EUGENICS, POPULATION RESEARCH, AND SOCIAL MOBILITY … · Population and Social Mobility 3...

PopulationandSocialMobility

1

EUGENICS,POPULATIONRESEARCH,ANDSOCIALMOBILITYSTUDIES

INEARLYANDMID-TWENTIETH-CENTURYBRITAIN*

CHRISRENWICK

UniversityofYork

Abstract:Eugenicsandsociologyareoftenconsideredpolaropposites,withtheformerseenasa

pseudo-sciencethatreduceseverythingtogenesandtheotheraprogressivesocialsciencefocused

ontheenvironment.However,thesituationwasnotquitesostraightforwardinmid-twentieth-

centuryBritain.Asthisarticleshows,eugenicshadanumberofimportantformativeintellectual,

institutional,andmethodologicalimpactsonideasandpracticesthatwouldfindahomeinthe

rapidlyexpandinganddiversifyingdisciplineofsociologyaftertheSecondWorldWar.Takinginthe

careersofleadingindividuals,includingAlexanderCarr-Saunders,WilliamBeveridge,JulianHuxley,

andDavidGlass,andfocusingontherelationshipbetweeneugenics,‘populationresearch’,andthe

emergingfieldofsocialmobilitystudies,thearticlehighlightsthesignificantbutunderappreciated

influenceinterwarbiosocialthinkinghadonintellectual,scientific,andpoliticalculturesinpost-war

Britain.Insodoing,thearticledrawsonrecentscholarshiponthe‘technicalidentity’embeddedin

mid-centuryBritishsocialscience,which,itissuggested,providedthelinkbetweentheresearch

underconsiderationandtheprogressivepoliticsofthosewhocarrieditout.


2

Ontheeveningof17February1936,thebiologistandpopularsciencewriterJulianHuxley(1887-

1975)stoodbeforeameetingoftheEugenicsSocietyattheWaldorfHotelinLondon.Hewasthere

todelivertheGaltonLecture,aprestigioushighlightofthesociety’scalendarandanannualevent

thathadbeenestablishedeighteenyearsearliertocommemorateFrancisGalton,CharlesDarwin’s

cousinandcoinerofthewordeugenics.AsHuxleyexplainedtohisaudience–includinghisbrother,

thenovelistAldousHuxley,andtheLabourMPandlaterfirstfemaleministerofeducation,Ellen

Wilkinson–hislecture,entitled‘Eugenicsandsociety’,addressedonemainissue:‘thenextstep

towardsthegraduationofeugenicsintothedignityofanestablishedscience’.iJulianHuxleyargued

thatthisprocesscontainedanumberofrelatedchallenges.Onewastacklingthemisuseofeugenics

inscienceandpopularculture.Another,however,wasemphasisingacrucialyetfrequently

overlookedaspectoftheeugenicsproject.

Eugenicsisnot,assomeofitsdevoteeshaveperhapsunconsciouslyassumed,aspecial

branchofnaturalscience:itisabranchofsocialscience.Itisnotmerelyhumangenetics.

Truethatitaimsattheimprovementofthehumanracebymeansoftheimprovementofits

geneticqualities.Butanyimprovementofthesortcanonlyberealizedinacertainkindof

socialenvironment,sothateugenicsisinevitablyaparticularaspectofthestudyofmanin

society.ii

Huxley’sanalysisisintriguingandinformativeinequalmeasurebecauseitchallengesa

numberofreceivedviewsthathavebeenshapedprofoundlybylatetwentieth-centuryresponsesto

theideaofapplyingbiologytosociety.GiventhatGaltonderivedthewordeugenicsfromtheGreek

‘eugenes’,meaning‘goodinstock,hereditarilyendowedwithnoblequalities’,andthestronglinks

betweenearlytwentieth-centuryeugenicsandlatetwentieth-centurygeneticscience,scholarshave

paidmostattentiontotheleadseugeniciststookfrombiologyandhowtheirideaswere

disseminatedamongstsocialandpoliticalscientists.iiiAsaconsequence,observershaveoften


3

concludedthateugenicistsreducedeverythingtheysawtoheredity.Moreover,theyhaveseen

eugenicsasshorthandforoppositiontoseriousstructuralreformstosocietyandpseudo-scientific

coverforreactionaryandconservativepoliticalideas.ivYetscholarshiponeugenicsintheUKand

elsewherehasalwayspaintedamuchmorecomplexpicture.Forexample,whilstDonald

MacKenzie’spioneeringworkdrewattentiontothewiderangeofpoliticalcommitments,

underpinnedbypowerfulsocialandclassassumptions,thatwerekeyfeaturesoftheBritish

eugenicsmovement,morerecentstudieshavedrawnattentiontotheimportantinfluencesthe

socialscienceshadoneugenicsresearchduringthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies.v

Historianshaveoftenattemptedtomakesenseofthesedynamicsbydistinguishingbetween

‘mainline’and‘reform’eugenics.Mainlineeugenicsisalabelthathasbeenattachedtothe

scientists,politicians,andsocialactivistswhosawheredityattherootofallsocialproblems,focused

onnegativeeugenics–preventingparticulargroupsofpeoplefromreproducing–andwereclosely

associatedwithcausessuchasthecampaigntosterilizepeoplewhosephysicalandmentalhealth

theybelievedwasarisktothenation.viReformeugenics,ontheotherhand,hasbeenusedtorefer

toareactionagainstthoseideasduringtheinterwaryears.Emphasisingpositivemeasures–thatis,

effortstoencouragereproductionamongspecificsocialgroups–reformeugenicists,includingthe

‘visiblecollege’ofBritishscientificsocialists,suchasJ.B.S.Haldane,highlightedvalue-laden

assumptionsaboutthebiologicaloriginsofsocialbehaviour.Insodoing,theyworkedhardto

articulatemoresophisticatedmodelsofnatureandnurtureaswellasalternativeproposalsforsocial

reform,includinginterventionsintoandassistancewithhumanreproduction.vii

WhilstJulianHuxley’ssuggestionssitattheintersectionofthesehistoriographictracks,his

argumentaboutthesocialscientificdimensionsofeugenicsalludestoanotherimportantsetof

developmentsthatwillbethefocusforthisarticle.Buildingontheworkofscholarsincluding

RichardA.Soloway,SimonSzreter,andEdmundRamsden,thethreesectionsthatfollowexplore

interwarresearchattheintersectionofbiologicalandsocialscienceandoneofitsunderappreciated

legaciesforBritishsociology:socialmobilitystudies,whichbecameanimportantfeatureofthe


4

rapidlyexpandinganddiversifyingdisciplineaftertheSecondWorldWar.viiiBeginningwiththe

eugenicsmovement’sproblemsinthe1920sand30s,andmovingontothedevelopmentofwhat

wascalled‘populationresearch’atsitesincludingtheLondonSchoolofEconomicsandthe

PopulationInvestigationCommittee,thearticleexploreshowagroupofresearcherswith

backgroundsinbothbiologicalandsocialsciencejoinedtogethertocreateaprojectthatwould

answeraswirlingconstellationofattacksoneugenics.Simultaneouslyacriticismanddescendentof

eugenics,thatprojectfoundahomeinpost-1945Britishsociology,whereitsrootsweregradually

obscured,meaningwenowknowlittleabouttheoriginsofanideathathasbecomecentralto

modernpoliticaldiscourse.

Thesesectionswillbeknittedtogetherbytwoarguments.Thefirstconcernstherelationship

betweeneugenicsandquantitativesocialmobilityresearch,whichwillbeshowntohaveclearlinks

throughnotonlyindividualsandinstitutionsbutalsoanequallyimportantsetofideasthatmatter

forourunderstandingofbothfields,aswellasbiologyandsocialsciencemoregenerally.Simplyput,

keycomponentsofthisimportantareaofBritishsociologywereoriginallyforgedwithinthecontext

oftheBritisheugenicsmovement.Thesecondargumentconcernsthemediatoryrolepopulation

researchplayedinthatprocess.Therelationshipbetweenpopulationresearchandsociologyisoften

framedbydemographyandthe‘politicalarithmetictradition’ofsocialresearch.ixHowever,by

drawingontheworkofscholarsincludingMacKenzieandutilisingsocialsciencesourcesincluding

MassObservationrecords,MikeSavagehasdrawnattentiontowhathecallsthe‘technicalidentity’

attheheartofmid-twentieth-centuryBritishsocialscience.Insodoing,Savagehasinterpretedpost-

warBritishsocialscienceasachallengetooldformsofculturalauthority,oftenlocatedinliterary

circles,withnewmethodssuchasthesamplesurveybeingusedtolegitimateamanagerialand

technicalidentityfocusedonsocialchange.xAswewillsee,Savage’stechnicalidentityconceptnot

onlyhelpsexplainwhytheinterwarBritisheugenicsmovementprovidedtheplatformforsocial

scientistswhoviewedthemselvesaspoliticalprogressivesbutalsoinformsourunderstandingofthe

legacytheyleftforscientificpracticesandideasinBritishsociology.


5

I

AsPaulineMazumdarhasdocumented,theEugenicsSocietyexperiencedadifficultinterwar

period.xiAftertheburstofenthusiasmthataccompanieditsfoundingasthe‘EugenicsEducation

Society’in1907,thesocietystruggledtofindanidentitythatwasacceptabletothedifferent

factions,includingelitescientificandlaygroups,whocontributedtoitsmeetingsandactivities.

Althoughthoseinternalwrangles,whichledthesocietytodroptheword‘Education’fromitsname

in1926,werepartlythekindofteethingproblemscommontomanyneworganisations,theywere

alsoaproductofbiggerquestionsabouteugenicsinearlytwentieth-centuryBritain.Despitethe

distinguishednaturalandsocialscientists,literaryintellectuals,andsocialactivistsitcountedamong

itsmembersandfellowsduringitsfirsttwodecades,includingtheeconomistJohnMaynardKeynes,

thewriterandsexologistHavelockEllis,thesocialreformerEleanorRathbone,andthebirthcontrol

campaignerMarieStopes,theSocietyhadfailedtomakeanimpactaswideordeepasitsfounders

hadhopedfor.Tobesure,eugenicswaswidelydiscussedinBritainduringthetwodecadesafterthe

societywasfounded.Theproblem,however,wasthatbythelate1920sthesocietycouldclaimonly

the1913MentalDeficiencyActasevidenceofprogresswhenitcametoitsgoalofinfluencing

politicaldecision-making.Thissinglesuccesswashugelydisappointingcomparedtotheadvances

eugenicsseemedtobemakinginothercountries,especiallytheUSAwherewell-fundedcampaigns

hadencouragedseveralstatestointroducesignificanteugenicslegislation.xiiLeadingBritish

eugenicistswonderedwhattheyneededtodotoachievesimilarsuccess.

CentraltotheEugenicsSociety’sproblemswerethecriticismsofeugenicsthatwere

widespreadinearlytwentieth-centuryBritain.Attackscamefromacrossthepoliticalspectrum.


6

Whilstliberalsandconservativesobjectedtotheviolationsofindividualrightsandtheexpansionof

statepowersthatwererequiredtoimplementpoliciessuchassterilizationfor‘feeblemindedness’,

peopleontheleft,includingtheLabourParty,wereconcernedsocialandeconomiceliteswereusing

thelanguageofeugenicstonaturalizetheirdominanceoftheworkingclasses.xiiiMuchofthe

criticism,however,camefromwithintheranksoftheeugenicsmovementitself.FrancisGalton,for

instance,worriedthatmembersoftheEugenicsEducationSocietywererushingtopopularize

scientificideasheconsideredpromisingbutincompleteand,intheprocess,wereriskinghis

project’sreputation.xivBytheearly1930s,thesplitswithinthemovementhadgrownwiderasanew

generationofbiologiststurnedtheirattentiontotherelationshipbetweenheredityandsociety.

Utilisingnewmethodsandideas,theseresearcherscastseriousdoubtsonthescientificcredentials

ofthemodelsmanyeugenicistsusedtoexplaintheirideasabouttheoriginsofsocialproblems,

particularlythefamilypedigreestheyclaimedshowedeverythingfromdiseasestocriminalitywere

passeddownthegenerations.xv

AmongthemostprominentofthesebiologistswasLancelotHogben(1895-1975),a

renownedsocialistwhohadbeenimprisonedasaconscientiousobjectorduringtheFirstWorld

War.xviHogben’sreputationasabiologistwasbasedonhisleadingroleintheefforttopromote

experimentalmethodsinbiologyandhiseffortstoconstructabetterunderstandingofhowgenes

andenvironmentsconnect,combine,andotherwiseaffecteachother.xviiAnadversarialandoften

difficultfigure,hismostfamousandimportantdisputewaswiththebiologistandleadingmemberof

theEugenicsSociety,R.A.Fisher(1890-1962),authorofThegeneticaltheoryofnaturalselection–a

landmarkexpositionofthemathematicalrelationshipbetweenthepreviouslyopposedschoolsof

DarwiniannaturalselectionandMendeliangenetics.xviiiWhilstFishermaintaineditwaspossibleto

identifytheprecisecontributionsofgenesandenvironmentstodevelopment,Hogbenarguedthe

twowereinterdependentinwaysthatmadeFisher’sjudgementsatbestunreliableandatworst

impossible.xix


7

Hogben’sargumentswerehugelysignificantforthewaybiologistscametothinkabout

conceptssuchasorganism-environmentinteractionduringthelatetwentiethcentury.Yethewas

alsoaneffectivecommunicatorofscientificideastowideraudiencesandbecamewellknownfrom

theearly1930sonwardsastheauthorofhugelypopularbooksincludingMathematicsforthe

millionandScienceforthecitizen.xxTheseskillsposedaproblemfortheeugenicsmovement.Tobe

sure,layaudiencesdidnotalwaysfullygrasptheexactdetailsofHogben’sarguments,setoutin

bookssuchasGeneticprinciplesinmedicineandsocialscience,buttheytookawayamessagethat

worriedeugenicists.AsthesociologistandformerstudentofKarlPearson,AlexanderCarr-Saunders,

putitinalettertoC.P.Blacker,thepresidentoftheEugenicsSociety,in1932,

Doyourealise(a)whatkindofinfluenceHogben’sbookishavingand(b)howwidespread

thatinfluenceis?Doesherealiseit?

IhavetoldyouhowmuchIgenuinelyadmirethebook.But(a)hehasemphasised

everypointthattellsagainsttheimportanceofgeneticdifferencesand(b)hasexpressed

somestrongcriticismsofeugenists[sic].

Theconsequenceisthatthebookisinterpretedasunderminingtheeugenicposition

–i.e.asprovingthatweneednotbotheraboutthegeneticconstitutionofourpopulation.

Asevidenceofthisseethereviewsinthelaypress.Alsolistentothosewhoreadorlookat

thebook.Amanofsomeeminenceinhisownline,forinstance,whofollowsthings

generally,toldmethatheunderstoodthatHogbenhadknockedthebottomoutofeugenics.

Ihavebeenverymuchimpressedbytheextenttowhichthebookisexertingits

influence.IamgivingpubliclectureshereonEugenics,andseveralmembersofthe

audience,haveatleastheardofthebook.Thoughnotallhaveseenit,andfewhavereadit,

theyaresomehowofopinionthatithasshownupeugenics.

Thisishappeningjustatatimewhenthereismorepublicinterestineugenicsthan

therehaseverbeenbeforeinmyexperience.FouryearsagoIgavealecture,andgotasmall


8

audience;eachdaythistimepeopleareturnedaway.Butjustasthepubliciswakingup,the

onemanwhoholdsanacademicpositioninthisfieldseemstohavegiventhewholethinga

coupdegrace.xxi

Infact,ratherthanturningpeopleawayfromeugenics,theseissuesinspiredsignificant

amountsofresearchintotherelationshipbetweenbiologyandsociety.Hogben’sownposition

duringthe1930sunderlinedthispoint.AfterspendingthedecadeaftertheFirstWorldWarmoving

fromjobtojob,includingpostsatuniversitiesinLondon,Edinburgh,Montreal,andCapeTown,he

wasrecruitedbytheeconomistandsocialreformerWilliamBeveridge(1879-1963)in1930tohead

anewdepartmentofsocialbiologyattheLondonSchoolofEconomics,ofwhichBeveridgewasthen

director.EstablishedwiththeaidofsignificantgrantsfromtheRockefellerFoundation,the

departmentofsocialbiologywasintendedtoexplorethemeaningofbiologicalknowledgeforsocial

policyandinvestigatewhatthebiologicalandsocialsciencescouldlearnfromeachother

methodologically.xxiiInadditiontoHogbenandhisresearchstudents,whomBeveridgeprovided

withafully-equippedlaboratoryhousingover1,500animals,thedepartmentofsocialbiology

employedsocialscientists,includingtheradicalfeministdemographer,EnidCharles(1894-1972),

whowasmarriedtoHogben,andtheGermanJewishrefugeeR.R.Kuczynski(1876-1947).

Studiesconductedbymembersofthedepartmentofsocialbiology,whosecentreof

intellectualgravitylayintheideathatsociety–thehumanenvironment–waspreventingmany

peoplefromrealisingtheirinnatepotential,illustratewhatHogbenandhisalliesconsideredarobust

responsetomainlineeugenics.J.L.GrayandPearlMoshinsky,forexample,workedextensivelyon

therelationshipbetweenthedistributionofabilityacrosssocialclassesandtheopportunities

offeredbytheBritisheducationsystem.Inonestudy,whichtookplacein1933and1934,theyand

fourresearchassistantsvisitedschoolsacrossLondonwheretheyusedOtisgroupadvancedtests

(formA)onschoolchildrenagedbetween9yearsand12.6yearsold.Thesetests,fromwhichtheUS


9

armyhadderivedexaminationsforrecruitsduringtheFirstWorldWar,wereBinetandSpearman

styleintelligencetestscontainingtenparts,includingsectionsonverbalmemory,numerical

problems,and‘followingdirections’,whichresearchersbelievedenabledthemtoobtainanindexof

intelligencethatwasindependentofage.xxiiiGrayandMoshinsky’saimwastousetheresultsto

answeraspecificquestion:‘towhatextentdoestheexistingmachineryofsocialselectionadjust

educationalopportunitytoindividualability?’xxivWasitthecase,theywantedtoknow,thatevery

childofhighintelligencewasabletocontinueatschoolbeyondtheageoffourteen,when

compulsoryeducationendedinEngland?Moreover,wastherehardevidencetojustifythe

dominancethatprivately-educatedchildrenhadoveruniversityplacesand,ultimately,the

employmentopportunitiesthatweredependentonthem?

Bycombiningtheirresultsfrom1933and1934withthedataacquiredinearlierdepartment

ofsocialbiologyinvestigations,GrayandMoshinskywereabletostudydatarelatingtoover10,000

childrenfromfivedifferenttypesofschool,includingathirdofsecondaryschools,inLondon.

UtilisingIB(‘indexofbrightness’),ratherthanIQ(‘intelligencequotient’),measurestointerprettheir

testresults,GrayandMoshinskyfoundthattherewere,indeed,highermeantestscoresamong

childrenwhoseparentspaidfortheireducationthanthosewhoreceivedtheireducationforfree.xxv

Whilst50percentoffee-payingchildrenintheirsamplescoredanIBof120orabove,only25per

centofchildrenintheirsampleofthoseeducatedforfreeachievedthesamescores.However,as

GrayandMoshinskypointedout,suchmeanscoresweremisleadingbecausetheyconcealed

statisticallyimportantinformation.Intheircase,thedifferentmeansobscuredthefacttheirsample

offee-payingchildrenwas3,000whilstthesampleofchildreneducatedforfreewas7,000.When

thosefigureswerefurtheradjusted,usingofficialstatistics,torepresenttheschoolpopulationasa

whole,whichwasevenmoreunequallydistributedbetweenfee-payingandfreelyeducated

children,thismeantthataround80percentofthetotalnumberofchildrenpossessinghighability

didnotattendprivateschool–ahugelysignificantfindingatatimewhenonly6.6percentof

childreninelementaryschoolswereofferedafreesecondaryschooleducation.xxvi


10

Intheirfollow-upstudyoftherelationshipbetweeneducationalopportunityandparental

occupation,GrayandMoshinskyarguedthatsocialandeconomicgroupswereself-recruiting,

despitethelackofevidencetosupporttheideathatintelligencewasconcentratedintheoffspring

ofthosegroups.xxviiIndeed,asGrayshowedinastudyco-authoredwithhiscolleagueDavidGlass,

therelationshipbetweenabilityandopportunitybecameweakerthefurtherdownthesocialladder

onelooked.Despite80percentofhigh-abilitychildrenbeingfoundamongthepopulationwho

receivedtheireducationforfree,sevenfee-payerswereadmittedtouniversityforeverynonfee-

payingstudent.xxviiiThesefactsdisclosed‘adefectinoursocialorganizationmoreextensivethanis

commonlyrealised’,GrayandMoshinskyargued.xxixIndeed,asHogbenputitinhisintroductionto

Gray,Moshinsky,andGlass’work,thesefactsilluminatedBritishsociety’sbasicinefficiencies.To

havesomanychildrenofhighabilityexiteducationforfinancialreasonsattheageoffourteenwas

clearevidenceof‘biological’and‘socialwastage’:biologicalbecauseitwasrawabilitythatwas

beinglost,socialbecauseinstitutionswereresponsible.xxx

AstheallianceoftheliberaltechnocratBeveridgeandsocialistHogbendemonstrated,these

ideasresonatedwiththinkersofdifferentpoliticalconvictionsbuttheyhadparticularlystrong

connectionswiththecross-partyplanningmovement.Focusedontheeconomicproblemsofthe

1920sandtheGreatDepressionofthe1930s,membersoftheplanningmovementbelievedtheUK’s

socialandeconomicproblemscouldbesolvedbypoliticalreorganisationthathandedmore

responsibilityfordevelopmenttostateagencies.xxxiAnimportantpartofthisvisionforaplanned

societywasitsemphasisonsocialandeconomicresearch,particularlyquantitativework,which

seemedtoitsadvocateslessopentopoliticalmanipulationthanarmchairtheorising.Quantitative

researchpromisedtoreveallawsofdevelopmentthatthestatemightaccelerateorredirect,helping

ittomodernizeBritain’ssocial,political,andeconomicstructures.xxxii

Ofthemanygroupsassociatedwiththeplanningmovement,themostimportantwas

PoliticalandEconomicPlanning(PEP),whichwasformedin1931inresponsetoanarticlepublished

inTheWeek-EndReviewbytheornithologistandproto-environmentalistMaxNicholson,wholater


11

servedasHerbertMorrison’smostseniorcivilservantinthepost-warLabouradministration.xxxiii

AmongPEP’sfoundingmemberswasJulianHuxley,whowasinvitedtobringabiologist’s

perspectivetotheproblemsofsocialandeconomicplanning.Thismovemadeclearthatbiologywas

seenasrelevanttoplanning,nottomentionprogressivepoliticsmoregenerally.Yetmembersofthe

PEP,likethemembersofthedepartmentofsocialbiology,wereadamantthatmuchmorework

neededtobedoneontherelationshipbetweenbiologicalandsocialscienceideasbeforethe

politicalclasseswouldbeabletoharvestusefulknowledgefromit.Thiscautionaryapproachdidnot

extinguisheveryone’shopes,though.Oncontrary,forsomeinfluentialfiguresitpromisednotonly

politicalprogressbutalsotoregeneratetheeugenicsmovement.

II

Mainlineeugenicistswereconcernedwithwhattheycalled‘quality’–thetypeofpeoplewhowere

reproducing.Reformeugenicistsconcentratedonquantity.Thisinterestinpopulationsizeand

dynamics,whichhadahistorydatingbacktoT.R.Malthus’workofthelate1790sandearly1800s,

wasfocusedondifferentproblemsatdifferentpointsintime.Thereweredeepconcernsabout

over-populationduringthelatenineteenth-andearlytwentiethcentury,whengovernment

statistics,includinghistoricalcensusdata,showedtheBritishpopulationhadgrownsignificantly

overtheprevious100years.Bythe1930s,though,socialresearchersincludingCharlesand

Kuczynskiwerearguingthosefiguresweremisleading.Growthhadbeendrivenbyincreasedlife

expectancybutthiswouldsoonbecounteredbydecliningfertilityratesamongtheyoung,which


12

meantpopulationdecline,perhapstoaslittleasfourmillionpeoplewithinacentury.xxxivThiswasa

seriousproblemthatcouldthreatenthestabilityofBritain’spoliticalandsocialstructures.

AcentralfigureinthesediscussionswasAlexanderCarr-Saunders(1886-1966).Althoughhe

isnowseldomstudied,Carr-Saunderswasoneofhisgeneration’sleadingbiosocialthinkers.After

readingzoologyatOxfordduringthefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcentury,hehadstudiedunderthe

biometricianandeugenicistKarlPearsonatUniversityCollegeLondon,thenreturnedtoOxfordasa

demonstratorinzoologyaftertheFirstWorldWarbeforebeingappointedthefirstCharlesBooth

ProfessorofSocialScienceattheUniversityofLiverpoolin1923.xxxvTheearlyresultofhisworkat

theintersectionofbiology,socialscience,andstatistics,andthepublicationthatsecuredhis

appointmentatLiverpool,wasThepopulationproblem,inwhichhearguedthatnumberswere

centraltothestudyofpopulationsbutveryfarfromtheonlyconsideration.Decliningand

differentialfertility,tonamejusttwoofhisera’sconcerns,werenotsimplybiologicalphenomenon,

heargued,butcomplexhistoricalchangesinvolvingtheinteractionofbiology,economics,and

anthropologyinsocialcontexts.Decliningfertilitymayormaynotbeabadthing,Carr-Saunderstold

hisreaders,butitcouldbereversedonlyiftheypaidattentiontothesocialenvironmentaswellas

thebiologicalconstitutionofthepeoplelivinginit.xxxviToemphasizethispoint,hefollowedupThe

populationproblemwithpioneeringcollaborativeworkonthestructureofBritishsocietyandthe

roleinstitutionsplayedwithinit.xxxvii

Unsurprisingly,Carr-Saunderswasalsoaprominenteugenicist–theauthoroftheHome

UniversityLibraryvolumeonthesubject–whosharedhiscontemporaries’worriesaboutthe

movement’scredibility.xxxviiiAshetoldhetoldtheEugenicsSocietyaudiencewhogatheredtohear

hisGaltonLecture,‘Eugenicsinthelightofpopulationtrends’,inFebruary1935,

Onedaysomeonewillwriteahistoryoftheeugenicmovement.Thehistorianwillhave

somepuzzlestosolve.Howdiditcomeaboutthatthesubjectwasventilatedasearlyasthe

‘sixtiesofthelastcenturythoughnorealknowledgeofthemechanismofinheritancewas


13

availableuntiltheearlyyearsofthepresentcentury?Thatwemayattributemainlytothe

geniusofoneman.SirFrancisGaltonsawtheimportanceofapplyingourknowledgeof

hereditytosocialproblems;atthesametimehedidnotfailtorealizethattheknowledge

availableinhisdaywasverylimited.Indeedhedevotedmuchofhistimeandenergytothe

buildingupofascienceofinheritance.Butitisnotthecasethathisfollowershavealways

beenequallyimpressedwiththenecessityofpostponingtheformulationofpolicyuntilthe

relevantfactsarecertainlyknown,andofthisopportunityforcriticismtheopponentsofthe

movementhavenotbeenslowtotakeadvantage.xxxix

JoininguptheEugenicsSociety’sworriesaboutitspublicreputationandthediscussion

aboutpopulationtrends,Carr-Saundersarguedthemainproblemwasnegativeeugenics.British

popularopinionwasclearlyuneasywhenitcametopoliciessuchasforcedsterilization,whilsthis

ownworksuggestedthatpreventingpeoplefromreproducingwasamootpointinthecontextof

overallpopulationdecline.Theprioritywasabetterbodyofempiricalevidencethatenabled

researcherstodigdeeperintopopulationtrends.Indeed,Carr-Saunderswenton,

Whatisrequiredisthatsomeorganization,whichhasthewholepopulationsituationunder

reviewanddesirestoconstructanadequateprogramme,shouldexaminealltheproposals

madetodealwiththesedifficulties,andtoweavethemintoacoherentpopulationpolicy.xl

ThismessagewasimportantbecauseCarr-Saundersnotonlyeloquentlyarticulatedmany

reformeugenicists’thoughtsbutalsoinspiredthefoundingofthe‘PopulationInvestigation

Committee’(PIC)in1936.ThePIC,whichcountedHogbenandBlackerasmembersandelectedCarr-

Saundersaschairman,cameintobeingatanimportantmoment.Thesix-year-olddepartmentof

socialbiologywasexperiencingseriousproblemsattheLSEstemmingfromBeveridge’sgrowing

unpopularityasdirector,Hogben’spoorrelationswithcolleaguesoutsidethedepartment,andthe


14

RockefellerFoundation’sscepticismthatitwoulddeliverresearchfindingsthatcouldbetranslated

intoconcretepolicyanytimesoon.xliThePICwasthereforeabletorecruitpersonnelfromthe

department,includingtheLSEsociologygraduateDavidGlass(1911-78)–thesonofaJewish

immigranttailor–whobeganhiscareerasBeveridge’sassistantandwasappointedthePIC’s

researchsecretary.xliiLikethedepartmentofsocialbiology,thePICresolvedtokeepanofficial

distancefromtheEugenicsSociety,developingaresearchprogrammethatwasstrictlyfocusedon

populationtrendsandtheirmeaningforsocialstructure.AsBlackerandGlassexplainedinThe

futureofourpopulation?,apamphletsettingouttheorganisation’sfoundingaimsandmotivations,

whichwaslaterpublishedintheEugenicsReview,thePIC

doesnotatpresenttakepartinpropagandadesignedtomodifyexistingpopulationtrends.

Itwishes,however,todrawthefullestpossibleattentiontothenatureofthesetrends.Only

inthiswaycanitobtainthepublicco-operationandsupportwhicharenecessaryincarrying

outasatisfactoryinvestigationonasufficientlylargescale.xliii

Theseaspirationsstemmedfromacommitmenttoempiricalandpositivisticscientific

methodology,whichHogben,inparticular,contrastedwiththedeductivefoundationsofother

systems,includingthefree-marketeconomicsdoctrinesespousedbyLionelRobbinsandFriedrich

Hayek,hiscolleaguesattheLSE.xlivIndeed,Hogbenemphasizedthispointwhenhechosenotonly

theWilliamPetty-inspiredtitle,Politicalarithmetic,fortheeditedcollectionofthedepartmentof

socialbiology’swork,whichwaspublishedin1938,butalsoastatementfromBeveridge,inspiredby

theseventeenth-centuryEnglishanatomistWilliamHarvey,asthebook’sepigraph:‘Iprofessto

learnandtoteacheconomics,politics,sociology,notfrombooksbutfromobservations,notfrom

thepositionsofphilosophersbutfromtheconductofmankind’.xlv

Yetforallitsaspirationstoneutrality,populationresearchwasadeeplypoliticalprojectand

eugenicswasneverfaraway.Ontheonehand,thefreemovementofpeoplebetweentheEugenics


15

Society,thedepartmentofsocialbiology,andthePICmeantthereweresharedinterestsand

concernsthatwereadaptedtodifferentforums,audiences,andpurposes.Ontheotherhand,large-

scalestatisticswerestudiedandpositivisticmethodologiesdeployedwithintheframeworkofwhat

SimonSzreterhascalledthe‘professionalmodelofsocialclasses’:thehierarchical,five-classviewof

Britishsociety,whichwasusedforthefirsttimeintheGeneralRecordOfficeofEnglandandWales’

Fertilityofmarriagereport,andwentontodominatedemographicworkduringthetwentieth

century.Originallyusedtointerpretcensusdata,theprofessionalmodelwasasignificantdeparture

fromearlierapproachestosocialstructurebecauseitidentifiedstatuswithwork–thatis,

occupation–ratherthanworth.Thisindicatedthesignificantdebtsthemodelowedtothemiddle-

classsocialreformersdrawntoboththestatisticalandeugenicsmovementsinthelatenineteenth

andearlytwentiethcenturies.xlvi

Thesepointswereillustratedbytheworkundertakenbypopulationresearchersduringthe

late1930s.Glass,forexample,carriedoutacomparativestudyofnationalfamilyallowance

programmes,whichwasfundedbythepositiveeugenicscommitteeoftheEugenicsSociety.Asis

welldocumented,themeritsoffamilyallowanceswerewidelydebatedinearlytwentieth-century

Britain.Somecommentatorsviewedthepaymentsasapositivemeansofaddressingchildpoverty

andimprovingnutrition,othersasatooltoencouragefertilityeitheroverallorinparticular

socioeconomicgroups,whilstsomelabourorganisationsarguedunscrupulousemployersmightuse

theallowancestoreducewages.Insomequarters,includingtheEugenicsSociety,whichonlythrew

itssupportbehindfamilyallowancesunderBlacker’sreformingleadershipduringthe1930s,there

wereconcernsabouttheirpotentialdysgeniceffects.xlviiHowever,aspopulationresearcherswere

quicktopointout,therewaslittleempiricalevidencetosupportanyoftheseclaims.

GlassintendedtoaddressthisdeficiencybytravellingtomainlandEuropetogather

statisticalinformationonfamilyallowanceschemesimplementedbyindustrialemployersinFrance

andgovernmentsinItalyandGermany.Althougheachofthoseschemes,alongwithotherspursued

inScandinavia,haddifferentmotivations,withsomeaimedatworkers’welfareandothersfocused


16

onreproductionamongparticularethnicgroups,theyallprovidedopportunitiestoobservethe

relationshipbetweenthepaymentsandsubsequentfamilysizes.Glass’mainfinding,publishedinhis

book,Thestruggleforpopulation,aswellasarticlesintheEugenicsReview,whichformedthebasis

ofhislandmarkmonographof1940,PopulationpoliciesandmovementsinEurope,wasthatfamily

allowanceshadanegligibleeffectonfertilityrates.xlviiiOnlyGermanyexperiencedashortincreasein

fertilityafterthepolicywasimplemented.Eventhatincreasecouldbeattributedtootherfactors,

though,suchasanincreaseinthemarriagerateshortlybeforefamilyallowanceswereintroduced.xlix

Whatevertheymightbe,familyallowanceswereneitherdysgenicnortheanswertothepopulation

problem.

Thedesireofsomepopulationresearcherstotransformfindingssuchastheseintopolicy

proposalswasstrong,butmostagreedwithCarr-Saundersthatimpartialityandobjectivitywere

centraltotheprojecthehaddescribedtotheEugenicsSocietyin1935.Itwasforthisreasonthe

PopulationPoliciesCommittee(PPC)wasformedbyPEPandPICasajointenterprisein1938.The

PPCcountedBlacker,Glass,andPEP’sMaxNicholsonamongitsmembersandwasadministratedby

itssecretary,FrançoisLafitte,whowouldmakehisnamebyexposingtheBritishgovernment’s

internmentofpoliticalrefugeesduringtheearlystagesoftheSecondWorldWarandwouldlaterbe

appointedtoachairofsocialpolicyattheUniversityofBirminghamandserveaschairmanofthe

BritishPregnancyAdvisoryService.lThecommittee’saimswere‘(1)tosurveythesocialand

economicconditionswhichdiscouragetheadequatereplacementofeugenicallysoundstocks;and

(2)toexamineandreportonproposalsforraisingthefertilityofhealthystocksindifferent

occupationalgroups’.liWhilstthisframeworkrevealedtheostensiblyneutralpopulationresearch

project’sunderlyingmotivationsandconcerns,italsoprovidedanoutletfordiscussionsthatcould

notbehostedbythePIC,particularlythemoreradicalargumentsinfavourofgreaterstate

involvementineducationandhealththatsomecommentatorsdrewfromCarr-Saunders’and

Huxley’sfocusonthesocialenvironment.


17

ThewindwastakenoutofthePPC’ssailsalmostimmediatelywhenscientists,particularly

thosewithstatisticalandadministrativeskills,includingGlassandNicholson,werecalleduptowork

onproblemswithinthewareconomy.Populationresearchdidnotdisappear,eitherasascientificor

politicalconcern,though.Onthecontrary,theappointmentofaRoyalCommissiononPopulationin

1944‘toexaminethefactsrelatingtothepresentpopulationtrendsinGreatBritain;toinvestigate

thecausesofthesetrendsandtoconsidertheirprobableconsequences;[and]toconsiderwhat

measures,ifany,shouldbetakeninthenationalinteresttoinfluencethefuturetrendof

population’,confirmedpopulationresearch’sagendawaspartoftheconversationwhenthoughts

turnedtopost-warreconstruction.liiMoreover,withCarr-Saundersinvitedtoserveasa

commissionerandbodiesincludingtheEugenicsSociety,PEP,andPICcontributingtothe

commission’swork,includinganewfertilitysurveycarriedoutbyGlassandEugeneGrebnik,the

RoyalCommissionhelpedpopulationresearchersfindafootholdintheuncertainpost-war

landscape.liiiYetinthecontextofnewgovernmentcommitmentstothesocialsciencesafterthe

SecondWorldWar,populationresearchersdidnotfindthemselvesrestrictedtothefieldthatbore

thatname.

III

TheLSE’sdepartmentofsocialbiologyandthePICwereestablishedwhentherewerelimited

opportunitieswithinBritishuniversitiesforsocialresearcherswhoidentified,andwhomwemight

nowidentify,associologists.Contrarytoreceivedviews,Britishscientists,socialcommentators,and

politicianshadbeenimmenselyenthusiasticaboutsociologyduringthelatenineteenthandearly

twentiethcenturiesandthefirstBritishchairs,journal,andsocietyforsociologywereestablishedat


18

aroundthesametimeasthoseinFrance,GermanyandtheUSA.livTherewaslittlefurther

institutionalexpansionintheUKbeforeWorldWarTwo,however,withjustonededicatedsociology

department,attheLSE,andthreedepartmentsintotal–attheLSE,Liverpool,andBedfordCollege,

London–hostingsociologyinbroadersocialsciencecontextsbefore1939.Allthiswastochangein

subsequentdecades.Bythelate1960s,therewerechairsofsociologyattwenty-eightuniversities

andtheSocialScienceResearchCouncil,theforerunneroftoday’sEconomicandSocialResearch

Council,hadbeenestablished.Therearenumerouswell-knownnarrativesattachedtothatperiodof

expansion,whichsociologistsconsiderthediscipline’sgoldenage.Yetfewacknowledgeits

connectionswiththebiosocialresearchoftheinterwaryears.lv

Giventhefieldexpandedsorapidlyduringpost-warreconstructionandwithintheexpanded

universitysystemcreatedaftertheRobbinsReportin1963,itisperhapsunsurprisingthatBritish

sociologyisusuallyunderstoodintermsofthepoliticalprioritiesofthe1950sand60s.Oneoften-

quotedstatementtothiseffectistheFrenchsociologistandpublicintellectualRaymondAron’s

reputedassertionthatBritishsociologywas‘essentiallyanattempttomakeintellectualsenseofthe

politicalproblemsoftheLabourParty’.lviThisideamakesmuchsenseinlightoftheproliferationof

studiesrelatingtopoverty,class,andequalityafter1945,nottomentionthepresenceof

sociologistsinpoliticsandgovernment:fromMichaelYoung,thewartimedirectorofPEP,whotook

theleadinthewritingofLabour’s1945manifesto,Letusfacethefuture,toA.H.Halsey,whoserved

asadvisortotheLaboureducationsecretaryAnthonyCroslandduringthe1960s.Yettheclose

identificationofsociologywiththewelfarestateestablishedinthewakeofBeveridge’sSocial

securityandalliedservicesreportin1942andthe‘WhitePaperchase’of1944oftenproducesa

particularlynarrowperceptionofthefield.

AsMikeSavagehasargued,broadeningourunderstandingofBritishsociology’s

developmentrequirespayingcloserattentiontothewaysinwhichitwasentwinedwithparticular

socialandclassidentities.lviiLocatedbetweenC.P.Snow’stwoculturesofnaturalscienceand

literature,sociologyappealedto,andwaslargelypursuedby,thelowermiddleclasseswhowere


19

drawntoscientificratherthangentlemanlyhighliteraryculture.Post-warBritishsociologywasnot

simplyquantitativeandempirical,itwasmanagerial,technocratic,andfrequentlypositivistic,with

sociologistsseeingtheiremergingfieldasadistinctlymodernenterpriseembodyingprogressive

values,bothmethodologicallyandsubstantially.AsGeorgeSteinmetzhassuggested,British

sociology’sassociationwithaparticularvisionofmodernitymeantitthrivedinthepost-warcontext

ofdecolonisation,where,alongwitheconomicsandpoliticalscience,itfoundfavourwithColonial

Officeofficialsastheyturnedtowardspoliciesofdevelopmentalismandlocalgovernment.lviiiFor

thesereasons,BritishsociologywasasmuchpartofwarfarestateDavidEdgertonhasdescribedasit

wasthewelfarestate.lix

Thetrajectoryofinterwarbiosocialscienceandpopulationresearchwasdeeplyentangled

withthesepost-wardevelopments.WhilstKuczynskiproducedademographicsurveyofthe

colonies,fundedbytheColonialOffice,GlassservedontheColonialSocialScienceResearch

Council’s(CSSRC)‘Standingcommitteeonanthropology’.Carr-Saunderswasthechairmanofthe

CSSRC,thefirstsocialsciencefundingbodyofitskind,whenitwasfoundedin1944;amemberof

theAsquithCommissiononhighereducationintheBritishcolonies,whichwasconvenedin1943;

andchairoftheSenatecommitteethatorganizedtherelationshipbetweentheUniversityofLondon

andcolonialuniversitiesandcolleges.lxMoreover,therewerestrongintellectualcontinuities

betweentheworkcarriedoutduringtheinterwaryearsandresearchproducedinsociology’syears

ofexpansion.ParticularlyinstructiveinthisrespectisSocialmobilityinBritain:alandmarkstudy,

publishedin1954andledbyGlass,whowasappointedtoachairofsociologyatLSEin1948and

succeededGinsbergasMartinWhiteProfessorofSociologyin1961.AsGlassexplainedinhis

preface,SocialmobilityinBritainhadnumerous

obligationstoProfessorLancelotHogben.ProfessorHogbenwasnotassociatedwithour

researchandisinnowayresponsibleforourfaults.Butourapproachtothestudyofsocial

selectionanddifferentiationhasclearlybeeninfluencedbytheinvestigationswhichhe


20

promotedbeforeWorldWarIIintheDepartmentofSocialBiology,theLondonSchoolof

Economics.Itgivesmegreatpleasuretoacknowledgethatfact,especiallyasImyselfhad

theprivilegeofworkinginProfessorHogben’sdepartment.lxi

LikePoliticalarithmetic,SocialmobilityinBritainwasalargecollaborativeproject,involving

12contributors,whousedempiricalandstatisticalresearchmethodstoproduceaseriesofstudies

ofBritainlinkedbyacommontheme.Glass’project,which,likethedepartmentofsocialbiology,

benefittedfromRockefellerFoundationfunding,wascarriedoutwithaneyeonhowitsfindings

mightaidgovernment,particularlywhenitcametoformulatingeducationpolicyafterthe1944

EducationAct.YetGlass’projectowedbiggerbutlessobviousdebtstoHogben,thedepartmentof

socialbiology,andthebroadercultureofpopulationresearch.Theveryconceptofsocialmobility–

aprominentissueinlatetwentieth-centuryBritishsociology–wasalsoaproductofthecontextthat

hadcreatedpopulationresearch.

AsGlassnotedinSocialmobilityinBritain,whilsthisownprojectwasthefirst

comprehensivestudyofsocialmobilityintheUK,therewasonlyoneotherandinmanywaysvery

differentsubstantialworkonthesubject:theRussian-AmericansociologistPitirimSorokin’sSocial

mobility,publishedin1927.lxiiAlthoughthemid-Victorianerahadseenasmallboominself-help

philosophyandliterature,mostfamouslythewritingsofSamuelSmiles,theideasaboutself-reliance

andthriftputforwardsinthoseworkswerefarremovedfromthefine-grainedunderstandingof

socialstructureandsiftingcharacteristicofmodernsocialmobilitystudies.Theabsenceofa

coherentunderstanding,explanation,orjustificationoftheprocessesthroughwhichindividuals

eitherclimbeduporfelldownthesocialladderwaspartlyduetothedearthofeasilycomputable

data,reflectedinthestaticratherthandynamicaccountsthattypifiednineteenth-centurysocial

surveys.Itwasalsoaconsequenceofsocialscientistsoperatingwithdifferentunderstandingsof

socialmobility.Manypre-warsocialinvestigatorsunderstoodsocialmobilityintermsofgeographic

orspatialmobility–theabilityofworkerstorelocateforemployment.lxiiiThiswaslinkedtothe


21

strongBritishtraditionofpoliticaleconomy,inwhichthinkerssuchasAlfredMarshallemphasized

theimportanceofmobility,bothspatialandoccupational,foreconomicefficiency,andwasperhaps

anunsurprisingassumptiongiventheimportanceofurbanmigrationtoeconomicgrowthduringthe

nineteenthcentury.lxiv

TheabsenceofquestionsaboutsocialmobilityfromsociologicalinvestigationintheUK

beforethesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturyhasseldombeenconsidered.Oneplausible

argumentisthattheconceptwasatbestoverlookedandatworstincompatiblewiththeSpencerian

evolutionismthatdominatedearlyBritishsociologythroughL.T.HobhouseandPatrickGeddes,two

oftheera’sdominantthinkers.Inthoselargelyorganicistandfrequentlyfunctionalist

interpretationsofsociety,thefocuswasongroupsandtypesinthecontextofsocialdifferentiation

broughtaboutbyevolution,withGeddes,inparticular,arguinghumansexistedinasymbiotic

relationshipwiththeirenvironments.lxvGiventhatMorrisGinsberg,Hobhouse’sdiscipleand

successoratLSE,publishedoneofthefirstempiricalstudiesofsocialmobility,thatexplanationisfar

fromperfect.lxviNevertheless,theinterpretationdoesconveyimportantelementsoftruth.This

muchisclearfromBritishsociology’sstrongconnectionswithsocialpoliciessuchasthenational

minimum,whichaimedtoraiseupentiredeservingclasses,ratherthanspecificindividuals,during

thelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies.lxvii

Intheserespects,itwasthequestionsandstylesofthoughtassociatedwith1930s

populationresearchthatfacilitatednewunderstandingsofsocialmobility.Havingacceptedandbuilt

ontheprofessionalmodelofsocialclass,populationresearchershelpedcreateahierarchicalviewof

Britishsocietythatservedastheframeworkforpost-warsociologistswhoinvestigatedanddefined

conceptstosuittheirwidersocialreformaspirations.Whenitcametosocialmobility,thosegoals

owedmuchtopopulationresearchers’engagementwitheugenics;inparticulartheeffortto

challengehard-hereditarianand‘mainline’eugenicsanddevelopanalternativeaccountinwhich

existingsocialstructuresweremaladjustedtothedistributionofabilitythroughouttheBritish

population.Underpinningthisideawasabeliefcommontoprogressivesoftheinterwarperiod,such


22

astheLSE-basedeconomichistorianandsocialistR.H.Tawney,thatwhatwasimportantwasnot

completeequalitybetweenindividualsbutstructuresthatmadeforanopenandfairsociety.lxviii

Morethananythingelse,thisbeliefintheimportanceofopennessfacilitatedthegrowthofsocial

scienceresearchintosocialmobility,whichdidnotchallengehierarchicalsocietiessomuchasit

emphasizedtheimportanceofpeoplegenuinelydeservingtobeintheplacetheyfoundthemselves

insociety.Thisideahaditsrootsinpopulationresearch,whichprovidedaspaceforresearcherswho

believedpositivisticsocialresearchshouldbethebasisofpolicymakingandwhoaimedtocreatea

socialstructurethathelpedindividualsriseandfallaccordingtoabilityand,throughthis,better

servedtheinterestsofthecountryasawhole.

AsAndrewMileshasobserved,theseideasandvalueswereclearforeveryonetoseein

Glass’SocialmobilityinBritain.lxixSettingouttherationaleunderpinningthevariousstudiesinthe

collection,Glassexplainedthat

Therearetwoprimaryreasonsforwishingtoseethepossibilityofhighsocialmobilityina

community.First,inordertoincreaseeconomicandsocialefficiency,sincewithafluidsocial

structurethereismorelikelihoodthatpositionsrequiringhighabilitywillinfactbeheldby

individualswhopossesshighability.Afluidsocialstructureisalso,onthataccount,more

capableofadaptingitselftointernalandexternalchange.Secondly,fromthepointofview

oftheindividual,socialmobilityshouldensurethattherearefewersquarepegsinround

holes,andtheexistenceofopportunitytoriseinstatuswillinanycaseprovideanincentive

forthefullerutilizationofaperson’scapacities.Theremay,asaconsequence,belessfeeling

ofpersonalfrustrationandagreaterpossibilityofsocialharmony.Indeed,evenifthereis

littleactualopportunitytorisesocialstatus,thebeliefinamythofopportunitymayproduce

similarresults;andperhapspartofthepridewhichAmericansfeelintheir‘open’society

derivesmorefromtheimageofnineteenth-centuryU.S.A.thanfromanyexceptional

presentreality.Certainlyitisoneofthepostulatesofademocraticandegalitariansociety


23

thatability,whateveritssocialbackground,shallnotbedeniedthechancetofulfilitself…

Weneedtoencouragemobilityfortheadvantagesitofferstoindividualsandtosociety;but

wealsoneedtoavoid,asfaraspossible,suchdisadvantagesasmayfollowfromhavinga

socialstructureinwhichthestatusrelationshipbetweenindividualsinsuccessive

generationswillbefarlessstablethanatpresentorduringthepasthalf-century.lxx

IV

SocialmobilityisoneofBritishsociology’smostenduringconcepts,emergingasanobjectof

widespreadinterestafter1945alongsideanewsetofterms,suchas‘meritocracy’,whichexpressed

thenormativevaluesitwasassociatedwith.Notonlywassocialmobilitythesubjectofsomeofthe

field’smostfamouspost-1945investigations,includingtheNuffieldStudy,begunatOxfordbyJohn

Goldthorpe,aformerstudentofGlass’s,intheearly1970s,itwasalsoaphenomenonthatmany

sociologistsworkingintheUKduringthatperiodexperienced.lxxiYet,asanexpressionofaparticular

setoftechnicalvaluesfocusedontheimportanceofadjustingsocialstructurestosuitthosejudged

tobeinpossessionofhighability,socialmobilitywasalsothesubjectofcriticism.Indeed,Michael

Youngoriginallypopularizedtheword‘meritocracy’aspartofasatiricalcritiqueoftheincreasingly

influentialvisionofmodernBritainassociatedwithGlassandothers,whichreflectedagrowing

diversityinsociologyintheUKfromthe1950sonwards.lxxiiNotwithstandingsuchcriticisms,which

havehadthestrongestinfluenceinthesociologyofeducation,socialmobilityhascontinuedto

commandattentioninBritishsociologyandbeenacentralconcerninBritishpoliticsintotheearly

twenty-firstcentury,evenifthedefinitionsofsocialmobilitythatpoliticiansusearesomewhat

narrowerthantheonessocialscientistshavedeveloped.lxxiii


24

Post-SecondWorldWarsocialmobilityresearch’srootsininterwarpopulationresearch,and

inparticulartherelationshipbetweenpopulationresearchandeugenics,isthereforehighly

significant.Inmanyways,thoserootsshouldnotsurpriseus.Whilstsocialmobilityresearcherswere

concernedthatsocietywastedmuchofthetalentatitsdisposal,thereformeugenicsmovement

thatbeganinthe1920shighlightedtherisksofdrawingincorrectconclusionsaboutaperson’s

innateabilityfromtheirpositioninthesocialstructure.Suchpointsofintersectionnotonlythrow

lightonthecomplexoriginsofourunderstandingsofsocialmobility,theyalsoilluminatethedeep

connectionsbetweeneugenicsandmodernity.Althoughwefrequentlythinkofeugenicsas

reactionaryorconservativeinitsaimsandassociations,theresearcherswhoendeavouredtoforgea

newprojectunderthenamepopulationresearchsawthemselvesasprogressivesandwereclearly

possessedbythetechnicalidentitythatunderpinnedtheworkduringsociology’spost-war

expansion.Indeed,asGlassputitinresponsetoquestionsabouteducation,‘wemustnot“takethe

worldaswefindit”andgroundoureducationalsystemintheexistingsocialstructure.Inthe

schools,asinthewidersocietyofwhichtheyareapart,wemustdeliberatelymakethatcloser

community;itwillnotcreateitself’.lxxiv

Inabroadersense,workintheseareasshouldalsothrowlightonthepotentialandgrowing

collaborationbetweenhistoryandsociology.MikeSavage’seffortstoreusetherawmaterialsof

mid-twentieth-centurysocialsciencestudieshavebeencentraltorecentmovestowards

reconnectingthetwofields,notjustinthesenseofmakingsociologyrelevanttohistoriansbutalso

demonstratinghowhistoricalskillsandpracticesmightaddressaspectsofwhathasbeencalledthe

‘comingcrisisofempiricalsociology’.lxxvBuildingonSavage’sinvestigativemodels,onewayof

furtheringthelinksbetweenhistoryandsociologymightbeforhistorianstoreturntotherawdata

andresultsofmid-andlatetwentieth-centurysocialmobilitystudiesinordertounderstandmore

abouthowindividualsactuallyexperiencedsocialmobilityduringthatperiod.lxxviAsthispaperhas

shown,animportantcontributiontosuchaprojectshouldbeareflectiononthehistorical

dimensionsoftheconceptsthatsociologists,historians,andpoliticiansuse.Whilstitiseasytotake


25

thestabilityofamodernconceptsuchassocialmobilityforgranted,itsmeaninghaschangedin

subtlebutimportantwaysthatareimportantforourunderstandingofwhatsocialscientists,

reformers,andpoliticianshaveunderstoodandcontinuetounderstandthemselvesastryingto

achieve.

DepartmentofHistory,UniversityofYork,York,[email protected].

*IwishtothanktheArtsandHumanitiesResearchCouncilfortheirfinancialsupport(grantnumber

AH/L007312/1),AlexGoodallandMikeSavageforreadingandcommentingonearlierdrafts,SabineClarkefor

pointersoncolonialcontexts,twoanonymousrefereesfortheirgenerous,insightful,andhelpfulreports,

NicholasGaneforenlighteningdiscussionsabouthistoryandsociology,andthenumerousconferenceand

seminaraudienceswhoseprobingquestionshelpedclarifymythoughtsonanumberofissues.Imustalso

thanktheGaltonInstituteforpermissiontoconsultandquotefrompapersintheEugenicsSocietyarchives

andthestaffinspecialcollectionsattheLondonSchoolofEconomicsfortheirassistance.

iJulianHuxley,‘Eugenicsandsociety’,EugenicsReview,28(1936),p.1

iiIbid,p.3

iiiFrancisGalton,Inquiriesintohumanfacultyanditsdevelopment(London,1883),p.17,n.1;DanielJ.Kevles,

Thecodeofcodes:scientificandsocialissuesintheHumanGenomeProject(Cambridge,MA,1992);DianeB.

Paul,Thepoliticsofheredity:essaysoneugenics,biomedicine,andthenature-nurturedebate(Albany,1998),

ch.8.

ivForanexampleofarecentdebatethattouchedonmanyoftheseissuessee:JohnScottandChristopherT.

Husbands,‘VictorBranfordandthebuildingofBritishsociology’,SociologicalReview,55(2007),pp.460-84;

MaggieStudholme,‘PatrickGeddes:founderofenvironmentalsociology’,SociologicalReview55(2007),pp.

441-59;SteveFuller,‘Apathbetternottohavebeentaken’,SociologicalReview,55(2007),pp.807-15;

Studholme,Scott,andHusbands,‘Doppelgängersandracists:oninhabitingalternativeuniverses.Areplyto

SteveFuller’s“Apathbetternottohavebeentaken”’,SociologicalReview,55(2007),pp.816-22.


26

vDonaldMacKenzie,StatisticsinBritain,1865-1930:thesocialconstructionofscientificknowledge(Edinburgh,

1981);DanielJ.Kevles,Inthenameofeugenics:geneticsandtheusesofhumanheredity(Cambridge,MA,

1984);DianeB.Paul,Controllinghumanheredity:1865tothepresent(NewYork,1998);PaulineM.Mazumdar,

Eugenics,humangeneticsandhumanfailings:theeugenicssociety,itssourcesanditscriticsinBritain(London,

1992);AlisonBashfordandPhilippaLevine,eds.,TheOxfordhandbookofthehistoryofeugenics(Oxford,

2010);MichaelFreeden,‘Eugenicsandprogressivethought:astudyinideologicalaffinity’,HistoricalJournal,

22(1979),pp.645-671;ChrisRenwick,Britishsociology’slostbiologicalroots:ahistoryoffuturespast

(Basingstoke,2012)

viMathewThomson,Theproblemofmentaldeficiency:eugenics,democracy,andsocialpolicyinBritain

c.1870-1959(Oxford,1998)

viiKevles,Inthenameofeugenics,ch.11;Paul,Controllinghumanheredity,pp.117-20;G.R.Searle,Eugenics

andpoliticsinBritain,1900-1914(Leyden,1976),especiallychs2,4,5,and7;GaryWerskey,Thevisible

college:thecollectivebiographyofBritishscientificsocialistsofthe1930s(London,1978);RichardA.Soloway,

Demographyanddegeneration,ch.8;SimonSzreter,Fertility,classandgenderinBritain,1860-1940

(Cambridge,1996),p.266,fn.111;AngusMcLaren,Reproductionbydesign:sex,robots,trees,andtest-tube

babiesininterwarBritain(Chicago,2012);DavidRedvaldsen,‘Eugenics,socialism,andartificialinsemination:

thepubliccareerorHerbertBrewer’,HistoricalResearch88(2015):138-60.

viiiSoloway,ibid;Szreter,ibid;EdmundRamsden,‘EugenicsfromtheNewDealtothegreatsociety:genetics,

demographyandpopulationquality’,StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyoftheBiologicalandBiomedical

Sciences,39(2008),pp.391-406.

ixA.H.Halsey,AhistoryofsociologyinBritain:science,literature,andsociety(Oxford,2004),ch.2;E.Grebnik,

‘DemographicresearchinBritain1936-1986’,PopulationStudies45,supplement(1991),pp.3-30.

xMikeSavage,IdentitiesandsocialchangeinBritainsince1940:thepoliticsofmethod(Oxford,2010);

MacKenzie,StatisticsinBritain.

xiMazumdar,Eugenics,humangeneticsandhumanfailings,chs3-4.

xiiGretaJones,‘Eugenicsandsocialpolicybetweenthewars’,HistoricalJournal,25(1982),pp.717-728;

EdwardJ.Larson,‘Therhetoricofeugenics:expertauthorityandtheMentalDeficiencyBill’,BritishJournalfor

theHistoryofScience,24(1991),pp.45-60;Thomson,Theproblemofmentaldeficiency,ch.1.


27

xiiiBradleyW.Hart,‘Watchingthe“eugenicexperiment”unfold:themixedviewsofBritisheugeniciststoward

NaziGermanyintheearly1930s’,JournaloftheHistoryofBiology45(2012),pp.33-63;Thomson,ibid;David

Stack,ThefirstDarwinianleft:socialismandDarwinism,1859-1914(Cheltenham,2003),chs5,8,and9;

MichaelFreeden,Thenewliberalism:anideologyofsocialreform(Oxford,1978),chs3and5.SeeDianeB.

Paul,Thepoliticsofheredity,especiallychs2and6,fortheseissuesininternationalperspective.

xivThiscriticismwassharedbythebranchofGalton’sfollowersledbythesocialistbiostatisticianKarlPearson,

thefirstGaltonProfessorofEugenicsatUniversityCollegeLondon,whoemphasizedtheimportanceofexpert

knowledgeandtechnocraticapproachestosocialproblems.Mazumdar,Eugenics,humangenetics,andhuman

failings,p.43;TheodoreM.Porter,KarlPearson:thescientificlifeinastatisticalage(Princeton,NJ,2004),ch.

9;MaKenzie,StatisticsinBritain,ch.4.

xvKevles,Inthenameofeugenics,chs8-12;Mazumdar,Eugenics,humangenetics,andhumanfailings,chs3-4.

xviWerskey,Thevisiblecollege,pp.60-66,pp.101-114,199-211;LancelotHogben,Scientifichumanist:an

unauthorizedautobiography,ed.AdrianHogbenandAnneHogben(Woodbridge,1998).

xviiJamesTabery,Beyondversus:thestruggletounderstandtheinteractionofnatureandnurture(Cambridge,

MA,2014),ch.2;SteindórJóhannErlingsson,‘TheriseofexperimentalzoologyinBritaininthe1920s:Hogben,

Huxley,Crew,andtheSocietyforExperimentalBiology’(PhDThesis,Manchester,2005).

xviiiWilliamProvine,Theoriginsoftheoreticalpopulationgenetics,2ndedn(Chicago,2001);PeterJ.Bowler,The

eclipseofDarwinism:anti-Darwiniantheoriesinthedecadesaround1900(London,1992);DavidJ.Depewand

BruceH.Weber,Darwinismevolving:systemsdynamicsandthegenealogyofnaturalselection(Cambridge,

MA,1995),chs8-9.

xixJamesTabery,‘R.A.Fisher,LancelotHogben,andtheorigin(s)ofgenotype—environmentinteraction’,

JournaloftheHistoryofBiology,41(2008),pp.717-761,andBeyondversus,ch.2.

xxLancelotHogben,Mathematicsforthemillion:apopularself-educator(London,1936);Scienceforthe

citizen:aself-educatorbasedonthesocialbackgroundofscientificdiscovery(London,1938);PeterBowler,

Scienceforall:thepopularizationofscienceinearlytwentieth-centuryBritain(Chicago,2009),ch.6

xxiAlexanderCarr-SaunderstoC.P.Blacker,17Feb.1932,EugenicsSocietyCollection,WellcomeLibrary,

London,SA/EUG/C/56,©TheGaltonInstitute;LancelotHogben,Geneticprinciplesandmedicineandsocial

science(London,1931)


28

xxiiRobertBud,Theusesoflife:ahistoryofbiotechnology(Cambridge,1991),ch.3;ChrisRenwick,‘Completing

thecircleofthesocialsciences?WilliamBeveridgeandsocialbiologyatLondonSchoolofEconomicsduring

the1930s’,PhilosophyoftheSocialSciences,44(2014),pp.478-96;JoseHarris,WilliamBeveridge:a

biography,revisededn(Oxford,1997),chs11-12;RalfDahrendorf,AhistoryoftheLondonSchoolofEconomics

andPoliticalScience,1895-1995(Oxford,1995),pp.249-66.

xxiiiJ.L.GrayandPearlMoshinsky(1938).‘AbilityandopportunityinEnglisheducation’inHogben,ed.,Political

arithmetic,pp.337-8.FormoreonArthurS.OtisandhistestsseeFranzSamelson,‘LewisM.Termanand

mentaltesting:insearchofthedemocraticideal‘inMichaelSokal,ed.,PsychologicaltestingandAmerican

society,1890-1930(NewBrunswick,1987),pp.95-112.FormoreontestinginanEnglishcontext,seeGillian

SutherlandincollaborationwithStevenSharp,Ability,merit,andmeasurement:mentaltestingandEnglish

education,1880-1940(Oxford,1984);AdrianWooldridge,Measuringthemind:educationandpsychologyin

England,c.1860-c.1990(Cambridge,2006)

xxivGrayandMoshinsky,‘AbilityandopportunityinEnglisheducation’,p.335

xxvIBessentiallyjudgedanindividualintermsoftheirdistancefromwhatwasdeemedthenormalscore

(alwaysexpressedas100)forsomeoneoftheirage.GrayandMoshinskyarguedthatadifferentmeasurewas

requiredbecausetheselectivestatusofsomeoftheschoolstheystudiedmadeinterpretingtheirresultsusing

IQdifficult.

xxviGrayandMoshinsky,‘AbilityandopportunityinEnglishEducation’,pp.349-66;pp.366-73.

xxviiGrayandMoshinsky,‘Abilityandopportunityinrelationtoparentaloccupation’,inHogben,ed.,Political

arithmetic,pp.377-417.

xxviiiDavidV.GlassandJ.L.Gray,‘Opportunityandtheolderuniversities’inHogben,ed.,Politicalarithmetic,

pp.418-70.

xxixGrayandMoshinsky,‘AbilityandopportunityinEnglisheducation’,p.336.

xxxHogben,“IntroductiontopartII,”inHogben,ed.,Politicalarithmetic,pp.332-3.Theideaof‘socialwastage’

becameincreasinglyvisibleinsocialscienceresearchfromthemid-1920sonwards.Twoofthemost

prominentexamplesincludeKennethLindsay’sSocialprogressandeducationalwaste:beingastudyofthe

‘free-place’andscholarshipsystem(London,1926),whichincludedaprefaceattributedtoViscountHaldane

butactuallywrittenbyR.H.Tawney,andRichardTitmuss’Povertyandpopulation;afactualstudyof


29

contemporarysocialwaste(London,1938),thoughTitmusswasreferringtothehighermortalityratesamong

thelowerclasses.

xxxiRichardToye,TheLabourPartyandtheplannedeconomy,1931-1951(Suffolk,2003),chs1-3;Daniel

Ritschel,Thepoliticsofplanning:thedebateoneconomicplanninginBritaininthe1930s(Oxford,1997).See

alsoRichardCockett,Thinkingtheunthinkable:think-tanksandtheeconomiccounter-revolution,1931-1983

(London,1994),chs1-2.

xxxiiIndeed,asAndrewHullhasargued,economistsweremuchmoresuccessfulthantheircounterpartsinthe

naturalscienceswhenitcametosellingthemselvesasexpertstogovernmentduringthisperiod.Hull,

‘Passwordstopower:apublicrationaleforexpertinfluenceoncentralgovernmentpolicymaking.British

scientistsandeconomists,c.1920-c.1925’(PhDThesis,Glasgow,1994),chs5-7.

xxxiiiAnonymous[MaxNicholson],‘AnationalplanforGreatBritain’,Week-EndReviewsupplement(14th

February1931);JohnPinder,ed.,FiftyyearsofPoliticalandEconomicPlanning:lookingforward,1931-1981

(London,1981);RichardOvery,Themorbidage:Britainandthecrisisofcivilization(London,2010),pp.81-86;

Ritschel,Thepoliticsofplanning,ch.4.

xxxivEnidCharles,‘TheeffectofpresenttrendsinfertilityandmortalityuponthefuturepopulationofEngland

andWalesanduponitsagecomposition’,LondonandCambridgeEconomicServiceSpecialMemoranda,40

(1935),p.6.SeealsoCharles,Themenaceofunder-population:abiologicalstudyofthedeclineofpopulation

growth,originallyissuedunderthetitleThetwilightofparenthood(London,1936)andC.P.BlackerandDavid

V.Glass,Thefutureofourpopulation?(London,1937);Ontheissueofdecliningfertilityingovernment

statisticsseeSzreter,Fertility,classandgender;Soloway,Demographyanddegeneration.SeeAlisonBashford,

Globalpopulation:history,geopolitics,andlifeonearth(NewYork,2014)foranaccountoftheseissuesin

nationalandinternationalperspectivesduringthetwentiethcentury.

xxxvThomasOsborneandNikolasRose,‘PopulatingSociology:Carr-SaundersandtheProblemofPopulation’,

SociologicalReview,56(2008),pp.552-78;ErikAngner,‘ThehistoryofHayek’stheoryofculturalevolution’,

StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofBiologicalandBiomedicalSciences,33(2002),pp.695-718.

xxxviAlexanderCarr-Saunders,Thepopulationproblemastudyinhumanevolution(Oxford,1922)

xxxviiCarr-SaundersandDavidCaradogJones,AsurveyofthesocialstructureofEnglandandWales(Oxford,

1927);Carr-SaundersandP.A.Wilson,Theprofessions(Oxford,1933)


30

xxxviiiCarr-Saunders,Eugenics(London,1926)

xxxixCarr-Saunders,‘Eugenicsinthelightofpopulationtrends’,EugenicsReview,27(1935),p.11

xlIbid,p.18

xliBud,Theusesoflife,ch.3;Renwick,‘Completingthecircleofthesocialsciences?’;Harris,WilliamBeveridge,

chs11&12.

xliiGlasshadworkedontheprojectthatledtoWilliamBeveridgeetal,Changesinfamilylife(London,1932)

beforeworkingonprojectsbasedinthedepartmentofsocialbiology.

xliiiBlackerandGlass,Thefutureofourpopulation?,p.30;Blacker,‘Thefutureofourpopulation’,Eugenics

Review,28(1936),pp.205-12.

xlivLancelotHogben,‘Introduction–prolegomenatopoliticalarithmetic’,inHogben,ed.,Politicalarithmetic,

pp.13-46,especiallypp.24-30;Renwick,‘Completingthecircleofthesocialsciences?’

xlvLancelotHogben,ed.,Politicalarithmetic,epigraph.Beveridge’sstatementwastakenfromhishugely

controversialfarewelllectureasdirectoroftheLSE,inwhichheattackedthekindofsocialsciencepracticed

bythelikesofJohnMaynardKeynesandHayek.Beveridgebelievedhissupportforempiricalandpositivist

socialresearchwasattherootofoppositiontohisdirectorship.Beveridge,‘Theplaceofthesocialsciencesin

humanknowledge’,Politica,2(1937),p.467&p.470.SeeRenwick,‘Completingthecircleofthesocial

sciences?’

xlviCensusof1911,vol.XIII,Fertilityofmarriagereport,Pt1,Cd8678,PP1917-18XXXV;Szreter,Fertility,class

andgender,chs2-5.

xlviiSusanPederson,Family,dependence,andtheoriginsofthewelfarestate:Britainand

France,1914-1945(Cambridge,1993);JohnMacnicol,Themovementforfamilyallowances,1918-45:astudy

insocialpolicydevelopment(London,1980);Mazumdar,Eugenics,humangenetics,andhumanfailings,pp.48-

50.Forhispart,BeveridgeintroducedafamilyallowanceschemeforLSE’sacademicstaffin1926.

xlviiiGlass,Thestruggleforpopulation(Oxford,1936);‘TheBerlinPopulationCongressandrecentpopulation

movementsinGermany’,EugenicsReview27(1935),pp.207-212;‘PopulationpoliciesinScandinavia’,

EugenicsReview,30(1938),pp.89-100;‘GrossreproductionratesforthedépartementsofFrance,1891to

1931’,EugenicsReview,30(1939),pp.199-201.

xlixGlass,Thestruggleforpopulation,pp.87-9.


31

lFrançoisLafitte,Theinternmentofaliens(Harmondsworth,1949);NicholasDeakin,‘BesiegingJericho:

episodesfromtheearlycareerofFrançoisLafitte’,Cercles,OccasionalPapersSeries,No.11(2004),

<http://www.cercles.com/n11/deakin.pdf>

li‘Firstdraftofmemorandum,February23rd1938’,PoliticalandEconomicPlanningCollection,BritishLibraryof

PoliticalandEconomicScience,LondonSchoolofEconomics,PEP/PWS/1/folder1.

liiRoyalCommissiononPopulationreport,cd.7695,PP1949,p.iii.

liiiGlassandEugeneGrebnik,TrendandpatternoffertilityinGreatBritain:areportonthefamilycensusof

1946.PartI.PapersoftheRoyalCommissiononPopulation,vol.6(London,1949).FormoreontheRoyal

CommissionseeSoloway,Demographyanddegeneration,pp.346-43.Afterthewartimelullinitsactivitiesand

aperiodstationedintheEugenicsSociety’spremises,thePICreceivedasubstantialgrantfromtheNuffield

Foundation,whichwasfoundedin1943,andwasre-housedattheLSE.

livRenwick,Britishsociology’slostbiologicalroots.

lvOneimportantexceptionisRichardSzreter’sstudyofthesociologyofeducation–‘Someforerunnersof

sociologyofeducationinBritain:anaccountoftheliteratureandinfluencesc.1900-1950’,WestminsterStudies

inEducation7(1984),pp.13-43–thoughSzreter’saccountofeugenicsisfairlylight.

lviHalsey,AhistoryofsociologyinBritain,p.70

lviiSavage,Identitiesandsocialchange.

lviiiGeorgeSteinmetz,‘Achildoftheempire:Britishsociologyandcolonialism,1940s-1960s’,Journalofthe

HistoryoftheBehavioralSciences,49(2013),pp.353-78.

lixSavage,Identitiesandsocialchange,ch.3;DavidEdgerton,Warfarestate:Britain,1920-1970(Cambridge,

2004)

lxR.R.KuczynskiDemographicsurveyoftheBritishcolonialempire,vol.3(London,1948);AlexanderCarr-

Saunders,Newuniversitiesoverseas(London,1961);SirCharlesJeffries(ed.),Areviewofcolonialresearch,

1940-60(London,1963),partII,ch.I;Steinmetz,‘Achildoftheempire’.

lxiGlass,‘Preface’,inDavidV.Glass,ed.,SocialmobilityinBritain(London,1954),p.vi

lxiiGlass,‘Introduction’,inGlass,SocialmobilityinBritain,p.5;PitirimSorokin,Socialmobility(London,1927).

Indeed,SorokinacknowledgedGlass’assessmentintheforewordtothepostwarreprintshis1927book.

Sorokin,Socialandculturalmobility(NewYork,1964),foreword[nopagereference].


32

lxiiiSee,forexample,HowardBecker,‘Theprocessofsecularisation:anidealtypicalanalysiswithspecial

referencetopersonalitychangeasaffectedbypopulationmovement’,SociologicalReview,24(1932),pp.138-

54.AlmostallarticlespublishedinTheSociologicalReviewduringtheinterwarperiodpursuedtheseeconomic

definitionsofsocialmobility.

lxivAlfredMarshall,Principlesofeconomics,vol.1,2ndedn(London,1891),book4,chs4-12.SeealsoLionel

Robbins,‘NotesonsomeprobableconsequencesoftheadventofastationarypopulationinGreatBritain’,

Economica,25(1929),pp.71-82;AndrewMiles,Socialmobilityinnineteenth-andearlytwentieth-century

England(Basingstoke,1999),chs1-2.AscriticismofGlass’post-warsocialmobilityprojectindicated,thefocus

oneconomicissues,particularlyoccupation,wasproblematic,notleastbecauseitexcludedhugenumbersof

women.Inmanyways,theseproblemswereaninevitableconstraintofthemethodsthatGlassandothers

pursued,whichonlypermittedanalysisofissuesandcategoriesonwhichsufficientdatawascollected–a

trendthatwasreinforcedbyJohnGoldthorpe’sexclusionofqualitativeevidenceinhishugelyinfluential

Nuffieldstudy,whichbeganduringtheearly1970s.AsGeoffPaynehasargued,theseconstraintshad

implicationsforpoliticaldebatesaboutsocialmobility,inwhichpoliticiansequatesocialmobilitywith

increasedwages.GeoffPayne,‘ANewsocialmobility?Thepoliticalredefinitionofasociologicalproblem’,

ContemporarySocialScience,7(2012),pp.55-71.

lxvVolkerWelter,Biopolis:PatrickGeddesandthecityoflife(Cambridge,MA,2002);JohnScottandRay

Bromley,Envisioningsociology:VictorBranford,PatrickGeddes,andquestforsocialreconstruction(Albany,

2013);Renwick,‘EvolutionismandBritishsociology’.

lxviMorrisGinsberg,‘Interchangebetweensocialclasses’,TheEconomicJournal,39(1929),pp.554-65.

lxviiLucindaPlatt,‘Povertystudiesandsocialresearch’,inHolmwoodandScott,ThePalgravehandbookof

sociologyinBritain,pp.30-53;G.R.Searle,Thequestfornationalefficiency:astudyinBritishpoliticsand

politicalthought1899-1914(Oxford,1971);BenJackson,Equalityandtheleft:astudyinprogressivepolitical

thought,1900-64(Manchester,2007).

lxviiiR.H.Tawney,Equality(London,1931),especiallychs3,5,and6;Miles,Socialmobility,chs1-2.

lxixMiles,Socialmobility,p.5.

lxxGlass,‘Introduction’inGlass,ed.,SocialmobilityinBritain,pp.24-5.


33

lxxiJohnGoldthorpeincollaborationwithCatrionaLlewellynandClivePayne,Socialmobilityandclassstructure

inmodernBritain(Oxford,1980);Savage,Identitiesandsocialchange.

lxxiiMichaelYoung,Theriseofthemeritocracy,1870-2033.anessayoneducationand

equality(London,1958);AsaBriggs,MichaelYoung:socialentrepreneur(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,

2011),ch.5;EdmundRamsden,‘Surveyingthemeritocracy:theproblemsofintelligenceandmobilityinthe

studiesofthePopulationInvestigationCommittee’,StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyoftheBiologicaland

BiomedicalScience(forthcoming,2014).Theterm‘meritocracy’wascoinedtwoyearsearlierbyAllanFox,

‘Classandequality’,SocialistCommentary,May1956,p.13.

lxxiiiPayne,‘Thenewsocialmobility?’;JanetFinch,Researchandpolicy:theusesofqualitativemethodsinsocial

andeducationalresearch(London:TheFalmerPress,1986)

lxxivGlass,‘Introduction’,inGlass,SocialmobilityinBritain,p.28.

lxxvMikeSavageandRogerBurrows,‘Thecomingcrisisofempiricalsociology’,Sociology41(2007),pp.885-99.

lxxviFormoreonthisidea,seeSamFriedman,“Thepriceoftheticket:rethinkingtheexperienceofsocial

mobility,”Sociology,48(2014):352-68.SeealsoSelinaTodd,Thepeople:theriseandfalloftheworkingclass,

1910-2010(London,2014)

EUGENICS, POPULATION RESEARCH, AND SOCIAL MOBILITY … · Population and Social Mobility 3...

Documents

Transcript of EUGENICS, POPULATION RESEARCH, AND SOCIAL MOBILITY … · Population and Social Mobility 3...