Pro-Natalism and Hygienism in France, 1900-1940. The

Transcription

Population-E
http://www.necplus.eu/POE
Additional services for Population-E:
Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
Pro-Natalism and Hygienism in France, 1900-1940. The
Example of the Fight against Venereal Disease
Virginie De Luca Barrusse
Population-E / Volume 64 / Issue 03 / September 2009, pp 477 - 506
DOI: 10.3917/pope.903.0477, Published online: 04 March 2010
Link to this article: http://www.necplus.eu/abstract_S1634294109003037
How to cite this article:
Virginie De Luca Barrusse (2009). Pro-Natalism and Hygienism in France, 1900-1940. The
Example of the Fight against Venereal Disease. Population-E, 64, pp 477-506 doi:10.3917/
pope.903.0477
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://www.necplus.eu/POE, IP address: 78.47.27.170 on 29 Sep 2016

Virginie DE LUCA BARRUSSE*
Pro-Natalism and Hygienism in France,
1900-1940. The Example of the Fight
against Venereal Disease
How did demographic culture spread across France in the interwar
period, and how did it survive its perverse exploitation by the
Vichy regime while becoming taboo in Germany and Italy after
1945? In this article, Virginie DE LUCA BARRUSSE sheds new light on
a topic that has attracted renewed interest among historians in
recent years. By focusing on the fight against venereal disease, she
describes both the sophistication of the “propaganda” deployed
and the emergence of a new line of argument: to combat one of
the major “social scourges” of that time, social medicine based its
prevention policies on demographic reasoning. By representing the
crusade against syphilis as a “policy for improving the productivity
of marriage”, it durably united the notions of “quantity and
quality”, of demographic interventionism and of sanitary progress.
From the late nineteenth century, demographic trends in France diverged
from those of its European neighbours, thanks to falling birth rates and – an
often forgotten fact – an ageing population that kept death rates at persistently
high levels. Reproduction became a crucial issue in French demography, for
the “population” is not a static object but a collection of individuals who renew
themselves by a combination of births and deaths, more so than by migration.
Campaigners concerned about the future of the population highlighted the
need for three children per family: “two are needed to replace the parents,
followed by a third, since the law of probabilities shows that one out of the
three, on average, will die before reproducing”.(1) In the first half of the twentieth
century, the number of children per family and their chances of survival were
* Université de Picardie, Laboratoire Curapp (CNRS).
Correspondence: Virginie De Luca Barrusse, Université de Picardie, UFR Philosophie sciences
humaines et sociales, chemin du Thil, 80025 Amiens cedex, e-mail: virginie.delucabarrusse@
u-picardie.fr
(1) Alliance nationale pour l’accroissement de la population française, Programmes et Statuts
(National alliance for the growth of the French population, Programmes and statutes), 1897 in De
Luca Barrusse (2008a, p. 29). This text was very probably written by Dr Jacques Bertillon.
Population-E, 64 (3), 2009, 477-506
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
central to demographic debate, as testified by the distinction made in censuses
between births and surviving children to determine “household productivity”
(De Luca Barrusse, 2008a, pp. 193-211). The networks of actors (institutions,
associations) nonetheless tended to campaign separately, focusing either on
birth rates or on mortality (Rollet, 2001), via distinct modes of action.
The purpose of this article is to pinpoint the relationship between criteria
of quantity and of quality in population policies with a view to restoring overall
consistency to demographic thought. We agree with Paul-André Rosental who
laments the tendency to classify and segment demographic ideas rather than
demonstrate their permeability (Rosental, 2007).(2) Regarding the questions
of quantity and quality in particular, the two issues were treated separately by
virtue of a supposed incompatibility between pro-natalism and eugenism.
These two movements may indeed have been in competition, but they should
certainly not be considered a priori as mutually exclusive (De Luca Barrusse,
2008c). While this competition must be questioned and historicized, and not
stated as a postulate, the same is true for the links between these two criteria.
This is also the case in France, where the demographic thought that underpins
population policies incorporates the dual requirement of quality and quantity.
For our purposes, we propose to define population policies as all initiatives
and measures (laws, decrees), both implicit and explicit, designed to influence
the size, growth, renewal or composition of the population. The initiatives
are instigated by individuals acting alone or through networks (notably
associations) and the most well-prepared measures are overseen or even financed
by the state or by public bodies. The arguments put forward detail the primary
and secondary factors conferring legitimacy on the initiatives or measures set
in place. While French pro-natalism, with its very particular resonance, has
been widely studied, very little research has focused on the way in which its
broad dissemination led to an attenuation of its most “sensational” effects.
Although pro-natalism fed upon the successive accumulation of lines of reasoning and strategies of reappropriation – notably via the issues of familialism –
it also became diluted in other arguments (De Luca Barrusse, 2008a) that
provide the best measure of its dissemination outside openly pro-natalist
circles. Although quantity remains the common reference in a country whose
very existence is felt to be under threat, the quality criterion is primordial,
notably in the medical world, where the term “sanitary pro-natalism” could
be used to describe the prevailing attitude. This term is doubtless preferable
to that of “eugenic pro-natalism”, the overlap with eugenics being no more
than partial. The term “family eugenics” used by Anne Carol – eugenics in a
more discreet form – seems to be no more appropriate (Carol, 1995, p. 285).
Here, it is indeed a question of ideas on reproduction in quantitative terms
and of considerations relating to population quality.
(2) Readers may refer more broadly to the two volumes edited by Rosental on the political history
of populations (Rosental, 2006 and 2007).
478
PRO -NATALISM AND HYGIENISM IN FRANCE, 1900-1940
Social hygiene and anti-venereal institutions, 1916-1938
A range of institutions were responsible for venereal disease prevention, often bringing together
the same personalities. This chronology only mentions structures which played an important
propaganda role.
1916: The Commission de prophylaxie des maladies vénériennes (Commission for prophylaxis
of venereal diseases) is set up by the Ministry of the Interior.
1920: The commission is incorporated into the new Ministry of Hygiene and headed by Professor
Pinard.
1924: Creation of the Office national d’hygiène sociale (National office for social hygiene) on
the initiative of Justin Godard, and headed by Jules Brisac, former director of hygiene at the Ministry
of the Interior. It includes representatives of the main ministries and of the major associations
fighting social scourges (tuberculosis, alcoholism, syphilis, etc.) and working in child protection.
George Risler is appointed as the Office chairman, Louis Forest as vice-chairman and Lucien Viborel
as secretary. Its main remit is to centralize and disseminate documents on hygiene and prophylaxis
of social diseases and to co-ordinate activities in these areas.
1926: Creation within the social hygiene office of the Commission générale de propagande
(General propaganda commission) to liaise between the various public and private bodies involved
in social hygiene propaganda, and to organize, encourage and support their initiatives. It was divided
into sections, including one devoted to venereal diseases.
1935: The Office national d’hygiène is dismantled to reduce spending and, for reasons of economy,
the propaganda activities developed since 1927 are curtailed. In three years, the budget allocated
to social scourges falls from 15 million to 11 million francs and in 1936 it drops to just 9 million. The
budget devoted specifically to health propaganda, previously totalling 1 million francs, is reduced
in 1935 to 220,000 francs, of which 50,000 francs are earmarked for anti-venereal propaganda.
1936: Creation of the Commission de propagande (Propaganda commission) comprising
representatives of all the major social hygiene associations. Education campaigns are now officially
managed by the relevant national associations. Anti-venereal propaganda is entrusted to the Société
de prophylaxie sanitaire et morale (Society for sanitary and moral prophylaxis) whose leading light
is Lucien Viborel.
1938: The minister Marc Rucart founds the Conseil supérieur d’hygiène sociale (Higher council
for social hygiene) into which the propaganda commission is incorporated. This council, whose
general secretary is Dr Sicard de Plauzoles, is responsible for examining all questions from the
minister of public health relating to the organization, implementation and development of social
hygiene. It comprises several commissions, with Dr Gougerot chairing the commission for prevention
of venereal diseases and Dr Cavaillon serving as general secretary. Dr Parisot chairs the propaganda
commission, Dr Devraigne is vice-chairman and Lucien Viborel the general secretary.
The fight against “social scourges” is an especially interesting case in point,
as it highlights the complexity of the arguments deployed to promote population
policies developed for the ostensible purpose of social protection.(3) As remarked
by Patrice Pinell in relation to cancer, what characterizes a social scourge is
“the belief that it threatens the equilibrium (demographic social and/or moral)
of society and that [its] incidence can be reduced by appropriate modes of
(3) This article is based upon research focusing more broadly on the demographic considerations
underlying the fight against what were considered as “social scourges” (Bardet et al., 1988;
Guillaume, 1986; Dargelos, 2006 and 2008; Pinell, 1992).
479
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
intervention” (Pinell, 1987, p. 74). Among such scourges, the fight against
venereal diseases led by the medical profession and supported by state bodies
represents an extreme case linked to the representations of sexually transmitted
infections, as attested by the chronology given in the Box above (CastejónBolea, 2001; Davidson and Hall, 2001). Shameful and therefore unmentionable,
these diseases were rarely exposed to public attention. Yet their quantified
effects assumed a special significance when depopulation threatened, and the
questions of population quality and quantity became crystallized around the
productivity of marriage. A network of physicians thus took it upon themselves
to educate the population about venereal diseases and their adverse effects on
the population and the family. After the First World War, these initially isolated
initiatives were co-ordinated by public bodies to form a system of both technical
and social anti-venereal propaganda designed to organize and control social
relations. The recommendations on sexual conduct clearly target individuals
as members of society, for it is as such that they contribute to population
renewal. The content of this propaganda, notably the anti-venereal films, leaves
no doubt as to the role of pro-natalism in health education.
This article draws upon a wide range of sources including books, brochures,
plays, pamphlets and association journals. The archives of the French army
historical department and of the Institut Paster were also examined, along
with the French film archives of the Centre national du cinéma (CNC). Providing
new insight into the way population policy was constructed, these sources are
of interest to historians and demographers alike.
I. Overlapping criteria of population quality
and population quantity
Given the range of demographic variables involved, the fight against venereal
diseases offers an interesting field of observation. Among the various venereal
infections, syphilis was particularly detrimental to population renewal since
it increased mortality and miscarriages and thus reduced the number of live
births. In its review of syphilis in 1922, the commission for the prophylaxis
of venereal diseases estimated that 140,000 annual deaths could be attributed
to the disease: “20,000 children killed in their mother’s womb (stillbirths),
40,000 pathological abortions, 80,000 deaths of children or adults. We believe
that one-tenth of the population is infected with syphilis”.(4) Gonorrhoea, for
its part, led to sterility and reduced female fertility.
(4) In “Projet de loi relative à la prophylaxie des maladies vénériennes, Rapport de Cavaillon et
Sicard de Plauzoles” (Bill for the prophylaxis of venereal diseases, Report by Cavaillon and Sicard de
Plauzoles), Prophylaxie antivénérienne (Anti-venereal prophylaxis), January 1929. The authors defi ne
spontaneous abortion as mortality before the fifth month of pregnancy and stillbirth as mortality
between the fi fth month of pregnancy and the third day after birth. These same figures are found in
Dr Sicard de Plauzoles, La lutte contre les maladies vénériennes (The fight against venereal diseases),
1943.
480
The frequency of the disease and its demographic impact in terms of
mortality and reduced birth rates were a constantly recurring theme, up until
the Vichy regime at least. The issue of venereal diseases thus extended far
beyond the purely medical sphere: not only was the population’s health at
stake, but also its reproduction through the negative impact on birth rates.
The fact that syphilis in particular led to reduced birth rates and higher
mortality was attributed to the belief that it had a hereditary component, known
at the time as heredosyphilis (Corbin, 1981; Quétel, 1986). “Syphilis is a
hereditary disease: it afflicts the first, the second and even the third generation
of a syphilitic”.(5) The damage caused was substantial in a society possessed
by the idea that each generation reaches a more advanced stage of degeneracy
than the previous one (Carol, 1995, p. 91; Nye, 1984; Pinell, 2001). Owing to
syphilis,
“certain families are struck down by multiple miscarriages and deaths; a
benediction of sorts, since the race will be protected from corruption and
miserable wretches will not survive to live a sterile existence; but a malediction
also, for those families who witness the steady stream of small coffins across
their threshold. If they do survive, what will become of them? Runts,
weaklings, invalids, valetudinarians, perhaps lunatics, idiots or simpletons.
In all cases, they will be flawed.”(6)
Excess mortality and abnormality: such were the consequences of hereditary
syphilis. For observers, the criteria of physical and moral infi rmity were
intimately linked:
“Thirty percent of children in France are tainted with hereditary syphilis
and this heredity takes the form of stunted development, deformities (such
as harelip), nervous disorders (convulsions, epilepsy, tics, meningitis), ocular
lesions, malformed teeth, as well as disorders and abnormalities of the mind:
most demented or criminal children are heredos (monomaniacs, arsonists,
murderers).”(7)
Through depopulation, degeneracy and moral depravity, syphilis throws
a curse upon the population and jeopardizes the quality of its reproduction.
In 1902, the chairman of the Council, Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau, simultaneously
convened two extra-parliamentary commissions, one on depopulation, the
other on venereal diseases, thus confirming the imminence and convergence
of these two perils (Corbin, 1978, p. 269). Venereal diseases were thus a problem
of both public health and of demography.
More generally, sanitary and demographic problems were intimately linked
in the fight against “social scourges”. In 1918, Dr Leredde defined social diseases,
(5) Dr Queyrat cited by L. Viborel (1930).
(6) Dr Burlureaux, Le péril vénérien. Conseils aux jeunes filles (The venereal peril. Advice to young
ladies), 1904.
(7) in L. Viborel (1930).
481
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
among which he included tuberculosis, alcoholism and syphilis, as “those
which threaten social unity in terms of both quantity and of quality, and which
may thus compromise the future of societies”.(8) This dual perspective extended
beyond purely medical circles, and was overtly expressed by a government
minister. In 1936, Henri Sellier, minister of public health declared:
“It is urgent to protect the race against the certainty of degeneracy and
destruction foretold by the deplorable statistics on birth rates, disease and
death […]. We want vigorous children, born to healthy parents.”(9)
Social diseases thus combine specific effects which threaten the economy
of the population. The economy has two meanings in this statement. First, the
economy can be seen as a combination of production factors, births and deaths,
which are interrelated and which determine the level of population required
for its reproduction. At the conference of the Alliance d’hygiène sociale (Social
hygiene alliance) in Mulhouse in 1931, Dr Spilmann explained that syphilis
and gonorrhoea are “equally detrimental to natality. Gonorrhoea prevents
births. Syphilis kills children or renders them infirm”.(10) Second, the economy
refers to the fact that the population must be administered, that it is a capital
to be managed. For Professor Pinard in 1924,
“All human beings receive, or should receive, at the moment of procreation
and should possess at the moment of birth the biological capital, the ancestral
capital that is most precious and most sacred of all, namely good health […].
This capital must be neither damaged nor destroyed, but conserved intact
and transmitted, at least unspoiled if not enhanced.”(11)
Two years later, in 1929, Dr Cavaillon and Dr Sicard de Plauzoles, key
figures in the anti-venereal movement, summed up the situation as follows:
“Syphilis has the gravest consequences: for the individual, it signifies a
temporary inability to work or, at the very least, a reduction in productive
capacity and an inevitable drop in wages. And lucky the victim who, once
the storm has passed, is not afflicted by a permanent infirmity that reduces
him to indigence. For the family, it is disunion between spouses, disappointed
motherhood or, worse still, offspring blighted by a hereditary flaw. For society,
it is a waste of social capital, an increase in non-productive spending since
all these invalids, all these wastrels, all this human detritus must be supported
by the community. For the nation, it signifies the end of its moral and economic
(8) Dr Leredde, Les maladies de société : tuberculose, syphilis, alcoolisme et stérilité (Social diseases:
tuberculosis, syphilis, alcoholism and sterility), 1918.
(9) H. Sellier cited in Prophylaxie antivénérienne (Anti-venereal prophylaxis), October 1936.
(10) Dr Spilmann, “L’hérédosyphilis dans ses rapports avec la mortalité infantile” (Heredosyphilis
and its relation to infant mortality), Congrès de l’Alliance d’hygiène sociale (Conference of the Social
hygiene alliance), Mulhouse, 1930.
(11) Prof. Pinard, “Le rôle de l’école dans la civilisation de l’instinct sexuel, conférence faite à la
société française de pédagogie, le 27 novembre 1924” (The role of the school in civilizing the sexual
instinct, lecture to the French pedagogical society, 27 November 1924), Prophylaxie antivénérienne,
March 1930.
482
expansion, the bastardization of the race, fewer military forces available for
service, a reduction in births and depopulation.”(12)
These references to the individual, the family, the community, the nation,
illustrate the collective dimension of the pathology, now classified as a social
scourge thanks to the weight of the demographic argument. To achieve the
status of social scourge, it is not enough for a disease to jeopardize the economy
of the population; it must also mobilize actors eager to bring it to public
attention. Identifying the phases in the “career and destiny” of social problems,
among which the scourges of the early twentieth century can be included,
Herbert Blumer defines a series of stages(13) (Blumer, 1971). After the emergence
of the problem and its legitimation, the third stage of his model is that of
mobilization. The debate on depopulation, degeneracy and moral depravity,
with venereal diseases as a catalyst, provided grounds for the creation in 1901
of the Société de prophylaxie sanitaire et morale (Society for sanitary and moral
prophylaxis). Its founder was Alfred Fournier, holder of the Chair in cutaneous
and syphilitic diseases at the Saint-Louis hospital since 1879. This first network,
comprised of specialist physicians and reformers, expanded with the creation
of other groups such as La ligue contre le péril vénérien (League against the
venereal peril) in 1923, headed by Dr Queyrat, Dr Gougerot and Dr Sicard de
Plauzoles, and the Comité d’éducation féminine (Women’s education committee)
set up in 1925 by a female physician, Dr Montreuil-Straus (Rollet, 2008a).
This initial mobilization in the early years of the twentieth century stems
from the need to take the fight against venereal disease beyond the mere
question of its sexual transmissibility, which branded the disease as one of
debauchery and corruption, a self-inflicted disease whose victims deserved to
suffer as a just punishment for their turpitude. These diseases are all the more
difficult to address for being invisible, shameful and unspoken (Baldwin, 1999,
p. 355). The Société de prophylaxie sanitaire et morale thus set itself the goal
of promoting individual prophylaxis against venereal diseases and bringing
them out of the “brothels” to which they were supposedly confined, an
assumption that limited health measures to the control of prostitution (Corbin,
1978 and 1982). It was by creating the concept of “syphilis of the innocent”
that the syphilologist Alfred Fournier helped to extirpate the disease from the
narrow context of extramarital and illicit sexual relations.(14) In his book
Syphilis et mariage (Syphilis and marriage) published in 1880, he developed
the idea of undeserved syphilis, citing patients who were “innocent” wives
(12) “Projet de loi relative à la prophylaxie des maladies vénériennes. Rapport des docteurs Cavaillon
et Sicard de Plauzoles” (Bill for the prophylaxis of venereal diseases. Report by Dr Cavaillon and
Dr Sicard de Plauzoles), Prophylaxie antivénérienne, January 1929.
(13) Dargelos formulates the same postulate (2008, pp. 6-15).
(14) Others before him denounced the risks of syphilis in marriage, but Alfred Fournier achieved
unprecedented notoriety. One example is E. Langlebert, La syphilis dans ses rapports avec le mariage,
(Syphilis and its relations with marriage), 1873.
483
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
contaminated by their husbands (Harsin, 1989). Backed by figures, he deplored
the spread of the disease among the middle classes, and the threat to their
fertility. The syphilis of the innocent became the catchword of the anti-venereal
campaign, challenging the idea of a self-inflicted disease, both in France and
in Scotland, where the concept gained ground during the interwar years
(Davidson, 1994, p. 273): “there are too many innocent victims to reasonably
assert that their illness is a necessary retribution”.(15) One person’s illness is
liable to become that of another, and the social territory of the disease expands.
“Some believe that no mention should be made of these diseases, which are
no more, in their eyes, than the rightful punishment for debauchery. He who
is commonly designated as a debauchee is not some special being who lives
quite alone, without intercourse with the rest of humanity; this man has a
family and friends, he goes to the café and drinks from a glass that will be
served to you or me after a token rinse under the tap! He will go to the barber,
and the same razor that was used upon his beard will then be brought into
intimate contact with your own skin; and one day, this man will decide to
‘settle down’, and he will marry in the hope of having children.”(16)
In 1943, Dr Sicard de Plauzoles likewise confirmed that the disease was
spreading across society: “contagion produces unexpected rebounds; it moves
from the infamous whorehouse to the family home, to the bed of the most
virtuous woman, it strikes innocent children, down to the second or third
generation”.(17) To achieve the goal of enhancing social awareness of syphilis,
actions were structured around the notion of the general interest. The risks
for the quantity and quality of population, the spread of the disease in the
family – unit of reproduction and mainstay of social order – provided legitimate
grounds for an educational campaign to alert young people to its dangers. This
is the fourth stage of the “history” of social problems defined by Blumer (1971).
II. Propaganda: A complex instrument
to support population policy
The process of disease transmission was to be controlled by educating the
population, and this mission was embraced by the Société de prophylaxie. The
education of young people, both men and women, was based on a series of
recommendations established by the medical profession and, after the First
World War, supported and even financed by government bodies. One campaign
even exploited the techniques of advertising, for propaganda – this was the
(15) Dr Spilmann, Le péril vénérien. Conférence de prophylaxie sanitaire et morale (The venereal peril.
Lecture on sanitary and moral prophylaxis), 1926.
(16) Dr Bizard, Le péril vénérien, influence néfaste des maladies vénériennes, blennorragie et syphilis
sur la race (dépopulation et déchéance de la race) (The venereal peril, the damaging influence of
venereal diseases, gonorrhoea and syphilis on the race (depopulation and decline of the race)), 1906.
(17) Dr Sicard de Plauzoles, La lutte contre les maladies vénériennes (The fight against venereal
diseases), 1943.
484
exact term used – “serves to fight the disease in the same way as advertising
serves commerce and industry” said Dr Spilmann.(18) The aim was to “command
attention by virtue of this effort of unconscious cerebration that is so familiar
to shopkeepers and that they exploit so adeptly”.(19) Among other groups
likewise, notably the Alliance nationale pour l’accroissement de la population
française (National alliance for the growth of the French population), which
used propaganda to promote large families, the communication strategy was
also based on the example of advertising (De Luca Barrusse, 2008a, p. 62).
Information and education campaigns were based on commercial practices
and used a variety of media to obtain unconditional support for the ideas they
defended. The aim was to develop a synergy between modes of action: all means
were made available for the education of young people, and it was by combining
these means that the message would be brought home. Throughout the first
half of the twentieth century, brochures, pamphlets, lectures and posters, along
with novels and plays, formed the backbone of health education. After the First
World War, propaganda efforts became more organized, drawing together a
number of hitherto disparate initiatives. With the mobilization of two new
information media – radio and motion pictures – propaganda gained substance
and coherence as an instrument to serve population policy.
It was through brochures written by physicians that the education campaign
was initiated, making it possible to evoke the venereal peril discreetly via a
private “chat” with the doctor. In the first half of the twentieth century, many
such information brochures were published, with separate versions for men
and women (De Luca Barrusse, forthcoming, 2010). This “personalized” form
of communication could be targeted towards specific groups (Ellul, 1990,
p. 19), such as medical students or athletes,(20) and the content was tailored to
their particular concerns.
From 1915, new media were brought in to reinforce the crusade, with an
intensification and diversification of information campaigns in response to
the spread of venereal diseases in the army (Le Naour, 2002; Darmon, 2000).
Like several other countries engaged in the war, the politicians and army
medical services who had hitherto closed their eyes to these shameful afflicitions
were forced into action by the threat of a syphilis epidemic among the troops
(Towers, 1980; Parascandola, 2008). In France, the Interior Ministry’s Commission
permanente d’hygiène et de prophylaxie (Permanent commission for hygiene
(18) Dr Spilmann, L’évolution de la syphilis. Un bilan de 25 ans à Nancy, 1907-1932 (The evolution of
syphilis. Twenty-five years of experience in Nancy, 1907-1932), Paris, 1933.
(19) Dr Burlureaux, Report to the 11th international conference on the prophylaxis of venereal
diseases, 1902.
(20) Prof. Gougerot, Dr Cavaillon, Protégez-vous contre les maladies vénériennes, Conseils aux
étudiants (Protect yourselves against venereal diseases. Advice to students), Paris, 1930. Dr Fouqué,
Jeunesse sportive lis-moi ! Deux fléaux : blennoragie, syphilis, Comment les éviter, comment les guérir
(Young athletes, read me! Two scourges: gonorrhoea, syphilis. How to avoid them, how to treat
them), 1930.
485
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
and prophylaxis) provided the War Ministry with an array of measures to
stamp out the epidemic in the armed forces.(21) Pamphlets were issued to
accompany the lectures on sexual hygiene delivered to new recruits from
1902.(22) With the arrival of motion pictures, the lectures were also illustrated
by short films.
In 1918, On doit le dire (It must be said), a 7-minute animated film was
shown in cinemas to audiences of soldiers.(23) It portrays two soldiers, the
Frenchman Matthieu and the Italian Matteo infected by the same prostitute.
Matteo prefers to consult the Dr Charlatanos, whose miracle cures are advertised
on a poster, while Matthieu chooses to visit the dispensary doctor. In front of
the doctor, Matthieu drops his trousers, and – to satisfy the film censor – a
speech bubble appears in place of his groin: “my poor chap, you’ve got syphilis”
(Kuhn, 1986 and 1994). “I’m rotting, I’m going to kill myself” cries the soldier.
“You’re contagious; follow my instructions and nothing serious will happen
to you. In four years time you’ll be able to marry.” Matteo, for his part, though
covered in roseola, gets married, “a truly criminal act”. His wife miscarries
seven times in five years. At last a child is born, weak-minded, followed by a
second, hydrocephalic. Ten years on, Matteo’s nose collapses, and twenty years
later he is paralysed and demented. A bubble gives the moral of this tale:
“syphilis is a social peril, it often afflicts not only the sufferer, but also his or
her children. The children of syphilitics who remain untreated will be stillborn
or physically and intellectually degenerate”. The contrast with Matthieu, cured
of the disease, is striking. The last scene shows him surrounded by his five
children, with his wife breast-feeding her new baby next to a cradle. Here we
find all the ingredients of the subsequent propaganda films: the drama of
unfulfilled marriage, compromised fertility, stillbirths and damaged children,
but also the chance of cure,(24) and a large, healthy family as the image of
personal happiness and social order.
After the war, the propaganda campaign gained new momentum, stimulated
by the experience of the Rockefeller Foundation which provided the framework
for action.(25) In its fight against tuberculosis, various forms of communication
– lectures, press articles, posters, brochures, films, plays and puppet shows –
were adopted simultaneously. It was Lucien Viborel, hired by the foundation
(21) SHAT, 9 N 968 S, “Rapport de la commission permanente d’hygiène et de prophylaxie au sujet
des dangers des maladies vénériennes” (Report of the permanent commission for hygiene and
prophylaxis concerning the dangers of venereal diseases).
(22) For example, Conseils au soldat pour sa santé (Health advice to soldiers), 1916.
(23) CNC – Archives françaises du film, On doit le dire, directed by Marius O’Galop, Jean Comandon,
1918, black and white animated film, 7 minutes.
(24) And likewise charlatanism which compromised the chances of cure but which is outside the
scope of this article.
(25) Archives of the Institut Pasteur, CNDT 14, “Notes sur la commission américaine pour
la préservation de la tuberculose en France (Fondation Rockefeller)” (Notes on the American
commission for the prevention of tuberculosis in France (Rockefeller Foundation)), 1917-1922.
486
in 1917 to work on the Comité national de défense contre la tuberculose(26)
(National committee for tuberculosis prevention, CNDT) who, in 1922, became
its director of propaganda, which he described as “the art of disseminating,
spreading, popularizing, broadcasting” (Viborel, 1930). During the interwar
period, he took charge of social hygiene propaganda (tuberculosis, infant
mortality), and this explains certain similarities in the various campaigns
waged against these different social scourges. In 1924, as a senior functionary
of the Public Health Ministry, he took charge of anti-venereal propaganda and
the following year was appointed general secretary of propaganda at the Office
national d’hygiène sociale.(27) He wrote a manual for social hygiene propagandists
in which he assessed all available means of persuasion. Propaganda, as viewed
and implemented by Viborel, was an instrument aiming to create a consensus
and to reshape social practices (and in this case sexual practices) by means of
diverse tools designed both to shock (posters, lectures, pamphlets) and to make
a gradual but powerful impression via radio and film.
In France, Spain, Scotland and even in Canada, two new propaganda media
were brought into service to educate the population (Perdiguero et al., 2007;
Boon, 1990; Cassel, 1987, pp. 206-216; Davidson, 2000, pp. 139-141). Instead
of targeting specific groups or shocking the public with eye-opening posters
and pamphlets, the aim was now to educate the masses through film and radio
(Ellul, 1990, p. 21). Radio reached a much larger audience than pamphlets,
brochures or posters. Following the example of anti-tuberculosis campaigns,
national anti-syphilis weeks were organized from 1926. They featured special
radio programmes in which well-known medical specialists talked about
venereal diseases over the airwaves. They received advice from Viborel, who
recommended short, clear, incisive phrases. He wanted “appeal! restraint!
concision! variety!” (Viborel, 1930). In April 1928, during the national antisyphilis week for the protection of mothers and children, Dr Cavaillon spoke
of “syphilis, the disease of the innocent” while Dr Queyrat warned that it was
the “main cause of infant mortality” and Dr Milan explained that “combating
syphilis means reducing stillbirths”. On 1 December 1937, Sicard de Plauzoles
made a radio talk that was broadcast from the Eiffel tower: “Syphilis kills
children or considerably weakens their resistance, while gonorrhoea prevents
them from being born and brings illness and sometimes infirmity to once
healthy young women”.(28) Radio provided a means to alert public opinion to
population issues relating to mortality and birth rates, while simultaneous
poster campaigns served to “drive the point home” (Document 1).
(26) Archives of the Institut Pasteur, CNDT 8, “Titres, travaux et activités de Lucien Viborel” (Titles,
works and activities of Lucien Viborel). Born in 1891, he was the author of a thesis defended at the
École pratique des hautes études on “Les doctrines de la tuberculose” (Doctrines of tuberculosis).
(27) Archives of the Institut Pasteur, CNDT 8, ibid.
(28) Cited in Prophylaxie antivénérienne, May 1938.
487
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
Document 1. Syphilis increases child mortality
SYPHILIS IS TRULY THE GREATEST CHILD KILLER. EVEN TODAY!
Source: L. Viborel, 1930, p. 169.
From 1925, through fiction and documentaries, the cinema became a
linchpin of the propaganda campaigns orchestrated by government bodies.
Lucien Viborel played a central role in developing such propaganda, whose
“power of suggestiveness” is reinforced by the fact that “the number of visual
messages is considerably larger than the number of auditory ones: around 80%
are visual, I hear”. He affirmed that “the cinema as a creator of pleasurable
impressions is above all a prodigious agent of education […]. It is now very
seriously considered as a powerful and highly effective instrument of intellectual,
moral, technical and sanitary education”.
It was via the Rockefeller Foundation and his visits to the United States
that Viborel discovered the potential of motion pictures as an instrument of
education.(29) Educational films on tuberculosis, commissioned by various
institutions, became widespread after the war, while the Rockefeller Foundation
set up travelling film shows to convey the prophylactic message across the
country. Anti-syphilis propaganda was ready to follow the same path(30)
(Lefebvre, 2002; Zarch, 2002), and the necessary impetus came in 1925, thanks
to a private initiative. Dr Leredde, a well-known syphilologist, signed the first
documentary, entitled Une maladie sociale : la syphilis. Comment elle peut
(29) Archives of the Institut Pasteur, CNDT 14.
(30) See the extensive filmography of Jean Benoit-Levy, a close collaborator of the social hygienists
and who made several films on their behalf (Vignaux, 2007).
488
disparaître (A social disease: syphilis. How it can be eradicated).(31) The timing
of this film could not have been more opportune. At its statutory meeting in
June 1926, Lucien Viborel, secretary of the propaganda commission at the
Office national d’hygiène sociale, declared that the commission would need to
invest in educational cinema and to promote this little-developed medium “by
creating or supporting the creation of these documents of high educational
value”.(32) Lucien Viborel, who was also a member of the CNDT, contributed
to the incorporation of his film library into the propaganda commission.(33)
It was henceforth managed jointly, although the film reels available for lending
were stored in the premises of the CNDT. In 1926, the commission bought
Leredde’s film, along with two other American titles: Female Sexual Hygiene
which provided information on female physiology and venereal diseases for
an audience of women, while Causes and Effects of Syphilis targeted men.(34)
From 1927, new titles overseen and funded by the Office national d’hygiène
sociale, such as Il était une fois trois amis (There were once three friends) directed
by Jean Benoit-Levy,(35) were added to its cinema library catalogue. It was at
the request of the Office’s propaganda commission that the paediatric specialist
Dr Devraigne wrote the screenplay for this fictional drama. No fewer than four
versions were produced before the film was finally shot (with the commission’s
support). It was officially presented to the Sorbonne on 16 November 1927 and
released on 15 February 1929 (Vignaux, 2007). The propaganda commission
supervised and verified the credibility of screenplays. In March 1931, a certain
Dr Malichowski underwent such scrutiny when he presented his screenplay
entitled Le roi pâle (The pale king). It tells the story of a family “struck down
by a terrible evil”. The children are all lame, blind or mentally unbalanced, as
a result of which one of them runs away. The last part of the film shows the
recovery of the youngest heredosyphilitic child after receiving treatment.
Dr Sicard de Plauzoles approved the script but noted that limping due to
congenital hip dislocation is a rare condition, while Dr Cavaillon wondered
whether it is plausible for a young man with no history of mental disturbance
in childhood to abandon his family. The psychiatrist Levy Valensi then quotes
(31) CNC – Archives françaises du film, Un fléau social : la syphilis et l’organisation de la lutte
antisyphilitique (A social scourge: syphilis and organization of the fight against syphilis), 1922; Une
maladie sociale : la syphilis. Comment elle peut disparaître, directed by Dr Leredde, silent short film,
36 minutes, black and white, 1923, released in 1925.
(32) L. Viborel, “Exposé de la question de la propagande d’hygiène sociale, à l’occasion de la
constitution de la commission de propagande de l’Office national d’hygiène sociale” (Presentation
of the question of social hygiene propaganda on the occasion of the establishment of the propaganda
commission of the National office of social hygiene), 6 p.
(33) Archives of the Institut Pasteur, CNDT 8.
(34) Titles retranslated from French. Original American titles unknown. The first lasted 35 minutes,
the second 45 minutes.
(35) CNC – Archives françaises du film, Il était une fois trois amis, screenplay by Dr Devraigne,
directed by Jean Benoit-Levy, feature-length black and white silent film, 1hr 17 min, 1927 (released
in 1929).
489
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
the case of a man who went out to buy cigarettes and was found… in Tongking.
Given the infrequent nature of the cases observed, the commission chairman,
Georges Risler, asked Malichowski to find other examples of hereditary defects
“liable to have a more profound effect on the public consciousness”.(36)
Les maladies vénériennes et l’armement antisyphilitique (Venereal diseases
and anti-syphilitic armament) in 1928 and Conte de la mille et deuxième nuit
(Tale of the one thousand and second night) in 1929 were also commissioned
and funded by the Office. The first is a documentary and the second an animated
film intended for the colonies. These films were presented in public places, in
full daylight, thanks to a new “film loop” technique which projected short
sequences over and over again. From June 1928, they were shown across the
country thanks to travelling film shows much like those used by the Rockefeller
Foundation and found elsewhere in Europe, notably in Scotland (Davidson,
2000, p. 141). In 1931, eleven propaganda trucks travelled from town to town
to show anti-syphilis films and give lectures, following an itinerary prepared
in collaboration with the government authorities (prefects). The départements
concerned received pamphlets, brochures and posters to prepare the truck’s
arrival.
It is difficult to know how widely this films were shown or to assess their
impact. The department for the prophylaxis of venereal diseases counted
1,207 film showings in 1929, 806 in 1930, and a striking 4,335 in 1931.(37) Yet
these are certainly minimum figures. The cinema library of the Office national
d’hygiène sociale was not the only body to centralize and disseminate propaganda
films: The Musée pédagogique (pedagogical museum) and the cinema libraries
of the Ministry of Agriculture and of the city of Paris did likewise (Vignaux,
2002; Murray Levine, 2004). Their efforts were backed up by the regional
bodies, notably the educational cinema offices which broadcast anti-syphilis
films (Borde and Perrin, 1992, pp. 52-53). Certain cinemas also contributed
to the propaganda effort by occasionally showing news reports on the fight
against syphilis and on the inauguration of dispensaries (Lefebvre, 1993).
Within the army, films were produced by army physicians and presented to
the soldiers. From the mid-1930s, La blennorragie danger social (Gonorrhoea,
a social threat) and La syphilis ennemi public n° 1 (Syphilis, public enemy number
one) were shown to all new army recruits, but the impact of these films is
difficult to measure. Historical research suggests that they were well received,
although there is no way of knowing whether it was the interest of the subject
matter, the appeal of novelty or the rare opportunity to see a motion picture
(36) Propaganda commission of the Office national d’hygiène sociale, anti-venereal section, session
of March 1931 cited in Prophylaxie antivénérienne, December 1931. To our knowledge, this fi lm was
never shot.
(37) Ministère de la Santé, Direction de l’hygiène et de l’assistance publique, Service de prophylaxie
des maladies vénériennes, Statistiques pour l’année (1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933) (Ministry of Health,
Hygiene and social welfare division, Venereal disease prophylaxis department, Annual statistics).
490
show, in rural areas especially, that attracted cinema audiences (de Pastre,
2004; Murray Levine, 2004).
More generally, the overall influence of policy measures was difficult to
assess, although regular accounts were kept and published in the association
journals that reported on propaganda activities. In 1927, 60,000 copies of a
poster bearing the slogan “Protect yourself against syphilis” were printed,
along with 10,000 copies of a leaflet on “Services for prophylaxis of venereal
diseases” and 25,000 copies of a brochure on “Venereal diseases”; 69,480 people
attended 120 representations of a theatre show on venereal diseases;
200 lectures reached an audience of 160,000; and 102 fi lm shows were
organized.
Alongside these initiatives intended for a broad audience, targeted campaigns
also played an important role. During the syphilis week in 1930, Parisian
journalists, supplied with documents by the propaganda commission, were
invited to publish articles on the question. The “Protect yourself against syphilis”
poster was placarded in numerous public places, including railway and
underground stations. Leaflets entitled “Don’t run the risk” and “Advice to
students” were distributed in large numbers. Lectures were organized every
day for students of the grandes écoles, for post office employees, railway workers
etc.(38) Every day, Radio Paris broadcast chat shows with titles such as “What
is syphilis?”, “Diagnosis and treatment of syphilis”, “Heredosyphilis”, “Syphilis
and marriage”. “They raised not a murmur of protest on the part of radio
audiences, quite the contrary”, affirmed Sicard de Plauzoles:
“The many letters I have received prove that the radio is a marvellous
propaganda tool, capable of reaching the remotest villages. My listeners,
surprised by our revelations, have written moving letters in which they
promise to follow my advice.”
To give a full picture of the propaganda effort, the actions targeting young
women (of the bourgeoisie in particular) should also be mentioned. They took
the form of lectures given exclusively by female physicians of the Comité
d’éducation féminin (women’s education committee, CEF) (Stewart, 1997,
pp. 393-394; Rollet, 2008a). In 1925, the CEF printed a poster with the slogan
“Syphilis, a hereditary disease, is destroying our race. Women, join the fight!”
and the first illustrated postcard on syphilis bore the legend: “The venereal
scourge cruelly afflicts mother and child: women, know your enemy and win
the fight”. Another postcard exhorts: “Young lady, think of your future children,
marry a healthy man”. From 1925 to 1935, the CEF gave 644 lectures, including
325 in the provinces, to a total audience of 140,000 people. In the provinces
they attracted a full house: “the appeal of a new subject, the curiosity to see a
woman speaking to other women about a potentially distasteful topic were
(38) Prophylaxie antivénérienne, January 1931. Propaganda commission of the Office national
d’hygiène sociale, anti-venereal section, session of 27 Mars 1930.
491
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
certainly part of the attraction”.(39) Directed and financed by state bodies, antivenereal propaganda successfully created the conditions for acceptance of the
model it defended.
III. Propaganda objectives: population quality and quantity
This propaganda was based on moral presuppositions which shaped its
content. Its purpose was to control behaviour, as stated by Lucien Viborel:
“In the fight against syphilis and other venereal diseases, the critical factor,
critical in order of importance and of logic, is education, which lies within
the domain of morals. Education is necessary to develop willpower, to
discipline and control the instincts.”(40)
The control of behaviour as targeted by education campaigns involves a
process of devolving to social players the concern for personal health and for
the health of others. Indeed, the propaganda system aimed to regulate not only
sexual practices but also social conduct. From personal interest to the general
interest, from individual responsibility to the collective dimension of private
behaviour, a series of norms and rules were decreed in which the individual
“I” is linked to the collective “we”. Beyond the fight against venereal contagion,
the purpose of this education was to maintain social order and to renew the
population through the reproduction of healthy generations. Its underlying
mechanisms reveal a little-known and underrated aspect of population policies,
most often studied in terms of their coercive or incentive effects, but rarely in
terms of their educational role.
Propaganda provided information on venereal diseases that was more
hard-hitting than is sometimes believed. This is particularly true for gonorrhoea.
“Among the public it is fashionable to consider the clap as a trifling ailment,
as a minor complaint […]. Yet this mere trifle is one of the main causes of the
depopulation which so severely afflicts our country”,(41) points out Dr Bizard.
In 1925, before the students of the University of Nancy, Dr Spilmann denounced
“the tendency among certain families to consider a son’s first attack of gonorrhoea
as a certificate of virility”.(42) The message is driven home by means of two
dramatic effects. The first is a demonstration of the insidious nature of the
scourge. In 1911, Dr Bessede warns his son:
(39) G. Montreuil-Straus, “10 années de propagande éducative : l’œuvre accomplie par le CEF”
(10 years of educational propaganda: the achievements of the CEF”), Prophylaxie antivénérienne,
May 1935.
(40) L. Viborel, L’éducation publique contre la syphilis. De l’importance de l’éducation morale (Public
education in the fight against syphilis. The importance of moral education), 1928.
(41) Dr Bizard, Le péril vénérien influence néfaste des maladies vénériennes, blennoragie et syphilis sur
la race (The venereal peril, damaging influence of venereal diseases, gonorrhoea and syphilis on the
race), 1906.
(42) Dr Spilmann, Le péril vénérien. Conférence de prophylaxie sanitaire et morale (The venereal peril.
Lecture on sanitary and moral prophylaxis), 1926.
492
“One of the peculiarities of the disease is its capacity to develop in young
people who give every impression of flourishing good health. Those enticing
lips on that lovely fresh face could well inoculate you with the most toxic of
venoms through a kiss that will poison your entire life, and that of your wife
and children too.”(43)
Here we see an approach similar to that observed by Patrice Pinell in the
fight against cancer (Pinell, 1992). The second dramatic effect is the detailed
description of bodily symptoms. Dr Gougerot warns his audience of soldiers:
“Did you know that untreated gonorrhoea can make you sterile and impotent
by “spreading down to the scrotum”; it can cripple you by attacking your
joints; it causes constrictions, diseases of the bladder and the kidneys; it can
make your wife infirm, sterile and demented, and kill her from peritonitis;
that it can make your children blind?”(44)
The long list of adverse consequences was a admonition in itself. In 1920,
Dr Azoulay explained that syphilis
“affects the skin, the bones such as the tibia, called “the syphilis bone”, the
nose, that punctures and collapses into a saddle-nose, the tongue, notably
among smokers, the hard and soft palate that it perforates, the testicles, the
penis, the muscles of the eye. But it is above all the nervous system that
suffers the greatest damage.”(45)
While there was general consensus on the purpose of propaganda, the
deliberate violence of the message was a subject of debate. Most authors in the
1920s and 1930s rejected the prewar mode of discourse. While in 1902, for
Dr Burlureaux “it is not a bad thing to raise terror among one’s fellow citizens
to attain a worthy goal”,(46) for professor Spilmann in 1930,
“on such questions, the main thing is to avoid shocking public opinion. One
must act with infinite tact. It is senseless to adorn the walls with posters
whose brutal horror has an effect quite contrary to the goal pursued. Antivenereal propaganda can do without the images of snakes, flames or skulls.
It is a strategy that can only be qualified as ridiculous. Frightening the public
will not teach them to protect themselves against the venereal peril: what
they need is information.”(47)
(43) Dr Bessede, L’initiation sexuelle. Entretiens avec nos enfants (Sexual education, discussions with
our children), 1911.
(44) SHAT 9 N 987 S, Dr Gougerot, “Soldat ! Défends toi contre les maladies vénériennes” (Soldier!
Defend yourself against venereal diseases), 16 p.
(45) Dr Azoulay, Pour sauver la race : ce que tout le monde doit connaître : le péril vénérien (Saving the
race: what everyone should know: the venereal peril), 1920.
(46) Dr Burlureaux, Report to the 11th international conference on the prophylaxis of venereal
diseases, 1902.
(47) Prof. Spilmann, “La lutte antivénérienne en Meurthe-et-Moselle au cours des 25 dernières
années” (The fight against venereal disease in Meurthe-et-Moselle over the last 25 years), Prophylaxie
antivénérienne, January 1930.
493
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
While the aim of the prewar propagandists was to confront the public with
the shock of realization, those of the 1920s tended to favour the idea of
prevention, and thus advocated a change of tone, although it remained barely
perceptible in the content of leaflets and lectures.
Through their brochures, physicians provided the means for non-specialists
to detect and diagnose the disease. Men and women started to worry about
suspicious bodily symptoms, as is the case in the fight against cancer (Pinell,
1992). In 1930, Dr Fouqué explained to young athletes:
“Women with a history of miscarriages are likely to have syphilis, as are
those who complain of frequent headaches, those whose voice is husky, as
if hoarse, those with bald patches in their hair, those whose neck is encircled
by a brown ring, known poetically as the necklace of Venus. Beware of women
with swollen glands in their neck […]. Before allowing your love story to
unfold, take the young lady on your knees, gently stroke her neck, slide your
hand towards her more intimate parts and feel the folds of her groin. Should
you discover any hard glands that roll under your finger, from the size of a
pea to that of a hazelnut, go no further.”(48)
Propaganda taught the public how to interpret the signs of potential risk.(49)
When Dr Bizard listed the consequences of syphilis: deformed fingers and
toes, deaf-mutism, heart defects, stuttering, harelip, mental retardation,
imbecility, hysteria, madness, he pointed out that:
“After listening to me, you will logically think that I can come to only one
conclusion; that gonorrhoea and syphilis sufferers should remain single and,
above all, that syphilitics should avoid having children. But you would be
wrong. Indeed, if all those who had been tainted in their youth condemned
themselves to a life of singlehood and childlessness, we would need to worry
about population collapse rather than population decline.”(50)
The propaganda system served to organize social relations according to
criteria of productivity, using the public’s new and painful awareness of the
disease’s effects as a lever. Marriage as a prerequisite for reproduction had to
be defended at all costs. “Marriage became the centre-piece of anti-venereal
prophylaxis”, and sexual relations were to be kept within its bounds (Quétel,
1986, p. 186). As demonstrated in the propaganda films especially, this was
the only way to protect future generations from the threat of heredosyphilis.
Keeping sexual relations within the bounds of marriage
As noted by Alain Corbin for the prewar years, the Société de prophylaxie
launched a campaign to dissuade young people from engaging in sexual activity
(48) Dr Fouqué, Jeunesse sportive lis-moi !..., (Young athletes, read this!...), 1930.
(49) Such descriptions were rarer for women (De Luca Barrusse, 2010).
(50) Dr Bizard, Le péril vénérien influence néfaste des maladies vénériennes, blennoragie et syphilis sur
la race (The venereal peril, damaging influence of venereal diseases, gonorrhoea and syphilis on the
race), 1906.
494
(Corbin, 1978). Its members agreed to defend chastity: “what we want is for
young people to remain virgins until marriage”.(51) And the corollary of chastity
is early marriage, the “safest haven from the venereal peril”.(52) Despite the
warnings of the first sexologists who, from the 1910s, deplored its adverse
effects, on the practice of onanism in particular, the Société de prophylaxie
did not budge from its position and proffered the opposing argument of health
through abstinence (Chaperon, 2007). In 1916, soldiers were told that “to avoid
contracting venereal diseases, there is only one effective method: absence of
exposure. Only imbeciles laugh at the idea of chastity”.(53) Early marriage was
recommended for bachelors, and fidelity for married men. In his lecture to the
students of the lycée Condorcet on “Venus and her dangers” in 1925, Dr LaignelLavastine gave sordid and repugnant details of venereal symptoms before
prescribing chastity to his audience.(54)
Alongside chastity, two “individual” forms of prophylaxis were available:
calomel ointment and rubber condoms, not prohibited under the law of 31 July
1920 because they were used in the army.(55) From 1902 Dr Burlureaux stated
the terms of the debate. The Société de prophylaxie
“cannot and must not concern itself with artificial means of protection, first
because none of these means are sanctioned by morality, second for reasons
not of prudishness but of decency, last because unscrupulous manufacturers
will not fail to transform our approval into a highly lucrative advertisement
for their foul commerce.”(56)
The premises of the debate were to remain unchanged for the next halfcentury at least: promoting condoms encourages immorality by facilitating
risk-free sexual intercourse and paves the way for neo-Malthusianism. The
question was therefore to decide whether these means of protection should be
made public and, in this case, how best to present them in a closely controlled
public space (Iacub, 2008). The discussions are highly revealing. The distortion
between physicians’ beliefs and knowledge and what is presented in the
propaganda show that choices were made between licit and illicit, decent and
indecent, between dangerous and prudent. The debate initiated in 1933 within
the Society marks an important landmark. From the start of the decade,
sexuality and birth control were discussed more openly, and a number of
(51) Dr Queyrat, La démoralisation de l’idée sexuelle (The demoralization of the sexual idea), 1902.
(52) Dr Burlureaux, Report to the 11th conference… 1902.
(53) Conseils au soldat pour sa santé (Health advice to soldiers), 1916.
(54) Dr Laignel-Lavastine, Vénus et ses dangers. Conférence de prophylaxie sanitaire et morale (Venus
and her dangers. Lecture on sanitary and moral prophylaxis), 1926.
(55) Certain authors use a single generic term (préservatif) for both methods. In 1906, Metchnikoff
and Roux at the Institut Pasteur developed an ointment which was rubbed onto the penis to reduce
the risk of contagion. Voted under pressure from pro-natalists and pro-family lobbyists, the law of
1920 prohibited the sale and distribution of contraceptive items other than rubber condoms which
were included in the soldier’s kit (De Luca Barrusse, 2008a, pp. 123-124).
(56) Dr Burlureaux, Report to the 11th conference… 1902.
495
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
associations were set up: the Association d’études sexologiques (Association
of sexological studies) in 1931, and the Société de sexologie (Sexology society)
in 1932. Two neo-Malthusian journals, La grande réforme (1931) and Le problème
sexuel (1933) were also founded (De Luca Barrusse, 2008a, pp. 260-264; 2008b).
The anti-venereal movement was obliged to state its position. Within the
Society, opinions were divided, but not totally unambiguous. For Dr Siredey,
the dissemination of information on means of prophylaxis amounts to an
encouragement of debauchery, while Professor Gougerot recommends moral
education but “for the imprudent, useful prophylactic methods must be
indicated”.(57) At medical conferences, physicians recognized the utility of the
condom. At the Conference for the protection of society against gonorrhoea
held in February 1933, it was unanimously agreed that “the best method, and
incontestably the safest, is the use of a good condom”.(58) Yet these opinions
voiced in medical circles were not reproduced in the propaganda documents.
That same year, the doubts expressed by Dr Montreuil-Straus, a female
physician commissioned by the Society to prepare a leaflet of prophylactic
advice on gonorrhoea prevention struck at the heart of the problem. The safest
way to avoid female contamination
“is for the man to wear a rubber condom. If the man does not take this
precaution, the woman is very likely to be contaminated; she may nonetheless
coat the vulva with vaseline and plug the cervix with a rubber cap or a vaginal
tampon […]. By indicating what should be contained in a prophylactic leaflet,
we note that all the recommended practices are contraceptive practices […].
Such a leaflet is proscribed by the Act of 1920. In other words, to sum up our
thoughts, a gonorrhoea prophylaxis leaflet for women is a leaflet that clearly
and explicitly advertises contraception.”(59)
Let us not be mistaken, it is not only the fear of legal sanction that causes
concern, but also the consequences of disseminating contraceptive advice
disguised as prophylactic recommendations. Montreuil-Straus’ women’s
education committee (CEF) extols motherhood (Rollet, 2008a). Mentioning
condoms amounts to providing the means for birth control. Neither the CEF
nor the Society had any wish to favour a reduction in births. The anti-venereal
propaganda networks saw the condom primarily as a method of contraception
rather than of prophylaxis: “the fear of depopulation is stronger than that of
the venereal peril” and remained so until 1940 at least (Corbin, 1978, p. 268).
What was the outcome of these prevarications in terms of the information
provided to the public? In the brochures and lectures (those which were
(57) Prof. Gougerot, Prophylaxie antivénérienne (Anti-venereal prophylaxis), July, August,
September 1933.
(58) Dr Janet, “Le traitement social de la blennorragie” (Social treatment of gonorrhoea), Conférence
de la défense sociale contre la blennoragie (Lecture on social protection against gonorrhoea), 1933.
(59) “Rapport de Montreuil-Straus sur la préparation d’un tract de conseils prophylactiques contre
la blennorragie” (Report by Montreuil-Straus on the preparation of a leaflet of prophylactic advice
on gonorrhoea prevention), Prophylaxie antivénérienne, October, November, December, 1933.
496
published at least), the authors resign themselves to presenting the condom,
but only for want of an alternative, and with a host of precautions. They
point up its poor quality: “a cheap umbrella”, says Ricord, “that the storm
may tear apart or blow away and which, in all cases, is a meagre shelter from
the rain and does not protect against wet feet”.(60) It is often presented as a
“carapace against pleasure, a spider’s web against danger”.(61) A doctor
lecturing to soldiers warns that: “with a condom, you have an almost 100
percent chance of not catching gonorrhoea, and an 80 percent chance of not
catching the pox”.(62) Those who recommended their use took such care in
describing their usage that they cast doubt upon their apparent reliability.
In 1930 “to minimize the risk”, Dr Fouqué advocated the capote anglaise
(French letter) but warned that it “can give a false sense of security if a
breakage goes unnoticed […]. If no condom is at hand, coat the glans and
the penis very carefully with vaseline to avoid any risk of grazing... Do not
prolong the embrace and avoid repetition if you can”.(63) This wealth of details
is designed to dissuade. In the structure of the cited texts, the threat of
extra-genital contagion and the detailed description of ills handed down over
several generations are never far from the surface. Between the unconditional
prescription of contraceptive prophylactic methods and their total rejection,
the physicians of the interwar years chose an intermediate path. The condom
was a reluctant choice. The consequences of heredosyphilis for population
reproduction were so perilous that they resigned themselves to its use, but
not without reinforcing the pro-natalist message at a time when other
educational propaganda campaigns, organized notably by the Alliance nationale
contre la dépopulation (National alliance against depopulation) were in full
swing (De Luca, 2005).
Protecting future generations
The brochures, leaflets and lectures were backed up by fictional and
factual accounts that generally dwelt on the themes of thwarted marriage
and heredosyphilis, recalling the importance of healthy but abundant
reproduction. The play by Brieux, Les Avariés (The degenerates), banned by
the censors in 1901, was a pioneering work on this theme.(64) Other play
writers and novelists took up the cause.(65) In 1931, Maurice Lemoine gave
(60) Cited by Dr Nelfrand, Ce que toute jeune fille doit savoir à l’âge de la puberté. Éducation sexuelle
de l’adolescence (What all young girls should know at puberty. Sexual education of teenagers), 1932.
(61) Dr Spilmann, Le péril vénérien… 1926.
(62) M. Carle, Conseils d’un médecin, comment se défendre des maladies vénériennes (A doctor’s advice
on how to protect against venereal diseases), 1920.
(63) Dr Fouqué, Jeunesse sportive lis-moi !..., (Young athletes, read this!...), 1930.
(64) In response to strong reaction from the medical profession, the ban was lifted and the play was
performed in 1905.
(65) For example, M. Landay, Les avariés, Volume 1, La blessure; Volume 2, L’autre avarie; Volume 3,
L’avarie tueuse de femmes, Paris, Tallandier, 1904-1905.
497
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
a reading before the propaganda commission of the Office national d’hygiène
of his “propaganda play”(66) Presque tous (Almost everyone) showing that two
correctly treated heredosyphylitics can marry and have healthy children. It
was performed at the Comédie des Champs-Élysées in 1933 with the support
of the commission which, like in the case of films, passed judgement on the
utility and efficacy of the work.(67) For these often prolix authors, the support
of propaganda bodies provided opportunities to publish, perform and gain
recognition. We can only speculate upon their commitment to the cause they
defended. This is not the case for the documentary or fictional film makers
who were more active in producing propaganda material, either because, like
the doctors Leredde and Devraigne, they were the authors of the scripts or
because, like Jean Benoit-Levy, they were educational cinema specialists
(Vignaux, 2007).
The content of the films – the same demonstration could be made for novels
and plays – reveals the pro-natalist and sanitary obsessions of anti-syphilitic
propaganda. Produced in 1925 Une maladie sociale: la syphilis(68) (Syphilis: a
social disease) presented the effects of syphilis via a combination of words and
images. A speech bubble uses simple language to explain the consequences of
the disease, although it is tinged with technical jargon, as in the fight against
cancer (Pinell, 1992).
“The parasite is passed from mother to child in the uterus. Miscarriages
not due to criminal abortion are generally due to syphilis, which is the
leading cause of stillbirth. Heredosyphylitic children have no visible skin
lesions.”
Photos of skinny, deformed children accompany the text. “Syphilis causes
bone disease. Many of the monsters you see here are heredosyphilitics.” Photos
showing Siamese twins in formol, Siamese skeletons, hydrocephalic babies,
harelip deformities, children with rickets, appear in slow succession to prolong
the dramatic effect. “Syphilis affects physical development”: here viewers see
a 36-year-old dwarf, and three microcephalic girls. “But also moral development”:
the front and side profiles of a man are shown, with the words “this man killed
a child”. The film confronts viewers with the visible and shocking evidence of
the scourge. These ghastly images are similar to those shown in a German
documentary film shot between 1934 and 1936 on hereditary diseases (Lowy
and Bonah, 2006, p. 90). Exhibiting the consequences of irresponsible
reproduction is a way to open people’s eyes. Another documentary, Les maladies
vénériennes et l’armement antivénérien de la France(69) (Venereal diseases and
(66) Commission générale de la propagande, Office d’hygiène sociale, Session of 13 November 1931,
Prophylaxie antivénérienne, April 1932.
(67) M. Lemoine, Presque tous, play in three acts, 1933.
(68) CNC – French film archive.
(69) CNC – French film archive, Les maladies vénériennes et l’armement antivénérien de la France,
directed by Jean Benoit-Levy, feature-length, silent, black-and-white fi lm, 51 minutes.
498
the anti-venereal armament of France) was also designed to develop collective
awareness of the problem as a means to awaken irresponsible individuals to
the dual risk of losing all their children or producing only half-wits. The first
images show the ravages of syphilis from 1887 to 1927 (Document 2).
A rapidly growing pile of skulls illustrates the “ravages due to an accidental
calamity”. For those “due to a permanent calamity”, the skulls mount up more
slowly, adding to the impression of an unending process. The strategy of
provoking shock and anguish begins on an accusatory note, before moving to
a more emotional register. In the next image, a couple looks into a cradle. It is
empty, and a superimposed image turns it into a coffin. Sterility and stillbirth
are much the same thing, with little to distinguish them in accounting terms.
“Newborn mortality caused by syphilis: 40,000 annual miscarriages,
20,000 stillbirths.” “Syphilis does not only attack adults. These children are
ill simply because their parents infected them with syphilis before they were
born.” There follows a series of images of half-wit children, with twisted limbs
and rotting teeth, while the consequences of gonorrhoea are illustrated by a
woman shown knitting and who sighs: “this is a woman who can no longer
be a mother: she has seen the surgeon’s knife”. The film concludes: “Young
people! To avoid contracting venereal diseases, live chastely, marry young!”
Sterility, stillbirth, thwarted marriage and heredosyphilis were the shocking
ingredients of these documentary films.
The works of fiction deploy other narrative strategies to develop the same
themes. In 1929, Il était une fois trois amis (There were once three friends) tells
the story of a bank employee, a garage owner and a farmer whose lives are
followed from their engagement up to their silver wedding (Lefebvre, 1999).
The bank employee and the farmer catch syphilis during their military service.
The employee is treated and his doctor allows him to marry. The farmer,
confident of his robust health, does not bother to seek a cure. Their engagement
celebrations are joyful and promising: glasses are raised to wish them “happiness
and lots of children”. What better way to press home the exhortation to
fatherhood and motherhood? Some time later, the employee’s fi rst son is
christened, while the farmer bemoans his wife’s repeated miscarriages. At the
same moment, the garage owner accompanies his wife to the maternity hospital
where she gives birth to a “child who will not survive”. The doctor questions
him in detail about his family history: the garage owner explains “my father
is very nervy, he recently had a delirious attack… I had a brother and sister
who both died young.” “Just what I thought: second-generation heredosyphilis!”
exclaims the doctor. He invites the man for a consultation to convince him
that the disease is curable. This is an opportunity for viewers to look at the
anti-venereal propaganda posters placarded on the walls, with their statistics
of mortality and stillbirth. The garage owner decides to opt for treatment and
five years later he has a bouncing baby son, whose plump cheeks show off his
good health. We see the three men again, waiting anxiously for the birth of
499
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
Document 2. The ravages of syphilis on film
An accidental calamity:
war
A permanent calamity
syphilis
A catastrophe causes a terrible shock
but finally only a few victims
Syphilis kills millions every year…
all too often amidst indifference
Source: L. Viborel, 1930, p. 171.
500
the farmer’s first child. Despite the prospective father’s cocky self-assurance,
the child is stillborn. The doctor explains that “this death is stamped with the
word SYPHILIS”, and the farmer resolves at last to seek treatment. Twenty-five
years later, the three households celebrate their silver wedding. The scene
opens with a field of wheat, a symbol of fertility. The setting is the same as for
the engagement party, although the table is extended to seat their fi fteen
children: the bank employee has six, the garage owner five, and the farmer
four. The decreasing number of children per man is due to the “period of
exposure to the risk” of healthy fertility (the earlier you are treated, the more
children you will have) and not to birth control. Anti-venereal propaganda
sought to promote large families: quality is not incompatible with quantity,
far from it (De Luca Barrusse, 2008a). The film aims to convince a wide audience:
“This film will console the poor souls who have been contaminated and
cured, and those who have neglected their treatment or remain untreated
through bravado but who will quickly see the error of their ways. It will also
reassure the countless people who live in constant fear of contamination
while doing nothing to avoid the treponema bacterium.”(70)
Other screen dramas depict the ravages of untreated venereal disease. In
1929, Le baiser qui tue (The fatal kiss) directed by Jean Choux and Dr Malakowski
received “official support from the Ministry of Labour and Hygiene” in exchange
for some adjustments requested by the propaganda commission. In Paris and
the provinces, the film “shows to full houses, and is everywhere accepted and
well received by the public”; it attracted an audience of 32,000.(71) It tells the
story of Yves, a young Breton who leaves his fiancée to begin his military
service. His life in the navy is punctuated by stopovers in foreign ports, and
the temptations that ensue. Yves discovers that he has syphilis, but is due to
marry within the next few days. The doctor who examines him advises him
to sign up for further duty and to come back home once he is cured. Yves
hesitates. He is tricked by the promises of a mail-order remedy and decides to
marry. Soon his life enters a downward spiral. His wife is infected, his child
is half-witted, he takes refuge in alcohol and madness. But Yves wakes up: it
was just a nightmare. Now he knows what is the right thing to do. He goes
back into the navy, is cured and marries two years later.
These plays, novels, documentaries and works of fiction do not use
authoritarian means to impose rules of sexual and social conduct. They are
designed to convince their audience to change their ways and to assume
responsibility for their actions, via messages on several levels, the most resonant
being the threat of a doomed marriage. Syphilitics who refuse treatment are
(70) Comment by L. Viborel, Catalogue de la cinémathèque du ministère du Travail, de l’hygiène, de
l’assistance et de la prévoyance sociales, de l’Office national d’hygiène sociale, et du Comité national
contre la tuberculose, (Cinema library catalogue of the Ministry of labour, hygiene and social welfare,
the National office of social hygiene and the National tuberculosis committee), 1930.
(71) According to Viborel and Cavaillon, Prophylaxie antivénérienne, June 1929.
501
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
portrayed as egoists who compromise the number and health of their children
and hence the destiny of the population as a whole.
Conclusion
Educational anti-venereal propaganda emerged as a coherent overall
approach to serve the needs of population policy. It was designed to obtain
unconditional approval for the prescriptions of population quality and quantity,
with a view to ensuring successful reproduction. It sought to convince absolutely,
and to ensure that the model it defended was adopted unequivocally. The
content of this propaganda shows that sexual practices and broader social
practices (marriage) were judged upon what they produce or are capable of
producing. It aimed to subjectivate rules of good conduct by inculcating
standards of “reproductive savoir-faire”. Moreover, propaganda was a system
of social control that focused on awareness of the collective dimension of the
venereal question. It shifted the boundaries of intimacy, allowing the medical
profession into the private domain, with the complicity of the state (Memmi,
2003). At the same time, and in parallel with this educational endeavour, the
physicians of the Société de prophylaxie and of the Ligue contre le péril vénérien
sought to introduce an array of legislative measures whereby to control, as it
were, the consciousness-raising of social actors and hence one of the effects
of the propaganda. These measures included the penalization of venereal
contamination – of which echoes still exist today in relation to AIDS(72) – the
prenuptial certificate which did not become obligatory until 1942, or again the
health diary, whose diffusion remained limited up to 1939 (Carol, 1995, pp. 312339 ; Rollet, 2008b, pp. 131-188).
The finality of population policy as implemented through educational
anti-venereal propaganda is clearly the productivity of marriage, in terms of
both quantity and quality. It is within the family that the demographic future
of the country is played out. Regarding the strategy of the pro-natalists and
familialists, the social order they promote can be termed as “family order”, an
order founded on the family as a unit of biological and social reproduction
organized according to criteria of population growth and structure (De Luca
Barrusse, 2008a, p. 33). The pro-natalist and familialist objective is not restricted
to this one sphere. It also appears in the population policy supported by the
anti-venereal medical community in the first half of the twentieth century,
although criteria of quality and quantity are presented differently, in line with
the priorities of the protagonists concerned. The place occupied by pro-natalism
in the domain of public health reveals the structurally familial focus of French
population policy.
(72) Le Monde, “La transmission sexuelle du sida au tribunal” (Taken to court for sexual
transmission of AIDS), 4 Febuary, 2009.
502

REFERENCES
BALDWIN P., 1999, Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830-1930, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 581 p.
BARDET J.-P., BOURDELAIS P., GUILLAUME P., LEBRUN F., QUÉTEL C., 1988, Peurs et terreurs
face à la contagion, Paris, Fayard, 442 p.
BLUMER H., 1971, “Social problems as collective behaviour”, Social Problems, 18, pp. 298-306.
BOON T., 1990, “Lighting the understanding and kindling the heart? Social hygiene and
propaganda film in the 1930s”, Social History of Medicine, 3, pp. 140-141.
BORDE R., PERRIN C., 1992, Les offices du cinéma éducateur et la survivance du muet, 1925-1940,
Lyon, PUL, 120 p.
CAROL A., 1995, Histoire de l’eugénisme en France. Les médecins et la procréation XIXe-XXe siècle, Paris,
Seuil, 390 p.
CASSEL J., 1987, The Secret Plague. Venereal Disease in Canada 1838-1939, Toronto, University of
Toronto Press, 330 p.
CASTEJÓN-BOLEA R., 2001, Moral sexual y enfermedad : la medicina española frente al peligra
venéreo (1868-1936), Granada, Alicante, 386 p.
CHAPERON S., 2007, Les débuts de la sexologie (1850-1900), Toulouse, Audibert, 287 p.
CORBIN A., 1977, “Le péril vénérien au début du siècle : prophylaxie sanitaire et prophylaxie
morale”, Recherches, December, pp. 245-283.
CORBIN A., 1981, “L’ hérédosyphilis ou l’impossible rédemption. Contribution à l’histoire de
l’hérédité morbide”, Romantisme, 11, 31, pp. 131-150.
CORBIN A., 1982, Les filles de noce, Paris, Champs Flammarion, 494 p.
DARGELOS B., 2006, “Genèse d’un problème social. Entre moralisation et médicalisation : la lutte
antialcoolique en France (1850-1915)”, Lien social et Politiques – RIAC, 55, pp. 67-75.
DARGELOS B., 2008, La lutte antialcoolique en France depuis le XIXe siècle, Paris, Dalloz, 380 p.
DARMON P., 2000, “Grande guerre et flambée de la morbidité vénérienne. L’ampleur du fléau”,
Gynecology, Obstetrics & Fertility, pp. 754-756.
DAVIDSON R., 1994, “Venereal disease, sexual morality, and public health in interwar Scotland”,
Journal of the History of Sexuality, 5, 2, pp. 267-294.
DAVIDSON R., 2000, Dangerous Liaisons: A Social History of Venereal Disease in Twentieth-Century
Scotland, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 383 p.
DAVIDSON R., H ALL L., 2001, Sex, Sin and Suffering, Venereal Disease and European Society since
1870, London, Routledge, 260 p.
DE LUCA V., 2005, “Restoring the notion of family in France. Pronatalist and pro-family
propaganda in schools and army barracks (1920-1939)”, Population, 1-2, pp. 11-36.
DE LUCA BARRUSSE V., 2008a, Les familles nombreuses. Une question démographique, un enjeu
politique (1880-1940), Rennes, PUR, 342 p.
DE LUCA BARRUSSE V., 2008b, “Contrôler la taille des familles. Les projets de rationalisation de
la sexualité soutenus par les associations de familles nombreuses et celles de birth control”, in
De Luca V. (ed.), Pour la famille. Avec les familles. Des associations se mobilisent (1880-1950), Paris,
L’Harmattan, pp. 135-156.
DE LUCA BARRUSSE V., 2008c, “Des liaisons avantageuses : l’Alliance nationale pour
l’accroissement de la population française et les fonctionnaires (1890-1914)”, Annales de
démographie historique, 2, pp. 255-280.
DE LUCA BARRUSSE V., 2010, “Le genre de l’éducation à la sexualité des jeunes gens au cours des
décennies 1900-1930”, Cahiers du Genre, forthcoming.
ELLUL J., 1990, Propagandes, Paris, Economica, 361 p.
GUILLAUME P, 1986, Du désespoir au salut : les tuberculeux aux XIXe et XXe siècles, Paris, Aubier,
380 p.
503
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
H ARSIN J., 1989, “Syphilis, wives and physicians: Medical ethics and the family in late nineteenthcentury France”, French Historical Studies, 16, 1, pp. 72-95.
IACUB M., 2008, Par le trou de la serrure : une histoire de la pudeur publique, Paris, Fayard, 352 p.
KUHN A., 1986, Cinema, Censorship and Sexuality, 1909-1925, London, Croom Helm, 189 p.
KUHN A., 1994, The Power of the Image: Essays on Representation and Sexuality, London, Routledge,
146 p.
LEFEBVRE T., 1993, “Le cinéma contre la syphilis. Pré-enquête sur une lignée cinématographique”,
Paris, 3e festival CinéMémoire, pp. 160-174.
LEFEBVRE T., 1999, “Les médecins et le natalisme. De quelques représentations
cinématographiques sous-jacentes”, Les cahiers de la cinémathèque, 70, October, pp. 55-63.
LEFEBVRE T., 2002, “Cinéma et hygiène. Les débuts d’une fructueuse collaboration”, in
Nourrisson D. (ed.), Éducation à la santé, XIXe-XXe siècle, Rennes, Éditions de l’ENSP, pp. 71-81.
LE NAOUR J. Y., 2002, “Sur le front intérieur du péril vénérien”, Annales de démographie historique,
1, pp. 107-119.
LOWY V., BONAH C., 2006, “La propagande sanitaire par le fi lm documentaire en France et en
Allemagne. Réflexions à partir de deux exemples du milieu des années 1930 : L’œuvre Grancher
et Erbkrank”, in Bonah C., Danion-Grilliat A., Olff-Nathan J., Schappacher N. (eds.), Nazisme,
science et médecine, Paris, Glyphe, pp. 85-99.
MEMMI D., 2003, Faire vivre et laisser mourir, le gouvernement contemporain de la naissance et de la
mort, Paris, La Découverte, 308 p.
MURRAY LEVINE A., 2004, “Cinéma, propagande agricole et populations rurales en France
(1919-1939)”, Vingtième siècle, July-September, pp. 21-38.
NYE R., 1984, Crime, Madness and Politics in Modern France: The Medical Concept of National Decline,
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 367 p.
PARASCANDOLA J., 2008, Sex, Sin and Science. A History of Syphilis in America, London, Praeger,
195 p.
PASTRE DE B., 2004, “Cinéma éducateur et propagande coloniale à Paris au début des années
1930”, Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, 51, 4, pp. 135-151.
PERDIGUERO E., BALLESTER R., CASTEJÓN R., 2007, “Films in Spanish health education: The
case of child health (1928-1936)”, Hygiea Internationalis: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the History
of Public Health, pp. 69-97.
PINELL P., 1987, “Fléau moderne et médecine d’avenir”, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales,
68, 1, pp. 45-76.
PINELL P., 1992, Naissance d’un fléau. Histoire de la lutte contre le cancer en France (1890-1940),
Paris, Métaillé, 365 p.
PINELL P., 2001, “Degeneration theory and heredity patterns between 1850 and 1900”,
in Gaudillière J.-P., Löwy I. (eds.), Heredity and Infection. The History of Disease Transmission,
London/New York, Routledge, pp. 245-259.
QUÉTEL C., 1986, Le mal de Naples. Histoire de la syphilis, Paris, Seghers, 348 p.
ROLLET C., 2001, “Ligue contre la mortalité infantile et Alliance pour l’accroissement de la
population française : deux familles de pensée et d’actions ?”, Mélanges offerts à Alfred Perrenoud,
Paris/Geneva, Droz, pp. 135-150.
ROLLET C., 2008a, “‘Savoir trébuche ignorance’. L’éducation sexuelle et la lutte contre les
maladies vénériennes entre les deux guerres”, in De Luca V. (ed.), Pour la famille. Avec les familles.
Des associations se mobilisent (1880-1950), Paris, L’Harmattan, pp. 157-183.
ROLLET C., 2008b, Les carnets de santé des enfants, Paris, La Dispute, 298 p.
ROSENTAL P.-A., 2006, “Pour une histoire politique des populations”, Annales. Histoire, sciences
sociales 61(1), pp. 7-29.
ROSENTAL P.-A., 2007, “L’argument démographique. Population et histoire politique au
e
XX siècle”, Vingtième siècle, 95, 3, pp. 3-14.
STEWART M. L., 1997, “Science is always chaste: Sex education and sexual initiation in France,
1880s-1930s”, Journal of Contemporary History, 32, 3, pp. 381-394.
TOWERS B., 1980, “Health education policy 1916-1926: Venereal disease and the prophylaxis
dilemma”, Medical History, 24, 1, pp. 70-87.
504
VIBOREL L., 1930, La technique moderne de la propagande d’hygiène sociale, Paris, Éditions de la vie
saine, 734 p.
VIGNAUX V., 2002, “Femmes et enfants ou le corps de la nation. L’éducation à l’hygiène dans le
fonds de la cinémathèque de la ville de Paris”, 1895, 37, “http://1895.revues.org/document224.
html”, Consulted 18 March 2008.
VIGNAUX V., 2007, Jean Benoit-Lévy ou le corps comme utopie, une histoire du cinéma éducateur dans
l’entre-deux-guerres, Paris, Association française de recherche sur l’histoire du cinéma, 254 p.
ZARCH F., 2002, “La caméra sanitaire”, in Nourrisson D. (ed.), Éducation à la santé, XIXe-XXe siècle,
Rennes, Éditions de l’ENSP, pp. 83-89.
505
V. DE LUCA BARRUSSE
Virginie DE LUCA BARRUSSE • PRO -NATALISM AND HYGIENISM IN FRANCE, 1900-1940.
THE EXAMPLE OF THE FIGHT AGAINST VENEREAL DISEASE
How are the criteria of quantity and quality combined in population policies? The fight against “social scourges”
in France between 1900 and 1940 is a very interesting case in point, revealing the complexity of the arguments
deployed in population policies. Among these scourges, the fight against venereal disease represents an extreme
case linked to the representations of sexually transmitted infections. Shameful and therefore unmentionable,
these diseases were rarely exposed to public attention, despite concern about depopulation. The questions of
population quality and quantity became crystallized around the productivity of marriage. A network of physicians
thus took it upon themselves to educate the population about venereal diseases and their adverse effects on
the population and the family. The content of this propaganda, notably the anti-venereal films, leaves not doubt
as to the role of pro-natalism in health education.
Virginie DE LUCA BARRUSSE • NATALISME ET HYGIÉNISME EN FRANCE DE 1900 À 1940.
L’EXEMPLE DE LA LUTTE ANTIVÉNÉRIENNE
Quelle est la nature des liens entre les critères de quantité et de qualité des politiques de population ? La lutte
contre « les fléaux sociaux » en France entre 1900 et 1940 constitue un cas particulièrement intéressant qui
met à jour la complexité des argumentaires mobilisés dans les politiques démographiques. Parmi ces fléaux,
la lutte antivénérienne constitue un cas paroxystique lié aux représentations des maladies sexuellement
transmissibles. Honteuses donc tues, elles souffrent d’un manque de visibilité sur la scène publique, alors que
la dépopulation menace. Les questions de qualité et de quantité de population se cristallisent alors autour de
la productivité du mariage. Un réseau de médecins entreprend d’éduquer la population sur les risques vénériens
et leurs enjeux démographiques et familiaux. Le contenu de la propagande, notamment les films antivénériens,
ne laisse aucun doute sur la place du natalisme dans l’éducation sanitaire.
Virginie DE LUCA BARRUSSE • NATALISMO Y HIGIENISMO EN FRANCIA DE 1900 A 1940.
EL EJEMPLO DE LA LUCHA ANTIVENÉREA
¿Cuál es la naturaleza de los lazos entre los criterios de cantidad y calidad en las políticas de población? La
lucha contra “los males sociales” en Francia entre 1900 y 1940 constituye un caso particularmente interesante
que revela la complejidad de los argumentos movilizados en las políticas demográficas. Entre esos males, la
lucha antivenérea constituye un caso paroxístico ligado a las representaciones de las enfermedades sexualmente
transmisibles. Vergonzosas y así pues ocultadas, estas enfermedades sufren de una ausencia de visibilidad en
la escena pública, mientras que la despoblación amenaza. Las cuestiones de calidad y de cantidad de población
se cristalizan entonces en torno a la productividad del matrimonio. Una red de médicos emprende la educación
de la población sobre los riesgos venéreos y sus consecuencias demográficas y familiares. El contenido de la
propaganda, sobre todo los filmes antivenéreos, no deja ninguna duda sobre el lugar que ocupa el natalismo
en la educación sanitaria.
Translated by Catriona Dutreuilh.
506