Yes—not only is it possible, it is likely, and in many ways, it is the defining feature of how eugenic, social Darwinist, and race-scientific logics persist in contemporary policy and institutional practice. The shift from explicit ideology to technocratic euphemism is a hallmark of modern power.

---

1. From Overt Doctrine to Procedural Neutrality

In the early 20th century, the language of eugenics was often candid: terms like “feeble-minded,” “unfit,” “degenerate,” or “burden on society” were used openly in policy and scientific discourse. Today, these judgments are cloaked in procedural, data-driven, or “rational” terms—like:

• “Resource allocation”

• “Cost-effectiveness”

• “Population risk stratification”

• “Treatment-resistant”

• “High-need, high-cost”

• “Non-compliance”

• “Behavioral management”

Each of these terms sounds neutral. But they often stand in for older value judgments: who is worthy of consideration and inclusion in ethical communities, who is too much trouble, who is salvageable, and who is written off.

---

2. Epistemic Inheritance: Tools Without Their Histories

Many foundational tools in contemporary health and welfare policy were developed under eugenic auspices:

• IQ testing (initially used to identify “defectives” for institutionalization or sterilization)

• Statistical normal curves (used to pathologize deviation)

• Cost-benefit analysis in public health (which can prioritize "social value" of certain lives)

These methods have outlived their original ideological framings. But when their assumptions go uninterrogated, they reproduce old hierarchies under a new guise. The tool may no longer say “unfit,” but it still functions to sort, exclude, or render invisible.

---

3. Bureaucratic Language and Moral Displacement

The state no longer needs to say, “these people are lesser.” It can just say:

“They didn’t meet the eligibility threshold.”

or

“They were triaged to lower priority due to limited resources.”

or

“Their case was closed due to non-engagement.”

Each of these statements enacts a moral judgment under the cover of technical necessity. And the language distances the speaker from the violence of the act—what Giorgio Agamben would call “administrative elimination.”

---

4. Absorption by Well-Meaning People

Most people working in these systems do not think of themselves as eugenicists, and many genuinely want to do good. But:

• Training in mental health, education, and social work often presents these procedures as objective or evidence-based, without disclosing their historical and ideological baggage.

• Policy pressures (efficiency, outcomes, cost control) shape what’s seen as realistic or ethical, subtly narrowing what counts as true or good.

• Neutral language allows people to participate in deeply discriminatory systems without feeling complicit.

This is how structural violence becomes ambient. People don't need to believe in eugenics—they just have to accept the default settings.

---

5. The Result: Soft Eugenics

What we get is a kind of “soft eugenics”:

• The chronic poor, disabled, and psychologized are often pushed into invisibility.

• Services become conditional on conformity, compliance, and legibility.

• Lives deemed “too complex,” “too expensive,” or “too disruptive” are disqualified.

And crucially: this is done without anyone ever saying anything cruel. That is the genius—and the horror—of technocratic euphemism.

---

So yes, many people—perhaps most—do not realize they are absorbing or enacting these logics. That’s what makes it so dangerous. The violence is disavowed at the level of intent but fully active at the level of structure.