In Latin Eugenics in Comparative Perspective, Marius Turda and Aaron Gillette trace the existence of ‘Latin’ eugenics as a distinct intellectual, social and cultural trend from the late nineteenth century to the 1940s. In what is essentially an intellectual history of the Latin eugenics movement, Turda and Gillette examine the papers and publications of the movement's founders, the way that their ideas were disseminated via conferences, and the formation of organisations dedicated to advancing their ideals. The authors trace this movement through an impressive array of countries spanning both sides of the Atlantic, including Western European countries like France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Italy, Eastern European counties like Romania, and Latin America, with a focus on Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and Cuba. Their source base also comes from archives in four different countries. The result is a good overview of the formation and evolution of the Latin eugenics movement during the late nineteenth century and twentieth centuries. As the only comprehensive work on Latin eugenics, Latin Eugenics in Comparative Perspective is a valuable resource for understanding both individual national eugenic programmes and the international linkages between them. This approach demonstrates the similarities and differences in national eugenic approaches, the ways in which they influenced each other, and how they changed in response to new economic and political conditions in Europe and Latin America.

This book argues that Latin eugenics was a coherent ideology and set of practices identifiable across many individual nations in different parts of the world during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Latin eugenics was based primarily on neo-Lamarckism, which is sometimes called ‘soft’ or ‘positive’ eugenics because it advocated for improving populations through environmental, health and social programmes rather than invasive reproductive controls. It also drew on puericulture (the science of hygienic childrearing), biotypology (the study of hereditary characteristics) and homiculture (the study of the scientific improvement of humanity). These ideas gained popularity during the period of Latin countries’ decline; by the end of the nineteenth century, the great Spanish and Portuguese empires had crumbled, and other European powers, namely Britain and the Netherlands, had supplanted Latin nations, including Italy, on the global stage. One of Latin eugenics’ defining features was its rejection of the more hard-line approach to eugenics taken by Anglo-Saxon nations, such as Germany, Britain and the United States, which advocated for the sterilisation of supposedly ‘unfit’ populations, including the mentally and physically disabled, prostitutes and criminals. Indeed, positive eugenics focused on increasing rather than decreasing national populations, which Latin eugenicists argued was the pathway to national prosperity. As Turda and Gillette demonstrate, Latin eugenicists defined themselves and their policies in explicit opposition to Anglo-Saxon eugenics, which they saw as intrusive and coercive.

Turda and Gillette also show that Latin eugenics, while a homogeneous intellectual movement, evolved along with changing political conditions in Europe. As the German doctrine of racial hygiene – based on scientific racism and feelings of Western European cultural superiority – grew in popularity during the 1930s, some eugenicists in Latin Europe found themselves promoting hard-line eugenic positions, including advocating for sterilisation programmes. The growing influence of German racial hygiene policies caused considerable debate within the Latin eugenics movement; the looming war and fears of national decline caused eugenicists in many Latin countries, most notably Fascist Italy, to embrace racial engineering programmes, while others continued to reject any hard eugenic approaches. Turda and Gillette use these examples to show that Latin eugenics had become more ‘conceptually versatile’ (p. 235) in the interwar period (1919–38). The concept of conceptual versatility is useful for understanding how eugenicists pitched their programmes to political leaders in different national contexts and historical time periods. Therefore, while Turda and Gillette do show that Latin eugenics was a coherent transnational discourse, they also demonstrate that homogeneity did not mean universal agreement amongst all Latin eugenicists at all times.

Despite the fact that Turda and Gillette include Latin America in their definition and discussion of Latin eugenics, this book really focuses on ‘Latin’ Europe. It appears that all archival work undertaken for this book took place in Europe and the United States. For this reason, Turda and Gillette rely on secondary sources for their chapter on Latin America. While there are no inherent problems with this approach, as both authors are trained as modern European historians, it does mean that one should cautiously accept some of their points about Latin America. Some of the broad conclusions they make about Latin eugenics do not adequately explain the Latin American context. For example, their point about how Latin eugenicists relied less on racialised understandings of their populations than did their German or Anglo counterparts (p. 239) does not necessarily ring true for Latin America. Indeed, the literature on Latin American eugenics movements, including work cited in this book, stresses the importance of race for understanding how Latin American doctors and politicians embraced and manipulated neo-Lamarckian eugenics for their own national purposes.

As a primarily intellectual history, Turda and Gillette focus on the leading Latin eugenic thinkers and their interactions at conferences and within societies and organisations. One is left to wonder what specific impact these Latin eugenic programmes had on ordinary people within the different countries examined. Since the analysis is mostly at the level of discourse and policy, there are few examples of how eugenic ideas affected various populations. As an addition to current national and regional studies of eugenic programmes, unpacking this transnational movement's impact on national populations would be a worthy future project. Another area that Turda and Gillette open for further research is the connection between these Latin eugenic programmes and the formation of the post-1945 welfare state in Europe (p. 240). In the conclusion, Turda and Gillette claim that Latin eugenics dissolved into a series of national programmes that became the basis for the modern European welfare state, although this point is not developed throughout the book.

Latin Eugenics in Comparative Perspective is a laudatory effort that shows that Latin eugenics was a distinct intellectual and transnational movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This book should be of interest to intellectual historians, scholars of science, medicine and public health, and anyone interested in the mobility of ideas across world regions.