What do you think?
Rate this book
Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population
Listen to a short interview with Matthew Connelly
Chris Gondek | Heron & Crane Fatal Misconception is the disturbing story of our quest to remake humanity by policing national borders and breeding better people. As the population of the world doubled once, and then again, well-meaning people concluded that only population control could preserve the "quality of life." This movement eventually spanned the globe and carried out a series of astonishing experiments, from banning Asian immigration to paying poor people to be sterilized. Supported by affluent countries, foundations, and non-governmental organizations, the population control movement experimented with ways to limit population growth. But it had to contend with the Catholic Church's ban on contraception and nationalist leaders who warned of "race suicide." The ensuing struggle caused untold suffering for those caught in the middle--particularly women and children. It culminated in the horrors of sterilization camps in India and the one-child policy in China. Matthew Connelly offers the first global history of a movement that changed how people regard their children and ultimately the face of humankind. It was the most ambitious social engineering project of the twentieth century, one that continues to alarm the global community. Though promoted as a way to lift people out of poverty--perhaps even to save the earth--family planning became a means to plan other people‘s families. With its transnational scope and exhaustive research into such archives as Planned Parenthood and the newly opened Vatican Secret Archives, Connelly's withering critique uncovers the cost inflicted by a humanitarian movement gone terribly awry and urges renewed commitment to the reproductive rights of all people.
Chris Gondek | Heron & Crane Fatal Misconception is the disturbing story of our quest to remake humanity by policing national borders and breeding better people. As the population of the world doubled once, and then again, well-meaning people concluded that only population control could preserve the "quality of life." This movement eventually spanned the globe and carried out a series of astonishing experiments, from banning Asian immigration to paying poor people to be sterilized. Supported by affluent countries, foundations, and non-governmental organizations, the population control movement experimented with ways to limit population growth. But it had to contend with the Catholic Church's ban on contraception and nationalist leaders who warned of "race suicide." The ensuing struggle caused untold suffering for those caught in the middle--particularly women and children. It culminated in the horrors of sterilization camps in India and the one-child policy in China. Matthew Connelly offers the first global history of a movement that changed how people regard their children and ultimately the face of humankind. It was the most ambitious social engineering project of the twentieth century, one that continues to alarm the global community. Though promoted as a way to lift people out of poverty--perhaps even to save the earth--family planning became a means to plan other people‘s families. With its transnational scope and exhaustive research into such archives as Planned Parenthood and the newly opened Vatican Secret Archives, Connelly's withering critique uncovers the cost inflicted by a humanitarian movement gone terribly awry and urges renewed commitment to the reproductive rights of all people.
544 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2008
11 people are currently reading
540 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
August 5, 2012
Matthew Connelly’s Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population is a concise history of the movements, organizations and events around the world surrounding the population crisis. Social Darwinists, eugenicists, public health workers, feminists and Malthusians all worked in various ways to attempt to shape the way in which families view and utilize birth control methods. Unfortunately, this caused a great deal of tension between those who used unethical motives, forcefully pushing their beliefs onto those who wanted nothing to do with them—particularly the poor. Birth control was first proposed as a solution to poverty, as Connelly states that “Population control presented itself as a charity like any other, helping less fortunate people.”
Connelly attributes the birth of the movement to the elite, upper class, a conspiracy of sorts in which the rich wanted to control the fertilization of minorities and the poor. The movement was upheld by governments in numerous countries, public health foundations, and non-governmental organizations. Their efforts went toward countering the idea that poor and uneducated citizens typically needed and wanted lots of children, particularly those in agrarian societies, since farmers needed larger families to sustain economically and to support older family members that were no longer able to help do so. Perhaps bigger families worked out better in the long run in certain societies; perhaps it is not one’s business to decide whether or not birth control is appropriate in certain situations. Connelly delves into this issue by boldly claiming, “The great tragedy of population control, the fatal misconception, was to think that one could know other people’s interests better than they knew it themselves.”
What the author calls a misconception began in the late 19th century, when European populations began to transform, becoming more urban. Technological improvements in public health services caused the death rate to fall. Because more people were staying alive for longer periods of time, women, who were also becoming more involved in the working population, no longer felt the need to have as many children. Europeans soon became increasingly concerned with the rising birth rates of developing countries, which would most likely caused increased immigration into European countries and ultimately disheveled white hegemony. Soon, the idea of racial eugenics came into play, and upper-class Europeans began to develop theories about how they would increase the birth rates of their own people while curbing them in poorer areas.
Eventually, feminists, environmentalists, and eugenicists began formulating their own, distinct ideas about how to deal with the possible population crisis. Feminists believed that education was the key to reducing birth rates, while the environmentalists thought this was too slow of a solution, since those women who remained uneducated would most likely continue to have more children. The eugenicists were primarily worried about a possible lack of food, believing that surpluses may be bled dry once population growth got out of hand. While this is a reasonable concern, Matthew Connelly points out that the underlying reason for the eugenicists’ concern stemmed from a fear of certain kinds of people having more children, namely those of the lower class and of color. These Malthusians believed that poor, non-white peoples would breed so much that it would significantly outweigh the breeding of the upper classes, gradually leading to a corruption of the superior races. They encouraged wealthy and educated peoples to breed more often, and at one point Singapore applied this approach to college graduates, scolding the less educated if they chose to have more children. Ideas like these led to policies which placed forced sterilization and immigration quotas on those considered undesirable for breeding. The United States tried restricting immigration from China in 1882, while the French government encouraged white, female citizens to breed and outlawed contraception until 1967. Those countries who embraced the Malthusian theory most were China, India, and Indonesia.
In 1952, a major conference was held by John D. Rockefeller in Virginia, where a group of mostly white men decided to create two organizations, the Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, to address and resolve the upcoming issues associated with population growth. Following this meeting was the first scientific test for population control, a five-year study of family planning in Khanna, India in the 1950s, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health. Villagers were surveyed about how often they copulated, their plans to conceive, and information regarding menstrual cycles. The villagers met with researchers once a month, where half of them received contraceptives, while the other half did not. Researchers found that those given contraceptives had a higher birth rate than those who did not receive them.
Not much later, Gamble (of Proctor and Gamble) developed a birth control method he named “salt rice jelly,” which was adopted by the International Planned Parenthood Foundation and forcefully shoved into the vaginas of Indian women. This same organization, along with certain United Nations agencies, coerced health clinics in India to pay people who agreed to sterilization or an intra-uterine device. In order to further their efforts, President Lyndon B. Johnson promised food to starving Indians in exchange for their cooperation in the birth control program. Thus, India was also infested with mobile groups of people in charge of performing vasectomies en masse: in just over one month, fifteen thousand people were sterilized. The United States joined the bandwagon on intra-uterine devices in the 1960s, although they took no precautionary or follow-up measures in terms of healthcare for women. One device, the Dalkon shield, had prongs that made it quite painful to use and a tube-like protrusion at the end that made it easy to become a victim of infection, causing many women to acquire pelvic inflammatory diseases. Many tried to sue those behind the Dalkon shield, but it countered the suits with a discounted rate on its product for the United States Agency for International Development, which shipped the devices around the world to colored peoples.
As one can see, there are numerous perspectives on the population problem, as the United States, India and other countries have approached the issue from a variety of angles. Some argue that we need to look at the issue from an environmental standpoint, taking the time to analyze the usage of our resources and develop new technologies to heighten efficiency. Others think that families should simply have fewer children, but invest more effort, time and resources in them, and our world will ultimately reach a period of modernity. The Malthusians have changed their concerns from starvation to overconsumption, starting a movement with efforts focused on protecting the environment and conserving the earth's resources. Even the Catholic Church had its own way of dealing with the population issue: an all-out ban on contraception—a belief that is still popular among modern Catholics. The Vatican worked with the United States government to develop the Comstock Act of 1873 in order to prevent married couples from acquiring contraceptives. Fifteen years ago, this belief still stands strong: Pope John Paul II told those involved in family planning organizations that women who did not want children should practice abstinence.
The truth is that the population problem is much more difficult to address than anyone could imagine. Although humans need to worry about environmental resources, it is a fact that women and men, as a whole, like to enjoy sexual intercourse without the end result of a child. This is the sole reason birth control exists and continues to be popular today. Our perspectives on sex have changed radically since the birth control movement began. While many religions still view sex as only a means of reproduction, many view it as a pleasurable activity to be shared with those with which they have intimate relationships. As the nature of sex has changed, so has the family planning movement. Family planning is no longer a movement ran by eugenicists and wealthy, upper-class whites trying to control the reproductive habits of poor and colored peoples. Today, it helps provide resources and alternatives for women in times of economic challenge, and focuses on keeping women and families out of poverty. Despite these changes, Connelly believes that family planning did not and does not provide great assistance in reducing rates of fertilization, as he states that "Even according to the most favorable contemporary studies, family planning efforts explained less than five percent of fertility levels in developing countries." He argues that statistics show a decrease in birth rates in the 1960s as literacy rates increased, and that by the 1990s, the average number of children per family split in half. He wants to make it known that government intervention in the personal, reproductive lives of women had no real influence on their decision to bear children, but that women's opinions regarding reproduction changed once more educational and employment opportunities became available.
While it is easy to agree with Connelly that education and employment had a much larger impact on reproduction than did government intervention of any kind—as he points out a number of studies that support his thesis—I do not find his stance on population control extremely appealing. What the author fails to mention is that not every human being is capable of making decisions with the widespread and long-term effects of that decision in mind—precisely the reason we have a government in the first place! While human beings should be able to make their own decisions about their own bodies, including childbearing, population control methods still need to be analyzed and put into place. The earth is currently sustaining around six billion people, and it is estimated that the earth can only support ten billion people in total. It is obvious that we are running out of resources. If we do not formulate a solution soon, the population problem will become a reality brought home to us with the force of a frying pan to the face. While I think Matthew Connelly approaches the issue from a negative standpoint, there is much to learn from his analysis. He makes us aware that education is a primary factor in curbing over-fertilization, and that human consumption rates are ever-increasing and higher than desired. It seems likely that if our governments were to combine public health and environmental education programs, we may be able to tame overpopulation before it becomes a major concern. That being said, it is time that Matthew Connelly take a deeper look into his own research and release his grasp on events that occurred long ago and address the matter as it exists in modern day.
Connelly attributes the birth of the movement to the elite, upper class, a conspiracy of sorts in which the rich wanted to control the fertilization of minorities and the poor. The movement was upheld by governments in numerous countries, public health foundations, and non-governmental organizations. Their efforts went toward countering the idea that poor and uneducated citizens typically needed and wanted lots of children, particularly those in agrarian societies, since farmers needed larger families to sustain economically and to support older family members that were no longer able to help do so. Perhaps bigger families worked out better in the long run in certain societies; perhaps it is not one’s business to decide whether or not birth control is appropriate in certain situations. Connelly delves into this issue by boldly claiming, “The great tragedy of population control, the fatal misconception, was to think that one could know other people’s interests better than they knew it themselves.”
What the author calls a misconception began in the late 19th century, when European populations began to transform, becoming more urban. Technological improvements in public health services caused the death rate to fall. Because more people were staying alive for longer periods of time, women, who were also becoming more involved in the working population, no longer felt the need to have as many children. Europeans soon became increasingly concerned with the rising birth rates of developing countries, which would most likely caused increased immigration into European countries and ultimately disheveled white hegemony. Soon, the idea of racial eugenics came into play, and upper-class Europeans began to develop theories about how they would increase the birth rates of their own people while curbing them in poorer areas.
Eventually, feminists, environmentalists, and eugenicists began formulating their own, distinct ideas about how to deal with the possible population crisis. Feminists believed that education was the key to reducing birth rates, while the environmentalists thought this was too slow of a solution, since those women who remained uneducated would most likely continue to have more children. The eugenicists were primarily worried about a possible lack of food, believing that surpluses may be bled dry once population growth got out of hand. While this is a reasonable concern, Matthew Connelly points out that the underlying reason for the eugenicists’ concern stemmed from a fear of certain kinds of people having more children, namely those of the lower class and of color. These Malthusians believed that poor, non-white peoples would breed so much that it would significantly outweigh the breeding of the upper classes, gradually leading to a corruption of the superior races. They encouraged wealthy and educated peoples to breed more often, and at one point Singapore applied this approach to college graduates, scolding the less educated if they chose to have more children. Ideas like these led to policies which placed forced sterilization and immigration quotas on those considered undesirable for breeding. The United States tried restricting immigration from China in 1882, while the French government encouraged white, female citizens to breed and outlawed contraception until 1967. Those countries who embraced the Malthusian theory most were China, India, and Indonesia.
In 1952, a major conference was held by John D. Rockefeller in Virginia, where a group of mostly white men decided to create two organizations, the Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, to address and resolve the upcoming issues associated with population growth. Following this meeting was the first scientific test for population control, a five-year study of family planning in Khanna, India in the 1950s, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health. Villagers were surveyed about how often they copulated, their plans to conceive, and information regarding menstrual cycles. The villagers met with researchers once a month, where half of them received contraceptives, while the other half did not. Researchers found that those given contraceptives had a higher birth rate than those who did not receive them.
Not much later, Gamble (of Proctor and Gamble) developed a birth control method he named “salt rice jelly,” which was adopted by the International Planned Parenthood Foundation and forcefully shoved into the vaginas of Indian women. This same organization, along with certain United Nations agencies, coerced health clinics in India to pay people who agreed to sterilization or an intra-uterine device. In order to further their efforts, President Lyndon B. Johnson promised food to starving Indians in exchange for their cooperation in the birth control program. Thus, India was also infested with mobile groups of people in charge of performing vasectomies en masse: in just over one month, fifteen thousand people were sterilized. The United States joined the bandwagon on intra-uterine devices in the 1960s, although they took no precautionary or follow-up measures in terms of healthcare for women. One device, the Dalkon shield, had prongs that made it quite painful to use and a tube-like protrusion at the end that made it easy to become a victim of infection, causing many women to acquire pelvic inflammatory diseases. Many tried to sue those behind the Dalkon shield, but it countered the suits with a discounted rate on its product for the United States Agency for International Development, which shipped the devices around the world to colored peoples.
As one can see, there are numerous perspectives on the population problem, as the United States, India and other countries have approached the issue from a variety of angles. Some argue that we need to look at the issue from an environmental standpoint, taking the time to analyze the usage of our resources and develop new technologies to heighten efficiency. Others think that families should simply have fewer children, but invest more effort, time and resources in them, and our world will ultimately reach a period of modernity. The Malthusians have changed their concerns from starvation to overconsumption, starting a movement with efforts focused on protecting the environment and conserving the earth's resources. Even the Catholic Church had its own way of dealing with the population issue: an all-out ban on contraception—a belief that is still popular among modern Catholics. The Vatican worked with the United States government to develop the Comstock Act of 1873 in order to prevent married couples from acquiring contraceptives. Fifteen years ago, this belief still stands strong: Pope John Paul II told those involved in family planning organizations that women who did not want children should practice abstinence.
The truth is that the population problem is much more difficult to address than anyone could imagine. Although humans need to worry about environmental resources, it is a fact that women and men, as a whole, like to enjoy sexual intercourse without the end result of a child. This is the sole reason birth control exists and continues to be popular today. Our perspectives on sex have changed radically since the birth control movement began. While many religions still view sex as only a means of reproduction, many view it as a pleasurable activity to be shared with those with which they have intimate relationships. As the nature of sex has changed, so has the family planning movement. Family planning is no longer a movement ran by eugenicists and wealthy, upper-class whites trying to control the reproductive habits of poor and colored peoples. Today, it helps provide resources and alternatives for women in times of economic challenge, and focuses on keeping women and families out of poverty. Despite these changes, Connelly believes that family planning did not and does not provide great assistance in reducing rates of fertilization, as he states that "Even according to the most favorable contemporary studies, family planning efforts explained less than five percent of fertility levels in developing countries." He argues that statistics show a decrease in birth rates in the 1960s as literacy rates increased, and that by the 1990s, the average number of children per family split in half. He wants to make it known that government intervention in the personal, reproductive lives of women had no real influence on their decision to bear children, but that women's opinions regarding reproduction changed once more educational and employment opportunities became available.
While it is easy to agree with Connelly that education and employment had a much larger impact on reproduction than did government intervention of any kind—as he points out a number of studies that support his thesis—I do not find his stance on population control extremely appealing. What the author fails to mention is that not every human being is capable of making decisions with the widespread and long-term effects of that decision in mind—precisely the reason we have a government in the first place! While human beings should be able to make their own decisions about their own bodies, including childbearing, population control methods still need to be analyzed and put into place. The earth is currently sustaining around six billion people, and it is estimated that the earth can only support ten billion people in total. It is obvious that we are running out of resources. If we do not formulate a solution soon, the population problem will become a reality brought home to us with the force of a frying pan to the face. While I think Matthew Connelly approaches the issue from a negative standpoint, there is much to learn from his analysis. He makes us aware that education is a primary factor in curbing over-fertilization, and that human consumption rates are ever-increasing and higher than desired. It seems likely that if our governments were to combine public health and environmental education programs, we may be able to tame overpopulation before it becomes a major concern. That being said, it is time that Matthew Connelly take a deeper look into his own research and release his grasp on events that occurred long ago and address the matter as it exists in modern day.
May 10, 2008
A really insightful book about population control and the development of family planning. Given the detail he gets into, there are a few omissions, and a few things I'd like to have heard the other side on; considering he touts his "new research into secret Vatican archives," I was expecting a bit more background on Catholic opposition and perspectives and reactions. He's obviously passionate about the subject, and falls on the side of women gaining reproductive rights and making their own determinations about family size. He's not too sympathetic to the Malthusian population controllers, though.
April 18, 2008
This is an exhaustingly researched account of over a century of population policy. You probably think I mean to say exhaustively, but no, I mean exhaustingly. As a work of scholarship, it contains much of interest. But it is not exactly an easy read. And there are some surprising omissions. Connelly does not explore the roots of the Catholic opposition to contraception, he ignores groups who believe contraception is an invitation to immorality and -- incredibly in a 380 page book about human reproduction, he doesn't mention sex.
November 18, 2011
I assigned this book in my global health class, and also wanted to delve in for my own research on maternal/child health. It's a very good broad overview of the Western history of population control as practice and enterprise. Enough historical tidbits and data to keep the narrative flowing. That said, the book could have used another section/chapter or two as 'connective tissue' between the major chapters, as some significant themes, periods, etc. were short-shrifted. Also, although Connelly is clearly writing from a progressive stance and is sympathetic to women's empowerment, more direct engagement with the reproductive rights/justice movement would have strengthened the book. It's pitch perfect for scholars and grad students, my undergrads struggled a bit with the scope and heft.
July 14, 2009
a masterpiece...
merges different historical and social themes - early 20th Century Eugenics, European Colonialism and the `fear of the oppressed', European elitism and racism into what has been one of the greatest fear-based global campaigns our world has known... the movement is not about extending human (in particularly woman's) rights, improving overall health care delivery systems but finding a way - regardless of the means - to reduce Third World, especially non-white populations. Written in a non-rhetorical language which helps. Fascinating social history. Will be useful in my teaching.
merges different historical and social themes - early 20th Century Eugenics, European Colonialism and the `fear of the oppressed', European elitism and racism into what has been one of the greatest fear-based global campaigns our world has known... the movement is not about extending human (in particularly woman's) rights, improving overall health care delivery systems but finding a way - regardless of the means - to reduce Third World, especially non-white populations. Written in a non-rhetorical language which helps. Fascinating social history. Will be useful in my teaching.
October 17, 2016
What. a. slog. This was on my reading list for my PhD qualifying exam (in demography), and coercive population policy is an area of particular interest for me, but this book was so hard to get through. This might be a norm in history, Connelly's field, but I was disconcerted by the lack of a strong narrative and rhetorical backbone in this work - it felt like vignette after vignette after vignette after vignette after vignette after vignette of org history, with little, if any, introductory/concluding material in any of the chapters, no subheadings, and many, many instances of paragraphs that start off talking about one thing and then ping-pong to another narrative thread. I'm especially bitter about this because it makes the work impossible to skim for the important points, which is what I would have liked to do instead of spending forty hours reading every last word in the damn thing.
That said, very necessary work on the history of a movement and a line of thought that shaped the discipline of demography, the international development industry, the consensus on reproductive rights, and the 20th century itself. I don't agree with all of his positions, but I learned a lot from this book, and Connelly's work with archives of personal correspondence, meeting proceedings and other texts is really thorough. The early chapters made me wish there were a solid biography of Margaret Sanger in existence (why isn't there?!?); but the strongest chapter, in my opinion, is "Beyond Family Planning," which documents the excesses and semi-secret eugenic mission of the family planning movement at the height of the global population panic in the 1960s. For graduate students, I highly recommend also reading the huffy reviews of it (by Malcolm Potts, John Cleland, and, most moderately, Dennis Hodgson) in Population and Development Review, which make some good points about Connelly's biases and blind spots but are entirely too salty about his characterization of the population establishment.
That said, very necessary work on the history of a movement and a line of thought that shaped the discipline of demography, the international development industry, the consensus on reproductive rights, and the 20th century itself. I don't agree with all of his positions, but I learned a lot from this book, and Connelly's work with archives of personal correspondence, meeting proceedings and other texts is really thorough. The early chapters made me wish there were a solid biography of Margaret Sanger in existence (why isn't there?!?); but the strongest chapter, in my opinion, is "Beyond Family Planning," which documents the excesses and semi-secret eugenic mission of the family planning movement at the height of the global population panic in the 1960s. For graduate students, I highly recommend also reading the huffy reviews of it (by Malcolm Potts, John Cleland, and, most moderately, Dennis Hodgson) in Population and Development Review, which make some good points about Connelly's biases and blind spots but are entirely too salty about his characterization of the population establishment.
June 9, 2020
Very detailed account of what is I think a very important (and under-appreciated) aspect of 20th-century history. The population control movement, in its many manifestations, was largely led by very "rational" and good intentioned people, yet it managed over and over again to involve itself in projects with disastrous consequences, and link itself to with very unsavory eugenics-oriented thinking. Looking at its history provides similar lessons to something like James Scott's Seeing Like A State. It is very easy for technocratic policy makers to make things go horribly awry when they think they can understand and control the world from such a top-down view (also when they harbor atrociously racist/sexist/elitist views). I'm not sure this book does enough to explore why it was population explosion issues ended up being overblown. Exploring such a story might lead to a different ideological tone than the one Connelly sets, both in terms of the lessons it would suggest for certain contemporary issues, and how we think about evaluating the people involved with population control movements. The reason I give the book 3 stars is that is too much of a long concatenation of anecdotes/incidents, without the narrative chops to make it entertaining or the conceptual framework to make it more stimulating. But Connelly shows it is a history worth telling, and it is evidently researched in great detail.
June 23, 2018
I agree with the reviewer who described this as more of a scholarly work than a narrative piece for the general public. I have tried to read this book three times now, and get bogged down around Chapter 3 each time. Finally, I trudged through! It was definitely a surface level read- if I was reading to remember, I would have had to take notes to keep track of the multitude of people, committees, organizations, etc. Most of the book is a very detailed play-by-play of history without much commentary (which I appreciate). I also appreciate, that while I *think* I can tell which side of the pro-life/choice debate Connelly is on, he seems to keep his perspective pretty distanced and balanced through the book. I also appreciate Connelly's conclusion, and feel it really sums up the questions and problems moving forward. I learned some new things, particularly about the US's interference with other countries (surprise), but I do wish the book was more narrative and engaging.
April 3, 2020
a transnational overview of 100ish years of population control movements that sometimes suffers for its scope
abandoned
February 13, 2021it took me 2 weeks to get thru 10 pages i simply cannot
September 12, 2023
For someone who did not know much about the attempts to curb world population growth, this was eye opening for me.
May 4, 2009
A useful, if biased, history of family planning programs.
Connelly presents a number of interesting stories from the history of family planning programs. And like others, he helpfully exposes some of the horrific things that have happened when family planning ideas, became more closely linked to development (e.g smaller families..more human capital accumulation, less poverty) AND this hooked up with authoritarian tendencies in government in Asia ...we got...the horrors of population control. Some still persist - china's one child policy today is coercive for example.
That being said... Connelly reveals a bias...and it runs through the book. In his favor, he reveals it upfront. I am the eighth child in my family he says...a fact which seems to remain in his awareness and to make him uncomfortable with family planning punto. This bias makes him see things with more than a slight slant - deep down you just get this sense he's not that comfortable with couples or women controlling their own childbearing. He barely mentions one of the major motivations of many of the early (and current) family planning advocates - their familiarity and awareness of the burden born by women bearing children they didn't wish to conceive, and/ or can't take decent care of...and of course, the millions of women who seek abortions...safe and unsafe. And the many women, especially in developing countries, who die from this.
Probably due to the same bias, he let's the Catholic Church of waaaay too lightly.
Connelly presents a number of interesting stories from the history of family planning programs. And like others, he helpfully exposes some of the horrific things that have happened when family planning ideas, became more closely linked to development (e.g smaller families..more human capital accumulation, less poverty) AND this hooked up with authoritarian tendencies in government in Asia ...we got...the horrors of population control. Some still persist - china's one child policy today is coercive for example.
That being said... Connelly reveals a bias...and it runs through the book. In his favor, he reveals it upfront. I am the eighth child in my family he says...a fact which seems to remain in his awareness and to make him uncomfortable with family planning punto. This bias makes him see things with more than a slight slant - deep down you just get this sense he's not that comfortable with couples or women controlling their own childbearing. He barely mentions one of the major motivations of many of the early (and current) family planning advocates - their familiarity and awareness of the burden born by women bearing children they didn't wish to conceive, and/ or can't take decent care of...and of course, the millions of women who seek abortions...safe and unsafe. And the many women, especially in developing countries, who die from this.
Probably due to the same bias, he let's the Catholic Church of waaaay too lightly.
December 9, 2013
This book goes into great detail describing the coercive ways in which people have tried to control population. In the author's mind, any form of trying to influence family size is misguided, both attempts to shrink family size and attempts to encourage larger family size. Thus he is able to disapprove of those who promoted abortion to try to reduce the population of undesirables, yet also manages to condemn Catholic leaders that fought against abortion. The author seems to promote neither smaller families nor larger families, but rather the freedom to control one's own family (including the use of birth control and abortion if so desired) without any outside influences.
So there is much useful historical data to absorb, although the sheer amount of it is daunting. Only the most interested readers will make it through the whole thing. His conclusions have something in there to ruffle the feathers of nearly everyone.
In the end, the author doesn't go far enough. He realizes how birth control and abortion were used to promote population limitation, but he doesn't seem to recognize the historical factors that have influenced himself to want to allow unrestricted access to abortion and birth control.
So there is much useful historical data to absorb, although the sheer amount of it is daunting. Only the most interested readers will make it through the whole thing. His conclusions have something in there to ruffle the feathers of nearly everyone.
In the end, the author doesn't go far enough. He realizes how birth control and abortion were used to promote population limitation, but he doesn't seem to recognize the historical factors that have influenced himself to want to allow unrestricted access to abortion and birth control.
August 2, 2015
Although it tackles an interesting and touchy subject and manages to keep itself fairly balanced while discussing some problematic concepts Fatal misconception has a Fatal flaw. It is unbearingly dull. Its first half especially is an unbearable slog through the eugenics movement in the first half of the century and while it makes good points about the eugenic-driven desire to control other (non/off-white) people's sexuality i cannot recommend a book that is just so dull. Compare and contrast with an actual non-fiction engaging historical read like King Leopold's Ghost or Imperial Reckoning.
May 4, 2014
My eyes crossed at times, but overall a well laid-out book and fairly easy to read and understand. The author did a massive amount of research and it shows. I do wish he had addressed the link between environmentalism and population control more as it is being shown frequently in our popular movies and books nowadays. Instead, he barely mentions the environmentalist proponents pushing for population control.
May 18, 2008
Sobering, important book on a topic filled with conflict. But it's a topic that needs to be addressed. So read it...not light reading but essential.
October 22, 2015
This book was recommended to me by my demography professor. The title seems to indicate a polemical bent, but it was actually a fairly reasonable and even-handed treatment of the of the subject.
Read
December 6, 2013Could not finish this one. Had to return to library. Very intuitive though.
Read
November 3, 2017Incredible scope; need to read at least one more time.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews