No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
This essay examines the medical debates over hereditary disease and moral hygiene in France between 1748 and 1790. During this time, which was marked by two formal academic exchanges about pathological inheritance, doctors critically studied the existence of hereditary diseases--including syphilis, arthritis, phthisis, scrofula, rickets, gout, stones, epilepsy, and insanity--and the problems that heredity might pose for curing and preventing these diseases. Amid public debate, doctors first treated heredity with formal skepticism and then embraced the idea. Their changing attitudes stemmed less from epistemological or cognitive reasons than from new cultural beliefs about gender, domesticity, and demographic policy. Fearing moral degeneracy and demographic decline, they argued that a number of social pathologies were truly hereditary and that these diseases spread within the family itself. These beliefs were seemingly confirmed by new clinical studies on tuberculosis. Though doctors conceded that hereditary diseases might limit Enlightenment hopes to perfect society, they also suggested that sexual hygiene and physical education could cure hereditary degeneracy and transcend genealogy and descent. Consequently, they stressed that physical regeneration was a dynamic process, one that stretched from the conjugal bed to weaning and beyond. Rather than accepting the accidents of birth, physicians believed that their patients could self-consciously overcome inherited defects and thus regenerate themselves and even all of society itself. Heredity thus gave doctors an idiom with which to diagnose a felt social crisis and to prescribe appropriate hygienic responses.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.