THIS IS a famous, intensely evocative photo, taken in 1894, of Alexander Graham Bell, Annie Sullivan and Helen Keller (seated). Bell introduced Keller to her famous teacher. Keller wrote in her autobiography, The Story of My Life, about her first meeting with Bell:

Child as I was, I at once felt the tenderness and sympathy which endeared Dr. Bell to so many hearts. That interview would be the door through which I would pass through darkness into light…

… [H]e is never so happy as when he has a deaf child in his arms. His labours on behalf of the deaf will live on and bless generations of children yet to come; and we love him alike for what he has himself achieved and for what he has evoked from others.

She dedicated the book to him.

John E. writes: 

I enjoyed reading your essay on Alexander Graham Bell and Mabel Hubbard. I found it interesting that Bell dabbled in ideas on selective human breeding. His connection to Hellen Keller brought to memory Keller’s own thoughts on humanity with regard to eugenics, which she surprisingly supported. John Gerdtz, a professor at St. Mary’s College of California, writes about a letter she published in support of a Dr. Haiselden, who had allowed a baby born with a defect to die rather than give it medical aid:

The letter titled “Physicians’ juries for defective babies” was published in The New Republic on December, 18, 1915..Keller begins her letter with her reflections on the meaning of “the sacredness of life.” She concluded that “It is the possibility of happiness, intelligence and power that give life its sanctity, and they are absent in the case of a poor, misshapen, paralyzed, unthinking creature.” Keller went on to describe the actions of Haiselden as a “weeding of the human garden that shows a sincere love of true life.” Keller then proposed a solution to the dilemma of deciding who was to live and who was to die. She felt that an analogy to the criminal justice system was appropriate, because, as opposed to an ordinary criminal defendant who may go on to be a “useful and productive member of society,” the “mental defective, on the other hand, is almost sure to be a potential criminal.” Keller proposed a jury of physicians to decide whether an infant would live or die because “[their] findings would be free from the prejudice and inaccuracy of untrained observation.” Keller added: “They [the physicians’ jury] would act only in cases of true idiocy, where there could be no hope of mental development.” Keller noted that physicians’ juries may be subject to abuse in that “[t]he powerful of the earth might use it to decide cases to suit themselves,” but that “if the evidence were presented openly and the decisions made public, there would be little danger of mistakes or abuses.” According to Keller, “Anyone interested in the case who did not believe the child ought to die might be permitted to provide for its care and maintenance.” In conclusion, Keller wrote that “we must decide between a fine humanity like Dr Haiselden’s and a cowardly sentimentalism.”

It is difficult to fathom Keller’s opinions on the matter of eugenics, knowing that a grand majority of those who support eugenics would consider Keller as one who would need to be “weeded out.” Perhaps it gives us an insight into the intoxicating allure of the “spirit of progress” of the day.

Laura writes:

That is stunning. Judging from these statements, Keller was concerned about “mental defectives,” so that would not have included herself and yet given that those who were deaf and mute were often deemed mental defectives, what possible psychological motives would she have for these views?

Bell strongly advocated that the deaf should marry those who were not deaf. He was a member of the Committee on Eugenics, which had as its mission “to investigate and report on heredity in the human race” and “to emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood.” He declined the chairmanship and was head of a subcommitte on hereditary deafness. 

John writes:

It looks like Bell and Keller, with all they were admired for, were still practicioners of selective foolishness. I suppose it will be revealed someday that almost all of us have been, to some extent.

Please follow and like us: