우생학적 생명정치가 혼인법, 이혼법, 불임법(단종법) 등에 미친 영향 —20세기 초 영국과 미국을 중심으로—
The Influence of Eugenical Biopolitics on Marriage Law, Divorce Law and Sterilization Law —Focused on the Britain and the united States in the Early 20th Century—
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Napoleon once said, “Politics is our fate,” Hans Jonas said, “Technology is our fate,” and, today, we can say, “Biopolitics is our fate.” Bioethical principles and disputes always exist behind biopolitics. For example, this policy, called eugenics, was the emergency of influential biopolitics in the early 20th century. The word eugenics was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton. The term eugenics comes from the Greek roots for “good” and “generation” or “origin” and was first used to refer to the “science” of heredity and good breeding. With the rise of new genetic technologies, and the technical ability to change an individual's genetic heritage, eugenics is once again a topic both discussed and written about throughout the world. A sterilization law, marriage law, divorce law which had been entitled “Eugenics in the service of public welfare” indicated compulsory disadvantage to people referred to as “biologically inferior.” That is to say, banning marriage, getting a divorce and sterilization “for the prevention of progeny with hereditary defects” in cases of “congenital mental defects, schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis, hereditary epilepsy… and severe alcoholism.” was permitted by law. A mensa et thero and a private bill of divorce caused many problems(increase of cohabitation, single mothers, illegitimate child etc.) with spouses who want to get a divorce since it didn’t permit to remarry. An (a)eugenical point of view showed that it was necessary to admit getting a divorce for preventing them from passing on biologically inferior genes. Therefore the british eugenics Movement worked up to MAC 1937 (Matrimonial Causes Act 1937). Which deigned to grant a divorce because of cruelity, abandonment, congenital incurable mental disease besides adultery. While Britain focused on amendment divorce law, U.S. concentrated on sterilization law and marriage law. In U.S., between 1907 and 1937 thirty-two states required sterilization of various citizens viewed as undesirable. In the first half of the 20th century, more than 60,000 Americans-poor, uneducated, members of minorities-were forcibly sterilized to prevent them from passing on supposedly defective genes. And many states banned marriage of the mentally ill or handicapped, those convicted of sexual, drug, or alcohol crimes and others viewed as “degenerate”. With the end of World War I, German “scientific propagandists” (psychiatrists and anthropologists) were devastated by the democratic Weimar Republic and saw Hitler as someone who would recognize their ideas and give them prominence. Someone provides a detailed account of the alliance between Hitler and scientists by reporting on a number of interviews he conducted with the participants. The co-mingling of science, politics, and Weltanschauung (ideological or religious world view) caused the darkest period for eugenics when Nazi Germans embarked on their “final solution” to the Jewish question, or the Holocaust. The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide. In the Early 20th, Britain, U.S. and German infringe on human rights of many disabled people under the name of ‘eugenical biopolitics’. They discriminated good genes from inferior ones put forward the claim that prevent them from passing on biologically inferior genes. For example, the Nazis sent about 70,000 disabled people, discounting them as “lives not worth living,” and millions of Jewish people to the gas chambers under the name of ‘ethnic(eugenical) cleansing.’ But it is not only a ‘crime against humanity,’ but a ‘crime against mankind.’ A ‘crime against mankind’ is a crime against the human status, or human nature itself. In other words, an attack on mankind’s diversity, which is such an important characteristic of the ‘human status’ that, if mankind did not have it, terms such as mankind and human nature would become meaningless, that is, it is a threat to human existence. We must always be careful of violating of huamn dignity in that there is still eugenical discrimination by embryo research through the creation of human iPS (induced Pluripotent Stem cells) and artificial abortion in use of PGD(preimplatation genetic diagnosis)
Abstract
Napoleon once said, “Politics is our fate,” Hans Jonas said, “Technology is our fate,” and, today, we can say, “Biopolitics is our fate.” Bioethical principles and disputes always exist behind biopolitics. For example, this policy, called eugenics, was the emergency of influential biopolitics in the early 20th century. The word eugenics was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton. The term eugenics comes from the Greek roots for “good” and “generation” or “origin” and was first used to refer to the “science” of heredity and good breeding. With the rise of new genetic technologies, and the technical ability to change an individual's genetic heritage, eugenics is once again a topic both discussed and written about throughout the world. A sterilization law, marriage law, divorce law which had been entitled “Eugenics in the service of public welfare” indicated compulsory disadvantage to people referred to as “biologically inferior.” That is to say, banning marriage, getting a divorce and sterilization “for the prevention of progeny with hereditary defects” in cases of “congenital mental defects, schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis, hereditary epilepsy… and severe alcoholism.” was permitted by law. A mensa et thero and a private bill of divorce caused many problems(increase of cohabitation, single mothers, illegitimate child etc.) with spouses who want to get a divorce since it didn’t permit to remarry. An (a)eugenical point of view showed that it was necessary to admit getting a divorce for preventing them from passing on biologically inferior genes. Therefore the british eugenics Movement worked up to MAC 1937 (Matrimonial Causes Act 1937). Which deigned to grant a divorce because of cruelity, abandonment, congenital incurable mental disease besides adultery. While Britain focused on amendment divorce law, U.S. concentrated on sterilization law and marriage law. In U.S., between 1907 and 1937 thirty-two states required sterilization of various citizens viewed as undesirable. In the first half of the 20th century, more than 60,000 Americans-poor, uneducated, members of minorities-were forcibly sterilized to prevent them from passing on supposedly defective genes. And many states banned marriage of the mentally ill or handicapped, those convicted of sexual, drug, or alcohol crimes and others viewed as “degenerate”. With the end of World War I, German “scientific propagandists” (psychiatrists and anthropologists) were devastated by the democratic Weimar Republic and saw Hitler as someone who would recognize their ideas and give them prominence. Someone provides a detailed account of the alliance between Hitler and scientists by reporting on a number of interviews he conducted with the participants. The co-mingling of science, politics, and Weltanschauung (ideological or religious world view) caused the darkest period for eugenics when Nazi Germans embarked on their “final solution” to the Jewish question, or the Holocaust. The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide. In the Early 20th, Britain, U.S. and German infringe on human rights of many disabled people under the name of ‘eugenical biopolitics’. They discriminated good genes from inferior ones put forward the claim that prevent them from passing on biologically inferior genes. For example, the Nazis sent about 70,000 disabled people, discounting them as “lives not worth living,” and millions of Jewish people to the gas chambers under the name of ‘ethnic(eugenical) cleansing.’ But it is not only a ‘crime against humanity,’ but a ‘crime against mankind.’ A ‘crime against mankind’ is a crime against the human status, or human nature itself. In other words, an attack on mankind’s diversity, which is such an important characteristic of the ‘human status’ that, if mankind did not have it, terms such as mankind and human nature would become meaningless, that is, it is a threat to human existence. We must always be careful of violating of huamn dignity in that there is still eugenical discrimination by embryo research through the creation of human iPS (induced Pluripotent Stem cells) and artificial abortion in use of PGD(preimplatation genetic diagnosis)
참고문헌 (73)
- 김주수, "친족·상속법" (2008), 법문사
- 김호연, "19세기 말 영국 우생학의 탄생과 사회적 영향 ― 국가적 효율과 우생학적 건강 ―", 이화사학연구, (36), pp.233~259 (2008), 이화사학연구소
- 김호연, "우생학에 대한 다층적 접근 : 유전, 환경 그리고 이념", 환경법연구, 27(2), pp.139~158 (2005), 한국환경법학회
- 로렌스 M. 프리드만, "미국법의 역사" (2006), 청림출판
- 마이클 샌들, "생명의 윤리를 말하다 — 유전학적으로 완벽해지려는 인간에 대한 반론 —" (2010), 도서출판 동녘
- 서종희, "한국에서의 호모사케르: 동성혼", 원광법학, 26(2), pp.109~148 (2010), 법학연구소
- 스티븐 제이 굴드, "인간에 대한 오해" (2003), 사회평론
- 안토니오 네르리, "다중-전쟁이 지배하는 시대의 전쟁과 민주주의" (2008), 세종서적
- 염운옥, "20세기 초 잉글랜드의 이혼법 개정과 우생학", 역사비평, (64), pp.281~302 (2003), 역사문제연구소
- 염운옥, "영국의 우생학 운동과 산아제한", 영국연구, (12), pp.235~271 (2004), 영국사학회
- 염운옥, "우생학과 여성 ―골턴, 피어슨, 살리비를 중심으로―", 영국연구, (13), pp.89~118 (2005), 영국사학회
- 위르겐 하버마스, "인간이라는 자연의 미래 —자유주의적 우생학 비판—" (2003), 나남출판
- 이성숙, "산아제한과 페미니즘― 애니 베상트 사건과 맬더스주의 ―", 영국연구, 8, pp.33~61 (2002), 영국사학회
- 이화숙, "영국의 이혼법 개정과 민법 제840조의 해석론·입법론" (2001), 박영사
- 임미원, "생명관념의 기초적 고찰-기든스, 푸코, 아감벤의 정치철학적 논점을 중심으로-", 법과사회, (37), pp.327~351 (2009), 법과사회이론학회
- 정세권, "인간에 대한 ‘미국식 과학’의 형성: 대번포트(Charles Benedict Davenport)의 우생학", 한국과학사학회지, 30(1), pp.139~169 (2008), 한국과학사학회
- 조르조아감벤, "호모사케르 — 주권권력과 벌거벗은 생명" (2008), 새물결
- 최경석, "유전자 검사 및 연구의 윤리적 문제와유전치료의 문제 : 유전자 결정론을 중심으로", 한국의료윤리학회지, 9(2), pp.223~233 (2006), 한국의료윤리학회
- 한상희, "법과 일상생활의 문화비평적 재구성 — ‘몸’담론분석을 통한 생활정치의 복원", 법과 사회, (21) (2001)
- 홍정화, "생명윤리 및 안전에 관한 법률과 유전자 윤리", 생명윤리, 11(1), pp.61~77 (2010), 한국생명윤리학회
- 황동연, "역분화만능줄기세포(iPS; induced Pluripotent Stem cell)", Molecular and Cellylar Biology News30, 2(1) (2008)
- Allen, Ann Taylor, "Feminism and Eugenics in Germany and Britain, 1900-1940: A Comparative Perspectine", German Studies Review, 23(3) (2000)
- Allen, Garland E., "Science Misapplied: The Eugenics Age Revisited", Current, 8(8) (1996)
- Amstrong, D., "Political Anatomy of the Body: Medical knowledge in Britain in the TwentiethCentury" (1983), Cambridge University Press
- Arendt, Hannah, "Eichmann in Jerusalem - Ein Bericht von der Banalität des Bo¨sen" (1986), Piper
- Baldauf, Scott, "India’s ‘Girl Deficit’ Deepest among Educated", Christian Science Monitor, 13 (2006)
- Benno., Müller-Hill, "Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, and Others, Germany 1933-1945" (1945), Oxford University Press
- Bimbacher, "Biomedizin und Menschenwur̈de" (2004), Suhrkamp
- Binney, C., "Eugenic Aspect of the English Criminal Law", Eugenes Review, 60(2) (1968)
- Bishop, Joel, "Commentaries on the Law of Marriage and Divorce 31" (1852), Boston, Little, Brown & Co
- Black, Edwin, "War Against the Weak" (2003), Four Walls Eight Windows and others worldwide
- Blake, Nelson M., "The Road to Reno: A History of Divorce in the United States" (1962), Macmillan
- Castle, William E., "Genetics and Eugenics" (1920), Harvard University Press
- Claire O’Brien, "China Urged to Delay to ‘Eugenics’ Law", Nature, 383 (1996)
- Colins Barnes, "Disability Studies Today" (2002), Policy
- Cooke, Kathy J., "Duty or Dream? Edwin G. Cooklin’s Critique of Eugenics and Support for American Individualism", Journal of the History of Biology, 35(2) (2002)
- Daniel., Kevles, "In The Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity" (1995), Harvard University Press
- Davenport, C. B., "Race Crossing in Jamaica" (1929), Carnegie Institution
- Degler, Carl N., "In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought" (1991), Oxford University Press
- Desaussure, Henry W, "South Carolina Eq. Rpts., vol. I, p.liv; vol. II", ~
- Dickens, M., "Can Sex Selection Be Ethically Tolerated?", Journal of Medical Ethics, 28 (2002)
- Fisher, Lettice, "Twenty-One Years and After: 1918-1946: The Story of the National Council for Unmarried Mother and Her Child" (1946), NCUMC
- Friedlander, Henry, "The origin of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution" (1995), The University of North Carolina press
- Friedman, Lawrence M, "Private Lives: Families" (2005), Individuals and the Law
- Galton, F. Galton, "Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences" (1869), Macmillan Co
- Galton, F., "Hereditary Talent and Character", Macmillan's Magazine, 12 (1965)
- Galton, F., "Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. 1st ed" (2001), Macmillan
- Goddard, H. H., "Four Hundred Feeble-minded Children Classified by the Binet Method", Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 15 (1910)
- Gould, Stephen Jay, "Carrie Buck’s Daughter. in: The Flamingo’s Smile: Reflection in Natural History" (1985), W. W. Norton
- Graefe, Stefanie, "Autonomie am Lebensende?: Biopolitik, Ökonomisierung und die Debatte um Sterbehilfe" (2007), Campus Verlag
- Grant, Madison, "The Passing of the Great Race" (1916), Charles Scribner’s Sons
- "Hansard Parliamentary Debates, House of Lord, 5th series", ~ (1934)
- Himmelfarb, Gertrude, "Victorian Minds: A Study of Intellectuals in Crisis and of Ideologies in Transition" (1962), Harper & Row
- Hofstadter, Richard, "Social Darwinism in American Thought" (1955), George Braziler
- Kakuk P., "Gene concepts and genethics: beyond exceptionalism", Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(3) (2007)
- "Kent, Commentaries, vol.2(2nd ed., 1832)", ~ (1832)
- Kerr, Anne, "Genetic Politics: from Eugenics to Genome" (2002), New Clarion Press
- Macnicol, John, "Eugenics and the Campaign for Voluntary Sterilization in Britan Between the Wars", Social History of Medicine, 2 (1989)
- MORINAGA, Shinichiro, "The Current Debate on Human Embryo Research and Human Dignity", Journals of Puilosophy and Ethics in Health Care and Medicine, (3) (2008)
- Notes, "Collusive and Consensual Divorce and the New York Anomaly", Columbia Law Review, 36(7) (1936)
- Popenoe, P., "Eeeblemindedness", Journal of Heredity, 6 (1915)
- Proctor, Robert N., "Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis" (1988), Harvard University Press
- Savage, Gail, "‘The Willful Communication of a Loathsome Disease’: Marital Conflict and Venereal Disease in Victorian England", Victorian Studies, 34(1) (1990)
- Smith, Jesse Spaulding, "Marriage, Sterilization and Commitment Laws Aimed at Decreasing Mental Deficiency", Journal of Criminal Law, 5 (1914)
- Suzuki Zenji, "Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement in Japan", Japanese Studies in the History of Science, 14 (1975)
- Swee-Hock, "Population Policies and Programmes in Singapore" (2005), Institute of Southeast Asian Studies
- U. S. Supreme Court, "Buck v. Bell", Supreme Court Report, 47 (1927)
- Vermaat, JA Emerson, "Euthanasia’ in the Third Reich: Lesson for Today?", hics & Medicine, 18 (2002)
- Veronica Pearson, "Population Policy and Eugenics in China", British Journal of Psychiatry, 167 (1995)
- Wallace, Alfred Russel, "Human Selection", Fortnightly Review, 54 (1980)
- Wetz, "Biomedizin und Menschenwürde" (2004), Suhrkamp
- Williams, Caleb, "Woman and Womanhood: A Search for Principles" (1911), Kennerley
- Young-ran, Jo, "Eugenics, Public Health, and the Control of Tuberculosis in the Early Twentieth-Century Britain", 한국과학사 학회지, 15 (1993)