Eugenics: The Science of "Better Humans"
- Liya Zhang
- Aug 6
- 5 min read
It is undeniable to say that we, as a society, stand at a crossroads: a battle between our willingness for peace and our uncontrollable, almost instinctive, devotion to prejudice. We’ve never hesitated to weaponize the very things that make us human: the melanin in our skin, the differences in our faiths, and even the unique grooves in our palms. Skin color becomes a hierarchy. Religion becomes a dividing line. Genes become the symbol for superiority and hatred.
Exclusion is no stranger to humanity; in fact, we have learned to grow in it. Eugenics didn’t just echo exclusion: it proved that humanity often thrives in the illusion of superiority.
The study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally. Francis Galton, 1883
The Scientific Mask
Eugenics, the pseudoscientific theory that promises “societal improvement”, is the embodiment of racism (but, of course, the excuse of science can blind ourselves from simple morality). Scientific racism is rooted in the persistent argument for racial superiority – justifying decades of slavery, antisemitism, colonialism and xenophobia in history.
Francis Galton, an English polymath, was the first to introduce the term “eugenics” in 1883 (National Human Genome Research Institute [NHGRI], 2022). Galton held the belief that our health and intelligence were “fixed” by our given heredity and race. The late 1800s marked the beginning for the widespread movement for “human improvement” and “planned breeding”. Under this view, society could be “enhanced” by encouraging reproduction among those with "desirable" traits, and discouraging (more like outright preventing) it in others. Scientists began to construct a social hierarchy based on their convictions of genetic superiority, typically placing White Europeans at the pinnacle of this class system. Science, it seemed, was the new excuse for old prejudices.
Galton’s concepts continued to persist into the 19th century. Charles Davenport established the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor in 1910, which became the headquarters for eugenic research (Kalomiris, 2022). By the early 1900s, it had been the norm to segregate individuals on the basis of our ancestry. According to Kalomiris (2022), the eugenics movement in America gained momentum rapidly, especially with the strong support from large public figures such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Woodrow Wilson. Then came the advantage of science: sterilization.
The Tool for "Improvement"
The primary aim of the eugenics movement was, fundamentally, to “enhance” society. Thus, sterilization (a method of permanent birth control that leaves a person incapable of reproduction) came into play.
In 1927, the case of Buck v. Bell brought to light the true exploitation of human lives during the height of the eugenics movement. At the age of eighteen during her trial, Carrie Buck was described as a “feeble minded white woman” (Buck v. Bell, 1927). As noted by Kalomiris (2022), Buck was pregnant as a result of rape. State authorities sought to sterilize Buck to prevent her from passing down her presumed “idiocy" to future generations (Kalomiris, 2022). The court agreed. In the case, the judges concluded that Buck was a “potential parent of socially inadequate offspring”, resulting in the ruling that Buck “may be sexually sterilized” so that “society [can] be promoted” (Buck v. Bell, 1927). In Chief Justice Holmes’ notorious words: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” (Buck v. Bell, 1927).
Buck became the justification for a disturbing precedent: mass sterilization. The long-standing belief that mental illness represented a weakness in society was specifically targeted during the sterilization campaign. Most states used the justifications of people being “feebleminded”, “habitual criminals”, and having “mental defectives” to validate their objectives of sterilizing marginalized populations (Kalomiris, 2022). As reported by NGHIS (2022), the involuntary sterilization of over 60,000 people across 30 states persisted until the 1970s, with a primary focus on Latinx, Native American, and African American communities. The reason? Protecting society from "undesirable" traits.
One of the most notorious applications of eugenics was the Holocaust from 1933 to 1945. During World War II, Nazi Germany systematically murdered millions of Jewish individuals in an attempt to “cleanse” the German population. With the rise of Adolf Hitler, Germany embraced an antisemitism ideology, labeling the targeted as “hereditarily ill” (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [USHMM], 2020). The assumption that the Jewish faith was a defect in German society was propagated by Hitler’s followers, who saw the Jewish population as “unworthy of life” (NHGRI, 2022). In 1933, Nazi officials passed the Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases, which mandated forced sterilization for those with physical and mental disabilities, including the so-called “feeblemindedness” (USHMM, 2020). Ultimately, the Nazis sterilized at least 400,000 victims, particularly targeting members of Jewish, Sinti, Roma, disabled, and LGBTQ+ communities. The irony? It was America’s own obsession with genetic superiority that gave Hitler the inspiration.
When "Genes" Become a Marketing Stunt
Currently, a viral advertisement featuring Sydney Sweeney is circulating the internet. In this ad for American Eagle, a popular American clothing brand, Sweeney shows off their latest jeans. During one segment, she states, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color” (American Eagle, 2025). Following this statement, the slogan appears across the screen, “SYDNEY SWEENEY HAS GREAT JEANS” (American Eagle, 2025). In this particular advertisement, Sweeney cleverly uses the word “jeans” to talk about “genes”. While the ad implies that the jeans are durable and passed down from “generation to generation” (American Eagle, 2025), it simultaneously conveys the idea that Sweeney has the “superior” genes. Sydney Sweeney, a conventionally attractive actress with her blonde hair and blue eyes, uses this play on words to highlight the quality of American Eagle jeans while also reinforcing traditional Western beauty standards. Critics also argue that the ad places an unreasonable emphasis on her chest and pelvic region, hinting at the sexualization of Sweeney. She even remarks, "Eyes up here," when the camera pans to focus on her chest.
The controversy surrounding this advertisement stems from claims that it promotes eugenics, implying that the company is imposing a standard on women by asserting that Sydney Sweeney has "great jeans (genes)". Critics believe that the campaign is rooted in supporting racial and genetic privilege. Some have even compared the ad to Nazi propaganda, recalling the way the German “Aryan” race was promoted while others were degraded. On the other hand, defenders argue that this public backlash is an example of society’s hypersensitivity. They claim that they are struggling to recognize the racism alleged by the other side. To them, the controversy represents the sensitive and “woke” culture that is too eager to call out racism when no implication even exists.
The truth is – whether intentional or not – the symbols and messages we use carry weight. History has taught us, over and over again, that even the most subtle messages can ultimately reinforce threatening ideologies.
Why This Still Matters
Eugenics may seem like a relic of the past, but its impact is still felt today: in policies, in medicine, and yes, even in pop culture. The conversation around Sydney Sweeney’s ad is not about canceling an actress or boycotting a brand. It’s about asking deeper questions: Who decides what is "ideal"? At its core, this is a conversation about inclusion and the kind of society we want to build.
Bibliography
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Charles B. Davenport. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. (2021, September 6). https://www.cshl.edu/personal-collections/charles-b-davenport/
Eugenics and Scientific Racism. National Human Genome Research Institute. (n.d.). https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
Kalomiris, M. (2022, February 3). Unfit to Breed: America’s Dark Tale of Eugenics. The National Institute of Health Catalyst. https://irp.nih.gov/catalyst/29/4/unfit-to-breed-americas-dark-tale-of-eugenics