Episode 26: Solidarity Chat 5: Ayah Nuriddin

00:00:09 INTRO: [Various overlapping voices] Contra* is friction. Contra* is nuanced. Contra* is transgressive—good trouble. Contra* is questions. Contra* is collaborative. Contra* is a podcast. It’s a space for thinking about design critically. Contra* is subversive. Contra* is texture.

00:00:32 Contra*: You are listening to Solidarity Chats: a special section of the Contra* podcast on disability, design justice, and the life world. These episodes, recorded during the COVID-19 pandemic, focus on disability, eugenics, and mutual aid. We’re hoping to capture some of the conversations that disabled people, and our allies, are having about issues such as healthcare infrastructure, medical triage, eugenics, and technology as it is unevenly distributed across the population. These episodes are also going to come out at a different rate than the regular Contra* episodes, so please make sure to subscribe on Google, Apple, or Stitcher so that you don’t miss any.

00:01:29 Aimi: This is Aimi Hamraie and I am so excited to be here with Ayah Nuriddin, who is PhD candidate in the Department of the History of Medicine and graduate fellow in the Center for Medical Humanities and Social Medicine at Johns Hopkins University. In the 2018/2019 academic year she was a dissertation fellow at the Consortium for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine. She also holds a Masters in History and a Masters of Library Science from the University of Maryland, College Park. Her dissertation entitled ‘Liberation Eugenics: African-Americans and the Science of Black Freedom Struggles, 1890-1970’ analyses African-American engagement with eugenics, hereditarian thought and racial science as part of her broader strategy of racial improvement and Black liberation. Her research interests also include the histories of scientific racism, public health, psychiatry and disability. Her work has been published in the Journal for The History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Nursing Clio and Somatosphere, and she has appeared on the Disability History Association podcast and American History TV on C-SPAN. Welcome to the podcast.

00:02:43 Ayah: Thanks for having me. I’m really excited to be here.

00:02:46 Aimi: Yeah, I’m so excited to talk to you. I—so, I found out about your work through a colleague, Jai Virdi, who is also a historian of medicine and shared a piece that you had written about eugenics and anti-blackness in this moment of Coronavirus. So, do you want to summarize your position and some of your research for our audience?

00:03:07 Ayah: Sure. So basically, my research is trying to look at the ways that Black people have historically sought to mobilize racial science and eugenics to push back against scientific racism. And though that seems paradoxical, there’s a lot of ways in which the people that I look at believe that there is a correct and scientific way to study race and the sort of biological components of race—or what they understood to be the biological components of race. And by studying those, they argue that they could actually biologically improve the race, as part of a broader sort of multifaceted approach to addressing different forms of racial discrimination and structural inequality. And so there’s these really interesting moments where people are, you know, sort of arguing that there is a right and wrong way to do eugenics, and that there’s these sort of forms of eugenics that are actually useful to Black people. And even though ultimately it does not actually play out in the ways that they hoped or anticipated, it’s still useful for thinking about the different forms and variations and ways that people sort of interpret and re-interpret what eugenics can and can’t be in the twentieth century.

00:04:25 Aimi: Yeah, that’s so interesting and it’s—I am curious about that difference between kind of the intentions and the, you know, outcomes of that process. How—how do you see some of that manifesting in our present discourse?

00:04:45 Ayah: One of the things that’s sort of present, especially around issues of Coronavirus in this moment, is the ways that eugenic thinking is still very deeply embedded in the ways that we think about race,  the ways that we think about difference, the ways that we think about vulnerability, and the ways that we think about who can and cannot benefit from participation in American society. Eugenics seems to be almost like the underpinning of the ways that different groups are prioritized or not prioritized, and whose wellbeing is often on the line in moments of epidemics and in crisis. So, this is really a moment in which eugenic logics are sort of exposed in ways that, for a lot of people, they are not usually visible.

00:05:34 Aimi: Yeah, for sure. Are there specific examples that you can think of, that might be familiar to some folks in the audience, for how these eugenic logics are being exposed now?

00:05:47 Ayah: I think particularly a lot about the ways in which people with disabilities are sort of being framed in this moment. I keep seeing stories, for example, of people with lupus who are unable to get Hydroxychloroquine because now it’s being touted as this miracle drug. I have seen stories of people who—or even just rhetoric of people being—needing to be sacrificed, or the sort of narratives of particular bodies as expendable, that are very much rooted, I think, in this eugenic logic. One case that I saw on Twitter last week was a woman who was talking about—I believe it was her mother, who had received a double lung transplant in—a double lung transplant in the past for cystic fibrosis, but was otherwise healthy, being preemptively asked for her doctor to sign a ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ order; just in case she were to get Coronavirus that they would preemptively not use, you know, ventilators or other kinds of technology to save her life. And the fact that people with disabilities are being treated as expendable, or being asked to sacrifice themselves on the altar of capitalism, is certainly a very eugenic way of thinking about the value of human life.

00:07:06 Aimi: Yeah, it’s so—it’s so shocking the way that in the example that you gave, the, quote unquote, ‘sacrifice‘ was also pre-determined or almost, like, scheduled, so it’s related to these ideas of the inevitability of disability as, like, being death, or as being some sort of disqualification that, you know, is just taken for granted as fine to slate for elimination. And it reminds me of a lot of the historic—like, the way that eugenics historically has reached in two fields like agriculture and forestry and, you know, these types of practices where ‘culling the herd’, quote unquote, is understood as like a necessary or inevitable process for maintaining the health of a population. And we are seeing such explicit references to that now; they are not even, you know, hidden or implied in policies and things like that, it’s literally like, “Well, you know, you are probably not going to survive this, so you may as well just sign over your technology and your resources now.” 00:08:18 And the other thing that you said, that I think is really important to remember, is that it is literally asking people to sacrifice their lives to capitalism. Because the problem is not that, like, all of these people are just inevitably going to die, it’s that there are adverse health outcomes for people who don’t have access to life-saving treatment and technology, right? And this is something that disability activists and advocates always talk about. It’s that, like, you know, disability itself is not a death sentence, it’s an inaccessible society or a non-supportive society that makes disability a problem. So I wonder, can you give us a little bit of historical insight into how these—like, what specific things have eugenicists been cultivating over the last hundred and fifty, two hundred years that are manifesting in these present day normalizations of, like, ‘culling the herd’ in the name of capitalism?

00:09:21 Ayah: So, some examples that I think of a lot are the ways that—who has historically been vulnerable or exploited in these kinds of moments of crisis. So, eugenicists in the twentieth century are particularly worried about questions of what they were calling, like, ‘race suicide’ or ‘racial degeneration’, where they think that the presence of what they would term as people who were ‘eugenically unfit’ is sort of going to have this collective destruction for other people. So the—the very existence of people with disabilities and racial minorities and people with chronic illness represented a threat to the sort of the collective wellbeing of a sort of—of a sort of eugenic society. And so, all of the eugenic measures we see in the twentieth century: things like the eugenic marriage laws; things like compulsory sterilization laws, which are disproportionally obviously targeted towards people with disabilities and Black people as well; the sort of long histories of long-term institutionalization of people with a variety of disabilities; are all ways that eugenicists saw as essential to sort of maintaining the sort of collective fitness of a—of a population. 00:10:42 And so, the ways that those translate now—I mean we even still see the legacies of reproductive control, right? Where the sort of reproduction is still very much, like, legislated, the sort of allocation of resources. I recently saw something about Alabama—I think it was Alabama—had decided that people who had sort of mental or intellectual disabilities would not be prioritized for access to ventilators should they get COVID-19, right? The fact that people with disabilities are much more likely to experience other kinds of structural inequality, right? 00:11:21 And especially with the sort of intersectional identities. All of these are hold-overs from what I would describe as the heyday of the eugenics movement. And even though the movement doesn’t exist in the way that it did in the first half of the twentieth century, in a lot of ways policy makers, legislators, people, you know, in power, are still asking and thinking in the same frameworks that those eugenicists were using, you know, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty years ago, right? And so even though sometimes the practices and the tools that people are sort of mobilizing in our current moment, are somewhat different from what we see in the early twentieth century, the logics and the continuities are playing out in a lot of the same ways, because the same people continue to be vulnerable, and the same people continue to be treated as expendable.

00:12:16 Aimi: Yeah, these—both the logic of expendability and who is made vulnerable is—it’s been so shocking to see in this moment how many of the categories of people that are deprioritized in triage situations, were the same categories that eugenicists were obsessed with studying like in the nineteenth century. Like, BMI is one of the categories, Body Mass Index, and some of the foundational studies of eugenics were about body size and body mass and kind of creating categories of like, you know, different types of humans and who is fit for, you know, military service and who is, quote unquote, ‘useless eater’, like all of these sorts of categories. And of course, there is a disproportionate and racialized impact because of the legacy of eugenics in racial science, as you pointed out earlier. 00:13:12 But also, the ways that like—I feel like all of these contemporary eugenicists’ practices are racist without people really understanding why they are racist, because they don’t often seem explicitly so. Like, it’s not any longer, or—I mean it still is in some places, but it’s not—the emphasis is not on like, sterilization according to race and reproduction. It’s on not addressing health disparities, or not recognizing systematic structural determinants of health, and things like that. So I wonder if you could talk a little bit about that, in terms of, like, who now we know is disproportionately dying from COVID-19, and then also the broader structures that are making that the case.

00:14:06 Ayah: So, what I have seen of the—of different states reporting their racial data of mortality from COVID-19, it seems to be disproportionately Black people. And I think one of the ways that the sort of eugenic logic reveals itself is that if this—if this disease was disproportionately killing billionaires, or if it was disproportionately killing other folks in power, the response would look really, really different. But because it’s disproportionately affecting Black people, not only just because of the nature of the virulence of the disease, right? We’ve already seen the death rate has, you know, been tremendous in a lot of ways. But the fact that it’s exacerbated by the fact that a lot of folks who are considered essential workers in this moment, right? That work in grocery stores, that work for the postal service, that work in—or have to use public transportation, right? That because they are unable to also, sort of—because of existing structural inequality, unable to do things like actually shelter in place and stay at home. 00:15:07 And if we think about also, like, populations who are experiencing homelessness or folks who are incarcerated in prisons, in ICE facilities, et cetera, right? These are the groups that are disproportionately being affected. And because it’s those groups, the response has not been—has not had the same kind of urgency that it would have if other people were affected, right? Because these are populations that, sort of, power structures in our society tell us don’t matter, and then people respond in turn, right? And it also illustrates, not only the sort of ways that eugenics operates in, the ways that the State is responding, but also in the ways that regular people—sort of average, you know, people, are sort of even talking about what the response can and can’t look like, right? The fact that you—like you were saying, where folks are making this agreement, “Well it’s ‘culling the herd’,” or, thinking  about certain people being, quote unquote, a ‘burden on the system’, or a ‘strain on the system’. 00:16:11 Or even, I have seen the ways that the survival of the fittest is invoked, and it’s invoked not actually in its quite accurate context, it’s sort of in this—in this way that—in the ways that people sort of misinterpret… and sort of misunderstand what the survival of the fittest is. And so, there’s a lot of different ways that this is—is playing out, but just even regular folks are using this language. Especially when we think about things in terms of sort of individual freedom versus a collective good, where people will say, “Well, I want to do what I want to do, I’m not going to be affected by this, even though staying at home is recommended you know, for the sort of collective wellbeing of lots of groups of people especially those who are, you know, high risk.” People sort of making the argument, “Well I am going to do what I want, and you are negatively affected by my actions well then, you know, sort of, good riddance, right?” And that’s the sort of way that sort of individual flavor form of eugenics plays out as well. So there’s lots of these different places and sort of nodes of what eugenic thinking looks like, and in the ways that it overlaps with some of language and rhetoric that comes out of the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century.

00:17:32 Aimi: Can you—can we go back to survival of the fittest? This is really interesting. So how are—

00:17:37 Ayah: Sure.

00:17:37 Aimi: —people using that concept, and how is the way that it’s being deployed different than some historical ways of thinking about survival of the fittest?

00:17:51 Ayah: So, I think the way that I sort of understand it, people are using survival of the fittest to basically label themselves as superior in this moment where—or use it as a way to justify their own personal actions. “Well, I am going to do what I want, and since I am this fit person as I think of myself, I will be unaffected by the consequences of these—of these actions.” Whereas I think the origin of the concept is more to think about the sort of—when we are thinking about like evolution and struggles sort of more in the animal realm, until we think about like food chains and predators and things like that. And less so just about the sort of individual human capacity in—that’s often the way that it’s used, right? That, “I am fit and so therefore I will survive and whether or not anybody else does is, you know, sort of inconsequential,” and that’s not quite the framework that it was originally theorized in. It certainly overlaps, but it’s not… it’s not as neat and tidy as I think a lot of folks would like think it is.

00:19:07 Aimi: Yeah that’s so interesting, I actually had not thought about it that way. That, like, in Darwin’s kind of original conceptualization, it would have been more of like an ecosystem—like systems-based way of thinking about it. And that may in some ways inform, like, how we could advocate for systematic and structural changes, and paying attention of vulnerability and thinking of capitalism as a predator, possibly. [laughs]

00:19:42 Ayah: I think that’s something that we need to write about, right?

00:19:44 Aimi: Oh yeah, totally. That—like capitalism is what is preying on people and killing people right now, right? And—and nevertheless, is taken as the natural, like, soup that everything else is kind of floating around in, right? That’s it’s just like not even there. Great. Well, so what are some alternatives to eugenic thought and action in this moment? And are there any projects or causes or organizations that you are driving inspiration from right now?

00:20:28 Ayah: Well, I think if we were to—I like thinking about—imagining what our world would look like if the sort of political, or, you know, systems of power were actually designed to protect people, right? Instead of being designed to generate profit and extract labor. So I think,—I was talking about this on a virtual round table I did on eugenics just last week, and one of the things we were thinking about is, “Can you have—can you have politics or a political system that isn’t inherently eugenic?” And what I would say to a question like that is, “I think you can have—you can have politics that aren’t eugenic, but it’s hard to have eugenics that isn’t political.” Right? And so, I like to think about what would the United States as a country look like if our sort of founding principles that kind of govern the way of how we function were designed with the protection of Black people, of the protection of people with disabilities, of the incarcerated, of immigrants. 00:21:36 If those were baked into the founding principles of this country, then what—how would things look really different right now? And it’s obviously very speculative because this was not the case, but it’s an interesting way to think about what would it mean if things were not built on racial hierarchy, or they weren’t built on sexism and homophobia and ableism and all of these things? And that people could actually sort of live full and actualized lives without, you know, the exploitation of capitalism. But… I dream. I think things that are giving me inspiration right now are a lot of the mutual aid networks I am seeing. I am currently in Baltimore, and there’s a fairly robust mutual aid network that’s happening here and they are doing incredible work, filling the gaps that are basically created by the State and that have left people extremely vulnerable in—in this pandemic. 00:22:40 We just got racial data out about COVID-19 deaths in Maryland, and it’s like other states, disproportionately Black people. And there’s a lot of these mutual aid groups that are doing incredible work here. I would also encourage folks, if you have access to—or if you have the ability to donate to a food bank, absolutely do that; the banks are doing incredible work right now. If there’s a mutual aid network in your area, give them whatever you can give them; give them money, time, support, whatever you can do. A lot of the folks that have also inspired the ways that I am thinking about what eugenics looks like in these moment, are some of the folks that I did this virtual round table with last week, William Horne at Villanova and Kathleen Brian at Western Washington University. 00:23:26 I am also really indebted to a lot of folks in the Disability Justice activism community, who have really taught me a lot about how I think about the work that people in my research are doing, so Talila Lewis and Lydia Brown and Imani Barbarin. Groups like Not Dead Yet have really profoundly shaped the ways that I think about what—like the violence that ableism does, and the ways that it’s also inflected with eugenics. And so I am really indebted to the work that all of them are doing to help me think about not only just the ways eugenics looks in my historical research, but the ways it sort of exists currently in the world, and all of its sort of heinous renditions. And it’s just been… it’s been really interesting in this moment to see the… the networks that have been forming, right? The kinds of networks and solidarities that are really illustrating like what—again what I was saying before, about like what our society would look like if it—if caring for the vulnerable was its first priority. 00:24:36 And I am just seeing just amazing things unfold in not only in the city that I live in, but also, just, the kinds of conversations that—and discourses that I am seeing on social media. What I think, though—the issue there can be, is that I think people see a lot of these really beautiful networks and solidarities and charities doing incredible work, and they think that that’s enough. When really this is the responsibility of the State to do this work, right? And people are filling the gap because capitalism has made the State uninterested in fulfilling that goal. But it’s still—it’s still extremely incredible to see the ways that people are coming together in this moment, in spite of everything that’s going on.

00:25:24 Aimi: Thank you so much for those beautiful observations about solidarity and also about responsibility and not ceding all of our agency to the state, but also demanding that it fulfil its obligations. And it seems like eugenics is an area where we can continue to also put pressure on the State to try to produce some form of accountability because so many of these actions are State-sponsored. They are maybe in part generated by health capitalism and, you know, health care, like insurance companies and stuff, but it’s ultimately the State that is codifying them. And so, that gives us so much to think about. Any final thoughts about anything?

00:26:10 Ayah: I would just say that this has been a treat to have this conversation on here with you today. And just also, like, I guess maybe a call to folks to maybe pay, you know, pay attention when you see the language of expendability and sacrifice, and the sort of framing of how lives are valued, and which—and which people’s wellbeing is prioritized and recognizing that that is a sort of modern iteration of eugenics. And there’s certainly may ways and many forms that have, you know, unfolded across the twentieth century, but the sort of—what we are seeing right now is yet another form that’s deeply infused with—with capitalism. And so just be aware of that kind of language when you see it, when you see those kinds of logics playing out. Because that’s exactly the kind of thing that is doing irreparable harm to—to very vulnerable groups of people right now.

00:27:15 Aimi: Excellent. Thank you so much, Ayah. This is really wonderful. I enjoyed talking to you and I’ll definitely include links to your piece and other things that we discussed in the show notes.

00:27:31 Ayah: Thanks for having me. This was great.

00:26:03 OUTRO: You’ve been listening to Contra*, a podcast about disability, design justice and the life world. Contra* is a production of the Critical Design Lab, learn more about our projects at mapping-access.com, and be sure to follow us on Twitter and Instagram. If you’ve enjoyed this episode, please head over to Apple podcasts to subscribe, rate and leave a review. The Contra* podcast is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike-International 3.0 license. That means you can remix, repost or recycle any of the content, as long as you cite the original source, aren’t making money, you don’t change the credits, and you share it under the same license.