By PAULO CAPEL NARVAI*

All the grandparents of those born in the 100th century were eugenicists, including the grandparents of the accusers of Maria Rita Kehl's grandfather, as they were all eugenicists XNUMX years ago, including the Russians, the Germans and the Americans.

I would like to point out, first of all, that the ignorance mentioned in the title does not have the connotation of insult. I am referring only to the lack of knowledge, which leads both to scientific denialism, so dear to conservative thought, and to the positivist mechanism that claims victims within the thought that claims to be “left-wing”. In this sense, I would like to immediately point out my ignorance about several areas of knowledge, because I learned in my childhood that no one knows everything and that there is always room to learn something.

“Knowledge takes up no space,” my mother encouraged me. But I also do not speak out on topics of which I am ignorant. In this article, which deals with the ongoing episode affecting psychoanalyst Maria Rita Kehl, I will address the eugenics argument, thrown like a grenade at the author’s head. In addition to being abject, the argument is the product of colossal stupidity, since it originates from an elementary error, as I seek to demonstrate in this article.

To understand

In the article entitled Place of 'shut up'!, published on 10/8/2020, on the website the earth is round, Maria Rita Kehl stated that the identity movement is a “narcissistic niche”, as its activists assume that only they can speak about issues related to it. In the article, the author recognizes the relevance of these movements and the identity politics derived from these struggles, which she describes as “essential resources for imposing respect, demanding reparations for all crimes of racism, as well as fighting (still!) for equal rights”, stating that she abhors “all forms of discrimination based on skin color, country of origin, religious faith or differences in cultural practices”.

She asks: “What would become of democracy if each of us were only allowed to express ourselves on issues concerning our personal experience? What would become of public debate?”

For Maria Rita Kehl, according to some aspects of the identity movement, the place of speech would hold a kind of monopoly on speaking about identity issues, leaving those who speak from another place to not speak, but to remain silent. In other words, for those who do not have a place to speak due to their identity insertion, the “place of silence” corresponds to a prohibition of voice, resulting in what has been called “cancellation” on social networks and in instances of debates on problems and issues related to these social segments.

In the aforementioned article, Maria Rita Kehl makes considerations about the debate between sectors of the Unified Black Movement (MNU) and Lilian Schwarcz regarding the film Black is king, starring singer Beyoncé, which locates the Shakespearean story of Hamlet somewhere on the African continent. Lilian Schwarcz, historian and anthropologist, elected in March 2024 as immortal by the Brazilian Academy of Letters, recognized as one of the main historians of the Brazilian black movement, published article in the newspaper FSP recognizing the qualities of the production, but stating that the film “mistakes to glamorize blackness with leopard print” and resort to images that are “so stereotypical” and create “a caricatured Africa lost in the time of isolated savannas”.

Claiming that there was an error brought down on Lilian Schwarcz a rain of criticism questioning her place of speech. “Canceled” on social media, Schwarcz posted: “I greatly respect Beyoncé’s work. I ask that you read the entire text, which is much more complimentary than critical. Every text can have many readings. I apologize, however, to those I offended. It was not my intention. I greatly respect dialogue and learn from it. Thank you.”

Djamila Ribeiro, black feminist, writer, master in Political Philosophy and columnist for the newspaper FSP, published criticism of the article by Lilian Schwarcz, who would have spoken about Beyoncé's film “from a place that sounds arrogant”, for using expressions like “the pop diva needs to understand that the anti-racist struggle” or “maybe it's time for Beyoncé to get out of her dining room for a while”.

In short, Djamila Ribeiro questions the place of speech of a white woman telling a black artist that she “needs to understand” something, or that she should “leave” somewhere, in this case “her dining room”, because “from her social place, Lilia was unable to see these experiences that are central to the lives of black women”.

In his article on the website the earth is round, Maria Rita Kehl questioned the claim that a place of speech can prevent someone from seeing and understanding something. She said she believes that “the word, when used to argue and invite others to think and debate with us, is the best resource for resolving, or at least dialectizing, ideas and values ​​located at apparently opposite poles of the vast field of public opinion.”

Refusing to remain silent on issues of public interest and claiming the right to speak for anyone who cares about such issues, Maria Rita Kehl engages in dialogue with Djamila Ribeiro, acknowledging their different backgrounds and personal experiences, arguing that “if I were tortured, I imagine you [referring to Djamila] would care [about the fact that I was tortured], regardless of the color of my skin. The same goes for me and you.” For this reason, Maria Rita Kehl justified her statement about the Beyoncé episode by emphasizing that we can all “participate, without asking anyone’s permission, in all the debates that interest us.”

We can speak out about problems and issues that are not part of our daily lives. They are issues for 'others'. But they are important to us. We want to speak out. If speech is not free, what else is? But, of course: I abhor speech that leads to virtual lynchings.”

By now, much has been said about the silencing that has been attempted to impose on the psychoanalyst since her article was published five years ago. Incidentally, it should be noted that the author did not write as, let's say, a psychoanalyst, but as a shrewd analyst of Brazilian life for several decades, having become known for her clear stance in defense of democracy and against the civil-military dictatorship installed by the 1964 coup. Certainly, with this trajectory, she was among those who opposed the 2016 coup and the misgovernment of Jair Bolsonaro from the very beginning. I will not go into detail about her biography, since it has been summarized in several articles, always emphasizing her pro-human rights and radically democratic political activism.

Historical anachronism

To the central point, therefore, of this article: the argument about eugenics.

In an article dated 12/2/2025, anthropologist Rodrigo Toniol (from UFRJ and member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences) commented on the “virtual lynching” that affected Maria Rita Kehl, after criticism of what he called the 'identity movement', pointing out that the reaction to “a speech included an argument that recalls the worst crimes of humanity: the idea that she should remain silent because of a 'moral inheritance' transmitted genetically”.

The accusers, he wrote, “referred to the fact that Maria Rita Kehl’s grandfather had been a eugenicist in the early 20th century, thus suggesting that she had inherited his ‘moral palette’ through her genes.” He stated that “the attacks took over social media profiles and even encouraged people to edit Maria Rita Kehl’s biography on Wikipedia, underlining its 'hereditary degeneracy' – to use a term dear to eugenic theories” pointed out that “history shows us that, when biology and moral judgment come together in the same argument, the serpent's egg has already hatched”.

This argument, that she is the granddaughter of “a eugenicist”, from whom she inherited her “moral palette”, through “genetic inheritance” used to disqualify, virtually lynch and cancel Maria Rita Kehl on social media, is the result of ignorance. I will return to this.

First, however, I want to talk about the concept of “anachronism,” as used in the daily lives of historians, but often disregarded by people who seem to be unaware of the dimension of time in history.

“Approaching the past in light of present problems and current theoretical references is inevitable”, and it is therefore necessary to make “rational use of anachronism”, he proposes Dossier, cited by Monteiro. Anachronism basically consists of analyzing the past with the knowledge of the present. The “rational use” of this possibility therefore implies incorporating “the recognition of the question of the present in the production of historiographical knowledge, but, at the same time, recognizing the necessary epistemological vigilance to avoid simplifications and distortions based on a superficial reading of the sources”.

It is in this 'superficial reading of the sources' that lies the core of the error of Maria Rita Kehl's critics, in the problem of eugenics, of her “hereditary degeneration”, whose “moral palette” would have been genetically inherited from “a eugenicist”, her grandfather.

It should be noted that the author herself says in the article that she has German ancestry and that she inherited her surname from her grandfather who “was very affectionate with me in childhood, but was anti-Semitic for eugenic reasons” and that as a teenager she understood that “he defended her”, because he believed “in the supremacy of the 'good race'. What a despicable concept, to say the least. It is fairer to say: what a criminal concept. None of his six grandchildren share those ideas. And I argue that none of us should be silenced in a debate about 'race' because of our ancestry and our grandfather”.

Historical anachronism often produces victims.

In Friedrich Engels' well-known 1876 essay entitled “The role of work in the transformation of ape into man”, there are several “errors” in light of what we know today about genetic inheritance. Some critics of Marx's partner still criticize him today for implicitly accepting the thesis defended by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) that the evolution of species occurred through evolutionary change, according to the use of certain body parts. The giraffe's neck would be the way it is for environmental reasons: by raising it so much in search of leaves high up in the trees, the characteristic would be passed on to the next generations until it became part of the species.

This pattern of heredity, known as “soft heredity,” was paradigmatic in the 19th century. Thus, criticizing Friedrich Engels with the knowledge that genetics provides us today, without contextualizing the English thinker, is a basic error of historical anachronism.

At the beginning of the 1822th century, a paradigm shift revolutionized biology. It became clear that characteristics acquired by animals (and plants) during their lifetimes were not passed on to their descendants. This paradigm shift originated in studies on peas carried out by Gregor Mendel (1884-1860) in the mid-1900th century. Although published in the XNUMXs in a little-read journal, Mendel's studies were only recognized and valued in XNUMX, when three scientists republished his texts and alerted the scientific world to the significance of Mendel's discoveries.

Together with an important discovery by August Weismann (1834-1914) about cell division and the process of meiosis, describing how chromosomes divide and transmit genes, Mendel created the basis of what would become “genetics” – a term that was only coined in 1908 by William Bateson (1861-1926). In the first half of the XNUMXth century, genetics excited biologists around the world, with the recognition of the strategic role of the “gene”, located in chromosomes, in the mechanisms of heredity. The paradigm of heredity ceased to be “soft heredity”, giving way to mutation. People then began to speak of “genetic inheritance”.

Eugenia

The paradigm shift from “soft heredity” to “genetic inheritance” had a huge impact on studies on heredity. It was no longer enough to adopt better nutritional patterns and practice physical activities, with the expectation of thereby obtaining better offspring. This would, from then on, involve mutations and selection of mutants better adapted to the environment, according to the theory of evolution.

But before the paradigmatic change and the consolidation of genetics, Francis Galton (1822-1911), based on the theory of evolution of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), and on observations on artificial selection in animals and plants, disseminated in several countries, created in 1883 the concept of “eugenia".

For Francis Galton, eugenics corresponded to the improvement of a given species through artificial selection, without waiting for nature to do the long work of providing natural selection for those best adapted to environmental changes. “What nature does blindly, slowly and mercilessly, man can do with care, speed and affection”, said. His thesis, published in 1869 in the book Hereditary Genius was basically that a remarkable man would have remarkable children, believing that the human “race” could be improved if “undesirable crossbreeding” were avoided. The basis of this thinking was the experience practiced for centuries in rural areas, with the improvement of animals and plants.

The concept of “undesirable crossbreeding” encompasses a huge range of biological conditions, both pathological and those related to health, which should not necessarily be confused with the facts, after the period in which Francis Galton lived, about the use of the concept of eugenics for political purposes.

For Francis Galton, eugenics was therefore the control of natural selection, replacing it with artificial selection, which would have two alternatives: positive eugenics and negative eugenics; the positive one stimulating the procreation of superior beings and the second one preventing the reproduction of beings considered inferior. The concept of degeneration is associated with the idea of ​​negative eugenics.

Evidently, the paradigmatic revolution on heredity, with the advent of genetics, requires the “rational use of anachronism” to avoid “simplifications and distortions based on superficial reading of sources”.

In the case of the concept of “eugenics”, this procedure for controlling historical anachronism is essential.

Returning to Maria Rita Kehl's grandfather: yes, he was a eugenicist in the early 20th century. But, in that historical period, “everyone” was a eugenicist. (Not everyone: only people who enjoyed the privilege of access to formal education and culture. Educated men were eugenicists.) Hence the statement that “everyone” was a eugenicist. But, be careful: everyone was a eugenicist in the style of Francis Galton, unaware of genetics and because eugenics was the paradigm of “biology” until the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, a historical period in which “biology” was an incipient scientific discipline, “microbiology” was taking its first steps and Mendelian genetics practically did not exist, as it was not known to everyone.

However, many people rightly see Francis Galton's concept of eugenics as an important influence on what Nazis and fascists would do with the concept years later, although the topic is controversial, since the Bolsheviks who led the Russian Revolution were also eugenicists. Lenin, who was a learned man, and his Minister of Education and Science, Anatoly Lunacharsky (1875-1933), were eugenicists.

For this reason, it can be stated that it is a mistake, a product of historical anachronism, to suppose that Hitler (and Nazism) were the “creators of eugenics” and, even worse, to suppose that eugenicists are, because they are eugenicists, Nazis or fascists – or communists.

In the United States of America (USA), a film entitled A Black Stork, starring physician Harry Haiselden, in which infanticide was proposed as a negative eugenics practice to “save Americans from hereditary defects”. For Charles Davenport, considered the “father of the eugenics movement” in the USA, “if man could be made to fall in love intelligently, if human procreation could be made like that of horses, the greatest progressive revolution in history could be achieved”. In 1907, the USA passed the first law on compulsory sterilization, based on eugenics theses, which led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of people.

In 1922, Sweden created an institute of racial biology in Uppsala, under the direction of Herman Lundborg, based on eugenics theories. Twelve years later, it unanimously approved a law similar to that of the United States and integrated racial hygiene, considered essential “for the well-being of modern society,” into its social policy. Individuals who presented traits considered inferior were to be prohibited from procreating. There was no compulsion, but intense persuasion work was required.

Similar institutes were created in Germany and other European countries. In 1927, Berlin hosted the 5th International Conference on Heredity Research. The largest delegation to the event, which paid tribute to Gregor Mendel, was from the Soviet Union, led by Nicolai Vavilov. From then on, according to the consensus of scientists, genetics, and no longer “soft heredity,” should be the basis of eugenics. But that was not the case, as we shall see.

At the event, Hermann Joseph Muller, an American, announced an important discovery in genetics: chromosomes subjected to X-ray radiation undergo mutations. And questions began to be raised about the effectiveness of eugenics and artificial selection. Another American, Raymond Pearl, argued that there was no evidence whatsoever for the effectiveness of eugenics, since around 90% of “superior” individuals descended from parents with “average” or even “inferior” abilities. Therefore, sterilization could be completely ineffective in achieving what it was intended to achieve.

A year later, in 1928, the film The Salamander was released in Moscow. It is an attack on Mendelism and the concept of mutation as the basis of heredity, reaffirming “soft heredity” and the role of the environment in the evolution of species. The film expresses the prevailing view at the top of Soviet power, Lamarckist and reactionary to the thesis that external factors are not determinants of genetic constitution. For the Soviet power, under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, acquired characteristics are heritable.

Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976), a Ukrainian biologist and agronomist, a strong advocate of “soft heredity”, led the rejection of Mendelian genetics in the Soviet Union, with support from the top government, having influenced Soviet scientific policy and education until 1948. In 1940, he took over as director of the Institute of Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

History records that Soviet researchers who refused to renounce the Mendelian genetics paradigm while maintaining their scientific convictions were removed from their posts. It is estimated that hundreds were dismissed and imprisoned. Several were sentenced to death as enemies of the state, including botanist Nikolai Vavilov, who had led the Soviet delegation to the Berlin Conference.

Ignorance is not a monopoly of the right

Eugenics theories have much to do with the ideals of a perfect society, with perfect human beings, and with the analogy that, like a human body, societies function as a biological system. Society would be a “social body”. These illusions about biology and society led to disasters such as the Holocaust, and to the physical elimination of political dissidents, seen as cancers and beings extirpated from the “social body”.

Tragedies, the memory of which must not be lost.

But genetics completely disproves the belief, still widespread in many social segments, that convictions about eugenics are passed on to descendants as an inheritance or that they shape someone's “moral palette.” Contemporary genetics categorically rejects this possibility.

For this reason, the argument launched against Maria Rita Kehl is sordid and abject: that she is the granddaughter of “a eugenicist”, from whom she inherited her “moral palette” through “genetic inheritance”. “We” are “all” grandchildren of eugenicists, because eugenics was the scientific paradigm of biology when our grandparents lived. At the end of the 19th century, practically everyone was a eugenicist and hygienist, to the right or left of the political spectrum, as this was the predominant conception in that historical period. This anachronism, as a historical displacement, that some people make, is just ignorance about the history of science.

All the grandparents of those born in the 100th century were eugenicists, including the grandparents of the accusers of Maria Rita Kehl's grandfather, as they were all eugenicists XNUMX years ago, including Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, the Germans and the Americans.

Yesterday, 14/2/2025, we lost Carlos Diegues. In an interview in 1978 with the newspaper The State of S. Paul, Diegues coined the expression “ideological patrols”, to refer to organized groups that coordinated the publication of systematic criticisms, in various communication channels, of cultural productions that did not seem appropriate to their political-ideological orientations.

He was reacting to comments about his film xica da Silva, but also to the bans (“cancellations”, we would say today) imposed on Nara Leão for having recorded songs by composers who were not committed to what, at the time, was recognized as bossa nova or MPB. The expression quickly became popular, in the historical context in which Brazil was living under a civil-military dictatorship. It should be noted that the “ideological patrollers” to whom Diegues referred were, in general, professionals in the areas they criticized (music and cinema, basically, but also other sectors of cultural production) and, almost always, they made well-qualified criticisms, with arguments that were based on knowledge of these areas.

In the case of criticism of Maria Rita Kehl, it cannot even be said that it is ideological patrolling, since the content that is sought to be presented as “critical” is more like an incompetent attempt at slander than patrolling.

*Paulo Capel Narvai is senior professor of Public Health at USP. Author, among other books, of SUS: a revolutionary reform (authentic). [https://amzn.to/46jNCjR

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE