Race, Pseudoscience, and “The Yellow Wallpaper”

By Erika Mills and Kenneth M. Koyle ~

In “The Yellow Wallpaper,” author Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860–1935) tells the unsettling tale of a young mother who suffers a mental breakdown as she endures a regimen, meant to remedy her “nervous troubles,” of bed confinement and complete abstinence from intellectual and social activity. The 1892 short story, considered part of the feminist literary canon, is a vivid refutation of the contemporary “rest cure” popularized by the prominent physician Silas Weir Mitchell for treatment of conditions that affected women who “overexerted themselves” in work beyond their traditional roles. Today, Gilman is best known for this fictional story (which is the subject of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) exhibition The Literature of Prescription). During her lifetime, though, her sociological ideas and political views brought her the most recognition.

Gilman was a leading theorist in the women’s movement at the turn of the 20th century. She earned international fame for her compelling fiction and nonfiction works, as well as her lectures, through which she challenged notions of female weakness pervasive in medicine and advocated for structural societal changes to empower women. Gilman is often lauded as a trailblazer for feminism and egalitarianism; however, while she strove for the empowerment of women, she spread ideologies that promoted the marginalization of other groups. Gilman was a eugenicist, a proponent of the pseudoscientific theory, informed by racism, ableism, and a misunderstanding of genetics, that humanity can be improved through selective breeding. She expressed xenophobic, racist, and ableist views in many of her works, but significantly not in “The Yellow Wallpaper.”

For the latter half of the 20th century, Gilman’s contributions to the women’s movement overshadowed her involvement in eugenics. After her death in 1935, Gilman’s works fell into obscurity. When feminist scholars rediscovered her writings in the 1960s and 1970s, they fixated on her views on gender equality and overlooked, or were unaware of, her eugenicist beliefs. Although a handful of academics acknowledged this aspect of her career in the 1980s and 1990s, it wasn’t until the 21st century that broader recognition and attention were given to her more abhorrent views.

As reflected in her nonfiction works like her collection of essays, Concerning Children (1902) and her magazine, The Forerunner (1906–1916), Gilman’s feminist theories and her eugenicist beliefs were deeply intertwined, forming a complex ideological framework. Central to this perspective was the belief that women needed more societal influence and financial independence to be the orchestrators of a eugenic agenda that put them in charge of sexual selection. Women, Gilman argued, were uniquely suited to choose the fittest breeding partners and make good decisions about reproduction. The objectives of this plan were to produce generations of children with favorable traits and preserve the “racial purity” and ascendancy of native-born white Americans. The first step in perfecting and protecting the race was the liberation of women; thus, eugenics became the basis of a seemingly science-based argument for women’s rights.

Gilman’s racist and xenophobic theorizing extended beyond the realm of women’s issues and reproduction to encompass broader societal concerns. She wrote extensively on race, ethnicity, and immigration, condemning cultural diversity and proposing measures aimed at assimilating marginalized groups. In her 1908 essay “A Suggestion on the Negro Problem,” Gilman contended that white people were inherently superior to black people, who had been brought to America involuntarily and solely for white people’s benefit. White Americans thus bore a responsibility to facilitate the “racial evolution” of black people, whom she characterizes as “backward.” She suggested that black people deemed “below a certain grade of citizenship” should be subject to compulsory labor to cultivate the diligence necessary to be productive members of society. Although she acknowledged the gains made by black people since the abolition of slavery, she insinuated that their inferiority to white people was intrinsic and unchangeable.

At first glance, the juxtaposition of Gilman’s progressive feminism alongside her racist and xenophobic views and support for eugenics may seem perplexing. However, Gilman’s ideologies were deeply rooted in the cultural context of her time. This period was marked by pervasive racist, antisemitic, and nativist sentiment. Native born white Americans felt unease about mass immigration from Europe and Asia and the Great Migration of black southerners to northern and Midwestern cities. In the south, a violent white backlash against the advancements made by black people post-Civil War was palpable. Concurrently, significant strides were made in science and medicine alongside a proliferation of pseudoscientific ideas on race. Charles Darwin had published his groundbreaking work On the Origin of Species in 1859, demonstrating the process of natural selection and articulating his theory of evolution. Inspired by Darwin’s theories, Francis Galton coined the term “eugenics” in 1883 to refer to his own idea that the human race could be improved by selectively passing desirable traits to subsequent generations. By the early 20th century, eugenics had permeated American society, shaping legislation, political agendas, and societal norms.

Gilman’s advocacy of eugenics during the early 20th century wasn’t unique within feminist circles; it was a stance shared by many of her contemporaries. This first wave of feminism was predominantly composed of white, middle-class women who, like society at large, were influenced by prevalent cultural ideologies. Like Gilman, some believed that granting women greater rights and freedoms was essential for ensuring the production and upbringing of socially desirable offspring through selective breeding and childrearing practices; and saw women as pivotal in safeguarding the future of the white race. Many feminist advocates for birth control cited the prevention of health issues and socioeconomic burdens associated with large families as arguments for the cause. But some pushed for access to contraception as a tool to manage the population growth of groups deemed undesirable by eugenicist standards. Some feminist groups even pushed for legal reforms like compulsory sterilization, anti-miscegenation laws, and anti-immigration laws. Feminism represents just one among multiple progressive movements at the turn of the 20^th century influenced by the prevailing cultural biases of the era. Labor reform and environmentalism, for example, similarly reflect this phenomenon.

Today, there is growing recognition and awareness of Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s eugenicist beliefs in scholarship, the literary world, and society at large. While Gilman undeniably (and maybe unintentionally) contributed to the advancement of all women, her legacy is complex, encompassing both progressive advocacy and troubling ideologies. We must acknowledge her achievements without glossing over or excusing the reprehensible aspects of her work and politics. A complete understanding of Gilman’s career and beliefs requires an examination of all facets, including the negative elements. This commitment to acknowledging the entirety of Gilman’s work is crucial, not only for historical accuracy, but also for our collective responsibility to confront uncomfortable truths from the past. By thoroughly understanding and grappling with these complexities, we can work to prevent these harmful ideologies from following us into the future.

Erika Mills is an Exhibit Specialist in the User Services and Collection Division at the National Library of Medicine.

Kenneth M. Koyle is Deputy Chief of the Engagement Branch in the User Services and Collection Division at the National Library of Medicine.