To Cut and Control: Institutional Preservation and the Sterilization of Mentally Retarded People in the United States, 1892–1947

Abstract

Between 1892 and 1947. American institutional superintendents argued three distinct, though overlapping, cases for sterilizing mentally retarded people: sterilization to maintain institutional order, sterilization for eugenic control, and sterilization for controlling the growth of institutional populations. Departing from recent critics who see sterilization as a debate between 'segregation or sterilization' and who link this debate principally to the eugenics movement, I argue that superintendents drew on the above rationales to preserve their institutions in the face of several external factors, not merely eugenics. As such, sterilization became a 'medical' procedure constructed not so much for its explicit purpose -stopping procreation, but to maintain institutional stability and preserve professional prerogative.

Gender and Compulsory Sterilization Programs in America: 1907–1950

“…Superintendents originally supported sterilization for its effective control of intra-institutional deviant behavior (Trent 1993 in this era were rapidly expanding their inmate populations, often beyond the physical limits of institutional buildings, and therefore inmate control took on a new imp&tame and level of difficulty. Vasectomies offered the latest technology, less radical than castration, and physicians such as R.C.…”

“…The first wave of sterilization laws had disappeared almost as quickly as they sprung up due to constitutional challenges. The hostility of the courts towards sterilization created an uncertain environment for superintendents, and many superintendents were understandably nervous about showing support for sterilization (Trent 1994). Fearing that advocacy for sterilization might make them look extreme, many superintendents either publicly opposed sterilization or conducted small-scale sterilization programs limited to institutional residents which would remain uncontroversial (Laughlin 1922;Radford 1991).…”

“…For example, in Davis, Warden v. Walton, the warden of a Utah prison petitioned for the eugenic sterilization of Esau Walton, an African-American arrested for larceny and found guilty of sodomy while in the prison. Although the court declared the statute constitutional, it found that Esau Walton did not fit the criteria and should not be sterilized because there was not enough evidence of inheritability.14 Furthermore, superintendents became nervous about using sterilization as a means to control institutional behavior because it too could be viewed as punitive (Trent 1994). Superintendents were not looking to create controversies and moved towards using sterilization in the most acceptable instances.…”

Sterilizing the “Feeble‐minded”: Eugenics in Alberta, Canada, 1929–1972

“…Subsequent eugenics‐influenced government policies were invariably shaped by gender‐ and race‐based stereotypes and notions of appropriate behaviour (Carey 1998; Hasian 1996; Paul 1995). In addition, medical organizational and bureaucratic needs often superseded concerns for patient welfare (Trent 1993; Radford 1994).…”

Too Disabled to Work

“…Throughout the ages, people with disabilities have been limited not by their own abilities but by the perceptions society had of them (Baynton, 2011;Braddock & Parish, 2001;Trent, 1993;Tyor & Bell, 1984). Indeed, even as recently as the 1960s, the prevailing thought among policymakers and educators was that many people with disabilities were "too disabled" to learn vocational skills (Carey, 2010).…”