13.6.1935­
30.6.1955 kastreringarna obeaktade, Bidrag till kannedom av Finlands N atur och
Folk 103 (Helsingfors: Finska Vetenskapssocieteten, 1958).
139. Fritz Lenz to H arry Federley, 24 May 1939, Papers o f Harry Federley, Helsinki
University Library.
140. Borgstrom, Tillampningen av lagen om sterilisering i F inland 13.6.1935-30.6.1955
kastreringarna obeaktade, 59-57. Bidrag till Kannedom av Finlands Natur och Folk
103 (Helsingfors: Finska Vetenskapssocieteten, 1958).
141. Ibid., 86.
142. Ibid., 188.
143. G. Bock, “Racism and Sexism in Nazi Germany,” in W hen Biology Became Destiny:
W omen in W eim ar and N azi Germany, ed. R. Bridenthal, A. Grossmann and M. A.
Kaplan (New York: M onthly Review Press, 1984), 271-96.
144. Anomusdiaarit, Laakintohallitus, National Archives o f Finland [National Board of
Health, Register for applications]. On intelligence tests and on the inheritance of
intelligence, see P. D. Chapman, “Schools as Sorters,” in Applied Psychology and
the Intelligence Testing M ovem ent, 1890-1930, ed. L. M. Terman (New York: New
York University Press, 1988), 30-31.
145. A. Myrdal and G. Myrdal, Kris i befolkningsfragan (Stockholm: Albert Bonniers
forlag, 1934). See also A. Kalvemark, More Children o f Better Quality? Aspects on
Swedish Population Policy in the 1930’s, Studia Historica Upsaliensia 115 (Uppsala:
Almqvist 8c Wiksell International, 1980); R. Lento, Vdestdpoliittisen ajatustavan
synty ja tdhdnastinen kehitys Suomessa V destopolitiikkam m e taustaa ja tehtdvia:
Vaestoliiton vuosikirja I (Porvoo: W erner Soderstrom OY, 1946), 41-63.
146. A. N iem inen, V a esto kysym ys e n tisin a aikoina ja n y ky d d n (P orvoo: W erner
Soderstrom OY, 1941), 35-66.
147. V aestoliitto 1941; O hjelm a, S aannot, “The P op u latio n and Fam ily W elfare
Federation Program Rules,” Vaestoliiton julkaisuja, no. 1 (Helsinki: Vaestoliitto,
1942).
148. L. Pihkala, “K ulttuurin m ittapuu,” Jyvaskyla maakunta-arkisto, Papers o f Lauri
Pihkala, Jyvaskyla Provincial Archives.
149. R. Lahti, “V uoden 1970 ab o rtti-, sterilisaatio- ja k astraatiolainsaadanto,” in
Festskrift utgiven i anledning av Juristklubben C odex’ 30-ars jubileum (Helsinki:
Juristklubben Codex, 1970), 88-96.
150. P. P., H allituksen esitys k astro im islaik si ja sterilisaatio laik si HE 59/1948
[Government bill on castration and sterilization].
151. Sterilisaatio-, kastraatio- ja aborttilaki (1950) [Act on sterilization, castration and
abortion].
152. Lahti, “Vuoden 1970 abortti-, sterilisaatio- ja kastraatiolainsaadanto,” 88-91.
153. P.P., Hallituksen esitys kastraatiolaiksi H 58/1948 [Government bill on castra­
tion].
154. B. A. Salmiala, “Onko pakkokastratio oikeus- ja kulttuurivaitiossa hyvaksyttava
reaktiomuoto rikoksen seurauksena?” Defensor Legis, no. 2-4 (1951).
155. R. Lahti, “Vuoden 1970 abortti-, sterilisaatio- ja kastraatiolainsaadanto,” 96-97.
156. Ibid., 69-73.
157. P.P., Hallituksen esitys sterilisaatiolaiksi 105/1969 [Government bill on steriliza­
tion]; Hallituksen esitys kastraatiolaiksi 106/1969 [Governm ent bill on castra­
tion].
158. P.P., Laki raskauden keskeyttamiseksi 104/1969 [Government bill on abortion].
159. P. Weindling, H ealth, Race a n d G erm an Politics, 215-30.
Conclusion : S candinavian E ugenics in th e

I nternational Context
N ils R o l l - H a n s e n

T
wo waves o f interest in eugenics affected Scandinavia, m uch like those in
Britain.1 The first wave peaked just before World W ar I, the second in the
1930s and 1940s. Eugenics was a significant issue o f social policy and there
was extensive public interest in the topic. Eugenics organizations, however,
were weak. It was an area for expertise ra th e r th a n d em o c ratic p olitics.
Sweden was the only cou n try w ith a national eugenics society. In the other
countries various organizations w ith social causes took on some of the same
tasks, for instance, th e A ssociation o f Public H ealth in Sw edish-speaking
Finland, and there were groups of active people doing propaganda for the
cause, such as M joen’s C onsultative Eugenics C o m m ittee o f Norway. This
loosely organized m ovem ent was m ost active and visible during the first wave.
Its zenith was reached w ith the establishm ent of H erm an Lundborg’s Institute
for Race Biology in Uppsala in 1922. But it was d uring the second wave that
eugenics achieved its m ost striking results in the Nordic countries, namely, the
sterilization laws o f the 1930s.
At the beginning o f the century physical anthropology, with its concept of
race, form ed the theoretical core of eugenics. The N ordic countries, especially
Sweden, had a leading international position in this discipline. This first phase
has been characterized as “m ainline” eugenics in distinction to the “reform ”
eugenics2 typical o f the 1930s and 1940s. M ainline and reform views over­
lapped in tim e. T he first em phasized racial differences and relatively simple
forms o f inheritance for socially im portant characteristics in hum ans. The sec­
ond was antiracist and based on m ore sophisticated genetic theory.
In Scandinavia as in oth er European countries before W orld War I there
appears to have been little dou b t that Europeans saw themselves as superior to
o th er people, in p articu lar to blacks. N otions ab o u t biological inheritance
were vague. More or less explicitly Lamarckian views on heredity were gener­
ally accepted, implying th at the characteristics an individual acquired during
his lifetime were to som e extent inherited by his offspring.
 The distinction betw een m ainline and reform eugenics has been criticized
for obscuring the real historical dynamics in the evolution o f eugenics. One
recent account o f the relationship between A m erican and G erm an eugenics
during the Nazi p eriod defines racism as discrim ination betw een groups of
people. Differences betw een types o f eugenics in term s o f th eir attitudes to
w ard Nazi population policies is adm itted b u t the account agrees w ith the idea
th at all eugenics is inh eren tly racist and th a t th e ultim ate consequences of
m ainline and reform eugenics w ere often the sam e.3 The effect o f such an
inclusive definition o f racism is to downplay the difference betw een support
and opposition to Nazi pop u latio n policies.
Genetics as a special scientific discipline w ith a precise and systematic the­
ory about biological inheritance was form ed only during the first decade of
the tw entieth century. The core o f classical, often called “M endelian,” genetics
was the concept o f the genetic factor, the gene, and the distinction between
genotype and phenotype. The central form ula o f classical genetics was “phe­
notype = genotype + environm ent.”4 Or, in other words, the individual organ­
ism is the product o f an interaction between inherited genetic factors and the
environm ent, two aspects equally essential to the developm ent o f the organ­
ism. W ith these concepts a theoretical basis was laid for a m ore precise analy­
sis and assessment o f the influence o f specific hereditary and environm ental
factors und er varying circum stances.
The second wave o f eugenic interest, developing in the 1920s and 1930s,
included an tiracist sen tim en ts a n d dem ands for m ore precise an d specific
knowledge on how heredity affects the properties o f organisms. T he critical
attitude tow ard the assum ptions o f the old m ainline eugenics represented a
renewal o f the “social co n tract” o f the m ovem ent. Reform eugenics became
linked to birth control and oth er progressive social causes. Inspiration for the
rejection of racism cam e from th e dem ocratic an d socialist egalitarian ideolo­
gies o f the p erio d an d from grow ing scientific knowledge a b o u t biological
inheritance. There was no in stant im pact o f the new insight th ro u g h genetic
research. It took tim e before new knowledge o f h u m an heredity had been con­
vincingly established, system atized, and popularized. O nly th en was it fully
effective in underm in in g eugenic policies such as sterilization.
After W orld W ar II eugenics acquired a reputation for being a politically
conservative or reactionary m ovem ent. But the close link betw een eugenics
and the m ovem ent for social reform s is now well established.5 In particular,
eugenic ste riliz a tio n was an in te g ra l p a rt o f th e social w elfare state th at
em erged in the 1930s and 1940s. In D enm ark, for example, the first govern­
m ent com m ission to consider sterilization and o th er eugenic m easures was
established ju st after the accession o f the first L abor governm ent in 1924.
Leading in th e effort to w ork out and im p lem en t eugenic policies was the
m inister of justice and later o f social affairs, K. K. Steincke. As a result of these
efforts in 1929 D enm ark was the first N ordic country to have a sterilization
law. This social dem ocratic belief in eugenics continued up to the 1950s.
The Scandinavian accounts also show how eugenics was closely integrated
w ith respectable scientific research. The p a rtic ip atio n o f geneticists in the
introduction o f the sterilization laws in the 1930s as well as in their later eval­
uations and revisions dem onstrates the scientific respectability o f a m oderate
eugenics. Some o f the m ost p ro m in en t geneticists, however, doubted there
would be any significant positive effects o f eugenic sterilization. O tto Lous
M ohr in N orw ay in the 1920s and 1930s held sterilization to be ineffective
eugenically, an d saw contem porary eugenics generally as a problem atic m ove­
m ent with m any socially reactionary features. But he accepted the Norwegian
sterilization law and the practice o f sterilizing the m entally retarded, insane,
etc., on social grounds. G unnar Dahlberg in Sweden held a similar view. O ther
geneticists w ere p artisan s o f eugenic sterilization, such as the Finn H arry
Federley, the Swedes Nils von Hofsten and Arne M iintzing, and the Dane Tage
Kemp. As head o f an institute for hum an genetics and the organizer o f the
First In te rn a tio n a l C ongress o f H u m an G enetics in C openhagen in 1956,
Kemp played an im p o rtan t international role in the period after W orld W ar II.
Nevertheless, there is n o dou b t that eugenics deserves its reputation as fer­
tile ground for pseudoscientific propaganda. From early on, some geneticists
m ade continuous efforts to uphold sound criteria o f scientific evidence and
argum ent in th e debates over eugenics, often w ith m o d erate success. The
debate and th e polarization am ong supporters o f eugenics were sharpest in
Norway, where Jon Alfred M joen was the forem ost figure o f m ainline eugen­
ics, w ith a p ro m in en t position in the international eugenics m ovem ent. O n
the other side, criticism growing out o f socialist and dem ocratic ideology as
well as accum ulating scientific knowledge h ad a strong p ro p o n en t in O tto
Lous Mohr. T he professional genetic experts am ong Norwegian biologists and
m edical doctors were organized in the G enetics Society w hich kept M joen
ostracized from 1915 until his death in 1939. In the other Nordic countries
there was less polarization and Mjoen was to som e extent accepted by profes­
sional geneticists such as Federley in Finland an d Lundborg in Sweden. He
was even able to persuade the skeptical W ilhelm Johannsen, the m ost interna­
tio n a lly p ro m in e n t g e n e tic ist in S can d in av ia, to jo in th e In te rn a tio n a l
Federation and becom e a contributor to M joen’s journal, Den Nordiske Rase
(The Nordic Race).
 The in troduction of sterilization laws in the N ordic countries in the 1930s
was carried by the ideology o f reform eugenics, at least on the expert side. In
public debates m ore m ainline an d partly racist views were still influential. The
idea o f a superior N ordic race had appeal to the broad public, especially in
Sweden and Norway. D enm ark was m ore continental and relaxed w ith respect
to the N ordic idea, while F inland was divided due to its own internal conflict
between Swedish and Finnish speakers. The latter were regularly th o u g h t o f as
belonging to the Baltic rather th a n the Nordic race.
Medical doctors had a professional interest in eugenics and played a central
role in developing its policies an d practices. They were in charge of psychiatric
hospitals and institutions for th e m entally retarded, and their expertise was
needed for sterilization, b o th for the screening o f cases and the operations.
The standard term for eugenics in the Nordic countries was the equivalent of
G erm an “Rassenhygiene,” which pointed to its place w ithin a general program
for social hygiene.
W hile sterilization laws w ere in tro d u ced in several states in the U nited
States during the first wave o f m ainline eugenics aro u n d W orld W ar I, no
E uropean n atio n al g o v ern m en t in tro d u ced such laws in this period. O nly
w ith the wave o f reform eugenics were such laws introduced in Europe, and
th en only in N o rth e rn E urope, m ainly in co u n tries w ith a L utheran state
church. W hen the sterilization laws finally cam e they m et very little public
o p p o sitio n . T here was a p p a re n tly a b ro a d consensus th a t such m o d erate
m easures w ere necessary. In th e P arliam en ts only very few voted against
them . In N orway the unan im ity was greatest w ith only one protest vote. In
Finland w ith its recent civil w ar there were fourteen, m ostly socialist left-
w ing politicians w ho saw sterilization as an attack on the labor class. The
Finnish com m ittee rep o rt o f 1929, w hich form ed the basis o f the law, was
considerably m ore restrained th an the actual law passed in 1935. In the early
1930s there was increasing concern about the grow th o f crim e and about an
increase in the nu m b er o f the m entally retarded. D uring the Finnish so-called
C rim e Prevention Week in January 1934 m ost o f the organized public lec­
tures dealt w ith eugenics.
Prevention o f sexual crim es was one m otive for sterilization. It was pre­
sum ably easier for the popular sentim ent to accept such m utilating interven­
tions on crim inals who deserved p unishm ent. W om ens organizations were
particularly active in sending petitions to support the sterilization laws, often
referring to th e need for prev en tin g sexual crim e. Official d o cu m en ts fre­
quently found it necessary to stress th at sterilization as punishm ent was not
 Table 1. Sterilizations in Scandinavia, Estimations
C ountry Period N um ber of Population
Sterilizations 1950

Denmark (excl. medical ind.) 1929-1960 ca. 11,000 4,281,000

Finland (excl. medical ind. 1951-1960) 1935-1960 ca. 4,300 4,030,000
Finland (incl. medical ind.) 1935-1960 ca. 17,000 -
Norway (excl. medical ind.) 1934-1960 ca. 7,000 3,280,000
Sweden (excl. medical ind. 1942-1960) 1935-1960 ca. 17500 7,042,000
Sweden (incl. medical ind.) 1935-1960 ca. 38,900 —

Source: Denmark: T. Kemp, Arvehygiejne: Festskrift udgivet a f K obenhavns U niversitet i

anledning a f Universitetets A rsfest 1951 (Copenhagen: Kobenhavns Universitet, 1951); G.
Koudahl, O m Vasectomi m ed Sterilisation for ¥je (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1967). Finland:
C. A. Borgstrom, Tillampningen av lagen om sterilisering i Finland 13. 6. 1935-30. 6. 1955 kas-
treringarna obeaktade (Helsingfors: Finska Vetenskapssocieteten, 1958); Public Health and
M edical Care, The O fficial Statistics o f F in lan d XI, 1950-1961. Norway: K. Evang,
Sterilisering etter lov av 1. ju n i 1934 om adgang til sterilisering m. v. h. (Sarpsborg: F. Verding,
1955); The Norwegian Parliament, Government Bill 1976/1977 no 46, “Om lov om sterilis­
ering m .v.” Sweden: Sveriges Offentliga Statistik: A llm an Hdlso- och sjukvard (Stockholm:
Statistiska centralbyran, 1935-1976).

Note: Statistics are not easy to compare due to differences in the statistical material. E.g., fig­
ures on Norway refer to granted sterilizations. In Denmark, it was estimated that some 80
percent of the women who were sterilized around 1960 underwent the operation on medical
grounds

acceptable. It is a sign o f the im portance o f the connection to crime prevention

that sterilization applications in Sweden were handled by the Board o f Health’s
Forensic Psychiatry C om m ittee until 1947. Only then were they taken over by
the Social Psychiatry C om m ittee. In Norway the sterilization law of 1934 was
prepared by the governm ent’s commission for criminal law. Still, the num ber of
sterilizations carried o u t o n sexual criminals was small in all the Nordic coun­
tries. Relatively few castrations were perform ed, most o f them in Finland where
eugenic sterilization in general came later and lasted longer than in the other
N o rd ic c o u n trie s . O n e re a so n fo r th is d e la y w as th e s tro n g
Finnish involvement in W orld War II w ith large num bers o f casualties. In all
four N ordic countries th e great m ajority of eugenic sterilizations was on the
mentally retarded. This was the group th at most clearly stood out as a target for
eugenic sterilization.
 The predom inance o f w om en am ong the sterilized— in the Swedish case
m o re th a n 90 p e rc e n t— m u st also be u n d e rlin e d . T he s tro n g im balance
betw een the sexes is o f course n o t accidental, b u t shows th at the history of
eugenics m ust be w ritten n o t merely as a history o f science and pseudoscience;
the im plem entation o f the sterilization laws was n o t gender neutral. Further
research, w hich explicitly addresses the question o f gender, is necessary to
explain how and why w om en becam e the p rim ary object o f the Scandinavian
sterilization program s. O ne hypothesis, proposed by scholars in w om en’s his­
tory, suggests that eugenics reflected m ale norm s, som ething w hich our stud­
ies do not contradict. Thus, w hen male scientists and physicians defined the
standards o f biological and social normality, a sterilization policy concerned
w ith deviancies and differences m ade women per se the focal point.
In D enm ark, Sweden, and Norway there was a rapid drop in the num ber of
sterilizations o f the m entally retarded and insane from the m iddle o f the 1940s
through the 1950s, w ith Finland a little behind. This drop seems to indicate a
phasing out o f eugenic sterilization due to declining su p port for eugenic poli­
cies.6 The decline o f eugenics corresponds to w hat appears to have taken place
in other countries.7 S up p o rt for eugenics declined gradually after W orld War
II, a m ajor factor clearly being the experience w ith Nazi population policies.
Nevertheless, those w ho had prom oted eugenics in the 1930s largely held on
to their convictions into the p eriod after 1945. This was certainly the case with
geneticists o f a liberal o r socialist political b ent, such as J. Huxley, J. B. S.
H aldane, or H. J. M uller in England and the U nited States or H. Nachtsheim
in Germany.8 In Scandinavia key m edical or biological experts like Tage Kemp
(D enm ark), Nils von H ofsten (Sweden), C. A. B orgstrom (Finland), and Karl
Evang (Norway) all argued for eugenic sterilization of the m entally retarded
well into the 1950s.
Decrease in eugenic sterilization did not imply a decrease in the total num ­
ber o f sterilizations, however. First, there was change from eugenic indications
to medical. In Sweden this tendency is particularly m arked. Second, there was
a tre n d tow ard using sterilization as a means o f contraception. The steadily
increasing num ber o f sterilizations in Norway durin g the postw ar period until
the 1970s is due to th is developm ent. It had been strongly em phasized in
Norway from the in tro d u ctio n o f the law in 1934 th at sterilization should be
voluntary as far as possible. The old socialist and eugenic enthusiast Johan
Scharffenberg, for instance, w anted freedom for everybody w ho w ished to be
sterilized. The N orw egian law set limits, however, by dem anding a “worthy
reason.” But in the post-W orld W ar II period this was gradually given a more
 liberal interp retatio n . W hen a new N orw egian law was in troduced in 1977
explicitly stating that for any person w ith full legal rights sterilization was a
m atter between patient an d doctor, this was only a form alization o f a practice
already instituted. In Sweden a less liberal attitude seems to have dom inated.
The Swedish Population C om m ission in 1936 found the idea that every p er­
son should be free in all respects to determ ine the use o f his or her own body
to be “an extremely individualistic view.”9 All the Nordic sterilization laws of
the 1930s assum ed that perm ission for sterilization had to be given by govern­
m ent authorities. It was illegal to perform sterilization w ithout perm ission.
But under the new sterilization laws introduced in the 1970s the principle of
individual freedom to decide was accepted as a m atter o f course for steriliza­
tion. This resulted in a large jum p in the num b er of registered sterilizations in
Sweden. The num ber had reached a level o f about 2,400 aro u n d 1950 and then
declined to 1,500 in 1974. W hen the new sterilization law was introduced in
1975 it rose abruptly to nearly 10,000 in 1980.
T he p rin c ip le o f free in d iv id u a l choice was freq u e n tly em phasized in
debates and reports leading up to the Scandinavian sterilization laws. But for
persons w ith o u t full legal rights the right o f application was transferred to
their guardian or the institution where they lived. This gave ample room for
m ore or less com pulsive procedures. Regulations o f 1947 from the Swedish
B oard o f H e a lth a s s u m e d th a t a p e rs o n w ith o u t legal rig h ts w o u ld be
inform ed and asked for consent. If he did not agree the operation could still
be carried out, though n o t “w ith the use o f physical force.”10 There were also
various kinds of pressure exerted, both on those who had and those w ho did
not have full legal rights. For instance, sterilization could be set as a condition
for leaving an in stitu tio n , for getting an abortion, o r for perm ission to get
m arried. But, as already pointed out, there was a gradual strengthening o f the
right of the patient, especially from the 1950s on.
From an international perspective the com parison o f the N ordic countries
w ith G erm any is particularly interesting. T he cultural links were traditionally
close. A m ong other things there was a com m o n background in the L utheran
c h u r c h . U p to 1933 th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f e u g e n ic s in G e rm a n y a n d
Scandinavia was q u ite sim ilar. For instance, all these c o u n tries had well-
developed traditions o f public m edical service as a background for eugenic
policies, in contrast to E ngland and the U nited States. But under the Nazi
regime G erm an eugenics diverged. Racist ideas which had little support even
am ong th e biological scientists w ho cooperated w ith the Nazis were m ade
the basis o f governm ent policies. The practice o f sterilization used m eans of
coercion and physical force th a t were not accepted in Scandinavia. Yet racist
tendencies were also present in Scandinavia, even at the governm ent level.
For instance, Jewish refugees from central E urope had great difficulty in get­
ting in to the N o rd ic c o u n trie s in the late 1930s. Thus, w hereas m ainline
eugenics influenced Nazi G e rm a n politics, th e S candinavian developm ent
to o k an o th er tu rn . M ainline eugenics still attracted atte n tio n and affected
im m ig ratio n policy. P o p u la tio n policy, on th e o ther h an d , was form ed by
reform eugenics.
The different developm ents o f eugenics in Scandinavia an d G erm any p ro ­
vide a useful b a ck g ro u n d for evaluating th e d o ctrin e o f c o n tin u ity in the
developm ent o f eugenics in Germ any. The c o n tin u ity o f G erm an eugenics
from the W eim ar Republic, th ro u g h the Nazi period, and into the era after
W orld W ar II, has been em p h asized by G e rh a rd B aader.11 T he history o f
G erm an eugenics by Peter W eingart, Jurgen Kroll, and K urt Bayertz12also
emphasizes continuity rath er th a n change. T he events o f the Nazi period are
seen as a natural, m ore or less necessary, result o f the eugenic doctrines o f the
earlier era. This tendency is tak en to an extrem e by K. H. Roth, who attrib ­
utes to genetic science a collective responsibility for the eugenic policies of
the Nazi regime. He describes geneticists as a “power elite” (herrschaftselite)
who form ulated a p rogram for world d o m in atio n (weltmachtprogram) and
applauded Nazi popu latio n policies at the o utbreak of W orld W ar II toward
the end o f August 1939. The criticism s of Nazi race policies from liberal and
socialist biologists such as J. H uxley, H. J. M uller, J. B. S. H aldane, O. L.
M ohr, G. D ahlberg, etc., have little im portance in Roth’s view .13 The British
historian o f science Paul W eindling, on the o th e r hand, concludes that the
“Nazi takeover m a rk e d a fu n d a m e n ta l chan g e in the co u rse o f G erm an
eugenics.” He em phasizes the role o f racial theories as the basis for Nazi po p ­
ulation policies.14 Both goals a n d means were quite different from those o f
Scandinavian governm ents.
There is no d o u b t that scientific institutions such as the Kaiser W ilhelm
Institute for A nthropology, H u m an Heredity an d Eugenics cooperated with
the Nazi regime from 1933 th ro u g h o u t World W ar II. But as Paul Weindling
has argued, there was a definite change in the d o m inant attitudes and lines o f
w ork o f the institute after the N azi takeover in 1933: “A ttention to the com po­
sition o f the Institute’s staff, an d to the social responsibilities o f the Institute
does not support any thesis o f direct and u n in terru pted lines o f bureaucratic
or ideological continuity. Intense pressures had to be exerted on the biologists
in order to integrate them into th e new order.”15
 The force o f the com parison betw een G erm any a n d Scandinavia can be
increased by taking in to con sid eratio n th e different situations o f the four
Scandinavian countries d uring W orld W ar II and the different developments
of sterilization practices. Finland was the first co u ntry to be draw n into the
great war w hen it was attacked by the Soviet U nion at the end of November
1939. The sudden drop in the nu m b er o f sterilizations in this co u ntry was
clearly a result of the w ar and the great loss o f young m en. This w ar experi­
ence was also the m ain reason for the slow developm ent o f sterilization prac­
tices in Finland. Both N orw ay and D enm ark were occupied by G erm any in
April 1940. W hile the Danish governm ent was cooperative and a continuity of
internal politics and adm inistration was upheld, the Norwegian governm ent
resisted and fled to England while the G erm ans set up a puppet Nazi regime in
Norway. In D enm ark there appears to have been little change in the num ber
of sterilizations during the occupation. But in N orway the Nazi governm ent
in tro d u c e d a new an d m o re radical sterilizatio n law w hich led to a large
increase in the frequency o f eugenic sterilizations. Sweden was n o t directly
involved in th e war. A new sterilization law was in troduced in 1941 prom oting
greater efficiency in sterilization. The num bers shot up and reached a peak
around 1944.
Considering the Scandinavian sterilization laws and the practice th at was
built on them , it seems th at a liberal dem ocratic tradition with emphasis on
the rights o f the individual provided for a m oderate law and practice. Leading
experts such as Dahlberg and M ohr w ho doubted any positive eugenic effects
o f sterilization, were strong proponents o f such a political tradition and had
considerable influence o n th e form ulation o f the laws. This com parison of
eugenics in G erm any and Scandinavia suggests that it was short-term political
changes ra th e r th an a fundam entally different G erm an social and cultural
d ev elo p m en t, a G erm an “Sonderw eg,” th a t led to th e realization o f Nazi
eugenic policies.
We also note that it took tim e before the experience with Nazi racial and
population policies affected eugenic policy in the N ordic countries very much.
It was som e years after W orld War II th at eugenic sterilization had its most
rapid decline. The decline o f eugenics in Scandinavia appears to have other
causes bey o n d revulsion against th e events in G erm any. For instance, the
change from collectivistic to individualistic attitudes in the ethics o f procre­
ation had begun long before W orld War II. This change was no d o ubt stim u­
lated by the experience w ith Nazism, b u t it was n o t dependent upon it. It was
a developm ent with m any other driving forces as well.
 A sim ilar slowness in the decline o f eugenics has been noted for France.
W illiam Schneider writes that the experience w ith the Fascist regim e o f Vichy
and its pursuit o f m ore radical eugenic policies during World W ar II “did not,
however, perm anently discredit eugenics.” There was m uch m ore continuity
o f eugenics in France than in G erm any or the U nited States.16
The Scandinavian m aterial indicates that before W orld War II there was a
general su p p o rt for eugenics o f som e kind. T here was a w ide sp ectru m o f
opinions as to how ripe hum an genetics was for such social application and
w h a t m easures w ere in h a rm o n y w ith o th e r im p o rta n t social goals an d
accepted m oral norm s. But right across the political spectrum there was a gen­
eral favorable attitude tow ard a m ild eugenics policy. In Europe it was in cul­
tu ra lly co n serv ativ e g ro u p s, su c h as th e C a th o lic C h u rc h , th a t a m o re
consequential o p p o sitio n to eugenics was found. A nd the co u n tries where
those groups were weakest introduced the sterilization laws. W hile campaigns
for sterilization laws succeeded in Scandinavia, they failed both in England
and in the N etherlands.17 Main factors in the failure o f the British cam paign
for the introduction o f sterilization were “the strength of the C atholic lobby
and the unwillingness o f the N ational G overnm ent to run the risk o f adopting
a contentious piece o f legislation,” w rote G. R. Searle.18
T he N ordic countries, plus E sto n ia,19 were the only European countries
th a t in tro d u ced sterilization laws in th e 1930s u n d e r dem ocratic regimes.
G erm any did not have a sterilization law until after the Nazi takeover. W hat
was so special a b o u t th e N o rd ic co u n trie s? T h ey all had L u th e ra n state
churches, a relatively hom ogeneous culture, and a relatively egalitarian social
structure. Strong labor parties cooperated with strong labor organizations and
were w inning governm ent power th a t was to last m ore or less continuously for
the next half century. The Scandinavian m odel for the welfare state was well
on its way. The sterilization laws an d the way they were m anaged— m oderate,
w ell-organized, w ith loyal particip atio n and little protest— is a sym ptom o f
the special character o f the social an d cultural conditions that existed in the
N ordic countries in this period.
The history o f eugenics raises the issue o f the relationships between science
an d politics, knowledge and values, w ith special force. It is, as M ark Adams
has pointed out, a particularly suitable topic for elucidating the com plex inter­
action o f so-called internal and external factors in science.20 The technological
and econom ic, or m ore generally instrum ental, use o f science has in recent
decades dom inated o u r conceptions o f how science affects society. In the case
o f eugenics, however, th e id eological influence seem s to have been m ore
im p o rta n t. It was by influencing th e form ation o f social aims and attitudes
that science in this case m ade its im pact, n o t by introducing new and m ore
efficient techniques. In o th er words, science had a norm ative and enlightening
rather th a n an instrum ental social role.
Political considerations and experiences, in particular experience w ith the
population policies of Nazi Germany, obviously influenced the eugenic views
of geneticists and probably also their ju d g m en ts on controversial scientific
issues, such as the effect o f race crossings o r the pace of genetic degeneration.
William Provine has argued, for instance, th a t in the post-W orld War II period
geneticists revised th e ir theories on race crossings to “fit their feelings o f
revulsion” rath er than because of “new com pelling data.”21 Diane Paul has
argued likewise that the collapse of reform eugenics after W orld War II was
due to political and ideological factors. It was certainly n o t “by developm ents
internal to science during this period.”22 T hough the phrases “new com pelling
data” an d “during this p e rio d ” indicate a som ew hat restricted and perhaps
overly em piricist view o f w hat con stitu tes grow th o f scientific know ledge,
Provine an d Paul are surely right in p o in tin g out the pro fo u n d ideological and
political influence on scientific thinking in this case.
The story of eugenic sterilization has been told to teach us that “h um an
rights m u st not be h idden away in an inaccessible system of expertise or an
incom prehensible social system.”23 T he events in Scandinavia as well as in
G erm any show that scientific knowledge an d expert judgm ent is not sufficient
to secure a sane policy, b u t that a liberal and dem ocratic political system can
prom ote restraint on extrem e applications of science to program s o f social
policy. T he ideal of a value-free and purely factual science was used by some
scientists to justify their accom m odation to Nazi policies. O n the other hand,
the Scandinavian developm ents also d em o n strate how growing know ledge
about h um an genetics h ad an im portant effect on the developm ent o f eugenic
policies. T hough social an d political controversies set problem s for research, it
is a scientific task to clarify what the facts are. And this clarification can have
im p o rta n t political consequences. It w as hardly obvious th at race crossing
could n o t be d etrim ental or that there could not be a considerable genetic
degeneration in the course o f a few generations. If the facts of hum an biology
had tu rn e d out to have been different, o u r judgm ents about right and w rong
politics could also have been quite different.
The history of sterilization in the N ordic countries provides an interesting
case o f interaction o f scientific knowledge and political ideology in the devel­
opm ent o f social policies. The gradual accum ulation o f knowledge of genetics,
in p articu lar hum an genetics, from th e early years o f th e tw entieth century
until eugenics faded out in the 1960s, was essential in setting premises for the
political debates and decisions. But there was also an underlying view of the
relation between science and politics which linked eugenics to the development
of the welfare state th at was so typical o f the N ordic countries in the middle
decades o f the tw entieth century. In continuation o f the enlightenm ent view of
science, social and econom ic planning based o n science was seen as the m otor
o f social progress. We tend in hindsight to see m any pernicious effects of this
enthusiasm for planning. It represented a superstition in science and hum an
reason. But even if the traditional ideals o f central planning have wilted, the
reliance on science in form ing o u r social and econom ic systems has not disap­
peared. D ue to the grow th of science, not least social science, and the decline of
other institutions, such as religion, it may be greater than ever before. Thus the
description and analysis of the role o f science in the rise and fall o f the welfare
state is a topical th em e. And eugenic sterilizatio n appears as a prom ising
research site. The studies in this b o o k can only pretend to give a preliminary
account. A m ore extensive and precise investigation of each o f the Nordic
countries w ith a follow-up on developm ents up to the present tim e would pro­
vide m o re m aterial for interesting com parative analyses. O ne question that
needs pursuing is the nature and significance o f the differences between m ain­
lin e a n d re fo rm eu g en ics. M o re g en erally a c o m p a riso n o f eugenics in
Scandinavia and G erm any appears particularly well suited for a sophisticated
analysis o f the interaction between science, ideology, and politics.

N o tes

1. G. R. Searle, “Eugenics and Politics in Britain in the 1930s,” Annals o f Science 36

(1979): 159-69.
2. For a description o f “mainline” and “reform” eugenics, see Searle, “Eugenics and
Politics in Britain in the 1930s,” 166; and Daniel Kevles, In the N am e o f Eugenics
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985), 88, 173.
3. S. Kiihl, The N azi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National
Socialism (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 72.
4. The concept of the “gene” as well as the distinction between “phenotype” and
“genotype” was introduced by the Danish geneticist W. Johannsen (N. Roll-
Hansen, “The Genotype Theory of Wilhelm Johannsen and Its Relation to Plant
Breeding and the Study of Evolution,” Centaurus 22 [1978]: 209-35). The botani­
cal institute of the University of Copenhagen owns a silent movie o f Johannsen
coming to his institute. To express his main theoretical accomplishment he writes
this formula on the blackboard.
5. See, for example, L. Graham, “Science and Values: The Eugenics Movement in
Germany and Russia in the 1920s,” American Historical Review 52 (1977): 1133­
64; M. Freeden, “Eugenics and Progressive T hought: A Study in Ideological
 Affinity,” The Historical Journal 22 (1979): 645-71; Searle, “Eugenics and Politics
in Britain in the 1930s”; D. Paul, “Eugenics and the Left,” Journal o f the History o f
Ideas 44 (1984): 567-90.
6. Most likely, other factors were also im portant for the quick decline in steriliza­
tions of the mentally retarded in the 1950s. For example, it should be investigated
what role the introduction of new methods o f contraception played.
7. See, for example, Paul, “Eugenics and the Left,” 585-90.
8. U. Deichmann, Biologen unter Hitler: Vertreibung, Karrieren, Forschung (Frankfurt
& New York: Campus, 1992), 276-80.
9. G. Broberg and M. Tyden, Oonskade i folkhem m et. Rashygien och sterilisering i
Sverige (Stockholm: Gidlunds, 1991), 189.
10. Ibid., 140-43.
11. G. Baader, “Das ‘Gesetz zur Verhiitung erbkranken Nachwuchses’— Versuch einer
kritischen Deutung,” in Zusammenhang. Festschrift fu r Marielene Putscher, vol. 2,
ed. O. Baur and O. Glandien (Cologne: W iem and Verlag, 1984), 865-75.
12. P. W eingart, J. Kroll, an d K. Bayertz, Rasse, B lu t un Gene. G eschichte der
Rassenhygiene in Deutschland (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1988).
13. K. H. Roth, “Schoner neuer Mensch,” in Der G riff nach der Bevolkerung, ed. FI.
K aupen-H aas (N ordlingen: Delphi Politik, 1986), 14-15, 19, 25-26. A m ore
detailed analysis of these German accounts of the relation between eugenics and
hum an genetics is found in N. Roll-Hansen, “Eugenic Sterilization: A Preliminary
Com parison of the Scandinavian Experience to that of Germ any,” Genome 31
(1989): 894-95.
14. P. Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics between N ational Unification and
Nazism , 1870-1945 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 9.
15. P. Weindling, “W eimar Eugenics: The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology,
H um an Heredity and Eugenics in Social Context,” A nnals o f Science 42 (1985):
315.
16. W. H. Schneider, Quality and Quantity: The Quest for Biological Regeneration in
Tw entieth-C entury France (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 286,
291.
17. For events in the Netherlands, see J. N oordm an, O m de kwaliteit van het nages-
lacht. Eugenetica in Nederland 1900-1950 (Nijmegen: SUN, 1989).
18. Searle, “Eugenics and Politics in Britain in the 1930s,” 168.
19. Estonia was also a Lutheran country with a language close to Finnish and tradi­
tional cultural ties to Finland and Sweden.
20. M. Adams, “Towards a Com parative H istory of Eugenics,” in The W ellborn
Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and Russia, ed. M. Adams (New
York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 217-31.
21. W. B. Provine, “G eneticists and the Biology of Race C rossing,” Science 182
(1973): 796.
22. Paul, “Eugenics and the Left,” 587.
23. Broberg and Tyden, Oonskade i folkhem m et, 190.
S elec t e d B ib lio g r a p h y

G en eral W o rks

Adams, M. “Towards a Comparative H istory of Eugenics.” In The Wellborn

Science. Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and Russia. Ed. M. Adams. New
York and Oxford: O xford University Press, 1990.
----------., ed. The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and
Russia. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Allen, G. “Geneticists, Eugenics, and Class Struggle.” Genetics 79 (1975).
----------. “Geneticists, Eugenics and Society: Internalists and Externalists in
C ontem porary H istory o f Science.” Social Studies o f Science 6 (1976).
----------. “The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring H arbour, 1910-1940: An
Essay in Institutional History.” Osiris 2nd series, 2 (1986).
Baader, G. “Das ‘Gesetz zur Verhiitung erbkranken Nachwuchses’: Versuch:
Einer kritischen Deutung.” In Zusammenhang: Festschrift fiir Marielene
Putscher. Vol. 2. Ed. O. Baur and O. Glandien. Cologne: W iem and Verlag,
1984.
Barker, D. “The Biology o f Stupidity: Genetics, Eugenics and Mental
Deficiency in the International War Years.” British Journal for the History of
Science 22 (1989).
Bock, G. “Racism and Sexism in Nazi Germany.” In When Biology became
Destiny: Women in Weimar and Nazi Germany. Ed. R. Bridenthal, A.
G rossm ann, and M. A. Kaplan. New York: M onthly Review Press, 1984.
----------. Zwangssterilisation und Nationalsozialismus: Studien zur Rassenpolitik
und Frauenpolitik. O pladen: W estdeutscher Verlag, 1986.
Chapm an, P. V. “Schools as Sorters.” In Applied Psychology and the Intelligence
Testing Movement, 1890-1930. Ed. L. M. Terman. New York: New York
University Press, 1988.
Deichm ann, U. Biologen unter Hitler: Vertreibung, Karrieren, Forschung.
Frankfurt & New York: Campus, 1992.
 Farral, L. “The H istory o f Eugenics: A Bibliographical Review.” Annals o f
Science 36 (1970).
Freeden, M. “Eugenics and Progressive Thought: A Study in Ideological
Affinity.” The Historical Journal 22, no. 3 (1979).
G raham , L. “Science and Values: The Eugenics M ovement in G erm any and
Russia in the 1920s.” American Historical Review 52 (1977).
Kevles, D. J. In the Nam e o f Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses o f H um an Heredity.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985.
Kiihl, S. The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German
National Socialism. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Lilienthal, G. Der “Lebensborn e. V.”: Ein Instrum ent nationalsozialistischer
Rassenpolitik. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1985.
Ludmerer, K. M. Genetics and American Society: A Historical Appraisal.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972.
MacKenzie, D. “Eugenics in Britain.” Social Studies o f Science 6 (1976).
---------- . Statistics in Britain 1865-1930: The Social Construction o f Scientific
Knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981.
M arkowitz, G. E. and D. Rosner. “D octors in Crisis: Medical Education and
Medical Reform during the Progressive Era 1895-1915.” In Health Care in
America: Essays in Social History. Ed. S. Reverby and D. Rosner.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979.
Mayr, E. The Growth o f Biological Thought. Cambridge: The Belknap Press,
1982.
Muller, H. J. Studies in Genetics: The Selected Papers ofH . J. Muller.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Muller, J. Sterilisation und Gesetzgebung bis 1933. Husum: M atthiesen Verlag,
1985.
M tiller-Hill, B. Todliche Wissenschaft: Die Assonderung von Juden, Zigeunern
und Geisteskranken 1933-1945. H am burg: Rowohlt, 1984.
----- ----- . “Genetics after Auschwitz.” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 2 (1987).
N oordm an, J. Om de kivaliteit van het nageschlacht: Eugenetica in Nederland
1900-1950. Nijmegen: SUN, 1989.
Nowak, K. “Euthanasie” und Sterilisierung im “Dritten Reich.” Gottingen:
Vandenhoech & Ruprecht, 1978.
N um bers, R. L. “The Fall and Rise o f the American Medical Profession.” In
Sickness and Health in America: Readings in the History of Medicine and
Public Health. Ed. J. W. Leavitt and R. L. Numbers. Madison: University of
W isconsin Press, 1985.
Paul, D. “Eugenics and the Left.” Journal o f the History o f Ideas 44 (1984).
Pick, D. Faces o f Degeneration: A European Disorder c. 1848-c. 1918. Cambridge:
Cam bridge University Press, 1989.
Proctor, R. N. Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge: H arvard
University Press, 1988.
Provine, W. B. The Origin o f Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago: Chicago
University Press, 1971.
---------- . “Geneticists and the Biology o f Race Crossing.” Science 182 (1973).
Reilly, P. R. “The Surgical Solution: T he W riting o f Activist Physicians in the
Early Days of Eugenical Sterilization.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine
26 (1983).
---------- . The Surgical Solution: A H istory o f Involuntary Sterilization in the
United States. Baltimore: The Johns H opkins University Press, 1991.
Roll-Hansen, N. “The Genotype T heory of W ilhelm Johannsen and its
Relation to Plant Breeding and th e Study of Evolution.” Centaurus 22
(1978).
---------- . “The Progress of Eugenics: G row th o f Knowledge and Change in
Ideology.” History o f Science 24 (1988).
---------- . “Eugenic Sterilization: A Prelim inary C om parison of the Scandinavian
Experience to that of Germany.” Genome 31 (1989).
---------- . “Geneticists and the Eugenics M ovement in Scandinavia.” British
Journal for the History o f Science 22 (1989).
Roth, K. “Schoner neuer Mensch.” In Der Griff nach der Bevolkerung. Ed. H.
Kaupen-Haas. Nordlingen: D elphi Politik, 1986.
Schneider, W. H. Quality and Quantity: The Quest fo r Biological Regeneration in
Twentieth-Century France. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1990.
Searle, G. R. Eugenics and Politics in Britain, 1900-1914. Leyden: N oordhoff
International, 1976.
---------- . “Eugenics and Politics in Britain in the 1930s.” Annals o f Science 36
(1979).
Stepan, N. L. “ The Hour o f Eugenics”: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin
America. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press, 1991.
W eindling, P. “W eimar Eugenics: T he Kaiser W ilhelm Institute for
Anthroplogy: H um an H eredity an d Eugenics in Social Context.” Annals o f
Science 42 (1985).
---------- . Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and
Nazism, 1870-1945. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1989.
Weingart, P. “Eugenik— Eine angewandte Wissenschaft: Utopien der
M enschenziichtung zwischen W issenschaftsentwicklung und Politik.” In
Wissenschaft im Dritten Reich. Ed. P. Lundgreen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1985.
----------. “The Rationalization o f Sexual Behavior: The Institutionalization of
Eugenic T hought in Germany.” Journal o f the History o f Biology 20 (1987).
Weingart, R, J. Kroll, and K. Bayertz, Rasse, Blut und Gene: Geschichte der
Eugenik und Rassenhygiene in Deutschland. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988.
Weiss, S. “W ilhelm Schallmayer and the Logic o f G erm an Eugenics.” Iris 77
(1986).
---------- . “The Race Hygiene M ovem ent in Germany.” Osisis 3 (1987).
---------- . Race Hygiene and National Efficiency: The Eugenics o f Wilhelm
Schallmayer. Berkeley: University o f C alifornia Press, 1987.
W iseman, S., ed. Intelligence and Abilitiy: Selected Readings. H arm ondsw orth:
Penguin Books, 1967.

D enm ark

Andersen, F. E. “Diskurs og Discrim ination.” Agrippa 3 (1982).

Hansen, B. S. “Eugenik i Danmark: Den Bl0 de Mellemvej.” Niche A (1984).
Kemp, T. Arvehygiejne: Festskrift udgivet a fK 0benhavns Universitet i anledning
afU niversitetetsArsfestl951. Copenhagen: K obenhavns Universitet, 1951.
----------. “Address at the opening o f the First International Congress o f H um an
Genetics.” Acta Genetica et Statistica6 (1956/57).
---------- . “Genetic-Hygienic Experiences in D enm ark in Recent Years.” The
Eugenics Review 49 (1957).
Kirkebaek, B. Abnormbegrebet i Danmark i 20. erne og 30. erne med Scerlig
Henblik pa Eugeniske Bestrczbelser og Scerlig i Forhold til Andssvage.
Copenhagen: D anm arks Lasrerhojskole, 1985.
----------. “Staten og D en Andssvage 1870-1935: Fra Filantropi til Kontrol.”
Handicaphistorie 1 (1987).
----------. Da de Andssvage blevfarlige. Copenhagen: Socpol, 1993.
Koudahl, G. Om Vasectomi med Sterilisation for 0je. Copenhagen: M unksgaard,
1967.
Le Maire, L. Legal Kastration i Strafferetslig Belysning. Copenhagen:
M unksgaard, 1946.
Mohr, J. “H um an Arvebiologi og Eugenik.” In D et Lcegevidenskabelige Fakultet,
vol. 7, Kobenhavns Universitet 1479-1979. Ed. J. C. Melchior, et al.
Copenhagen: Kobenhavns Universitet, 1979.
Schmidt L. H. and J. E. Kristensen, Lys, Luft og Renlighed: Den Moderne
Socialhygiejnes fedsel. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1986.
 F in l a n d

Aimo Halila. Suomen naisvoimistelu ja urheiluseurat vuoteen 1915:

Suomenkielisten miesvoimistelu ja urheiluseurojen synnysta, perustajien
yhteiskunnallisesta koostumuksesta ja emaaseuroista. Historiallisia tutkim uk-
sia 53. Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1959.
Borgstrom, C. A. Tillampningen av lagen om sterilisering i Finland 13. 6. 1935­
30. 6. 1955 kastreringarna obeaktade. Bidrag till kannedom av Finlands
N atur och Folk 103. Helsingfors: Finska Vetenskapssocieteten, 1958.
Hietala, M. “The Diffusion of Innovations: Some Examples of Finnish Civil
Servants’ Professional Tours in Europe.” Scandinavian Journal o f History 8,
no. 1 (1983).
---------- . Services and Urbanization a t the Turn o f the Century: The Diffusion of
Innovations. Studia Historica 23. Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1987.
---------- . “Berlin u n d andere G rosstadte als Vorbild fur die Selbstverwaltungen
von Helsinki u n d Stockholm u m die Jahrhundertwende.” In Blicke a u f die
deutsche Metropole. Ed. G erhard B runn and Jurgen Reulecke. Essen: Reimar
Hobbing, 1989.
---------- . “Innovaatioiden ja kansainvalistymisen vuosikymmenet.” In Tietoa,
taitoa, asiantuntemusta: Helsinki eurooppalaisessa kehityksessii 1875-1917,
vol. 1, H istoriallinen Arkisto 99:1/Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskuksen
tutkim uksia 1992:5:1. Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society/Helsingin
kaupungin tietokeskus, 1992.
Kallenautio, J. “Kieltolaki ja sen kum oam inen puoluepoliittisena ongelmana.”
Alkoholitutkimussaation Julkaisuja no. 31 (1979).
Kemilainen, A., M. Hietala, and P. Suvanto, eds. Mongoleja vai Germaaneja?
Rotuteorioiden suomalaiset. H istoriallinen Arkisto 86. Helsinki: Finnish
Historical Society, 1985.
Klinge, M. Vihan veljistd valtiososialismiin: Yhteiskunnallisia ja kansalllisia
nakemyksia 1910-ja 1920-luvuilla. Porvoo: W erner Soderstrom OY, 1972.
Lahti, R. “Vuoden 1970 abortti-, sterilisaatio- ja kastraatiolainsaadanto.” In
Festskrift utgiven i anledning av Juristklubben Codex’ 30-ars jubileum.
Helsinki: Juristklubben Codex, 1970.
M akinen, T. “Yhdysvaltojen ja Suom en valisten tieteellisten kontaktien kehitys
1917-1970.” Unpublished M aster’s thesis, D epartm ent of History, University
o f Turku, 1980.
Paasivirta, J. Finland and Europe: The early years o f independence 1917-1939.
Helsinki: Finnish Historical Association, 1988.
Portin, P. and A. Saura. The Impact o f M endel’s work on the development o f
Genetics in Finland. Folia M endeliana 20, Acta Musei Moravie. Brno:
Moravske Musei M oravie, 1985.
Saarinen, H. “Studien u n d Bildungsreisen von Finnen nach Berlin 1809-1914.”
In Miscellanea. Ed. A. Tammisto, K. M ustakallio and H. Saarinen. Studia
H istorica 33. Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1989.
Salmiala, B. A ”Onko pakkokastratio oikeus- ja kulttuurivaltiossa hyvaksyttava
reaktiom uoto rikoksen seurauksena?” Defensor Legis no. 2-4 (1951).
Suomalainen, E. Kromosomitutkimuksen ja klassillisen perinndllisyystieteen aika
1923-1949. Helsinki: Institutum G eneticum , Universitas Helsingiensis, 1983.

N orw ay

Aasen, H. S. Rasehygiene og menneskeverd: Nasjonalsosialismens steriliseringslov

avjuli 1942, Institutt for offentlig retts skriftserie no. 4/1989. Oslo: 1989.
Dalcq, A. M. “Notice sur la vie et l’oeuvre de M. O. L. M ohr: C orrespondant
etranger.” Academie royale de medecine de Belgique 7 (1967).
Evang, K. Sterilisering etter lov av 1. ju n i 1934 om adgang til sterilisering m. v. h.
Sarpsborg: F. Verding, 1955.
Gogstad, A. Chr. Helse og Hakekors: Helsetjeneste og helse under okkupasjon-
sstyret i Norge, 1940-45. Bergen: Alma M ater Forlag, 1991.
Langfeldt, G. “Psykiatriske arbeidsoppgaver i etterkrigstiden.” Tidsskrift fo r den
Norske Laegeforening 65 (1945).
Lavik, N. J. M a kt og galskap. Oslo: Pax, 1990.
Longum, L. Drommen om detfrie menneske: Norsk kulturradikalisme og mel-
lomkrigstidens radikale trekldver, Hoel— Krogh— Verland. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, 1986.
Mohr, T. Katti Anker Moller: En banebryter. Oslo: Tiden, 1968.
Nordby, T. “Profesjokratiets perioder innen norsk helsevesen: Institusjoner,
politikk og konfliktem ner.” Historisk Tidsskrift (1987).
Nordby, T. Karl Evang. Oslo: Aschehoug, 1989.
Roll-Hansen, N. “D en norske debatten om rasehygiene.” Flistorisk Tidsskrift
(1980).
----------. “Eugenics before W orld War II: T he Case of Norway.” Flistory and
Philosophy o f the Life Sciences 2 (1980).
Seip, A.-L. “Politikkens vitenskapeliggoring: D ebatten om socialpolitikk i 1930-
arene.” N y tt Norsk Tidsskrift6 (1989).
Slagstad, R. “Provingsretten i det norske system.” N ytt Norsk Tidsskrift 6
(1989).
Waaler, G. H. “Professor, Dr. med. O tto Lous Mohr: Vitenskapsmannen.” Det
Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo: Arbok 1967. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1968.

Sw ed en

Bennich-Bjorkm an, L. “Sa tuktas en argbigga: Den svenska steriliseringspoli-

tiken.” Kvinnovetenskaplig tidskrift no. 2 (1992).
Broberg, G. “Linnaeus as an A nthropologist.” In Linnaeus: The Man and His
Work. Ed. T. Frangsmyr. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
---------- . “Lamarckismen i Sverige.” Lychnos. Lardomshistoriska samfundets ars-
bok 1988. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1988.
---------- . “Rasbiologiska institutet: Tillkomstaren.” In: Kunskapens tradgardar:
Om institutioner och institutionaliseringar i vetenskapen och livet. Ed. G.
Broberg, G. Eriksson, and K. Johannisson. Stockholm: Atlantis, 1988.
Broberg, G. and M. Tyden. Oonskade ifolkhem m et: Rashygien och sterilisering i
Sverige. Stockholm: G idlunds Bokforlag, 1991.
Carlson, A. The Swedish Experiment in Family Politics: The Myrdals and the
Interwar Population Crisis. New Brunswick: Transaction, 1990.
Curti, M. “Sweden in the American Social M ind o f the 1930s.” In The
Immigration o f Ideas: Studies in the North Atlantic Community. Essays pre­
sented to O. Fritiof Ander. Ed. J. I. Dowie and J. T. Tredway. Rock Island,
Illinois: Augustana Historical Society, 1968.
Forssman, H. “Sterilisering och befolkningspolitik.” Socialmedicinsk tidskrift
35, no. 4 (1958).
Freiburg, J. “Counting Bodies: The Politics o f Reproduction in the Swedish
Welfare State.” Scandinavian Studies 65, no. 2 (1993).
Ham m ar, T. Sverige at svenskarna: Invandringspolitik, utlanningskontroll och
asylratt 1900-1932. Stockholm: Caslon Press, 1964.
Hatje, A. Befolkningsfragan och valfarden: Debatten om familjepolitik och
nativitetsokning under 1930- och 1940-talen. Stockholm: Allmanna forlaget,
1974.
Heymowski, A. Swedish “Travellers” and their Ancestry. Studia Sociologica
Upsaliensia 5. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1969.
H irdm an, Y. A tt liigga livet tillratta: Studier i svensk folkhemspolitik. Stockholm:
Carlssons, 1989.
Hofsten, N. von. “Steriliseringar i Sverige 1935-1939.” Nordisk Medicin 7, no.
34 (1940).
---------- . “Steriliseringarna och aborterna.” In Medicinalvasendet i Sverige 1813­
1962. Ed. W. Kock. Stockholm: N ordisk bokhandel, 1963.
---------- . Steriliseringar i Sverige 1941-1953. Socialmedicinsk tidskrifts skriftserie
28. Stockholm: Socialmedicinsk tidskrift, 1963.
Jackson, W. A. “T he Making o f a Social Science Classic: G unnar M yrdal’s An
American D ilem m a.” Perspectives in American History, New Series 2 (1985).
Johannisson, K. “Folkhalsa: Det svenska projektet fran 1900 fram till 2:a varld-
skriget.” Lychnos. Arsbokfor idehistoria och vetenskapshistoria. Uppsala:
Swedish Science Press, 1991.
Kalvemark, A. More Children o f Better Quality? Aspects on Swedish Population
Policy in the 1930’s. Studia H istorica Upsaliensia 115. Uppsala: Almqvist &
Wiksell International, 1980.
Koblik, S. The Stones Cry Out: Sweden’s Response to the Persecution o f the Jews
1933-1945. New York: Holocaust Library, 1988.
Lindberg, H. Svensk flyktingpolitik under internationellt tryck 1936-1941.
Stockholm: A llm anna forlaget, 1973.
Lindstrom , U. Fascism in Scandinavia 1920-1940. Stockholm: Almqvist &
Wiksell International, 1985.
Loow, H. Hakkorset och Wasakarven: En studie av nationalsocialismen i Sverige
1924-1950. Goteborg: Avhandlingar fran H istoriska Institutionen i
Goteborg, 1990.
Misgeld, K., K. M olin and K. Amark, eds. Creating Social Democracy: A
Century o f the Social Democratic Labor Party in Sweden. University Park: The
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992.
Myrdal, G. Historien om An American Dilemma. Stockholm: SNS forlag, 1987.
Olsson, L. Kulturkunskap i forandring: Kultursynen i svenska geografibocker
1879-1985. M almo: Liber, 1986.
Palmblad, E. Medicinen som samhallslara. Goteborg: Daidalos, 1990.
Qvarsell, R. Utan vett och vilja: Om synen pa brottslighet och sinnessjukdom.
Stockholm: Carlsson, 1993.
Soder, M. Anstalter fo r utvecklingsstdrda: En historisk sociologisk beskrivning av
utvecklingen. Vols. 1-2. Stockholm: Ala, 1979.
Southern, D. W. G unnar Myrdal and Black-White Relations: The Use and Abuse
o f “A n American D ilem m a” 1944-1969. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University Press, 1987.
Svanberg, I., ed. I samhallets utkanter: Om “tattare” i Sverige. Uppsala
M ultiethnic Papers 11. Uppsala: Centre for M ultiethnic Research, 1987.
Tyden, M. and I. Svanberg. “I nationalism ens bakvatten: Hur svensken blev
svensk och invandraren framling.” In Bryta, bygga bo: Svensk historia under-
ifran. Vol. 2. Ed. G. Broberg, U. W ikander and K. Amark. Stockholm:
O rdfronts forlag, 1994.
In d ex
Aas, Ingeborg, 160-70, 171
Abnormvassenet, 16, 18
Abo Akademi (Turku), 195, 208
abortion, 118,120, 228; Denmark, 57;
Finland, 234, 241, 242-44; laws, 57, 122,
136, 162; link to sterilization, 121-22,
123, 129, 147nn. 98, 99; Norway, 143,
168; Sweden, 122, 143
A bortion Act of 1938 (Sweden), 122, 243
A bortion Act of 1950 (Finland), 241, 242
A bortion Act of 1960 (Norway), 143
A bortion Act of 1970 (Finland), 243-44
Abortion Act of 1974 (Sweden), 122
Adams, Mark, 268
Africa, 89
Agrarian League (Finland), 196, 239
Agrarian Party (Sweden), 96, 101, 107. See
Venstre
Akesson, H. O., 132
Aland Islands, 5, 200, 221, 236
alcohol, and heredity, 156, 163, 205, 214.
See also Norway
Allen, Garland, 153
Alstrom, Carl Henry, 118, 133
A m erican D ilem m a (M yrdal), 97
Andersin, Walter, 218
Anthropologia suecica (1902), 82, 83, 88, 89
anthropology. See Hansen, Soren; physical
anthropology
anti-Semitism, 93. See also Germany; racial
purity
‘ Arfrftlighetsforskning (M iintzing), 132
Arfrftlighetslara (von H ofsten), 100
Arrhenius, Svante, 84
Arvebiologisk Institutt (Norway), 179
Arvelighed hos M ennesket (H ansen), 44
Arvelighed i Historisk og Eksperimentel
Belysning (Johannsen), 23
Arvelighed og M oral (Gjellerup), 10
Arvelighed og Socialpolitik (Garbo), 44
A rv och Ras (Dahlberg), 94
A rv og Race (Thomsen), 44, 45, 50
Association o f Public H ealth (Sweden),
259
B
Baader, Gerhard, 266
Bang, Gustav, 11
Bang, H erm an, 11
Barnets arhundrade (Key), 80
Barr, M artin W „ 14-15, 16, 17-18, 22
Baur, Ernst, 90
Baur, Erwin, 83, 194n. 106
Bayertz, Kurt, 266
Bergendal, Ragnar, 102
Berlin Institute for Racial Hygiene, 90
Bernal, John Desmond, 94
Berner, Jorgen, 156, 171
Bertula institution (Helsinki), 19, 20
B et/Enkning A ngaenda Sociale
Foranstaltninger Overfor Degenerativt
Bestemte Personer, 32
Bindslev, Alfred, 37-38, 39, 40, 51, 52
biological determinism : D enm ark, 10-12,
51; Norway, 174, 181; Sweden, 133
biological racism, 157, 179, 259
Biologiske Causerier (Larsson), 28
birth control, 46-50, 134, 162, 166, 260;
clinics, 161. See also Norway
birthrate: Finland, 203, 212, 238; Germany,
197; Sweden, 97, 104, 106
Bjorkman, Albert, 19, 204, 217, 250n. 31
Bjornson, Erling, 175
Bjornstjerne, Bjornson, 4
Blum, Agnes, 27
Boeters, Gustav, 44
Bonnevie, Carl, 176
Bonnevie, Kristine: anti-M joen, 159, 160;
career, 163, 179, 180; genetics w ork, 164,
165, 181-82
Book, Einar, 222, 223
Book, Jan Arvid, 131
Borgstrom, C. A., 235, 236, 264
Bramsen, Alfred, 20, 49
Brandes, Georg, 4, 11,21
Branting, Georg, 107
Bregninge institution, 16, 18, 19
British Eugenic Society (L ondon), 212,
218
Bryn, Halfdan, 171
Bumke, Oswald, 54
Burgholzli hospital, 15
Butler, F. A., 67n. 17
C Congress of Family Research (Finland), 203
California sterilization model. See U nited
States
Carlsen, Ingvald B., 174, 187
Caroline Institute o f Medicine, 103
castration: America, 14-15; D enm ark, 18­
20, 22, 63-65; Finland, 19-20, 225, 229,
233, 234, 241-42, 243; law, 41-43;
Norway, 169, 170, 171; sex offenders, 31,
32, 36, 45; statistics, 263; Sweden, 20,
132; Switzerland, 15, 23. See also
Denmark; Finland; legislation; Norway;
sterilization; Sweden; U nited States
Castration Act o f 1950 (Finland), 241, 246
Catholic Center Party, 46
Catholic church eugenics opposition, 44,
51-52, 268
cell-state theory, 11
C entral America, 89
Chesterton, G. K., 51
Child Protection Act (Finland), 229
Childs, Marquis, 96
Christiania. See Oslo
church and state in Scandinavia, 2;
Protestant eugenics context, 186-87. See
also Catholic church
C hurch o f Sweden, 95
civil rights. See sterilization
class bias. See sterilization
Collin, Christen, 168
Com m ission o f the International
Federation of Eugenic Organizations,
165
Comm ission on Population (Sweden),
105-107, 114, 138
Comm ission on Sterilization (Sweden),
101-102
C om m unist Party, 47, 49, 107
com pulsory sterilization: critics, 228;
Denm ark, 41, 45, 54, 55, 61-64; Finland,
211, 226, 231, 232, 243, 248; Germany,
173; Sweden, 101, 102, 106-107, 114-19.
See also sterilization
Congress ofV ienna (1815), 2
conservatism, 10
Conservative Party, 52
Consultive Eugenics C om m ittee of
Norway (Mjoen), 164, 168, 170-73, 175,
179, 259
Copenhagen m odernization, 3
Copenhagen University, 57-60
cranial index, 12
criminology, 132, 169-70, 214, 215
Czechoslovakia, 186
 D education in Scandinavia, 2-3, 6,195-97
Dahlberg, Gunnar: eugenics career, 88, 97,
105, 137, 261, 267; ethnic studies, 128,
130, 131; at Uppsala, 92-94, 136
Danish Medical Association, 43
Dansk Kvindebevaegelse, 47
Darwin, Charles, 11,12, 205
Darwin, Leonard, 158, 165
Darwinism, 11,21, 28, 131, 202; and anti-
Darwinism, 29. See also Social Darwinism
D arwinism a n d Social Im provem ent
(Hay craft), 11
Davenport, Charles, 24, 84-85, 89, 92, 165,
214; publications, 205, 207
degeneration: defined, 80; racial/social pol­
icy, 156, 175, 205, 219, 225, 227-28; the­
ory, 10-11, 32-37,48, 189; 20th century,
79, 80
Delage, Yves, 190n. 22
Denmark: abortion law, 57; colonies, 2, 6,
9; com pared to Germany, 53-57; econ­
omy, 3; eugenics development, 1, 9-66,
260-61; eugenics laws, 31, 35-46, 52-57,
59-65; institutions, 13-23, 27-31;
Lutheran church, 186; marriage law, 26,
57; political history, 2-7, 9, 32, 267; and
race, 50; welfare state, 9-66. See also bio­
logical determinism; Copenhagen; eth­
nicity, Greenland; legislation; physical
anthropology; population; sterilization
D epartm ent of Medical Genetics, 131
D et N ye N ord, 50
Dight Institute (M innesota), 75n. 125
Donner, S. E., 224
“Downfall o f the White Race” (Rydberg),
79-80
Drysdales, the, 48
Dugdale, Richard, 84
E segregation; Steincke, K. K.; sterilization;
Ebeling, Vilho, 218
Edinburgh, Scotland, 166
Ehrstrom , Robert, 203
Ellis, Havelock, 48
Elwyn Institution (PA), 14, 16, 18, 19
emigration, 3, 78
Engberg, A rthur, 87
epilepsy and sterilization: Sweden, 98, 100,
101, 103, 111, 118, 145n. 78; A lstrom
study, 133; Finland, 217, 225, 231
Eriksen, Alfred, 168
Essen-Mdller, Elis, 100, 102
Estonia, 186, 196, 268, 271n. 19
ethnic group, 130. See also Dahlberg,
Gunnar; ethnicity; Gypsies; Iceland;
Lapp; Sami; Tattare
ethnicity: and Eugenics, 1, 10; and the
Nordic race, 1-2; Scandinavia, 1. See also
ethnic group
Etzler, Allan, 127
Eugenical Sterilization in the U nited States
(Laughlin), 170
eugenics: associations, 81-85, 259; and birth
control, 46-50; as breeding, 172, 229;
criminology, 132; defined, 12, 23-24;
Denmark, 1, 9-66, 260-61; Finland, 19­
20, 195-248; international context, 259­
70; and physical anthropology, 81 -85,
259; as population m anagement, 185;
and race, 50; as rationalization, 185; as
religion, 84-85; results, 14; social role, 44­
49, 153, 184; Sweden, 77-139; utopian
goal, 181; welfare state, 124, 188. See also
commissions by name; Denmark; ethnic­
ity; eugenics conferences; eugenics
decline; eugenics history; Finland; genet­
ics; Germany; Great Britain; institutions;
Johanssen, Wilhelm; legislation; Myrdal,
Gunnar; Nazi; negative eugenics;
Norway; population; positive eugenics;
race hygiene; racism; reform eugenics;
Sweden; U nited States; Uppsala
eugenics conferences: 19, 46, 166; Congress
of Family Research (Finland), 203; First
 International Congress o f Eugenics
(London, 1912), 12, 20, 67n. 21, 158,
162, 203; First International Congress of
H um an Genetics (Copenhagen, 1956),
62-63, 261; international meetings, 58,
164, 202; Nordic C onference on Race
Biology and A nthropology (1925), 90;
Second International Congress of
Eugenics (New York, 1921), 164, 202;
6th Nordic Conference on the Welfare of
the Handicapped (1912), 19, 20, 204;
T hird International Congress of
Eugenics, 58, 202
eugenics decline: D enm ark, 60; England,
154, 268; Sweden, 93, 111, 133-35;
Norway, 154-55, 166, 167, 169, 263, 267
eugenics history, 124, 133-35, 185; com ­
missions, 25-26, 30, 31, 32-37, 38; conti­
nuity, 111, 132, 176, 268; development,
9, 10, 14, 20, 202, 244, 268; interwar
laws, 5; Norway’s late developing, 154­
61, 186; opposition to, 44, 51-53, 214,
218, 268; origins, 9-10, 79, 98-101, 132,
259; post-W W II, 61-63, 180-83; propa­
ganda, 209-11; Uppsala; w om en’s peti­
tion, 31. See also eugenics conferences
Eugenics Institute. See Uppsala
Evang, Karl, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181-82,
188, 264
Evnesvages Vel organization, 64
F Florinska Kom m issionen o f Svenska
Fahlbeck, Pontus, 80, 81
Farmers Party (Bondepartiet), 175
Federley, Harry, 91, 200, 220, 226, 234;
correspondence, 90, 212-13, 232, 252n.
59, 253n. 62, 254n. 80; on crime, 226;
eugenics leader, 206, 208, 212-15, 245,
250n. 21, 261; organizations, 202, 218;
publications, 50, 210-13, 217, 219, 225
Fernald, Walter, 22
Fetscher, Rainer, 225, 226
Filadelfia institution, 54
Finland: crim e prevention, 225-30, 239,
263; eugenics, 202-248, 267; history, 4, 5,
6-7, 195-97, 201-202; eugenics opposi­
tion, 214, 218, 229, 232; “individual-
com m unity”, 198; infant mortality, 200,
203, 204; institutions, 204, 218; language
cross-culture, 195-97, 199-202, 206-211,
235-36, 238; laws, 195, 196, 225, 230-38,
242; L utheran church, 186, 195, 198;
mothers awards, 208, 209-212;
Parliam ent, 228-31; part o f Sweden, 1,
195-97; politics, 197-98; public eugenics
discussions, 221-23, 244; racial origins,
199-201; Sterilization Comm ittee, 216­
223, 224, 225, 227; women eugenics p ro ­
moters, 228-30, 263. See also castration;
ethnicity; eugenics; Federley, Harry; lan­
guage; m ental retardation; population;
organizations by name; race hygiene;
Sami; sterilization; welfare state
Finnish Academy o f Science, 199, 212
Finnish M edical Association, 205, 215, 216,
224
Finnish W o m en ’s National Federation, 228
First International Congress o f Eugenics
(London, 1912), 12, 20, 67n. 21, 158,
162, 203
First International Congress of H um an
Genetics (Copenhagen, 1956), 62-63, 261
Fischer, Eugen, 87, 90, 153, 184 , 194n. 106
Florin, Jenny, 208
Litteratursallskapet i Finland, 207, 208,
209
folkbildning (popular education), 2
Forel, August, 15, 20-21, 27, 48
France, 3, 268
Fremtidens Forsorgelsesvcesen (Steincke), 28
Ftirst, Carl, 67n. 14, 88
G
Galton eugenics, 23, 81
Galton Laboratory, 58
Garboe, Axel, 44, 52, 55 H
Gaupp, Robert, 55
Gaustad Hospital (Norway), 156 Hablose Sligter (Bang), 11
Geiger, Theodor, 44, 45 Hagelstam, Jarl, 90
gender bias, 119-24, 138, 157, 264. See also Haldane, J. B. S., 62, 94
sterilization Hammarskjold, Hjalmar, 88
“genetic hygiene”, 132 H andbuch der Erbbiologie des M enschen ,
genetics: as discipline, 260; human, 95; 164
international congresses, 62-63, 166; Hansen, Bent Sigurd, 120
journals, 83; medical, 130-33, 166; th e ­ Hansen, C. C., 67n. 14
ory, 120-21, 123, 260. See also Institute Hansen, Klaus, 171, 179
o f H um an Genetics; Mendel, Gregor Hansen, Knud, 44, 50
Johann; Norway; race biology; reform Hansen, Soren: anthropologist, 12-13, 20­
eugenics 21, 59; eugenics stance, 48-49, 51, 58,
Genetics Society (Norway), 181 190n. 22; publications, 28, 44, 50, 53-54
George, Henry, 11 Hanson, Nils, 87
Germany: church influence, 186; com ­ Hansson, P. A., 5, 95
pared to Denmark, 53-57; com pared to Hardy-W einberg rule, 33
Scandinavia, 265-70; eugenics, 9, 11, Haycraft, J. B., 11
135, 152, 185, 197, 214, 260; H am burg, Hedin, Sven, 78, 82
56; im m igration into Scandinavia, 1-2; H edman, Edwin, 13, 19-21, 204, 224
influenced Finland, 201-202, 232; H edm an, Reidar (son), 224
N urem burg Laws, 57; and Sweden, 93, Hedren, G unner, 104
114-15; sterilization laws, 44-45, 53-55, Hegar, Alfred, 15
61, 114-15, 172-74; in WW II, 6 ,6 1 . See Hein, Estrid, 32
also laws by name; Nazi; Norway; racial Helsingin Sanomat, 215, 216, 221
purity Helsinki University, 201, 212, 214, 238
Gesetz zur Verhiitung Erbkranken hereditary determinism. See biological
Nachwuchses (Germ an eugenics law, determ inism
1933), 53, 54, 172-73; criticized, 173-74 Hereditas , 83
Gjellerup, Karl, 10 H eredity a n d Morals (Gjellerup), 10
Gobineau, Joseph, Com te de, 81 “H eredity in M an” (Bonnevie), 165
Goddard, Henry H., 19 Heymowski, Adam, 126, 127, 130
Goll, August, 31, 32, 38, 44, 53, 54, 56 Hilden, Kaarlo, 90
Great Britain, 9, 153, 197; eugenics, 154, H iorth, G unnar, 179
169, 186, 189n. 8, 268 H irdm an, Yvonne, 121
Greek O rthodox church, in Finland, 2 Hirschfeld, Magnus, 47
Greenland, 2, 6, 9, 66n. 3 H jort, Bodil, 19, 20
Grundtvig, N. E. S., 2 Holland. See Netherlands
Grunewald, Karl, 135 Holmes, S. J., 89
Guldberg, Alf, 171 H onkasalo, Brynolf, 226
G unther, Hans F. K„ 90, 199 H ooten, E. A., 88
Gypsies, 96, 125, 126, 128, 129 Horbiger, Hans, 49
Horelli, Edvard Johan, 218, 222
Hoyre (Conservative) party, 154
Hufvudstadsbladet , 204
Hultcrantz, Vilhelm, 83, 84, 88, 99
H u m a n H eredity (Baur), 194n. 106
Hungary, 196
Huoltaja-lehti, 222, 225, 229, 232
I Jacobsson, Tor, 127
Ibsen, Henrik, 4
Iceland, 1, 7, 186. See also ethnicity
Ilkka, 221
Indiana sterilization law (1907), 99, 218
individualism and personal rights. See ster­
ilization and rights
infant mortality. See Finland
Inghe, G unnar, 132
Innere Mission, 46
Institute for Biological Heredity (Norway),
179
Institute for Race Biology (Sweden), 86­
95, 128, 131, 136, 215, 259; race hygiene,
100, 101. See also D epartm ent of
Medical Genetics; Lundborg, Herm an;
Uppsala
Institute for Research on Heredity
(Finland), 215
Institute of Genetics (Oslo), 160, 161, 164,
179
Institute of H um an Genetics
(Copenhagen), 21, 57-60, 182
institutions, as eugenics sites, 13-23, 27, 30,
117, 169-72, 213. See also institutions by
individual name; m ental retardation;
sterilization; U nited States
instrum entalism. See science
International Eugenic Com m ittee, 83, 90
International Federation o f Eugenic
Organizations, 250n. 21
International Federation o f Eugenics, 50
International Gesellschaft fur
Rassenhygiene, 83-84, 202
Interscandinavian Marriage Commission,
21
involuntary sterilization, 102-103, 104,
108, 115, 135, 145n. 71; Finland, 218. See
also sterilization
ionized radiation, 62
/
Jahn, Ferenc, 228
Jalas, Rakel, 229-30
Jarvi, T. H., 203
Jeffersonville State Prison (IN), 13
Jensen, Thit, 47, 48, 49
Jewish groups in Scandinavia, 2, 6
Johannsen, Wilhelm: death, 58; eugenics
policies, 23-26, 28, 29, 32, 33-34, 261;
and Swedish eugenics, 82, 270n. 4
Jonnson, Gustaf, 132-22
Journal o f Psycho-Asthenics, 17
Jukes family, 29, 45, 84
K
Kaiser W ilhelm Institute for
A nthropology, H um an Genetics and
Eugenics, 52, 87, 153, 165, 212, 266
Kallikak family (eugenicists), 19, 29, 45
Kalpa, Ilmari, 224
Keilhau, W ilhelm, 171
Keller, Christian, 16-18, 21-23, 30, 40, 204
Keller, Johan, 16
Keller institutions, 16
Kellogg, Vernon, 190n. 22
Kemp, Tage, 44, 53, 54, conferences, 62­
63; eugenics stance, 38, 261, 264;
Institute of H um an Genetics, 21, 57-60,
182-83; research, 26, 132
Kerlin, Isaac, 14
Kevles, Daniel, 153, 169
Key, Ellen, 80-81
Kidd, Benjamin, 79
Kinberg, Olof, 84, 132, 137, 226
K rapotkin, Prince, 67n. 21
Krauss, W ilhelm, 88, 89
Kretschmer, Ernst, 90
Kris i befolkningsfragan (Myrdals), 97, 104­
105 ' Ixhtonen, Aatos, 218, 254n. 77
Kris i befolkningssporsmalet (Myrdals), 167
Kroll, J.rgen, 266
L Federley, 214, 252n. 59, 253n. 62;
labor movement, in Scandinavia, 4, 9-10,
11, 187, 268
Laitinen, Taavetti, 206
Lakartidningen, 99, 100, 104
Lamarckian heredity, 10, 23, 28, 47, 259;
Sweden, 78-79, 84;
Landman, J. H., 13
Lange, Frederik, 10
Lange, Johannes, 26, 226
Langfeldt, G„ 180, 182
language: as a reflection of culture, 1-2;
Finno-Ugric, 196, 199; Finnish, 95-97,
199-202; German in Finland, 201; and
sterilization, 235-36, 238; Swedish in
Finland, 195-97, 201-202, 206-215. See
also Sweden
Lapland, 89, 239. See also Lapps
Lapps, 66n. 3, 130, 164, 199
Larsson, Robert, 28, 83
Lassila, Vaino, 232
Laughlin, Harry F,, 13, 33, 170
laws. See legislation
League for Sexual Reform (Denmark), 47
League of Nations, 5
Leche, Vilhelm, 84
legislation: alcohol, 156; attacks on, 52;
biased, 45, 121; in dem ocracies, 268;
efficiency, 108, 110-14, 137; eugenic,
10, 13, 14, 26, 31, 35-46, 53-57, 60, 6 3­
65; Finland, 195; hesitations about,
103-104; later, 154; m ental retardation
sterilization, 39-41, 54, 55-56, 61-62,
98; Norwegian, 154, 156, 169-83, 186;
penal code, 169-73; Swedish theory
into policy, 98-108, 137. See also
D enm ark; Germ any; institutions; laws
by individual names; m arriage laws;
Norway; Sweden; U nited States
Leidenius, L., 206
Lennmalm, Fritiof, 86, 88
Lenz, Fritz, 89, 184 n, 194n. 106, 224; and
instrum entalist, 153; at Uppsala, 90
Lenz, Sigfried, 89
Leunbach, Jonathan Hogh, 47-50, 51, 54,
74n. 111
Ley, A., 226
Liberal Party (Norway), 158
Lidforss, Bengt, 82
Lifslinjer( Key), 80
Lindhagen, Carl, 104
Lindstedt, Gustaf, 102
Ling, Henric, 2
Linnaeus, 81
l’lnstitut International d ’ Anthropologie,
90
Ludmerer, Ken, 153
Lundborg, H erm an, 50, 83, 91-93, 137,
141n. 14, 202, 2 5 In. 44; eugenics advo­
cate, 84, 85-89, 99, 204, 213, 214;
Federley letters, 252n. 59, 254n. 80; iso­
lates study, 131; Sami study, 89; on
Tattare, 125; publications, 84, 85, 89, 90,
205
Lutheran church: eugenics position of, 52,
262; in Scandinavia, 2, 177, 186, 187, 268
M
MacKenzie, D onald, 84
mainline eugenics, 93, 154, 169, 259-60,
261,262, 266
Makela, V aino, 227, 254n. 78
M annerheim in, Kenraali, 223
March, Lucien, 190n. 22
marriage laws: D enm ark model, 26, 57,
222; Finland, 225, 231; Norway, 157;
Sweden, 99-100, 118, 145n. 77
Marshall Plan, 7
M artin, Rudolf, 89
Medical Association of T urku, 217
medical genetics. See genetics; technology
medical politics, 8, 13. See also science
M endel, Gregor Johann, genetics work, 23­
24, 26, 28, 33
Mendelism: Finland, 203, 205; genetics,
260; Sweden, 82, 83, 84, 100, 182
Mendel Society (Sweden), 83
M ental Health Association (Finland), 223­
24, 229
M e n ta l Illness and Social Policy (Barr), 17
M entally Handicapped Act o f 1934
(D enm ark), 41, 42, 54, 55, 56; criticism,
61-62; 1959 revision, 62, 64
mental retardation, and sterilization, 40­
4 2 ,45, 46, 264, 27In. 6; criticized, 135;
Denmark, 16-23, 27, 34-36, 38-42, 264;
England, 223; Finland, 216-19, 222, 223­
28; Norway, 156, 172, 181-83; Sweden,
100, 111, 115, 117-19, 144n. 60. See also
degeneration theory; institutions; legisla­
tion; marriage laws
Mjoen, Fritjof (son), 171
Mjoen, Jon Alfred Hansen, 25, 50, 90, 162,
252n. 59; criticized, 158-61, 162, 163-64,
165, 167; eugenics role, 155-61, 163-64,
184, 261; rejected eugenics, 167-69; su p ­
porters, 159. See also Consultive
Eugenics Com m ittee o f Norway
“M odern Breakthrough” (Brandes), 11
“M odern Eugenics and the Christian View
o f Life” (Carlsen), 174
m odernization and social change, 3-6, 77­
81,95, 105, 243-44
M ohr, O tto Lous, 90, 155, 159, 162, 174,
180; eugenics stance, 165-67, 173, 261,
267; Federley correspondence, 214,
252n. 59; publications, 166
M ohr, Tove. SeeMoIler, Tove
M oiler, Katti Anker, 161-62
Moller, Tove, 162, 169, 175
Morel, Augustine, 10, 23
Morgan, Thomas H unt, 88, 141n. 3, 166-67
Moscow (U.S.S.R.), 66
Mosesson, Gustaf, 107
M uckerm ann, Hermann, 52, 90, 153
Muller, H. J„ 62, 194n. 106
Muller-Hill, Benno, 152-53
Muntzing, Arne, 132, 134, 261
Mustala, Paavo, 227
Myrdal, Alva, 104-105, 124, 136, 167, 238;
publications, 97
Myrdal, G unnar, 92, 97, 124; ethnic
groups, 130; population policy, 104-105,
136, 167, 238,246
N
Naisen dani, 229
nationalism, 2, 4. See also racism
National Board o f Health (Finland), 221,
233, 234-36, 239
National Board o f Health (Sweden), 101 -
103, 129, 134, 145n. 77; regulator, 108,
110, 115-16, 119, 265; on abortion, 122
National Board of Social W elfare
(Sweden), 102, 117, 121, 125, 126, 127,
128
National Socialist government (Nazi), 263;
and D enm ark, 44, 46, 50, 51; and
Germans, 152, 153; racism, 174, 260; and
Sweden, 96, 105, 126. See also Germany;
Norway; racial purity
Nationalsozialistische M onatshefte, 25
NATO, 7
Nazi party. See National Socialist govern­
ment; Norway
Needham, Joseph, 94
negative eugenics, 26, 48, 58, 63, 94, 156,
205
Netherlands, 186, 269
N eum an-Rahn, Karin, 227
Nieminen, A rmas, 238
Nilsson-Ehle, H erm an, 82, 83, 88, 91, 93,
137, 141n. 3
Nordic Conference on Race Biology and
Anthropology (1925), 90
Nordic type, 12, 50, 81, 199, 262. See also
racial purity
Nordiske Rase (journal), 164, 261
Noregaard, Harald, 171
Norvig, Johannes, 42
Norway: alcohol taxation, 156; birth con­
trol, 161-62; church influence, 174-75,
186-87; com pared to German law, 173;
eugenics development, 154-61, 163-79,
186, 188-89; G erm an Nazi occupation,
175, 179-81, 193n. 88, 267; instrum ental
view of science, 151-55, 183-89; law
developm ent, 169-79; law opposition,
175-76, 187, mental illness and heredity,
156-57; Parliam ent, 160, 175-76, 187;
penal code revisions, 169-72; polarity in,
167; political history, 2-3, 4, 6-7, 78;
population control, 154, 185; population
surveys, 160; social reform and eugenics,
153-55, 160, 167-68, 184, 187-89; steril­
ization history, 151-89, 267; tem perance,
163-79; w om en’s rights, 31, 161-62. See
also ethnicity; institutes by individual
names; legislation; population; science;
sterilization
Norwegian Academy o f Science, 155, 156
Norwegian Genetics Society, 163
Norwegian Labor Party, 154
Norwegian Medical Association, 156
“Norwegian Program for Race Hygiene,”
156
Nygren, H ildur, 107
N y t Tidsskrift fo r AbnormvAisenet, 19, 20,
21
O 152,
O degard, 0 rn u lf, 182
O hlander, M anne, 127
Olsson, Karl Johan, 107
O sborne, H enry Fairfield, 164
Ostrem, H. Thoralf, 179
Ottesen-Jensen, Elise, 124
P
Palmberg, Albert, 203-204
Palme, Olof, 134
Palm en, Arne Johannes, 218, 222, 225, 232
pan-Scandinavianism, 2
Paul, Diane, 269
Pearl, Raymond, 190n. 22
Pearson, Kane, 24
Penrose, L. S., 62
Penrose Institute, 58
P eriytytm inen ja ihm issuvun jalostam inen,
205
Perm anent International Com m ittee for
Eugenics, 25, 26, 158, 190n. 22
Persson, Set, 107
Petren, Alfred, 93, 101, 102, 103
physical anthropology: Denm ark, 12-13,
66n. 14, 81-85; origins, 81, 259; Sweden,
95, 126. See also eugenics; Hansen, Soren
Pilcher, F. Hoyt, 14
Plato’s utopian eugenics, 23
Ploetz, Alfred, 155, 162, 214, 253n. 59
Pohjola, Kyllikki, 228
policy: eugenics, 44-46; population, 95-98,
185, 266, 269. See also population; steril­
ization
politics: medical, 8; in Scandinavian his­
tory, 2-3,4, 8; and science, 152, 268-70
Politiken, 53
Poor Law Commission (Sweden), 126
Popenoe, P., 88
P opular Socialist Party, 64
population: Danish commission, 74n. 118;
Denmark, 9; France, 3; German policies,
155, 180,185, 260, 263,266, 269;
Germany, 3; management, 185,245;
Norwegian policies, 154, 180; Scandinavia,
3; surveys, 12, 82, 83,88-89, 160,219;
Swedish commission, 105-108; Swedish
policies, 95-98, 104-108, 134, 136. See also
birth control; birthrate; Sweden
positive eugenics, 25, 26, 48, 58, 156;
Finland, 208-209, 211, 238-39, 245
prisons, 13. See also mental retardation;
sterilization
prophylactic eugenics, 156
Provine, William, 269
Prussia, 2, 9
Punnet, R. C., 33
Q Rasmussen, Vilhelm, 21, 30, 37, 49
Q uelprud, T hordar, 165, 179, 180, 193n.
88
Quetelet, Adolphe, 80
Quisling, V idkunn, 179
R reform eugenics, 5, 29, 259-60, 262, 266,
race: Aryan, 199; East Baltic, 199-200, 210,
262; M ongol, 200-201; Nordic, 12, 50,
81, 199-200, 210, 262; post W W II atti­
tude changes, 130, 136; Swedish, 124;
types, 86, 89, 200-201. See also ethnic
group; Federley, Harry; Finland; race
hygiene; racial purity; racism
race biology: institutionalization of, 85-91;
Swedish, 99, 130, 131; Finnish, 205. See
also Sweden
Racehygiejne (Leunbach), 48, 50
“racehygiejne.” See race hygiene
race hygiene, 50, 58, 61, 90, 204, 214;
defined, 48, 155, 262; Finland, 197, 222,
247; Germany, 115, 135, 185; Norway,
169-70; organizations, 83-84, 87, 202;
rejected, 105, 106, 111, 115, 130; Sweden,
99, 100, 103, 135, 136. See also eugenics;
Finland; Leunbach, Jonathan H 0gh;
Weiss, Sheila; von Hoffman, Geza
Race Hygiene a n d R ational
M anagem ent... (Weiss), 152
Racial Character o f the Swedish N ation, 88
racial purity: Germany, 50, 97; legislation,
35, 107; Leunbach’s, 48; and the Nordic
race, 1-2, 50, 83, 89, 135, 262; “master
race”, 2; Sweden, 124, 216. See also
eugenics; legislation; Nordic type; race;
race biology; race hygiene; racism; steril­
ization
racism, 2,48, 97, 105, 157, 260; Danish,
66n. 3; Swedish, 124-30. See also n atio n ­
alism; Nazi; race; racial purity; Sweden
R asepolitikk ogR eaksjon (Evang), 174
“Rashygienen en samhallsplikt”, 204
Rasse, B lu ta n d Gene (W eingart), 152
Rassenhygiene in den Vereignigten Staaten
von N ordam erika (von Hoffman), 28
R assenkunde des schwedischen Volkes, 89
Rassenmischung heim M enschen, 89
reform laws, 10
269; Norwegian, 169; Swedish, 94, 97,
124, 126. See also welfare state
Reich, Wilhelm, 49, 168
Reilly, Philip R., 145n. 71
Reinikainen, Oskari, 231, 257n. 127
religion in Scandinavia, 2-3. See also
Catholic church; Lutheran church
R etten og Racehygiejnen (Hansen), 28
Retzius, Anders, 12, 81, 82
Retzius, Gustaf (son), 82
Ribot, Theodule, 10
Rifbjerg, Sophie, 53
rights. See sterilization
Riipinen, Hilya, 229, 231
Ringbom, Lars, 211,215
Risley, S. D„ 17-18,22
Rockefeller Foundation, 58, 59, 96, 180
Romanus, Torsten, 129-30
Roth, K. H„ 266
Rtidin, Ernst, 92, 205, 225, 250n. 20
Russia and Scandinavia, 4, 5, 6, 20, 78. See
also Soviet Union
Rydberg, Viktor, 79-80, 81
Rydma, Hannes, 232
S
Saleeby, Caleb W., 205
Sailer, Karl, 92
Salmiala, Bruno. See Sundstrom , Bruno
salpingectomy, 225, 233
Sam fundet Folkhalsen i Svenska Finland,
210; eugenics prom otion, 211,212, 213,
215, 245; origins, 206-209. See also,
Federley, Harry
S a m fund ogA rvelighed (Geiger), 44, 45
Sami (Finland), 1, 89, 91, 96
Sand, K nud, 38,42
Sanger, Margaret, 47, 48
Scandinavia: colonies, 2, 9; compared to
Germany, 265-70; cultural reputation, 7;
hom ogeneous nature, 1-8, 9; m oderniza­
tion, 3-6, 77-81; world war history, 6-7.
See also Denmark; education; eugenics;
sterilization; emigration; ethnicity;
Finland; Iceland; labor movement;
Norway; politics; population; racism;
religion; Sweden; welfare state
Schallmayer, Wilhelm 152, 185, 205
Scharffenberg, Johan, 155, 158, 163, 169,
172, 265; career, 173-75, 181
Scharling, H other, 18-19
Schauman, Ossian, 90, 202, 207-208, 215
Schauman, Wilhelm, 208, 209-212
Scheidt, W alter, 90
Scherz, Gustav, 51, 52
Schleswig Wars, 3, 9
Schneider, William, 268
Schou, H. I., 52, 54
Schreiner, Kristian, 159-60
Schroder, Georg C., 31
science: educational role of, 155, 183-84,
187-88, 201-202; liberal vs. instrum ental
view, 151-89; Nordic achievement, 4,
261; in Norway eugenics, 151-52, 153,
184-86; and politics, 152, 268-70; “value
free”, 151, 153. See also technology
Scots im m igration into Scandinavia, 1
Searle, G. R., 169
Second International Congress of Eugenics
(New York, 1921), 164, 202
segregation, as eugenics, 171, 173, 205,
211, 217, 224
Selling, A. M., 99
Serlachius, Allan, 216-17
Sexual Question (Forel), 20
Sexual Reform Party, 47
Sharp, Harry, 13-14, 19, 20
Sielunterveysseuran aikakauslehti, 223-24
Sindsygdom m enes A rvegang og
Raceforbedrende Bestrcebelser (W im m er),
44
6th N ordic Conference on the Welfare of
the H andicapped (1912), 19, 20, 204
Sjogren, Torsten, 91-92
Sjovall, Einar, 101-102, 103
Skeie, Jon, 169-70
Smith, Jens Christian, 27, 40
Snellman, J. V., 198
Snow, C.P., 94
social class. See sterilization
social Darwinism, 11, 29, 48, 80, 136, 229
Social Democratic W orking W om en’s
Federation, 229
Social Democrats: Denmark, 9-10, 11, 21,
27, 28, 32, 37, 52; Finland, 228, 233;
Norway, 153, 174; parties, 4, 5; Sweden,
87, 98, 101, 107, 121, 133, 135. See also
Steincke, K. K.
social democracy, 4, 5. See also Social
Democrats
Social Evolution (Kidd), 79
“social heritage” (Jonnson), 133
social hygiene movement, 79
Socialisten, 28
social radicalism versus rural rom anticism ,
167-68
social reform and sterilization: Norway,
151-89; Sweden, 104-108
social relief via eugenics, 10, 46
Social Rights Party (Norway), 175, 192n.
80
Socialt Tidsskrift, 44
Society for Racial Hygiene (Sweden), 100,
101
Society of Socialist Physicians, 182
Soderblom, NatHan, 95
“soft inheritance,” 10
Soihtu, 228
Sonoma State Home (CA), 13, 67n. 17
Sosiaalinen Aikakauskirja, 232
Sosialisti, 221
Soviet U nion, 6, 7, 135. See also Russia
Spencer, H erbert, 11, 12
Statem ent on Race (UNESCO), 130, 148n.
119
statistics. See sterilization statistics
Steincke, K. K., 5, 22, 39, 44, 261; eugenics
politics, 27-31, 37,48, 51, 54; and laws,
57, 74n. 118; Social D emocrat, 32
sterilization: American, 135, 158, 186, 187,
223, 254n. 80; class bias, 120-24, 173; as
contraception, 123-24, 177; craniec­
tomy, 15; criticized, 107, 135, 154, 175­
76, 187; decrease, 133-35; eugenic,
13-23, 67n. 17, 122, 133-35; Finland,
198, 216-28; France, 268; gender bias,
119-24, 138; for hereditary disease, 102,
174; hum ane, 100; inhum ane, 30, 52-53,
133; innovative, 198, 247-48; institu­
tional, 117-19; law efficiency, 108, 110­
14; laws, 36-43, 46, 53-57, 98-124;
medical, 122, 144n. 60, 173, 239, 264;
m ortality, 146n. 88, 232; m utilation,
133; Nazi effect on, 180; Norway, 169,
186; opposition, 168-69, 214, 218, 228,
262; policies, 25, 32, 34-46, 106;
“respektabel grum m ,” 171-72; social
reform, 104-108; Tattare , 124-30, 138;
x-ray, 19, 22. See also abortion; castra­
tion; com pulsory sterilization;
D enm ark; eugenics; Federley, Harry;
Finland; Germany; involuntary steriliza­
tion; laws by individual names; legisla­
tion; m ental retardation; Norway; Sand,
Knud; sterilization and rights; steriliza­
tion statistics; sterilization types;
Sweden; U nited States; voluntary steril­
ization; w om en’s sterilization
Sterilization Act o f 1929 (D enm ark), 42,
43, 52, 55, 195
Sterilization Act o f 1934 (Sweden), 98-103,
108, 116, 182, 195; criticized, 112-13,
119
Sterilization Act o f 1935 (D enm ark), 40­
43, 55; 1967 revision of, 42, 63-65. See
also Mentally Handicapped Act o f 1934
Sterilization Act o f 1935 (Finland), 195,
215,218-38, 246, 262
Sterilization Act o f 1941 (Sweden), 98, 105,
107-108, 111, 113, 117, 120, 132,267;
criticized, 119, 135; and Tattare, 127-28
Sterilization Act o f 1950 (Finland), 239,
246
Sterilization Act o f 1970 (Finland), 243,
246
Sterilization Act o f 1975 (Sweden), 135,
138, 265
sterilization and rights: Sweden, 102, 104,
107, 116-17, 134, 137; Norway, 155, 171­
72, 175-77, 188
Sterilization Law o f 1934 (Norway), 155,
169-76, 180, 195, 263, 265; Nazi changes,
179-80; 1961 revision, 176; 1977 revi­
sion, 176
sterilization statistics: Denmark, 40-42, 60­
61, 177; Finland, 177, 220-21, 234-42,
246; Norway, 176-80, 181, 193n. 89, 267;
Scandinavia, 263; Sweden, 108-16, 139,
144nn. 56, 60, 145nn. 71, 78, 177-78,
182, 267;
sterilization types. See abortion; castration;
salpingectomy; vasectomy
Stockholm, m odernization and, 3
Stopes, Marie, 48
Strahle, Dr., 205
Strindberg, August, 4
suffrage, 5, 78
Sundbarg, Gustaf, 78
Sundstrom , Bruno, 231, 241, 257n. 128
Suom en N ainen, 228
Suom en Poliisilehti, 232
Suom en Sosiaalidemokraatti, 233
surgery. See sterilization
Svalof m ethod (breeding), 82
Svensk Raskunskap, 88
Sverges adel (Swedish Nobility), 80
Sweden: included Finland, 1; compared to
Finland, 233; economy, 3; emigration
from, 78, 136; family policies, 133; lan­
guage, 195-97; law efficiency, 108,110-14;
Lutheran church, 77, 186; modernization,
5, 77-81, 95, 105; Parliament, 99, 101-102,
104, 107, 127, 133-34, 215; political his­
tory, 2-7, 78, 267; population control, 95­
98,104-108, 133-34, 136; population
surveys, 12, 82, 83, 88-89; race biology,
85-98, 103, 101; relationship with
Germany, 93, 135; sterilization history,
98-124, 222, 263; Tattare racism, 125-30,
136; welfare state, 5, 95, 98, 101. See also
commissions; laws and societies by indi­
vidual names; ethnicity; eugenics; m ar­
riage laws; population; race biology;
sterilization; Stockholm; Uppsala
Swedish Com m ission on Population, 97­
98, 265
Swedish Institute for Eugenic Research,
244
Swedish N a tio n , 86
Swedish Society for A nthropology and
Geography, 82
Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene, 83, 86
Swedish Society of Medicine, 101, 103,
149n. 125
Switzerland, 205, 218
T University o f Minnesota, 75n. 125
Tattare (travelers). See Sweden
technology: dangers of, 152; and medicine,
137; and society, 268; and sterilization,
134, 154, 169. See also m odernization
tem perance, 5, 208, 247. See also Norway
Third International Congress of Eugenics,
58, 202
Thomsen, Oluf, 26, 44, 45, 57-58, 92
“Threat o f Degeneration” (Davenport), 85
Thunberg, Torsten, 83
Tingsten, H erbert, 94
Toveritar, 229
trade unions, 4. See also labor movement;
Social Democrats
“travelers.” See Tattare
Treysa Conference (1932), 46
Tuomivaara, Eino, 231
T urun Yliopisto (Turku), 196
twins research, 58, 92, 214, 226
Tydliiisja talonpoikaisnaisten lehti, 221
U
U ckerm an, W ilhelm, 157
Ugeskrift fo r Lceger, 43
UNESCO, 130
United States, 9, 59, 97, 164, 213, 218, 250n.
21; California, 13, 67n. 17, 169, 254n. 80;
eugenics growth, 75n. 125153,154, 166,
186, 187; genetics 153; and Germany, 260,
265; model for sterilization, 135, 158, 169,
170; institutional eugenics, 13, 14, 16-19,
22, 25, 28, 29-30, 67n. 17; laws, 99, 218,
262; sterilization, 99, 100, 205, 229, 254n.
80. See also castration; Davenport,
Charles; Elwyn Institution
Universal Economic Conference (1920s), 5
University Institute o f H um an Genetics
(D enm ark), 26, 64
University o f Lund, 82, 83
University o f Michigan Heredity Clinic,
7 5 n .125
University o f Oslo, 179
Uppsala (Sweden), 83, 87-88, 90, 94, 137,
214; influence of, 97, 99-100, 131. See
also Dahlberg, G unnar
Uusi Suom i, 221, 225
V
V aananen, Kalle, 205-206, 244
Vaestolitto (Finland population program ),
238, 246
Vagrancy Commission o f 1942 (Sweden),
132
Valkonauha, 206
“value nihilism ,” 97
Vankeinhoitolehti, 222
vasectomy, 13, 19, 20; Finland, 225, 232;
Norway, 169,170
Velbarne og de Belastede (Bramsen), 20
Venstre (Agrarian party), 37, 40, 52;
Norway, 154
V erdandi (association), 79, 93, 130-31
Verkko, Veli, 226-27
V inderen Biological Laboratory, 155, 164
Vogt, Ragnar: career, 155-58; publications,
159, 162, 163; 1934 law, 169, 171, 172-73
voluntary sterilization: Denm ark, 37,49;
Finland, 222, 232, 243; Norway, 158,
171-73, 176, 264-65; Sweden, 102, 108,
117, 123, 135. See also sterilization
von Bonsdorff, Adolf, 217
von Eickstedt, Egon, 90
von G ruber, Max, 205
von H offm an, Geza, 28, 29, 33
von Hofsten, Nils, 88, 92, 105, 120, 123;
background, 93-94, 137; on eugenics,
103, 110-11, 119, 261,264; on heredity,
182; racial hygiene foe, 100, 115; on
Tatarre, 125, 127
von V erschuer, O tm ar, 58, 153, 164, 165,
184
von W endt, Georg, 19-20, 203
W
W alloon im migration, 1
Wavrinsky, Edvard, 99
W eber, Max, 151-52
W eindling, Paul, 244, 266
W eingart, Peter, 152, 185-86, 266
Weiss, Sheila, 152, 185, 186
W eismann, August, 12
welfare state: eugenics, 124, 135, 188, 260,
268; “people’s hom e,” 5, 95; reform
eugenics, 5, 260; and science, 194n. 111.
See also eugenics; Evang, Karl; Denmark;
Finland; Norway; Sweden
Welteislehre (Horbiger), 49
W est Indies, 2, 9
W estm an, K. G., 107
W ieth-K nudsen, K. A., 66-67n. 14, 73n. 96
W igert, Victor, 102
W ildenskov, H. O., 34, 40, 44, 55
Wille, N ordal, 164
W im m er, August: eugenics career, 26, 28,
31, 32, 42, 54-56; mental illness heredity,
33-35, 38; publications, 44
W inge, Oiwind, 27, 44
W ohlin, Nils, 98, 107
W oipio, Lauri, 218
w om en’s sterilization: bias, 264; Finland,
236; Norway, 161-62; petition, 31;
Sweden, 111, 117-19, 120-24, 138, 146n.
88. See abortion; gender bias; Norway;
sterilization; suffrage; Sweden
W om en’s N ational Council, 31, 32
W orld W ar I, 4-5; and Denmark, 9; and
Sweden, 78
X
x-ray treatm ents. See sterilization
Z
Zeitschrift fu r induktive A bstam m ungs-und
Vererbungslehre, 83
Zwickauer Gesetze, 44
European history/Sociology
■
I:
In 1997, Eugenics and the Welfare State caused an uproar with international
repercussions. This 2005 edition contains a new introduction by Broberg and
Roll-Hansen addressing events that occurred following the original publication.
The four essays in this book stand as a chilling indictment of mass sterilization
practices, not only in Scandinavia but in other European countries and the
United States— eugenics practices that remained largely hidden from the
public until recently. Eugenics and the Welfare State also provides an in-depth,
critical examination of the history, politics, science, and economics that led to
mass sterilization programs in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland; programs
put in place for the “betterment of society” and based largely on the “junk
science” of eugenics that was popular before the rise of Nazism in Germany.

“Scandinavian sterilization [policy] is ably and evenhandedly recounted

in Eugenics and the Welfare State, edited by Gunnar Broberg and
Nils Roll-Hansen... a valuable book not least because it is the first
comprehensive rendering of its subject in English. The volume’s principal
chapters— authoritative histories of eugenics and sterilization in
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland— comprise a well-integrated
and eye-opening collection that sets its material in the larger contexts of
the respective national histories and the development of eugenics in the
W est.”

-Times Literary Supplement

ISBN
MICHIGAN
STA TE 90000>

Michigan State University Press

www.msupress.msu.edu 9 780870 137587