Stirpiculture
The Oneida Community was a communal living experiment (one of many such experiments around the country) begun in Putney, VT and later moved to Oneida NY (where the mansion still stands). The group was founded by John Humphrey Noyes in 1841. Like the Shakers with whom they share some similarities, there were religious teachings behind many of the practices adopted by members.
One of the practices that caused a great stir at the time was "complex marriage" (aaah, Vermont, so many marriage controversies!). Although begun as early as 1846, only leaders of the community initially practiced it. Essentially, complex marriage was group marriage, where men and women did not have to practice monogamy with one another and were, in fact, discouraged from forming monogamous, exclusive relationships. Prior to cohabitation, both parties also had to agree through a third party. This practice was ended in 1879, and monogamous unions were again the norm.
Several of John Noyes religious teachings were related to child-bearing. John Noyes is quoted as saying in 1849:
In 1868, Noyes pioneered some of the earliest experiments in eugenics through a practice he called "stirpiculture". Essentially, this was a way to precisely control how many children were born and which individuals would become parents. The "central members" of the community initially controlled who was allowed to have children and with what partners. In 1875, a 12 member committee made up of equal numbers of men and women took over the responsibility of pairing child-bearing couples.
In 1869, 38 men and 53 women in the Oneida Community made the following resolutions to John Noyes in support of stirpiculture:
The practice of stirpiculture lasted for 11 years (1868-1879) with about 100 participants. 81 of these became parents to 58 children. There were 4 still births. Promoters of stirpiculture proclaimed that the benefits included longer life spans, lower rates of disability, and general health and hardiness for the children as well as the cohesion of the Oneida Community. 18 of the adult children intermarried with other children of the Oneida Community.
Children in the Oneida Community, both those born under stirpiculture and those conceived through traditional practices, were cared for by their mothers until they learned to walk. At this time, they would be placed in the "Children's House" for the day. They were allowed to return to their mothers at night until they entered the "play stage" at which point they would live in the Children's House full-time until adolescence. Parents were allowed to visit, but if community leaders felt that an unhealthy attachment was developing, these visits could be disallowed. 193 children lived in this arrangement during the 40 years of the community's existence.
If the materials of the proponents can be believed, the quality of care received in the Children's House was actually quite good: "Much attention was given to diet, clothing, sanitation, and profitable activity" [Noyes, 379]. Of course, the community's isolation helped prevent many deaths from disease through effective quarantine. Still, only 5 deaths occurred in the Children's House over its 40 year history.
But my goodness, the ethical questions this raises! As a short list:
(I used as my primary source: The Oneida Community Experiment in Stirpiculture by Hilda Herrick Noyes and George Wallingford Noyes pp 374-86 in Eugenics, Genetics, & the Family: Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921. Volume I. Garland Publishing, New York: 1985.
More information can be found at Syracuse University which holds the Oneida Community archives and in various online sources:
this one
that one
another one
and this Google book)
One of the practices that caused a great stir at the time was "complex marriage" (aaah, Vermont, so many marriage controversies!). Although begun as early as 1846, only leaders of the community initially practiced it. Essentially, complex marriage was group marriage, where men and women did not have to practice monogamy with one another and were, in fact, discouraged from forming monogamous, exclusive relationships. Prior to cohabitation, both parties also had to agree through a third party. This practice was ended in 1879, and monogamous unions were again the norm.
Several of John Noyes religious teachings were related to child-bearing. John Noyes is quoted as saying in 1849:
"We are not opposed to procreation. But we are opposed to involuntary procreation. We are opposed to excessive, and, of course, oppressive procreation, which is almost universal."By 1868, Noyes had already begun the practice of "male continence" in which men refrained from ejaculation during sex in order to prevent unintended pregnancies. Male teenagers were paired for sex with women in menopause until they learned to do this. As a form of birth control, it laid the foundation for other religious tenets.
In 1868, Noyes pioneered some of the earliest experiments in eugenics through a practice he called "stirpiculture". Essentially, this was a way to precisely control how many children were born and which individuals would become parents. The "central members" of the community initially controlled who was allowed to have children and with what partners. In 1875, a 12 member committee made up of equal numbers of men and women took over the responsibility of pairing child-bearing couples.
In 1869, 38 men and 53 women in the Oneida Community made the following resolutions to John Noyes in support of stirpiculture:
By the men:
The undersigned desire you may feel that we most heartily sympathize with your purposes in regard to scientific propagation, and offer ourselves in forming any combinations that may seem to you desirable. We claim no rights. We ask no privileges. We desire to be servants of the truth. With a prayer that the grace of God will help us in this resolution, we are your true soldiers.
By the women:
1. That we do not belong to ourselves in any respect, but that we do belong first to God and second to Mr. Noyes as God's true representative.
2. That we have no rights or personal feelings in regard to child-bearing which shall in the least degree oppose or embarrass him in his choice of scientific combinations.
3. That we will put aside all envy, childishness, and self-seeking, and rejoice with those who are chosen candidates; that we will, if necessary, become martyrs to science, and cheerfully resign all desire to become mothers, if for any reason Mr. Noyes deems us unfit material for propogation. Above all, we offer ourselves "living sacrifices" to God and true Communion.
The practice of stirpiculture lasted for 11 years (1868-1879) with about 100 participants. 81 of these became parents to 58 children. There were 4 still births. Promoters of stirpiculture proclaimed that the benefits included longer life spans, lower rates of disability, and general health and hardiness for the children as well as the cohesion of the Oneida Community. 18 of the adult children intermarried with other children of the Oneida Community.
Children in the Oneida Community, both those born under stirpiculture and those conceived through traditional practices, were cared for by their mothers until they learned to walk. At this time, they would be placed in the "Children's House" for the day. They were allowed to return to their mothers at night until they entered the "play stage" at which point they would live in the Children's House full-time until adolescence. Parents were allowed to visit, but if community leaders felt that an unhealthy attachment was developing, these visits could be disallowed. 193 children lived in this arrangement during the 40 years of the community's existence.
If the materials of the proponents can be believed, the quality of care received in the Children's House was actually quite good: "Much attention was given to diet, clothing, sanitation, and profitable activity" [Noyes, 379]. Of course, the community's isolation helped prevent many deaths from disease through effective quarantine. Still, only 5 deaths occurred in the Children's House over its 40 year history.
But my goodness, the ethical questions this raises! As a short list:
- Who has the right to decide which people are "fit" to reproduce and what "qualities" make them fit?
- Women and men were ostensibly equal in the Oneida Community, receiving equal shares in the incomes, etc. Do the practices of complex marriage and stirpiculture seem equal for both men and women?
- How much should we control a child's genetics through scientific processes? How much of a child's environment should be controlled?
- How is this different from Hitler's campaign to reignite the Aryan race? How is it different from modern genetic testing of fetuses, sperm banking, etc?
- Is complex marriage really marriage?
- How much personal liberty and freedom should be accorded members of society?
- When experiments such as this one are not ethically reproducible, how can/should we interpret results?
(I used as my primary source: The Oneida Community Experiment in Stirpiculture by Hilda Herrick Noyes and George Wallingford Noyes pp 374-86 in Eugenics, Genetics, & the Family: Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921. Volume I. Garland Publishing, New York: 1985.
More information can be found at Syracuse University which holds the Oneida Community archives and in various online sources:
this one
that one
another one
and this Google book)
Labels: books, ethics, family definitions
posted by Meg at
1:39 PM
1 Comments:
I was intrigued by your article. Erastus Hamilton is my connection to Oneida. He is a 1st cousin once removed from David Wilder, my great-great grandfather. David and his brother Alexander left the Oneida Community because of disagreeing with complex marriage. David was a physician and Noyes had odd ideas on healing as well.
I have read about the "burned over district"and the varied cults arising during that time. How strange. Hard to believe the concern about Christ's return could be taken so literally and spawned so much interest.
"Stirpiculture" seems way off the boundaries to me. Bigamy or multiple partners always seems to get people into trouble. Biblical heroes like Abraham and David discovered the problems of jealousy. I, too, am amazed that so many followed Noyes for so long.
By
Anonymous, At
June 6, 2009 7:59 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home