This article critiques how the chromosomal condition ‘trisomy 21’ (‘T21’) (‘Down syndrome’) was originally conceptualised using colonial, scientific and medical discourses on ‘race’ and ‘idiocy’. Nineteenth century discourses surrounding ‘degeneracy’ commonly intertwined the notions of ‘race’ and ‘idiocy’. In Observations of an Ethnic Classification of Idiots, Down categorises people with T21 as ‘Mongolians’ because of their purported similarities to ethnic ‘Mongolians’. The discourse-historical approach (DHA) to critical discourse analysis (CDA) is used in this article to examine how the ‘Mongolian idiot’ (...) is constructed by Down as the ‘other’, being simultaneously a ‘racial other’, a ‘disabled other’, and an ‘idiotic other’. Down theorises that ethnic ‘Caucasians’ with ‘idiocy’ have ‘retrogressed’ to primitive forms as characterised by the ‘Mongolian family’. His report also essentialises the ‘Mongolian idiot’, defining their ‘degeneracy’ and ‘otherness’ in terms of their physical, behavioural, and mental characteristics. Whilst Down’s ‘mongolism’ has since been refuted, aspects of his report are reproduced in some contemporary medical and scientific discourses. Although these discourses are less essentialist than Down’s, they persist in constructing the ‘otherness’ of T21, by foregrounding its ‘abnormalities’ and ‘disorders’. Significantly, facets of ‘degeneracy’ appear in evolutionary developmental biology, connecting T21 with ‘atavisms’, though without the racial framework. (shrink)

In the second half of the 19th-century, a group of psychiatric experts discussed the relation between brain malfunction and moral misconduct. In the ensuing debates, scientific discourses on immorality merged with those on insanity and the brain. This yielded a specific definition of what it means to be immoral: immoral and insane due to a disordered brain. In this context, diverse neurobiological explanations for immoral mind and behavior existed at the time. This article elucidates these different brain-based explanations via five (...) historical cases of immoral persons. In addition, the article analyses the associated controversies in the context of the period’s psychiatric thinking. The rendering of the immoral person as brain-disordered is scrutinized in terms of changes in moral agency. Furthermore, a present immoral person is discussed to highlight commonalities and differences in past and present reasoning. (shrink)