Statistics, as used in contemporary context, is a word that when used makes many think about numbers, data, and/or mathematics. Merriam-Webster defines statistics as “a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data.” What a single definition fails to represent, though, is how this collection and interpretation of masses of numerical data is applied to and affects everyday life.
First introduced in Germany in 1749 by Gottfried Achenwall, the word statistik was “political arithmetic—a use of data for promotion of sound, well-informed state policy.” The practice of statistics and data collection began as a means of collecting information for the nation. 80 years later, in 1829, it was evolved into medical practice. Bisset Hawkins defined medical statistics as “the application of numbers to illustrate the natural history of health and disease.” It is important to see how much this original version of medical statistics was manipulated. As medical statistics evolved, Adolphe Quetelet, a French statistician, recognized that a normal was needed. From this idea, he created the concept of the ‘average man,’ a combination of a society’s physically and morally average man (Davis 1995:26). Quetelet understood that, as Davis points out, “all phenomena will always conform to a bell curve” in statistics (Davis 1995:30). Applying this to his idea of an average man, bodies fall into either the norm of the bell curve or are deviant based on their traits.
The underlying reason medical statistics came to be may not be clear yet, though. The purpose of the statistics was not to create a normal and analyze where people fell upon the bell curve, but rather to use and enforce that normal for the practice of eugenics. “The needs of eugenics in large part determined the content of Galton’s statistical theory” (MacKenzie 1981:52). Merriam-Webster defines eugenics as “a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.” Davis states that “almost all the early statisticians had one thing in common: they were eugenicists.” Additionally, he states that it was common practice of many American and European citizens (Davis 1995:35). Statistics provided an explanation of normal, or standard, which in turn provided an explanation of abnormal, or nonstandard. This abnormal, nonstandard group, in the case of bodies, was the disabled, the ill, the criminals, etc. The goal of the eugenicists was to norm the nonstandard (Davis 1995:30). There are two sides of deviance on the bell curve, though. On one side, eugenicists would see disabled, sick, etc., but on the other side would be favorable traits to eugenicists, such as tallness, high intelligence, strength, etc. Sir Francis Galton, aforementioned in MacKenzie’s quote above, was a key figure in the movement of eugenics (Davis 1995:30). Galton realized that the favorable traits were seen just as extreme as the unfavorable traits, and both were called error. To counter this, he decided to change the way the standard bell curve was both perceived and created. First, he decided to change the term ‘error curve’ to ‘normal distribution curve’, in order to change the negative connotation that error gives off about favorable traits. Second, he decided to use the median instead of the average and decided to create a quartile/ranking system. Now instead of the favorable traits seeming extreme, they are ranked at the top and coveted the most (Davis 1995:31-34). This quartile system further pushes forward eugenicist theory in the way that instead of just having a normal curve, it has a curve that incentivizes traits in the upper quartile and looks down upon traits in the lower. Knowing this, it seems as if the way statistics came to be is based on the interests of eugenicists. That is, it seems many of the statistical methods and models we still know of today either came to be or were manipulated to advance the agenda of eugenics. This quote from “Emancipation Through Interaction – How Eugenics and Statistics Converged and Diverged” shows this further: “To different degrees, the social perception of the early statisticians was shaped by eugenic objectives, and they dedicated much of their time to proselytizing, polemicizing and developing regulatory agendas on social and racial selection. Eugenics, which aimed at improving the genetic inheritance of human beings, was presented as a rationale for selection in the post-Victorian era. Methods and tools – measurement and, therefore, statistics – were instrumentally defined in accordance with this agenda for society” (Louçã 2009:651).
Statistics was not created by eugenics, but its early practices and methods were shaped due to eugenics. Therefore, the concept of a norm/average, which is better understood through statistics, could have been created by eugenics. Further, if the concept of a norm/average was created by eugenics, then the concept of abnormal, disabled, nonstandard, etc., was also created by eugenics, because the two are inseparable. The name of the book, “Enforcing Normalcy”, is very appropriate. Those who are not normal—disabled, etc.—have had their health and overall lives radically altered due to the advancement of a political agenda.
Works Cited
Davis, Lennard J.
1995 Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body. London: Verso.
Louçã, Francisco
2009 Emancipation Through Interaction – How Eugenics and Statistics Converged and Diverged. Journal of the History of Biology 42(4):649-684.
Merriam Webster. “Eugenics.” Accessed September 13, 2016.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics
Merriam Webster. “Statistics.” Accessed September 13, 2016.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statistics