“A Rational Coalition”: Euthanasia, Eugenics, and Birth Control in America, 1940–1970

Journal of Policy History

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 223-260

  Dowbiggin, Ian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013717095     PISSN: 08980306     EISSN: 15284190     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/jph.2002.0017     Document Type: Article

References (154)

1. “Euthanasia: An Important Social Measure,” 16 January 1940 address to the Euthanasia Society of America, Partnership for Caring Records, Lewis Associates, Baltimore, Maryland, Box C-4 (hereafter cited as PFC). My emphasis.
2. For Van Dusen's comments of 23 November 1968, at the First Euthanasia Conference of the Euthanasia Educational Fund, see The Right to Die with Dignity (New York: Euthanasia Educational Fund, Inc. 1971). In 1975, Van Dusen and his wife, she suffering from debilitating arthritis and he from the effects of a severe stroke, committed joint suicide. In the words of one commentator, they felt there was little dignity left in their lives and “didn’t like the idea of taking up space in a world with too many mouths and too little food.” This comment indicates that justifications for euthanasia did not just derive from eugenic sources but were also advanced for population control reasons. “Suicide Pact Preceded Deaths of Dr. Van Dusen and his Wife,” New York Times, 26 February 1975, 1; “The Right to Die,” Saturday Review, 14 June 1975, 4.
3. For an incisive account of how population control issues shaped the abortion and family planning movements, see Donald T. Critchlow, Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America (New York, 1999).
4. “Eugenics” is the term coined in 1883 by Francis Galton (1822-1911), For the “protean” things eugenics has meant to different people over time, see Diane B. Paul, Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present (Atlantic Highlands, N.J. 1995), 2.
5. See also Troy Duster, Backdoor to Eugenics (London: Routledge, 1990).
6. The version of eugenics that appealed to Americans after World War II and was most relevant to the people discussed in this article is best defined as “reform eugenics,” the term Daniel Kevles has coined to describe the approach toward reproduction and genetics favored by individuals who rejected the obvious race and class prejudices of prior generations of eugenicists. Reform eugenicists were inclined to replace the older, rigid hereditarianism that had marked the early eugenics movement with theories that also emphasized the influence of environment over the health of future generations. Common to both “mainline” and “reform” eugenicists, however, was a deep faith in the need and practicality of social engineering. Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (New York, 1985), 172-73.
7. As for euthanasia, it is a term taken from the Greek word meaning “good death.” Before the twentieth century, it was largely considered to mean letting nature take its course while providing whatever doses of drugs were necessary to make the experience as painless as possible. In the twentieth century, euthanasia has been mainly identified with the notion of mercy killing, yet over the course of the last few decades, as interest has grown in the issue, people increasingly have become aware of the distinctions between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. For a discussion of pre-twentieth-century euthanasia and these distinctions, see Peter G. Filene, In the Arms of Others: A Cultural History of the Right-to-Die (Chicago, 1998), 3-4, 100-101, 191-93. Throughout the period described by this article, euthanasia was understood by both its supporters and opponents as active euthanasia, that is, the hastening of death by a doctor, rather than passive euthanasia, or the removal of treatment that kept someone alive.
8. Nancy Mamis to Robert Kotlowitz, 24 February 1966, PFC, Box C-2. See also “Address by Dr. Joseph Fletcher, Society for the Right to Die Annual Meeting, 9 December 1986,” pFC, Box F-4.
9. For an example of this kind of thinking on the part of American social scientists, see James Jones's biography of the sexologist Alfred Kinsey, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York, 1997), especially 751.
10. This historiographic oversight is all the more curious since there is a considerable literature on the connections between the eugenics and euthanasia movements in Nazi Germany. For the history of German eugenics in particular and Nazi medicine in general, including the Third Reich's euthanasia program, see Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (New York, 1986)
11. Robert N. Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Cambridge, Mass. 1988)
12. Paul Weindling, Health, Race, and German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism (Cambridge, 1989)
13. Michael H. Kater, Doctors Under Hitler (Chapel Hill, 1989)
14. Gotz Aly, Peter Chroust, and Christian Pross, Cleansing the Fatherland: Nazi Medicine and Racial Hygiene, trans. Belinda Cooper (Baltimore, 1994)
15. Michael Burleigh, Death and Deliverance: “Euthanasia” in Germany, 1900— 1945 (Cambridge, 1994)
16. Henry Friedlander, The Origin of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution (Chapel Hill, 1995).
17. For the history of American eugenics, see Mark H. Haller, Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought (New Brunswick, N.J. 1963)
18. Donald K. Pickens, Eugenics and the Progressives (Nashville, 1969)
19. Kenneth M. Ludmerer, Genetics and American Society: A Historical Appraisal (Baltimore, 1972)
20. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics; Barry Alan Mehler, “A History of the American Eugenics Society, 1921-1940” (Ph.D. diss. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1988)
21. Philip R. Reilly, The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States (Baltimore, 1991)
22. Edward J. Larson, Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South (Baltimore, 1995)
23. Marouf A. Hasian, The Rhetoric of Eugenics in Anglo-American Thought (Athens, Ga. 1996)
24. Ian R. Dowbiggin, Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880—1940 (Ithaca, 1997)
25. Nicole H. Rafter, Creating Born Criminals: Biological Theories of Crime and Eugenics (Urbana, 1997).
26. The best treatment of the topic so far is Martin S. Pernick, The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of “Defective” Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures Since 1915 (New York, 1996).
27. See also Stephen Louis Kuepper, “Euthanasia in America, 1890-1960: The Controversy, the Movement, and the Law” (Ph.D. diss. Rutgers University, 1981), 98-127;
28. Valerie Garrett, “The Last Civil Right? Euthanasia Policy and Politics in the United States, 1938-1991” (Ph.D. diss. University of California at Santa Barbara, 1998).
29. An account of how Christians have viewed euthanasia over the centuries, and which also dispels myths spread by current defenders of physician-assisted suicide, is Edward J. Larson and Darrell W. Amundsen, A Different Death: Euthanasia and the Christian Tradition (Downers Grove, Ill. 1998).
30. For the links between American and Nazi advocates of eugenics and euthanasia, see Stefan Kuhl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism (New York, 1994), especially 100-102.
31. For “the close, often uncomfortable relationship” between the eugenics and birth control movements in particular, see Richard A. Soloway, “The ‘Perfect Contraceptive’: Eugenics and Birth Control Research in Britain and America in the Interwar Years,” Journal of Contemporary History 30 (1995): 637-64, at 637.
32. Close ties among the eugenics, euthanasia, and birth control movements were not limited to the United States. See Ian Dowbiggin, “‘A Prey on Normal People’: C. Killick Millard and the Euthanasia Movement in Great Britain, 1930-1955,” Journal of Contemporary History 36 (2001): 59–85.
33. John T. McGreevy, “Thinking on One's Own: Catholicism in the American Intellectual Imagination, 1928-1960,” Journal of American History 84 (1997): 97-131, at 98.
34. This article also confirms Donald Critchlow's thesis that “the ability of groups, whether a small collection of powerful individuals or democratically mobilized interests, to affect public policy remains dependent on the larger culture” (Critchlow, Intended Consequences, 9). Among population control liberals, “family planning became an ideology in itself,” writes Critchlow (18). For a similar characterization of twentieth-century liberalism, see Paul Edward Gottfried, After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State (Princeton, 1999).
35. Of course, the appeal of post-World War II eugenics in America was not limited to liberal, progressive circles. See Andrew S. Winston, “Science in the Service of the Far Right: Henry E. Garrett, the IAAEE, and the Liberty Lobby,” Journal of Social Issues 54 (1998): 179-210.
36. Now called EngenderHealth, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and dedicated to promoting surgical contraceptive practices especially in overpopulated countries, it was largely responsible for making tubal ligation the most popular form of contra- ’ception among contemporary American women between the ages of fifteen and forty-five. L. J. Piccinino and W. D. Mosher, “Trends in Contraceptive Use in the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives 30 (January—February 1998): 4–10;
37. M. Moore, “Most U.S. Couples Who Seek Surgical Sterilization Do So for Contraception; Fewer than 25% Desire Reversal,” Family Planning Perspectives 31 (March— April 1999): 102.
38. For exceptions, see Kuepper, “Euthanasia in America”
39. William Ray Vanessendelft, “A History of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization, 1935— 1964” (Ph.D. diss. University of Minnesota, 1978).
40. See also Philip R. Reilly's informative The Surgical Solution, 120–21, 131—35, 144—47
41. Thomas M. Shapiro, Population Control Politics: Women, Sterilization, and Reproductive Choice (Philadelphia, 1985), 54-58, 137-70.
42. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, “The Right to Die—I,” Forum Magazine, vol. 94, 1935, 297–300.
43. As Sanger maintained in 1951, birth control and euthanasia were part of a single project designed “to bring the entrance into life” and the “exit of life … under control of reason.” Sanger quoted by Eleanor Dwight Jones, Jones to Mr. [?] Churchill, 24 April 1951, PFC, Box C-1. If, as I argue, it is hard to disentangle eugenics, euthanasia, and birth control in the thinking of reformers like Sanger, then it suggests that her often positive opinions about eugenics can neither be dismissed as secondary interests nor reduced to mere rhetorical strategies to gain support for birth control. For variations on this interpretation of Sanger, see James Reed, From Private Vice to Public Virtue: The Birth Control Movement and American Society Since 1830 (New York, 1978)
44. Ellen Chesler, Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America (New York, 1992)
45. Carole R. McCann, Birth Control Politics in the United States, 1916-1945 (Ithaca, 1994).
46. See also David Kennedy, Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger (New Haven, 1970).
47. Linda Gordon, in her Woman's Body, Woman s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America (Harmondsworth, 1977), largely agreed with Kennedy, but in recent years has modified her views.
48. See her Preface to the revised (1990) edition of Woman's Body, Woman's Right, v—ix. Other biographies of Margaret Sanger included Lawrence Lader's The Margaret Sanger Story (New York, 1955), and
49. Madeline Gray's Margaret Sanger (New York, 1979). While there is no discounting Sanger's primary interest in birth control, her example and that of others like her demonstrate that the triangular nexus among eugenics, euthanasia, and birth control survived long after the end of World War II.
50. For an expression of this perception, see Mrs. [Eleanor Dwight] Robertson Jones to Guy Shipler, 18 February 1947, PFC, Box C-1.
51. For an account of the debates between modernists and orthodox Christians in twentieth-century America, see Edward J. Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion (New York, 1997), especially 33—34, 116—21;
52. Paul K. Conkin, When All the Gods Trembled: Darwinism, Scopes, and American Intellectuals (Lanham, Md. 1998).
53. See also William R. Hutchison, The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism (Cambridge, Mass. 1976).
54. Dorothy Ross, The Origins of American Social Science (Cambridge, 1991), 328—29.
55. See Hutchison, The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism, 24–40.
56. See also Robert Moats Miller, American Protestantism and Social Issues, 1919-1939 (Chapel Hill, 1958)
57. David Robinson, The Unitarians and the Universalists (Westport, Conn. 1985).
58. For an insightful discussion of the historical tension between similar definitions of individualism and the quest for a sense of community and solidarity, see Wilfred M. McClay, The Masterless: Self and Society in Modern America (Chapel Hill, 1994), especially 226-95.
59. This is not to deny that personality conflicts and differences of opinion, of which there were many, created hard-to-mend rifts among these educated, normally strong-willed individuals. Gender, too, was a divisive factor; women who joined the ESA and AVS often contested the patronizing attitude of men, who were convinced that they should wield exclusive control and dictate strategy. For reflections on this theme, see McCann, Birth Control Politics, 197–98.
60. Critchlow, Intended Consequences, 9.
61. In 1984 it was renamed the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception and in 1994 AVSC International. For Moore's involvement with AVS, see Hugh Moore Fund Collection, Seeley G. Mudd Library, Princeton University, Box 15, Folders 1-15 (hereafter cited as HM).
62. Marian Olden was born Marian Stephenson. Olden was the surname of her fourth and last husband, Roger G. Olden, whom she married in 1941. In 1943 she began spelling Marian with an “a” instead of an “o” so correspondents would not mistake her for a man.
63. Vannessendelft, “A History of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization, 1935-1964,” 16n.
64. The bulk of Olden's papers can be found in the records of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization, Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (hereafter cited as AVS). For the history of Georgia's sterilization law, see Edward J. Larson, “Belated Progress: The Enactment of Eugenic Legislation in Georgia,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 46 (1991): 44-64.
65. Reilly, The Surgical Solution, 120–21.
66. Vanessendelft, “A History of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization, 1935-1964,” 37-38.
67. Charles R. Morris, American Catholic: The Saints and Sinners Who Built America's Most Powerful Church (New York, 1997), 195.
68. American Catholic: The Saints and Sinners Who Built America's Most Powerful Church 165-227.
69. See also John Cooney, The American Pope: The Life and Times of Francis Cardinal Spellman (New York, 1984).
70. Morris, American Catholic, 153–54, 354-59.
71. See also Patrick Allitt, Catholic Intellectuals and Conservative Politics in America, 1950—1985 (Ithaca, 1993), 163-66.
72. For the impact of Freudianism, see John C. Burnham, “The Influence of Psychoanalysis upon American Culture,” in John C. Burnham, ed. Paths into American Culture: Psychology, Medicine, and Morals (Philadelphia, 1988), 96-112. Kinsey's data have not stood the test of time.
73. For confirmation, see Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey.
74. Before the 1970s, demographic, environmental, and eugenic concerns tended to overshadow women's rights issues for AVS members. But the presence in AVS ranks of many women who had played constructive roles in the birth control movement indicated that interests in expanding women's reproductive choices were far from absent. Indeed, since the 1970s women's reproductive health and “informed choice” in contraception have become the cornerstones of the organization's mission alongside population control. See “Anne Howat,” AVSC News 38 (Spring 2000) (http://www.avsc.org/avscnews/sp00/015-anne.html).
75. Vanessendelft, “A History of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization, 1935— 1964,” 101.
76. Reilly, The Surgical Solution, 144.
77. Vanessendelft, “A History of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization,” 220.
78. Fosdick quoted by Wood, in Wood, “The Case for Voluntary Sterilization,” The Humanist 29 (1969): 3.
79. See also H. Curtis Wood, “Sterilization: A Reasonable Alternative,” The Humanist 25 (1965): 16-18;
80. Wood, “The Case for Voluntary Sterilization,” 3–4;
81. For Fosdick's comments on “planned parenthood” and the ESA, see Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Living of These Days: An Autobiography (New York, 1956), 284-85.
82. The Society for Ethical Culture was founded by Felix Adler (1851-1933), a scholar who taught at Columbia and Cornell. In 1891 Adler publicly defended the right of chronic invalids to request “a cup of relief” from their physicians. See his An Ethical Philosophy of Life: Presented in Its Main Outlines (Hicksville, N.Y. 1975; reprint of 1919 edition), 154–62.
83. Kuepper, “Euthanasia in America,” 31–32.
84. See also Algernon D. Black, “Can Humanism Meet Man's Spiritual need?” The Humanist 19 (1959): 195-206;
85. “Algernon Black, Leader of Society for Ethical Culture, Is Dead,” New York Times, 11 May 1993, B6.
86. For Black's theory of how euthanasia is consistent with Ethical Culture, see Gerald A. Larue, Euthanasia and Religion: A Survey of the Attitudes of World Religions to the Right-to-Die (Los Angeles: The Hemlock Society, 1985), 127-30.
87. See Allan Irving, Brock Chisholm: Doctor to the World (Markham, Ontario, 1998), 132.
88. Chisholm's acceptance speech upon being elected “Humanist of the Year” was “Safe Conformity Is Dangerous,” The Humanist 19 (1959): 323—30.
89. Paul Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power (Boston, 1949), 152.
90. For other Blanshard references to eugenics, see chapter 7, “Sex, Birth Control, and Eugenics,” 132–55.
91. Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power, 154. Blanshard's personal papers are housed at the Bentley Historical Library, the University of Michigan.
92. Winfred E. Garrison, Catholicism and the American Mind (Chicago, 1928)
93. Quoted in McGreevy, “Thinking on One's Own,” 106–7.
94. For Catholic opposition to euthanasia in the early years of the twentieth century, see Pernick, The Black Stork, 34–35.
95. Garrett, “The Last Civil Right?” 47–51.
96. See “Legalization of Voluntary Euthanasia: Statement on the Ethical Aspects by Fifty Religious Leaders of N.Y. State,” PFC, Box C-3.
97. For Potter's role at the Scopes Trial, see Larson, Summer for the Gods, 166–68, 157-58.
98. See also Charles Potter, Humanism: A New Religion (New York, 1930).
99. Potter's autobiography is The Preacher and I (New York, 1951).
100. Potter, Humanism: A New Religion, 14.
101. See also Robinson, The Unitarians and the Universalists, 145–47.
102. “Lindsey and Barnes Assail Encyclical,” New York Times, 31 January 1931
103. See also Harry Elmer Barnes, The Twilight of Christianity (New York, 1929), 338-50, 426-27, 456-60.
104. See also Conkin, When All the Gods Trembled, 150–54.
105. (Kuepper, “Euthanasia in America,” 38).
106. For references to the support of Unitarians for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, see Derek Humphry and Mary Clement, Freedom to Die: People, Politics, and the Right-to-Die Movement (New York, 2000), 195, 271
107. In 1988 the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations passed a national resolution affirming a right to die, becoming the first religious body in America to do so. See also Gerald Larue, Playing God: Fifty Religious Views on Your Right to Die (Wakefield, R.I. 1996).
108. Quoted by Donald T. Critchlow, “Birth Control, Population Control, and Family Planning: An Overview,” in Critchlow, ed. The Politics of Abortion and Birth Control in Historical Perspective, 6.
109. See McCann, Birth Control Politics in the United States, 1916-1945, 181.
110. Conkin, When All the Gods Trembled, viii. Professor Richard Weikart has made the same point, based on his research on the history of German eugenics, euthanasia, and social Darwinism (Weikart, “Darwinism and Death,” paper presented at the West Coast History of Science Society, University of California, Berkeley, May 2000).
111. see also Kuepper, “Euthanasia in America,” 108.
112. Foster Kennedy, “The Problem of Social Control of the Congenital Defective,” American Journal of Psychiatry 99 (1942): 1—4.
113. Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power, 125–27.
114. For a discussion of the sometimes fierce battles over the moral and ethical dimensions of euthanasia between the ESA and its religious foes, see Kuepper, “Euthanasia in America,” 303—
115. cited in Kuepper, “Euthanasia in America,” 306.
116. A. Kent MacDougall, “Euthanasia: Murder or Mercy?” The Humanist, no. 1 (1958): 38-47, at 41.
117. Filene, In the Arms of Others, 7–8. As one correspondent asked the ESA in 1960: “Is the Society completely inactive?” Mrs. Robert Avery to the ESA, 16 March 1960, PFC, Box C-2.
118. Garrett, “The Last Civil Right?” 143–297.
119. For the swapping of membership lists, see “Minutes of the Meeting of the [Birthright] Executive Committee,” 23 November 1943, AVS, SWD 15, Box 1, Folder 7;
120. quoted in Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of Population Control [San Francisco, 1988], 178).
121. “Sterilization,” Sanger concluded, is the best contraceptive method “in cases where the person's mentality is not adequate for the usual techniques necessary in regular birth control methods.”
122. Margaret Sanger to CPB, 19 May 1953, CMAC, SA/EUG/Box 22, C. 304.
123. see Reed, From Private Vice to Public Virtue, 185.
124. David J. Garrow, Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade (New York, 1994), 270-72, 275-85, 288-99, 308, 359, 361, 368, 384, 484, 507.
125. Among his friends and admirers was the writer H. L. Mencken. “Alan Guttmacher, Pioneer in Family Planning, Dies,” New York Times, 19 March 1974, 40.
126. Alan F. Guttmacher, “Memorandum” (11 January 1962) and
127. “The Place of Sterilization” (1964), AVS, SW 15.1, Box 16, Guttmacher Folder. Guttmacher also noted that “many of the PPFA Board are also on the Human Betterment Board, and vice versa.”
128. see also John Sharpless, “World Population Growth, Family Planning, and American Foreign Policy,” in Donald T. Critchlow, ed. The Politics of Abortion and Birth Control in Historical Perspective (University Park, Pa. 1996), 72-102, especially 85-86.
129. Quoted in Richard Taylor, “Joseph Fletcher: The Father of Biomedical Ethics,” Free Inquiry (Spring 1984): 19.
130. See also Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia, 1967), especially 26-31.
131. See Joseph Fletcher, Morals and Medicine: The Moral Problems of the Patient's Right to Know the Truth About Contraception, Artificial Insemination, Sterilization, Euthanasia (Princeton, 1979; edition of first 1954 edition), 162-69;
132. Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics (New York, 1979), 16, 151-52.
133. “Address by Dr. Joseph Fletcher, Society for the Right to Die Annual Dinner Meeting, 9 December 1986,” PFC, Box F-4.
134. (Donald W. McKinney, Whose Life Is It Anyway? Brooklyn First Unitarian Church, n.d. 2. PFC, Box D-1).
135. Filene, In the Arms of Others, 69–71;
136. James T. Patterson, The Dread Disease: Cancer and Modern American Culture (Cambridge, Mass. 1987), 255-80.
137. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics, 251.
138. Critchlow, Intended Consequences, 131.
139. Hugh Moore, “Dear Friend” letter, November 1966, HM, Series 3, Box 15, Folder 7.
140. Critchlow, Intended Consequences, 151.
141. Hugh Moore, “Atlantic Conference of the United Methodist Church,” 2 May 1972, PFC, Box E-1.
142. See also “Contributions,” HM, Series 3, Box 15, Folder 29;
143. “Estate of Hugh Moore,” 3 January 1974, PFC, Box E-1.
144. Olive Ruth Russell, Freedom to Die: Moral and Legal Aspects of Euthanasia, rev. ed. (New York, 1977), 396.
145. McGreevy, “Thinking on One's Own,” 127–29.
146. See also Cooney, The American Pope, 263–327.
147. Pope Pius XII, “The Prolongation of Life,” The Pope Speaks, 4 (1958).
148. Cited in Marjorie B. Zucker, ed. The Right to Die Debate (Westport, Conn. 1999), 62-63.
149. Sue Woodman, Last Rights: The Struggle over the Right to Die (New York, 1998), 19.
150. See also Filene, In the Arms of Others.
151. Humphry and Clement, Freedom to Die, 185, 187.
152. For the term “unencumbered self,” see Michael J. Sandel, “The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self,” Political Theory 12 (1984): 81-96.
153. See also Idem, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge, 1982).
154. For thoughtful reflections on these issues, see Wilfred M. McClay, The Masterless: Self and Society in Modern America (Chapel Hill, 1994).