HOMO SAPIENS 1900

            Homo Sapiens 1900 [1] is directed by Peter Cohen, who is also known for his 1989 documentary The Architecture of Doom which explores the relationship between aesthetics and violence in Nazi Germany and stresses Cohen’s opposition to eugenicists dream of the “perfect man.” He continues to shed light on the subject again in Homo Sapiens 1990. It is a “haunting exploration of the history of eugenics, race hygiene and the idea of the ‘new man.’” [2] The processes of selective breeding, sterilization and elimination of “feeble-minded” peoples became goals of government sanctioned research projects in the early 1900’s. It follows closely the laws passed by the United States American Eugenics Society and applications of eugenics in Germany and the Soviet Union.

            The first segment of this film is a series of pictures of early 20^th century men and women with a narration by Steven Rappaport: “The image of man distinguishes him from all other beings – his ability to observe himself. It is man’s fate that he not only rejoices in what he sees, but is displeased by his thoughts, physical and mental. Man’s urge to civilize compels him to strive for the improvement not only of his material conditions but of himself as well – to prune and to cultivate. The image of man bears witness to this ambition.” Lines like “degeneration leads to doom” describes the main point of eugenicists. The first scene is from the movie Frankenstein, discussed earlier, as an example of man “intervening in the process of nature.” Scientist were described as most dangerous to the “Utopian era.”

The film takes an interesting turn by examining art as another form of perfection of the human body. This is an interesting point because it raises the question: how far back does eugenics go? Dr. Francis Galton was the inventor of the term eugenics, but does that mean that he invented the idea? If you look at Michelangelo’s David, isn’t that a form of eugenics: a sculpture created by man depicting the “perfect man” with no faults or scratches – a man who is a template of flawlessness. Is it possible the most famous sculpture in the world is promoting eugenics before its time? Most likely not, but it did give eugenicists ammunition to express their hopes for a better race.

            A large part of this film is focused on “race hygiene.” Alfred Pultz coined this term as a weeding out process – later known as auxiliary sciences. Race Hygiene gained popularity in Germany under the Nazi Germany. Furthermore, a German nudist movement demonstrated racial consciousness. The leader of the movement claimed “clothing plays havoc with the selection process.” Cohen shows clips of laboratories and factories with naked workers, a ploy to shock the viewer and make the German ideals seem “backward.” Dr. Harry Haiseldon, famous for convincing parents with disabled newborns to let the child die instead of performing surgery, also played a huge part in the film. They showed clips from his successful documentary The Black Stork [3] , in which he both produced and starred. Another important figure was Charles Davenport, father of the eugenics movement in the United States, who created a Eugenics Record Office and implemented a nationwide eugenics register. A campaign against blacks and immigrants were to follow, and then, in 1907, the world’s first compulsory sterilization law. This law was eventually adopted by 20 states and over ten-thousand people were sterilized. In the 1920’s, the Swedish National Parliament passed a sterilization law that mirrored the ideals of laws in the United States. Race hygiene, in Sweden, was labeled as “essential to the well-being of modern society.” They stressed the idea of racially sound individuals. Eventually, the institute of brain research in Moscow was built and proceeded to assemble brains of highly gifted individuals (Lenin’s brain was the first example). Everything was about distinguishing the “genius” brain and intellect.

The vision of the “new socialist man” was stirred by the Russian Revolution in 1917. A Russian biologist stated that “eugenics is the religion of the future and it awaits its profits.” We can see how dangerous this movement was because it not only threatened science but it threatened religion. This is partly because the scientists believed they had the ability to play God and make crucial decisions about degenerates in Soviet society. In Germany, however, it was about the body – its condition and potential, ugliness or beauty. A degenerate human being was contrasted with an individual of classical beauty, the ideal being an Aryan. We know now, from World War II, that Hitler’s main goal and Nazi racial policy was to breed Aryan’s and sterilize all people who did not fit the Aryan description. Eugenics, genetics and fascism were one in the same.

            Cohen discusses the scientific organization of labor while showing workers in factories who look like machines on the assembly line. Every person looks the same. They hope that the “pulse of life will be adapted to the rhythm of work.” One scientist even hopes to apply a Bolshevik version of eugenics where his findings in the area of poultry and cattle breeding can be applied to people. People are no longer looked at as individuals, or even human beings. It all depends on their family and heredity heredity. Procreation is now the responsibility of society. The New York Times reviewer of this film stated that “the declaration of a hierarchy of human traits leaves those decreed genetically inferior vulnerable to all sorts of abuses, from sterilization to outright murder. And as the film makes abundantly clear, eugenic theory has always been used to justify the most virulent racism in the name of science. Societies usually define the ideal human as having the physical characteristics of the ethnic majority.” [4]

This film addresses many of the questions we have found in books like Controlling Human Heredity [5] and Future Perfect [6] , for example, what role does genetic heritage play? What is biological necessity? What can be molded by environment? Cohen claims that “man’s capacity can only be judged by his actual achievements.” If sterilization continues, men who have many capabilities could be killed because they don’t fit the mold of the “fittest” individual. This documentary is more striking then, say Olympia because it utilizes more graphic and disturbing images as a means to convey Cohen’s view on history of eugenics. History certainly plays a large part in the film. You are given a large amount of information in a short amount of time without much explanation or personal viewpoints. Fortunately, after 88 minutes of depressing stories and pictures/reels, Cohen ends on a lighter note: “The image of man fills us at times with compassion.”