The place of eugenics in Arnold Gesell's maturation theory of child development.

Abstract

AbstractThis paper examines eugenic ideas in the context of Gesell's maturational model of development. Keeping to an historical perspective which highlights developments within the eugenics movement, the author concurs that Gesell's early work reveals with eugenic ideas. However, as challenges to the eugenics movement mounted during the 1920s and 30s, Gesell eventually deemphasized eugenic ideas in his later work.The purpose of this paper to enlarge upon the historical context within which notions of eugenics entered into Arnold Gesell's (1880-1961) maturational model of human development.Taking as its cue a paper by Weizmann (1988), which outlines the appearance of eugenic sympathies in Gesell's work, the present undertaking endeavours to explore and expand upon the historical backdrop which served as fertile ground for Gesell's model of human development, and his ideas in developmental psychology, biology and eugenics.Starting with a summary of Gesell's theory of (Gesell, 1929b; 1946; Ames, 1989), this paper points to the influences both intellectual and collegial that entered into Gesell's thinking. Attention then focusses on the fundamental ideas embodied in the eugenics movement, followed by a discussion on the manner in which eugenic ideas were expressed in the study of the psychology of individual differences. Next, consideration given to developments within behavioural psychology which offered an alternative to biological determinism. Finally, the role of anthropology as a direct challenge to the eugenics movement and its ideas complete the historical picture. As the aforementioned historical backdrop unfolds, Gesell's position in relation to the eugenics movement discussed.GESELL'S MATURATIONAL MODEL OF DEVELOPMENTAccording to Weizmann, Gesell was of the most important figures in the history of child development (1988, p. 1). As an academic and researcher for nearly 50 years at the Yale Clinic of Child Development, from 1911 to 1948 (Miles, 1964), and a popularizer in the field of infant and child development, even Time Magazine sought to lionize him for his scientific and practical contributions (1940, p. 67). Time said, Gesell charted away like a Columbus and many a modern theory about child upbringing ... based on his findings. He was the best known baby doctor in the 1940s and Dr. Spock, the renowned pediatrician, came under his influence and sway (Cairns, 1983; Salkind, 1985; Ames, 1989). The behaviour norms he and his collaborators developed (e.g., Gesell & Armatruda, 1941) are so complete by even today's standards, that they still serve as a primary source of information for pediatricians and psychologists (Crain, 1985, p. 15). Confident in Gesell's stature as a scientist of the child, Gross (1963) observed, Gesell will go down in medical history as the individual who rescued 'child development' from the limbo of empty abstractions (p. 179).Gesell was guided by a maturational conception of development. Growth, he said, is a process so intricate and so sensitive that there must be powerful stabilizing factors, intrinsic rather than extrinsic, which preserve the balance of the total pattern and the direction of the growth trend. Maturation ... a name for this regulatory (Gesell, 1933, p. 232). As for the influence of exogenous factors (e.g., environment) on development, Gesell (1929a) commented that they may play a screening or selective role determining which of competing potencies are to be realized ... but the basic mechanism of realization one of maturation... (p. 658).In his studies of infants and young children, Gesell charted the sequence of growth (1928), established norms (Gesell & Ilg, 1943), and postulated a number of explanatory principles of (Gesell, 1946). His emphasis on the relationship of biological maturation to psychological represented a position he actively promoted and shared with a number of influential psychologists, including G. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.