On 7/22/2012 10:16 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> As to Sanger, the suffering she was determined to end was
> the suffering of the "society," not the individual.  It is
> precisely predicated on a notion of society as above the
> individual.  She states:
> "The philosophy of Birth Control points out that as long
> as civilized COMMUNITIES [my caps] encourage unrestrained
> fecundity in the 'normal' members of the population ...
> and penalize every attempt to introduce the principle of
> discrimination and responsibility in parenthood, they will
> be faced with the ever-increasing problem of
> feeble-mindedness, that fertile parent of degeneracy,
> crime, and pauperism" (Pivot, p.81).



This is simply a misreading, predicated on a misunderstanding of Progressivism.

It is not enough to pull out an isolated quote that can be interpreted out of
context as implicating a reification of society.  Nor would it even be enough
to pull out a collection of quotes (also possible) while
ignoring conflicting quotes: most individuals do not have
coherent philosophies of society and would not accept many
"implications" of some of their statements.

That Sanger is willing to talk of social problems and social progress does
not imply that she reifies society nor that she ignores the individual.
In fact the idea that one would have to eschew concern for
the individual to be able to speak of social progress is bizarre.

Sticking with The Pivot of Civilization:

     "Every potential parent, and especially every potential
     mother, must be brought to an acute realization of the
     primary and individual responsibility of bringing
     children into this world. Not until the parents of this
     world are given control over their reproductive
     faculties will it be possible to improve the quality of
     the generations of the future, or even to maintain
     civilization at its present level."

     "A State which admits that the individuals composing it
     are incompetent to perform their most sacred and
     intimate functions, and takes it upon itself to perform
     them itself instead, attempts a task that would be
     undesirable, even if it were possible of achievement."
     (approvingly quoting Ellis)

     "In truth, unfortunate babies who depart during their
     first twelve months are more fortunate in many respects
     than those who survive to undergo punishment for their
     parents' cruel ignorance and complacent fecundity. If
     motherhood is wasted under the present regime of
     "glorious fertility," childhood is not merely wasted,
     but actually destroyed. Let us look at this matter from
     the point of view of the children who survive."

     "More and more are public schools in America becoming
     institutions for subjecting children to a narrow and
     reactionary orthodoxy, aiming to crush out all signs of
     individuality, and to turn out boys and girls compressed
     into a standardized pattern, with ready-made ideas on
     politics, religion, morality, and economics."

     "The great principle of Birth Control offers the means
     whereby the individual may adapt himself to and even
     control the forces of environment and heredity."

     "We must not neglect the important fact that it is not
     merely in the practical results of such a decision, not
     in the small number of children, not even in the
     healthier and better cared for children, not in the
     possibility of elevating the living conditions of the
     individual family, that the ethical value of Birth
     Control alone lies. Precisely because the practice of
     Birth Control does demand the exercise of decision, the
     making of choice, the use of the reasoning powers, is it
     an instrument of moral education as well as of hygienic
     and racial advance. It awakens the attention of parents
     to their potential children. It forces upon the
     individual consciousness the question of the standards
     of living. In a profound manner it protects and
     reasserts the inalienable rights of the child-to-be."

Etc.

I could go on.  None of this makes sense from inside the
misreading of Sanger and of Progressivism that you propose.

I also find it odd that you now propose criteria for
assimilating conservatives into "the camp of the
Progressives".  Why?  Just to obtain a better overlap
between your categories of coercion and progressivism?
Despite cooperation on corruption issues,
the perspective of the time was generally
of a struggle between conservatism and progressivism.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac