Abstract
Richard Titmuss (1907–1973) was far from the only social scientist working in mid-twentieth-century Britain to have an interest in eugenics. Yet, as I show in this chapter, he is a particularly instructive case study for helping us understand the impact that biosocial science had on many social scientists’ identity and sense of purpose during that period. Focusing on his early career, from the mid-1930s to the mid-1950s, this chapter traces Titmuss’ underappreciated personal and intellectual connections with the eugenics movement and shows how his interests in issues such as inequality and welfare services were shaped by them. As the chapter argues, acknowledging these connections is necessary if we are to appreciate the complex origins of British sociology’s concern with issues such as waste and potential, particularly at the bottom of the social structure.
I wish to thank, firstly, Plamena Panayotova for the invitation to speak at the conference on the history of sociology in Britain, held at the University of Edinburgh in April 2018, where a version of this paper was first presented. The conference was a great success, with thought-provoking questions and lively discussion. I must also thank Ann Oakley and John Stewart for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this chapter, as well as the Arts and Humanities Research Council (grant number AH/L007312/1), whose financial assistance made the research for this paper possible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Lafitte is a strangely understudied figure, lacking even an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry. For more on Lafitte, see Deakin (2004).
- 2.
This description of Titmuss is often quoted but only seldom attributed to Leach, almost always without reference to an original source. See, for example, Kynaston (2007: 26).
- 3.
- 4.
In this respect, my take on Titmuss’ development mirrors some of distinctions Joel Isaac has made in his account of Thomas Kuhn—specifically the idea that there is a difference between the context of production and reception of some of their most important work (Isaac 2012).
- 5.
For more on the history of social work in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Britain, see Abrams (1968: ch. 4), Seed (1973) and Shaw (2014). For a recent study of women’s particular contribution to social work in that period, as well as social reform and welfare more generally, see Oakley (2018). For a general history, see Payne (2005).
- 6.
- 7.
Titmuss was involved in the Eugenics Society’s work on problem families after the Second World War. See Welshman (2004).
- 8.
Carr-Saunders is another figure about whom puzzlingly little has been written, though, unlike Lafitte, he does, at least, have an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry. For more on Carr-Saunders see, Osborne and Rose (2008).
- 9.
Titmuss’ focus on population and analysis of population statistics has been studied by John Stewart, who is currently preparing a biography of Titmuss. Stewart puts emphasis on the moral dimension of Titmuss’ work, which is explored in greater detail in the final section of this chapter (Stewart 2017).
- 10.
Though, of course, Pinker seems to have recently changed course, arguing that things really are getting better and that humans respond to a kind of Eliasian civilising process (Pinker 2012).
- 11.
- 12.
Titmuss would cite Huxley’s lecture frequently in the 1940s. See, for example, Titmuss (Titmuss 1943b: 68).
- 13.
Indeed, in this respect, Titmuss’ work fits with what David Edgerton has described as the emergence of “the nation” in Britain during the first half of the twentieth century. On Edgerton’s account this is to be expected as the post-Second World War welfare state was part of the moment of nationalisation that was itself possible because of a shift to thinking about Britain less as a liberal and global power and more as a coherent and singular entity with its own internal history and logic (Edgerton 2018).
- 14.
Indeed, Titmuss later contributed a preface to a new edition of Tawney’s Equality (Titmuss 1964).
- 15.
“Janus-faced” is a term deployed by the historian Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs (1991) to describe the natural philosopher Isaac Newton’s complex science and character.
References
Abrams, P. (1968). The Origins of British Sociology, 1834–1914. London: University of Chicago Press.
Beveridge, W. (1937). The Place of the Social Sciences in Human Knowledge. Politica, 2, 459–479.
Bulmer, M. (Ed.). (1985). Essays on the History of British Sociological Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carr-Saunders, A. (1935). Eugenics in the Light of Population Trends. Eugenics Review, 27, 11–20.
Charles, E. (1935). The Effect of Present Trends in Fertility and Mortality Upon the Future Population of England and Wales and Upon its Age Composition. London and Cambridge Economic Service Special Memoranda, no. 40. London: Royal Economic Society.
Charles, E. (1936). The Menace of Under-Population: A Biological Study of the Decline of Population Growth. Originally Issued Under the Title The Twilight of Parenthood. London: Watts & Co.
Deakin, N. (2004). Besieging Jericho: Episodes from the Early Career of François Lafitte. Cercles, Occasional Papers Series, No. 11.
Dobbs, B. J. T. (1991). The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton’s Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edgerton, D. (2018). The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth-Century History. London: Allen Lane.
Erlingsson, S. J. (2005). The Rise of Experimental Zoology in Britain in the 1920s: Hogben, Huxley, Crew, and the Society for Experimental Biology. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Manchester.
Fontaine, P. (2002). Blood, Politics, and Social Science: Richard Titmuss and the Institute of Economic Affairs, 1957–73. Isis, 93, 401–434.
Goldman, L. (2013). The Life of R. H. Tawney. Socialism and History. London: Bloomsbury.
Gowing, M. (1975). Richard Morris Titmuss, 1907–1973. Proceedings of the British Academy, 61, 401–428.
Grebenik, E. (1991). Demographic Research in Britain 1936–1986. Population Studies, 45(supplement), 3–30.
Hart, B. W. (2012). Watching the “Eugenic Experiment” Unfold: The Mixed Views of British Eugenicists Towards Nazi Germany in the Early 1930s. Journal of the History of Biology, 45, 33–63.
Hogben, L. (Ed.). (1938a). Political Arithmetic: A Symposium of Population Studies. London: George and Allen Unwin.
Hogben, L. (1938b). Introduction to Part II. In L. Hogben (Ed.), Political Arithmetic: A Symposium of Population Studies. London: George and Allen Unwin.
Hogben, L. (1938c). Introduction – Prolegomena to Political Arithmetic. In L. Hogben (Ed.), Political Arithmetic: A Symposium of Population Studies. London: George and Allen Unwin.
Horder, T. J. (1938). Foreword. In R. M. Titmuss (Ed.), Poverty and Population: A Factual Study of Contemporary Social Waste. London: Macmillan and Co.
Huxley, J. (1936). Eugenics and Society. Eugenics Review, 28, 11–31.
Isaac, J. (2012). Working Knowledge: Making the Human Sciences from Parsons to Kuhn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jackson, B. (2019). Richard Titmuss vs the IEA: the Transition from Idealism to Neoliberalism in British Social Policy. In L. Goldman & S. Jones (Eds.), Welfare and Social Policy in British Historical Perspective, 1850–2010: Essays in Honour of Professor Jose Harris. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kevles, D. (1984). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kynaston, D. (2007). Austerity Britain, 1945–51. London: Bloomsbury.
Lafitte, F. (1940). The Internment of Aliens. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
MacKenzie, D. A. (1981). Statistics in Britain, 1865–1930: The Social Construction of Knowledge. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
Macnicol, J. (1989). Eugenics and the Campaign for Voluntary Sterilization in Britain Between the Wars. Social History of Medicine, 2, 147–169.
Mazumdar, P. M. H. (1992). Eugenics, Human Genetics and Human Failings: The Eugenics Society, its Sources and its Critics in Britain. London: Routledge.
Myrdal, G. (1940). Population: A Problem for Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Myrdal, A., & Myrdal, G. (1934). Kris i befolkningsfrågan. Stockholm: Bonnier.
Oakley, A. (1991). Eugenics, Social Medicine, and the Career of Richard Titmuss in Britain, 1935–59. British Journal of Sociology, 42, 165–194.
Oakley, A. (1996). Man and Wife. Richard and Kay Titmuss: My Parents’ Early Years. London: Harper Collins.
Oakley, A. (2014). Father and Daughter: Patriarchy, Gender and Social Science. Bristol: Policy Press.
Oakley, A. (2018). Women, Peace and Welfare: A Suppressed History of Social Reform, 1880–1920. Bristol: Policy Press.
Osborne, T., & Rose, N. (2008). Populating Sociology: Carr-Saunders and the Problem of Population. The Sociological Review, 56, 552–578.
Overy, R. (2010). The Morbid Age: Britain and the Crisis of Civilisation. London: Penguin.
Paul, D. B. (1998). Controlling Human Heredity, 1865 to the Present. New York: Humanity Books.
Payne, M. (2005). The Origins of Social Work: Continuity and Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. London: Penguin.
Pinker, S. (2012). The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity. London: Penguin.
Ramsden, E. (2009). Confronting the Stigma of Eugenics: Genetics, Demography and the Problem of Population. Social Studies of Science, 39, 853–884.
Reisman, D. (2001). Richard Titmuss: Welfare and Society (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Renwick, C. (2014). Completing the Circle of the Social Sciences? William Beveridge and Social Biology at London School of Economics During the 1930s. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 44, 478–496.
Renwick, C. (2016). Eugenics, Population Research, and Social Mobility Studies in Early and Mid-Twentieth-Century Britain. The Historical Journal, 59, 845–867.
Ritschel, D. (1997). The Politics of Planning: The Debate on Economic Planning in Britain in the 1930s. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rogan, T. (2017). The Moral Economists: R. H. Tawney, Karl Polanyi, E. P. Thompson and the Critique of Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rowntree, S. (1941). Poverty and Progress: A Second Social Survey of York. London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Savage, M. (2010). Identities and Social Change in Britain Since 1940: The Politics of Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, G. R. (1976). Eugenics and Politics in Britain, 1900–1914. Leyden: Noordhoff International Publishing.
Seed, P. (1973). The Expansion of Social Work in Britain. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Shaw, I. (2014). Sociology and Social Work: In Praise of Limestone? In J. Holmwood & J. Scott (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Sociology in Britain (pp. 123–154). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, R. (2003). Biology and Values in Inter-War Britain: C. S. Sherrington, Julian Huxley, and the Vision of Progress. Past and Present, 178, 210–242.
Soloway, R. A. (1995). Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Declining Birthrate in Twentieth-Century Britain. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Stewart, J. (2017). “The Cost of Living and Dying”: Richard Titmuss, Population, and Population Health, c.1933–45. Paper Presented to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 9th March 2017. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/Stewart_201703 accessed on 18th March 2019.
Tabery, J. (2014). Beyond Versus: The Struggle to Understand the Interaction of Nature and Nurture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tawney, R. H. (1921). The Acquisitive Society. London: Bell.
Tawney, R. H. (1931). Equality. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Thomson, M. (1998). The Problem of Mental Deficiency: Eugenics, Democracy, and Social Policy in Britain, c.1870–1959. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Titmuss, R. M. (1938). Poverty and Population: A Factual Study of Contemporary Social Waste. London: Macmillan and Co.
Titmuss, R. M. (1940). Review of Grace G. Leybourne and Kenneth White, Education and the Birth-Rate: A Social Dilemma. The Eugenics Review, 32, 61–62.
Titmuss, R. M. (1942). The Effect of the Birthrate on the War. The Eugenics Review, 34, 9–12.
Titmuss, R. M. (1943a). The Significance of Recent Birthrate Trends. The Eugenics Review, 35, 36–38.
Titmuss, R. M. (1943b). Birth, Poverty and Wealth: A Study of Infant Mortality. London: Hamish Hamilton Medical Books.
Titmuss, R. M. (1944). The Social Environment and Eugenics. The Eugenics Review, 36, 53–58.
Titmuss, R. M. (1950). Problems of Social Policy. London: HMSO and Longmans, Green, and Co.
Titmuss, R. M. (1964). Introduction. In R. H. Tawney (Ed.), Equality (4th ed.). London: Unwin Books.
Titmuss, R. M. (1970). The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Titmuss, R. M., & Lafitte, F. (1942). Eugenics and Poverty. The Eugenics Review, 33, 106–112.
Titmuss, R. M., & Titmuss, K. (1942). Parents Revolt: A Study of the Declining Birth-Rate in Acquisitive Societies. London: Secker and Warburg.
Waters, K. C., & van Helden, A. (Eds.). (1992). Julian Huxley: Biologist and Statesman of Science. Houston: Rice University Press.
Welshman, J. (2004). The Unknown Titmuss. Journal of Social Policy, 33, 225–247.
Welshman, J. (2013). Underclass: A History of the Excluded Since 1880 (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury.
Werskey, G. (1978). The Visible College. London: Allen Lane.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Renwick, C. (2019). Richard Titmuss, Eugenics, and Social Science in Mid-twentieth-Century Britain. In: Panayotova, P. (eds) The History of Sociology in Britain. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19929-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19929-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19928-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19929-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)