| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Applied Eugenics
Author: Johnson, Roswell Hill, 1877-, Popenoe, Paul, 1888-1979
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Applied Eugenics" ***
(This file was produced from images from the Home Economics
Archive: Research, Tradition and History, Albert R. Mann
Library, Cornell University)
APPLIED EUGENICS
BY
PAUL POPENOE
EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL OF HEREDITY (ORGAN OF
THE AMERICAN GENETIC ASSOCIATION),
WASHINGTON, D. C.
AND
ROSWELL HILL JOHNSON
PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURG
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO · DALLAS
ATLANTA - SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD. TORONTO
1918
_All rights reserved_
COPYRIGHT, 1918,
BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Set up and electrotyped. Published October, 1918.
PREFACE
The science of eugenics consists of a foundation of biology and a
superstructure of sociology. Galton, its founder, emphasized both parts
in due proportion. Until recently, however, most sociologists have been
either indifferent or hostile to eugenics, and the science has been left
for the most part in the hands of biologists, who have naturally worked
most on the foundations and neglected the superstructure. Although we
are not disposed to minimize the importance of the biological part, we
think it desirable that the means of applying the biological principles
should be more carefully studied. The reader of this book will,
consequently, find only a summary explanation of the mechanism of
inheritance. Emphasis has rather been laid on the practical means by
which society may encourage the reproduction of superior persons and
discourage that of inferiors.
We assume that in general, a eugenically superior or desirable person
has, to a greater degree than the average, the germinal basis for the
following characteristics: to live past maturity, to reproduce
adequately, to live happily and to make contributions to the
productivity, happiness, and progress of society. It is desirable to
discriminate as much as possible between the possession of the germinal
basis and the observed achievement, since the latter consists of the
former plus or minus environmental influence. But where the amount of
modification is too obscure to be detected, it is advantageous to take
the demonstrated achievement as a tentative measure of the germinal
basis. The problem of eugenics is to make such legal, social and
economic adjustments that (1) a larger proportion of superior persons
will have children than at present, (2) that the average number of
offspring of each superior person will be greater than at present, (3)
that the most inferior persons will have no children, and finally that
(4) other inferior persons will have fewer children than now. The
science of eugenics is still young and much of its program must be
tentative and subject to the test of actual experiment. It is more
important that the student acquire the habit of looking at society from
a biological as well as a sociological point of view, than that he put
his faith in the efficacy of any particular mode of procedure.
The essential points of our eugenics program were laid down by Professor
Johnson in an article entitled "Human Evolution and its Control" in the
_Popular Science Monthly_ for January, 1910. Considerable parts of the
material in the present book have appeared in the _Journal of Heredity_.
Helpful suggestions and criticism have been received from several
friends, in particular Sewall Wright and O. E. Baker of the United States
Department of Agriculture.
PAUL POPENOE.
WASHINGTON, _June, 1918._
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE v
INTRODUCTION BY EDWARD A. ROSS xi
CHAPTER
I. NATURE OR NURTURE? 1
II. MODIFICATION OF THE GERM-PLASM 25
III. DIFFERENCES AMONG MEN 75
IV. THE INHERITANCE OF MENTAL CAPACITIES 84
V. THE LAWS OF HEREDITY 99
VI. NATURAL SELECTION 116
VII. ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT 147
VIII. DESIRABILITY OF RESTRICTIVE EUGENICS 167
IX. THE DYSGENIC CLASSES 176
X. METHODS OF RESTRICTION 184
XI. THE IMPROVEMENT OF SEXUAL SELECTION 211
XII. INCREASING THE MARRIAGE RATE OF THE SUPERIOR 237
XIII. INCREASE OF THE BIRTH-RATE OF THE SUPERIOR 255
XIV. THE COLOR LINE 280
XV. IMMIGRATION 298
XVI. WAR 318
XVII. GENEALOGY AND EUGENICS 329
XVIII. THE EUGENIC ASPECT OF SOME SPECIFIC REFORMS 352
TAXATION 352
BACK TO THE FARM MOVEMENT 355
DEMOCRACY 360
SOCIALISM 362
CHILD LABOR 368
COMPULSORY EDUCATION 369
VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND TRAINING 371
MINIMUM WAGE 374
MOTHER'S PENSIONS 375
HOUSING 376
FEMINISM 378
OLD AGE PENSIONS 384
SEX HYGIENE MOVEMENT 385
TRADES UNIONISM 388
PROHIBITION 389
PEDAGOGICAL CELIBACY 390
XIX. RELIGION AND EUGENICS 393
XX. EUGENICS AND EUTHENICS 402
APPENDIX A. OVARIAN TRANSPLANTATION 419
" B. DYNAMIC EVOLUTION 421
" C. THE "MELTING POT" 424
" D. THE ESSENCE OF MENDELISM 429
" E. USEFUL WORKS OF REFERENCE 436
" F. GLOSSARY 437
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE PAGE
1. Four Baby Girls at Once 6
2. The Effect of Nurture in Changing Nature 10
3. Height in Corn and Men 12
4. Why Men Grow Short or Tall 14
5. Bound Foot of a Chinese Woman 42
6. Defective Little Toe of a Prehistoric Egyptian 42
7. Effect of Lead as a "Racial Poison" 63
8. Distribution of 10-Year-Old School Children 76
9. Variation in Ability 77
10. Origin of a Normal Probability Curve 78
11. The "Chance" or "Probability" Form of Distribution 79
12. Probability Curve with Increased Number of Steps 80
13. Normal Variability Curve Following Law of Chance 80
14. Cadets Arranged to Show Normal Curve of Variability 82
15. Variation in Heights of Recruits to the American Army 82
16. How Do You Clasp Your Hands? 100
17. The Effect of Orthodactyly 102
18. A Family with Orthodactyly 102
19. White Blaze in the Hair 104
20. A Family of Spotted Negroes 104
21. A Human Finger-Tip 106
22. The Limits of Hereditary Control 106
23. The Distribution of Intelligence 106
24. The Twins whose Finger-Prints are Shown in Fig. 25 108
25. Finger-Prints of Twins 110
26. A Home of the "Hickory" Family 168
27. A Chieftain of the Hickory Clan 170
28. Two Juke Homes of the Present Day 172
29. Mongolian Deficiency 174
30. Feeble-Minded Men are Capable of Much Rough Labor 192
31. Feeble-Minded at a Vineland Colony 192
32. How Beauty Aids a Girl's Chance of Marriage 215
33. Intelligent Girls are Most Likely to Marry 216
34. Years Between Graduation and Marriage 217
35. The Effect of Late Marriages 218
36. Wellesley Graduates and Non-Graduates 242
37. Birth Rate of Harvard and Yale Graduates 266
38. Families of Prominent Methodists 263
39. Examining Immigrants at Ellis Island, New York, 303
40. Line of Ascent that Carries the Family Name 331
41. The Small Value of a Famous, but Remote, Ancestor 338
42. History of 100 Babies 344
43. Adult Morality 345
44. Influence of Mother's Age 347
45. The "Mean Man" of the Old White American Stock 425
46. The Carriers of Heredity 431
INTRODUCTION
The Great War has caused a vast destruction of the sounder portion of
the belligerent peoples and it is certain that in the next generation
the progeny of their weaker members will constitute a much larger
proportion of the whole than would have been the case if the War had not
occurred. Owing to this immeasurable calamity that has befallen the
white race, the question of eugenics has ceased to be merely academic.
It looms large whenever we consider the means of avoiding a stagnation
or even decline of our civilization in consequence of the losses the War
has inflicted upon the more valuable stocks. Eugenics is by no means
tender with established customs and institutions, and once it seemed
likely that its teachings would be left for our grandchildren to act on.
But the plowshare of war has turned up the tough sod of custom, and now
every sound new idea has a chance. Rooted prejudices have been leveled
like the forests of Picardy under gun fire. The fear of racial decline
provides the eugenist with a far stronger leverage than did the hope of
accelerating racial progress. It may be, then, that owing to the War
eugenic policies will gain as much ground by the middle of this century
as without it they would have gained by the end of the century.
This book could not have been written ten years ago because many of the
data it relies on were not then in existence. In view of inquiries now
going on, we may reasonably hope that ten years hence it will be
possible to make a much better book on the subject. But I am sure that
this book is as good a presentation as can be made of eugenics at its
present stage of development. The results of all the trustworthy
observations and experiments have been taken into account, and the
testing of human customs and institutions in the light of biological
principles tallies well with the sociology of our times.
I cannot understand how any conscientious person, dealing in a large way
with human life, should have the hardihood to ignore eugenics. This book
should command the attention not only of students of sociology, but, as
well, of philanthropists, social workers, settlement wardens, doctors,
clergymen, educators, editors, publicists, Y. M. C. A. secretaries and
industrial engineers. It ought to lie at the elbow of law-makers,
statesmen, poor relief officials, immigration inspectors, judges of
juvenile courts, probation officers, members of state boards of control
and heads of charitable and correctional institutions. Finally, the
thoughtful ought to find in it guidance in their problem of mating. It
will inspire the superior to rise above certain worldly ideals of life
and to aim at a family success rather than an individual success.
EDWARD ALSWORTH ROSS.
The University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
July 1918.
APPLIED EUGENICS
CHAPTER I
NATURE OR NURTURE?
At the First Race Betterment Conference held at Battle Creek, Mich.,
many methods were suggested by which it was believed that the people of
America might be made, on the average, healthier, happier, and more
efficient. One afternoon the discussion turned to the children of the
slums. Their condition was pictured in dark colors. A number of
eugenists remarked that they were in many cases handicapped by a poor
heredity. Then Jacob Riis--a man for whom every American must feel a
profound admiration--strode upon the platform, filled with indignation.
"We have heard friends here talk about heredity," he exclaimed. "The
word has rung in my ears until I am sick of it. Heredity! Heredity!
There is just one heredity in all the world that is ours--we are
children of God, and there is nothing in the whole big world that we
cannot do in His service with it."
It is probably not beyond the truth to say that in this statement Jacob
Riis voiced the opinion of a majority of the social workers of this
country, and likewise a majority of the people who are faithfully and
with much self-sacrifice supporting charities, uplift movements, reform
legislation, and philanthropic attempts at social betterment in many
directions. They suppose that they are at the same time making the race
better by making the conditions better in which people live.
It is widely supposed that, although nature may have distributed some
handicaps at birth, they can be removed if the body is properly warmed
and fed and the mind properly exercised. It is further widely supposed
that this improvement in the condition of the individual will result in
his production of better infants, and that thus the race, gaining a
little momentum in each generation, will gradually move on toward
ultimate perfection.
There is no lack of efforts to improve the race, by this method of
direct change of the environment. It involves two assumptions, which are
sometimes made explicitly, sometimes merely taken for granted. These
are:
1. That changes in a man's surroundings, or, to use the more technical
biological term, in his nurture, will change the nature that he has
inherited.
2. That such changes will further be transmitted to his children.
Any one who proposes methods of race betterment, as we do in the present
book, must meet these two popular beliefs. We shall therefore examine
the first of them in this chapter, and the second in Chapter II.
Galton adopted and popularized Shakespere's antithesis of _nature_ and
_nurture_ to describe a man's inheritance and his surroundings, the two
terms including everything that can pertain to a human being. The words
are not wholly suitable, particularly since nature has two distinct
meanings,--human nature and external nature. The first is the only one
considered by Galton. Further, nurture is capable of subdivision into
those environmental influences which do not undergo much change,--e.g.,
soil and climate,--and those forces of civilization and education which
might better be described as culture. The evolutionist has really to
deal with the three factors of germ-plasm, physical surroundings and
culture. But Galton's phrase is so widely current that we shall continue
to use it, with the implications that have just been outlined.
The antithesis of nature and nurture is not a new one; it was met long
ago by biologists and settled by them to their own satisfaction. The
whole body of experimental and observational evidence in biology tends
to show that the characters which the individual inherits from his
ancestors remain remarkably constant in all ordinary conditions to which
they may be subjected. Their constancy is roughly proportionate to the
place of the animal in the scale of evolution; lower forms are more
easily changed by outside influence, but as one ascends to the higher
forms, which are more differentiated, it is found more and more
difficult to effect any change in them. Their characters are more
definitely fixed at birth.[1]
It is with the highest of all forms, Man, that we have now to deal. The
student in biology is not likely to doubt that the differences in men
are due much more to inherited nature than to any influences brought to
bear after birth, even though these latter influences include such
powerful ones as nutrition and education within ordinary limits.
But the biological evidence does not lend itself readily to summary
treatment, and we shall therefore examine the question by statistical
methods.[2] These have the further advantage of being more easily
understood; for facts which can be measured and expressed in numbers are
facts whose import the reader can usually decide for himself: he is
perfectly able to determine, without any special training, whether twice
two does or does not make four. One further preliminary remark: the
problem of nature vs. nurture can not be solved in general terms; a
moment's thought will show that it can be understood only by examining
one trait at a time. The problem is to decide whether the differences
between the people met in everyday life are due more to inheritance or
to outside influences, and these differences must naturally be examined
separately; they can not be lumped together.
To ask whether nature in general contributes more to a man than nurture
is futile; but it is not at all futile to ask whether the differences in
a given human trait are more affected by differences in nature than by
differences in nurture. It is easy to see that a verdict may be
sometimes given to one side, sometimes to the other. Albinism in
animals, for instance, is a trait which is known to be inherited, and
which is very slightly affected by differences of climate, food supply,
etc. On the other hand, there are factors which, although having
inherited bases, owe their expression almost wholly to outside
influences. Professor Morgan, for example, has found a strain of fruit
flies whose offspring in cold weather are usually born with
supernumerary legs. In hot weather they are practically normal. If this
strain were bred only in the tropics, the abnormality would probably not
be noticed; on the other hand, if it were bred only in cold regions, it
would be set down as one characterized by duplication of limbs. The
heredity factor would be the same in each case, the difference in
appearance being due merely to temperature.
Mere inspection does not always tell whether some feature of an
individual is more affected by changes in heredity or changes in
surroundings. On seeing a swarthy man, one may suppose that he comes of
a swarthy race, or that he is a fair-skinned man who has lived long in
the desert. In the one case the swarthiness would be inheritable, in the
other not. Which explanation is correct, can only be told by examining a
number of such individuals under critical conditions, or by an
examination of the ancestry. A man from a dark-skinned race would become
little darker by living under the desert sun, while a white man would
take on a good deal of tan.
The limited effect of nurture in changing nature is in some fields a
matter of common observation. The man who works in the gymnasium knows
that exercise increases the strength of a given group of muscles for a
while, but not indefinitely. There comes a time when the limit of a
man's hereditary potentiality is reached, and no amount of exercise will
add another millimeter to the circumference of his arm. Similarly the
handball or tennis player some day reaches his highest point, as do
runners or race horses. A trainer could bring Arthur Duffy in a few
years to the point of running a hundred yards in 9-3/5 seconds, but no
amount of training after that could clip off another fifth of a second.
A parallel case is found in the students who take a college examination.
Half a dozen of them may have devoted the same amount of time to it--may
have crammed to the limit--but they will still receive widely different
marks. These commonplace cases show that nurture has seemingly some
power to mold the individual, by giving his inborn possibilities a
chance to express themselves, but that nature says the first and last
word. Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, hit on an ingenious and
more convincing illustration by studying the history of twins.[3]
There are, everyday observation shows, two kinds of twins--ordinary
twins and the so-called identical twins. Ordinary twins are merely
brothers, or sisters, or brother and sister, who happen to be born two
at a time, because two ova have developed simultaneously. The fact that
they were born at the same time does not make them alike--they differ
quite as widely from each other as ordinary brothers and sisters do.
Identical twins have their origin in a different phenomenon--they are
believed to be halves of the same egg-cell, in which two growing-points
appeared at a very early embryonic stage, each of these developing into
a separate individual. As would be expected, these identical twins are
always of the same sex, and extremely like each other, so that sometimes
their own mother can not tell them apart. This likeness extends to all
sorts of traits:--they have lost their milk teeth on the same day in one
case, they even fell ill on the same day with the same disease, even
though they were in different cities.
Now Galton reasoned that if environment really changes the inborn
character, then these identical twins, who start life as halves of the
same whole, ought to become more unlike if they were brought up apart;
and as they grew older and moved into different spheres of activity,
they ought to become measurably dissimilar. On the other hand, ordinary
twins, who start dissimilar, ought to become more alike when brought up
in the same family, on the same diet, among the same friends, with the
same education. If the course of years shows that identical twins remain
as like as ever and ordinary twins as unlike as ever, regardless of
changes in conditions, then environment will have failed to demonstrate
that it has any great power to modify one's inborn nature in these
traits.
With this view, Galton collected the history of eighty pairs of
identical twins, thirty-five cases being accompanied by very full
details, which showed that the twins were really as nearly identical, in
childhood, as one could expect to find. On this point, Galton's
inquiries were careful, and the replies satisfactory. They are not,
however, as he remarks, much varied in character. "When the twins are
children, they are usually distinguished by ribbons tied around the
wrist or neck; nevertheless the one is sometimes fed, physicked, and
whipped by mistake for the other, and the description of these little
domestic catastrophes was usually given by the mother, in a phraseology,
that is sometimes touching by reason of its seriousness. I have one case
in which a doubt remains whether the children were not changed in their
bath, and the presumed A is not really B, and _vice versa_. In another
case, an artist was engaged on the portraits of twins who were between
three and four years of age; he had to lay aside his work for three
weeks, and, on resuming it, could not tell to which child the respective
likeness he had in hand belonged. The mistakes become less numerous on
the part of the mother during the boyhood and girlhood of the twins, but
are almost as frequent as before on the part of strangers. I have many
instances of tutors being unable to distinguish their twin pupils. Two
girls used regularly to impose on their music teacher when one of them
wanted a whole holiday; they had their lessons at separate hours, and
the one girl sacrificed herself to receive two lessons on the same day,
while the other one enjoyed herself from morning to evening. Here is a
brief and comprehensive account: 'Exactly alike in all, their
schoolmasters could never tell them apart; at dancing parties they
constantly changed partners without discovery; their close resemblance
is scarcely diminished by age."
[Illustration: FOUR BABY GIRLS AT ONCE
FIG. 1.--These quadruplet daughters were born to Mr. and Mrs.
F. M. Keys, Hollis, Okla., on July 4, 1915, and were seven months old
when the photograph was taken. Up to that time they had never had any
other nourishment than their mother's milk. Their weights at birth were
as follows (reading from left to right): Roberta, 4 pounds; Mona, 4-1/2
pounds; Mary, 4-1/4 pounds; Leota, 3-3/4 pounds. When photographed,
Roberta weighed 16 pounds and each of the others weighed 16-1/4. Their
aunt vouches for the fact that the care of the four is less trouble than
a single baby often makes. The mother has had no previous plural births,
although she has borne four children prior to these. Her own mother had
but two children, a son and a daughter, and there is no record of twins
on the mother's side. The father of the quadruplets is one of twelve
children, among whom is one pair of twins. It is known that twinning is
largely due to inheritance, and it would seem that the appearance of
these quadruplets is due to the hereditary influence of the father
rather than the mother. If this is the case, then the four girls must
all have come from one egg-cell, which split up at an early stage. Note
the uniform shape of the mouth, and the ears, set unusually low on the
head.]
"The following is a typical schoolboy anecdote:
"'Two twins were fond of playing tricks, and complaints were frequently
made; but the boys would never own which was the guilty one, and the
complainants were never certain which of the two it was. One head master
used to say he would never flog the innocent for the guilty, and the
other used to flog them both.'
"No less than nine anecdotes have reached me of a twin seeing his or her
reflection in the looking-glass, and addressing it in the belief that it
was the other twin in person.
"Children are usually quick in distinguishing between their parent and
his or her twin; but I have two cases to the contrary. Thus, the
daughter of a twin says:
"'Such was the marvelous similarity of their features, voice, manner,
etc., that I remember, as a child, being very much puzzled, and I think,
had my aunt lived much with us, I should have ended by thinking I had
two mothers!'
"In the other case, a father who was a twin, remarks of himself and his
brother:
"'We were extremely alike, and are so at this moment, so much so that
our children up to five and six years old did not know us apart.'
"Among my thirty-five detailed cases of close similarity, there are no
less than seven in which both twins suffered from some special ailment
or had some exceptional peculiarity. Both twins are apt to sicken at the
same time in no less than nine out of the thirty-five cases. Either
their illnesses, to which I refer, were non-contagious, or, if
contagious, the twins caught them simultaneously; they did not catch
them the one from the other."
Similarity in association of ideas, in tastes and habits was equally
close. In short, their resemblances were not superficial, but extremely
intimate, both in mind and body, while they were young; they were reared
almost exactly alike up to their early manhood and womanhood.
Then they separated into different walks of life. Did this change of the
environment alter their inborn character? For the detailed evidence,
one should consult Galton's own account; we give only his conclusions:
In many cases the resemblance of body and mind continued unaltered up to
old age, notwithstanding very different conditions of life; in others a
severe disease was sufficient to account for some change noticed. Other
dissimilarity that developed, Galton had reason to believe, was due to
the development of inborn characters that appeared late in life. He
therefore felt justified in broadly concluding "that the only
circumstance, within the range of those by which persons of similar
conditions of life are affected, that is capable of producing a marked
effect on the character of adults, is illness or some accident which
causes physical infirmity. The twins who closely resembled each other in
childhood and early youth, and were reared under not very dissimilar
conditions, either grow unlike through the development of natural [that
is, inherited] characteristics which had lain dormant at first, or else
they continue their lives, keeping time like two watches, hardly to be
thrown out of accord except by some physical jar."
Here was a distinct failure of nurture to modify the inborn nature. We
next consider the ordinary twins who were unlike from the start. Galton
had twenty such cases, given with much detail. "It is a fact," he
observes, "that extreme dissimilarity, such as existed between Jacob and
Esau, is a no less marked peculiarity of twins of the same sex than
extreme similarity." The character of the evidence as a whole may be
fairly conveyed by a few quotations:
(1) One parent says: "They have had _exactly the same nurture_ from
their birth up to the present time; they are both perfectly healthy and
strong, yet they are otherwise as dissimilar as two boys could be,
physically, mentally, and in their emotional nature."
(2) "I can answer most decidedly that the twins have been perfectly
dissimilar in character, habits, and likeness from the moment of their
birth to the present time, though they were nursed by the same woman,
went to school together, and were never separated until the age of
thirteen."
(3) "They have never been separated, never the least differently treated
in food, clothing, or education; both teethed at the same time, both had
measles, whooping cough, and scarlatina at the same time, and neither
has had any other serious illness. Both are and have been exceedingly
healthy, and have good abilities; yet they differ as much from each
other in mental cast as any one of my family differs from another."
(4) "Very dissimilar in mind and body; the one is quiet, retiring, and
slow but sure; good-tempered, but disposed to be sulky when
provoked;--the other is quick, vivacious, forward, acquiring easily and
forgetting soon; quick-tempered and choleric, but quickly forgiving and
forgetting. They have been educated together and never separated."
(5) "They were never alike either in mind or body, and their
dissimilarity increases daily. The external influences have been
identical; they have never been separated."
(6) "The two sisters are very different in ability and disposition. The
one is retiring, but firm and determined; she has no taste for music or
drawing. The other is of an active, excitable temperament; she displays
an unusual amount of quickness and talent, and is passionately fond of
music and drawing. From infancy, they have been rarely separated even at
school, and as children visiting their friends, they always went
together."
And so on. Not a single case was found in which originally dissimilar
characters became assimilated, although submitted to exactly the same
influences. Reviewing the evidence in his usual cautious way, Galton
declared, "There is no escape from the conclusion that nature prevails
enormously over nurture, when the differences of nurture do not exceed
what is commonly to be found among persons of the same rank in society
and in the same country."
This kind of evidence was a good start for eugenics but as the science
grew, it outgrew such evidence. It no longer wanted to be told, no
matter how minute the details, that "nature prevails enormously over
nurture." It wanted to know exactly how much. It refused to be satisfied
with the statement that a certain quantity was large; it demanded that
it be measured or weighed. So Galton, Karl Pearson and other
mathematicians devised means of doing this, and then Professor Edward L.
Thorndike of Columbia University took up Galton's problem again, with
more refined methods.
The tool used by Professor Thorndike was the coefficient of correlation,
which shows the amount of resemblance or association between any two
things that are capable of measurement, and is expressed in the form of
a decimal fraction somewhere between 0 and the unit 1. Zero shows that
there is no constant resemblance at all between the two things
concerned,--that they are wholly independent of each other, while 1
shows that they are completely dependent on each other, a condition that
rarely exists, of course.[4] For instance, the correlation between the
right and left femur in man's legs is .98.
Professor Thorndike found in the New York City schools fifty pairs of
twins of about the same age and measured the closeness of their
resemblance in eight physical characters, and also in six mental
characters, the latter being measured by the proficiency with which the
subjects performed various tests. Then children of the same age and sex,
picked at random from the same schools, were measured in the same way.
It was thus possible to tell how much more alike twins were than
ordinary children in the same environment.[5]
[Illustration: THE EFFECT OF NURTURE IN CHANGING NATURE
FIG. 2.--Corn of a single variety (Leaming Dent) grown in two
plots: at the left spaced far apart in hills, at the right crowded. The
former grows to its full potential height, the latter is stunted. The
size differences in the two plots are due to differences in environment,
the heredity in both cases being the same. Plants are much more
susceptible to nutritional influences on size than are mammals, but to a
less degree nutrition has a similar effect on man. Photograph from A. F.
Blakeslee.]
"If now these resemblances are due to the fact that the two members of
any twin pair are treated alike at home, have the same parental models,
attend the same school and are subject in general to closely similar
environmental conditions, then (1) twins should, up to the age of
leaving home, grow more and more alike, and in our measurements the
twins 13 and 14 years old should be much more alike than those 9 and 10
years old. Again (2) if similarity in training is the cause of
similarity in mental traits, ordinary fraternal pairs not over four or
five years apart in age should show a resemblance somewhat nearly as
great as twin pairs, for the home and school condition of a pair of the
former will not be much less similar than those of a pair of the latter.
Again, (3) if training is the cause, twins should show greater
resemblance in the case of traits much subject to training, such as
ability in addition or multiplication, than in traits less subject to
training, such as quickness in marking off the A's on a sheet of printed
capitals, or in writing the opposites of words."
The data were elaborately analyzed from many points of view. They showed
(1) that the twins 12-14 years old were not any more alike than the
twins 9-11 years old, although they ought to have been, if environment
has great power to mold the character during these so-called "plastic
years of childhood." They showed (2) that the resemblance between twins
was two or three times as great as between ordinary children of the same
age and sex, brought up under similar environment. There seems to be no
reason, except heredity, why twins should be more alike. The data showed
(3) that the twins were no more alike in traits subject to much training
than in traits subject to little or no training. Their achievement in
these traits was determined by their heredity; training did not
measurably alter these hereditary potentialities.
"The facts," Professor Thorndike wrote, "are easily, simply and
completely explained by one simple hypothesis; namely, that the nature
of the germ-cells--the conditions of conception--cause whatever
similarities and differences exist in the original natures of men, that
these conditions influence mind and body equally, and that in life the
differences in modification of mind and body produced by such
differences as obtain between the environments of present-day New York
City public school children are slight."
"The inferences," he says, "with respect to the enormous importance of
original nature in determining the behavior and achievements of any man
in comparison with his fellows of the same period of civilization and
conditions of life are obvious. All theories of human life must accept
as a first principle the fact that human beings at birth differ
enormously in mental capacities and that these differences are largely
due to similar differences in their ancestry. All attempts to change
human nature must accept as their most important condition the limits
set by original nature to each individual."
Meantime other investigators, principally followers of Karl Pearson in
England, were working out correlation coefficients in other lines of
research for hundreds of different traits. As we show in more detail in
Chapter IV, it was found, no matter what physical or mental trait was
measured, that the coefficient of correlation between parent and child
was a little less than .5 and that the coefficient between brother and
brother, or sister and sister, or brother and sister, was a little more
than .5. On the average of many cases the mean "nature" value, the
coefficient of direct heredity, was placed at .51. This gave another
means of measuring nurture, for it was also possible to measure the
relation between any trait in the child and some factor in the
environment. A specific instance will make this clearer.
Groups of school children usually show an appalling percentage of
short-sightedness. Now suppose it is suggested that this is because they
are allowed to learn to read at too early an age. One can find out the
age at which any given child did learn to read, and work out the
coefficient of correlation between this age and the child's amount of
myopia. If the relation between them is very close--say .7 or .8--it
will be evident that the earlier a child learns to read, the more
short-sighted he is as he grows older. This will not prove a relation of
cause and effect, but it will at least create a great suspicion. If on
the contrary the correlation is very slight, it will be evident that
early reading has little to do with the prevalance of defective vision
among school children. If investigators similarly work out all the other
correlations that can be suggested, finding whether there is any
regular relation between myopia and overcrowding, long hours of study,
general economic conditions at home, general physical or moral
conditions of parents, the time the child spends out of doors, etc., and
if no important relation is found between these various factors and
myopia, it will be evident that no factor of the environment which one
can think of as likely to cause the trouble really accounts for the poor
eyesight of school children.
[Illustration: HEIGHT IN CORN AND MEN
FIG. 3.--An unusually short and an unusually tall man,
photographed beside extreme varieties of corn which, like the men, owe
their differences in height indisputably to heredity rather than to
environment. No imaginable environmental differences could reverse the
positions of these two men, or of these two varieties of corn, the
heredity in each case being what it is. The large one might be stunted,
but the small one could not be made much larger. Photograph from A. F.
Blakeslee.]
This has actually been done,[6] and none of the conditions enumerated
has been found to be closely related to myopia in school children.
Correlations between fifteen environmental conditions and the goodness
of children's eyesight were measured, and only in one case was the
correlation as high as .1. The mean of these correlations was about
.04--an absolutely negligible quantity when compared with the common
heredity coefficient of .51.
Does this prove that the myopia is rather due to heredity? It would, by
a process of exclusion, if every conceivable environmental factor had
been measured and found wanting. That point in the investigation can
never be reached, but a tremendously strong suspicion is at least
justified. Now if the degree of resemblance between the prevalence of
myopia in parents and that in children be directly measured, and if it
be found that when the parent has eye trouble the child also has it,
then it seems that a general knowledge of heredity should lead to the
belief that the difficulty lies there, and that an environmental cause
for the poor vision of the school child was being sought, when it was
all the time due almost entirely to heredity. This final step has not
yet been completed in an adequate way,[7] but the evidence, partly
analogical, gives every reason to believe in the soundness of the
conclusion stated, that in most cases the schoolboy must wear glasses
because of his heredity, not because of overstudy or any neglect on the
part of his parents to care for his eyes properly during his childhood.
[Illustration: WHY MEN GROW SHORT OR TALL
FIG. 4.--Pedigree charts of the two men shown in the preceding
illustration. Squares represent men and circles women; figures
underlined denote measurement in stocking feet. It is obvious from a
comparison of the ancestry of the two men that the short one comes from
a predominantly short family, while the tall one gains his height
likewise from heredity. The shortest individual in the right-hand chart
would have been accounted tall in the family represented on the left.
After A. F. Blakeslee.]
The extent to which the intelligence of school children is dependent on
defective physique and unfavorable home environment is an important
practical question, which David Heron of London attacked by the methods
we have outlined. He wanted to find out whether the healthy children
were the most intelligent. One is constantly hearing stories of how the
intelligence of school children has been improved by some treatment
which improved their general health, but these stories are rarely
presented in such a way as to contribute evidence of scientific value.
It was desirable to know what exact measurement would show. The
intelligence of all the children in fourteen schools was measured in its
correlation with weight and height, conditions of clothing and teeth,
state of nutrition, cleanliness, good hearing, and the condition of the
cervical glands, tonsils and adenoids. It could not be found that mental
capacity was closely related to any of the characters dealt with.[8] The
particular set of characters measured was taken because it happened to
be furnished by data collected for another purpose; the various items
are suggestive rather than directly conclusive. Here again, the
correlation in most cases was less than .1, as compared with the general
heredity correlation of .5.
The investigation need not be limited to problems of bad breeding.
Eugenics, as its name shows, is primarily interested in "good breeding;"
it is particularly worth while, therefore, to examine the relations
between heredity and environment in the production of mental and moral
superiority.
If success in life--the kind of success that is due to great mental and
moral superiority--is due to the opportunities a man has, then it ought
to be pretty evenly distributed among all persons who have had favorable
opportunities, provided a large enough number of persons be taken to
allow the laws of probability full play. England offers a good field to
investigate this point, because Oxford and Cambridge, her two great
universities, turn out most of the eminent men of the country, or at
least have done so until recently. If nothing more is necessary to
ensure a youth's success than to give him a first-class education and
the chance to associate with superior people, then the prizes of life
ought to be pretty evenly distributed among the graduates of the two
universities, during a period of a century or two.
This is not the case. When we look at the history of England, as Galton
did nearly half a century ago, we find success in life to an unexpected
degree a family affair. The distinguished father is likely to have a
distinguished son, while the son of two "nobodies" has a very small
chance of becoming distinguished. To cite one concrete case, Galton
found[9] that the son of a distinguished judge had about one chance in
four of becoming himself distinguished, while the son of a man picked
out at random from the population had about one chance in 4,000 of
becoming similarly distinguished.
The objection at once occurs that perhaps social opportunities might
play the predominant part; that the son of an obscure man never gets a
chance, while the son of the prominent man is pushed forward regardless
of his inherent abilities. This, as Galton argued at length, can not be
true of men of really eminent attainments. The true genius, he thought,
frequently succeeds in rising despite great obstacles, while no amount
of family pull will succeed in making a mediocrity into a genius,
although it may land him in some high and very comfortable official
position. Galton found a good illustration in the papacy, where during
many centuries it was the custom for a pope to adopt one of his nephews
as a son, and push him forward in every way. If opportunity were all
that is required, these adopted sons ought to have reached eminence as
often as a real son would have done; but statistics show that they
reached eminence only as often as would be expected for nephews of great
men, whose chance is notably less, of course, than that of sons of great
men, in whom the intensity of heredity is much greater.
Transfer the inquiry to America, and it becomes even more conclusive,
for this is supposed to be the country of equal opportunities, where it
is a popular tradition that every boy has a chance to become president.
Success may be in some degree a family affair in caste-ridden England;
is it possible that the past history of the United States should show
the same state of affairs?
Galton found that about half of the great men of England had
distinguished close relatives. If the great men of America have fewer
distinguished close relatives, environment will be able to make out a
plausible case: it will be evident that in this continent of boundless
opportunities the boy with ambition and energy gets to the top, and that
this ambition and energy do not depend on the kind of family he comes
from.
Frederick Adams Woods has made precisely this investigation.[10] The
first step was to find out how many eminent men there are in American
history. Biographical dictionaries list about 3,500, and this number
provides a sufficiently unbiased standard from which to work. Now, Dr.
Woods says, if we suppose the average person to have as many as twenty
close relatives--as near as an uncle or a grandson--then computation
shows that only one person in 500 in the United States has a chance to
be a near relative of one of the 3,500 eminent men--provided it is
purely a matter of chance. As a fact, the 3,500 eminent men listed by
the biographical dictionaries are related to each other not as one in
500, but as one in five. If the more celebrated men alone be considered,
it is found that the percentage increases so that about one in three of
them has a close relative who is also distinguished. This ratio
increases to more than one in two when the families of the forty-six
Americans in the Hall of Fame are made the basis of study. If all the
eminent relations of those in the Hall of Fame are counted, they average
more than one apiece. Therefore, they are from five hundred to a
thousand times as much related to distinguished people as the ordinary
mortal is.
To look at it from another point of view, something like 1% of the
population of the country is as likely to produce a man of genius as is
all the rest of the population put together,--the other 99%.
This might still be due in some degree to family influence, to the
prestige of a famous name, or to educational advantages afforded the
sons of successful men. Dr. Woods' study of the royal families of Europe
is more decisive.[11]
In the latter group, the environment must be admitted--on the whole--to
be uniformly favorable. It has varied, naturally, in each case, but
speaking broadly it is certain that all the members of this group have
had the advantage of a good education, of unusual care and attention. If
such things affect achievement, then the achievements of this class
ought to be pretty generally distributed among the whole class. If
opportunity is the cause of a man's success, then most of the members of
this class ought to have succeeded, because to every one of royal blood,
the door of opportunity usually stands open. One would expect the heir
to the throne to show a better record than his younger brothers,
however, because his opportunity to distinguish himself is naturally
greater. This last point will be discussed first.
Dr. Woods divided all the individuals in his study into ten classes for
intellectuality and ten for morality, those most deficient in the
qualities being put in class 1, while the men and women of preëminent
intellectual and moral worth were put in class 10. Now if preëminent
intellect and morality were at all linked with the better chances that
an inheritor of succession has, then heirs to the throne ought to be
more plentiful in the higher grades than in the lower. Actual count
shows this not to be the case. A slightly larger percentage of
inheritors is rather to be found in the lower grades. The younger sons
have made just as good a showing as the sons who succeeded to power; as
one would expect if intellect and morality are due largely to heredity,
but as one would not expect if intellect and morality are due largely to
outward circumstances.
Are "conditions of turmoil, stress and adversity" strong forces in the
production of great men, as has often been claimed? There is no evidence
from facts to support that view. In the case of a few great commanders,
the times seemed particularly favorable. Napoleon, for example, could
hardly have been Napoleon had it not been for the French revolution. But
in general there have been wars going on during the whole period of
modern European history; there have always been opportunities for a
royal hero to make his appearance; but often the country has called for
many years in vain. Circumstances were powerless to produce a great man
and the nation had to wait until heredity produced him. Spain has for
several centuries been calling for genius in leadership in some lines;
but in vain. England could not get an able man from the Stuart line,
despite her need, and had to wait for William of Orange, who was a
descendant of a man of genius, William the Silent. "Italy had to wait
fifty years in bondage for her deliverers, Cavour, Garibaldi and Victor
Emmanuel."
"The upshot of it all," Dr. Woods decides, "is that, as regards
intellectual life, environment is a totally inadequate explanation. If
it explains certain characters in certain instances, it always fails to
explain many more, while heredity not only explains all, or at least
90%, of the intellectual side of character in practically every
instance, but does so best when questions of environment are left out of
discussion."
Despite the good environment almost uniformly present, the geniuses in
royalty are not scattered over the surface of the pedigree chart, but
form isolated little groups of closely related individuals. One centers
in Frederick the Great, another in Queen Isabella of Spain, a third in
William the Silent, and a fourth in Gustavus Adolphus. Furthermore, the
royal personages who are conspicuously low in intellect and morality are
similarly grouped. Careful study of the circumstances shows nothing in
the environment that would produce this grouping of genius, while it is
exactly what a knowledge of heredity leads one to expect.
In the next place, do the superior members of royalty have
proportionately more superior individuals among their close relatives,
as was found to be the case among the Americans in the Hall of Fame? A
count shows at once that they do. The first six grades all have about an
equal number of eminent relatives, but grade 7 has more while grade 8
has more than grade 7, and the geniuses of grade 10 have the highest
proportion of nearer relatives of their own character. Surely it cannot
be supposed that a relative of a king in grade 8 has on the average a
much less favorable environment than a relative of a king in grade 10.
Is it not fair, then, to assume that this relative's greater endowment
in the latter case is due to heredity?
Conditions are the same, whether males or females be considered. The
royal families of Europe offer a test case because for them the
environment is nearly uniformly favorable. A study of them shows great
mental and moral differences between them, and critical evidence
indicates that these differences are largely due to differences in
heredity. Differences of opportunity do not appear to be largely
responsible for the achievements of the individuals.
But, it is sometimes objected, opportunity certainly is responsible for
the appearance of much talent that would otherwise never appear. Take
the great increase in the number of scientific men in Germany during the
last half century, for example. It can not be pretended that this is due
to an increased birth-rate of such talent; it means that the growth of
an appreciation of scientific work has produced an increased amount of
scientific talent. J. McKeen Cattell has argued this point most
carefully in his study of the families of one thousand American men of
science (_Popular Science Monthly_, May, 1915). "A Darwin born in China
in 1809," he says, "could not have become a Darwin, nor could a Lincoln
born here on the same day have become a Lincoln had there been no Civil
War. If the two infants had been exchanged there would have been no
Darwin in America and no Lincoln in England." And so he continues,
urging that in the production of scientific men, at least, education is
more important than eugenics.
This line of argument contains a great deal of obvious truth, but is
subject to a somewhat obvious objection, if it is pushed too far. It is
certainly true that the exact field in which a man's activities will
find play is largely determined by his surroundings and education. Young
men in the United States are now becoming lawyers or men of science, who
would have become ministers had they been born a century or two ago. But
this environmental influence seems to us a minor one, for the man who is
highly gifted in some one line is usually, as all the work of
differential psychology shows, gifted more than the average in many
other lines. Opportunity decides in just what field his life work shall
lie; but he would be able to make a success in a number of fields.
Darwin born in America would probably not have become the Darwin we
know, but it is not to be supposed that he would have died a "mute,
inglorious Milton": it is not likely that he would have failed to make
his mark in some line of human activity. Dr. Cattell's argument, then,
while admissible, can not properly be urged against the fact that
ability is mainly dependent on inheritance.
We need not stop with the conclusion that equality of training or
opportunity is unable to level the inborn differences between men. We
can go even farther, and produce evidence to show that equality of
training _increases the differences_ in results achieved.
This evidence is obtained by measuring the effects of equal amounts of
exercise of a function upon individual differences in respect to
efficiency in it. Suppose one should pick out, at random, eight
children, and let them do problems in multiplication for 10 minutes.
After a number of such trials, the three best might average 39 correct
solutions in the 10 minutes, and the three poorest might average 25
examples. Then let them continue the work, until each one of them has
done 700 examples. Here is equality in training; does it lead to uniform
results?
Dr. Starch made the actual test which we have outlined and found that
the three best pupils gained on the average 45 in the course of doing
700 examples; while the three poorest gained only 26 in the same course
of time.
Similar tests have been made of school children in a number of
instances, and have shown that equality of training fails to bring about
equality of performance. All improve to some extent; but those who are
naturally better than their comrades usually become better still, when
conditions for all are the same. E. L. Thorndike gives[12] the following
tabular statement of a test he conducted:
THE EFFECT OF EQUAL AMOUNTS OF PRACTICE UPON INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
IN THE MENTAL MULTIPLICATION OF A THREE-PLACE BY A THREE-PLACE
NUMBER
Amount done Percentage of
per unit of correct figures
time in answers
Hours of Practice
|
| First 5 Examples First 5 Examples
| | |
| | Last 5 or 10 | Last 5 or 10
| | Examples | Examples
| | | | |
| | | Gain | | Gain
Initial highest five individuals 5.1 85 147 61 70 78 18
" next five " 5.1 56 107 51 68 78 10
" " six " 5.3 46 68 22 74 82 8
" " six " 5.4 38 46 8 58 70 12
" " five " 5.2 31 57 26 47 67 20
" " one individual 5.2 19 32 13 100 82 -18
Similar results have been obtained by half a dozen other experimenters,
using the tests of mental multiplication, addition, marking A's on a
printed sheet of capitals, and the like. It would be a mistake to
conclude too much from experiments of such restricted scope; but they
all agree in showing that if every child were given an equal training,
the differences in these traits would nevertheless be very great.
And although we do not wish to strain the application of these results
too far, we are at least justified in saying that they strongly indicate
that inborn mediocrity can not be made into a high grade of talent by
training. Not every boy has a chance to distinguish himself, even if he
receives a good education.
We are driven back to the same old conclusion, that it is primarily
inborn nature which causes the achievements of men and women to be what
they are. Good environment, opportunity, training, will give good
heredity a chance to express itself; but they can not produce greatness
from bad heredity.
These conclusions are familiar to scientific sociologists, but they have
not yet had the influence on social service and practical attempts at
reform which they deserve. Many popular writers continue to confuse
cause and effect, as for example H. Addington Bruce, who contributed an
article to the _Century Magazine_, not long ago, on "The Boy Who Goes
Wrong." After alleging that the boy who goes wrong does so because he is
not properly brought up, Mr. Bruce quotes with approval the following
passage from Paul Dubois, "the eminent Swiss physician and philosopher:
"If you have the happiness to be a well-living man, take care not to
attribute the credit of it to yourself. Remember the favorable
conditions in which you have lived, surrounded by the relatives who
loved you and set you a good example; do not forget the close friends
who have taken you by the hand and led you away from the quagmires of
evil; keep a grateful remembrance for all the teachers who have
influenced you, the kind and intelligent school-master, the devoted
pastor; realize all these multiple influences which have made you what
you are. Then you will remember that such and such a culprit has not in
his sad life met with these favorable conditions; that he had a drunken
father or a foolish mother, and that he has lived without affection,
exposed to all kinds of temptation. You will then take pity upon this
disinherited man, whose mind has been nourished upon malformed mental
images, begetting evil sentiments such as immoderate desire or social
hatred."
Mr. Bruce indorses this kind of talk when he concludes, "The blame for
the boy who goes wrong does not rest with the boy himself, or yet with
his remote ancestors. It rests squarely with the parents who, through
ignorance or neglect, have failed to mold him aright in the plastic days
of childhood."
Where is the evidence of the existence of these plastic days of
childhood? If they exist, why do not ordinary brothers become as much
alike as identical twins? How long are we to be asked to believe, on
blind faith, that the child is putty, of which the educator can make
either mediocrity or genius, depending on his skill? What does the
environmentalist _know_ about these "plastic days"? If a boy has a
drunken father or foolish mother, does it not suggest that there is
something wrong with his pedigree? With such an ancestry, we do not
expect him to turn out brilliantly, no matter in what home he is brought
up. If a boy has the kind of parents who bring him up well; if he is,
as Dr. Dubois says, surrounded by relatives who love him and set him a
good example, we at once have ground for a suspicion that he comes of a
pretty good family, a stock characterized by a high standard of
intellectuality and morality, and it would surprise us if such a boy did
not turn out well. But he turns out well because what's bred in the bone
will show in him, if it gets any kind of a chance. It is his nature, not
his nurture, that is mainly responsible for his character.
CHAPTER II
MODIFICATION OF THE GERM-PLASM
Every living creature was at some stage of its life nothing more than a
single cell. It is generally known that human beings result from the
union of an egg-cell and a sperm-cell, but it is not so universally
understood that these germ-cells are part of a continuous stream of
germ-plasm which has been in existence ever since the appearance of life
on the globe, and which is destined to continue in existence as long as
life remains on the globe.
The corollaries of this fact are of great importance. Some of them will
be considered in this chapter.
Early investigators tended naturally to look on the germ-cells as a
product of the body. Being supposedly products of the body, it was
natural to think that they would in some measure reproduce the character
of the body which created them; and Darwin elaborated an ingenious
hypothesis to explain how the various characters could be represented in
the germ-cell. The idea held by him, in common with most other thinkers
of his period, is still held more or less unconsciously by those who
have not given particular attention to the subject. Generation is
conceived as a direct chain: the body produces the germ-cell which
produces another body which in turn produces another germ-cell, and so
on.
But a generation ago this idea fell under suspicion. August Weismann,
professor of zoölogy in the University of Freiburg, Germany, made
himself the champion of the new idea, about 1885, and developed it so
effectively that it is now a part of the creed of nearly every
biologist.
Weismann caused a general abandonment of the idea that the germ-cell is
produced by the body in each generation, and popularized the conception
of the germ-cell as a product of a stream of undifferentiated
germ-plasm, not only continuous but (potentially at least) immortal.
The body does not produce the germ-cells, he pointed out; instead, the
germ-cells produce the body.
The basis of this theory can best be understood by a brief consideration
of the reproduction of very simple organisms.
"Death is the end of life," is the belief of many other persons than the
Lotus Eaters. It is commonly supposed that everything which lives must
eventually die. But study of a one-celled animal, an Infusorian, for
example, reveals that when it reaches a certain age it pinches in two,
and each half becomes an Infusorian in all appearance identical with the
original cell. Has the parent cell then died? It may rather be said to
survive, in two parts. Each of these daughter cells will in turn go
through the same process of reproduction by simple fission, and the
process will be continued in their descendants. The Infusorian can be
called potentially immortal, because of this method of reproduction.
The immortality, as Weismann pointed out, is not of the kind attributed
by the Greeks to their gods, who could not die because no wound could
destroy them. On the contrary, the Infusorian is extremely fragile, and
is dying by millions at every instant; but if circumstances are
favorable, it _can_ live on; it is not inevitably doomed to die sooner
or later, as is Man. "It dies from accident often, from old age never."
Now the single-celled Infusorian is in many respects comparable with the
single-celled germ of the higher animals. The analogy has often been
carried too far; yet it remains indisputable that the germ-cells of men
reproduce in the same way--by simple fission--as the Infusorian and
other one-celled animals and plants, and that they are organized on much
the same plan. Given favorable circumstances, the germ-cell should be
expected to be equally immortal. Does it ever find these favorable
circumstances?
The investigations of microscopists indicate that it does--that
evolution has provided it with these favorable circumstances, in the
bodies of the higher animals. Let us recall in outline the early history
of the fertilized germ-cell, the _zygote_ formed by the union of ovum
and spermatozoön. These two unite to form a single cell, which is
essentially the same, physiologically, as other germ-cells. It divides
in two similar cells; these each divide; the resulting cells again
divide, and so the process continues, until the whole body--a fully
developed man,--has been produced by division and redivision of the one
zygote.
But the germ-cell is obviously different from most of the cells that
make up the finished product, the body. The latter are highly
differentiated and specialized for different functions--blood cells,
nerve cells, bone cells, muscle cells, and so on, each a single cell but
each adapted to do a certain work, for which the original,
undifferentiated germ-cell was wholly unfit. It is evident that
differentiation began to take place at some point in the series of
divisions, that is to say, in the development of the embryo.
Th. Boveri, studying the development of a threadworm, made the
interesting discovery that this differentiation began at the first
division. Of the two daughter-cells produced from the zygote, one
continued dividing at a very slow rate, and without showing any
specialization. Its "line of descent" produced only germ-cells. The
products of division of the other daughter-cell began to differentiate,
and soon formed all the necessary kinds of cells to make up the body of
the mature worm. In this body, the cells from the first daughter-cell
mentioned were inclosed, still undifferentiated: they formed the
germ-cells of the next generation, and after maturity were ready to be
ejected from the body, and to form new threadworms.
Imagine this process taking place through generation after generation of
threadworms, and one will realize that the germ-plasm was passed on
directly from one generation to the next; that in each generation it
gave rise to body-plasm, but that it did not at any time lose its
identity or continuity, a part of the germ-plasm being always set aside,
undifferentiated, to be handed on to the next generation.
In the light of this example, one can better understand the definition
of germ-plasm as "that part of the substance of the parents which does
not die with them, but perpetuates itself in their offspring." By
bringing his imagination into play, the reader will realize that there
is no limit to the backward continuity of this germ-plasm in the
threadworm. Granted that each species has arisen by evolution from some
other, this germ-cell which is observed in the body of the threadworm,
must be regarded as part of what may well be called a stream of
germ-plasm, that reaches back to the beginning of life in the world. It
will be equally evident that these is no foreordained limit to the
forward extension of the stream. It will continue in some branch, as
long as there are any threadworms or descendants of threadworms in the
world.
The reader may well express doubt as to whether what has been
demonstrated for the threadworm can be demonstrated for the higher
animals, including man. It must be admitted that in many of these
animals conditions are too unfavorable, and the process of embryology
too complicated, or too difficult to observe, to permit as distinct a
demonstration of this continuity of the germ-plasm, wherever it is
sought. But it has been demonstrated in a great many animals; no facts
which impair the theory have been discovered; and biologists therefore
feel perfectly justified in generalizing and declaring the continuity of
germ-plasm to be a law of the world of living things.
Focusing attention on its application to man, one sees that the race
must represent an immense network of lines of descent, running back
through a vast number of different forms of gradually diminishing
specialization, until it comes to a point where all its threads merge in
one knot--the single cell with which it may be supposed that life on
this globe began. Each individual is not only figuratively, but in a
very literal sense, the carrier of the heritage of the whole race--of
the whole past, indeed. Each individual is temporarily the custodian of
part of the "stuff of life"; from an evolutionary point of view, he may
be said to have been brought into existence, primarily to pass this
sacred heritage on to the next generation. From Nature's standpoint, he
is of little use in the world, his existence is scarcely justified,
unless he faithfully discharges this trust, passing on to the future
the "Lamp of Life" whose fire he has been created to guard for a short
while.
Immortality, we may point out in passing, is thus no mere _hope_ to the
parent: it is a _real possibility_. The death of the huge agglomeration
of highly specialized body-cells is a matter of little consequence, if
the germ-plasm, with its power to reproduce not only these body-cells,
but the mental traits--indeed, we may in a sense say the very soul--that
inhabited them, has been passed on. The individual continues to live, in
his offspring, just as the past lives in him. To the eugenist, life
everlasting is something more than a figure of speech or a theological
concept--it is as much a reality as the beat of the heart, the growth of
muscles or the activity of the mind.
This doctrine of the continuity of germ-plasm throws a fresh light on
the nature of human relationships. It is evident that the son who
resembles his father can not accurately be called a "chip off the old
block." Rather, they are both chips off the same block; and aside from
bringing about the fusion of two distinct strains of germ-plasm, father
and mother are no more responsible for endowing the child with its
characters except in the choice of mate, than is the child for "stamping
his impress" on his parents. From another point of view, it has been
said that father and son ought to be thought of as half-brothers by two
different mothers, each being the product of the same strain of paternal
germ-plasm, but not of the same strain of maternal germ-plasm.
Biologically, the father or mother should not be thought of as the
_producer_ of a child, but as the trustee of a stream of germ-plasm
which produces a child whenever the proper conditions arise. Or as Sir
Michael Foster put it, "The animal body is in reality a vehicle for ova
or sperm; and after the life of the parent has become potentially
renewed in the offspring, the body remains as a cast-off envelope whose
future is but to die." Finally to quote the metaphor of J. Arthur
Thomson, one may "think for a moment of a baker who has a very precious
kind of leaven; he uses much of this in baking a large loaf; but he so
arranges matters by a clever contrivance that part of the original
leaven is always carried on unaltered, carefully preserved for the next
baking. Nature is the baker, the loaf is the body, the leaven is the
germ-plasm, and each baking is a generation."
When the respective functions and relative importance, from a genetic
point of view, of germ-plasm and body-plasm are understood, it must be
fairly evident that the natural point of attack for any attempt at race
betterment which aims to be fundamental rather than wholly superficial,
must be the germ-plasm rather than the body-plasm. The failure to hold
this point of view has been responsible for the disappointing results of
much of the sociological theory of the last century, and for the fact
that some of the work now carried on under the name of race betterment
is producing results that are of little or no significance to true race
betterment.
On the other hand, it must be fairly evident, from the pains which
Nature has taken to arrange for the transmission of the germ-plasm from
generation to generation, that she would also protect it from injury
with meticulous care. It seems hardly reasonable to suppose that a
material of this sort should be exposed, in the higher animals at least,
to all the vicissitudes of the environment, and to injury or change from
the chance of outward circumstances.
In spite of these presumptions which the biologist would, to say the
least, consider worthy of careful investigation, the world is full of
well-intentioned people who are anxious to improve the race, and who in
their attempts to do so, wholly ignore the germ-plasm. They see only the
body-plasm. They are devoted to the dogma that if they can change the
body (and what is here said of the body applies equally to the mind) in
the direction they wish, this change will in some unascertainable way be
reproduced in the next generation. They rarely stop to think that man is
an animal, or that the science of biology might conceivably have
something to say about the means by which his species can be improved;
but if they do, they commonly take refuge, deliberately or
unconsciously, in the biology of half a century ago, which still
believed that these changes of the body could be so impressed on the
germ-plasm as to be continued in the following generation.
Such an assumption is made to-day by few who have thoroughly studied the
subject. Even those who still believed in what is conventionally called
"the inheritance of acquired characteristics" would be quick to
repudiate any such application of the doctrine as is commonly made by
most of the philanthropists and social workers who are proceeding
without seeking the light of biology. But the idea that these
modifications are inherited is so widespread among all who have not
studied biology, and is so much a part of the tradition of society, that
the question must be here examined, before we can proceed confidently
with our program of eugenics.
The problem is first to be defined.
It is evident that all characters which make up a man or woman, or any
other organism, must be either germinal or acquired. It is impossible to
conceive of any other category. But it is frequently hard to say in
which class a given character falls. Worse still, many persons do not
even distinguish the two categories accurately--a confusion made easier
by the quibble that _all_ characters must be acquired, since the
organism starts from a single cell, which possesses practically none of
the traits of the adult.
What we mean by an inborn character is one whose expression is due to
something which is present in the germ-plasm; one which is inherent and
due to heredity. An acquired character is simply a modification, due to
some cause external to the germ-plasm acting on an inborn character. In
looking at an individual, one can not always say with certainty which
characters are which; but with a little trouble, one can usually reach a
reliable decision. It is possible to measure the variation in a given
character in a group of parents and their children, in a number of
different environments; if the degree of resemblance between parent and
offspring is about the same in each case, regardless of the different
surroundings in which the children may have been brought up, the
character may properly be called germinal. This is the biometric method
of investigation. In practice, one can often reach a decision by much
simpler means: if the character is one that appears at birth, e.g.,
skin color, it is usually safe to assume that it is a germinal
character, unless there is some evident reason for deciding otherwise,
as in the case of a child born with some disease from which the mother
had been suffering for the previous few months. In general, it is more
difficult to decide whether a mental trait is germinal, than whether a
physical one is; and great care should be used in classification.
To make the distinction, one ought to be familiar with an individual
from birth, and to have some knowledge of the conditions to which he was
exposed, in the period between conception and birth,--for of course a
modification which takes place during that time is as truly an acquired
character as one that takes place after parturition. Blindness, for
example, may be an inborn defect. The child from conception may have
lacked the requisites for the development of sight. On the other hand,
it may be an acquired character, due to an ill-advised display of
patriotism on July 4, at some time during childhood; or even to
infection at the moment of birth. Similarly small size may be an inborn
character, due to a small-sized ancestry; but if the child comes of a
normal ancestry and is stunted merely because of lack of proper care and
food, the smallness is an acquired character. Deafness may be congenital
and inborn, or it may be acquired as the result, say, of scarlet fever
during childhood.
Now the inborn characters (excepting modifications _in utero_) are
admittedly heritable, for inborn characters must exist potentially in
the germ-plasm. The belief that acquired characters are also inherited,
therefore, involves belief that in some way the trait acquired by the
parent is incorporated in the germ-plasm of the parent, to be handed on
to the child and reappear in the course of the child's development. The
impress on the parental _body_ must in some way be transferred to the
parental _germ-plasm_; and not as a general influence, but as a specific
one which can be reproduced by the germ-plasm.
This idea was held almost without question by the biologists of the
past, from Aristotle on. Questionings indeed arose from time to time,
but they were vague and carried no weight, until a generation ago
several able men elaborated them. For many years, it was the question of
chief dispute in the study of heredity. The last word has not yet been
said on it. It has theoretical bearings of immense importance; for our
conception of the process of evolution will be shaped according to the
belief that acquired characters are or are not inherited. Herbert
Spencer went so far as to say, "Close contemplation of the facts
impresses me more strongly than ever with two alternatives--either that
there has been inheritance of acquired characters, or there has been no
evolution." But its practical bearings are no less momentous. Again to
quote Spencer: "Considering the width and depth of the effects which the
acceptance or non-acceptance of one or the other of these hypotheses
must have on our views of life, the question, Which of them is true?
demands beyond all other questions whatever the attention of scientific
men. A grave responsibility rests on biologists in respect of the
general question, since wrong answers lead, among other effects, to
wrong belief about social affairs and to disastrous social actions."
Biologists certainly have not shirked this "grave responsibility" during
the last 30 years, and they have, in our opinion, satisfactorily
answered the general question. The answer they give is not the answer
Herbert Spencer gave.
But the popular mind frequently lags a generation behind, in its grasp
of the work of science, and it must be said that in this case the
popular mind is still largely under the influence of Herbert Spencer and
his school. _Whether they know it or not_, most people who have not made
a particular study of the question still tacitly assume that the
acquirements of one generation form part of the inborn heritage of the
next, and the present social and educational systems are founded in
large part on this false foundation. Most philanthropy starts out
unquestioningly with the assumption that by modifying the individual for
the better, it will thereby improve the germinal quality of the race.
Even a self-styled eugenist asks, "Can prospective parents who have
thoroughly and systematically disciplined themselves, physically,
mentally and morally, transmit to their offspring the traits or
tendencies which they have developed?" and answers the question with the
astounding statement, "It seems reasonable to suppose that they have
this power, it being simply a phase of heredity, the tendency of like to
beget like."
The right understanding of this famous problem is therefore fraught with
the most important consequences to eugenics. The huge mass of
experimental evidence that has been accumulated during the last quarter
of a century has, necessarily, been almost wholly based on work with
plants and lower animals. Even though we can not attempt to present a
general review of this evidence, for which the reader must consult one
of the standard works on biology or genetics, we shall point out some of
the considerations underlying the problem and its solution.
In the first place, it must be definitely understood that we are dealing
only with specific, as distinguished from general, transmission. As the
germ-cells derive their nourishment from the body, it is obvious that
any cause profoundly affecting the latter might in that way exercise an
influence on the germ-cells; that if the parent was starved, the
germ-cells might be ill-nourished and the resulting offspring might be
weak and puny. There is experimental evidence that this is the case; but
that is not the inheritance of an acquired character. If, however, a
white man tanned by long exposure to the tropical sun should have
children who were brunettes, when the family stock was all blond; or if
men whose legs were deformed through falls in childhood should have
children whose legs, at birth, appeared deformed in the same manner;
then there would be a distinct case of the transmission of an acquired
characteristic. "The precise question," as Professor Thomson words it,
"is this: Can a structural change in the body, induced by some change in
use or disuse, or by a change in surrounding influence, affect the
germ-cells in such a _specific_ or representative way that the offspring
will through its inheritance exhibit, even in a slight degree, the
modification which the parent acquired?" He then lists a number of
current misunderstandings, which are so widespread that they deserve to
be considered here.
(1) It is frequently argued (as Herbert Spencer himself suggested) that
unless modifications are inherited, there could be no such thing as
evolution. Such pessimism is unwarranted. There _is_ abundant
explanation of evolution, in the abundant supply of germinal variations
which every individual presents.
(2) It is common to advance an _interpretation_ of some observation, in
support of the Lamarckian doctrine, as if it were a _fact_.
Interpretations are not facts. What is wanted are the facts; each
student has a right to interpret them as he sees fit, but not to
represent his interpretation as a fact. It is easy to find structural
features in Nature which _may be interpreted_ as resulting from the
inheritance of acquired characters; but this is not the same as to say
and to prove that they _have resulted_ from such inheritance.
(3) It is common to beg the question by pointing to the transmission of
some character that is not proved to be a modification. Herbert Spencer
cited the prevalence of short-sightedness among the "notoriously
studious" Germans as a defect due to the inheritance of an acquired
character. But he offered no evidence that this is an acquirement rather
than a germinal character. As a fact, there is reason to believe that
weakness of the eyes is one of the characteristics of that race, and
existed long before the Germans ever became studious--even at a time
when most of them could neither read nor write.
(4) The reappearance of a modification may be mistaken for the
transmission of a modification. Thus a blond European family moves to
the tropics, and the parents become tanned. The children who grow up
under the tropical sun are tanned from infancy; and after the
grandchildren or great-grandchildren appear, brown from childhood, some
one points to the case as an instance of permanent modification of
skin-color. But of course the children at the time of birth are as white
as their distant cousins in Europe, and if taken back to the North to be
brought up, would be no darker than their kinsmen who had never been in
the tropics. Such "evidence" has often been brought forward by careless
observers, but can deceive no one who inquires carefully into the facts.
(5) In the case of diseases, re-infection is often mistaken for
transmission. The father had pneumonia; the son later developed it;
ergo, he must have inherited it. What evidence is there that the son in
this case did not get it from an entirely different source? Medical
literature is heavily burdened with such spurious evidence.
(6) Changes in the germ-cells _along with_ changes in the body are not
relevant to this discussion. The mother's body, for example, is poisoned
with alcohol, which is present in large quantities in the blood and
therefore might affect the germ-cells directly. If the children
subsequently born are consistently defective it is not an inheritance of
a body character but the result of a direct modification of the
germ-plasm. The inheritance of an acquired modification of the body can
only be proved if some particular change made in the parent is inherited
as such by the child.
(7) There is often a failure to distinguish between the possible
inheritance of a particular modification, and the possible inheritance
of indirect results of that modification, or of changes correlated with
it. This is a nice but crucial point on which most popular writers are
confused. Let us examine it through a hypothetical case. A woman, not
herself strong, bears a child that is weak. The woman then goes in for
athletics, in order better to fit herself for motherhood; she
specializes on tennis. After a few years she bears another child, which
is much stronger and better developed than the first. "Look," some one
will say, "how the mother has transmitted her acquirement to her
offspring." We grant that her improved general health will probably
result in a child that is better nourished than the first; but that is a
very different thing from heredity. If, however, the mother had played
tennis until her right arm was over-developed, and her spine bent; if
these characteristics were nowhere present in the ancestry and not seen
in the first child; but if the second child were born with a bent spine
and a right arm of exaggerated musculature, we would be willing to
consider the case on the basis of the inheritance of an acquired
character. We are not likely to have such a case presented to us.
To put the matter more generally, it is not enough to show that _some_
modification in the parent results in _some_ modification in the child.
For the purposes of this argument there must be a similar modification.
(8) Finally, data are frequently presented, which cover only two
generations--parent and child. Indeed, almost all the data alleged to
show the inheritance of acquired characteristics are of this kind. They
are of little or no value as evidence. Cases covering a number of
generations, where a _cumulative_ change was visible, would be of
weight, but on the rare occasions when they are forthcoming, they can be
explained in some other way more satisfactorily than by an appeal to the
theory of Lamarck.[13]
If the evidence currently offered to support a belief in the inheritance
of acquired characters is tested by the application of these
"misunderstandings," it will at once be found that most of it
disappears; that it can be thrown out of court without further
formality. The Lamarckian doctrine is now held mainly by persons who
have either lacked training in the evaluation of evidence, or have never
examined critically the assumptions on which they proceed. Medical men
and breeders of plants or animals are to a large extent believers in
Lamarckism, but the evidence (if any) on which they rely is always
susceptible of explanation in a more reasonable way. It must not be
forgotten that some of the ablest intellects in the world have been
assidously engaged in getting at the truth in the case, during the last
half-century; and it is certainly worthy of consideration that not in a
single case has the transmission of an acquired body character ever
been proved beyond dispute. Those who still hold a belief in it (and it
is fair to say that some men of real ability are among that number) too
often do so, it is to be feared, because it is necessary for the support
of some theoretical doctrine which they have formulated. Certainly there
are few men who can say that they have carefully examined the evidence
in the case, and accept Lamarckism because the evidence forces them to
do so. It will be interesting to review the various classes of alleged
evidence, though we can cite only a few cases from the great number
available (most of them, however, dealing with plants or lower animals).
Nearly all the evidence adduced can be put in one of these four classes:
(1) Mutilations.
(2) Diseases.
(3) Results of use or disuse.
(4) Physico-chemical effects of environment.
The case in regard to mutilations is particularly clear cut and leaves
little room for doubt. The noses and ears of oriental women have been
pierced for generations without number, yet girls are still born with
these parts entire. Circumcision offers another test case. The evidence
of laboratory experiments (amputation of tails) shows no inheritance. It
may be said without hesitation that mutilations are not heritable, no
matter how many generations undergo them.
(2) The transmissibility of acquired diseases is a question involved in
more of a haze of ignorance and loose thinking. It is particularly
frequent to see cases of uterine infection offered as cases of the
inheritance of acquired characters. To use the word "heredity" in such a
case is unjustified. Uterine infection has no bearing whatever on the
question.
Taking an historical view, it seems fairly evident that if diseases were
really inherited, the race would have been extinct long ago. Of course
there are constitutional defects or abnormalities that are in the
germ-plasm and are heritable: such is the peculiar inability of the
blood to coagulate, which marks "bleeders" (sufferers from hemophilia, a
highly hereditary disease). And in many cases it is difficult to
distinguish between a real germinal condition of this sort, and an
acquired disease.
The inheritance of an acquired disease is not only inconceivable, in the
light of what is known about the germ-plasm, but there is no evidence to
support it. While there is most decidedly such a thing as the
inheritance of a tendency to or lack of resistance to a disease, it is
not the result of incidence of the disease on the parent. It is possible
to inherit a tendency to headaches or to chronic alcoholism; and it is
possible to inherit a lack of resistance to common diseases such as
malaria, small-pox or measles; but actually to inherit a zymotic disease
as an inherent genetic trait, is impossible,--is, in fact, a
contradiction of terms.
(3) When we come to the effects of use and disuse, we reach a much
debated ground, and one complicated by the injection of a great deal of
biological theorizing, as well as the presence of the usual large amount
of faulty observation and inference.
It will be admitted by every one that a part of the body which is much
used tends to increase in size, or strength, and similarly that a part
which is not used tends to atrophy. It is further found that such
changes are progressive in the race, in many cases. Man's brain has
steadily increased in size, as he used it more and more; on the other
hand, his canine teeth have grown smaller. Can this be regarded as the
inheritance of a long continued process of use and disuse? Such a view
is often taken, but the Lamarckian doctrine seems to us just as mystical
here as anywhere else, and no more necessary. Progressive changes can be
satisfactorily accounted for by natural selection; retrogressive changes
are susceptible of explanation along similar lines. When an organ is no
longer necessary, as the hind legs of a whale, for instance, natural
selection no longer keeps it at the point of perfection. Variation,
however, continues to occur in it. Since the organ is now useless,
natural selection will no longer restrain variation in such an organ,
and degeneracy will naturally follow, for of all the variations that
occur in the organ, those tending to loss are more numerous than those
tending to addition. If the embryonic development of a whale's hind leg
be compared to some complicated mechanical process, such as the
manufacture of a typewriter, it will be easier to realize that a trivial
variation which affected one of the first stages of the process would
alter all succeeding stages and ruin the final perfection of the
machine. It appears, then, that progressive degeneration of an organ can
be adequately explained by variation with the removal of natural
selection, and that it is not necessary or desirable to appeal to any
Lamarckian factor of an unexplainable and undemonstrable nature.
The situation remains the same, when purely mental processes, such as
instincts, are considered. Habit often repeated becomes instinctive, it
is said; and then the instinct thus formed by the individual is passed
on to his descendants and becomes in the end a racial instinct. Most
psychologists have now abandoned this view, which receives no support
from investigation. Such prevalence as it still retains seems to be
largely due to a confusion of thought brought about by the use of the
word "instinctive" in two different senses,--first literally and then
figuratively.
A persistent attempt has been made in America during recent years, by
C. L. Redfield, a Chicago engineer, to rehabilitate the theory of the
inheritance of the effects of use and disuse. He has presented it in a
way that, to one ignorant of biology, appears very exact and plausible;
but his evidence is defective and his interpretation of his evidence
fallacious. Because of the widespread publicity, Mr. Redfield's work has
received, we discuss it further in Appendix B.
Since the importance of hormones (internal secretions) in the body
became known, it has often been suggested that their action may furnish
the clue to some sort of an inheritance of modifications. The hormone
might conceivably modify the germ-plasm but if so, it would more likely
be in some wholly different way.
In general, we may confidently say that there is neither theoretical
necessity nor adequate experimental proof for belief that the results of
use and disuse are inherited.
(4) When we come to consider whether the effects of the environment are
inherited, we attack a stronghold of sociologists and historians.
Herbert Spencer thought one of the strongest pieces of evidence in this
category was to be found in the assimilation of foreigners in the United
States. "The descendants of the immigrant Irish," he pointed out, "lose
their Celtic aspect and become Americanised.... To say that 'spontaneous
variation,' increased by natural selection, can have produced this
effect, is going too far." Unfortunately for Mr. Spencer, he was basing
his conclusions on guesswork. It is only within the last few months that
the first trustworthy evidence on the point has appeared, in the careful
measurements of Hrdlicka who has demonstrated that Spencer was quite
wrong in his statement. As a fact, the original traits persist with
almost incredible fidelity. (Appendix C.)
In 1911, Franz Boas of Columbia University published measurements of the
head form of children of immigrants[14] which purported to show that
American conditions caused in some mysterious manner a change in the
shape of the head. This conclusion in itself would have been striking
enough, but was made more startling when he announced that the change
worked both ways: "The East European Hebrew, who has a very round head,
becomes more long-headed; the south Italian, who in Italy has an
exceedingly long head, becomes more short-headed"; and moreover this
potent influence was alleged to be a subtle one "which does not affect
the young child born abroad and growing up in American environment, but
which makes itself felt among the children born in America, even a short
time after the arrival of the parents in this country." Boas' work was
naturally pleasing to sociologists who believe in the reality of the
"melting-pot," and has obtained widespread acceptance in popular
literature. It has obtained little acceptance among his
fellow-anthropologists, some of whom allege that it is unsound because
of the faulty methods by which the measurements were made and the
incorrect standards used for comparison.
The many instances quoted by historians, where races have changed after
immigration, are to be explained in most cases by natural selection
under new conditions, or by interbreeding with the natives, and not as
the direct result of climate. Ellsworth Huntington, the most recent and
careful student of the effect of climate on man,[15] finds that climate
has a great deal of influence on man's energy, but as far as inherited
traits in general are concerned, he is constantly led to remark how
little heredity is capable of being changed.
Most members of the white race have little toes that are partly
atrophied, and considerably deformed. In many cases one of the joints
has undergone ankylosis--that is, the bones have coalesced. It is
confidently alleged that this is due to the inheritance of the effects
of wearing tight shoes through many centuries. When it is found that the
prehistoric Egyptians, who knew not tight shoes, suffered from the same
defect in a similar degree, one's confidence in this kind of evidence is
much diminished.
The retrogression of the little toe in man is probably to be explained
like the degeneration of the hind leg of the whale, as a result of the
excess of deteriorating variations which, when not eliminated by natural
selection, lead to atrophy. Since man began to limit the use of his feet
to walking on the ground, the little toe has had much less value to him.
The feet of Chinese women offer another illustration along this line.
Although they have been tightly bound for many generations, no deformity
is apparent in the feet of girl babies.
Breeders are generally of the opinion that good care and feed bestowed
on their stock produce results in succeeding generations. This is in a
way true, but it is due merely to the fact that the offspring get better
nourishment and therefore a better start in life. The changes in breeds,
the increase in milk yield, and similar facts, often explained as due to
inheritance of acquired characters, are better explained as the results
of selection, sometimes conscious, sometimes quite unconscious.
[Illustration: BOUND FOOT OF A CHINESE WOMAN
FIG. 5.--For centuries the feet of upper class women, and many
lower class women, in China have been distorted in this manner; but
their daughters have perfect feet when born.]
[Illustration: DEFECTIVE LITTLE TOE OF A PREHISTORIC EGYPTIAN
FIG. 6.--The above illustration shows the foot of a prehistoric
Egyptian who is estimated to have lived about 8000 B. C. The last joint
of the little toe had entirely disappeared, and careful dissection
leaves no doubt that it was a germinal abnormality, such as is
occasionally seen to-day, and not the result of disease. It is,
therefore, evident that the degeneration of man's little toe must be
ascribed to some more natural cause than the wearing of shoes for many
generations. Photograph from Dr. Gorgy Sobhy, School of Medicine,
Cairo.]
The question of inherited immunity to diseases, as the result of
vaccination or actual illness from them, has appeared in the controversy
in a number of forms, and is a point of much importance. It is not yet
clear, partly because the doctors disagree as to what immunity is. But
there is no adequate evidence that an immunity to anything can be
created and transmitted through the germ-plasm to succeeding
generations.
In short, no matter what evidence we examine, we must conclude that
inheritance of acquired bodily characters is not a subject that need be
reckoned with, in applied eugenics.
On the other hand, there is a possible indirect influence of
modifications, which may have real importance in man. If the individual
is modified in a certain way, in a number of generations, even though
such a modification is not transmitted to his descendants, yet its
continued existence may make possible, the survival of some germinal
variation bearing in the same direction, which without the protecting
influence of the pre-existing modification, would have been swamped or
destroyed.
Finally, it should be borne in mind that even if physical and mental
characters acquired during a man's lifetime are not transmitted, yet
there is a sort of transmission of acquired characters which has been of
immense importance to the evolution of the race. This is the so-called
"inheritance" of the environment; the passing on from one generation to
the next of the achievements of the race, its accumulated social
experience; its civilization, in short. It is doubtful whether any
useful end is gained by speaking of this continuance of the environment
as "heredity;" it certainly tends to confuse many people who are not
used to thinking in biological terms. Tradition is the preferable term.
There is much to be said in favor of E. B. Poulton's
definition,--"Civilization in general is the sum of those contrivances
which enable human beings to advance independently of heredity."
Whatever wisdom, material gain, or language is acquired by one
generation may be passed on to the next. As far as the environment is
concerned, one generation stands on the shoulders of its predecessor.
It might simplify the task of eugenics if the same could be said of
biological heredity. But it can not. Each generation must "start from
scratch."
In August Weismann's words, the development of a function in offspring
begins at the point where it _began_ in his parents, not at the point
where it _ended_ in them. Biological improvement of the race (and such
improvement greatly fosters all other kinds) must be made through a
selective birth-rate. There is no short-cut by way of euthenics, merely.
We must now consider whether there is any direct way of impairing good
heredity. It is currently believed that there are certain substances,
popularly known as "racial-poisons," which are capable of affecting the
germ-plasm adversely and permanently in spite of its isolation and
protection. For example, the literature of alcoholism, and much of the
literature of eugenics, abounds with statements to the effect that
alcohol _originates_ degeneracy in the human race.
The proof or disproof of this proposition must depend in the last
analysis on direct observation and carefully controlled experiments. As
the latter cannot be made feasibly on man, a number of students have
taken up the problem by using small animals which are easily handled in
laboratories. Many of these experiments are so imperfect in method that,
when carefully examined, they are found to possess little or no value as
evidence on the point here discussed.
Hodge, Mairet and Combemale, for example, have published data which
convinced them that the germ-plasm of dogs was injured by the
administration of alcohol. The test was the quality of offspring
directly produced by the intoxicated animals under experiment. But the
number of dogs used was too small to be conclusive, and there was no
"control": hence these experiments carry little weight.
Ovize, Fêrê and Stockard have shown that the effect of alcohol on hen's
eggs is to produce malformed embryos. This, however, is a case of
influencing the development of the individual, rather than the
germ-plasm. Evidence is abundant that individual development can be
harmed by alcohol, but the experiments with eggs are not to the point
of our present purpose.
Carlo Todde and others have carried out similar experiments on cocks.
The conclusions have in general been in favor of injury to the
germ-plasm, but the experiments were inadequate in extent.
Laitinen experimented on rabbits and guinea pigs, but he used small
doses and secured only negative results.
Several series of experiments with rats indicate that if the dosage is
large enough, the offspring can be affected.
Nice, using very small numbers of white mice, subjected them not only to
alcohol, but to caffein, nicotin, and tobacco smoke. The fecundity of
all these sets of mice was higher than that of the untreated ones used
as control; all of them gained in weight; of 707 young, none was
deformed, none stillborn, and there was only one abortion. The young of
the alcoholized mice surpassed all others in growth. The dosage Nice
employed was too small, however, to give his experiment great weight.
At the University of Wisconsin, Leon J. Cole has been treating male
rabbits with alcohol and reports that "what appear to be decisive
results have already been obtained. In the case of alcoholic poisoning
of the male the most marked result has been a lessening of his
efficiency as a sire, the alcohol apparently having had some effect on
the vitality of his spermatozoa." His experiment is properly planned and
carried out, but so far as results have been made public, they do not
appear to afford conclusive evidence that alcohol originates degeneracy
in offspring.
The long-continued and carefully conducted experiment of Charles R.
Stockard at the Cornell Medical College is most widely quoted in this
connection. He works with guinea-pigs. The animals are intoxicated
daily, six days in the week, by inhaling the fumes of alcohol to the
point where they show evident signs of its influence; their condition
may thus be compared to that of the toper who never gets "dead drunk"
but is never entirely sober. Treatment of this sort for a period as long
as three years produces no apparent bad effect on the individuals; they
continue to grow and become fat and vigorous, taking plenty of food and
behaving in a normal manner in every particular. Some of them have been
killed from time to time, and all the tissues, including the
reproductive glands, have been found perfectly normal. "The treated
animals are, therefore, little changed or injured so far as their
behavior and structure goes. Nevertheless, the effects of the treatment
are most decidedly indicated by the type of offspring to which they give
rise, whether they are mated together or with normal individuals."
Before the treatment is begun, every individual is mated at least once,
to demonstrate its possibility of giving rise to sound offspring. The
crucial test of the influence of alcohol on the germ-cells is, of
course, the mating of a previously alcoholized male with a normal,
untreated female, in a normal environment.
When the experiment was last reported,[16] it had covered five years and
four generations. The records of 682 offspring produced by 571 matings
were tabulated, 164 matings of alcoholized animals, in which either the
father, mother, or both were alcoholic, gave 64, or almost 40%, negative
results or early abortions, while only 25% of the control matings failed
to give full-term litters. Of the 100 full-term litters from alcoholic
parents 18% contained stillborn young and only 50% of all the matings
resulted in living litters, while 47% of the individuals in the litters
of living young died soon after birth. In contrast to this record 73% of
the 90 control matings gave living litters and 84% of the young in these
litters survived as normal, healthy animals.
"The mating records of the descendants of the alcoholized guinea pigs,
although they themselves were not treated with alcohol, compare in some
respects even more unfavorably with the control records than do the
above data from the directly alcoholized animals." The records of the
matings in the second filial generation "are still worse, higher
mortality and more pronounced deformities, while the few individuals
which have survived are generally weak and in many instances appear to
be quite sterile even though paired with vigorous, prolific, normal
mates."
We do not minimize the value of this experiment, when we say that too
much weight has been popularly placed on its results. Compare it with
the experiment with fowls at the University of Maine, which Raymond
Pearl reports.[17] He treated 19 fowls with alcohol, little effect on
the general health being shown, and none on egg production. From their
eggs 234 chicks were produced; the average percentage of fertility of
the eggs was diminished but the average percentage of hatchability of
fertile eggs was increased. The infant mortality of these chicks was
smaller than normal, the chicks were heavier when hatched and grew more
rapidly than normal afterwards. No deformities were found. "Out of 12
different characters for which we have exact quantitative data, the
offspring of treated parents taken as a group are superior to the
offspring of untreated parents in 8 characters," in two characters they
are inferior and in the remaining two there is no discernible
difference. At this stage Dr. Pearl's experiment is admittedly too
small, but he is continuing it. As far as reported, it confirms the work
of Professor Nice, above mentioned, and shows that what is true for
guinea pigs may not be true for other animals, and that the amount of
dosage probably also makes a difference. Dr. Pearl explains his results
by the hypothesis that the alcohol eliminated the weaker germs in the
parents, and allowed only the stronger germs to be used for
reproduction.
Despite the unsatisfactory nature of much of the alleged evidence, we
must conclude that alcohol, when given in large enough doses, may
sometimes affect the germ-plasm of some lower animals in such a way as
to deteriorate the quality of their offspring. This effect is probably
an "induction," which does not produce a permanent change in the bases
of heredity, but will wear away in a generation or two of good
surroundings. It must be remembered that although the second-generation
treated males of Dr. Stockard's experiment produced defective offspring
when mated with females from similarly treated stock, they produced
normal offspring when mated with normal females. The significance of
this fact has been too little emphasized in writings on "racial
poisons." If a normal mate will counteract the influence of a "poisoned"
one, it is obvious that the probabilities of danger to any race from
this source are much decreased, while if only a small part of the race
is affected, and mates at random, the racial damage might be so small
that it could hardly be detected.
There are several possible explanations of the fact that injury is found
in some experiments but not in others. It may be, as Dr. Pearl thinks,
that only weak germs are killed by moderate treatment, and the strong
ones are uninjured. And it is probable (this applies more particularly
to man) that the body can take care of a certain amount of alcohol
without receiving any injury therefrom; it is only when the dosage
passes the "danger point" that the possibility of injury appears. As to
the location of this limit, which varies with the species, little is
known. Much more work is needed before the problem will be fully cleared
up.
Alcohol has been in use in parts of the world for many centuries; it was
common in the Orient before the beginning of historical knowledge. Now
if its use by man impairs the germ-plasm, then it seems obvious that the
child of one who uses alcohol to a degree sufficient to impair his
germ-plasm will tend to be born inferior to his parent. If that child
himself is alcoholic, his own offspring will suffer still more, since
they must carry the burden of two generations of impairment. Continuing
this line of reasoning over a number of generations, in a race where
alcohol is freely used by most of the population, one seems unable to
escape from the conclusion that the effects of this racial poison, if it
be such, must necessarily be cumulative. The damage done to the race
must increase in each generation. If the deterioration of the race could
be measured, it might even be found to grow in a series of figures
representing arithmetical progression.
It seems impossible, with such a state of affairs, that a race in which
alcohol was widely used for a long period of time, could avoid
extinction. At any rate, the races which have used alcohol longest ought
to show great degeneracy--unless there be some regenerative process at
work constantly counteracting this cumulative effect of the racial
poison in impairing the germ-plasm.
Such a proposition at once demands an appeal to history. What is found
in examination of the races that have used alcohol the longest? Have
they undergone a progressive physical degeneracy, as should be expected?
By no means. In this particular respect they seem to have become
stronger rather than weaker, as time went on; that is, they have been
less and less injured by alcohol in each century, as far as can be told.
Examination of the history of nations which are now comparatively sober,
although having access to unlimited quantities of alcohol, shows that at
an earlier period in their history, they were notoriously drunken; and
the sobriety of a race seems to be proportioned to the length of time in
which it has had experience of alcohol. The Mediterranean peoples, who
have had abundance of it from the earliest period recorded, are now
relatively temperate. One rarely sees a drunkard among them, although
many individuals in them would never think of drinking water or any
other non-alcoholic beverage. In the northern nations, where the
experience of alcohol has been less prolonged, there is still a good
deal of drunkenness, although not so much as formerly. But among nations
to whom strong alcohol has only recently been made available--the
American Indian, for instance, or the Eskimo--drunkenness is frequent
wherever the protecting arm of government does not interfere.
What bearing does this have on the theory of racial poisons?
Surely a consideration of the principle of natural selection will make
it clear that alcohol is acting as an instrument of racial purification
through the elimination of weak stocks. It is a drastic sort of
purification, which one can hardly view with complacency; but the
effect, nevertheless, seems clear cut.
To demonstrate the action of natural selection, we must first
demonstrate the existence of variations on which it can act. This is
not difficult in the character under consideration--namely, the greater
or less capacity of individuals to be attracted by alcohol, to an
injurious degree.
As G. Archdall Reid has pointed out,[18] men drink for at least three
different reasons: (1) to satisfy thirst. This leads to the use of a
light wine or a malt liquor. (2) To gratify the palate. This again
usually results in the use of drinks of low alcohol content, in which
the flavor is the main consideration. (3) Finally, men drink "to induce
those peculiar feelings, those peculiar frames of mind" caused by
alcohol.
Although the three motives may and often do coexist in the same
individual, or may animate him at different periods of life, the fact
remains that they are quite distinct. Thirst and taste do not lead to
excessive drinking; and there is good evidence that the degree of
concentration and the dosage are important factors in the amount of harm
alcohol may do to the individual. The concern of evolutionists,
therefore, is with the man who is so constituted that the mental effects
of alcohol acting directly on the brain are pleasing, and we must show
that there is a congenital variability in this mental quality, among
individuals.
Surely an appeal to personal experience will leave little room for doubt
on that point. The alcohol question is so hedged about with moral and
ethical issues that those who never get drunk, or who perhaps never even
"take a drink," are likely to ascribe that line of conduct to superior
intelligence and great self-control. As a fact, a dispassionate analysis
of the case will show that why many such do not use alcoholic beverages
to excess is because intoxication has no charm for them. He is so
constituted that the action of alcohol on the brain is distasteful
rather than pleasing to him. In other cases it is variation in
controlling satisfaction of immediate pleasures for later greater good.
Some of the real inebriates have a strong will and a real desire to be
sober, but have a different mental make-up, vividly described by William
James:[19] "The craving for drink in real dipsomaniacs, or for opium and
chloral in those subjugated, is of a strength of which normal persons
can have no conception. 'Were a keg of rum in one corner of the room,
and were a cannon constantly discharging balls between me and it, I
could not refrain from passing before that cannon in order to get that
rum. If a bottle of brandy stood on one hand, and the pit of hell yawned
on the other, and I were convinced I should be pushed in as surely as I
took one glass, I could not refrain.' Such statements abound in
dipsomaniacs' mouths." Between this extreme, and the other of the man
who is sickened by a single glass of beer, there are all intermediates.
Now, given an abundant and accessible supply of alcohol to a race, what
happens? Those who are not tempted or have adequate control, do not
drink to excess; those who are so constituted as to crave the effects of
alcohol (once they have experienced them), and who lack the ability to
deny themselves the immediate pleasure for the sake of a future gain,
seek to renew these pleasures of intoxication at every opportunity; and
the well attested result is that they are likely to drink themselves to
a premature death.
Although it is a fact that the birth-rate in drunkard's families may be
and often is larger than that of the general population,[20] it is none
the less a fact that many of the worst drunkards leave no or few
offspring. They die of their own excesses at an early age; or their
conduct makes them unattractive as mates; or they give so little care to
their children that the latter die from neglect, exposure or accident.
As these drunkards would tend to hand down their own inborn peculiarity,
or weakness for alcohol, to their children, it must be obvious that
their death results in a smaller proportion of such persons in the next
generation. In other words, natural selection is at work again here,
with alcohol as its agent. By killing off the worst drunkards in each
generation, nature provides that the following generation shall contain
fewer people who lack the power to resist the attraction of the effect
of alcohol, or who have a tendency to use it to such an extent as to
injure their minds and bodies. And it must be obvious that the speed and
efficacy of this ruthless temperance reform movement are proportionate
to the abundance and accessibility of the supply of alcohol. Where the
supply is ample and available, there is certain to be a relatively high
death-rate among those who find it too attractive, and the average of
the race therefore is certain to become stronger in this respect with
each generation. Such a conclusion can be abundantly justified by an
appeal to the history of the Teutonic nations, the nations around the
Mediterranean, the Jews, or any race which has been submitted to the
test.
There seems hardly room for dispute on the reality of this phase of
natural selection. But there is another way in which the process of
strengthening the race against the attraction and effect of alcohol may
be going on at the same time. If the drug does actually injure the
germ-plasm, and set up a deterioriation, it is obvious that natural
selection is given another point at which to work. The more deteriorated
would be eliminated in each generation in competition with the less
deteriorated or normal; and the process of racial purification would
then go on the more rapidly. The fact that races long submitted to the
action of alcohol have become relatively resistant to it, therefore,
does not in itself answer the question of whether alcohol injures the
human germ-plasm.
The possible racial effect of alcoholization is, in short, a much more
complicated problem than it appears at first sight to be. It involves
the action of natural selection in several important ways, and this
action might easily mask the direct action of alcohol on the germ-plasm,
if there be any measurable direct result.
No longer content with a long perspective historical view, we will
scrutinize the direct investigations of the problem which have been made
during recent years. These investigations have in many cases been
widely advertised to the public, and their conclusions have been so much
repeated that they are often taken at their face value, without critical
examination.
It must be borne in mind that the solution of the problem depends on
finding evidence of degeneracy or impairment in the offspring of persons
who have used alcohol, and that this relation might be explainable in
one or more of three ways:
(1) It may be that alcoholism is merely a symptom of a degenerate stock.
In this case the children will be defective, not because their parents
drank, but because their parents were defective--the parents' drinking
being merely one of the symptoms of their defect.
(2) It may be that alcohol directly poisons the germ-plasm, in such a
way that parents of sound stock, who drink alcoholic beverages, will
have defective offspring.
(3) It may be that the degeneracy observed in the children of drunkards
(for of course no one will deny that children of drunkards are
frequently defective) is due solely to social and economic causes, or
other causes in the environment: that the drunken parents, for instance,
do not take adequate care of their children, and that this lack of care
leads to the defects of the children.
The latter influence is doubtless one that is nearly always at work, but
it is wholly outside the scope of the present inquiry, and we shall
therefore ignore it, save as it may appear incidentally. Nor does it
require emphasis here; for the disastrous social and economic effects of
alcoholism are patent to every observer. We find it most convenient to
concentrate our attention first on the second of the questions above
enumerated: to ask whether there is any good evidence that the use of
alcoholic beverages by men and women really does originate degeneracy in
their offspring.
To get such evidence, one must seek an instance that will be crucial,
one that will leave no room for other interpretations. One must,
therefore, exclude consideration of cases where a mother drank before
child birth. It is well-known that alcohol can pass through the
placenta, and that if a prospective mother drinks, the percentage of
alcohol in the circulation of the unborn child will very soon be nearly
equal to that in her own circulation. It is well established that such a
condition is extremely injurious to the child; but it has nothing
directly to do with heredity. Therefore we can not accept evidence of
the supposed effect of alcohol on the fertilized egg-cell, at any stage
in its development, because that is an effect on the individual, not on
posterity. And the only means by which we can wholly avoid this fallacy
is to give up altogether an attempt to prove our case by citing
instances in which the mother was alcoholic. If this is not done, there
will always be liability of mistaking an effect of prenatal nutrition
for a direct injury to the germ-plasm.
But if we can find cases where the mother was of perfectly sound stock,
and non-alcoholic; where the father was of sound stock, but alcoholic;
and where the offspring were impaired in ways that can be plausibly
attributed to an earlier injury to the germ-plasm by the father's
alcohol; then we have evidence that must weigh heavily with the
fair-minded.
An interesting case is the well-known one recorded by Schweighofer,
which is summarized as follows: "A normal woman married a normal man and
had three sound children. The husband died and the woman married a
drunkard and gave birth to three other children; one of these became a
drunkard; one had infantilism, while the third was a social degenerate
and a drunkard. The first two of these children contracted tuberculosis,
which had never before been in the family. The woman married a third
time and by this sober husband again produced sound children."
Although such evidence is at first sight pertinent, it lacks much of
being convincing. Much must be known about the ancestry of the drunken
husband, and of the woman herself, before it can be certain that the
defective children owe their defect to alcoholism rather than to
heredity.
We can not undertake to review all the literature of this subject, for
it fills volumes, but we shall refer to a few of the studies which are
commonly cited, by the believers in the racial-poison character of
alcohol, as being the most weighty.
Taav Laitinen of Helsingfors secured information from the parents of
2,125 babies, who agreed to weigh their infants once a month for the
first eight months after birth, and who also furnished information about
their own drinking habits. His conclusion is that the average weight of
the abstainer's child is greater at birth, that these children develop
more rapidly during the first eight months than do the children of the
moderate drinker, and that the latter exceed in the same way the
children of the heavier drinker. But a careful analysis of his work by
Karl Pearson, whose great ability in handling statistics has thrown
light on many dark places in the alcohol problem, shows[21] that
Professor Laitinen's statistical methods were so faulty that no weight
can be attached to his conclusions. Furthermore, he appears to have
mixed various social classes and races together without distinction; and
he has made no distinction between parents, one of whom drank, and
parents, both of whom drank. Yet, this distinction, as we have pointed
out, is a critical one for such inquiries. Professor Laitinen's paper,
according to one believer in racial poisons, "surpasses in magnitude and
precision all the many studies of this subject which have proved the
relation between drink and degeneracy." As a fact, it proves nothing of
the sort as to race degeneracy.
Again, T. A. MacNicholl reported on 55,000 American school children,
from 20,147 of whom he secured information about the parents' attitude
to alcoholic drinks. He found an extraordinarily large proportion (58%)
of deficient and backward children in the group. But the mere bulk of
his work, probably, has given it far more prestige than it deserves; for
his methods are careless, his classifications vague, his information
inadequate; he seems to have dealt with a degenerate section of the
population, which does not offer suitable material for testing the
question at issue; and he states that many of the children drank and
smoked,--hence, any defects found in them may be due to their own
intemperance, rather than that of their parents. In short, Dr.
MacNicholl's data offer no help in an attempt to decide whether
alcoholism is an inheritable effect.
Another supposed piece of evidence which has deceived a great many
students is the investigation of Bezzola into the distribution of the
birth-rate of imbeciles in Switzerland. He announced that in
wine-growing districts the number of idiots conceived at the time of the
vintage and carnival is very large, while at other periods it is almost
_nil_. The conclusion was that excesses of drunkenness occurring in
connection with the vintage and carnival caused this production of
imbeciles. But aside from the unjustified assumptions involved in his
reasoning, Professor Pearson has recently gone over the data and shown
the faulty statistical method; that, in fact, the number of imbeciles
conceived at vintage-time, in excess of the average monthly number, was
only three in spite of the large numbers! Bezzola's testimony, which has
long been cited as proof of the disastrous results of the use of alcohol
at the time of conception, must be discarded.
Demme's plausible investigation is also widely quoted to support the
belief that alcohol poisons the germ-plasm. He studied the offspring of
10 drunken and 10 sober pairs of parents, and found that of the 61
children of the latter, 50 were normal, while of the 57 progeny of the
drunkards, only nine were normal. This is a good specimen of much of the
evidence cited to prove that alcohol impairs the germ-plasm; it has been
widely circulated by propagandists in America during recent years. Of
course, its value depends wholly on whether the 20 pairs of parents were
of sound, comparable stock. Karl Pearson has pointed out that this is
not the case. Demme selected his children of drunkards by selecting
children who came to his hospital on account of imperfect development of
speech, mental defect, imbecility or idiocy. When he found families in
which such defective children occurred, he then inquired as to their
ancestry. Many of these children, he found, were reduced to a condition
approaching epilepsy, or actually epileptic, because they themselves
were alcoholic. Obviously such material can not legitimately be used to
prove that the use of alcohol by parents injures the heredity of their
children. The figures do not at all give the proof we are seeking, that
alcohol can so affect sound germ-plasm as to lead to the production of
defective children.
Dr. Bertholet made a microscopic examination of the reproductive glands
of 75 chronic male alcoholics, and in 37 cases he found them more or
less atrophied, and devoid of spermatozoa. Observing the same glands in
non-alcoholics who had died of various chronic diseases, such as
tuberculosis, he found no such condition. His conclusion is that the
reproductive glands are more sensitive to the effects of alcohol than
any other organ. So far as is known to us, his results have never been
discredited; they have, on the contrary, been confirmed by other
investigators. They are of great significance to eugenics, in showing
how the action of natural selection to purge the race of drunkards is
sometimes facilitated in a way we had not counted, through reduced
fertility due to alcohol, as well as through death due to alcohol. But
it should not be thought that his results are typical, and that all
chronic alcoholists become sterile: every reader will know of cases in
his own experience, where drunkards have large families; and the
experimental work with smaller animals also shows that long-continued
inebriety is compatible with great fecundity. It is probable that
extreme inebriety reduces fertility, but a lesser amount increases it in
the cases of many men by reducing the prudence which leads to limited
families.
In 1910 appeared the investigation of Miss Ethel M. Elderton and Karl
Pearson on school children in Edinburgh and Manchester.[22] Their aim
was to take a population under the same environmental conditions, and
with no discoverable initial differentiation, and inquire whether the
temperate and intemperate sections had children differing widely in
physique and mentality. Handling their material with the most refined
statistical methods, and in an elaborate way, they reached the
conclusion that parental alcoholism does not markedly affect the
physique or mentality of the offspring as children. Whether results
might differ in later life, their material did not show. Their
conclusions were as follows:
"(1) There is a higher death-rate among the offspring of alcoholic than
among the offspring of sober parents. This appears to be more marked in
the case of the mother than in the case of the father, and since it is
sensibly higher in the case of the mother who has drinking bouts
[periodical sprees] than of the mother who habitually drinks, it would
appear to be due very considerably to accidents and gross carelessness
and possibly in a minor degree to toxic effect on the offspring.
"Owing to the greater fertility of alcoholic parents, the net family of
the sober is hardly larger than the net family of the alcoholic. [It
should be remembered that the study did not include childless couples.]
"(2) The mean weight and height of the children of alcoholic parents are
slightly greater than those of sober parents, but as the age of the
former children is slightly greater, the correlations when corrected for
age are slightly positive, i.e., there is slightly greater height and
weight in the children of the sober."
"(3) The wages of the alcoholic as contrasted with the sober parent show
a slight difference compatible with the employers' dislike for an
alcoholic employee, but wholly inconsistent with a marked mental or
physical inferiority in the alcoholic parent.
"(4) The general health of the children of alcoholic parents appears on
the whole slightly better than that of sober parents. There are fewer
delicate children, and in a most marked way cases of tuberculosis and
epilepsy are less frequent than among the children of sober parents. The
source of this relation may be sought in two directions; the physically
strongest in the community have probably the greatest capacity and taste
for alcohol. Further the higher death rate of the children of alcoholic
parents probably leaves the fittest to survive. Epilepsy and
tuberculosis both depending upon inherited constitutional conditions,
they will be more common in the parents of affected offspring, and
probably if combined with alcohol, are incompatible with any length of
life or size of family. If these views be correct, we can only say that
parental alcoholism has no marked effect on filial health.
"(5) Parental alcoholism is not the source of mental defect in
offspring.
"(6) The relationship, if any, between parental alcoholism and filial
intelligence is so slight that even its sign can not be determined from
the present material.
"(7) The normal visioned and normal refractioned offspring appear to be
in rather a preponderance in the families of the drinking parents, the
parents who have 'bouts' give intermediate results, but there is no
substantial relationship between goodness of sight and parental
alcoholism. Some explanation was sought on the basis of alcoholic homes
driving the children out into the streets. This was found to be markedly
the case, the children of alcoholic parents spending much more of their
spare time in the streets. An examination, however, of the vision and
refraction of children with regard to the time they spent in-and
out-of-doors, showed no clear and definite result, the children who
spent the whole or most of their spare time in the streets having the
most myopia and also most normal sight. It was not possible to assert
that the outdoor life was better for the sight, or that the better sight
of the offspring of alcoholic parentage was due to the greater time
spent outdoors.
"(8) The frequency of diseases of the eye and eyelids, which might well
be attributed to parental neglect, was found to have little, if any,
relation to parental alcoholism.
"To sum up, then no _marked_ relation has been found between the
intelligence, physique or disease of the offspring and the parental
alcoholism in any of the categories mentioned. On the whole the balance
turns as often in favor of the alcoholic as of the non-alcoholic
parentage. It is needless to say that we do not attribute this to the
alcohol but to certain physical and possibly mental characters which
appear to be associated with the tendency to alcohol."
Of the many criticisms made of this work, most are irrelevant to our
present purpose, or have been satisfactorily met by the authors. It must
be said, however, that as the children examined were all school
children, the really degenerate offspring of alcoholics, if any such
existed, would not have been found, because they would not have been
admitted to the school. Further, it is not definitely known whether the
parents' alcoholism dated from before or after the birth of the child
examined. Then, the report did not exactly compare the offspring of
drinkers and non-drinkers, but classified the parents as those who
drank, and those who were sober; the latter were not, for the most part,
teetotalers, but merely persons whose use of alcohol was so moderate
that it exercised no visible bad influence on the health of the
individual or the welfare of the home. Something can be said on both
sides of all these objections; but giving them as much weight as one
thinks necessary, the fact remains that the Elderton-Pearson
investigation failed to demonstrate any racial poisoning due to alcohol,
in the kind of cases where one would certainly have expected it to be
demonstrated, if it existed.
Much more observation and measurement must be made before a
generalization can be safely drawn, as to whether alcohol is or is not a
racial poison, in the sense in which that expression is used by
eugenists. It has been shown that the evidence which is commonly
believed to prove beyond doubt that alcohol does injure the germ-plasm,
is mostly worthless. But it must not be thought that the authors intend
to deny that alcohol is a racial poison, where the dosage is very heavy
and continuous. If we have no good evidence that it is, we equally lack
evidence on the other side. We wish only to suggest caution against
making rash generalizations on the subject which lack supporting
evidence and therefore are a weak basis for propaganda.
So far as immediate action is concerned, eugenics must proceed on the
basis that there is no proof that alcohol as ordinarily consumed will
injure the human germ-plasm. To say this is not in any way to minify
the evil results which alcohol often has on the individual, or the
disastrous consequences to his offspring, euthenically. But nothing is
to be gained by making an assumption of "racial poisoning," and acting
on that assumption, without evidence that it is true; and the temperance
movement would command more respect from genetics if it ceased to allege
proof that alcohol has a directly injurious effect on the race, by
poisoning the human germ-plasm, when no adequate proof exists.
How, then, can one account for the immense bulk of cases, some of which
come within everyone's range of vision, where alcoholism in the parent
is associated with defect in the offspring? By a process of exclusion,
we are driven to the explanation already indicated: that alcoholism may
be a symptom, rather than a cause, of degeneracy. Some drunkards are
drunkards, because they come of a stock that is, in a way, mentally
defective; physical defects are frequently correlated in such stocks;
naturally the children inherit part or all of the parental defects
including, very likely, alcoholism; but the parent's alcoholism, we
repeat, must not be considered the _cause_ of the child's defect. The
child would have been defective in the same way, regardless of the
parent's beverage.
It follows, then, as a practical consequence for eugenics, that in the
light of present knowledge any campaign against alcoholic liquors would
be better based on the very adequate ground of physiology and economics,
than on genetics. From the narrowest point of view of genetics, the way
to solve the liquor problem would be, not to eliminate drink, but to
eliminate the drinker: to prevent the reproduction of the degenerate
stocks and the tainted strains that contribute most of the chronic
alcoholics. We do not mean to advocate this as the only proper basis for
the temperance campaign, because the physiological and economic aspects
are of sufficient importance to keep up the campaign at twice the
present intensity.[23] But it is desirable to have the eugenic aspect of
the matter clearly understood, and to point out that in checking the
production of defectives in the United States, eugenics will do its
share, and a big share, toward the solution of the drink problem, which
is at the same time being attacked along other and equally praiseworthy
lines by other people.
A number of other substances are sometimes credited with being racial
poisons.
The poison of _Spirochæte pallida_, the microörganism which causes
syphilis, has been widely credited with a directly noxious effect on the
germ-plasm, and the statement has been made that this effect can be
transmitted for several generations. On the other hand, healthy children
are reported as being born to cured syphilitics. Further evidence is
needed, taking care to eliminate cases of infection from the parents. If
the alleged deterioration really occurs, it will still remain to be
determined if the effect is permanent or an induction, that is, a change
in the germ-cells which does not permanently alter the nature of the
inherited traits, and which would disappear in a few generations under
favorable conditions.
The case against lead is similar. Sir Thomas Oliver, in his _Diseases of
Occupation_, sums up the evidence as follows:
"Rennert has attempted to express in statistical terms the varying
degrees of gravity in the prognosis of cases in which at the moment of
conception both parents are the subjects of lead poisoning, also when
one alone is affected. The malign influence of lead is reflected upon
the fetus and upon the continuation of the pregnancy 94 times out of 100
when both parents have been working in lead, 92 times when the mother
alone is affected, and 63 times when it is the father alone who has
worked in lead. Taking seven healthy women who were married to lead
workers, and in whom there was a total of 32 pregnancies, Lewin (Berlin)
tells us that the results were as follows: 11 miscarriages, one
stillbirth, 8 children died within the first year after their birth,
four in the second year, five in the third year and one subsequent to
this, leaving only two children out of 32 pregnancies as likely to live
to manhood. In cases where women have had a series of miscarriages so
long as their husbands worked in lead, a change of industrial
occupation on the part of the husband restores to the wives normal
child-bearing powers." The data of Constantin Paul, published as long
ago as 1860, indicated that lead exercised an injurious effect through
the male as well as the female parent. This sort of evidence is
certainly weak, in that it fails to take into account the possible
effects of environment; and one would do well to keep an open mind on
the subject. In a recent series of careful experiments at the University
of Wisconsin, Leon J. Cole has treated male rabbits with lead. He
reports: "The 'leaded' males have produced as many or more offspring
than normal fathers, but their young have averaged smaller in size and
are of lowered vitality, so that larger numbers of them die off at an
early age than is the case with those from untreated fathers."
[Illustration: EFFECT OF LEAD AS A "RACIAL POISON"
FIG. 7.--That lead poisoning can affect the germ plasm of
rabbits is indicated by experiments conducted by Leon J. Cole at the
University of Wisconsin. With reference to the above illustration,
Professor Cole writes: "Each of the photographs shows two young from the
same litter, in all cases the mother being a normal (nonpoisoned)
albino. In each of the litters the white young is from an albino father
which received the lead treatment, while the pigmented offspring is from
a normal, homozygous, pigmented male. While these are, it is true,
selected individuals, they represent what tend to be average, rather
than extreme, conditions. The albino male was considerably larger than
the pigmented male; nevertheless his young average distinctly smaller in
size. Note also the brighter expression of the pigmented young."]
There is, then, a suspicion that lead is a racial poison, but no
evidence as yet as to whether the effect is permanent or in the nature
of an induction.
This concludes the short list of substances for which there has been any
plausible case made out, as racial poisons. Gonorrhea, malaria, arsenic,
tobacco, and numerous other substances have been mentioned from time to
time, and even ardently contended by propagandists to be racial poisons,
but in the case of none of them, so far as we know, is there any
evidence to support the claim. And as has been shown, in the case of the
three chief so-called racial poisons, alcohol, syphilis and lead, the
evidence is not great. We are thus in a position to state that, from the
eugenists' point of view, the _origination_ of degeneracy, by some
direct action of the germ-plasm, is a contingency that hardly needs to
be reckoned with. Even in case the evidence were much stronger than it
is, the damage done may only be a physiological or chemical induction,
the effects of which will wear off in a few generations; rather than a
radical change in the hereditary constituents of the germ-plasm. The
germ-plasm is so carefully isolated and guarded that it is almost
impossible to injure it, except by treatment so severe as to kill it
altogether; and the degeneracy with which eugenists are called on to
deal is a degeneracy which is running along from generation to
generation and which, when once stopped by the cessation of
reproduction, is in little danger of being originated anew through some
racial poison.
Through these facts, the problem of race betterment is not only
immensely simplified, but it is clearly shown to be more a matter for
treatment by the biologist, acting through eugenics, than for the
optimistic improver of the environment.
There is another way in which it is widely believed that some such
result as a direct influence of the germ-plasm can be produced: that is
through the imaginary process known as maternal impression, prenatal
influence, etc. Belief in maternal impressions is no novelty. In the
book of Genesis[24] Jacob is described as making use of it to get the
better of his tricky father-in-law. Some animal breeders still profess
faith in it as a part of their methods of breeding: if they want a black
calf, for instance, they will keep a white cow in a black stall, and
express perfect confidence that her offspring will resemble midnight
darkness. It is easy to see that this method, if it "works," would be a
potent instrument for eugenics. And it is being recommended for that
reason. Says a recent writer, who professes on the cover of her book to
give a "complete and intelligent summary of all the principles of
eugenics":
"Too much emphasis can not be placed upon the necessity of young people
making the proper choice of mates in marriage; yet if the production of
superior children were dependent upon that one factor, the outlook would
be most discouraging to prospective fathers and mothers, for weak traits
of character are to be found in all. But when young people learn that by
a conscious endeavor to train themselves, they are thereby training
their unborn children, they can feel that there is some hope and joy in
parentage; that it is something to which they can look forward with
delight and even rapture; then they will be inspired to work hard to
attain the best and highest that there is in them, leading the lives
that will not only be a blessing to themselves, but to their succeeding
generation."
The author of this quotation has no difficulty in finding supporters.
Many physicians and surgeons, who are supposed to be trained in
scientific methods of thought, will indorse what she says. The author of
one of the most recent and in many respects admirable books on the care
of babies, is almost contemptuous in her disdain for those who think
otherwise:
"Science wrangles over the rival importance of heredity and environment,
but we women know what effects prenatal influence works on children."
"The woman who frets brings forth a nervous child. The woman who rebels
generally bears a morbid child." "Self-control, cheerfulness and love
for the little life breathing in unison with your own will practically
insure you a child of normal physique and nerves."
Such statements, backed up by a great array of writers and speakers whom
the layman supposes to be scientific, and who think themselves
scientific, can not fail to influence strongly an immense number of
fathers and mothers. If they are truly scientific statements, their
general acceptance must be a great good.
But think of the misplaced effort if these widespread statements are
false!
Is there, or is there not, a short cut to race betterment? Everyone
interested in the welfare of the race must feel the necessity of getting
at the truth in the case; and the truth can be found only by rigorously
scientific thought.
Let us turn to the observed facts. This sample is taken from the health
department of a popular magazine, quite recently issued:
"Since birth my body has been covered with scales strikingly resembling
the surface of a fish. My parents and I have expended considerable money
on remedies and specialists without deriving any permanent benefit. I
bathe my entire body with hot water daily, using the best quality of
soap. The scales fall off continually. My brother, who is younger than
myself, is afflicted with the same trouble, but in a lesser degree. My
sister, the third member of the family, has been troubled only on the
knees and abdomen. My mother has always been quite nervous and
susceptible to any unusual mental impression. She believes that she
marked me by craving fish, and preferring to clean them herself. During
the prenatal life of my brother, she worried much lest she might mark
him in the same way. In the case of my sister she tried to control her
mind."[25]
Another is taken from a little publication which is devoted to
eugenics.[26] As a "horrible example" the editor gives the case of Jesse
Pomeroy, a murderer whom older readers will remember. His father, it
appears, worked in a meat market. Before the birth of Jesse, his mother
went daily to the shop to carry a luncheon to her husband, and her eyes
naturally fell upon the bloody carcases hung about the walls.
Inevitably, the sight of such things would produce bloody thoughts in
the mind of the unborn child!
These are extreme cases; we quote from a medieval medical writer another
case that carries the principle to its logical conclusion: A woman saw a
Negro,--at that time a rarity in Europe. She immediately had a sickening
suspicion that her child would be born with a black skin. To obviate the
danger, she had a happy inspiration--she hastened home and washed her
body all over with warm water. When the child appeared, his skin was
found to be normally white--except between the fingers and toes, where
it was black. His mother had failed to wash herself thoroughly in those
places!
Of course, few of the cases now credited are as gross as this, but the
principle involved remains the same.
We will take a hypothetical case of a common sort for the sake of
clearness: the mother receives a wound on the arm; when her child is
born it is found to have a scar of some sort at about the same place on
the corresponding arm. Few mothers would fail to see the result of a
maternal impression here. But how could this mark have been transmitted?
This is not a question of the transmission of acquired characters
through the germ-plasm, or anything of that sort, for the child was
already formed when the mother was injured. One is obliged, therefore,
to believe that the injury was in some way transmitted through the
placenta, the only connection between the mother and the unborn child;
and that it was then reproduced in some way in the child.
Here is a situation which, examined in the cold light of reason, puts a
heavy enough strain on the credulity. Such an influence can reach the
embryo only through the blood of the mother. Is it conceivable to any
rational human being, that a scar, or what not, on the mother's body can
be dissolved in her blood, pass through the placenta into the child's
circulation, and then gather itself together into a definite scar on the
infant's arm?
There is just as much reason to expect the child to grow to resemble the
cow on whose milk it is fed after birth, as to expect it to grow to
resemble its mother, because of prenatal influence, as the term is
customarily used, for once development has begun, the child draws
nothing more than nourishment from its mother.
Of course we are accustomed to the pious rejoinder that man must not
expect to understand all the mysteries of life; and to hear vague talk
about the wonder of wireless telegraphy. But wireless telegraphy is
something very definite and tangible--there is little mystery about it.
Waves of a given frequency are sent off, and caught by an instrument
attuned to the same frequency. How any rational person can support a
belief in maternal impressions by such an analogy, if he knows anything
about anatomy and physiology, passes comprehension.
Now we are far from declaring that a reason can be found for everything
that happens. Science does not refuse belief in an observed fact merely
because it is unexplainable. But let us examine this case of maternal
impressions a little further. What can be learned of the time element?
Immediately arises the significant fact that most of the marks,
deformities and other effects which are credited to prenatal influence
must on this hypothesis take place at a comparatively late period in the
antenatal life of the child. The mother is frightened by a dog; the
child is born with a dog-face. If it be asked when her fright occurred,
it is usually found that it was not earlier than the third month, more
likely somewhere near the sixth.
But it ought to be well known that the development of all the main parts
of the body has been completed at the end of the second month. At that
time, the mother rarely does more than suspect the coming of the child,
and events which she believes to "mark" the child, usually occur after
the fourth or fifth month, when the child is substantially formed, and
it is impossible that many of the effects supposed to occur could
actually occur. Indeed, it is now believed that most errors of
development, such as lead to the production of great physical defects,
are due to some cause within the embryo itself, and that most of them
take place in the first three or four weeks, when the mother is by no
means likely to influence the course of embryological development by her
mental attitude toward it, for the very good reason that she knows
nothing about it.
Unless she is immured or isolated from the world, nearly every expectant
mother sees many sights of the kind that, according to popular
tradition, cause "marks." Why is it that results are so few? Why is it
that women doctors and nurses, who are constantly exposed to unpleasant
sights, have children that do not differ from those of other mothers?
Darwin, who knew how to think scientifically, saw that this is the
logical line of proof or disproof. When Sir Joseph Hooker, the botanist
and geologist who was his closest friend, wrote of a supposed case of
maternal impression, one of his kinswomen having insisted that a mole
which appeared on her child was the effect of fright upon herself for
having, before the birth of the child, blotted with sepia a copy of
Turner's _Liber Studiorum_ that had been lent her with special
injunctions to be careful, Darwin[27] replied: "I should be very much
obliged, if at any future or leisure time you could tell me on what you
ground your doubtful belief in imagination of a mother affecting her
offspring. I have attended to the several statements scattered about,
but do not believe in more than accidental coincidences. W. Hunter told
my father, then in a lying-in hospital, that in many thousand cases he
had asked the mother, before her confinement, whether anything had
affected her imagination, and recorded the answers; and absolutely not
one case came right, though, when the child was anything remarkable,
they afterwards made the cap to fit."
Any doctor who has handled many maternity cases can call to mind
instances where every condition was present to perfection, for the
production of maternal impression, on the time-honored lines. None
occurred. Most mothers can, if they give the matter careful
consideration, duplicate this experience from their own. Why is it that
results are so rare?
That Darwin gave the true explanation of a great many of the alleged
cases is perfectly clear to us. When the child is born with any peculiar
characteristic, the mother hunts for some experience in the preceding
months that might explain it. If she succeeds in finding any experience
of her own at all resembling in its effects the effect which the infant
shows, she considers she has proved causation, has established a good
case of prenatal influence.
It is not causation; it is coincidence.
If the prospective mother plays or sings a great deal, with the idea of
giving her child a musical endowment, and the child actually turns out
to have musical talent, the mother at once recalls her yearning that
such might be the case; her assiduous practice which she hoped would be
of benefit to her child. She immediately decides that it did benefit
him, and she becomes a convinced witness to the belief in prenatal
culture. Has she not herself demonstrated it?
She has not. But if she would examine the child's heredity, she would
probably find a taste for music running in the germ-plasm. Her study and
practice had not the slightest effect on this hereditary disposition; it
is equally certain that the child would have been born with a taste for
music if its mother had devoted eight hours a day for nine months to
cultivating thoughts of hatred for the musical profession and repugnance
for everything that possesses rhythm or harmony.
It necessarily follows, then, that attempts to influence the inherent
nature of the child, physically or mentally, through "prenatal culture,"
are doomed to disappointment. The child develops along the lines of the
potentialities which existed in the two germ-cells that united to become
its origin. The course of its development can not be changed in any
specific way by any corresponding act or attitude of its mother, good
hygiene alone need be her concern.
It must necessarily follow that attempts to improve the race on a large
scale, by the general adoption of prenatal culture as an instrument of
eugenics, are useless.
Indeed, the logical implication of the teaching is the reverse of
eugenic. It would give a woman reason to think she might marry a man
whose heredity was most objectionable, and yet, by prenatal culture,
save her children from paying the inevitable penalty of this weak
heritage. The world has long shuddered over the future of the girl who
marries a man to reform him; but think what it means to the future of
the race if a superior girl, armed with correspondence school lessons in
prenatal culture, marries a man to reform his children!
Those who practice this doctrine are doomed to disillusion. The time
they spend on prenatal culture is not cultivating the child; it is
merely perpetuating a fallacy. Not only is their time thus spent
wasted, but worse, for they might have employed it in ways that really
would have benefited the child--in open-air exercise, for instance.
To recapitulate, the facts are:
(1) That there is, before birth, no connection between mother and child,
by which impressions on the mother's mind or body could be transmitted
to the child's mind or body.
(2) That in most cases the marks or defects whose origin is attributed
to maternal impression, must necessarily have been complete long before
the incident occurred which the mother, after the child's birth,
ascribes as the cause.
(3) That these phenomena usually do not occur when they are, and by
hypothesis ought to be, expected. The explanations are found after the
event, and that is regarded as causation which is really coincidence.
Pre-natal care as a euthenic measure is of course not only legitimate
but urgent. The embryo derives its entire nourishment from the mother;
and its development depends wholly on its supply of nourishment.
Anything which affects the supply of nourishment will affect the embryo
in a general, not a particular way. If the mother's mental and physical
condition be good, the supply of nourishment to the embryo is likely to
be good, and development will be normal. If, on the other hand, the
mother is constantly harassed by fear or hatred, her physical health
will suffer, she will be unable properly to nourish her developing
offspring, and it may be its poor physical condition when born,
indicates this.
Further, if the mother experiences a great mental or physical shock, it
may so upset her health that her child is not properly nourished, its
development is arrested, mentally as well as physically, and it is born
defective. H. H. Goddard, for example, tells[28] of a high-grade
imbecile in the Training School at Vineland, N. J. "Nancy belongs to a
thoroughly normal, respectable family. There is nothing to account for
the condition unless one accepts the mother's theory. While it sounds
somewhat like the discarded theory of maternal impression, yet it is not
impossible that the fright and shock which the mother received may have
interfered with the nutrition of the unborn child and resulted in the
mental defect. The story in brief is as follows. Shortly before this
child was born, the mother was compelled to take care of a sister-in-law
who was in a similar condition and very ill with convulsions. Our
child's mother was many times frightened severely as her sister-in-law
was quite out of her mind."
It is easily understandable that any event which makes such an
impression on the mother as to affect her health, might so disturb the
normal functioning of her body that her child would be badly nourished,
or even poisoned. Such facts undoubtedly form the basis on which the
airy fabric of prenatal culture was reared by those who lived before the
days of scientific biology.
Thus, it is easy enough to see the real explanation of such cases as
those mentioned near the beginning of this discussion. The mothers who
fret and rebel over their maternity, she found, are likely to bear
neurotic children. It is obvious (1) that mothers who fret and rebel are
quite likely themselves to be neurotic in constitution, and the child
naturally gets its heredity from them: (2) that constant fretting and
rebellion would so affect the mother's health that her child would not
be properly nourished.
When, however, she goes on to draw the inference that "self-control,
cheerfulness and love ... will practically insure you a child normal in
physique and nerves," we are obliged to stop. We know that what she says
is not true. If the child's heredity is bad, neither self-control,
cheerfulness, love, nor anything else known to science, can make that
heredity good.
At first thought, one may wish it were otherwise. There is something
inspiring in the idea of a mother overcoming the effect of heredity by
the sheer force of her own will-power. But perhaps in the long run it is
as well; for there are advantages on the other side. It should be a
satisfaction to mothers to know that their children will not be marked
or injured by untoward events in the antenatal days; that if the
child's heredity can not be changed for the better, neither can it be
changed for the worse.
The prenatal culturists and maternal-impressionists are trying to place
on her a responsibility which she need not bear. Obviously, it is the
mother who is most nearly concerned with the bogy of maternal
impressions, and it should make for her peace of mind to know that it is
nothing more than a bogy. It is important for the expectant mother to
keep herself in as nearly perfect condition as possible, both physically
and mentally. Her bodily mechanism will then run smoothly, and the child
will get from her blood the nourishment needed for its development.
Beyond that there is nothing the mother can do to influence the
development of her child.
There is another and somewhat similar fallacy which deserves a passing
word, although it is of more concern to the livestock breeder than to
the eugenist. It is called telegony and is, briefly, this: that
conception by a female results in a definite modification of her
germ-plasm from the influence of the male, and that this modification
will be shown in the offspring she may subsequently bear to a second
male. The only case where it is often invoked in the human race is in
miscegenation. A white woman has been married to a Negro, for instance,
and has borne one or more mulatto offspring. Subsequently, she mates
with a white man; but her children by him, instead of being pure white,
it is alleged, will be also mulattoes. The idea of telegony, the
persistent influence of the first mating, may be invoked to explain this
discrepancy.
It is a pure myth. There is no good evidence[29] to support it, and
there is abundant evidence to contradict it. Telegony is still believed
by many animal breeders, but it has no place in science. In such a case
as the one quoted, the explanation is undoubtedly that the supposed
father is not the real one; and this explanation will dispose of all
other cases of telegony which can not be explained, as in most instances
they can be, by the mixed ancestry of the offspring and the innate
tendency of all living things to vary.
Now to sum up this long chapter. We started with a consideration of the
germ-plasm, the physical basis of life; pointing out that it is
continuous from generation to generation, and potentially immortal; that
it is carefully isolated and guarded in the body, so that it is not
likely to be injured by any ordinary means.
One of the logical results of this continuity of the germ-plasm is that
modifications of the body of the parent, or acquired characters, can
hardly be transferred to the germ-plasm and become a part of the
inheritance. Further the experimental evidence upholds this position,
and the inheritance of acquired body characters may be disregarded by
eugenics, which is therefore obliged to concern itself solely with the
material already in existence in the germ-plasm, except as that material
may be changed by variation which can neither be predicted nor
controlled.
The evidence that the germ-plasm can be permanently modified does not
warrant the belief; and such results, if they exist at all, are not
large enough or uniform enough to concern the eugenist.
Pre-natal culture and telegony were found to be mere delusions. There is
no justification for hoping to influence the race for good through the
action of any kind of external influences; and there is not much danger
of influencing it for ill through these external influences. The
situation must be faced squarely then: if the race is to be improved, it
must be by the use of the material already in existence; by endeavor to
change the birth-and death-rates so as to alter the relative proportions
of the amounts of good and bad germ-plasm in the race. This is the only
road by which the goal of eugenics can be reached.
CHAPTER III
DIFFERENCES AMONG MEN
While Mr. Jefferson, when he wrote into the Declaration of Independence
his belief in the self-evidence of the truth that all men are created
equal, may have been thinking of legal rights merely, he was expressing
an opinion common among philosophers of his time. J. J. Rousseau it was
who made the idea popular, and it met with widespread acceptance for
many years. It is not surprising, therefore, that the phrase has long
been a favorite with the demagogue and the utopian. Even now the
doctrine is by no means dead. The American educational system is based
largely on this dogma, and much of the political system seems to be
grounded on it. It can be seen in the tenets of labor unions, in the
practice of many philanthropies--traces may be found almost anywhere one
turns, in fact.
Common enough as applied to mental qualities, the theory of human
equality is even more widely held of "moral" qualities. Men are
considered to be equally responsible for their conduct, and failure to
conform to the accepted code in this respect brings punishment. It is
sometimes conceded that men have had differing opportunities to learn
the principles of morality; but given equal opportunities, it is almost
universally held that failure to follow the principles indicates not
inability but unwillingness. In short, public opinion rarely admits that
men may differ in their inherent capacity to act morally.
In view of its almost universal and unquestioned, although half
unconscious, acceptance as part of the structure of society, it becomes
of the utmost importance that this doctrine of human equality should be
examined by scientific methods.
Fortunately this can be done with ease. Methods of mental and physical
measurement that have been evolved during the last few decades offer
results that admit of no refutation, and they can be applied in hundreds
of different places.
[Illustration: DISTRIBUTION OF 10-YEAR-OLD SCHOOL CHILDREN
FIG. 8.--The graph shows that 10-year-old children in
Connecticut (1903) are to be found in every grade, from the first to the
eighth. The greatest number is in the fourth grade, and the number who
are advanced is just about the same as the number who are retarded.]
It will not be worth while to spend any time demonstrating that all
individuals differ, at birth and during their subsequent life,
physically. The fact is patent to all. It carries with it as a necessary
corollary mental differences, since the brain is part of the body;
nevertheless, we shall demonstrate these mental differences
independently.
We present in Fig. 8 a graph from E. L. Thorndike, showing the number of
10-year-old children in Connecticut (1903) in each school grade. If the
children are all intellectually equal, all the 10-year-olds ought to be
in the same grade, or near it. Numerous explanations of their wide
distribution suggest themselves; as a working hypothesis one might adopt
the suggestion that it is because the children actually differ in innate
ability to the extent here indicated. This hypothesis can be tested by
a variety of mental measurements. S. A. Courtis' investigation of the
arithmetical abilities of the children in the schools of New York City
will be a good beginning. He measured the achievements of pupils in
responding to eight tests, which were believed to give a fair idea of
the pupil's capacity for solving simple arithmetical problems. The
results were, on the average, similar to the result he got in a certain
eighth-grade class, whose record is shown in Fig. 9. It is evident that
some of the children were good in arithmetic, some were poor in it; the
bulk of them were neither good nor bad but half way between, or, in
statistical language, mediocre.
[Illustration: VARIATION IN ABILITY
FIG. 9.--Diagram to show the standing of children in a single
class in a New York City school, in respect to their ability in
arithmetic. There are wide divergences in the scores they made.]
The literature of experimental psychology and anthropology is crammed
with such examples as the above. No matter what trait of the individual
be chosen, results are analogous. If one takes the simplest traits, to
eliminate the most chances for confusion, one finds the same conditions
every time. Whether it be speed in marking off all the A's in a printed
sheet of capitals, or in putting together the pieces of a puzzle, or in
giving a reaction to some certain stimulus, or in making associations
between ideas, or drawing figures, or memory for various things, or
giving the opposites of words, or discrimination of lifted weights, or
success in any one of hundreds of other mental tests, the conclusion is
the same. There are wide differences in the abilities of individuals, no
two being alike, either mentally or physically, at birth or any time
thereafter.
[Illustration: ORIGIN OF A NORMAL PROBABILITY CURVE
FIG. 10.--When deviations in all directions are equally
probable, as in the case of shots fired at a target by an expert
marksman, the "frequencies" will arrange themselves in the manner shown
by the bullets in compartments above. A line drawn along the tops of
these columns would be a "normal probability curve." Diagram by C. H.
Popenoe.]
Whenever a large enough number of individuals is tested, these
differences arrange themselves in the same general form. It is the form
assumed by the distribution of any differences that are governed
absolutely by chance.
Suppose an expert marksman shoots a thousand times at the center of a
certain picket in a picket fence, and that there is no wind or any
other source of constant error that would distort his aim. In the long
run, the greatest number of his shots would be in the picket aimed at,
and of his misses there would be just as many on one side as on the
other, just as many above as below the center. Now if all the shots, as
they struck the fence, could drop into a box below, which had a
compartment for each picket, it would be found at the end of his
practice that the compartments were filled up unequally, most bullets
being in that representing the middle picket and least in the outside
ones. The intermediate compartments would have intermediate numbers of
bullets. The whole scheme is shown in Fig. 11. If a line be drawn to
connect the tops of all the columns of bullets, it will make a rough
curve or graph, which represents a typical chance distribution. It will
be evident to anyone that the distribution was really governed by
"chance," i.e., a multiplicity of causes too complex to permit detailed
analysis. The imaginary sharp-shooter was an expert, and he was trying
to hit the same spot with each shot. The deviation from the center is
bound to be the same on all sides.
[Illustration: FIG. 11.--The "Chance" or "Probability" Form of
Distribution.]
Now suppose a series of measurements of a thousand children be taken in,
let us say, the ability to do 18 problems in subtraction in 10 minutes.
A few of them finish only one problem in that time; a few more do two,
more still are able to complete three, and so on up. The great bulk of
the children get through from 8 to 12 problems in the allotted time; a
few finish the whole task. Now if we make a column for all those who did
one problem, another column beside it for all those who did two, and so
on up for those who did three, four and on to eighteen, a line drawn
over the tops of the columns make a curve like the above from
Thorndike.
Comparing this curve with the one formed by the marksman's spent
bullets, one can not help being struck by the similarity. If the first
represented a distribution governed purely by chance, it is evident that
the children's ability seems to be distributed in accordance with a
similar law.
With the limited number of categories used in this example, it would not
be possible to get a smooth curve, but only a kind of step pyramid. With
an increase in the number of categories, the steps become smaller. With
a hundred problems to work out, instead of 18, the curve would be
something like this:
[Illustration: FIG. 12.--Probability curve with increased
number of steps.]
And with an infinite number, the steps would disappear altogether,
leaving a perfectly smooth, flowing line, unmarred by a single step or
break. It would be an absolutely _continuous_ distribution.
If then, the results of all the tests that have been made on all mental
traits be studied, it will be found that human mental ability as shown
in at least 95% of all the traits that have been measured, is
distributed throughout the race in various degrees, in accordance with
the law of chance, and that if one could measure all the members of the
species and plot a curve for these measurements, in any trait, he would
get this smooth, continuous curve. In other words, human beings are not
sharply divided into classes, but the differences between them shade off
into each other, although between the best and the worst, in any
respect, there is a great gulf.
If this statement applies to simple traits, such as memory for numbers,
it must also apply to combinations of simple traits in complex mental
processes. For practical purposes, we are therefore justified in saying
that in respect of any mental quality,--ability, industry, efficiency,
persistence, attentiveness, neatness, honesty, anything you like,--in
any large group of people, such as the white inhabitants of the United
States, some individuals will be found who show the character in
question in a very low degree, some who show it in a very high degree;
and there will be found every possible degree in between.
[Illustration: NORMAL VARIABILITY CURVE FOLLOWING LAW OF CHANCE
FIG. 13.--The above photograph (from A. F. Blakeslee), shows
beans rolling down an inclined plane and accumulating in compartments at
the base which are closed in front by glass. The exposure was long
enough to cause the moving beans to appear as caterpillar-like objects
hopping along the board. Assuming that the irregularity of shape of the
beans is such that each may make jumps toward the right or toward the
left, in rolling down the board, the laws of chance lead to the
expectation that in very few cases will these jumps all be in the same
direction, as is demonstrated by the few beans collected in the
compartments at the extreme right and left. Rather the beans will tend
to jump in both right and left directions, the most probable condition
being that in which the beans make an equal number of jumps to the right
and left, as is shown by the large number accumulated in the central
compartment. If the board be tilted to one side, the curve of beans
would be altered by this one-sided influence. In like fashion a series
of factors--either of environment or of heredity--if acting equally in
both favorable and unfavorable directions, will cause a group of men to
form a similar variability curve, when classified according to their
relative height.]
The consequences of this for race progress are significant. Is it
desired to eliminate feeble-mindedness? Then it must be borne in mind
that there is no sharp distinction between feeble-mindedness and the
normal mind. One can not divide sheep from goats, saying "A is
feeble-minded. B is normal. C is feeble-minded. D is normal," and so on.
If one took a scale of a hundred numbers, letting 1 stand for an idiot
and 100 for a genius, one would find individuals corresponding to every
single number on the scale. The only course possible would be a somewhat
arbitrary one; say to consider every individual corresponding to a grade
under seven as feeble-minded. It would have to be recognized that those
graded eight were not much better than those graded seven, but the
drawing of the line at seven would be justified on the ground that it
had to be drawn somewhere, and seven seemed to be the most satisfactory
point.
In practice of course, students of retardation test children by
standardized scales. Testing a hundred 10-year-old children, the
examiner might find a number who were able to do only those tests which
are passed by a normal six-year-old child. He might properly decide to
put all who thus showed four years of retardation, in the class of
feeble-minded; and he might justifiably decide that those who tested
seven years (i.e., three years mental retardation) or less would, for
the present, be given the benefit of the doubt, and classed among the
possibly normal. Such a procedure, in dealing with intelligence, is
necessary and justifiable, but its adoption must not blind students, as
it often does, to the fact that the distinction made is an arbitrary
one, and that there is no more a hard and fast line of demarcation
between imbeciles and normals than there is between "rich men" and "poor
men."
[Illustration: CADETS ARRANGED TO SHOW NORMAL CURVE OF VARIABILITY
FIG. 14.--The above company of students at Connecticut
Agricultural College was grouped according to height and photographed by
A. F. Blakeslee. The height of each rank, and the number of men of that
height, is shown by the figures underneath the photograph. The company
constitutes what is technically known as a "population" grouped in
"arrays of variates"; the middle rank gives the median height of the
population; the tallest array (5 ft., 8 in.) is the mode. If a line be
drawn connecting the upper ends of the rows, the resulting geometric
figure will be a "scheme of distribution of variates" or more briefly a
"variability curve," such as was shown in several preceding figures. The
arrangement of homogeneous objects of any kind in such form as this is
the first step in the study of variation by modern statistical methods,
and on such study much of the progress of genetics depends.]
[Illustration: FIG. 15.--Height is one of the stock examples of
a continuous character--one of which all grades can be found. As will be
seen from the above diagram, every height from considerably under five
feet to considerably over six feet can be found in the army, but extreme
deviations are relatively rare in proportion to the amount of deviation.
The vertical columns represent the total number of individuals of a
given height in inches. From Davenport.]
If a group of soldiers be measured as the children were measured for
arithmetical ability, their height will be distributed in this same
curve of probability. Fig. 14 shows the cadets of Connecticut
Agricultural College; it is obvious that a line drawn along the tops
of the files would again make the step-pyramid shown in Figures 10, 11
and 13. If a larger number were taken, the steps would disappear and
give place to a smooth curve; the fact is well shown in a graph for the
heights of recruits to the American Army (Fig. 15).
The investigation in this direction need not be pursued any farther. For
the purpose of eugenics, it is sufficient to recognize that great
differences exist between men, and women, not only in respect of
physical traits, but equally in respect of mental ability.
This conclusion might easily have been reached from a study of the facts
in Chapter I, but it seemed worth while to take time to present the fact
in a more concrete form as the result of actual measurements. The
evidence allows no doubt about the existence of considerable mental and
physical differences between men.
The question naturally arises, "What is the cause of these differences?"
The study of twins showed that the differences could not be due to
differences in training or home surroundings. If the reader will think
back over the facts set forth in the first chapter, he will see clearly
that the fundamental differences in men can not be due to anything that
happens after they are born; and the facts presented in the second
chapter showed that these differences can not be due in an important
degree to any influences acting on the child prior to birth.
CHAPTER IV
THE INHERITANCE OF MENTAL CAPACITIES
We have come to the climax of the eugenist's preliminary argument; if
the main differences between human beings are not due to anything in the
environment or training, either of this or previous generations, there
can be but one explanation for them.
They must be due to the ancestry of the individual--that is, they must
be matters of heredity in the ordinary sense, coupled with the
fortuitous variations which accompany heredity throughout the organic
world.
We need not limit ourselves, however, to the argument by exclusion, for
it is not difficult to present direct evidence that the differences
between men are actually inherited by children from parents. The
problem, formally stated, is to measure the amount by which the likeness
of individuals of like ancestry surpasses the likeness of individuals of
different ancestry. After subtraction of the necessary amount for the
greater likeness in training, that the individuals of like ancestry will
have, whatever amount is left will necessarily, represent the actual
inheritance of the child from its ancestors--parents, grandparents, and
so on.
Obviously, the subtraction for environmental effects is the point at
which a mistake is most probable. We may safely start, therefore, with a
problem in which no subtraction whatever need be made for this cause.
Eye color is a stock example, and a good one, for it is not conceivable
that home environment or training would cause a change in the color of
brothers' eyes.
The correlation[30] between brothers, or sisters, or brothers and
sisters--briefly, the fraternal resemblance--for eye-color was found by
Karl Pearson, using the method described in Chapter I, to be .52. We are
in no danger of contradiction if we state with positiveness that this
figure represents the influence of ancestry, or direct inheritance, in
respect to this particular trait.
Suppose the resemblance between brothers be measured for stature--it
is .51; for cephalic index, that is, the ratio of width of skull to length
of skull--it is .49; for hair color--it is .59. In all of these points,
it will be admitted that no home training, or any other influence except
heredity, can conceivably play an important part. We could go on with a
long list of such measurements, which biometrists have made; and if they
were all summed up it would be found that the fraternal correlation in
these traits as to the heritability of which there can be no dispute, is
about .52. Here is a good measure, albeit a technical one, of the
influence of heredity from the near ancestry. It is possible, too, to
measure the direct correlation between a trait in parent and the same
trait in offspring; the average of many cases where only heredity can be
thought to have had any effect in producing the result, is .49. By the
two methods of measurement, therefore, quite comparable results are
obtained.
So much work has been done in this subject that we have no hesitation in
affirming .5 to represent approximately the average intensity of
heredity for physical characters in man. If any well-marked physical
character be measured, in which training and environment can not be
assumed to have had any part, it will be found, in a large enough number
of subjects, that the resemblance, measured on a scale from 0 to 1, is
just about one-half of unity. Of course, perfect identity with the
parents is not to be expected, because the child must inherit from both
parents, who in turn each inherited from two parents, and so on.
So far, it may be said, we have had plain sailing because we have
carefully chosen traits in which we were not obliged to make any
subtraction whatever for the influence of training. But it is evident
that not all traits fall in that class.
This is the point at which the inheritance of mental traits has been
most often questioned. Probably no one will care to dispute the
inheritance of such physical traits as eye-color. But in considering the
mind, a certain school of popular pseudo-psychological writers question
the reality of mental inheritance, and allege that the proofs which the
geneticist offers are worthless because they do not make account of the
similarity in environment or training. Of course, it is admitted that
some sort of a mental groundwork must be inherited, but extremists
allege that this is little more than a clean slate on which the
environment, particularly during the early years of childhood, writes
its autograph.
We must grant that the analysis of the inheritance of mental traits is
proceeding slowly. This is not the fault of the geneticist, but rather
of the psychologist, who has not yet been able to furnish the geneticist
with the description of definite traits of such a character as to make
possible the exhaustive analysis of their individual inheritance. That
department of psychology is only now being formed.
We might even admit that no inherited "unit character" in the mind has
yet been isolated; but it would be a great mistake to assume from this
admission that proof of the inheritance of mental qualities, in general,
is lacking.
The psychologists and educators who think so appear either to be swayed
by metaphysical views of the mind, or else to believe that resemblance
between parent and offspring is the only evidence of inheritance that
can be offered. The father dislikes cheese, the son dislikes cheese.
"Aha, you think that that is the inheritance of a dislike for cheese,"
cries the critic, "but we will teach you better." An interesting example
of this sort of teaching is furnished by Boris Sidis, whose feelings are
outraged because geneticists have represented that some forms of
insanity are hereditary. He declaims for several pages[31] in this
fashion:
"The so-called scientific method of the eugenists is radically faulty,
in spite of the rich display of colored plates, stained tables,
glittering biological speculations, brilliant mathematical formulæ and
complicated statistical calculations. The eugenists pile Ossa on Pelion
of facts by the simple method of enumeration which Bacon and the
thinkers coming after him have long ago condemned as puerile and futile.
From the savage's belief in sympathetic, imitative magic with its
consequent superstitions, omens, and taboos down to the articles of
faith and dogmas of the eugenists we find the same faulty, primitive
thought, guided by the puerile, imbecile method of simple enumeration,
and controlled by the wisdom of the logical _post hoc, ergo propter
hoc_."
Now if resemblance between parent and offspring were, as Dr. Sidis
supposes, the only evidence of inheritance of mental traits which the
eugenist can produce, his case would indeed be weak. And it is perfectly
true that "evidence" of this kind has sometimes been advanced as
sufficient by geneticists who should have known better. But this is not
the real evidence which genetics offers. The evidence is of numerous
kinds, and several lines might be destroyed without impairing the
validity of the remainder. It is impossible to review the whole body of
evidence here, but some of the various kinds may be indicated, and
samples given, even though this involves the necessity of repeating some
things we have said in earlier chapters. The reader will then be able to
form his own opinion as to whether the geneticists' proofs or the mere
assurances of those who have not studied the subject are the more
weighty.
1. _The analogy from breeding experiments._ Tame rats, for instance, are
very docile; their offspring can be handled without a bit of trouble.
The wild rat, on the other hand, is not at all docile.
W. E. Castle, of Harvard University, writes:[32] "We have repeatedly
mated tame female rats with wild males, the mothers being removed to
isolated cages before the birth of the young. These young which had
never seen or been near their father were very wild in disposition in
every case. The observations of Yerkes on such rats raised by us
indicates that their wildness was not quite as extreme as that of the
pure wild rat but closely approached it."
Who can suggest any plausible explanation of their conduct, save that
they inherited a certain temperament from their sire? Yet the
inheritance of temperament is one of the things which certain
psychologists most "view with alarm." If it is proved in other animals,
can it be considered wholly impossible in man?
2. _The segregation of mental traits._ When an insane, or epileptic, or
feeble-minded person mates with a normal individual, in whose family no
taint is found, the offspring (generally speaking) will be mentally
sound, even though one parent is not. On the other hand, if two people
from tainted stocks marry, although neither one may be personally
defective, part of their offspring will be affected.
This production of sound children from an unsound parent, in the first
case, and unsound children from two apparently sound parents in the
second case, is exactly the opposite of what one would expect if the
child gets his unsoundness merely by imitation or "contagion." The
difference can not reasonably be explained by any difference in
environment or external stimuli. Heredity offers a satisfactory
explanation, for some forms of feeble-mindedness and epilepsy, and some
of the diseases known as insanity, behave as recessives and segregate in
just the way mentioned. There are abundant analogies in the inheritance
of other traits in man, lower animals and plants, that behave in exactly
the same manner.
If mental defects are inherited, then it is worth while investigating
whether mental excellencies may not also be.
3. _The persistence of like qualities regardless of difference in
environment._ Any parent with open eyes must see this in his own
children--must see that they retained the inherited traits even when
they left home and lived under entirely different surroundings. But the
histories of twins furnish the most graphic evidence. Galton, who
collected detailed histories of thirty-five pairs of twins who were
closely alike at birth, and examined their history in after years,
writes:[33] "In some cases the resemblance of body and mind had
continued unaltered up to old age, notwithstanding very different
conditions of life;" in other cases where some dissimilarity developed,
it could be traced to the influence of an illness. Making due allowance
for the influence of illness, yet "instances do exist of an apparently
thorough similarity of nature, in which such differences of external
circumstances as may be consistent with the ordinary conditions of the
same social rank and country do not create dissimilarity. Positive
evidence, such as this, can not be outweighed by any amount of negative
evidence."
Frederick Adams Woods has brought forward[34] a piece of more exact
evidence under this head. It is known from many quantitative studies
that in physical heredity, the influence of the paternal grandparents
and the influence of the maternal grandparents is equal; on the average
one pair will contribute no more to the grandchildren than the other. If
mental qualities are due rather to early surroundings than to actual
inheritance, this equality of grandparental influence is incredible in
the royal families where Dr. Woods got his material; for the grandchild
has been brought up at the court of the paternal grandfather, where he
ought to have gotten all his "acquirements," and has perhaps never even
seen his maternal grandparents, who therefore could not be expected to
impress their mental peculiarities on him by "contagion." When Dr. Woods
actually measured the extent of resemblance to the two sets of
grandparents, for mental and moral qualities, he found it to be the same
in each case; as is inevitable if they are inherited, but as is
incomprehensible if heredity is not largely responsible for one's mental
make-up.
4. _Persistence of unlike qualities regardless of sameness in the_
_environment._ This is the converse of the preceding proposition, but
even more convincing. In the last paragraph but one, we mentioned
Galton's study (cited at some length in our Chapter I) of "identical"
twins, who are so much alike at birth for the very good reason that they
have identical heredity. This heredity was found to be not modified,
either in the body or the mind, by ordinary differences of training and
environment. Some of Galton's histories[35] of ordinary, non-identical
twins were also given in Chapter I; two more follow:
One parent says: "They have been treated exactly alike; both were
brought up by hand; they have been under the same nurse and governess
from their birth, and they are very fond of each other. Their increasing
dissimilarity must be ascribed to a natural difference of mind and
character, as there has been nothing in their treatment to account for
it."
Another writes: "This case is, I should think, somewhat remarkable for
dissimilarity in physique as well as for strong contrast in character.
They have been unlike in mind and body throughout their lives. Both were
reared in a country house and both were at the same schools until the
age of 16."
In the face of such examples, can anyone maintain that differences in
mental make-up are wholly due to different influences during childhood,
and not at all to differences in germinal make-up? It is not necessary
to depend, under this head, on mere descriptions, for accurate
measurements are available to demonstrate the point. If the environment
creates the mental nature, then ordinary brothers, not more than four or
five years apart in age, ought to be about as closely similar to each
other as identical twins are to each other; for the family influences in
each case are practically the same. Professor Thorndike, by careful
mental tests, showed[36] that this is not true. The ordinary brothers
come from different egg-cells, and, as is known from studies on lower
animals, they do not get exactly the same inheritance from their
parents; they show, therefore, considerable differences in their psychic
natures. Real identical twins, being two halves of the same egg-cell,
have the same heredity, and their natures are therefore much more
nearly identical.
Again, if the mind is molded during the "plastic years of childhood,"
children ought to become more alike, the longer they are together. Twins
who were unlike at birth ought to resemble each other more closely at 14
than they did at 9, since they have been for five additional years
subjected to this supposedly potent but very mystical "molding force."
Here again Professor Thorndike's exact measurements explode the fallacy.
They are actually, measurably, less alike at the older age; their inborn
natures are developing along predestined lines, with little regard to
the identity of their surroundings. Heredity accounts easily for these
facts, but they cannot be squared with the idea that mental differences
are the products solely of early training.
5. _Differential rates of increase in qualities subject to much
training._ If the mind is formed by training, then brothers ought to be
more alike in qualities which have been subject to little or no
training. Professor Thorndike's measurements on this point show the
reverse to be true. The likeness of various traits is determined by
heredity, and brothers may be more unlike in traits which have been
subjected to a large and equal amount of training. Twins were found to
be less alike in their ability at addition and multiplication, in which
the schools had been training them for some years, than they were in
ability to mark off the A's on a printed sheet, or to write the
opposites to a list of words--feats which they had probably never before
tried to do.
This same proposition may be put on a broader basis.[37] "In so far as
the differences in achievement found amongst a group of men are due to
the differences in the quantity and quality of training which they had
had in the function in question, the provision of equal amounts of the
same sort of training for all individuals in the group should act to
reduce the differences." "If the addition of equal amounts of practice
does not reduce the differences found amongst men, those differences can
not well be explained to any large extent by supposing them to have been
due to corresponding differences in amount of previous practice. If,
that is, inequalities in achievement are not reduced by equalizing
practice, they can not well have been caused by inequalities in previous
practice. If differences in opportunity cause the differences men
display, making opportunity more nearly equal for all, by adding equal
amounts to it in each case should make the differences less.
"The facts found are rather startling. Equalizing practice seems to
increase differences. The superior man seems to have got his present
superiority by his own nature rather than by superior advantages of the
past, since, during a period of equal advantage for all, he increases
his lead." This point has been tested by such simple devices as mental
multiplication, addition, marking A's on a printed sheet of capitals and
the like; all the contestants made some gain in efficiency, but those
who were superior at the start were proportionately farther ahead than
ever at the end. This is what the geneticist would expect, but fits very
ill with some popular pseudo-science which denies that any child is
mentally limited by nature.
6. _Direct measurement of the amount of resemblance of mental traits in
brothers and sisters._ It is manifestly impossible to assume that early
training, or parental behavior, or anything of the sort, can have
influenced very markedly the child's eye color, or the length of his
forearm, or the ratio of the breadth of his head to its length. A
measure of the amount of resemblance between two brothers in such traits
may very confidently be said to represent the influence of heredity; one
can feel no doubt that the child inherits his eye-color and other
physical traits of that kind from his parents. It will be recalled that
the resemblance, measured on a scale from 0 to 1, has been found to be
about 0.5.
Karl Pearson measured the resemblance between brothers and sisters in
mental traits--for example, temper, conscientiousness, introspection,
vivacity--and found it on the average to have the same intensity--that
is, about 0.5. Starch gets similar results in studying school grades.
Professor Pearson writes:[38]
"It has been suggested that this resemblance in the psychological
characters is compounded of two factors, inheritance on the one hand and
training and environment on the other. If so, one must admit that
inheritance and environment make up the resemblance in the physical
characters. Now these two sorts of resemblance being of the same
intensity, either the environmental influence is the same in both cases
or it is not. If it is the same, we are forced to the conclusion that it
is insensible, for it can not influence eye-color. If it is not the
same, then it would be a most marvelous thing that with varying degrees
of inheritance, some mysterious force always modifies the extent of home
influence, until the resemblance of brothers and sisters is brought
sensibly up to the same intensity! Occam's razor[39] will enable us at
once to cut off such a theory. We are forced, I think, literally forced,
to the general conclusion that the physical and psychical characters in
man are inherited within broad lines in the same manner, and with
approximate intensity. The average parental influence is in itself
largely a result of the heritage of the stock and not an extraneous and
additional factor causing the resemblance between children from the same
home."
A paragraph from Edgar Schuster[40] may appropriately be added. "After
considering the published evidence a word must be said of facts which
most people may collect for themselves. They are difficult to record,
but are perhaps more convincing than any quantity of statistics. If one
knows well several members of a family, one is bound to see in them
likenesses with regard to mental traits, both large and small, which
may sometimes be accounted for by example on the one hand or unconscious
imitation on the other, but are often quite inexplicable on any other
theory than heredity. It is difficult to understand how the inheritance
of mental capacity can be denied by those whose eyes are open and whose
minds are open too."
Strictly speaking, it is of course true that man inherits nothing more
than the capacity of making mental acquirements. But this general
capacity is made up of many separate capacities, all of these capacities
are variable, and the variations are inherited. Such seems to us to be
the unmistakable verdict of the evidence.
Our conclusions as to the inheritance of all sorts of mental capacity
are not based on the mere presence of the same trait in parent and
child. As the psychological analysis of individual traits proceeds, it
will be possible to proceed further with the study of the inheritance of
these traits. Some work has been done on spelling, which is particularly
interesting because most people, without reflection, would take it for
granted that a child's spelling ability depends almost wholly on his
training. Professor Thorndike's exposition[41] of the investigation is
as follows:
"E. L. Earle ('03) measured the spelling abilities of some 800 children
in the St. Xavier school in New York by careful tests. As the children
in this school commonly enter at a very early age, and as the staff and
methods of teaching remain very constant, we have in the case of the 180
pairs of brothers and sisters included in the 600 children closely
similar school training. Mr. Earle measured the ability of any
individual by his deviation from the average for his grade and sex, and
found the coefficient of correlation between children of the same family
to be .50. That is, any individual is on the average 50% as much above
or below the average for his age and sex as his brother or sister.
"Similarities of home training might account for this, but any one
experienced in teaching will hesitate to attribute much efficacy to
such similarities. Bad spellers remain bad spellers though their
teachers change. Moreover, Dr. J. M. Rice in his exhaustive study of
spelling ability ('97) found little or no relationship between good
spelling and any one of the popular methods, and little or none between
poor spelling and foreign parentage. Cornman's more careful study of
spelling ('07) supports the view that ability to spell is little
influenced by such differences in school or home training as commonly
exist."
This is a very clear-cut case of a definite intellectual ability,
differences in which might be supposed to be due almost wholly to the
child's training, but which seem, on investigation, to be largely due to
heredity.
The problem may be examined in still greater detail. Does a man merely
inherit manual skill, let us say, or does he inherit the precise kind of
manual skill needed to make a surgeon but not the kind that would be
useful to a watchmaker? Is a man born merely with a generalized
"artistic" ability, or is it one adapted solely for, let us say, music;
or further, is it adapted solely for violin playing, not for the piano?
Galton, in his pioneer studies, sought for data on this question. In
regard to English judges, he wrote: "Do the judges often have sons who
succeed in the same career, where success would have been impossible if
they had not been gifted with the special qualities of their fathers?
Out of the 286 judges, more than _one in every nine_ of them have been
either father, son or brother to another judge, and the other high legal
relationships have been even more numerous. There can not, then, remain
a doubt but that the peculiar type of ability that is necessary to a
judge is often transmitted by descent."
Unfortunately, we can not feel quite as free from doubt on the point as
Galton did. The judicial mind, if that be the main qualification for a
judge, might be inherited, or it might be the result of training. Such a
case, standing alone, is inconclusive.
Galton similarly showed that the sons of statesmen tended to be
statesmen, and that the same was true in families of great commanders,
literary men, poets and divines. In his list of eminent painters, all
the relatives mentioned are painters save four, two of whom were gifted
in sculpture, one in music and one in embroidery. As to musicians,
Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer are the only ones in his list whose eminent
kinsmen achieved their success in other careers than music.
Havelock Ellis, who likewise studied British men of genius, throws
additional light on the subject. "Painters and sculptors," he found,
"constitute a group which appears to be of very distinct interest from
the point of view of occupational heredity. In social origin, it may be
noted, the group differs strikingly in constitution from the general
body of men of genius in which the upper class is almost or quite
predominant. Of 63 painters and sculptors of definitely known origin,
only two can be placed in the aristocratic division. Of the remainder 7
are the sons of artists, 22 the sons of craftsmen, leaving only 32 for
all other occupations, which are mainly of lower middle class character,
and in many cases trades that are very closely allied to crafts. Even,
however, when we omit the trades as well as the cases in which the
fathers were artists, we find a very notable predominance of craftsmen
in the parentage of painters, to such an extent indeed that while
craftsmen only constitute 9.2% among the fathers of our eminent persons
generally, they constitute nearly 35% among the fathers of the painters
and sculptors. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is a
real connection between the father's aptitude for craftsmanship and the
son's aptitude for art.
"To suppose that environment adequately accounts for this relationship
is an inadmissible theory. The association between the craft of builder,
carpenter, tanner, jeweller, watchmaker, woodcarver, ropemaker, etc.,
and the painter's art is small at best, and in most cases is
non-existent."
Arreat, investigating the heredity of 200 eminent European painters,
reached results similar to those of Ellis, according to the latter's
citation.
Arithmetical ability seems similarly to be subdivided, according to Miss
Cobb.[42] She made measurements of the efficiency with which children
and their parents could do problems in addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division, and could copy a column of figures. "The
measurements made," she writes, "show that if, for instance, a child is
much quicker than the average in subtraction, but not in addition,
multiplication or division, it is to be expected that one at least of
his parents shows a like trait; or if he falls below the average in
subtraction and multiplication, and exceeds it in addition and division,
again the same will hold true of at least one of his parents." These
various kinds of arithmetic appear to be due to different functions of
the brain, and are therefore probably inherited independently, if they
are inherited at all.
To assume that the resemblance between parent and offspring in
arithmetical ability is due to association, training and imitation is
not plausible. If this were the case, a class of children ought to come
to resemble their teacher, but they do not. Moreover, the child
sometimes resembles more closely the parent with whom he has been less
associated in daily life.
From such data as these, we conclude that mental inheritance is
considerably specialized. This conclusion is in accord with Burris'
finding (cited by Thorndike) that the ability to do well in some one
high school study is nearly or quite as much due to ancestry as is the
ability to do well in the course as a whole.
To sum up, we have reason to believe not only that one's mental
character is due largely to heredity, but that the details of it may be
equally due to heredity, in the sense that for any particular trait or
complex in the child there is likely to be found a similar trait or
complex in the ancestry. Such a conclusion should not be pushed to the
point of assuming inheritance of all sorts of dispositions that might be
due to early training; on the other hand, a survey of the whole field
would probably justify us in concluding that any given trait is _more
likely than not_ to be inherited. The effect of training in the
formation of the child's mental character is certainly much less than is
popularly supposed; and even for the traits that are most due to
training, it must never be forgotten that there are inherited mental
bases.
If the reader has accepted the facts presented in this chapter, and our
inferences from the facts, he will admit that mental differences between
men are at bottom due to heredity, just as physical differences are;
that they are apparently inherited in the same manner and in
approximately the same degree.
CHAPTER V
THE LAWS OF HEREDITY
We have now established the bases for a practicable eugenics program.
Men differ; these differences are inherited; therefore the make-up of
the race can be changed by any method which will alter the relative
proportions of the contributions which different classes of men make to
the following generation.
For applied eugenics, it is sufficient to know that mental and physical
differences are inherited; the exact manner of inheritance it would be
important to know, but even without a knowledge of the details of the
mechanism of heredity, a program of eugenics is yet wholly feasible.
It is no part of the plan of this book to enter into the details of the
mechanism of heredity, a complicated subject for which the reader can
refer to one of the treatises mentioned in the bibliography at the close
of this volume. It may be worth while, however, to outline in a very
summary way the present status of the question.
As to the details of inheritance, research has progressed in the last
few years far beyond the crude conceptions of a decade ago, when a
primitive form of Mendelism was made to explain everything that
occurred.[43] One can hardly repress a smile at the simplicity of those
early ideas,--though it must be said that some students of eugenics have
not yet outgrown them. In those days it was thought that every visible
character in man (or in any other organism) was represented by some
"determiner" in the germ-plasm; that by suitable matings a breeder could
rid a stream of germ-plasm of almost any determiner he wished; and that
the corresponding unit character would thereupon disappear from the
visible make-up of the individual. Was a family reported as showing a
taint, for instance, hereditary insanity? Then it was asserted that by
the proper series of matings, it was possible to squeeze out of the
germ-plasm the particular concrete _something_ of which insanity was the
visible expression, and have left a family stock that was perfectly
sound and sane.
The minute, meticulous researches of experimental breeders[44] have left
such a view of heredity far behind. Certainly the last word has not been
said; yet the present hypotheses _work_, whenever the conditions are
such as to give a fair chance. The results of these studies have led to
what is called the factorial hypothesis of heredity,[45] according to
which all the visible characters of the adult are produced by (purely
hypothetical) factors in the germ-plasm; it is the factors that are
inherited, and they, under proper conditions for development, produce
the characters. The great difference between this and the earlier view
is that instead of allotting one factor to each character, students now
believe that each individual character of the organism is produced by
the action of an indefinitely large number of factors,[46] and they
have been further forced to adopt the belief that each individual
factor affects an indefinitely large number of characters, owing to the
physiological interrelations and correlations of every part of the body.
[Illustration: HOW DO YOU CLASP YOUR HANDS?
FIG. 16.--If the hands be clasped naturally with fingers
alternating, as shown in the above illustration, most people will put
the same thumb--either that of the right or that of the left
hand--uppermost every time. Frank E. Lutz showed (_American Naturalist_,
xliii) that the position assumed depends largely on heredity. When both
parents put the right thumb uppermost, about three-fourths of the
children were found to do the same. When both parents put the left thumb
uppermost, about three-fifths of the children did the same. No definite
ratios could be found from the various kinds of matings. Apparently the
manner of clasping hands has no connection with one's right-handedness
or left-handedness. It can hardly be due to imitation for the trait is
such a slight one that most people have not noticed it before their
attention is called to it by the geneticist. Furthermore, babies are
found almost always to clasp the hands in the same way every time. The
trait is a good illustration of the almost incredible minuteness with
which heredity enters into a man's make-up. Photograph by John Howard
Paine.]
The sweet pea offers a good illustration of the widespread effects which
may result from the change of a single factor. In addition to the
ordinary climbing vine, there is a dwarf variety, and the difference
between the two seems to be proved, by exhaustive experimental breeding,
to be due to only one inherited factor. Yet the action of this one
factor not only changes the height of the plant, but also results in
changes in color of foliage, length of internodes, size and arrangement
of flowers, time of opening of flowers, fertility and viability.
Again, a mutant stock in the fruit fly (Drosophila) has as its most
marked characteristic very short wings. "But the factor for rudimentary
wings also produces other effects as well. The females are almost
completely sterile, while the males are fertile. The viability of the
stocks is poor. When flies with rudimentary wings are put into
competition with wild flies relatively few of the rudimentary flies come
through, especially if the culture is crowded. The hind legs are also
shortened. All of these effects are the results of a single
factor-difference." To be strictly accurate, then, one should not say
that a certain variation affects length of wing, but that its _chief_
effect is to shorten the wing.
"One may venture to guess," T. H. Morgan says,[47] "that some of the
specific and varietal differences that are characteristic of wild types
and which at the same time appear to have no survival value, are only
by-products of factors whose most important effect is on another part
of the organism where their influence is of vital importance."
"I am inclined to think," Professor Morgan continues, "that an
overstatement to the effect that each factor may affect the entire body,
is less likely to do harm than to state that each factor affects only a
particular character. The reckless use of the phrase 'unit character'
has done much to mislead the uninitiated as to the effects that a single
change in the germ-plasm may produce on the organism. Fortunately the
expression 'unit character' is being less used by those students of
genetics who are more careful in regard to the implications of their
terminology."
[Illustration: THE EFFECT OF ORTHODACTYLY
FIG. 17.--At the left is a hand with the third, fourth and
fifth fingers affected. The middle joints of these fingers are stiff and
cannot be bent. At the right the same hand is shown, closed. A normal
hand in the middle serves to illustrate by contrast the nature of the
abnormality, which appears in every generation of several large
families. It is also called symphalangism, and is evidently related to
the better-known abnormality of brachydactyly. Photograph from Frederick
N. Duncan.]
[Illustration: A FAMILY WITH ORTHODACTYLY
FIG. 18.--Squares denote males and circles females, as is usual
in the charts compiled by eugenists; black circles or squares denote
affected individuals. A1 had all fingers affected in the way shown in
Fig. 17; B2 had all but one finger affected; C2 had all but one finger
affected; D2 had all fingers affected; D3 has all but forefingers
affected. The family here shown is a branch, found by F. N. Duncan, of a
very large family first described by Harvey Cushing, in which this
abnormality has run for at least seven generations. It is an excellent
example of an inherited defect due to a single Mendelian factor.]
One of the best attested single characters in human heredity is
brachydactyly, "short-fingerness," which results in a reduction in the
length of the fingers by the dropping out of one joint. If one lumps
together all the cases where any effect of this sort is found, it is
evident that normals never transmit it to their posterity, that affected
persons always do, and that in a mating between a normal and an affected
person, all the offspring will show the abnormality. It is a good
example of a unit character.
But its effect is by no means confined to the fingers. It tends to
affect the entire skeleton, and in a family where one child is markedly
brachydactylous, that child is generally shorter than the others. The
factor for brachydactyly evidently produces its primary effect on the
bones of the hand, but it also produces a secondary effect on all the
bones of the body.
Moreover, it will be found, if a number of brachydactylous persons are
examined, that no two of them are affected to exactly the same degree.
In some cases only one finger will be abnormal; in other cases there
will be a slight effect in all the fingers; in other cases all the
fingers will be highly affected. Why is there such variation in the
results produced by a unit character? Because, presumably, in each
individual there is a different set of modifying factors or else a
variation in the factor. It has been found that an abnormality quite
like brachydactyly is produced by abnormality in the pituitary gland. It
is then fair to suppose that the factor which produces brachydactyly
does so by affecting the pituitary gland in some way. But there must be
many other factors which also affect the pituitary and in some cases
probably favor its development, rather than hindering it. Then if the
factor for brachydactyly is depressing the pituitary, but if some other
factors are at the same time stimulating that gland, the effect shown in
the subject's fingers will be much less marked than if a group of
modifying factors were present which acted in the same direction as the
brachydactyly factor,--to perturb the action of the pituitary gland.
This illustration is largely hypothetical; but there is no room for
doubt that every factor produces more than a single effect. A white
blaze in the hair, for example, is a well-proved unit factor in man; the
factor not only produces a white streak in the hair, but affects the
pigmentation of the skin as well, usually resulting in one or more white
spots on some part of the body. It is really a factor for "piebaldism."
For the sake of clear thinking, then, the idea of a unit character due
to some unit determiner or factor in the germ-plasm must be given up,
and it must be recognized that every visible character of an individual
is the result of numerous factors, or differences in the germ-plasm.
Ordinarily one of these produces a more notable contribution to the
end-product than do the others; but there are cases where this statement
does not appear to hold good. This leads to the conception of _multiple
factors_.
In crossing a wheat with brown chaff and one with white chaff, H.
Nilsson-Ehle (1909) expected in the second hybrid generation to secure a
ratio of 3 brown to 1 white. As a fact, he got 1410 brown and 94 white,
a ratio of 15:1. He interpreted this as meaning that the brown color in
this particular variety was due not to one factor, but to two, which
were equivalent to each other, and either one of which would produce the
same result alone as would the two acting together. In further crossing
red wheat with white, he secured ratios which led him to believe that
the red was produced by three independent factors, any one of which
would produce red either alone or with the other two. A. and G. Howard
later corroborated this work,[48] but showed that the three factors were
not identical: they are qualitatively slightly different, although so
closely similar that the three reds look alike at first sight. E. M.
East has obtained evidence from maize and G. H. Shull from
shepherd's-purse, which bears out the multiple factor hypothesis.
[Illustration: WHITE BLAZE IN THE HAIR
FIG. 19.--The white lock of hair here shown is hereditary and
has been traced back definitely through six generations; family
tradition derives it from a son of Harry "Hot-Spur" Percy, born in 1403,
and fallaciously assigns its origin to "prenatal influence" or "maternal
impression." This young woman inherited the blaze from her father, who
had it from his mother, who had it from her father, who migrated from
England to America nearly a century ago. The trait appears to be a
simple dominant, following Mendel's Law; that is, when a person with one
of these locks who is a child of one normal and one affected parent
marries a normal individual, half of the children show the lock and half
do not. Photograph from Newton Miller.]
[Illustration: A FAMILY OF SPOTTED NEGROES
FIG. 20.--The piebald factor sometimes shows itself as nothing
more than a blaze in the hair (see preceding figure); but it may take a
much more extreme form, as illustrated by the above photograph from Q.
I. Simpson and W. E. Castle. Mrs. S. A., a spotted mutant, founded a
family which now comprises, in several generations, 17 spotted and 16
normal offspring. The white spotting factor behaves as a Mendelian
dominant, and the expectation would be equal numbers of normal and
affected children. Similar white factors are known in other animals. It
is worth noting that all the well attested Mendelian characters in man
are abnormalities, no normal character having yet been proved to be
inherited in this manner.]
Apart from multiple factors as properly defined (that is, factors which
produce the same result, either alone or together), extensive analysis
usually reveals that apparently simple characters are in reality
complex. The purple aleurone color of maize seeds is attributed by R. A.
Emerson to five distinct factors, while E. Baur found four factors
responsible for the red color of snapdragon blossoms. There are, as G.
N. Collins says,[49] "still many gross characters that stand as
simple Mendelian units, but few, if any, of these occur in plants or
animals that have been subjected to extensive investigation. There is
now such a large number of characters which at first behaved as units,
but which have since been broken up by crossing with suitable selected
material, that it seems not unreasonable to believe that the remaining
cases await only the discovery of the right strains with which to
hybridize them to bring about corresponding results."
In spite of the fact that there is a real segregation between factors as
has been shown, it must not be supposed that factors and their
determiners are absolutely invariable. This has been too frequently
assumed without adequate evidence by many geneticists. It is probable
that just as the multiplicity and interrelation and minuteness of many
factors have been the principal discoveries of genetics in recent years
that the next few years will see a great deal of evidence following the
important lead of Castle and Jennings, as to variation in factors.
Knowing that all the characters of an individual are due to the
interaction of numerous factors, one must be particularly slow in
assuming that such complex characters as man's mental traits are units,
in any proper genetic sense of the word. It will, for instance, require
very strong evidence to establish feeble-mindedness as a unit character.
No one who examines the collected pedigrees of families marked by
feeble-mindedness, can deny that it does appear at first sight to behave
as a unit character, inherited in the typical Mendelian fashion. The
psychologist H. H. Goddard, who started out with a strong bias against
believing that such a complex trait could even _behave_ as a unit
character, thought himself forced by the tabulation of his cases to
adopt the conclusion that it does behave as a unit character. And other
eugenists have not hesitated to affirm, mainly on the strength of Dr.
Goddard's researches, that this unit character is due to a single
determiner in the germ-plasm, which either is or is not present,--no
halfway business about it.
How were these cases of feeble-mindedness defined? The definition is
purely arbitrary. Ordinarily, any adult who tests much below 12 years by
the Binet-Simon scale is held to be feeble-minded; and the results of
this test vary a little with the skill of the person applying it and
with the edition of the scale used. Furthermore, most of the
feeble-minded cases in institutions, where the Mendelian studies have
usually been made, come from families which are themselves of a low
grade of mentality. If the whole lot of those examined were measured, it
would be difficult to draw the line between the normals and the
affected; there is not nearly so much difference between the two
classes, as one would suppose who only looks at a Mendelian chart.
[Illustration: A HUMAN FINGER-TIP
FIG. 21.--The palms of the hands and soles of the feet are
covered with little ridges or corrugations, which are supposed to be
useful in preventing the grasp from slipping; whence the name of
friction-skin has been given to these surfaces. The ridges are developed
into various patterns; the one above is a loop on the left forefinger.
The ridges are studded with the openings of the sweat glands, the
elevated position of which is supposed to prevent them from being
clogged up; further, the moisture which they secrete perhaps adds to the
friction of the skin. Friction-skin patterns are inherited in some
degree. Photograph by John Howard Payne.]
[Illustration: THE LIMITS OF HEREDITARY CONTROL
FIG. 22.--Print of a finger-tip showing a loop-pattern,
enlarged about eight times. This is a common type of pattern, and at
first glance the reader may think it could be mistaken for one of his
own. There are, however, at least sixty-five "ridge characteristics" on
the above print, which an expert would recognize and would use for the
purpose of identification. If it were found that the first two or three
of them noted corresponded to similar characteristics on another print,
the expert would have no doubt that the two prints were made by the same
finger. In police bureaus, finger-prints are filed for reference with a
classification based on the type of pattern, number of ridges between
two given points, etc.; and a simple formula results which makes it easy
to find all prints which bear a general resemblance to each other. The
exact identity or lack of it is then determined by a comparison of such
_minutiæ_ as the sixty-five above enumerated. While the general outline
of a pattern is inherited, these small characters do not seem to be, but
are apparently rather due to the stretching of the skin as it grows.
Illustration from J. H. Taylor.]
[Illustration: DISTRIBUTION OF I Q'S OF 905 UNSELECTED CHILDREN, 5-14
YEARS OF AGE
THE DISTRIBUTION OF INTELLIGENCE
FIG. 23.--Diagram showing the mentality of 905 unselected
children, 5 to 14 years of age, who may probably be taken as
representative of the whole population. The median or tallest column,
about one-third of the whole number, represents those who were normal
or, as a statistician would say, mediocre. Their mental ages and
chronological ages were practically identical. To the left of these the
diminishing columns show the number whose mental ages fell short of
their chronological ages. They are the mentally retarded, ranging all
the way down to the lowest one-third of one per cent who represent a
very low grade of feeble-mindedness. On the other side the mentally
superior show a similar distribution. A curve drawn over the tops of the
columns makes a good normal curve. "Since the frequency of the various
grades of intelligence decreases _gradually_ and at no point abruptly on
each side of the median, it is evident that there is no definite
dividing line between normality and feeble-mindedness, or between
normality and genius. Psychologically, the mentally defective child does
not belong to a distinct type, nor does the genius.... The common
opinion that extreme deviations below the median are vastly more
frequent than extreme deviations above the median seems to have no
foundation in fact. Among unselected school children, at least, for
every child of any given degree of deficiency there is roughly another
child as far above the average as the former is below." Lewis M. Terman,
_The Measurement of Intelligence_, pp. 66-67.]
It would be well to extend our view by measuring a whole population with
one of the standard tests. If the intelligence of a thousand children
picked at random from the population be measured, it will prove (as
outlined in Chapter III) that some of them are feeble-minded, some are
precocious or highly intelligent; and that there is every possible
degree of intelligence between the two extremes. If a great number of
children, all 10 years old, were tested for intelligence, it would
reveal a few absolute idiots whose intelligence was no more than that of
the ordinary infant, a few more who were as bright as the ordinary
kindergarten child, and so up to the great bulk of normal 10-year-olds,
and farther to a few prize eugenic specimens who had as much
intelligence as the average college freshman. In other words, this trait
of general intelligence would be found distributed through the
population in accordance with that same curve of chance, which was
discussed and illustrated when we were talking about the differences
between individuals.
Now what has become of the unit character, feeble-mindedness? How can
one speak of a unit character, when the "unit" has an infinite number of
values? Is a _continuous quantity_ a _unit_?
If intelligence is due to the inheritance of a vast, but indeterminate,
number of factors of various kinds, each of which is independent,
knowledge of heredity would lead one to expect that some children would
get more of these factors than others and that, broadly speaking, no two
would get the same number. All degrees of intelligence between the idiot
and the genius would thus exist; and yet we can not doubt that a few of
these factors are more important than the others, and the presence of
even one or two of them may markedly affect the level of intelligence.
It may make the matter clearer if we return for a moment to the
physical. Height, bodily stature, offers a very good analogy for the
case we have just been discussing, because it is obvious that it must
depend on a large number of different factors, a man's size being due to
the sum total of the sizes of a great number of bones, ligaments,
tissues, etc. It is obvious that one can be long in the trunk and short
in the legs, or vice versa, and so on through a great number of
possible combinations. Here is a perfectly measurable character (no one
has ever claimed that it is a genetic "unit character" _in man_ although
it behaves as such in some plants) as to the complex basis of which all
will agree. And it is known, from common observation as well as from
pedigree studies, that it is not inherited as a unit: children are never
born in two discontinuous classes, "tall" and "short," as they are with
color blindness or normal color vision, for example. Is it not a fair
assumption that the difference between the apparent unit character of
feeble-mindedness, and the obvious non-unit character of height, is a
matter of difference in the number of factors involved, difference in
the degree to which they hang together in transmission, variation in the
factors, and certainly difference in the method of measurement? Add that
the line between normal and feeble-minded individuals is wholly
arbitrary, and it seems that there is little reason to talk about
feeble-mindedness as a unit character. It may be true that there is some
sort of an inhibiting factor inherited as a unit, but it seems more
likely that feeble-mindedness may be due to numerous different causes;
that its presence in one child is due to one factor or group of factors,
and in another child to a different one.[50]
It does not fall wholly into the class of blending inheritance, for it
does segregate to a considerable extent, yet some of the factors may
show blending. Much more psychological analysis must be done before the
question of the inheritance of feeble-mindedness can be considered
solved. But at present one can say with confidence of this, as of other
mental traits, that like tends to produce like; that low grades of
mentality usually come from an ancestry of low mentality, and that
bright children are usually produced in a stock that is marked by
intelligence.
Most mental traits are even more complex in appearance than
feeble-mindedness. None has yet been proved to be due to a single
germinal difference, and it is possible that none will ever be so
demonstrated.
[Illustration: FIG. 24.--The twins whose finger-prints are
shown in Fig. 25.]
Intensive genetic research in lower animals and plants has shown that a
visible character may be due to
1. Independent multiple factors in the germ-plasm, as in the case of
wheat mentioned a few pages back.
2. Multiple allelomorphs, that is, a series of different grades of a
single factor.
3. One distinct Mendelian factor (or several such factors), with
modifying factors which may cause either (a) intensification, (b)
inhibition, or (c) dilution.
4. Variation of a factor.
5. Or several or all of the above explanations may apply to one case.
Moreover, the characters of which the origin has been most completely
worked out are mostly color characters, whose physiological development
seems to be relatively simple. It is probable that the development of a
mental character is much more complicated, and therefore there is more
likelihood of additional factors being involved.
To say, then, that any mental trait is a unit character, or that it is
due to a single germinal difference, is to go beyond both the evidence
and the probabilities.
And if mental traits are, in their germinal foundations, not simple but
highly complex, it follows that any advice given as to how human matings
should be arranged to produce any precise result in the progeny, should
be viewed with distrust. Such advice can be given only in the case of a
few pathological characters such as color-blindness, night-blindness, or
Huntington's Chorea. It is well that the man or woman interested in one
of these abnormalities can get definite information on the subject; and
Huntington's Chorea, in particular, is a dysgenic trait which can and
should be stamped out. But it can not be pretended that any of man's
traits, as to whose inheritance prediction can be made with confidence,
is of great importance to national eugenics.
In short, a knowledge of heredity shows that attempts to predict the
mode of inheritance of the important human traits (particularly mental
traits) are still uncertain in their results. The characters involved
are too complex to offer any simple sequences. If two parents have brown
eyes, it can not be said that all their children will have brown eyes;
still less can it be said that all the children of two musically gifted
parents are certain to be endowed with musical talent in any given
degree.
Prediction is possible only when uniform sequences are found. How are
such sequences to be found in heredity, if they do not appear when a
parent and his offspring are examined? Obviously it is necessary to
examine _a large number_ of parents and their offspring,--to treat the
problem by statistical methods.
But, it may be objected, a uniformity gained by such methods is
spurious. It is merely shutting the eyes to the mass of contradictions
which are concealed by an apparent statistical uniformity.
This objection would be valid, if the statistical results were used for
prediction _in individual cases_. The statistician, however, expressly
warns that his conclusions must not be used for such prediction. They
are intended to predict only general trends, only average results; and
for this purpose they are wholly legitimate. Moreover, evolution itself
is a problem of statistics, and therefore the statistical method of
studying heredity may offer results of great value to eugenics, even
though it can not furnish in individual cases the prediction which would
be desirable.
From this standpoint, we return to attack the problem of the relation
between parent and offspring. We noted that there is no uniform sequence
in a single family, and illustrated this by the case of brown eyes. But
if a thousand parents and their offspring be selected and some trait,
such as eye-color, or stature, or general intelligence, be measured, a
uniformity at once appears in the fact of regression. Its discoverer,
Sir Francis Galton, gives this account of it:
[Illustration: FINGER-PRINTS OF TWINS
FIG. 25.--Above are the finger-prints, supplied by J. H. Taylor
of the Navy Department, of the two young sailors shown in Fig. 24. The
reader might examine them once or twice without seeing any differences.
Systematic comparison reveals that the thumbs of the left hands and the
middle fingers of the right hands particularly are distinguishable.
Finger-prints as a means of identification were popularized by Sir
Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, and their superiority to all
other methods is now generally admitted. In addition to this practical
usefulness, they also furnish material for study of the geneticist and
zoölogist. The extent to which heredity is responsible for the patterns
is indicated by the resemblance in pattern in spite of the great
variability in this tract.]
"If the word 'peculiarity' be used to signify the difference between the
amount of any faculty possessed by a man, and the average of that
possessed by the population at large, then the law of regression may
be described as follows: each peculiarity in a man is shared by his
kinsmen, but on the _average_ in a less degree. It is reduced to a
definite fraction of its amount, quite independently of what its amount
might be. The fraction differs in different orders of kinship, becoming
smaller as they are more remote. When the kinship is so distant that its
effects are not worth taking into account, the peculiarity of the man,
however remarkable it may have been, is reduced to zero in his kinsmen.
This apparent paradox is fundamentally due to the greater frequency of
mediocre deviations than of extreme ones, occurring between limits
separated by equal widths."
As to the application of this law, let Galton himself speak: "The Law of
Regression tells heavily against the full hereditary transmission of any
gift. Only a few out of many children would be likely to differ from
mediocrity so widely as their Mid-Parent [i. e., the average of their
two parents], allowing for sexual differences, and still fewer would
differ as widely as the more exceptional of the two parents. The more
bountifully the parent is gifted by nature, the more rare will be his
good fortune if he begets a son who is as richly endowed as himself, and
still more so if he has a son who is endowed yet more largely. But the
law is evenhanded; it levies an equal succession-tax on the transmission
of badness as of goodness. If it discourages the extravagant hopes of a
gifted parent that his children on the average will inherit all his
powers, it not less discountenances extravagant fears that they will
inherit all his weakness and disease.
"It must be clearly understood that there is nothing in these statements
to invalidate the general doctrine that the children of a gifted pair
are much more likely to be gifted than the children of a mediocre pair."
To this it should be added that progeny of very great ability will arise
more frequently in proportion to the quality of their parents.
It must be reiterated that this is a statistical, not a biological, law;
and that even Galton probably goes a little too far in applying it to
individuals. It will hold good for a whole population, but not
necessarily for only one family. Further, we can afford to reëmphasize
the fact that it in no way prevents the improvement of a race by
selection and assortative mating.
Stature is the character which Dr. Galton used to get an exact
measurement of the amount of regression. More recent studies have
changed the value he found, without invalidating his method. When large
numbers are taken it is now abundantly proved that if parents exceed the
average stature of their race by a certain amount their offspring will,
in general, exceed the racial average by only one-half as much as their
parents did. This is due, as Galton said, to the "drag" of the more
remote ancestry, which when considered as a whole must represent very
nearly mediocrity, statistically speaking.
The general amount of regression in heredity, then, is one-half. If it
be expressed as a decimal, .5, the reader will at once note its identity
with the coefficient of correlation which we have so often cited in this
book as a measure of heredity. In fact, the coefficient of correlation
is nothing more than a measure of the regression, and it is probably
simpler to think of it as correlation than it is to speak of a Law of
Regression, as Sir Francis did.
This correlation or regression can, of course, be measured for other
ancestors as well as for the immediate parents. From studies of
eye-color in man and coat-color in horses, Karl Pearson worked out the
necessary correlations, which are usually referred to as the law of
Ancestral Inheritance. Dr. Galton had pointed out, years before, that
the contributions of the several generations of individuals probably
formed a geometrical series, and Professor Pearson calculated this
series, for the two cases mentioned, as:
Parents Grandparents G-Grandparents G-G-Grandparents
.6244 .1988 .0630 .0202 ... etc.
In other words, the two parents, together, will on the average of a
great many cases be found to have contributed a little more than
three-fifths of the hereditary peculiarities of any given individual;
the four grandparents will be found responsible for a little less than
one-fifth, and the eight great-grandparents for about six hundredths,
and so on, the contribution of each generation becoming smaller with
ascent, but each one having, in the average of many cases, a certain
definite though small influence, until infinity.
It can not be too strongly emphasized that this is a statistical law,
not a biological law. It must not be applied to predict the character of
the offspring of any one particular mating, for it might be highly
misleading. It would be wholly unjustified, for example, to suppose that
a certain man got three-tenths of his nature from his father, because
the Law of Ancestral Heredity required it: in point of fact, he might
get one-tenth or nine-tenths, none or all of a given trait. But, when
dealing with a large population, the errors on one side balance the
errors on the other, and the law is found, in the cases to which it has
been applied, to express the facts.[51]
While, therefore, this Galton-Pearson law gives no advice in regard to
individual marriages, it is yet of great value to applied eugenics. In
the first place, it crystallizes the vague realization that remote
ancestry is of much less importance than immediate ancestry, to an
individual, while showing that every generation has a part in making a
man what he is. In the second place, it is found, by mathematical
reasoning which need not here be repeated, that the type of a population
may be quickly changed by the mating of like with like; and that this
newly established type may be maintained when not capable of further
progress. Regression is not inevitable, for it may be overcome by
selection.
To put the matter in a more concrete form, there is reason to think that
if for a few generations superior people would marry only people on the
average superior in like degree (superior in ancestry as well as
individuality), a point would be reached where all the offspring would
tend to be superior, mediocrities of the former type being eliminated;
and this superiority could be maintained as long as care was taken to
avoid mating with inferior. In other words, the Galton-Pearson Law gives
statistical support for a belief that eugenic marriages will create an
improved breed of men. And this, it seems to us, is the most important
implication of that law for eugenics, although it is an implication that
is generally ignored.
We do not propose to discuss further the laws of heredity; but it is
likely that the reader who has made no other study of the subject may by
this time find himself somewhat bewildered. "Can we talk only in
generalities?" he may well ask; "Does eugenics know no laws of heredity
that will guide me in the choice of a wife? I thought that was the
purpose of eugenics!"
We reply: (1) The laws of heredity are vastly complicated in man by the
complex nature of most of his characters. The definite way in which some
abnormalities are inherited is known; but it has not been thought
necessary to include an account of such facts in this work. They are set
forth in other books, especially Davenport's _Heredity in Relation to
Eugenics_. The knowledge of how such a trait as color-blindness is
inherited may be of importance to one man out of a thousand in choosing
a wife; but we are taking a broader view of eugenics than this. As far
as the great mass of human characters go, they are, in our opinion, due
to so many separately inheritable factors that it is not safe to
dogmatize about exactly how they will behave in heredity. Such
knowledge, desirable as it may be, is not necessary for race progress.
(2) But it is possible, with present knowledge, to say that human
traits, mental as well as physical, are inherited, in a high degree.
Even before the final details as to the inheritance of all traits are
worked out--a task that is never likely to be accomplished--there is
ample material on which to base action for eugenics. The basal
differences in the mental traits of man (and the physical as well, of
course) are known to be due to heredity, and little modified by
training. It is therefore possible to raise the level of the human
race--the task of eugenics--by getting that half of the race which is,
on the whole, superior in the traits that make for human progress and
happiness, to contribute a larger proportion to the next generation than
does the half which is on the whole inferior in that respect. Eugenics
need know nothing more, and the smoke of controversy over the exact way
in which some trait or other is inherited must not be allowed for an
instant to obscure the known fact that the level can be raised.
CHAPTER VI
NATURAL SELECTION
Man has risen from the ape chiefly through the action of natural
selection. Any scheme of conscious race betterment, then, should
carefully examine nature's method, to learn to what extent it is still
acting, and to what extent it may better be supplanted or assisted by
methods of man's own invention.
Natural selection operates in two ways: (1) through a selective
death-rate and (2) through a selective birth-rate. The first of these
forms has often been considered the whole of natural selection, but
wrongly. The second steadily gains in importance as an organism rises in
the scale of evolution; until in man it is likely soon to dwarf the
lethal factor into insignificance. For it is evident that the appalling
slaughter of all but a few of the individuals born, which one usually
associates with the idea of natural selection, will take place only when
the number of individuals born is very large. As the reproductive rate
decreases, so does the death-rate, for a larger proportion of those born
are able to find food and to escape enemies.
When considering man, one realizes at once that relatively few babies or
adults starve to death. The selective death-rate therefore must include
only those who are unable to escape their enemies; and while these
enemies of the species, particularly certain microörganisms, still take
a heavy toll from the race, the progress of science is likely to make it
much smaller in the future.
The different aspects of natural selection may be classified as follows:
{ Lethal { Sustentative
{ { Non-sustentative
Natural selection {
{ Reproductive { Sexual
{ { Fecundal
The lethal factor is the one which Darwin himself most emphasized.
Obviously a race will be steadily improved, if the worst stock in it is
cut off before it has a chance to reproduce, and if the best stock
survives to perpetuate its kind. "This preservation of favourable
individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those
which are injurious, I have called natural selection, or the survival of
the fittest," Darwin wrote; and he went on to show that the principal
checks on increase were overcrowding, the difficulty of obtaining food,
destruction by enemies, and the lethal effects of climate. These causes
may be conveniently divided as in the above diagram, into sustentative
and non-sustentative. The sustentative factor has acquired particular
prominence in the human species, since Malthus wrote his essay on
population--that essay which both Darwin and Wallace confess was the
starting point of their discovery of natural selection.
There is a "constant tendency in all animated life to increase beyond
the nourishment prepared for it," Malthus declared. "It is
incontrovertibly true that there is no bound to the prolific plants and
animals, but what is made by their crowding and interfering with each
others' means of subsistence." His deduction is well known: that as man
tends to increase in geometrical ratio, and can not hope to increase his
food-supply more rapidly than in arithmetical ratio, the human race must
eventually face starvation, unless the birth-rate be reduced.
Darwin was much impressed by this argument and ever since his time it
has usually been the foundation for any discussion of natural selection.
Nevertheless it is partly false for all animals, as one of the authors
showed[52] some years ago, since a species which regularly eats up all
the food in sight is rare indeed; and it is of very little racial
importance in the present-day evolution of man. Scarcity of food may put
sufficient pressure on him to cause emigration, but rarely death. The
importance of Malthus' argument to eugenics is too slight to warrant
further discussion.
When the non-sustentative forms of lethal selection are considered, it
is seen very clearly that man is not exempt from the workings of this
law. A non-sustentative form of natural selection takes place through
the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the
environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria; or by bodily
deficiency; and it is independent of mere food-supply. W. F. R. Weldon
showed by a long series of measurements, for example, that as the harbor
of Plymouth, England, kept getting muddier, the crabs which lived in it
kept getting narrower; those with the greatest frontal breadth filtered
the water entering their gills least effectively, and died.
But, it was objected, man is above all this. He has gained the control
of his own environment. The bloody hand of natural selection may fall on
crabs: but surely you would not have us think that Man, the Lord of
Creation, shares the same fate?
Biologists could hardly think otherwise. Statisticians were able to
supply the needed proof. A selective death-rate in man can not only be
demonstrated but it can be actually measured.
"The measure of the selective death-rate." says[53] Karl Pearson, to
whom this achievement is due, "is extraordinarily simple. It consists in
the fact that the inheritance of the length of life between parent and
offspring is found statistically to be about one-third of the average
inheritance of physical characters in man. This can only be due to the
fact that the death of parent or of offspring in a certain number of
cases is due to random and not to constitutional causes." He arrived at
the conclusion[54] that 60% of the deaths were selective, in the Quaker
families which he was then studying. The exact proportion must vary in
accordance with the nature of the material and the environment, but as
A. Ploetz found at least 60% of the deaths to be selective in the
European royal families and nobility, where the environment is
uniformly good, there is no reason to think that Professor Pearson's
conclusion is invalid.
Dr. Ploetz[55] investigated the relation between length of life in
parents, and infant mortality, in about 1,000 families including 5,500
children; half of these were from the nobility and half from the
peasantry. The results were of the same order in each case, indicating
that environment is a much less important factor than many have been
wont to suppose. After discussing Professor Pearson's work, he
continued:
It seems to me that a simpler result can be reached from our
material in the following way. Since the greater child-mortality of
each of our classes of children (divided according to the ages at
death of their parents) indicates a higher mortality throughout the
rest of their lives, the offspring of parents who die young will
therefore be eliminated in a higher degree, that is, removed from
the composition of the race, than will those whose parents died
late. Now the elimination can be non-selective, falling on all
sorts of constitutions with the same frequency and degree. In that
case it will of course have no connection with selection inside the
race. Or it may be of a selective nature, falling on its victims
because they differ from those who are not selected, in a way that
makes them less capable of resisting the pressure of the
environment, and avoiding its dangers. Then we speak of a selective
process, of the elimination of the weaker and the survival of the
stronger. Since in our examination of the various causes of the
difference in infant mortality, in the various age-classes of
parents, we found no sufficient cause in the effects of the
environment, which necessarily contains all the non-selective
perils, but found the cause to be in the different constitutions
inherited by the children, we can not escape the conclusion that
the differences in infant mortality which we observe indicate a
strong process of natural selection.
Our tables also permit us to get an approximate idea of the extent
of selection by death among children in the first five years of
life. The minimum of infant mortality is reached among those
children whose parents have attained 85 years of age. Since these
represent the strongest constitutions, the mortality of their
children would appear to represent an absolute minimum, made up
almost wholly of chance, non-selective, unavoidable deaths. As the
number of children from marriages, both parties to which reached
85 years of age, is so small as to render any safe conclusions
impossible, our only recourse is to take the children of the
85-year-old fathers and the children of the 85-year-old mothers,
add them together, and strike an average. But we must recognize
that the minimum so obtained is nevertheless still too large,
because among the consorts of the long-lived fathers and mothers,
some died early with the result of increasing the infant mortality.
The infant mortality with the 85-year-old fathers and mothers is
found to be 11.2%-15.4%, average about 13%. The total
child-mortality reaches 31-32%, of which the 13% make about 40%.
Accordingly at least 60%, and considering the above mentioned
sources of error we may say two-thirds, of the child mortality is
selective in character. That accords reasonably well with the
55-74% which Pearson found for the extent of selective deaths in
his study.
In general, then, one may believe that more than a half of the persons
who die nowadays, die because they were not fit by by nature (i. e.,
heredity) to survive under the conditions into which they were born.
They are the victims of lethal natural selection, nearly always of the
non-sustentative type. As Karl Pearson says, "Every man who has lived
through a hard winter, every man who has examined a mortality table,
every man who has studied the history of nations has probably seen
natural selection at work."
There is still another graphic way of seeing natural selection at work,
by an examination of the infant mortality alone. Imagine a thousand
babies coming into the world on a given day. It is known that under
average American conditions more than one-tenth of them will die during
the first year of life. Now if those who die at this time are the
inherently weaker, then the death-rate among survivors ought to be
correspondingly less during succeeding years, for many will have been
cut down at once, who might otherwise have lingered for several years,
although doomed to die before maturity. On the other hand, if only a few
die during the first year, one might expect a proportionately greater
number to die in succeeding years. If it is actually found that a high
death-rate in the first year of life is associated with a low
death-rate in succeeding years, then there will be grounds for believing
that natural selection is really cutting off the weaker and allowing the
stronger to survive.
E. C. Snow[56] analyzed the infant mortality registration of parts of
England and Prussia to determine whether any such conclusion was
justified. His investigation met with many difficulties, and his results
are not as clear-cut as could be desired, but he felt justified in
concluding from them that "the general result can not be questioned.
Natural selection, in the form of a selective death-rate, is strongly
operative in man in the early years of life. We assert with great
confidence that a high mortality in infancy (the first two years of
life) is followed by a correspondingly low mortality in childhood, and
vice-versa.... Our work has led us to the conclusion that infant
mortality _does_ effect a 'weeding out' of the unfit."
"Unfitness" in this connection must not be interpreted too narrowly. A
child may be "unfit" to survive in its environment, merely because its
parents are ignorant and careless. Such unfitness makes more probable an
inheritance of low intelligence.
Evidence of natural selection was gathered by Karl Pearson from another
source and published in 1912. He dealt with material analogous to that
of Dr. Snow and showed "that when allowance was made for change of
environment in the course of 50 years, a very high association existed
between the deaths in the first year of life and the deaths in childhood
(1 to 5 years). This association was such that if the infantile
death-rate _increased_ by 10% the child death rate _decreased_ by 5.3%
in males, while in females the _fall_ in the child death-rate was almost
1% for every 1% _rise_ in the infantile death-rate."
To put the matter in the form of a truism, part of the children born in
any district in a given year are doomed by heredity to a premature
death; and if they die in one year they will not be alive to die in some
succeeding year.
Lately a new mathematical method, which is termed the Variate Difference
Correlation method, has been invented and gives more accurate results,
in such an investigation as that of natural selection, than any hitherto
used. With this instrument Professor Pearson and Miss Elderton have
confirmed the previous work. Applying it to the registered births in
England and Wales between 1850 and 1912, and the deaths during the first
five years of life in the same period, they have again found[57] that
"for both sexes a heavy death-rate in one year of life means a markedly
lower death-rate in the same group in the following year of life." This
lessened death-rate extends in a lessened degree to the year following
that, but is not by the present method easy to trace further.
"It is difficult," as they conclude, "to believe that this important
fact can be due to any other source than natural selection, i. e., a
heavy mortality leaves behind it a stronger population."
To avoid misunderstandings, it may be well to add to this review the
closing words of the Elderton-Pearson memoir. "Nature is not concerned
with the moral or the immoral, which are standards of human conduct, and
the duty of the naturalist is to point out what goes on in Nature. There
can now be scarcely a doubt that even in highly organized human
communities the death-rate is selective, and physical fitness is the
criterion for survival. To assert the existence of this selection and
measure its intensity must be distinguished from an advocacy of high
infant mortality as a factor of racial efficiency. This reminder is the
more needful as there are not wanting those who assert that
demonstrating the existence of natural selection in man is identical
with decrying all efforts to reduce the infantile death-rate." A further
discussion of this point will be found in a later chapter.
The conclusion that, of the infants who die, a large number do so
through inherent weakness--because they are not "fit" to survive--is
also suggested by a study of the causes of death. From a third to a half
of the deaths during the first year of life, and particularly during the
first month, are due to what may be termed uterine causes, such as
debility, atrophy, inanition, or premature birth. Although in many
cases such a death is the result of lack of prenatal care, in still more
it must be ascribed to a defect in the parental stock.
In connection with infant mortality, it may be of interest to point out
that the intensity of natural selection is probably greater among boys
than among girls. There is a steady preponderance of boys over girls at
birth (about 105 to 100, in the United States), while among the
stillborn the proportion is 158 to 100, if the Massachusetts figures for
1891-1900 may be taken as general in application. Evidently a large
number of weak males have been eliminated before birth. This elimination
continues for a number of years to be greater among boys than among
girls, until in the period of adolescence the death-rates of the two
sexes are equal. In adult life the death-rate among men is nearly always
higher than that among women, but this is due largely to the fact that
men pursue occupations where they are more exposed to death. In such
cases, and particularly where deaths are due to accident, the mortality
may not only be non-selective, but is sometimes contra-selective, for
the strongest and most active men will often be those who expose
themselves most to some danger. Such a reversal of the action of natural
selection is seen on a large scale in the case of war, where the
strongest go to the fray and are killed, while the weaklings stay at
home to perpetuate _their_ type of the race.
A curious aspect of the kind of natural selection under
consideration,--that which operates by death without reference to the
food-supply,--is seen in the evolution of a wide pelvis in women. Before
the days of modern obstetrics, the woman born with an unusually narrow
pelvis was likely to die during parturition, and the inheritance of a
narrower type of pelvis was thus stopped. With the introduction and
improvement of instrumental and induced deliveries, many of these women
are enabled to survive, with the necessary consequence that their
daughters will in many cases have a similarly narrow pelvis, and
experience similar difficulty in childbirth. The percentage of
deliveries in which instrumental aid is necessary is thus increasing
from generation to generation, and is likely to continue to increase
for some time. In other words, natural selection, because of man's
interference, can no longer maintain the width of woman's pelvis, as it
formerly did, and a certain amount of reversion in this respect is
probably taking place--a reversion which, if unchecked, would
necessarily lead after a long time to a reduction in the average size of
skull of that part of the human race which frequently uses forceps at
childbirth. The time would be long because the forceps permit the
survival of some large-headed infants who otherwise would die.
But it must not be supposed that lethal, non-sustentative selection
works only through forms of infant mortality. That aspect was first
discussed because it is most obvious, but the relation of natural
selection to microbic disease is equally widespread and far more
striking.
As to the inheritance of disease as such there is little room for
misunderstanding: no biologist now believes a disease is actually handed
down from parent to child in the germ-plasm. But what the doctors call a
diathesis, a predisposition to some given disease, is most certainly
heritable--a fact which Karl Pearson and others have proved by
statistics that can not be given here.[58] And any individual who has
inherited this diathesis, this lack of resistance to a given disease, is
marked as a possible victim of natural selection. The extent to which
and the manner in which it operates may be more readily understood by
the study of a concrete case. Tuberculosis is, as everyone knows, a
disease caused directly by a bacillus; and a disease to which immunity
can not be acquired by any process of vaccination or inoculation yet
known. It is a disease which is not directly inherited as such. Yet
every city-dweller in the United States is almost constantly exposed to
infection by this bacillus, and autopsies show that most persons have
actually been infected at some period of life, but have resisted
further encroachment. Perhaps a fraction of them will eventually die of
consumption; the rest will die of some other disease, and will probably
never even know that they have carried the bacilli of tuberculosis in
their lungs.
Of a group of men picked at random from the population, why will some
eventually die of tuberculosis and the others resist infection? Is it a
matter of environment?--are open-air schools, sanitary tenements, proper
hygiene, the kind of measures that will change this condition? Such is
the doctrine widely preached at the present day. It is alleged that the
white plague may be stamped out, if the open cases of tuberculosis are
isolated and the rest of the population is taught how to live properly.
The problem is almost universally declared to be a problem of infection.
Infection certainly is the immediate problem, but the biologist sees a
greater one a little farther back. It is the problem of natural
selection.
To prove this, it is necessary to prove (1) that some people are born
with less resistance to tuberculosis than others and (2) that it is
these people with weak natural resistance who die of phthisis, while
their neighbors with stronger resistance survive. The proof of these
propositions has been abundantly given by Karl Pearson, G. Archdall Reid
and others. Their main points may be indicated. In the first place it
must be shown that the morbidity from tuberculosis is largely due to
heredity--a point on which most medical men are still uninformed.
Measurement of the direct correlation between phthisis in parent and
child shows it to be about .5, i. e., what one expects if it is a matter
of heredity. This is the coefficient for most physical and mental
characters: it is the coefficient for such pathological traits as
deafness and insanity, which are obviously due in most cases to
inheritance rather than infection.
But, one objects, this high correlation between parent and child does
not prove inheritance,--it obviously proves infection. The family
relations are so intimate that it is folly to overlook this factor in
the spread of the disease.
Very well, Professor Pearson replied, if the relations between parent
and child are so intimate that they lead to infection, they are
certainly not less intimate between husband and wife, and there ought to
be just as much infection in this relationship as in the former. The
correlation was measured in thousands of cases and was found to lie
around .25, being lowest in the poorer classes and highest in the
well-to-do classes.
At first glance this seems partly to confirm the objection--it looks as
if there must be a considerable amount of tubercular infection between
husband and wife. But when it is found that the resemblance between
husband and wife in the matter of insanity is also .25, the objection
becomes less formidable. Certainly it will hardly be argued that one of
the partners infects the other with this disability.
As a fact, a correlation of .25 between husband and wife, for
tuberculosis, is only partly due to infection. What it does mean is that
like tends to mate with like--called assortative mating. This
coefficient of resemblance between husband and wife in regard to
phthisis is about the same as the correlation of resemblance between
husband and wife for eye color, stature, longevity, general health,
truthfulness, tone of voice, and many other characters. No one will
suppose that life partners "infect" each other in these respects.
Certainly no one will claim that a man deliberately selects a wife on
the basis of resemblance to himself in these points; but he most
certainly does so to some extent unconsciously, as will be described at
greater length in Chapter XI. Assortative mating is a well-established
fact, and there is every reason to believe that much of the resemblance
between husband and wife as regards tuberculosis is due to this fact,
and not to infection.[59]
Again, it is objected that the infection of children is not a family
matter, but due to tuberculous cows' milk: how then does it appear
equally among the Japanese, where cows are not tuberculous and cow's
milk rarely used as an infant food: or among such people as the
Esquimaux and Polynesians, who have never seen a cow?
But, it is argued, at any rate bad housing and unsanitary conditions of
life will make infection easier and lower the resistance of the
individual. Perhaps such conditions may make infection easier, but that
is of little importance considering how easy it is for all city
dwellers--for the population as a whole. The question remains, will not
bad housing cause a greater liability to fatal phthisis? Will not
destitution and its attendant conditions increase the probability that a
given individual will succumb to the white plague?
Most physicians think this to be the case, but they have not taken the
pains to measure the respective rôles, by the exact methods of modern
science. S. Adolphus Knopf of New York, an authority on tuberculosis,
recognizes the importance of the heredity factor, but says that after
this, the most important predisposing conditions are of the nature of
unsanitary schools, unsanitary tenements, unsanitary factories and
workshops. This may be very true; these conditions may follow after
heredity in importance--but how near do they follow? That is a matter
capable of fairly accurate measurement, and should be discussed with
figures, not generalities.
Taking the case of destitution, which includes, necessarily, most of the
other evils specified, Professor Pearson measured the correlation with
liability to phthisis and found it to be .02. The correlation for direct
heredity--that is, the resemblance between parent and offspring--it will
be remembered, is .50. As compared with this, the environmental factor
of .02 is utterly insignificant. It seems evident that whether or not
one dies from tuberculosis, under present-day urban conditions, depends
mainly on the kind of constitution one has inherited.
There is no escape, then, from the conclusion that in any individual,
death from tuberculosis is largely a matter of natural selection. But
by taking a longer view, one can actually see the change to which
natural selection is one of the contributors. The following table shows
the deaths from consumption in Massachusetts, per 10,000 population:
1851-60 39.9
1861-70 34.9
1871-80 32.7
1881-90 29.2
1891-1900 21.4
1901 17.5
1902 15.9
F. L. Hoffman further points out[60] that in Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
and Connecticut, 1872-1911, the decline in the death-rate from
tuberculosis has been about 50%. "The evidence is absolutely conclusive
that actually as well as relatively, the mortality from tuberculosis in
what is the most intensely industrial area of America has progressively
diminished during the last 40 years."
It will be noted that the great increase in death from consumption in
this area began in the decade following 1840, when the large Irish
immigration began. The Irish are commonly believed to be particularly
susceptible to phthisis. Crowded together in industrial conditions, they
rapidly underwent infection, and their weak racial resistance led to a
high death-rate. The weak lines of heredity were rapidly cut off; in
other words, the intensity of natural selection was great, for a while.
The result was to leave the population of these New England states much
more resistant, on the average, than it was before; and as the Irish
immigration soon slowed down, and no new stocks with great weakness
arrived, tuberculosis naturally tended to "burn itself out." This seems
to be a partial explanation of the decline in the death-rate from
phthisis in New England during the last half century, although it is not
suggested that it represents the complete explanation: improved methods
of treatment and sanitation doubtless played their part. But that they
are the sole cause of the decline is made highly improbable by the low
correlation between phthisis and environmental factors, which was
mentioned above, and by all the other biometric study of tuberculosis,
which has proved that the results ascribed to hygiene, including
sanitorium treatment, are to some degree illusory.
That tuberculosis is particularly fatal to the Negro race is well known.
Even to-day, after several centuries of natural selection in the United
States, the annual death-rate from consumption among Negroes in the
registration area is 431.9 per 100,000 population (census of 1900) as
compared with 170.5 for the whites; in the cities alone it is 471.0.
That overcrowding and climate can not be the sole factors is indicated
by the fact that the Negro race has been decimated, wherever it has met
tuberculosis. "In the years 1803 and 1810 the British government
imported three or four thousand Negroes from Mozambique into Ceylon to
form into regiments, and of these in December, 1820, there were left
just 440, including the male descendants. All the rest had perished
mainly from tuberculosis, and in a country where the disease is not
nearly so prevalent as in England."[61] Archdall Reid has pointed
out[62] that the American, Polynesian and Australian aborigines, to whom
tuberculosis was unknown before the advent of Europeans, and who had
therefore never been selected against it, could not survive its advent:
they were killed by much smaller infections than would have injured a
European, whose stock has been purged by centuries of natural selection.
These racial histories are the most important evidence available to the
student of natural selection in man. The conclusion to be drawn from
them seems plain. Natural selection, which has in the past never had an
opportunity to act upon the Negro race through tuberculosis, is now
engaged in hastening, at a relatively rapid rate, the evolution of this
race toward immunity from death by tuberculosis. The evolution of the
white race on this line is, as the figures show, going on
simultaneously, but having begun centuries earlier, it is not now so
rapid. The weakest white stocks were cut off hundreds of years ago, in
Great Britain or Europe; those of the black race are only now going.
Despite all the efforts of medicine and sanitation, it is likely that
the Negro death-rate from phthisis will continue high for some years,
until what is left of the race will possess a degree of resistance, or
immunity, not much inferior to that of the whites among whom they live.
The blacks in North America now must be already more resistant than
their ancestors; the mulattoes descended of normal healthy unions should
be more resistant than the pure Negroes, although no statistics are
available on the point; but were a new immigration to take place from
Africa to-day, and the immigrants to be put into villages with their
Americanized brethren, the high death-rate would result.
While the Negroes were thus undergoing the radical surgery of natural
selection, what was happening to the aborigines of America? The answer
of history is unmistakable; they were meeting the same fate, in an even
more violent form. Not tuberculosis alone, but small-pox, measles,
alcohol and a dozen other importations of the conquerors, found in the
aborigines of the New World a stock which had never been selected
against these diseases.
It is the custom of sentimentalists sometimes to talk as if the North
American Indian had been killed off by the white man. So he was,--but
not directly: he was killed off by natural selection, acting through the
white man's diseases and narcotics. In 1841 Catlin wrote, "Thirty
millions of white men are now scuffling for the goods and luxuries of
life over the bones of twelve millions of red men, six millions of whom
have fallen victims to small-pox." Small-pox is an old story to the
white race, and the death of the least resistant strains in each
generation has left a population that is fairly resistant. It was new to
the natives of America, and history shows the result. Alcohol, too,
counted its victims by the thousand, for the same reason. The process of
natural selection among the North American Indians has not yet stopped;
if there are a century from now any Indians left, they will of
necessity belong to stocks which are relatively resistant to alcohol and
tuberculosis and the other widespread and fatal diseases which were
unknown upon this continent before Columbus.
The decrease of natives following the Spanish conquest of tropical
America has long been one of the most striking events of history.
Popular historians sometimes speak as if most of the native population
had been killed off by the cruelty of the conquistadores. Surely such
talk could not proceed from those who are familiar with the action of
natural selection. It is obvious that when the Spaniard brought the
natives together, making them work in mines and assemble in churches, he
brought them under conditions especially favorable for infection by the
new diseases which he had brought. The aborigines of the New World, up
to the time the Spaniards came, had undergone no evolution whatever
against these diseases; consequently the evolution began at so rapid a
rate that in a few centuries only those who lived in out-of-the-way
places remain unscathed.
The same story is repeated, in a survey of the history of the Pacific
Islands. Even such a disease as whooping-cough carried off adults by the
hundred. Robert Louis Stevenson has left a graphic picture[63] of
natural selection at work:
"The tribe of Hapaa," he writes, "is said to have numbered some four
hundred when the small-pox came and reduced them by one-fourth. Six
months later a woman developed tubercular consumption; the disease
spread like fire about the valley, and in less than a year two
survivors, a man and a woman, fled from the newly-created solitude....
Early in the year of my visit, for example, or late the year before, the
first case of phthisis appeared in a household of 17 persons, and by the
end of August, when the tale was told me, one soul survived, a boy who
had been absent at his schooling."
In Tasmania is another good illustration of the evolution of a race
proceeding so rapidly as to be fatal to the race. When the first
English settled on the island, in 1803, the native population consisted
of several thousand. Tuberculosis and many other new diseases, and, most
of all, alcohol, began to operate on the aborigines, who were attracted
to the settlements of the whites. In a quarter of a century there were
only a few hundred left. Many, of course, had met violent deaths, but an
enlightened perusal of any history of the period,[64] will leave no
doubt that natural selection by disease was responsible for most of the
mortality. By 1847 the number of native Tasmanians was reduced to 44,
who were already unmistakably doomed by alcohol and bacteria. When the
last full-blood Tasmanian died in 1876, a new chapter was written in the
story of the modern evolution of the human race.
No such stories are told about the white settlements on this continent,
even before the days of quarantine and scientific medicine. There is no
other adequate explanation of the difference, than that the two races
have evolved to a different degree in their resistance to these
diseases. It is easily seen, then, that man's evolution is going on, at
varying rates of speed, in probably all parts of the human race at the
present time.
We do not mean, of course, to suggest that all the natives who have died
in the New World since the landing of Columbus, have died because the
evolution of their race had not proceeded so far in certain directions
as had that of their conquerors. But the proportion of them who were
eliminated for that reason is certainly very large. In the more remote
parts of South America the process is still going on. Recent press
dispatches have carried the account of the University of Pennsylvania's
Amazon Expedition, under the direction of William C. Farrabee. In a
letter dated March 16, 1916, the leader told of the discovery of the
remains of the tribe of Pikipitanges, a once populous tribe of which a
chief, six women and two boys alone are left. The tribe had been almost
wiped out, Dr. Farabee reported, by an epidemic of _influenza_!
If the aborigines of the New World succumb to the diseases of the
European, it is not less true that the European succumbs to diseases
against which his race has not been selected. The deadliness of yellow
fever to Americans in the tropics, and the relative immunity of Negroes,
is familiar; so too is the frequently fatal result of the African
tropical fevers on the white man, while the natives suffer from them
much less, having been made more resistant by centuries of natural
selection.
This long discussion may now be summarized. We dealt with lethal
selection, that form of natural selection which operates by prematurely
killing off the less fit and leaving the more fit to survive and
reproduce their kind. It is of course understood that the word "fit" in
this connection does not necessarily mean morally or mentally superior,
but merely fit for the particular environment. In a community of
rascals, the greatest rascal might be the fittest to survive. In the
slums of a modern city the Jewish type, stringently selected through
centuries of ghetto life, is particularly fit to survive, although it
may not be the physical ideal of an anthropologist.
Two forms of lethal selection were distinguished, one depending on
starvation and the other on causes not connected with the food supply.
Direct starvation is not a factor of importance in the survival of most
races during most of the time at the present day so far as the civilized
portion of the world is concerned. But disease and the other lethal
factors not connected with the food-supply, through which natural
selection acts, are still of great importance. From a half to two-thirds
of all deaths are of a selective character, even under favorable
conditions.
It is also to be noted, however, that with the progress of medicine, and
the diminution of unfit material, this kind of natural selection will
tend to become less and less widespread. For a long time, natural
selection in man has probably done little to cause marked change in his
physical or mental characteristics. Man's interference has prevented. In
recent centuries natural selection has probably done no more on the
whole than keep the race where it was: it is to be feared that it has
not even done that. It is doubtful if there is any race to-day which
attains the physical and mental average of the Athenians of 2,500 years
ago.
Lethal natural selection, then, has been and still is a factor of great
importance in the evolution of the race, but at present it is doing
little or nothing that promises to further the ideal of eugenics--race
betterment.
But lethal natural selection is only half the story. It is obvious that
if the constitution of a race can be altered by excess of deaths in a
certain class, it can equally be altered by excess of births in a
certain class. This is reproductive selection, which may appear in
either one of two forms. If the individual leaves few or no progeny
because of his failure to mate at the proper time, it is called sexual
selection; if, however, he mates, yet leaves few or no progeny (as
compared with other individuals), it is called fecundal selection.
Even in man, the importance of the rôle of reproductive selection is
insufficiently understood; in the lower animals scientists have tended
still more to undervalue it. As a fact, no species ordinarily multiplies
in such numbers as to exhaust all the food available, despite the
teaching of Malthus and Darwin to the contrary. The rate of reproduction
is the crux of natural selection; each species normally has such a
reproduction rate as will suffice to withstand the premature deaths and
sterility of some individuals, and yet not so large as to press unduly
upon the food supply. The problem of natural selection is a problem of
the adjustment between reproductive rate and death-rate, and the
struggle for subsistence is only one of several factors.
While the reproductive rate must be looked upon as a characteristic
which has its adaptations like other characteristics, it has one
peculiarity--its increase is always opposed by lethal selection. The
chances of life are reduced by reproducing, inasmuch as more danger is
entailed by the extra activities of courtship, and later, in bearing and
caring for the young, since these duties reduce the normal wariness of
individual life. The reproductive rate, therefore, always remains at the
lowest point which will suffice for the reproductive needs of the
species. For this reason alone the non-sustentative form of selection
might be expected to be the predominant kind.
J. T. Gulick and Karl Pearson have pointed out that there is a normal
conflict between natural selection and fecundal selection. Fecundal
selection is said by them to be constantly tending to increase the
reproductive rate, because fecundity is partly a matter of heredity, and
the fecund parents leave more offspring with the same characteristic.
Lethal selection, on the contrary, constantly asserts its power to
reduce the reproductive rate, because the reproductive demands on the
parents reduce their chances of life by interference with their natural
ability of self-protection. This is quite true, but the analysis is
incomplete, for an increased number of progeny not only decreases the
life chances of the parents, but also of the young, by reducing the
amount of care they receive.
In short, lethal selection and reproductive selection accomplish the
same end--a change in the constitution of the species--by different
means; but they are so closely linked together and balanced that any
change in the operation of one is likely to cause a change in the
operation of the other. This will be clearer when the effect of
reproductive selection is studied in man.
Recalling the truism that most human characters have a hereditary basis,
it is evident that the constitution of society will remain stable from
generation to generation, only if each section of society is reproducing
at the same rate as every other (and assuming, for the moment, that the
death-rate remains constant). Then if the birth-rate of one part of the
population is altered, if it is decreased, for example, the next
generation will contain proportionately fewer representatives of this
class, the succeeding generation fewer still, and so on
indefinitely--unless a selective death-rate is operating at the same
time. It is well known not only that the death-rate varies widely in
different parts of the population, as was pointed out in the earlier
part of this chapter, but that the birth-rate is rarely the same in any
two sections of the population. Evidently, therefore, the make-up of
society must necessarily be changing from generation to generation. It
will be the object of the rest of this chapter to investigate the ways
in which it is changing, while in the latter half of the book we shall
point out some of the ways in which it might be changed to better
advantage than it is at present.
Sexual selection, or differential success in marrying, will be discussed
at some length in Chapter XI; here it may be pointed out that the number
who fail to marry is very much greater than one often realizes. It has
already been noted that a large part of the population dies before it
reaches the age of marriage. Of 1,000 babies born in the United States,
only 750 will reach the average age of marriage; in some countries half
of the thousand will have fallen by that time. These dead certainly will
leave no descendants; but even of the survivors, part will fail to
marry. The returns of the thirteenth U. S. census showed that of the
males 45-64 years of age, 10% were single, while 11% of the females,
35-44 years old, were single. Few marriages will take place after those
ages. Add the number who died unmarried previous to those ages, but
after the age of 20, and it is safe to say that at least one-third of
the persons born in the United States die (early or late) without having
married.
The consideration of those who died before the age of marriage properly
comes under the head of lethal selection, but if attention is confined
to those who, though reaching the age of marriage, fail to marry, sexual
selection still has importance. For instance, it is generally known (and
some statistical proof will be given in Chapter XI) that beauty is
directly associated with the chance of marriage. The pretty girls in
general marry earlier as well in larger percentage; many of the ugly
ones will never find mates. Herbert Spencer argued ingeniously that
beauty is associated with general mental and moral superiority, and the
more exact studies of recent years have tended to confirm his
generalization. A recent, but not conclusive, investigation[65] showed
beauty to be correlated with intelligence to the extent of .34. If this
is confirmed, it offers a good illustration of the action of sexual
selection in furthering the progressive evolution of the race. Miss
Gilmore, studying a group of normal school graduates, found a direct
correlation between intelligence (as judged by class marks) and early
marriage after graduation. Anyone who would take the trouble could
easily investigate numerous cases of this sort, which would show the
effect of sexual selection in perpetuating desirable qualities.
But sexual selection no longer has the importance that it once had, for
nowadays the mere fact of marriage is not a measure of fecundity, to the
extent that it once was. In the old days of unlimited fecundity, the
early marriage of a beautiful, or intelligent, woman meant a probable
perpetuation of her endowments; but at present, when artificial
restraint of fertility is so widespread, the result does not follow as a
matter of course: and it is evident that the race is little or not at
all helped by the early marriage of an attractive woman, if she has too
few or no children.
Fecundal selection, then, is becoming the important phase of
reproductive selection, in the evolution of civilized races. The
differential birth-rate is, as we have often insisted, the all-important
factor of eugenics, and it merits careful consideration from all sides.
Such consideration is made difficult by the inadequate vital statistics
of the United States (which ranks with Turkey and China in this
respect); but there is no doubt that the birth-rate as a whole is low,
as compared with that of other countries; although as a whole it is not
dangerously low and there is, of course, no necessary evil in a low
birth-rate, of itself, if the quality be satisfactory. The U. S. Census
tabulation for 1915 gives the following comparison of the number of
babies born alive each year, per 1,000 population, in various countries:
Russia in Europe (1909) 44.0
Japan (1911) 34.1
Italy (1913) 31.7
Austria (1912) 31.3
Spain (1913) 30.4
Austria (1913) 28.3
German Empire (1912) 28.3
Holland (1913) 28.1
Denmark (1913) 25.6
Norway (1913) 25.3
United States (registration area only, 1915) 24.9
England and Wales (1913) 24.1
Sweden (1912) 23.8
Switzerland (1913) 23.1
Belgium (1912) 22.6
France (1912) 19.0
The United States birth-rate may, on its face, appear high enough; but
its face does not show that this height is due largely to the fecundity
of immigrant women. Statistics to prove this are given in Chapter XIII,
but may be supplemented here by some figures from Pittsburgh.
Ward 7, in that city, contains the homes of many well-to-do, and
contains more representatives of the old American stock than any other
ward in the city, having 56.4% of residents who are native born of
native parents while the majority of the residents in nearly all the
other wards in the city are either themselves foreign-born, or the
offspring of foreign-born parents.
Ward 7 has the lowest birth-rate and the lowest rate of net increase of
any ward in the city.
With this may be contrasted the sixth ward, which runs along the south
bank of the Allegheny river. It is one of the great factory districts of
the city, but also contains a large number of homes. Nearly 3,000 of its
14,817 males of voting age are illiterate. Its death-rate is the highest
in the city. Almost nine-tenths of its residents are either foreigners
or the children of foreigners. Its birth-rate is three times that of the
seventh ward.
Taking into account all the wards of the city, it is found that the
birth-rate _rises_ as one considers the wards which are marked by a
large foreign population, illiteracy, poverty and a high death-rate. On
the other hand, the birth-rate _falls_ as one passes to the wards that
have most native-born residents, most education, most prosperity--and,
to some extent, education and prosperity denote efficiency and eugenic
value. For 27 wards there is a high negative correlation (-.673),
between birth-rate and percentage of native-born of native parents in
the population. The correlation between illiteracy and net increase[66]
is +.731.
The net increase of Pittsburgh's population, therefore, is greatest
where the percentage of foreign-born and of illiterates is greatest.
The significance of such figures in natural selection must be evident.
Pittsburgh, like probably all large cities in civilized countries,
breeds from the bottom. The lower a class is in the scale of
intelligence, the greater is its reproductive contribution. Recalling
that intelligence is inherited, that like begets like in this respect,
one can hardly feel encouraged over the quality of the population of
Pittsburgh, a few generations hence.
Of course these illiterate foreign laborers are, from a eugenic point of
view, not wholly bad. The picture should not be painted any blacker than
the original. Some of these ignorant stocks, in another generation and
with decent surroundings, will furnish excellent citizens.
But taken as a whole, it can hardly be supposed that the fecund stocks
of Pittsburgh, with their illiteracy, squalor and tuberculosis, their
high death-rates, their economic straits, are as good eugenic material
as the families that are dying out in the more substantial residence
section which their fathers created in the eastern part of the city.
And it can hardly be supposed that the city, and the nation, of the
future, would not benefit by a change in the distribution of births,
whereby more would come from the seventh ward and its like, and fewer
from the sixth and its like.
Evidently, there is no difficulty about seeing this form of natural
selection at work, and at work in such a way as greatly to change the
character of one section of the species. For comparison, some figures
are presented from European sources. In the French war budget of 1911 it
appears that from 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 50, in
different districts of Paris, the number of yearly births was as
follows:
Very poor 108
Poor 99
Well-to-do 72
Very prosperous 65
Rich 53
Very rich 35
Disregarding the last class altogether, it is yet evident that while the
mother in a wealthy home bears two children, the mother in the slums
bears four. It is evident then that in Paris at the present time
reproductive selection is changing the mental and moral composition of
the population at a rapid rate, which can not be very materially reduced
even if it is found that the death-rate in the poorer districts is
considerably greater than it is on the more fashionable boulevards.
J. Bertillon has brought together[67] in a similar way data from a
number of cities, showing the following birth-rates:
_Berlin_ _Vienna_ _London_
Very poor quarters 157 200 147
Poor quarters 129 164 140
Comfortable quarters 114 155 107
Very comfortable 96 153 107
Rich 63 107 87
Very rich 47 81 63
--- --- ---
Average 102 153 109
Obviously, in all these cases reproductive selection will soon bring
about such a change in the character of the population, that a much
larger part of it than at present will have the hereditary
characteristics of the poorer classes and a much smaller part of it than
at present the hereditary characteristics of the well-to-do classes.
David Heron and others have recently studied[68] the relation which the
birth-rate in different boroughs of London bears to their social and
economic conditions. Using the correlation method, they found "that in
London the birth-rate per 1,000 married women, aged 15 to 54, is
highest where the conditions show the greatest poverty--namely, in
quarters where pawnbrokers abound, where unskilled labor is the
principal source of income, where consumption is most common and most
deadly, where pauperism is most rife, and, finally, where the greatest
proportion of the children born die in infancy. The correlation
coefficients show that the association of these evil conditions with the
relative number of children born is a very close one; and if the
question is put in another way, and the calculations are based on
measures of prosperity instead of on measures of poverty, a high degree
of correlation is found between prosperity and a low birth-rate.
"It must not be supposed that a high rate of infant mortality, which
almost invariably accompanies a high birth-rate, either in London or
elsewhere, goes far toward counteracting the effects of the differential
birth-rate. Where infant mortality is highest the average number of
children above the age of two for each married woman is highest also,
and although the chances of death at all ages are greater among the
inhabitants of the poorer quarters, their rate of natural increase
remains considerably higher than that of the inhabitants of the richer.
"From the detailed study of the figures made by Newsholme and Stevenson,
conclusions essentially the same as those of Heron can be drawn....
Their first step was to divide the London boroughs into six groups
according to the average number of domestic servants for 100 families in
each. This is probably as good a measure of prosperity as any other.
They then determined the total birth-rate of the population in each
group, and arrived at the following figures:
_Group_
I. 10 domestic servants for 100 families 34.97
II. 10-20 38.32
III. 20-30 25.99
IV. 30-40 25.83
V. 40-60 25.11
VI. Over 60 18.24
"In order to find out how far the differences shown by these figures are
due to differences in the percentage of women who marry in each group
and the age at which they marry, they corrected the figures in such a
way as to make them represent what the birth-rates would be in each
group, if the proportion of wives of each age to the whole population
comprising the group was the same as it is in the whole of England and
Wales. The corrected birth-rates thus obtained were as follows:
_Group_
I 31.56
II 25.82
III 25.63
IV 25.50
V 25.56
VI 20.45
"It will readily be seen that the effect of the correction has been to
reduce the difference between the two extreme groups by about one-third,
showing that to this extent it is due to the way in which they differ as
to the average age and number of the women who marry. Further, Groups
II, III, IV and V have all been brought to about the same level, with a
corrected birth-rate about halfway between the highest and the lowest.
This shows that there is no gradual decrease in fertility associated
with a gradually increasing grade of prosperity, but that three sharply
divided classes may be distinguished: a very poor class with a high
degree of fertility, to which about a quarter of the population of
London belong, a rich class with a low degree of fertility, and a class
intermediate in both respects."
"Eugenics is less directly concerned with this side of the question that
with the relative rate of increase of the different classes. This may be
found for the six groups in the usual way by deducting the death-rate
from the birth-rate. The following figures for the rate of natural
increase are then obtained:
_Group_
I 16.56
II 13.89
III 11.43
IV 13.81
V 10.29
VI 5.79
"The figures show in a manner which hardly admits of any doubt that in
London at any rate the inhabitants of the poorest quarters--over a
million in number--are reproducing themselves at a much greater rate
than the more well-to-do."
A research on similar lines by S. R. Steinmetz[69] in Holland shows that
the average number of children in the lowest class families is 5.44.
People in industry or small trade, skilled mechanics and professors of
theology have five children to the family; in other classes the number
is as follows:
Artists 4.30
Well-to-do Commercial Classes 4.27
High Officials 4.00
University Professors (excluding theological) 3.50
23 Scholars and Artists of the first rank 2.60
It is not hard to see that the next generation in Holland is likely to
have proportionately fewer gifted individuals than has the present one.
Fortunately, it is very probable that the differential birth-rate is not
of such ominous import in rural districts as it is in cities, although
some of the tribes of degenerates which live in the country show
birth-rates of four to six children per wife.[70] But in the more highly
civilized nations now, something like a half of the population lives in
urban districts, and the startling extent to which these urban
populations breed from the bottom involves a disastrous change in the
balance of population within a few generations, unless it is in some way
checked.
Just how great the change may be, statistically, has been emphasized by
Karl Pearson, who points out that "50% of the married population provide
75% of the next generation," owing to the number of deaths before
maturity, the number of celibates and the number of childless
marriages. "The same rule may be expressed in another way: 50% of the
next generation is produced by 25% of the married population." At this
rate in a few generations the less efficient and socially valuable, with
their large families, will overwhelm the more efficient and socially
valuable, and their small families.
Fecundal selection is at work to-day on a large scale, changing the
character of the population, and from a eugenic point of view changing
it for the worse. Fortunately, it is not impossible to arrest this
change.
But, it may be objected, is not this change merely "the survival of the
fittest?" In a sense, yes; and it is necessary that the more intelligent
classes should make themselves "fitter" to survive, by a change of
attitude toward reproduction. But the dying-out of the intellectually
superior part of the population is a pathological condition, not a part
of normal evolution; for barring artificial interference with the
birth-rate, fertility has been found to go hand in hand with general
superiority. This demonstration is due to F. A. Woods' study[71] of 608
members of the royal families of Europe, among whom, for reasons of
state, large families are desired, and among whom there has probably
been little restraint on the birth-rate. Averaging the ratings of his
individuals from grade 1, the mentally and physically very inferior, to
grade 10, the mentally and physically very superior, he found that the
number of children produced and brought to maturity increased in a
fairly direct ratio. His figures are as follows:
BOTH SEXES (AVERAGED)
Grades for virtues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Average number of
adult
children. 1.66 2.86 2.99 2.41 3.44 3.49 3.05 3.03 3.93 3.83
Investigations of Karl Pearson and Alexander Graham Bell[72] show that
fecundity and longevity are associated. It follows that the mentally
and morally superior, who are the most fecund, are also the
longest-lived; and as this longevity is largely due to inheritance it
follows that, under natural conditions, the standard of the stratum of
society under consideration would gradually rise, in respect to
longevity, in each generation.
Such is probably one of the methods by which the human race has
gradually increased its level of desirable characters in each
generation. The desirable characters were associated with each other,
and also with fecundity. The desirable characters are still associated
with each other, but their association with fecundity is now negative.
It is in this change that eugenics finds justification for its existence
as a propaganda. Its object is to restore the positive correlation
between desirable characters and fecundity, on which the progressive
evolution of the race depends.
The bearing of natural selection on the present-day evolution of the
human race, particularly in the United States of America, must be
reviewed in a few closing paragraphs.
Selection by death may result either from inadequate food supply, or
from some other lethal factor. The former type, although something of a
bugaboo ever since the time of Malthus, has in reality relatively little
effect on the human race at present. Non-sustentative lethal selection
in man is operating chiefly through zymotic diseases and the bad hygiene
of the mentally inferior.
Reproductive selection is increasingly effective and its action is such
as to cause grave alarm both through the failure of some to marry
properly (sexual selection) and the failure of some to bear enough
children, while others bear too many (fecundal selection). It is obvious
that the racial result of this process will depend on what kind of
people bear and rear the most children; and it has been shown that in
general the larger families are in the section of the population that
makes fewer contributions to human prosperity and happiness, while those
endowed with great gifts, who ought to be transmitting them to their
children, are in many cases not even reproducing their own number.
Natural selection raised man from apehood to his present estate. It is
still operating on him on a large scale, in several ways, but in none of
these ways is it now doing much actually to improve the race, and in
some ways, owing to man's own interference, it is rapidly hastening race
degeneracy.
CHAPTER VII
ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT
"Eugenics," wrote Francis Galton, who founded the science and coined the
name, "is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or
impair the racial qualities of future generations, either physically or
mentally." The definition is universally accepted, but by its use of the
word "study" it defines a pure science, and the present book is
concerned rather with the application of such a science. Accepting
Galton's definition, we shall for our purposes slightly extend it by
saying that applied eugenics embraces all such measures, in use or
prospect either individually or collectively, as may improve or impair
the racial qualities of future generations of man, either physically or
mentally, whether or not this was the avowed purpose.
It is one of the newest of sciences. It was practically forced into
existence by logical necessity. It is certainly here to stay, and it
demands the right to speak, in many cases to cast the deciding vote, on
some of the most important questions that confront society.
The science of eugenics is the natural result of the spread and
acceptance of organic evolution, following the publication of Darwin's
work on _The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection_, in 1859.
It took a generation for his ideas to win the day; but then they
revolutionized the intellectual life of the civilized world. Man came to
realize that the course of nature is regular; that the observed
sequences of events can be described in formulas which are called
natural laws; he learned that he could achieve great results in plant
and animal breeding by working in harmony with these laws. Then the
question logically arose, "Is not man himself subject to these same
laws? Can he not use his knowledge of them to improve his own species,
as he has been more or less consciously improving the plants and animals
that were of most value to him, for many centuries?"
The evolutionist answered both these questions affirmatively. However
great may be the superiority of his mind, man is first of all an animal,
subject to the natural laws that govern other animals. He can learn to
comply with these laws; he can, therefore, take an active share in
furthering the process of evolution toward a higher life.
That, briefly, is the scope of the science of eugenics, as its founder,
Sir Francis Galton, conceived it. "Now that this new animal, man, finds
himself somehow in existence, endowed with a little power and
intelligence," Galton wrote 30 years ago, "he ought, I submit, to awake
to a fuller knowledge of his relatively great position, and begin to
assume a deliberate part in furthering the great work of evolution. He
may infer the course it is bound to pursue, from his observation of that
which it has already followed, and he might devote his modicum of power,
intelligence and kindly feeling to render its future progress less slow
and painful. Man has already furthered evolution very considerably, half
consciously, and for his own personal advantages, but he has not yet
risen to the conviction that it is his religious duty to do so,
deliberately and systematically."
But, it may well be asked, how does this sudden need for eugenics arise,
when the world has gone along without it for hundreds of millions of
years in the past, and the human race has made the great ascent from an
ape-like condition in spite of the fact that such a science as eugenics
was never dreamed of?
For answer recall that natural selection, which is mainly responsible
for bringing man to his present situation, has worked chiefly through a
differential death-rate. The less fit die: the more fit survive. In the
earlier stages of society, man interfered little with natural selection.
But during the last century the increase of the philanthropic spirit and
the progress of medicine have done a great deal to interfere with the
selective process. In some ways, selection in the human race has almost
ceased; in many ways it is actually reversed, that is, it results in the
survival of the inferior rather than the superior. In the olden days the
criminal was summarily executed, the weakly child died soon after birth
through lack of proper care and medical attention, the insane were dealt
with so violently that if they were not killed by the treatment they
were at least left hopelessly "incurable" and had little chance of
becoming parents. Harsh measures, all of these, but they kept the
germ-plasm of the race reasonably purified.
To-day, how is it? The inefficients, the wastrels, the physical, mental,
and moral cripples are carefully preserved at public expense. The
criminal is turned out on parole after a few years, to become the father
of a family. The insane is discharged as "cured," again to take up the
duties of citizenship. The feeble-minded child is painfully "educated,"
often at the expense of his normal brother or sister. In short, the
undesirables of the race, with whom the bloody hand of natural selection
would have made short work early in life, are now nursed along to old
age.
Of course, one would not have it otherwise with respect to the
prolongation of life. To expose deformed children as the Spartans did
would outrage our moral sentiments; to chloroform the incurable is a
proposition that almost every one condemns.
But this philanthropic spirit, this zealous regard for the interests of
the unfortunate, which is rightly considered one of the highest
manifestations of Christian civilization, has in many cases benefited
the few at the expense of the many. The present generation, in making
its own life comfortable, is leaving a staggering bill to be paid by
posterity.
It is at this point that eugenics comes in and demands that a
distinction be made between the interests of the individual and the
interests of the race. It does not yield to any one in its solicitude
for the individual unfortunate; but it says, "His happiness in life does
not need to include leaving a family of children, inheritors of his
defects, who if they were able to think might curse him for begetting
them and curse society for allowing them to be born." And looking at the
other side of the problem, eugenics says to the young man and young
woman, "You should enjoy the greatest happiness that love can bring to
a life. But something more is expected of you than a selfish,
short-sighted indifference to all except yourselves in the world. When
you understand the relation of the individual to the race, you will find
your greatest happiness only in a marriage which will result in a family
of worthy children. You are temporarily a custodian of the inheritance
of the whole past; it is far more disgraceful for you to squander or
ruin this heritage, or to regard it as intended solely for your
individual, selfish gratification, than it would be for you to dissipate
a fortune in money which you had received, or to betray any trust which
had been confided to you by one of your fellow men."
Such is the teaching of eugenics. It is not wholly new. The early Greeks
gave much thought to it, and with the insight which characterized them,
they rightly put the emphasis on the constructive side; they sought to
breed better men and women, not merely to accomplish a work of hygiene,
to lessen taxes, and reduce suffering, by reducing the number of
unfortunates among them. As early as the first half of the sixth century
B. C. the Greek poet Theognis of Megara wrote: "We look for rams and
asses and stallions of good stock, and one believes that good will come
from good; yet a good man minds not to wed an evil daughter of an evil
sire, if he but give her much wealth.... Wealth confounds our stock.
Marvel not that the stock of our folk is tarnished, for the good is
mingling with the base." A century later eugenics was discussed in some
detail by Plato, who suggested that the state intervene to mate the best
with the best, and the worst with the worst; the former should be
encouraged to have large families, and their children should be reared
by the government, while the children of the unfit were to be, as he
says, "put away in some mysterious, unknown places, as they should be."
Aristotle developed the idea on political lines, being more interested
in the economic than the biological aspects of marriage; but he held
firmly to the doctrine that the state should feel free to intervene in
the interests of reproductive selection.
For nearly two thousand years after this, conscious eugenic ideals were
largely ignored. Constant war reversed natural selection, as it is doing
to-day, by killing off the physically fit and leaving the relatively
unfit to reproduce the race; while monasticism and the enforced celibacy
of the priesthood performed a similar office for many of the mentally
superior, attracting them to a career in which they could leave no
posterity. At the beginning of the last century a germ of modern
eugenics is visible in Malthus' famous essay on population, in which he
directed attention to the importance of the birth-rate for human
welfare, since this essay led Darwin and Wallace to enunciate the theory
of natural selection, and to point out clearly the effects of artificial
selection. It is really on Darwin's work that the modern science of
eugenics is based, and it owes its beginning to Darwin's cousin, Francis
Galton.
Galton was born in 1822, studied mathematics and medicine, traveled
widely, attained fame as an explorer in South Africa, and after
inheriting sufficient income to make him independent, settled down in
London and gave his time to pioneering experiments in many branches of
science. He contributed largely to founding the science of meteorology,
opened new paths in experimental psychology, introduced the system of
finger prints to anthropology, and took up the study of heredity,
publishing in 1865 a series of articles under the title of "Hereditary
Talent and Genius," which contained his first utterances on eugenics.
The present generation can hardly understand what a new field Galton
broke. Even Darwin had supposed that men do not differ very much in
intellectual endowment, and that their differences in achievement are
principally the result of differences in zeal and industry. Galton's
articles, whose thesis was that better men could be bred by conscious
selection, attracted much attention from the scientific world and were
expanded in 1869 in his book _Hereditary Genius_.
This was an elaborate and painstaking study of the biographies of 977
men who would rank, according to Galton's estimate, as about 1 to 4,000
of the general population, in respect to achievement. The number of
families found to contain more than one eminent man was 300, divided as
follows: Judges, 85; Statesmen, 39; Commanders, 27; Literary, 33;
Scientific, 43; Poets, 20; Artists, 28; Divines, 25. The close groupings
of the interrelated eminence led to the conclusion that heredity plays a
very important part in achievement. The greater success of real sons of
great men as compared with adopted sons of great men likewise indicated,
he thought, that success is due to actual biological heredity rather
than to the good opportunities afforded the scion of the illustrious
family. Galton's conclusion was that by selecting from strains that
produced eminence, a superior human stock could be bred.
In 1874 he published a similar study of the heredity of 180 eminent
English scientists, reëmphasizing the claims of nature over nurture, to
use his familiar antithesis. In 1883 he published "Inquiries into the
Human Faculty and Its Development," a collection of evolutionary and
anthropometric essays where the word Eugenics was first used in a new
exposition of the author's views. "Natural Inheritance" appeared in
1889, being the essence of various memoirs published since "Hereditary
Genius," dealing with the general biological principles underlying the
study of heredity and continuing the study of resemblances between
individuals in respect to stature, eye color, artistic faculty and
morbid conditions.
Galton's interest in eugenics was not lessened by the abundant criticism
he received, and in 1901 he defended "The Possible Improvement of the
Human Breed under Existing Conditions of Law and Sentiment" before the
Anthropological Society. Three years later he read a paper entitled
"Eugenics; Its Definition, Scope and Aims," to the Sociological Society.
His program, in brief, was as follows:
1. Disseminate knowledge of hereditary laws as far as surely known and
promote their further study.
2. Inquire into birth rates of various strata of society (classified
according to civic usefulness) in ancient and modern nations.
3. Collect reliable data showing how large and thriving families have
most frequently originated.
4. Study the influences affecting marriage.
5. Persistently set forth the national importance of Eugenics.
The following year, Galton again read a paper before the Society,
suggesting the award of certificates of quality to the eugenically fit.
He also maintained that marriage customs which are largely controlled by
public opinion could be modified for racial welfare through a molding of
public sentiment.
In 1904 he founded a Research Fellowship at the University of London to
determine, if possible, what the standard of fitness is, and in 1905 a
Scholarship was added. Edgar Schuster and Miss E. M. Elderton held these
posts until 1907, when Professor Karl Pearson took charge of the
research work and, at the resignation of Mr. Schuster, David Heron was
appointed Fellow. On Galton's death, January 17, 1911, it became known
that through the terms of his will a professorship was founded and
Professor Pearson was invited to hold it. His corps of workers
constitutes the Galton Eugenics Laboratory staff.
To spread throughout the British Empire such knowledge of eugenics as
might be gathered by specialists, the Eugenics Education Society was
formed in 1908 with Galton as honorary president. Its field comprises:
(1) Biology in so far as it concerns hereditary selection; (2)
Anthropology as related to race and marriage; (3) Politics, where it
bears on parenthood in relation to civic worth; (4) Ethics, in so far as
it promotes ideals that lead to the improvement of social quality; (5)
Religion, in so far as it strengthens and sanctifies eugenic duty.
In America the movement got an early start but developed slowly. The
first definite step was the formation of an Institute of Heredity in
Boston, shortly after 1880, by Loring Moody, who was assisted by the
poet Longfellow, Samuel E. Sewall, Mrs. Horace Mann, and other
well-known people. He proposed to work very much along the lines that
the Eugenics Record Office later adopted, but he was ahead of his time,
and his attempt seems to have come to nothing.
In 1883 Alexander Graham Bell, who may be considered the first
scientific worker in eugenics in the United States, published a paper on
the danger of the formation of a deaf variety of the human race in this
country, in which he gave the result of researches he had made at
Martha's Vineyard and other localities during preceding years, on the
pedigrees of congenitally deaf persons--deaf mutes, as they were then
called. He showed clearly that congenital deafness is largely due to
heredity, that it is much increased by consanguineous marriages, and
that it is of great importance to prevent the marriage of persons, in
both of whose families congenital deafness is present. About five years
later he founded the Volta Bureau in Washington, D. C., for the study of
deafness, and this has fostered a great deal of research work on this
particular phase of heredity.
In 1903 the American Breeders' Association was founded at St. Louis by
plant and animals breeders who desired to keep in touch with the new
subject of genetics, the science of breeding, which was rapidly coming
to have great practical importance. From the outset, the members
realized that the changes which they could produce in races of animals
and plants might also be produced in man, and the science of eugenics
was thus recognized on a sound biological basis. Soon a definite
eugenics section was formed, and as the importance of this section
increased, and it was realized that the name of Breeders' Association
was too narrowly construed by the public, the association changed its
name (1913) to the American Genetic Association, and the name of its
organ from the _American Breeders' Magazine_ to the _Journal of
Heredity_.
Under the auspices of this association, the Eugenics Record Office was
established at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, by Dr. C. B. Davenport.
It has been mainly supported by Mrs. E. H. Harriman, but has since been
taken over by the Carnegie Institution of Washington. It is gathering
pedigrees in many parts of the United States, analyzing them and
publishing the results in a series of bulletins.
In the last few years, the public has come to take a keen interest in
the possibilities of eugenics. This has led some sex hygienists, child
welfare workers, and persons similarly engaged, to attempt to capitalize
the interest in eugenics by appropriating the name for their own use. We
strongly object to any such misuse of the word, which should designate
the application of genetics to the human race. Sex hygiene, child
welfare, and other sanitary and sociological movements should stand on
their own feet and leave to eugenics the scope which its Greek
derivation indicates for it,--the science of good breeding.[73]
In all parts of Europe, the ideas of eugenics have gradually spread. In
1912 the first International Eugenics Congress was held at London, under
auspices of the Eugenics Education Society; more than 700 delegates were
in attendance.
Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria are united in an International
Eugenics Society and the war led to the formation of a number of
separate societies in Germany. Hungary has formed an organization of its
own, France has its society in Paris, and the Italian Anthropological
Society has given much attention to the subject. The Anthropological
Society of Denmark has similarly recognized eugenics by the formation of
a separate section. The Institut Solvay of Belgium, a foundation with
sociological aims, created a eugenics section several years ago; and in
Holland a strong committee has been formed. Last of all, Sweden has put
a large separate organization in the field.
In the United States the subject has interested many women's clubs,
college organizations and Young Men's Christian Associations, while the
periodical press has given it a large amount of attention. Public
enthusiasm, often ill-guided, has in a few cases outrun the facts, and
has secured legislation in some states, which by no means meets the
approval of most scientific eugenists.
When we speak of scientific eugenists, it may appear that we use the
word in an invidious way. We use it deliberately, and by using it we
mean to intimate that we do not think enthusiasm is an adequate
substitute for knowledge, in anyone who assumes to pass judgment upon a
measure as being eugenic or dysgenic--as likely to improve the race or
cause its deterioration. Eugenics is a biological science which, in its
application, must be interpreted with the help of the best scientific
method. Very few social workers, whose field eugenics touches, are
competent to understand its bearings without some study, and an
appreciation of eugenics is the more difficult for them, because an
understanding of it will show them that some of their work is based on
false premises. The average legislator is equally unlikely to understand
the full import of eugenics, unless he has made a definite effort to do
so. All the more honor, then, to the rapidly increasing number of social
workers and legislators who have grasped the full meaning of eugenics
and are now striving to put it in effect. The agriculturist, through his
experience with plants and animals, is probably better qualified than
anyone else to realize the practicability of eugenics, and it is
accordingly not a matter of mere chance that the science of eugenics in
America was built up by a breeders' association, and has found and still
finds hundreds of effective advocates in the graduates of the
agricultural colleges.
The program of eugenics naturally divides itself in two parts:
(1) Reducing the racial contribution of the least desirable part of the
population.
(2) Increasing the racial contribution of the superior part of the
population.
The first part of this program is the most pressing and the most easily
dealt with; it is no cause for surprise, then, that to many people it
has seemed to be the predominant aim of eugenics. Certainly the problem
is great enough to stagger anyone who looks it full in the face;
although for a variety of reasons, satisfactory statistical evidence of
racial degeneracy is hard to get.
Considering only the "institutional population" of the United States,
one gets the following figures:
BLIND: total, 64,763 according to census of 1900. Of these,
35,645 were totally blind and 29,118 partly blind. The affection is
stated to have been congenital in 4,730 cases. Nineteen per cent of the
blind were found to have blind relatives; 4.5% of them were returned as
the offspring of cousin marriages.
DEAF: total, 86,515, according to the census of 1900. More than
50,000 of them were deaf from childhood (under 20), 12,609 being deaf
from birth. At least 4.5% of the deaf were stated to be offspring of
cousin marriages, and 32.1% to have deaf relatives. The significance of
this can not be determined unless it is known how many normal persons
have deaf relatives (or blind relatives, in considering the preceding
paragraph), but it points to the existence of families that are
characterized by deafness (or blindness).
INSANE: the census of 1910 enumerated only the insane who were
in institutions; they numbered 187,791. The number outside of
institutions is doubtless considerable but can not be computed. The
institutional population is not a permanent, but mainly a transient one,
the number of persons discharged from institutions in 1910 being 29,304.
As the number and size of institutions does not increase very rapidly,
it would appear probable that 25,000 insane persons pass through and out
of institutions, and back into the general population, each year. From
this one can get some idea of the amount of neurotic weakness in the
population of the United States,--much of it congenital and heritable in
character.
FEEBLE-MINDED: the census (1910) lists only those in
institutions, who totaled about 40,000. The census experts believe that
200,000 would be a conservative estimate of the total number of
feeble-minded in the country, and many psychologists think that 300,000
would be more nearly accurate. The number of feeble-minded who are
receiving institutional care is almost certainly not more than 10% or
15% of the total, and many of these (about 15,000) are in almshouses,
not special institutions.
PAUPERS: There were 84,198 paupers enumerated in almshouses on
January 1, 1910, and 88,313 admitted during the year, which indicates
that the almshouse paupers are a rapidly shifting group. This
population, probably of several hundred thousand persons, who drift
into and out of almshouses, can hardly be characterized accurately, but
in large part it must be considered at least inefficient and probably of
mentally low grade.
CRIMINALS: The inmates of prisons, penitentiaries,
reformatories, and similar places of detention numbered 111,609 in 1910;
this does not include 25,000 juvenile delinquents. The jail population
is nearly all transient; one must be very cautious in inferring that
conviction for an offense against the law indicates lack of eugenic
value; but it is worth noting that the number of offenders who are
feeble-minded is probably not less than one-fourth or one-third. If the
number of inebriates could be added, it would greatly increase the
total; and inebriacy or chronic alcoholism is generally recognized now
as indicating in a majority of cases either feeble-mindedness or some
other defect of the nervous system. The number of criminals who are in
some way neurotically tainted is placed by some psychologists at 50% or
more of the total prison population.
Add to these a number of epileptics, tramps, prostitutes, beggars, and
others whom the census enumerator finds it difficult to catch, and the
total number of possible undesirable parents becomes very large. It is
in fact much larger than appears in these figures, because of the fact
that many people carry defects that are latent and only appear in the
offspring of a marriage representing two tainted strains. Thus the
feeble-minded child usually if not always has feeble-mindedness in both
his father's and mother's ancestry, and for every one of the patent
feeble-minded above enumerated, there may be several dozen latent ones,
who are themselves probably normal in every way and yet carry the
dangerously tainted germ-plasm.
The estimate has frequently been made that the United States would be
much better off eugenically if it were deprived of the future racial
contributions of at least 10% of its citizens. While literally true this
estimate is too high for the group which could be considered for
attempts to directly control in a practical eugenics program.
Natural selection, in the early days of man's history, would have killed
off many of these people early in life. They would have been unable to
compete with their physically and mentally more vigorous fellows and
would have died miserably by starvation or violence. Natural selection's
use of the death-rate was a brutal one, but at least it prevented such
traits as these people show from increasing in each generation.
Eugenists hope to arrive at the same result, not by the death-rate but
by the birth-rate. If germinally anti-social persons are kept humanely
segregated during their lifetime, instead of being turned out after a
few years of institutional life and allowed to marry, they will leave no
descendants, and the number of congenital defectives in the community
will be notably diminished. If the same policy is followed through
succeeding generations, the number of defectives, of those incapable of
taking a useful part in society, will become smaller and smaller. One
who does not believe that these people hand on their traits to their
descendants may profitably consider the famous history of the so-called
Juke family, a strain originating among the "finger lakes" of New York,
whose history was published by R. L. Dugdale as far back as 1877 and
lately restudied by A. H. Estabrook.
"From one lazy vagabond nicknamed 'Juke,' born in 1720, whose two sons
married five degenerate sisters, six generations numbering about 1,200
persons of every grade of idleness, viciousness, lewdness, pauperism,
disease, idiocy, insanity and criminality were traced. Of the total
seven generations, 300 died in infancy; 310 were professional paupers,
kept in almshouses a total of 2,300 years; 440 were physically wrecked
by their own 'diseased wickedness'; more than half the women fell into
prostitution; 130 were convicted criminals; 60 were thieves; 7 were
murderers; only 20 learned a trade, 10 of these in state prison, and all
at a state cost of over $1,250,000."[74]
How heredity works both ways, is shown by the history of the Kallikak
family, published by H. H. Goddard a few years ago.
"At the beginning of the Revolutionary War a young man, known in the
history as Martin Kallikak, had a son by a nameless, feeble-minded girl,
from whom there have descended in the direct line four hundred and
eighty individuals. One hundred and forty-three of these are known to
have been feeble-minded, and only forty-six are known to have been
normal. The rest are unknown or doubtful. Thirty-six have been
illegitimate; thirty-three, sexually immoral, mostly prostitutes;
twenty-four, alcoholic; three, epileptic; eighty-two died in infancy;
three were criminal, and eight kept houses of ill-fame. After the war,
Martin Kallikak married a woman of good stock. From this union have come
in direct line four hundred and ninety-six, among whom only two were
alcoholic, and one known to be sexually immoral. The legitimate children
of Martin have been doctors, lawyers, judges, educators, traders,
landholders, in short, respectable citizens, men and women prominent in
every phase of social life. These two families have lived on the same
soil, in the same atmosphere, and in short, under the same general
environment, yet the bar sinister has marked every generation of one and
has been unknown in the other."
If it were possible to improve or eradicate these defective strains by
giving them better surroundings, the nation might easily get rid of this
burden. But we have given reasons in Chapter I for believing that the
problem can not be solved in that way, and more evidence to the same
effect will be present in other chapters of the book.
An understanding of the nature of the problem will show that present
methods of dispensing justice, giving charity, dealing with defectives
and working for social betterment need careful examination and numerous
modifications, if they are not to be ineffectual or merely palliative,
or worse still, if they are not to give temporary relief at the cost of
greatly aggravating the social disease in the end.
In the past America has given and at present still gives much thought to
the individual and little, if any, to posterity. Eugenics does not want
to diminish this regard for the individual, but it does insistently
declare that the interests of the many are greater than those of the
few, and it holds that a statesmanlike policy requires thought for the
future as well as the present. It would be hard to find a eugenist
to-day who would propose, with Plato, that the infants with bad heredity
should be put to death, but their right to grow up to the fullest
enjoyment of life does not necessarily include the right to pass on
their defective heredity to a long line of descendants, naturally
increasing in number in each generation. Indeed a regard for the
totality of human happiness makes it necessary that they should not so
continue.
While it is the hope of eugenics that fewer defective and anti-social
individuals shall be born in the future, it has been emphasized so much
that the program of eugenics is likely to be seen in false perspective.
In reality it is the less important side of the picture. More good
citizens are wanted, as well as fewer bad ones. Every race requires
leaders. These leaders appear from time to time, and enough is known
about eugenics now to show that their appearance is frequently
predictable, not accidental. It is possible to have them appear more
frequently; and in addition, to raise the level of the whole race,
making the entire nation happier and more useful. These are the great
tasks of eugenics. America needs more families like that old Puritan
strain which is one of the familiar examples of eugenics:
"At their head stands Jonathan Edwards, and behind him an array of his
descendants numbering in 1900, 1,394, of whom 295 were college
graduates; 13 presidents of our greatest colleges; 65 professors in
colleges, besides many principals of other important educational
institutions; 60 physicians, many of whom were eminent; 100 and more
clergymen, missionaries, or theological professors; 75 were officers in
the army and navy; 60 prominent authors and writers, by whom 135 books
of merit were written and published and 18 important periodicals edited;
33 American states and several foreign countries, and 92 American cities
and many foreign cities have profited by the beneficent influences of
their eminent activity; 100 and more were lawyers, of whom one was our
most eminent professor of law; 30 were judges; 80 held public office, of
whom one was vice president of the United States; three were United
States senators; several were governors, members of Congress, framers of
state constitutions, mayors of cities and ministers of foreign courts;
one was president of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company; 15 railroads,
many banks, insurance companies, and large industrial enterprises have
been indebted to their management. Almost if not every department of
social progress and of the public weal has felt the impulse of this
healthy and long-lived family. It is not known that any one of them was
ever convicted of crime."
Every one will agree that the nation needs more families like that. How
can it get them? Galton blazed the way in 1865, when he pointed to
selective breeding as the effective means. The animal breeder knows what
marvels he can accomplish by this means; but it is not practicable to
breed human beings in that direct way. Is there any indirect method of
reaching the same ends?
There are, in our opinion, a good many such means, and it is the
principal purpose of this book to point them out. The problem of
constructive or positive eugenics, naturally divides itself into two
parts:
1. To secure a sufficient number of marriages of the superior.
2. To secure an adequate birth-rate from these marriages.
The problem of securing these two results is a complex one, which must
be attacked by a variety of methods. It is necessary that superior
people first be made to desire marriage and children; and secondly, that
it be economically and otherwise possible for them to carry out this
desire.
It may be of interest to know how the Germans are attacking the problem,
even though some of their measures may be considered ineffective or
inadvisable.
At its annual meeting in 1914 the German Society for Race Hygiene
adopted a resolution on the subject of applied eugenics. "The future of
the German people is at stake," it declares. "The German empire can not
in the long run maintain its true nationality and the independence of
its development, if it does not begin without delay and with the
greatest energy to mold its internal and external politics as well as
the whole life of the people in accordance with eugenic principles. Most
important of all are measures for a higher reproduction of healthy and
able families. The rapidly declining birth-rate of the healthy and able
families necessarily leads to the social, economical and political
retrogression of the German people," it points out, and then goes on to
enumerate the causes of this decline, which it thinks is partly due to
the action of racial poisons but principally to the increasing willful
restriction of the number of children.
The society recognizes that the reasons for this limitation of the size
of families are largely economic. It enumerates the question of expense,
considerations of economic inheritance--that is, a father does not like
to divide up his estate too much; the labor of women, which is
incompatible with the raising of a large family; and the difficulties
caused by the crowded housing in the large cities.
In order to secure a posterity sufficient in number and ability, the
resolution continues, The German Society for Race Hygiene demands:
1. A back-to-the farm movement.
2. Better housing facilities in the cities.
3. Economic assistance of large families through payment of a
substantial relief to married mothers who survive their husbands, and
consideration of the number of children in the payment of public and
private employees.
4. Abolition of certain impediments to marriage, such as the army
regulation forbidding officers to marry before they reach a certain
grade.
5. Increase of tax on alcohol, tobacco and luxuries, the proceeds to be
used to subsidize worthy families.
6. Medical regulations of a hygienic nature.
7. Setting out large prizes for excellent works of art (novels, dramas,
plastic arts) which glorify the ideal of motherhood, the family and
simple life.
8. Awakening a national mind ready to undergo sacrifices on behalf of
future generations.
In spite of some defects such a program brings out clearly the principle
of eugenics,--the substitution of a selective birth-rate for the
selective death-rate by which natural selection has brought the race to
its present level. Nature lets a multitude of individuals be born and
kills off the poorer ones; eugenics proposes to have fewer poor ones and
more good ones born in each generation.
Any means which tends to bring about one of those ends, is a part of
Applied Eugenics.
By this time the reader will have seen that eugenics has some definite
ideals not only as to how the race can be kept from deteriorating
further, under the interference with natural selection which
civilization entails, but as to how its physical, mental and moral level
can actually be raised. He can easily draw his own conclusions as to
what eugenics does _not_ propose. No eugenist worthy of the name has
ever proposed to breed genius as the stockman breeds trotting horses,
despite jibes of the comic press to the contrary. But if young people,
before picking out their life partners, are thoroughly imbued with the
idea that such qualities as energy, longevity, a sound constitution,
public and private worth, are primarily due to heredity, and if they are
taught to realize the fact that one marries not an individual but a
family, the eugenist believes that better matings will be made,
sometimes realized, sometimes insensibly.
Furthermore, if children from such matings are made an asset rather than
a liability; if society ceases to penalize, in a hundred insidious ways,
the parents of large and superior families, but honors and aids them
instead, one may justifiably hope that the birth-rate in the most useful
and happy part of the population will steadily increase.
Perhaps that is as far as it is necessary that the aim of eugenics
should be defined; yet one can hardly ignore the philosophical aspect
of the problem. Galton's suggestion that man should assist the course of
his own evolution meets with the general approval of biologists; but
when one asks what the ultimate goal of human evolution should be, one
faces a difficult question. Under these circumstances, can it be said
that eugenics really has a goal, or is it merely stumbling along in the
dark, possibly far from the real road, of whose existence it is aware
but of whose location it has no knowledge?
There are several routes on which one can proceed with the confidence
that, if no one of them is the main road, at least it is likely to lead
into the latter at some time. Fortunately, eugenics is, paradoxical as
it may seem, able to advance on all these paths at once; for it proposes
no definite goal, it sets up no one standard to which it would make the
human race conform. Taking man as it finds him, it proposes to multiply
all the types that have been found by past experience or present reason
to be of most value to society. Not only would it multiply them in
numbers, but also in efficiency, in capacity to serve the race.
By so doing, it undoubtedly fulfills the requirements of that popular
philosophy which holds the aim of society to be the greatest happiness
for the greatest number, or more definitely the increase of the totality
of human happiness. To cause not to exist those who would be doomed from
birth to give only unhappiness to themselves and those about them; to
increase the number of those in whom useful physical and mental traits
are well developed; to bring about an increase in the number of
energetic altruists and a decrease in the number of the anti-social or
defective; surely such an undertaking will come nearer to increasing the
happiness of the greatest number, than will any temporary social
palliative, any ointment for incurable social wounds. To those who
accept that philosophy, made prominent by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart
Mill, Herbert Spencer, and a host of other great thinkers, eugenics
rightly understood must seem a prime necessity of society.
But can any philosophy dispense with eugenics? Take those to whom the
popular philosophy of happiness seems a dangerous goal and to whom the
only object of evolution that one is at present justified in
recognizing is that of the perpetuation of the species and of the
progressive conquest of nature, the acquiring of an ascendancy over all
the earth. This is now as much a matter of self-preservation as it is of
progress: although man no longer fights for life with the cave bear and
saber-toothed tiger, the microbes which war with him are far more
dangerous enemies than the big mammals of the past. The continuation of
evolution, if it means conquest, is not a work for dilettantes and Lotos
Eaters; it is a task that demands unremitting hard work.
To this newer philosophy of creative work eugenics is none the less
essential. For eugenics wants in the world more physically sound men and
women _with greater ability in any valuable way_. Whatever the actual
goal of evolution may be, it can hardly be assumed by any except the
professional pessimist, that a race made up of such men and women is
going to be handicapped by their presence.
The correlation of abilities is as well attested as any fact in
psychology. Those who decry eugenics on the ground that it is impossible
to establish any "standard of perfection," since society needs many
diverse kinds of people, are overlooking this fact. Any plan which
increases the production of children in able families of _various_ types
will thereby produce more ability of all kinds, since if a family is
particularly gifted in one way, it is likely to be gifted above the
average in several other desirable ways.
Eugenics sets up no specific superman, as a type to which the rest of
the race must be made to conform. It is not looking forward to the
cessation of its work in a eugenic millenium. It is a perpetual process,
which seeks only to raise the level of the race by the production of
fewer people with physical and mental defects, and more people with
physical and mental excellencies. Such a race should be able to
perpetuate itself, to subdue nature, to improve its environment
progressively; its members should be happy and productive. To establish
such a goal seems justified by the knowledge of evolution which is now
available; and to make progress toward it is possible.
CHAPTER VIII
DESIRABILITY OF RESTRICTIVE EUGENICS
In a rural part of Pennsylvania lives the L. family. Three generations
studied "all show the same drifting, irresponsible tendency. No one can
say they are positively bad or serious disturbers of the communities
where they may have a temporary home. Certain members are epileptic and
defective to the point of imbecility. The father of this family drank
and provided little for their support. The mother, though hard working,
was never able to care for them properly. So they and their 12 children
were frequent recipients of public relief, a habit which they have
consistently kept up. Ten of the children grew to maturity, and all but
one married and had in their turn large families. With two exceptions
these have lived in the territory studied. Nobody knows how they have
subsisted, even with the generous help they have received. They drift in
and out of the various settlements, taking care to keep their residence
in the county which has provided most liberally for their support. In
some villages it is said that they have been in and out half a dozen
times in the last few years. First one family comes slipping back, then
one by one the others trail in as long as there are cheap shelters to be
had. Then rents fall due, neighbors become suspicious of invaded
henroosts and potato patches, and one after another the families take
their departure, only to reappear after a year or two.
"The seven children of the eldest son were scattered years ago through
the death of their father. They were taken by strangers, and though kept
in school, none of them proved capable of advancement. Three at least
could not learn to read or handle the smallest quantities. The rest do
this with difficulty. All but two are now married and founding the
fourth generation of this line. The family of the fourth son are now
county charges. Of the 14 children of school age in this and the
remaining families, all are greatly retarded. One is an epileptic and at
16 can not read or write. One at 15 is in the third reader and should be
set down as defective. The remainder are from one to four years
retarded.
"There is nothing striking in the annals of this family. It comes as
near the lowest margin of human existence as possible and illustrates
how marked defect may sometimes exist without serious results in the
infringement of law and custom. Its serious menace, however, lies in the
certain marriage into stocks which are no better, and the production of
large families which continue to exist on the same level of
semi-dependency. In place of the two dependents of a generation ago we
now find in the third generation 32 descendants who bid fair to continue
their existence on the same plane--certainly an enormous multiplication
of the initial burden of expense."[75]
From cases of this sort, which represent the least striking kind of bad
breeding, the student may pass through many types up to the great tribes
of Jukes, Nams, Kallikaks, Zeros, Dacks, Ishmaels, Sixties, Hickories,
Hill Folk, Piney Folk, and the rest, with which the readers of the
literature of restrictive eugenics are familiar. It is abundantly
demonstrated that much, if not most, of their trouble is the outcome of
bad heredity. Indeed, when a branch of one of these clans is
transported, or emigrates, to a wholly new environment, it soon creates
for itself, in many cases, an environment similar to that from which it
came. Whether it goes to the city, or to the agricultural districts of
the west, it may soon manage to reëstablish the debasing atmosphere to
which it has always been accustomed.[76] Those who see in improvement
of the environment the cure for all such plague spots as these tribes
inhabit, overlook the fact that man largely creates his own environment.
The story of the tenement-dwellers who were supplied with bath tubs but
refused to use them for any other purpose than to store coal,
exemplifies a wide range of facts.
[Illustration: FIG. 26.--To this shanty an elderly man of the
"Hickory" family, a great clan of defectives in rural Ohio, brought his
girl-bride, together with his two grown sons by a former marriage. The
shanty was conveniently located at a distance of 100 feet from the city
dump where the family, all of which is feeble-minded, secured its food.
Such a family is incapable of protecting either itself or its neighbors,
and should be cared for by the state. Photograph from Mina A. Sessions.]
[Illustration: A CHIEFTAIN OF THE HICKORY CLAN
FIG. 27.--This is "Young Hank," otherwise known as "Sore-Eyed
Hank." He is the eldest son and heir of that Hank Hickory who, with his
wife and seven children, applied for admission to their County Infirmary
when it was first opened. For generation after generation, his family
has been the chief patron of all the charities of its county. "Young
Hank" married his cousin and duplicated his father's record by begetting
seven children, three of whom (all feeble-minded) are now living. The
number of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren is increasing every
year, but the total can not be learned from him, for he is mentally
incapable of counting even the number of his own children. He is about
70 years of age, and has never done any work except to make baskets. He
has lived a wandering life, largely dependent on charity. For the last
25 years he has been partly blind, due to trachoma. He gets a blind
pension of $5 a month, which is adequate to keep him supplied with
chewing tobacco, his regular mastication being 10 cents a day. Such
specimens can be found in many rural communities; if they were
segregated in youth both they and the community would be much better
off. Photograph from Mina A. Sessions.]
Although conditions may be worst in the older and more densely populated
states, it is probable that there is no state in the union which has not
many families, or group of families, of this dependent type, which in
favorable cases may attract little notice, but therefore do all the more
harm eugenically; in other cases may be notorious as centers of
criminality. Half a dozen well-defined areas of this kind have been
found in Pennsylvania, which is probably not exceptional in this
respect. "These differ, of course, in extent and character and the
gravity of the problems they present. In some there is great sexual
laxity, which leads to various forms of dependency and sometimes to
extreme mental defect. In others alcoholism prevails and the people show
a propensity for deeds of violence. All informants, however, practically
agreed to the following characterization:
"1. Because of the thefts and depredations and the frequent applications
for charitable relief from such sections they constitute a parasitic
growth which saps the resources of the self-respecting, self-sustaining
contingent of the population.
"2. They furnish an undue proportion of court cases, and are thus a
serious expense to county and state.
"3. They are a source of physical decay and moral contamination, and
thus menace the integrity of the entire social fabric."[77]
Society has long since admitted that it is desirable to restrict the
reproduction of certain classes of gross defectives, and criminals, by
the method of segregation. The ground for this is sometimes biological,
perhaps more often legal, as in the case of the insane and criminal,
where it is held that the individual is legally incapacitated from
entering into a contract, such as that of marriage. It would be better
to have the biological basis of restriction on marriage and reproduction
recognized in every case; but even with the present point of view the
desired end may be reached.
From an ethical standpoint, so few people would now contend that two
feeble-minded or epileptic persons have any "right" to marry and
perpetuate their kind, that it is hardly worth while to argue the point.
We believe that the same logic would permit two individuals to marry,
but deny them the privilege of having children. The reasons for this may
be considered under three heads.
1. Biological. Are there cases in which persons may properly marry but
may properly be prevented by society from having any offspring, on the
ground that such offspring would be undesirable components of the race?
The right of marriage is commonly, and may well be properly, regarded as
an inalienable right of the individual, in so far as it does not
conflict with the interests of the race. The companionship of two
persons between whom true love exists, is beyond all question the
highest happiness possible, and one which society should desire and
strive to give its every member. On that point there will be no
difference of opinion, but when it is asked whether there can be a
separation between the comradeship aspect and the reproduction aspect,
in marriage, whether any interest of the race can justifiably divorce
these two phases, often considered inseparable, protests are at once
aroused. In these protests, there is some justice. We would be the last
ones to deny that a marriage has failed to achieve its goal, has failed
to realize for its participants the greatest possible happiness, unless
it has resulted in sound offspring.
That word "sound" is the key to the distinction which must be made. The
interests of the race demand sound offspring from every couple in a
position to furnish them--not only in the interests of that
couple,--interests the importance of which it is not easy to
underestimate--but in the interests of the future of the race, whose
welfare far transcends in importance the welfare of any one individual,
or any pair of individuals. As surely as the race needs a constant
supply of children of sound character, so surely is it harmed by a
supply of children of inherently unsound character, physically or
mentally, who may contribute others like themselves to the next
generation. A recollection of the facts of heredity, and of the fact
that the offspring of any individual tend to increase in geometric
ratio, will supply adequate grounds for holding this conviction:--that
from a biological point of view, every child of congenitally inferior
character is a racial misfortune. The Spartans and other peoples of
antiquity fully realized this fact, and acted on it by exposing deformed
infants. Christianity properly revolted as such an action; but in
repudiating the action, it lost sight of the principle back of the
action. The principle should have been regarded, and civilized races are
now coming back to a realization of that fact--are, indeed, realizing
its weight far more fully than any other people has ever done, because
of the growing realization of the importance of heredity. No one is
likely seriously to argue again that deformed infants (whether their
deformity be physical or mental) should be exposed to perish; but the
argument that in the interests of the future of the race _they would
better not be born_, is one that admits of no refutation.
From a biological point of view, then, it is to the interest of the race
that the number of children who will be either defective themselves, or
transmit anti-social defects to their offspring, should be as small as
possible.
2. The humanitarian aspect of the case is no less strong and is likely,
in the present state of public education, to move a larger number of
individuals. A visit to the children's ward of any hospital, an
acquaintance with the sensitive mother of a feeble-minded or deformed
child, will go far to convince anyone that the sum total of human
happiness, and the happiness of the parents, would be greater had these
children never been born. As for the children themselves, they will in
many cases grow up to regret that they were ever brought into the world.
We do not overlook the occasional genius who may be crippled physically
or even mentally; we are here dealing with only the extreme defectives,
such as the feeble-minded, insane, and epileptic. Among such persons,
human happiness would be promoted both now and in the future if the
number of offspring were naught.
3. There is another argument which may legitimately be brought forward,
and which may appeal to some who are relatively insensitive to the
biological or even the humanitarian aspects of the case. This is the
financial argument.
Except students of eugenics, few persons realize how staggering is the
bill annually paid for the care of defectives. The amount which the
state of New York expends yearly on the maintenance of its insane wards,
is greater than it spends for any other purpose except education; and in
a very few years, if its insane population continues to increase at the
present rate, it will spend more on them than it does on the education
of its normal children. The cost of institutional care for the socially
inadequate is far from being all that these people cost the state; but
those figures at least are not based on guesswork. The annual cost[78]
of maintaining a feeble-minded ward of the state, in various
commonwealths, is:
Illinois $136.50
Indiana 147.49
Minnesota 148.05
Ohio 155.47
Wisconsin 159.77
Kansas 170.16
Michigan 179.42
Kentucky 184.77
California 208.97
Maine 222.99
At such prices, each state maintains hundreds, sometimes thousands, of
feeble-minded, and the number is growing each year. In the near future
the expenditures must grow much more rapidly, for public sentiment is
beginning to demand that the defectives and delinquents of the
community be properly cared for. The financial burden is becoming a
heavy one; it will become a crushing one unless steps are taken to make
the feeble-minded productive (as described in the next chapter) and an
intangible "sinking fund" at the same time created to reduce the burden
gradually by preventing the production of those who make it up. The
burden can never be wholly obliterated, but it can be largely reduced by
a restriction of the reproduction of those who are themselves socially
inadequate.
[Illustration: TWO JUKE HOMES OF THE PRESENT DAY
FIG. 28.--The Jukes have mostly been country-dwellers, a fact
which has tended to increase the amount of consanguineous marriage among
them. Removal into a new environment usually does not mean any
substantial change for them, because they succeed immediately in
re-creating the same squalid sort of an environment from which they
came. In the house below, one part was occupied by the family and the
other part by pigs. Photographs from A. H. Estabrook.]
Alike then on biological, humanitarian and financial grounds, the nation
would be the better for a diminution in the production of physically,
mentally or morally defective children. And the way to secure this
diminution is to prevent reproduction by parents whose offspring would
almost certainly be undesirable in character.
Granted that such prevention is a proper function of society, the
question again arises whether it is an ethically correct procedure to
allow these potentially undesirable parents to marry at all. Should they
be doomed to perpetual celibacy, or should they be permitted to mate, on
condition that the union be childless.
The eugenic interests of society, of course, are equally safeguarded by
either alternative. All the other interests of society appear to us to
be better safeguarded by marriage than by celibacy. Adding the interests
of the individual, which will doubtless be for marriage, it seems to us
that there is good reason for holding such a childless marriage
ethically correct, in the relatively small number of cases where it
might seem desirable.
Though such unions may be ethically justifiable, yet they would often be
impracticable; the limits will be discussed in the next chapter.
It is constantly alleged that the state can not interfere with an
individual matter of this sort: "It is an intolerable invasion of
personal liberty; it is reducing humanity to the level of the barn-yard;
it is impossible to put artificial restraints on the relations between
the sexes, founded as they are on such strong and primal feelings."
The doctrine of personal liberty, in this extreme form, was enunciated
and is maintained by people who are ignorant of biology and
evolution;[79] people who are ignorant of the world as it is, and deal
only with the world as they think it ought to be. Nature reveals no such
extreme "law of personal liberty," and the race that tries to carry such
a supposed law to its logical conclusion will soon find, in the supreme
test of competition with other races, that the interests of the
individual are much less important to nature than the interests of the
race. Perpetuation of the race is the first end to be sought. So far as
according a wide measure of personal liberty to its members will compass
that end, the personal liberty doctrine is a good one; but if it is held
as a metaphysical dogma, to deny that the race may take any action
necessary in its own interest, at the expense of the individual, this
dogma becomes suicidal.
As for "reducing humanity to the level of the barn-yard," this is merely
a catch-phrase intended to arouse prejudice and to obscure the facts.
The reader may judge for himself whether the eugenic program will
degrade mankind to the level of the brutes, or whether it will ennoble
it, beautify it, and increase its happiness.
The delusion which so many people hold, that it is impossible to put
artificial restraint on the relations between the sexes, is amazing.
Restraint is already a _fait accompli_. Every civilized nation already
puts restrictions on numerous classes of people, as has been
noted--minors, criminals, and the insane, for example. Even though this
restriction is usually based on legal, rather than biological grounds,
it is nevertheless a restriction, and sets a precedent for further
restrictions, if any precedent were needed.
[Illustration: "MONGOLIAN" DEFICIENCY
FIG. 29.--A common type of feeble-mindedness is accompanied by
a face called Mongoloid, because of a certain resemblance to that of
some of the Mongolian races as will be noted above. The mother at the
left and the father were normal. This type seems not to be inherited,
but due to some other influence,--Goddard suggests uterine exhaustion
from too many frequent pregnancies.]
It is, we conclude, both desirable and possible to enforce certain
restrictions on marriage and parenthood. What these restrictions may be,
and to whom they should be applied, is next to be considered.
CHAPTER IX
THE DYSGENIC CLASSES
Before examining the methods by which society can put into effect some
measure of negative or restrictive eugenics, it may be well to decide
what classes of the population can properly fall within the scope of
such treatment. Strictly speaking, the problem is of course one of
individuals rather than classes, but for the sake of convenience it will
be treated as one of classes, it being understood that no individual
should be put under restriction with eugenic intent merely because he
may be supposed to belong to a given class; but that each case must be
investigated on its own merits,--and investigated with much more care
than has hitherto usually been thought necessary by many of those who
have advocated restrictive eugenic measures.
The first class demanding attention is that of those feeble-minded whose
condition is due to heredity. There is reason to believe that at least
two-thirds of the feeble-minded in the United States owe their condition
directly to heredity,[80] and will transmit it to a large per cent of
their descendants, if they have any. Feeble-minded persons from sound
stock, whose arrested development is due to scarlet fever or some
similar disease of childhood, or to accident, are of course not of
direct concern to eugenists.
The number of patent feeble-minded in the United States is probably not
less than 300,000, while the number of latent individuals--those
carrying the taint in their germ-plasm and capable of transmitting it to
their descendants, although the individuals themselves may show good
mental development--is necessarily much greater. The defect is highly
hereditary in nature: when two innately feeble-minded persons marry,
all their offspring, almost without exception, are feeble-minded. The
feeble-minded are never of much value to society--they never present
such instances as are found among the insane, of persons with some
mental lack of balance, who are yet geniuses. If restrictive eugenics
dealt with no other class than the hereditarily feeble-minded, and dealt
with that class effectively, it would richly justify its existence.
But there are other classes on which it can act with safety as well as
profit, and one of these is made up by the germinally insane. According
to the census of 1910, there are 187,791 insane in institutions in the
United States; there are also a certain number outside of institutions,
as to whom information can not easily be obtained. The number in the
hospitals represented a ratio of 204.3 per 100,000 of the general
population. In 1880, when the enumeration of insane was particularly
complete, a total of 91,959 was reported--a ratio of 188.3 per 100,000
of the total population at that time. This apparent increase of insanity
has been subjected to much analysis, and it is admitted that part of it
can be explained away. People are living longer now than formerly, and
as insanity is primarily a disease of old age, the number of insane is
thus increased. Better means of diagnosis are undoubtedly responsible
for some of the apparent increase. But when every conceivable allowance
is made, there yet remains ground for belief that the proportion of
insane persons in the population is increasing each year. This is partly
due to immigration, as is indicated by the immense and constantly
increasing insane population of the state of New York, where most
immigrants land. In some cases, people who actually show some form of
insanity may slip past the examiners; in the bulk of cases, probably, an
individual is adapted to leading a normal life in his native
environment, but transfer to the more strenuous environment of an
American city proves to be too much for his nervous organization. The
general flow of population from the country to large cities has a
similar effect in increasing the number of insane.
But when all is said, the fact remains that there are several hundred
thousand insane persons in the United States, many of whom are not
prevented from reproducing their kind, and that by this failure to
restrain them society is putting a heavy burden of expense, unhappiness
and a fearful dysgenic drag on coming generations.
The word "insanity," as is frequently objected, means little or nothing
from a biological point of view--it is a sort of catch-all to describe
many different kinds of nervous disturbance. No one can properly be made
the subject of restrictive measures for eugenic reasons, merely because
he is said to be "insane." It would be wholly immoral so to treat, for
example, a man or woman who was suffering from the form of insanity
which sometimes follows typhoid fever. But there are certain forms of
mental disease, generally lumped under the term "insanity," which
indicate a hereditarily disordered nervous organization, and individuals
suffering from one of these diseases should certainly not be given any
chance to perpetuate their insanity to posterity. Two types of insanity
are now recognized as especially transmissible:--dementia precox, a sort
of precocious old age, in which the patient (generally young) sinks into
a lethargy from which he rarely recovers; and manic-depressive insanity,
an over-excitable condition, in which there are occasional very erratic
motor discharges, alternating with periods of depression. Constitutional
psychopathic inferiority, which means a lack of emotional adaptability,
usually shows in the family history. The common type of insanity which
is characterized by mild hallucinations is of less concern from a
eugenic point of view.
In general, the insane are more adequately restricted than any other
dysgenic class in the community; not because the community recognizes
the disadvantage of letting them reproduce their kind, but because there
is a general fear of them, which leads to their strict segregation; and
because an insane person is not considered legally competent to enter
into a marriage contract. In general, the present isolation of the sexes
at institutions for the insane is satisfactory; the principal problem
which insanity presents lies in the fact that an individual is
frequently committed to a hospital or asylum, kept there a few years
until apparently cured, and then discharged; whereupon he returns to his
family to beget offspring that are fairly likely to become insane at
some period in their lives. Every case of insanity should be accompanied
by an investigation of the patient's ancestry, and if there is
unmistakable evidence of serious neuropathic taint, such steps as are
necessary should be taken to prevent that individual from becoming a
parent at any time.
The hereditary nature of most types of epilepsy is generally held to be
established,[81] and restrictive measures should be used to prevent the
increase of the number of epileptics in the country. It has been
calculated that the number of epileptics in the state of New Jersey,
where the most careful investigation of the problem has been made, will
double every 30 years under present conditions.
In dealing with both insanity and epilepsy, the eugenist faces the
difficulty that occasionally people of the very kind whose production he
most wishes to see encouraged--real geniuses--may carry the taint. The
exaggerated claims of the Italian anthropologist C. Lombroso and his
school, in regard to the close relation between genius and insanity,
have been largely disproved; yet there remains little doubt that the two
sometimes do go together; and such supposed epileptics as Mohammed,
Julius Cæsar, and Napoleon will at once be called to mind. To apply
sweeping restrictive measures would prevent the production of a certain
amount of talent of a very high order. The situation can only be met by
dealing with every case on its individual merits, and recognizing that
it is to the interests of society to allow some very superior
individuals to reproduce, even though part of their posterity may be
mentally or physically somewhat unsound.
A field survey in two typical counties of Indiana (1916) showed that
there were 1.8 recognizable epileptics per thousand population. If
these figures should approximately hold good for the entire United
States, the number of epileptics can hardly be put at less than 150,000.
Some of them are not anti-social, but many of them are.
Feeble-mindedness and insanity were also included in the census
mentioned, and the total number of the three kinds of defectives was
found to be 19 per thousand in one county and 11.4 per thousand in the
other. This would suggest a total for the entire United States of
something like one million.
In addition to these well-recognized classes of hopelessly defective,
there is a class of defectives embracing very diverse characteristics,
which demands careful consideration. In it are those who are germinally
physical weaklings or deformed, those born with a hereditary diathesis
or predisposition toward some serious disease (e.g., Huntington's
Chorea), and those with some gross defect of the organs of special
sense. The germinally blind and deaf will particularly occur to mind in
the latter connection. Cases falling in this category demand careful
scrutiny by biological and psychological experts, before any action can
be taken in the interest of eugenics; in many cases the affected
individual himself will be glad to coöperate with society by remaining
celibate or by the practice of birth control, to the end of leaving no
offspring to bear what he has borne.
Finally, we come to the great class of delinquents who have hitherto
been made the particular object of solicitude, on the part of those who
have looked with favor upon sterilization legislation. The chronic
inebriate, the confirmed criminal, the prostitute, the pauper, all
deserve careful study by the eugenist. In many cases they will be found
to be feeble-minded, and proper restriction of the feeble-minded will
meet their cases. Thus there is reason to believe that from a third to
two-thirds of the prostitutes in American cities are feeble-minded.[82]
They should be committed to institutions for the feeble-minded and kept
there. It is certain that many of the pauper class, which fills up
almshouses, are similarly deficient. Indeed, the census of 1910
discovered that of the 84,198 paupers in institutions on the first of
January in that year, 13,238 were feeble-minded, 3,518 insane, 2,202
epileptic, 918 deaf-mute, 3,375 blind, 13,753 crippled, maimed or
deformed. A total of 63.7% of the whole had some serious physical or
mental defect. Obviously, most of these would be taken care of under
some other heading, in the program of restrictive eugenics. While
paupers should be prohibited from reproduction as long as they are in
state custody, careful discrimination is necessary in the treatment of
those whose condition is due more to environment than heredity.
In a consideration of the chronic inebriate, the problem of
environmental influences is again met in an acute form, aggravated by
the venom of controversy engendered by bigotry and self-interest. That
many chronic inebriates owe their condition almost wholly to heredity,
and are likely to leave offspring of the same character, is
indisputable. As to the possibility of "reforming" such an individual,
there may be room for a difference of opinion; as to the possibility of
reforming his germ-plasm, there can be none. Society owes them the best
possible care, and part of its care should certainly be to see that they
do not reproduce their kind. As to the borderland cases--and in the
matter of inebriety borderland is perhaps bigger than mainland--it is
doubtful whether much direct action can be taken in the present state of
scientific knowledge and of public sentiment. Education of public
opinion to avoid marriage with drunkards will probably be the most
effective means of procedure.
Finally, there is the criminal class, over which the respective
champions of heredity and environment have so often waged partisan
warfare. There is probably no field in which restrictive eugenics would
think of interfering, where it encounters so much danger as here--danger
of wronging both the individual and society. Laws such as have been
passed in several states, providing for the sterilization of criminals
_as such,_ must be deplored by the eugenist as much as they are by the
pseudo-sociologist who "does not believe in heredity"; but this is not
saying that there are not many cases in which eugenic action is
desirable; for inheritance of a lack of emotional control makes a man
in one sense a "born criminal."[83] He is not, in most respects, the
creature which he was made out to be by Lombroso and his followers; but
he exists, nevertheless, and no ameliorative treatment given him will be
of such value to society as preventing his reproduction.
The feeble-minded who make up a large proportion of the petty criminals
that fill the jails, must, of course, be excluded from this discussion
except to note that their conviction assists in discovering their
defect. They should be treated as feeble-minded, not as criminals.[84]
Those who may have been made criminals by society, by their environment,
must also be excepted. In an investigation, the benefit of the doubt
should be given to the individual. But when every possible concession is
made to the influence of environment, the psychiatric study of the
individual and the investigation of his family history still show that
there are criminals who congenitally lack the inhibitions and instincts
which make it possible for others to be useful members of society.[85]
When a criminal of this natural type is found, the duty of society is
unquestionably to protect itself by cutting off that line of descent.
This, we believe, covers all the classes which are at this time proper
subjects for direct restrictive action with eugenic intent; and we
repeat that the problem is not to deal with classes as a whole, but to
deal with individuals of the kind described, for the sake of
convenience, in the above categories. Artificial class names mean
nothing to evolution. It would be a crime to cut off the posterity of a
desirable member of society merely because he happened to have been
popularly stigmatized by some class name that carried opprobrium with
it. Similarly it would be immoral to encourage or permit the
reproduction of a manifestly defective member of society of the kinds
indicated, even though that individual might in some way have secured
the protection of a class name that was generally considered desirable.
Bearing this in mind, we believe no one can object to a proposal to
prevent the reproduction of those feeble-minded, insane, epileptic,
grossly defective or hopelessly delinquent people, whose condition can
be proved to be due to heredity and is therefore probably transmissible
to their offspring. We can imagine only one objection that might be
opposed to all the advantages of such a program--namely, that no proper
means can be found for putting it into effect. This objection is
occasionally urged, but we believe it to be wholly without weight. We
now propose to examine the various possible methods of restrictive
eugenics, and to inquire which of them society can most profitably
adopt.
CHAPTER X
METHODS OF RESTRICTION
The means of restriction can be divided into coercive and non-coercive.
We shall discuss the former first, interpreting the word "coercive" very
broadly.
From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself
is execution. This has been used since the beginning of the race, very
probably, although rarely with a distinct understanding of its eugenic
effect; and its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not
be underestimated. It is a method the use of which prevents the
rectification of mistakes. There are arguments against it on other
grounds, which need not be discussed here, since it suffices to say that
to put to death defectives or delinquents is wholly out of accord with
the spirit of the times, and is not seriously considered by the eugenics
movement.
The next possible method castration. This has practically nothing to
recommend it, except that it is effective--an argument that can also be
made for the "lethal chamber." The objections against it are
overwhelming. It has hardly been advocated, even by extremists, save for
those whose sexual instincts are extremely disordered; but such advocacy
is based on ignorance of the results. As a fact, castration frequently
does not diminish the sexual impulses. Its use should be limited to
cases where desirable for therapeutic reasons as well.
It is possible, however, to render either a man or woman sterile by a
much less serious operation than castration. This operation, which has
gained wide attention in recent years under the name of "sterilization,"
usually takes the form of vasectomy in man and salpingectomy in woman;
it is desirable that the reader should have a clear understanding of its
nature.
Vasectomy is a trivial operation performed in a few minutes, almost
painlessly with the use of cocain as a local anæsthetic; it is sometimes
performed with no anæsthetic whatever. The patient's sexual life is not
affected in any way, save in the one respect that he is sterile.
Salpingectomy is more serious, because the operation can not be
performed so near the surface of the body. The sexual life of the
subject is in no way changed, save that she is rendered barren; but the
operation is attended by illness and expense.
The general advantage claimed for sterilization, as a method of
preventing the reproduction of persons whose offspring would probably be
a detriment to race progress, is the accomplishment of the end in view
without much expense to the state, and without interfering with the
"liberty and pursuit of happiness" of the individual. The general
objection to it is that by removing all fear of consequences from an
individual, it is likely to lead to the spread of sexual immorality and
venereal disease. This objection is entitled to some consideration; but
there exists a still more fundamental objection against sterilization as
a program--namely, that it is sometimes not fair to the individual. Its
eugenic effects may be all that are desired; but in some cases its
euthenic effects must frequently be deplorable. Most of the persons whom
it is proposed to sterilize are utterly unfit to hold their own in the
world, in competition with normal people. For society to sterilize the
feeble-minded, the insane, the alcoholic, the born criminals, the
epileptic, and then turn them out to shift for themselves, saying, "We
have no further concern with you, now that we know you will leave no
children behind you," is unwise. People of this sort should be humanely
isolated, so that they will be brought into competition only with their
own kind; and they should be kept so segregated, not only until they
have passed the reproductive age, but until death brings them relief
from their misfortunes. Such a course is, in most cases, the only one
worthy of a Christian nation; and it is obvious that if such a course is
followed, the sexes can be effectively separated without difficulty, and
any sterilization operation will be unnecessary.
Generally speaking, the only objection urged against segregation is
that of expense. In reply, it may be said that the expense will decrease
steadily, when segregation is viewed as a long-time investment, because
the number of future wards of the state of any particular type will be
decreasing every year. Moreover, a large part of the expense can be met
by properly organizing the labor of the inmates. This is particularly
true of the feeble-minded, who will make up the largest part of the
burden because of their numbers and the fact that most of them are not
now under state care. As for the insane, epileptic, incorrigibly
criminal, and the other defectives and delinquents embraced in the
program, the state is already taking care of a large proportion of them,
and the additional expense of making this care life-long, and extending
it to those not yet under state control, but equally deserving of it,
could probably be met by better organization of the labor of the persons
involved, most of whom are able to do some sort of work that will at
least cover the cost of their maintenance.
That the problem is less serious than has often been supposed, may be
illustrated by the following statement from H. Hastings Hart of the
Russell Sage Foundation:
"Of the 10,000 (estimated) mentally defective women of child-bearing age
in the state of New York, only about 1,750 are cared for in institutions
designated for the care of the feeble-minded, and about 4,000 are
confined in insane asylums, reformatories and prisons, while at least
4,000 (probably many more) are at large in the community.
"With reference to the 4,000 feeble-minded who are confined in hospitals
for insane, prisons and reformatories and almshouses, the state would
actually be the financial gainer by providing for them in custodial
institutions. At the Rome Custodial Asylum 1,230 inmates are humanely
cared for at $2.39 per week. The same class of inmates is being cared
for in the boys' reformatories at $4.66; in the hospitals for insane at
$3.90; in the girls' reformatory at $5.47, and in the almshouse at about
$1.25. If all of these persons were transferred to an institution
conducted on the scale of the Rome Custodial Asylum, they would not only
relieve these other institutions of inmates who do not belong there and
who are a great cause of care and anxiety, but they would make room for
new patients of the proper class, obviating the necessity for
enlargement. The money thus saved would build ample institutions for the
care of these people at a much less per capita cost than that of the
prisons, reformatories and asylums where they are now kept, and the
annual per capita cost of maintenance would be reduced from 20 to 50 per
cent., except in almshouses, where the cost would be increased about $1
per week, but the almshouse inmates compose only a small fraction of the
whole number.
"I desire to emphasize the fact that one-half of the feeble-minded of
this state are already under public care, but that two-thirds of them
are cared for in the wrong kind of institutions. This difficulty can be
remedied without increasing the public burden, in the manner already
suggested. That leaves 15,000 feeble-minded for whom no provision has
yet been made. It must be remembered that these 15,000 persons are being
cared for in some way. We do not allow them to starve to death, but they
are fed, clothed and housed, usually by the self-denying labor of their
relatives. Thousands of poor mothers are giving up their lives largely
to the care of a feeble-minded child, but these mothers are unable to so
protect them from becoming a menace to the community, and, in the long
run, it would be far more economical for the community to segregate them
in institutions than to allow them to remain in their homes, only to
become ultimately paupers, criminals, prostitutes or parents of children
like themselves."
Some sort of provision is now made for some of the feeble-minded in
every state excepting eleven, viz.: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah and
West Virginia. Delaware sends a few cases to Pennsylvania institutions;
other states sometimes care for especially difficult cases in hospitals
for the insane. The District of Columbia should be added to the list, as
having no institution for the care of its 800 or more feeble-minded.
Alaska is likewise without such an institution.
Of the several hundred thousand feeble-minded persons in the United
States, probably not more than a tenth are getting the institutional
care which is needed in most cases for their own happiness, and in
nearly every case for the protection of society. It is evident that a
great deal of new machinery must be created, or old institutions
extended, to meet this pressing problem--[86] a problem to which,
fortunately, the public is showing signs of awakening. In our opinion,
the most promising attempt to solve the problem has been made by the
Training School of Vineland, New Jersey, through its "Colony Plan."
Superintendent E. R. Johnstone of the Training School describes the
possibilities of action along this line, as follows:[87]
There are idiots, imbeciles, morons and backward children. The
morons and the backward children are found in the public schools in
large numbers. Goddard's studies showed twelve per cent. of an
entire school district below the high school to be two or three
years behind their grades, and three per cent. four or more years
behind.
It is difficult for the expert to draw the line between these two
classes, and parents and teachers are loth to admit that the morons
are defective. This problem can best be solved by the establishment
of special classes in the public schools for all who lag more than
one year behind. If for no other reason, the normal children should
be relieved of the drag of these backward pupils. The special
classes will become the clearing houses. The training should be
largely manual and industrial and as practical as possible. As the
number of classes in any school district increases, the
classification will sift out those who are merely backward and a
little coaching and special attention will return them to the
grades. The others--the morons--will remain and as long as they are
not dangerous to society (sexually or otherwise) they may live at
home and attend the special classes. As they grow older they will
be transferred to proper custodial institutions. In the city
districts, where there are many classes, this will occur between
twelve and sixteen years of age. In the country districts it will
occur earlier.
These institutions will be the training schools and will form the center
for the training and care of the other two groups, i. e., the imbeciles
and idiots. Branching out from the training schools should be colonies
(unless the parent institution is on a very large tract of ground, which
is most advisable). These colonies, or groups of comparatively small
buildings, should be of two classes. For the imbeciles, simple buildings
costing from two to four hundred dollars per inmate. The units might
well be one hundred. A unit providing four dormitories, bath house,
dining-halls, employees' buildings, pump house, water tank, sewage
disposal, laundry, stables and farm buildings can be built within the
above figures providing the buildings are of simple construction and one
story. This has been done at Vineland by having the larger imbecile and
moron boys make the cement blocks of which the buildings are
constructed.
For the idiots the construction can be much the same. Larger porches
facing the south and more toilet fixtures will be necessary, and so add
a little to the cost.
The colony should be located on rough uncleared land--preferable
forestry land. Here these unskilled fellows find happy and useful
occupation, waste humanity taking waste land and thus not only
contributing toward their own support, but also making over land that
would otherwise be useless.
One reason for building inexpensive buildings is that having cleared a
large tract--say 1,000 acres--the workers can be moved to another waste
tract and by brushing, clearing of rocks, draining and what not,
increase its value sufficiently to keep on moving indefinitely.
Many of these boy-men make excellent farmers, dairymen, swineherds and
poultry raisers under proper direction, and in the winter they can work
in the tailor, paint, carpenter, mattress and mat shops.
Nor need this be confined to the males alone. The girl-women raise
poultry, small fruits and vegetables very successfully. They pickle and
can the products of the land, and in winter do knitting, netting and
sewing of all kinds.
No manufacturer of to-day has let the product of his plant go to waste
as society has wasted the energies of this by-product of humanity. And
the feeble-minded are happy when they have occupation suited to their
needs. If one will but see them when they are set at occupations within
their comprehension and ability, he will quickly understand the joy they
get out of congenial work.
Colonies such as Mr. Johnstone describes will take care of the
able-bodied feeble-minded; other institutions will provide for the very
young and the aged; finally, there will always be many of these
defectives who can best be "segregated" in their own homes; whose
relatives have means and inclination to care for them, and sufficient
feeling of responsibility to see that the interests of society are
protected. If there is any doubt on this last point, the state should
itself assume charge, or should sterilize the defective individuals; but
it is not likely that sterilization will need to be used to any large
extent in the solution of this problem. In general it may be said that
feeble-mindedness is the greatest single dysgenic problem facing the
country, that it can be effectively solved by segregation, and that it
presents no great difficulty save the initial one of arousing the public
to its importance.
Similarly the hereditarily insane and epileptic can best be cared for
through life-long segregation--a course which society is likely to adopt
readily, because of a general dread of having insane and epileptic
persons at liberty in the community. There are undoubtedly cases where
the relatives of the affected individual can and should assume
responsibility for his care. No insane or epileptic person whose
condition is probably of a hereditary character should be allowed to
leave an institution unless it is absolutely certain that he or she will
not become a parent: if sterilization is the only means to assure this,
then it should be used. In many cases it has been found that the
individual and his relatives welcome such a step.
The habitual criminals, the chronic alcoholics, and the other defectives
whom we have mentioned as being undesirable parents, will in most cases
need to be given institutional care throughout life, in their own
interest as well as that of society. This is already being done with
many of them, and the extension of the treatment involves no new
principle nor special difficulty.
It should be borne in mind that, from a eugenic point of view, the
essential element in segregation is not so much isolation from society,
but separation of the two sexes. Properly operated, segregation
increases the happiness of the individuals segregated, as well as
working to the advantage of the body politic. In most cases the only
objection to it is the expense, and this, as we have shown, need not be
an insuperable difficulty. For these reasons, we believe that
segregation is the best way in which to restrict the reproduction of
those whose offspring could hardly fail to be undesirable, and that
sterilization should be looked upon only as an adjunct, to be used in
special cases where it may seem advantageous to allow an individual full
liberty, or partial liberty, and yet where he or she can not be trusted
to avoid reproduction.
Having reached this point in the discussion of restrictive eugenics, it
may be profitable to consider the so-called "eugenic laws" which have
been before the public in many states during recent years. They are one
of the first manifestations of an awakening public conscience on the
subject of eugenics; they show that the public, or part of it, feels the
necessity of action; they equally show that the principles which should
guide restrictive eugenics are not properly understood by most of those
who have interested themselves in the legislative side of the program.
Twelve states now have laws on their statute books (but usually not in
force) providing for the sterilization of certain classes of
individuals. Similar laws have been passed in a number of other states,
but were vetoed by the governors; while in many others bills have been
introduced but not passed. We shall review only the bills which are
actually on the statute books in 1916, and shall not attempt to detail
all the provisions of them, but shall consider only the means by which
they propose to attain a eugenic end.
The state of Indiana allows the sterilization of all inmates of state
institutions, deemed by a commission of three surgeons to be
unimprovable physically or mentally, and unfit for procreation. The
object is purely eugenic. After a few hundred operations had been
performed in Jeffersonville reformatory, the law aroused the hostility
of Governor Thomas R. Marshall, who succeeded in preventing its
enforcement; since 1913 we believe it has not been in effect. It is
defectively drawn in some ways, particularly because it includes those
who will be kept in custody for life, and who are therefore not proper
objects of sterilization.
The Washington law applies to habitual criminals and sex offenders; it
is a punitive measure which may be ordered by the court passing sentence
on the offender, but has never been put in force. Sterilization is not a
suitable method of punishment, and its value as a eugenic instrument is
jeopardized by the interjection of the punitive motive.
California applied her law to all inmates (not voluntary) of state
hospitals for the insane and the state home for the feeble-minded, and
all recidivists in the state prisons. The motive is partly eugenic,
partly therapeutic, partly punitive. It is reported[88] that 635
operations have been performed under this law, which is administered by
the state commission for the insane, the resident physician of any state
prison, and the medical superintendent of any state institution for
"fools and idiots." For several years California had the distinction of
being the only state where sterilization was actually being performed in
accordance with the law. The California measure applies to those serving
life sentences--an unnecessary application. Although falling short of an
ideal measure in some other particulars, it seems on the whole to be
satisfactorily administered.
Connecticut's law provides that all inmates of state prisons and of the
state hospitals at Middletown and Norwich may be sterilized if such
action is recommended by a board of three surgeons, on eugenic or
therapeutic grounds. It has been applied to a few insane persons (21, up
to September, 1916).
Nevada has a purely punitive sterilization law applying to habitual
criminals and sex offenders. The courts, which are authorized to apply
it, have never done so.
[Illustration: FEEBLE-MINDED MEN ARE CAPABLE OF MUCH ROUGH LABOR
FIG. 30.--Most of the cost of segregating the mentally
defective can be met by properly organizing their labor, so as to make
them as nearly self-supporting as possible. It has been found that they
perform excellently such work as clearing forest land, or reforesting
cleared land, and great gangs of them might profitably be put at such
work, in most states. Photograph from the Training School, Vineland, N.
J.]
[Illustration: FEEBLE-MINDED AT A VINELAND COLONY
FIG. 31.--They have the bodies of adults but the minds of
children. It is not to the interest of the state that they should be
allowed to mingle with the normal population; and it is quite as little
to their own interest, for they are not capable of competing
successfully with people who are normal mentally.]
Iowa's comprehensive statute applies to inmates of public institutions
for criminals, rapists, idiots, feeble-minded, imbeciles, lunatics,
drug fiends, epileptics, syphilitics, moral and sexual perverts and
diseased and degenerate persons. It is compulsory in case of persons
twice convicted of felony or of a sexual offense other than "white
slavery," in which offense one conviction makes sterilization mandatory.
The state parole board, with the managing officer and physician of each
institution, constitute the executive authorities. The act has many
objectionable features, one of the most striking of which is the
inclusion of syphilitics under the head of persons whom it is proposed
to sterilize. As syphilis is a curable disease, there is scarcely more
reason for sterilizing those afflicted with it than there is for
sterilizing persons with measles. It is true that the sterilization of a
large number of syphilitics might have a eugenic effect, if the cured
syphilitics had a permanently impaired germ-plasm--a proposition which
is very doubtful. But the framers of the law apparently were not
influenced by that aspect of the case, and in any event such a method of
procedure is too round-about to be commendable. Criminals as such, and
syphilitics, should certainly be removed from the workings of this law,
and dealt with in some other way. However, no operations are reported as
having been performed under the act.
New Jersey's law, which has never been operative, represents a much more
advanced statute; it applies to inmates of state reformatories,
charitable and penal institutions (rapists and confirmed criminals) and
provides for a board of expert examiners, as well as for legal
procedure.
New York's law, applying to inmates of state hospitals for the insane,
state prisons, reformatories and charitable institutions, is also fairly
well drawn, providing for a board of examiners, and surrounding the
operation with legal safeguards. No operations have been performed under
it.
North Dakota includes inmates of state prisons, reform school, school
for feeble-minded and asylum for the insane in its law, which is
administered by a special board. Although an emergency clause was tacked
on, when it was passed in 1913, putting it into effect at once, no
operations have been performed under it.
Michigan's law applies to all inmates of state institutions maintained
wholly or in part at public expense. It lacks many of the provisions of
an ideal law, but is being applied to some of the feeble-minded.
The Kansas law, which provides suitable court procedure, embraces
inmates of all state institutions intrusted with the care or custody of
habitual criminals, idiots, epileptics, imbeciles or insane, an
"habitual criminal" being defined as "a person who has been convicted of
some felony involving moral turpitude." It has been a dead letter ever
since it was placed on the statute books.
Wisconsin[89] provides for a special board to consider the cases of "all
inmates of state and county institutions for criminal, insane,
feeble-minded and epileptic persons," prior to their release. The law
has some good features, and has been applied to a hundred or more
feeble-minded persons.
In 1911 the American Breeders' Association appointed a "Committee to
Study and Report on the Best Practical Means of Cutting Off the
Defective Germ-Plasm in the American Population," and this committee has
been at work ever since, under auspices of the Eugenics Record Office,
making a particular study of legal sterilization. It points out[90] that
a sterilization law, to be of the greatest possible value, must:
(1) Consider sterilization as a eugenic measure, not as a punitive or
even therapeutic one.
(2) Provide due process of law, before any operation is carried out.
(3) Provide adequate and competent executive agents.
(4) Designate only proper classes of persons as subject to the law.
(5) Provide for the nomination of individuals for sterilization, by
suitable procedure.
(6) Make an adequate investigation of each case, the family history
being the most important part, and one which is often neglected at
present.
(7) Have express and adequate criteria for determining upon
sterilization.
(8) Designate the type of operation authorized.
(9) Make each distinct step mandatory and fix definitely the
responsibility for it.
(10) Make adequate appropriation for carrying out the measure.
Tested by such standards, there is not a sterilization law in existence
in the United States at the time this is written that is wholly
commendable; and those introduced in various states during the last few
years, but not passed, show few signs of improvement. It is evident that
the commendable zeal has not had adequate guidance, in the drafting of
sterilization legislation. The committee above referred to has drawn up
a model law, and states which wish to adopt a program of legislative
sterilization should pass a measure embodying at least the principles of
this model law. But, as we have pointed out, wholesale sterilization is
an unsatisfactory substitute for segregation. There are cases where it
is advisable, in states too poor or niggardly to care adequately for
their defectives and delinquents, but eugenists should favor segregation
as the main policy, with sterilization for the special cases as
previously indicated.
There is another way in which attempts have recently been made to
restrict the reproduction of anti-social persons: by putting
restrictions on marriage. This form of campaign, although usually
calling itself eugenic, has been due far less to eugenists than to sex
hygienists who have chosen to sail under a borrowed flag. Every eugenist
must wish them success in their efforts to promote sex hygiene, but it
is a matter of regret that they can not place their efforts in the
proper light, for their masquerade as a eugenic propaganda has brought
undeserved reproach on the eugenics movement.
The customary form of legal action in this case is to demand that both
applicants for a marriage license, or in some cases only the male, sign
an affidavit or present a certificate from some medical authority
stating that an examination has been made and the applicant found to be
free from any venereal disease. In some cases other diseases or mental
defects are included. When the law prevents marriage on account of
insanity, feeble-mindedness, or other hereditary defect, it obviously
has a eugenic value; but in so far as it concerns itself with venereal
diseases, which are not hereditary, it is only of indirect interest to
eugenics. The great objection to such laws is that they are too easily
evaded by the persons whom they are intended to reach--a fact that has
been demonstrated conclusively wherever they have been put in force.
Furthermore, the nature of the examination demanded is usually wholly
inadequate to ascertain whether the applicant really is or is not
afflicted with a venereal disease. Finally, it is to be borne in mind
that the denial of a marriage license will by no means prevent
reproduction, among the anti-social classes of the community.
For these reasons, the so-called eugenic laws of several states, which
provide for a certificate of health before a marriage license is issued,
are not adequate eugenic measures. They have some value in awakening
public sentiment to the value of a clean record in a prospective life
partner. To the extent that they are enforced, the probability that
persons afflicted with venereal disease are on the average eugenically
inferior to the unaffected gives these laws some eugenic effect. We are
not called on to discuss them from a hygienic point of view; but we
believe that it is a mistake for eugenists to let legislation of this
sort be anything but a minor achievement, to be followed up by more
efficient legislation.
Laws which tend to surround marriage with a reasonable amount of
formality and publicity are, in general, desirable eugenically. They
tend to discourage hasty and secret marriages, and to make matrimony
appear as a matter in which the public has a legitimate interest, and
which is not to be undertaken lightly and without consideration. Laws
compelling the young to get the consent of their parents before marriage
are to be placed in this category; and likewise the German law which
requires the presentation of birth-certificates before a marriage
license is issued.
A revival under proper form of the old custom of publishing the banns is
desirable. Undoubtedly many hasty and ill-considered marriages are
contracted at the present time, with dysgenic results, which could be
prevented if the relatives and friends of the contracting parties knew
what was going on, and could bring to light defects or objections
unknown or not properly realized by the young people. Among other
states, Missouri has recently considered such a law, proposing that each
applicant for a marriage license be required to present a certificate
from a reputable physician, stating in concise terms the applicant's
health and his fitness to marry. Notice of application for a marriage
license shall be published in a daily paper three consecutive times, at
the expense of the county. If at the expiration of one day from the
publication of the last notice, no charges have been filed with the
recorder alleging the applicants' unfitness to marry, license shall be
granted. If objection be made by three persons not related in blood to
each other, on the ground of any item mentioned in the physician's
certificate, the case shall be taken before the circuit court; if the
court sustains the objection of these three unrelated persons, a license
to wed shall be denied; if the court overrules the objection, the
license shall be granted and court costs charged to the objectors.
Although interesting as showing the drift of public sentiment toward a
revival of the banns, this proposed law is poorly drawn. Three unrelated
laymen and the judge of a circuit court are not the proper persons to
decide on the biological fitness of a proposed marriage. We believe the
interests of eugenics would be sufficiently met at this time by a law
which provided that adequate notice of application for marriage license
should be published, and no license granted (except under exceptional
circumstances) until the expiration of two weeks from the publication of
the notice. This would give families and friends time to act; but it is
probably not practicable to forbid the issuance of a license at the
expiration of the designated time, unless evidence is brought forward
showing that one of the applicants is not legally capable of
contracting marriage because of a previous mate still living and
undivorced, or because of insanity, feeble-mindedness, under age, etc.
Such a law, we believe, could be put on the statute books of any state,
and enforced, without arousing prejudices or running counter to public
sentiment; and its eugenic value, if small, would certainly be real.
This exhausts the list of suggested coercive means of restricting the
reproduction of the inferior. What we propose is, we believe, a very
modest program, and one which can be carried out, as soon as public
opinion is educated on the subject, without any great sociological,
legal or financial hindrances. We suggest nothing more than that
individuals whose offspring would almost certainly be subversive of the
general welfare, be prevented from having any offspring. In most cases,
such individuals are, or should be, given life-long institutional care
for their own benefit, and it is an easy matter, by segregation of the
sexes, to prevent reproduction. In a few cases, it will probably be
found desirable to sterilize the individual by a surgical operation.
Such coercive restriction does, in some cases, sacrifice what may be
considered personal rights. In such instances, personal rights must give
way before the immensely greater interests of the race. But there is a
much larger class of cases, where coercion can not be approved, and yet
where an enlightened conscience, or the subtle force of public opinion,
may well bring about some measure of restraint on reproduction. This
class includes many individuals who are not in any direct way
detrimental to society; and who yet have some inherited taint or defect
that should be checked, and of which they, if enlightened, would
probably be the first to desire the elimination. The number of
high-minded persons who deliberately refrain from marriage, or
parenthood, in the interests of posterity, is greater than any one
imagines, except a eugenist brought into intimate relations with people
who take an intelligent interest in the subject.
X. comes, let us say, from a family in which there is a persistent taint
of epilepsy, or insanity. X. is a normal, useful, conscientious member
of society. To talk of segregating such an individual would be rash. But
X. has given some thought to heredity and eugenics, and decides that he,
or she, will refrain from marriage, in order to avoid transmitting the
family taint to another generation. Here we have, in effect, a
non-coercive restriction of reproduction. What shall we say of the
action of X. in remaining celibate,--is it wise or unwise? To be
encouraged or condemned?
It is perhaps the most delicate problem which applied eugenics offers.
It is a peculiarly personal one, and the outsider who advises in such a
case is assuming a heavy responsibility, not only in regard to the
future welfare of the race, but to the individual happiness of X. We can
not accept the sweeping generalization sometimes made that "Strength
should marry weakness and weakness marry strength." No more can we hold
fast to the ideal, which we believe to be utopian, that "Strength should
only marry strength." There are cases where such glittering generalities
are futile; where the race and the individual would both be gainers by a
marriage which produced children that had the family taint, but either
latent or not to a degree serious enough to counteract their value. The
individual must decide for himself with especial reference to the trait
in question and his other compensating qualities; but he should at least
have the benefit of whatever light genetics can offer him, before he
makes his decision.
For the sake of a concrete example, let us suppose that a man, in whose
ancestry tuberculosis has appeared for several generations, is
contemplating marriage. The first thing to be remembered is that if he
marries a woman with a similar family history, their children will have
a double inheritance of the taint, and are almost certain to be affected
unless living in an especially favorable region. It would _in most
cases_ be best that no children result from such a marriage.
On the other hand, the man may marry a woman in whose family consumption
is unknown. The chance of their children being tuberculous will not be
great; nevertheless the taint, the diathesis, will be passed on just the
same, although concealed, possibly to appear at some future time. Such
a marriage is in some ways more dangerous to the race, in the long run,
than that of "weakness with weakness." Yet society at present certainly
has no safe grounds for interference, if such a marriage is made. If the
two persons come of superior stock, it seems _probable_ that the gain
will outweigh the loss. In any event, it is at least to be expected that
both man and woman would have a deliberate consciousness of what they
are doing, and that no person with any honor would enter into a
marriage, concealing a defect in his or her ancestry. Love is usually
blind enough to overlook such a thing, but if it chooses not to, it
ought not to be blindfolded.
In short, the mating of strength with strength is certainly the ideal
which society should have and which every individual should have. But
human heredity is so mixed that this ideal is not always practicable;
and if any two persons wish to abandon it, society is hardly justified
in interfering, unless the case be so gross as those which we were
discussing in the first part of this chapter. Progress in this direction
is to be expected mainly from the enlightened action of the individual.
Much more progress in the study of heredity must be made before advice
on marriage matings can be given in any except fairly obvious cases. The
most that can now be done is to urge that a full knowledge of the family
history of an intended life partner be sought, to encourage the discreet
inquiries and subtle guidance of parents, and to appeal to the eugenic
conscience of a young man or woman. In case of doubt the advice of a
competent biologist should be taken. There is a real danger that
high-minded people may allow some minor physical defect to outweigh a
greater mental excellence.
There remains one other non-coercive method of influencing the
distribution of marriage, which deserves consideration in this
connection.
We have said that society can not well put many restrictions on marriage
at the present time. We urge by every means at our command that marriage
be looked upon more seriously, that it be undertaken with more
deliberation and consideration. We consider it a crime for people to
marry, without knowing each other's family histories. But in spite of
all this, ill-assorted, dysgenic marriages will still be made. When such
a marriage is later demonstrated to have been a mistake, not only from
an individual, but also from a eugenic point of view, society should be
ready to dissolve the union. Divorce is far preferable to mere
separation, since the unoffending party should not be denied the
privilege of remarriage, as the race in most cases needs his or her
contribution to the next generation. In extreme cases, it would be
proper for society to take adequate steps to insure that the dysgenic
party could neither remarry nor have offspring outside marriage. The
time-honored justifiable grounds for divorce,--adultery, sterility,
impotence, venereal infection, desertion, non-support, habitual
cruelty,--appear to us to be no more worthy of legal recognition
than the more purely dysgenic grounds of chronic inebriety,
feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, insanity or any other serious inheritable
physical, mental or moral defect.
This view of the eugenic value of divorce should not be construed as a
plea for the admission of mutual consent as a ground for divorce. It is
desirable, however, to realize that mismating is the real evil. Divorce
in such cases is merely a cure for an improper condition. Social
condemnation should stigmatize the wrong of mismating, not the undoing
of such a wrong.
Restrictions on age at marriage are almost universal. The object is to
prevent too early marriages. The objections which are commonly urged
against early marriage (in so far as they bear upon eugenics) are the
following:
1. That it results in inferior offspring. This objection is not well
supported except possibly in the most extreme cases. Physically, there
is evidence that the younger parents on the whole bear the sounder
children.
2. That a postponement of marriage provides the opportunity for better
sexual selection. This is a valid ground for discouraging the marriage
of minors.
3. The better educated classes are obliged to marry late, because a man
usually can not marry until he has finished his education and
established himself in business. A fair amount of restriction as to age
at marriage will therefore not affect these classes, but may affect the
uneducated classes. In so far as lack of education is correlated with
eugenic inferiority, some restriction of this sort is desirable, because
it will keep inferiors from reproducing too rapidly, as compared with
the superior elements of the population.
While the widespread rule that men should not marry under 21 and women
under 18 has some justification, then, an ideal law would permit
exceptions where there was adequate income and good mating.
Laws to prohibit or restrict consanguineous marriages fall within the
scope of this chapter, in so far as they are not based on dogma alone,
since their aim is popularly supposed to be to prevent marriages that
will result in undesirable offspring. Examining the laws of all the
United States, C. B. Davenport[91] found the following classes excluded
from marriage:
1. Sibs (i.e., full brothers and sisters) in all states, and half sibs
in most states.
2. Parent and child in all states, and parent and grandchild in all
states except Pennsylvania.
3. Child and parent's sibs (i.e., niece and uncle, nephew and aunt).
Prohibited in all but four states.
4. First cousins. Marriages of this type are prohibited in over a third
of the states, and tacitly or specifically permitted in the others.
5. Other blood relatives are occasionally prohibited from marrying.
Thus, second cousins in Oklahoma and a child and his or her parent's
half sibs in Alabama, Minnesota, New Jersey, Texas, and other states.
In the closest of blood-relationships the well-nigh universal
restrictions should be retained. But when marriage between cousins--the
commonest form of consanguineous marriage--is examined, it is found to
result frequently well, sometimes ill. There is a widespread belief that
such marriages are dangerous, and in support of this idea, one is
referred to the histories of various isolated communities where
consanguineous marriage is alleged to have led to "an appalling amount
of defect and degeneracy." Without questioning the facts, one may
question the interpretation of the facts, and it seems to us that a
wrong interpretation of these stories is partly responsible for the
widespread condemnation of cousin marriage at the present time.
The Bahama Islands furnish one of the stock examples. Clement A. Penrose
writes[92] of them:
"In some of the white colonies where black blood has been excluded, and
where, owing to their isolated positions, frequent intermarriage has
taken place, as for instance at Spanish Wells, and Hopetown, much
degeneracy is present, manifested by many abnormalities of mind and
body.... I am strongly of the opinion that the deplorable state of
degeneracy which we observed at Hopetown has been in a great measure, if
not entirely, brought about by too close intermarrying of the
inhabitants."
To demonstrate his point, he took the pains to compile a family tree of
the most degenerate strains at Hopetown. There are fifty-five marriages
represented, and the chart is overlaid with twenty-three red lines, each
of which is said to represent an intermarriage. This looks like a good
deal of consanguineous mating; but to test the matter a little farther
the fraternity at the bottom of the chart,--eight children, of whom five
were idiots,--was traced. In the second generation it ran to another
island, and when the data gave out, at the fourth generation, there was
not a single case of consanguineous marriage involved.
Another fraternity was then picked out consisting of two men, both
idiots and congenitally blind, and a woman who had married and given
birth to ten normal children. In the fourth generation this pedigree,
which was far from complete, went out of the islands; so far as the data
showed there was not a single case of consanguineous marriage. There was
one case where a name was repeated, but the author had failed to mark
this as a case of intermarriage, if it really was such. It is difficult
to share the conviction of Dr. Penrose, that the two pedigrees
investigated, offer an example of the nefarious workings of
intermarriage.
Finally a fraternity was traced to which the author had called
particular attention because three of its eleven members were born
blind. The defect was described as "optic atrophy associated with a
pigmentary retinitis and choryditis" and "this condition," Dr. Penrose
averred, "is one stated by the authorities to be due to the effects of
consanguineous marriage."
Fortunately, the pedigree was fairly full and several lines of it could
be carried through the sixth generation. There was, indeed, a
considerable amount of consanguineous marriage involved. When the amount
of inbreeding represented by these blind boys was measured, it proved to
be almost identical with the amount represented by the present Kaiser of
Germany.[93]
We are unable to see in such a history as that of Hopetown, Bahama
Islands, any evidence that consanguineous marriage necessarily results
in degeneracy. Dr. Penrose himself points to a potent factor when he
says of his chart in another connection: "It will be noticed that only a
few of the descendants of Widow Malone [the first settler at Hopetown]
are indicated as having married. By this it is not meant that the others
did not marry; many of them did, but they moved away and settled
elsewhere, and in no way affected the future history of the settlement
of Hopetown."
By moving away, it appears to us, they did very decidedly affect the
future history of Hopetown. Who are the emigrants? Might they not have
been the more enterprising and intelligent, the physically and mentally
superior of the population, who rebelled at the limited opportunities of
their little village, and went to seek a fortune in some broader field?
Did not the best go in general; the misfits, the defectives, stay behind
to propagate? Emigration in such a case would have the same effect as
war; it would drain off the best stock and leave the weaklings to stay
home and propagate their kind. Under such conditions, defectives would
be bound to multiply, regardless of whether or not the marriages are
consanguineous.
"It will be seen at a glance," Dr. Penrose writes, "that early in the
history of the Malone family these indications of degeneracy were
absent; but they began in the fourth generation and rapidly increased
afterward until they culminated by the presence of five idiots in one
family. The original stock was apparently excellent, but the present
state of the descendants is deplorable."
Now three generations of emigration from a little community, which even
to-day has only 1,000 inhabitants, would naturally make quite a
difference in the average eugenic quality of the population. In almost
any population, a few defectives are constantly being produced. Take out
the better individuals, and leave these defectives to multiply, and the
amount of degeneracy in the population will increase, regardless of
whether the defectives are marrying their cousins, or unrelated persons.
The family of five idiots, cited by Dr. Penrose, is an excellent
illustration, for it is not the result of consanguineous marriage--at
least, not in a close enough degree to have appeared on the chart. It is
doubtless a mating of like with like; and biologically, consanguineous
marriage is nothing more.
Honesty demands, therefore, that consanguineous marriage be not credited
with results for which the consanguineous element is in no wise
responsible. The prevailing habit of picking out a community or a strain
where consanguineous marriage and defects are associated and loudly
declaring the one to be the cause of the other, is evidence of the lack
of scientific thought that is all too common.
Most of the studies of these isolated communities where intermarriage
has taken place, illustrate the same point. C. B. Davenport, for example,
quotes[94] an anonymous correspondent from the island of Bermuda, which
"shows the usual consequence of island life." He writes: "In some of the
parishes (Somerset and Paget chiefly) there has been much intermarriage,
not only with cousins but with double first cousins in several cases.
Intermarriage has chiefly caused weakness of character leading to drink,
not lack of brains or a certain amount of physical strength, but a very
inert and lazy disposition."
It is difficult to believe that anyone who has lived in the tropics
could have written this except as a practical joke. Those who have
resided in the warmer parts of the world know, by observation if not by
experience, that a "weakness of character leading to drink" and "an
inert and lazy disposition" are by no means the prerogatives of the
inbred.
If one is going to credit consanguineous marriage with these evil
results, what can one say when evil results fail to follow?
What about Smith's Island, off the coast of Maryland, where all the
inhabitants are said to be interrelated, and where a physician who lived
in the community for three years failed to find among the 700 persons a
single case of idiocy, insanity, epilepsy or congenital deafness?
What about the community of Batz, on the coast of France, where Voisin
found five marriages of first cousins and thirty-one of second cousins,
without a single case of mental defect, congenital deafness, albinism,
retinitis pigmentosa or malformation? The population was 3,000, all of
whom were said to be interrelated.
What about Cape Cod, whose natives are known throughout New England for
their ability? "At a recent visit to the Congregational Sunday-School,"
says a student, "I noticed all officers, many teachers, organist,
ex-superintendent, and pastor's wife all Dyers. A lady at Truro united
in herself four quarters Dyer, father, mother and both grandmothers
Dyers."
And finally, what about the experience of livestock breeders? Not only
has strict brother and sister mating--the closest inbreeding
possible--been carried on experimentally for twenty or twenty-five
generations without bad results; but the history of practically every
fine breed shows that inbreeding is largely responsible for its
excellence.
The Ptolemies, who ruled Egypt for several centuries, wanted to keep the
throne in the family, and hence practiced a system of intermating which
has long been the classical evidence that consanguineous marriage is
not necessarily followed by immediate evil effects. The following
fragment of the genealogy of Cleopatra VII (mistress of Julius Cæsar and
Marc Antony) is condensed from Weigall's _Life and Times of Cleopatra_
(1914) and
Ptolemy I
|
|
Ptolemy II
|
|
Ptolemy III m. Berenice II, his half-cousin.
|
|
Ptolemy IV m. Arsinoë III, his full sister.
|
|
Ptolemy V.
|
|
Ptolemy VII m. Cleopatra II, his full sister.
|
|
Cleopatra III m. Ptolemy IX (brother of VII), her uncle.
|
|
Ptolemy X. m. Cleopatra IV, his full sister.
|
-----|
| Berenice II m. Ptolemy XI (brother of X), her uncle.
| |
| |
| Ptolemy XII, d. without issue, succeeded by his uncle.
| |
| |
---Ptolemy XIII.
|
|
Cleopatra VII.
shows an amount of continued inbreeding that has never been surpassed in
recorded history, and yet did not produce any striking evil results. The
ruler's consort is named, only when the two were related. The
consanguineous marriages shown in this line of descent are by no means
the only ones of the kind that took place in the family, many like them
being found in collateral lines.
It is certain that consanguineous marriage, being the mating of like
with like, intensifies the inheritance of the offspring, which gets a
"double dose" of any trait which both parents have in common. If the
traits are good, it will be an advantage to the offspring to have a
double dose of them; if the traits are bad, it will be a disadvantage.
The marriage of superior kin should produce children better than the
parents; the marriage of inferior kin should produce children even worse
than their parents.
In passing judgment on a proposed marriage, therefore, the vital
question is not, "Are they related by blood?" but "Are they carriers of
desirable traits?"
The nature of the traits can be told only by a study of the ancestry. Of
course, characters may be latent or recessive, but this is also the case
in the population at large, and the chance of unpleasant results is so
small, when no instance can be found in the ancestry, that it can be
disregarded. If the same congenital defect or undesirable trait does not
appear in the three previous generations of two cousins, including
collaterals, the individuals need not be discouraged from marrying if
they want to.
Laws which forbid cousins to marry are, then, on an unsound biological
basis. As Dr. Davenport remarks, "The marriage of Charles Darwin and
Emma Wedgewood would have been illegal and void, and their children
pronounced illegitimate in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and other states." The vitality and great
capacity of their seven children are well known. A law which would have
prevented such a marriage is certainly not eugenic.
We conclude, then, that laws forbidding cousin marriages are not
desirable. Since it would be well to make an effort to increase the
opportunities for further play of sexual selection, the lack of which is
sometimes responsible for cousin marriages, consanguineous marriage is
by no means to be indiscriminately indorsed. Still, if there are cases
where it is eugenically injurious, there are also cases where its
results are eugenically highly beneficial, as in families with no
serious defects and with outstanding ability.
The laws prohibiting marriage between persons having no blood
relationship but connected by marriage should all be repealed. The
best-known English instance, which was eugenically very
objectionable,--the prohibition of marriage between a man and his
deceased wife's sister,--has fortunately been extirpated, but laws still
exist, in some communities, prohibiting marriage between a man and his
stepchild or stepparent, between a woman and her deceased husband's
brother, and between the second husband or wife of a deceased aunt or
uncle and the wife or husband of a deceased nephew or niece, etc.
The only other problem of restrictive eugenics which it seems necessary
to consider is that offered by miscegenation. This will be considered in
Chapters XIV and XV.
To sum up: we believe that there are urgent reasons for and no
objections to preventing the reproduction of a number of persons in the
United States, many of whom have already been recognized by society as
being so anti-social or inferior as to need institutional care. Such
restriction can best be enforced by effective segregation of the sexes,
although there are cases where individuals might well be released and
allowed full freedom, either "on parole," so to speak, or after having
undergone a surgical operation which would prevent their reproduction.
Laws providing for sterilization, such as a dozen states now possess,
are not framed with a knowledge of the needs of the case; but a properly
drafted sterilization law to provide for cases not better treated by
segregation is desirable. Segregation should be considered the main
method.
It is practicable to place only minor restrictions on marriage, with a
eugenic goal in view. A good banns law, however, could meet no
objections and would yield valuable results. Limited age restrictions
are proper.
Marriages of individuals whose families are marked by minor taints can
not justify social interference; but an enlightened conscience and a
eugenic point of view should lead every individual to make as good a
choice as possible.
If a eugenically bad mating has been made, society should minimize as
far as possible the injurious results, by means of provision for
properly restricted divorce.
Consanguineous marriages in a degree no closer than that of first
cousins, are neither to be condemned nor praised indiscriminately. Their
desirability depends on the ancestry of the two persons involved; each
case should therefore be treated on its own merits.
CHAPTER XI
THE IMPROVEMENT OF SEXUAL SELECTION
"Love is blind" and "Marriage is a lottery," in the opinion of
proverbial lore. But as usual the proverbs do not tell the whole truth.
Mating is not wholly a matter of chance; there is and always has been a
considerable amount of selection involved. This selection must of course
be with respect to individual traits, a man or woman being for this
purpose merely the sum of his or her traits. Reflection will show that
with respect to any given trait there are three ways of mating: random,
assortative and preferential.
1. Random mating is described by J. Arthur Harris[95] as follows:
"Suppose a most highly refined socialistic community should set about to
equalize as nearly as possible not only men's labor and their
recompense, but the quality of their wives. It would never do to allow
individuals to select their own partners--superior cunning might result
in some having mates above the average desirability, which would be
socially unfair!
"The method adopted would be to write the names of an equal number of
men and women officially condemned to matrimony on cards, and to place
those for men in one lottery wheel and those for women in another. The
drawing of a pair of cards, one from each wheel, would then replace the
'present wasteful system' of 'competitive' courtship. If the cards were
thoroughly shuffled and the drawings perfectly at random, we should
expect only chance resemblances between husband and wife for age,
stature, eye and hair color, temper and so on; in the long run, a wife
would resemble her husband no more than the husband of some other
woman. In this case, the mathematician can give us a coefficient of
resemblance, or of assortative mating, which we write as zero. The other
extreme would be the state of affairs in which men of a certain type
(that is to say men differing from the general average by a definite
amount) always chose wives of the same type; the resemblance would then
be perfect and the correlation, as we call it, would be expressed by a
coefficient of 1."
If all mating were at random, evolution would be a very slow process.
But actual measurement of various traits in conjugal pairs shows that
mating is very rarely random. There is a conscious or unconscious
selection for certain traits, and this selection involves other traits
because of the general correlation of traits in an individual. Random
mating, therefore, need not be taken into account by eugenists, who must
rather give their attention to one of the two forms of non-random
mating, namely, assortative and preferential.
2. If men who were above the average height always selected as brides
women who were equally above the average height and short men selected
similarly, the coefficient of correlation between height in husbands and
wives would be 1, and there would thus be perfect assortative mating. If
only one half of the men who differed from the average height always
married women who similarly differed and the other half married at
random, there would be assortative mating for height, but it would not
be perfect: the coefficient would only be half as great as in the first
case, or .5. If on the other hand (as is indeed the popular idea) a tall
man tended to marry a woman who was shorter than the average, the
coefficient of correlation would be less than 0; it would have some
negative value.
Actual measurement shows that a man who exceeds the average height by a
given amount will most frequently marry a woman who exceeds the average
by a little more than one-fourth as much as her husband does. There is
thus assortative mating for height, but it is far from perfect. The
actual coefficient given by Karl Pearson is .28. In this case, then, the
idea that "unlikes attract" is found to be the reverse of the truth.
If other traits are measured, assortative mating will again be found.
Whether it be eye color, hair color, general health, intelligence,
longevity, insanity, or congenital deafness, exact measurements show
that a man and his wife, though not related by blood, actually resemble
each other as much as do uncle and niece, or first cousins.
In some cases assortative mating is conscious, as when two congenitally
deaf persons are drawn together by their common affliction and mutual
possession of the sign language. But in the greater number of cases it
is wholly unconscious. Certainly no one would suppose that a man selects
his wife deliberately because her eye color matches his own; much less
would he select her on the basis of resemblance in longevity, which can
not be known until after both are dead.
Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones explain such selection by the supposition
that a man's ideal of everything that is lovely in womankind is based on
his mother. During his childhood, her attributes stamp themselves on his
mind as being the perfect attributes of the female sex; and when he
later falls in love it is natural that the woman who most attracts him
should be one who resembles his mother. But as he, because of heredity,
resembles his mother, there is thus a resemblance between husband and
wife. Cases where there is no resemblance would, on this hypothesis,
either be not love matches, or else be cases where the choice was made
by the woman, not the man. Proof of this hypothesis has not yet been
furnished, but it may very well account for some part of the assortative
mating which is so nearly universal.
The eugenic significance of assortative mating is obvious. Marriage of
representatives of two long-lived strains ensures that the offspring
will inherit more longevity than does the ordinary man. Marriage of two
persons from gifted families will endow the children with more than the
ordinary intellect. On the other hand, marriage of two members of
feeble-minded strains (a very common form of assortative mating) results
in the production of a new lot of feeble-minded children, while marriage
contracted between families marked by criminality or alcoholism means
the perpetuation of such traits in an intensified form. For alcoholism,
Charles Goring found the resemblance between husband and wife in the
following classes to be as follows:
Very poor and destitute .44
Prosperous poor .58
Well-to-do .69
The resemblance of husband and wife, in respect of possession of a
police record, he found to be .20. Of course alcoholism and criminality
are not wholly due to heredity; the resemblance between man and wife is
partly a matter of social influences. But in any case the existence of
assortative mating for such traits is significant.
3. Preferential mating occurs when certain classes of women are
discriminated against by the average man, or by men as a class; or _vice
versa_. It is the form of sexual selection made prominent by Charles
Darwin, who brought it forward because natural selection, operating
solely through a differential death-rate, seemed inadequate to account
for many phases of evolution. By sexual selection he meant that an
individual of one sex, in choosing a mate, is led to select out of
several competitors the one who has some particular attribute in a high
degree. The selection may be conscious, and due to the exercise of
æsthetic taste, or it may be unconscious, due to the greater degree of
excitation produced by the higher degree of some attribute. However the
selection takes place, the individual so selected will have an
opportunity to transmit his character, in the higher degree in which he
possesses it, to his descendants. In this way it was supposed by Darwin
that a large proportion of the ornamental characters of living creatures
were produced: the tail of the peacock, the mane of the lion, and even
the gorgeous coloring of many insects and butterflies. In the early
years of Darwinism, the theory of sexual selection was pushed to what
now seems an unjustifiable extent. Experiment has often failed to
demonstrate any sexual selection, in species where speculation supposed
it to exist. And even if sexual selection, conscious or unconscious,
could be demonstrated in the lower animals, yet the small percentage of
unmated individuals indicates that its importance in evolution could not
be very great.[96]
[Illustration: HOW BEAUTY AIDS A GIRL'S CHANCE OF MARRIAGE
FIG. 32.--Graph showing the marriage rate of graduates of a
normal school, correlated with their facial attractiveness as graded by
estimates. The column of figures at the left-hand side shows the
percentage of girls who married. Of the prettiest girls (those graded 80
or over), 70% married. As the less attractive girls are added to the
chart, the marriage rate declines. Of the girls who graded around 50 on
looks, only about one-half married. In general, the prettier the girl,
the greater the probability that she will not remain single.]
In man, however, there is--nowadays at least--a considerable percentage
of unmated individuals. The Census of 1910 shows that in the United
States one-fourth of all the men between 25 and 44 years of age, and
one-sixth of all the women, were unmarried. Many of the men, and a
smaller number of the women, will still marry; yet at the end there
will remain a large number, particularly in the more highly educated
classes, who die celibate. If these unmated individuals differ in any
important respect from the married part of the population, preferential
mating will be evident.
[Illustration: INTELLIGENT GIRLS ARE MOST LIKELY TO MARRY
FIG. 33.--Graph showing the marriage-rate (on the same scale as
in Fig. 32) of the graduates of a normal school, as correlated with
their class standing. The girls who received the highest marks in their
studies married in the largest numbers. It is evident that, on the
whole, girls who make a poor showing in their studies in such schools as
this are more likely to be life-long celibates than are the bright
students.]
At the extremes, there is no difficulty in seeing such mating. Certain
men and women are so defective, physically, mentally, or morally, as to
be unable to find mates. They may be idiots, or diseased, or lacking
normal sexuality, or wrongly educated.
But to get any adequate statistical proof of preferential mating on a
broad scale, has been found difficult. Two small but suggestive studies
made by Miss Carrie F. Gilmore of the University of Pittsburgh are
interesting, though far from conclusive. She examined the records of
the class of 1902, Southwestern State Normal School of Pennsylvania, to
find which of the girls had married. By means of photographs, and the
opinions of disinterested judges, the facial appearance of all the girls
in the class was graded on a scale of 100, and the curve in Fig. 32
plotted, which shows at a glance just what matrimonial advantage a
woman's beauty gives her. In general, it may be said that the prettier
the girl, the better her chance of marriage.
[Illustration: YEARS BETWEEN GRADUATION AND MARRIAGE
FIG. 34.--Curve showing period that elapsed between the
graduation of women at Washington Seminary (at the average age of 19
years) and their marriage. It includes all the graduates of the classes
of 1841 to 1900, status of 1913.]
Miss Gilmore further worked out the marriage rate of these normal school
girls, on the basis of the marks they obtained in their class work, and
found the results plotted in Fig. 33. It is evident that the most
intelligent girls, measured by their class standing, were preferred as
wives.
[Illustration: THE EFFECT OF LATE MARRIAGES
FIG. 35.--Given a population divided in two equal parts, one of
which produces a new generation every 25 years and the other every
33-1/3 years, the diagram shows that the former group will outnumber the
latter two to one, at the end of a century. The result illustrated is
actually taking place, in various groups of the population of the United
States. Largely for economic reasons, many superior people are
postponing the time of marriage. The diagram shows graphically how they
are losing ground, in comparison with other sections of the population
which marry only a few years earlier, on the average. It is assumed in
the diagram that the two groups contain equal numbers of the two sexes;
that all persons in each group marry; and that each couple produces four
children.]
It will be noted that these studies merely show that the brighter and
prettier girls were preferred by men as a class. If the individual men
whom the girls married had been studied, it would probably have been
found that the mating was also partly assortative.
If the choice of a life partner is to be eugenic, random mating must be
as nearly as possible eliminated, and assortative and preferential
mating for desirable traits must take place.
The concern of the eugenist is, then, (1) to see that young people have
the best ideals, and (2) to see that their matings are actually guided
by these ideals, instead of by caprice and passion alone.
1. In discussing ideals, we shall ask (a) what are the present ideals
governing sexual selection in the United States; (b) is it
psychologically possible to change them; (c) is it desirable that they
be changed, and if so, in what ways?
(a) There are several studies which throw light on the current ideals.
_Physical Culture_ magazine lately invited its women readers to send in
the specifications of an ideal husband, and the results are worth
considering because the readers of that publication are probably less
swayed by purely conventional ideas than are most accessible groups of
women whom one might question. The ideal husband was held by these women
to be made up of the following qualities in the proportions given:
Per cent.
Health 20
Financial success 19
Paternity 18
Appearance 11
Disposition 8
Education 8
Character 6
Housekeeping 7
Dress 3
---
100
Without laying weight on the exact figures, and recognizing that each
woman may have defined the qualities differently, yet one must admit
aside from a low concern for mental ability that this is a fairly good
eugenic specification. Appearance, it is stated, meant not so much
facial beauty as intelligent expression and manly form. Financial
success is correlated with intelligence and efficiency, and probably is
not rated too high. The importance attached to paternity--which, it is
explained, means a clean sex life as well as interest in children--is
worth noticing.
For comparison there is another census of the preferences of 115 young
women at Brigham Young College, Logan, Utah. This is a "Mormon"
institution and the students, mostly farmers' daughters, are probably
expressing ideals which have been very little affected by the
demoralizing influences of modern city life. The editor of the college
paper relates that:
Eighty-six per cent of the girls specifically stated that the young
man must be morally pure; 14% did not specifically state.
Ninety-nine per cent specifically stated that he must be mentally
and physically strong.
Ninety-three per cent stated that he must absolutely not smoke,
chew, or drink; 7% did not state.
Twenty per cent named an occupation they would like the young man
to follow, and these fell into three different classes, that of
farmer, doctor and business.
Four and seven-tenths per cent of the 20% named farmer; 2.7% named
doctor, and 1.7% named business man; 80% did not state any
profession.
Thirty-three and one-third per cent specifically stated that he
must be ambitious; 66-2/3% did not state.
Eight per cent stated specifically that he must have high ideals.
Fifty-two per cent demanded that he be of the same religious
conviction; 48% said nothing about religion.
Seventy-two per cent said nothing regarding money matters; 28%
stated what his financial condition must be, but none named a
specific amount. One-half of the 28% stated that he must be rich,
and three-fourths of these were under twenty years of age; the
other half of the 28% said that he must have a moderate income and
two-thirds of these were under twenty years of age.
Forty-five per cent stated that the young man must be taller than
they; 55% did not state.
Twenty per cent stated that the young man must be older, and from
two to eight years older; 80% did not state.
Fifty per cent stated that he must have a good education;
one-fourth of the 50% stated that he must have a college education;
95% of these were under twenty-one years of age; 50% did not state
his intellectual attainments.
Ninety-one per cent of all the ideals handed in were written by
persons under twenty years of age; the other 8-1/2% were over
twenty years of age.
_Physical Culture_, on another occasion, invited its male readers to
express their requirements of an ideal wife. The proportions of the
various elements desired are given as follows:
Per cent
Health 23
"Looks" 14
Housekeeping 12
Disposition 11
Maternity 11
Education 10
Management 7
Dress 7
Character 5
---
100
One might feel some surprise at the low valuation placed on "character,"
but it is really covered by other points. On the whole, one can not be
dissatisfied with these specifications aside from its slight concern
about mental ability.
Such wholesome ideals are probably rather widespread in the less
sophisticated part of the population. In other strata, social and
financial criteria of selection hold much importance. As a family
ascends in economic position, its standards of sexual selection are
likely to change. And in large sections of the population, there is a
fluctuation in the standards from generation to generation. There is
reason to suspect that the standards of sexual selection among educated
young women in the United States to-day are higher than they were a
quarter of a century, or even a decade, ago. They are demanding a higher
degree of physical fitness and morality in their suitors. Men, in turn,
are beginning to demand that the girls they marry shall be fitted for
the duties of home-maker, wife and mother,--qualifications which were
essential in the colonial period but little insisted on in the immediate
past.
(b) It is evident, then, that the standards of sexual selection do
change; there is therefore reason to suppose that they can change still
further. This is an important point, for it is often alleged as an
objection to eugenics that human affections are capricious and can not
be influenced by rational considerations. Such an objection will be
seen, on reflection, to be ill-founded.
As to the extent of change possible, the psychologist must have the
final word. The ingenious Mr. Diffloth,[97] who reduced love to a series
of algebraical formulæ and geometrical curves, and proposed that every
young man should find a girl whose curve was congruent to his own, and
at once lead her to the altar, is not likely to gain many adherents. But
the psychologist declares without hesitation that it is possible to
influence the course of love in its earlier, though rarely in its later,
stages. Francis Galton pointed this out with his usual clearness,
showing that in the past the "incidence" of love, to borrow a technical
term, had been frequently and sometimes narrowly limited by custom--by
those unwritten laws which are sometimes as effective as the written
ones. Monogamy, endogamy, exogamy, Australian marriages, tabu,
prohibited degrees and sacerdotal celibacy all furnished him with
historical arguments to show that society could bring about almost any
restriction it chose; and a glance around at the present day will show
that the barriers set up by religion, race and social position are
frequently of almost prohibitive effect.
There is, therefore, from a psychological point of view, no reason why
the ideals of eugenics should not become a part of the mores or
unwritten laws of the race, and why the selection of life partners
should not be unconsciously influenced to a very large extent by them.
As a necessary preliminary to such a condition, intelligent people must
cultivate the attitude of conscious selection, and get away from the
crude, fatalistic viewpoint which is to-day so widespread, and which is
exploited _ad nauseam_ on the stage and in fiction. It must be
remembered that there are two well-marked stages preceding a betrothal:
the first is that of mere attraction, when reason is still operative,
and the second is that of actual love, when reason is relegated to the
background. During the later stage, it is notorious that good counsel is
of little avail, but during the preliminary period direction of the
affections is still possible, not only by active interference of friends
or relatives, but much more easily and usefully by the tremendous
influence of the mores.
Eugenic mores will exist only when many intelligent people become so
convinced of the ethical value of eugenics that that conviction sinks
into their subconscious minds. The general eugenics campaign can be
expected to bring that result about in due time. Care must be taken to
prevent highly conscientious people from being too critical, and letting
a trivial defect outweigh a large number of good qualities. Moreover,
changes in the standards of sexual selection should not be too rapid, as
that results in the permanent celibacy of some excellent but
hyper-critical individuals. The ideal is an advance of standards as
rapidly as will yet keep all the superior persons married. This is
accomplished if all superior individuals marry as well as possible, yet
with advancing years gradually reduce the standard so that celibacy may
not result.
Having decided that there is room for improvement in the standards of
sexual selection, and that such improvement is psychologically feasible,
we come to point (c): in what particular ways is this improvement
needed? Any discussion of this large subject must necessarily be only
suggestive, not exhaustive.
If sexual selection is to be taken seriously, it is imperative that
there be some improvement in the general attitude of public sentiment
toward love itself. It is difficult for the student to acquire sound
knowledge[98] of the normal manifestations of love: the psychology of
sex has been studied too largely from the abnormal and pathological
side; while the popular idea is based too much on fiction and drama
which emphasize the high lights and make love solely an affair of
emotion. We are not arguing for a rationalization of love, for the terms
are almost contradictory; but we believe that more common sense could
profitably be used in considering the subject.
If a typical "love affair" be examined, it is found that propinquity and
a common basis for sympathy in some probably trivial matter lead to the
development of the sex instinct; the parental instinct begins to make
itself felt, particularly among women; the instincts of curiosity,
acquisitiveness, and various others play their part, and there then
appears a well-developed case of "love." Such love may satisfy a purely
biological definition, but it is incomplete. Love that is worthy of the
name must be a function of the will as well as of the emotions. There
must be a feeling on the part of each which finds strong satisfaction in
service rendered to the other. If the existence of this constituent of
love could be more widely recognized and watched for, it would probably
prevent many a sensible young man or woman from being stampeded into a
marriage of passion, where the real community of interest is slight;[99]
and sexual selection would be improved in a way that would count
immensely for the future of the race. Moreover, there would be much more
real love in the world. Eugenics, as Havelock Ellis has well pointed
out,[100] is not plotting against love but against those influences that
do violence to love, particularly: (1) reckless yielding to mere
momentary desire; and (2) still more fatal influences of wealth and
position and worldly convenience which give a factitious value to
persons who would never appear attractive partners in life were love and
eugenic ideals left to go hand in hand.
"The eugenic ideal," Dr. Ellis foresees, "will have to struggle with the
criminal and still more resolutely with the rich; it will have few
serious quarrels with normal and well-constituted lovers."
The point is an important one. To "rationalize" marriage, is out of the
question. Marriage must be mainly a matter of the emotions; but it is
important that the emotions be exerted in the right direction. The
eugenist seeks to remove the obstacles that are now driving the
emotions into wrong channels. If the emotions can only be headed in the
right direction, then the more emotions the better, for they are the
source of energy which are responsible for almost everything that is
done in the world.
There is in the world plenty of that love which is a matter of mutual
service and of emotions unswayed by any petty or sordid influences; but
it ought not only to be common, it ought to be universal. It is not
likely to be in the present century; but at least, thinking people can
consciously adopt an attitude of respect toward love, and consciously
abandon as far as possible the attitude of jocular cynicism with which
they too often treat it,--an attitude which is reflected so disgustingly
in current vaudeville and musical comedy.
It is the custom to smile at the extravagantly romantic idea of love
which the boarding-school girl holds; but unrealizable as it may be,
hers is a nobler conception than that which the majority of adults
voice. Very properly, one does not care to make one's deepest feelings
public; but if such subjects as love and motherhood can not be discussed
naturally and without affectation, they ought to be left alone. If
intelligent men and women will set the example, this attitude of mind
will spread, and cultured families at least will rid themselves of such
deplorable habits as that of plaguing children, not yet out of the
nursery, about their "sweethearts."
No sane man would deny the desirability of beauty in a wife,
particularly when it is remembered that beauty, especially as determined
by good complexion, good teeth and medium weight, is correlated with
good health in some degree, and likewise with intelligence.
Nevertheless, we are strongly of the opinion that beauty of face is now
too highly valued, as a standard of sexual selection.[101]
Good health in a mate is a qualification which any sensible man or woman
will require, and for which a "marriage certificate" is in most cases
quite unnecessary.[102] What other physical standard is there that
should be given weight?
Alexander Graham Bell has lately been emphasizing the importance of
longevity in this connection, and in our judgment he has thereby opened
up a very fruitful field for education. It goes without saying that
anyone would prefer to marry a partner with a good constitution. "How
can we find a test of a good, sound constitution?" Dr. Bell asked in a
recent lecture. "I think we could find it in the duration of life in a
family. Take a family in which a large proportion live to old age with
unimpaired faculties. There you know is a good constitution in an
inheritable form. On the other hand, you will find a family in which a
large proportion die at birth and in which there are relatively few
people who live to extreme old age. There has developed an hereditary
weakness of constitution. Longevity is a guide to constitution." Not
only does it show that one's vital organs are in good running order, but
it is probably the only means now available of indicating strains which
are resistant to zymotic disease. Early death is not necessarily an
evidence of physical weakness; but long life is a pretty good proof of
constitutional strength.
Dr. Bell has elsewhere called attention to the fact that, longevity
being a characteristic which is universally considered creditable in a
family, there is no tendency on the part of families to conceal its
existence, as there is in the case of unfavorable characters--cancer,
tuberculosis, insanity, and the like. This gives it a great advantage as
a criterion for sexual selection, since there will be little difficulty
in finding whether or not the ancestors of a young man or woman were
long-lived.[103]
Karl Pearson and his associates have shown that there is a tendency to
assortative mating for longevity: that people from long-lived stocks
actually do marry people from similar stocks, more frequently than would
be the case if the matings were at random. An increase of this tendency
would be eugenically desirable.[104] So much for the physique.
Though eugenics is popularly supposed to be concerned almost wholly with
the physical, properly it gives most attention to mental traits,
recognizing that these are the ones which most frequently make races
stand or fall, and that attention to the physique is worth while mainly
to furnish a sound body in which the sound mind may function. Now men
and women may excel mentally in very many different ways, and eugenics,
which seeks not to produce a uniform good type, but excellence in all
desirable types, is not concerned to pick out any particular sort of
mental superiority and exalt it as a standard for sexual selection. But
the tendency, shown in Miss Gilmore's study, for men to prefer the more
intelligent girls in secondary schools, is gratifying to the eugenist,
since high mental endowment is principally a matter of heredity. From a
eugenic point of view it would be well could such intellectual
accomplishments weigh even more heavily with the average young man, and
less weight be put on such superficial characteristics as "flashiness,"
ability to use the latest slang freely, and other "smart" traits which
are usually considered attractive in a girl, but which have no real
value and soon become tiresome. They are not wholly bad in themselves,
but certainly should not influence a young man very seriously in his
choice of a wife, nor a young woman in her choice of a husband. It is to
be feared that such standards are largely promoted by the stage, the
popular song, and popular fiction.
In a sense, the education which a young woman has received is no
concern of the eugenist, since it can not be transmitted to her
children. Yet when, as often happens, children die because their mother
was not properly trained to bring them up, this feature of education
does become a concern of eugenics. Young men are more and more coming to
demand that their wives know something about woman's work, and this
demand must not only increase, but must be adequately met. Woman's
education is treated in more detail in another chapter.
It is proper to point out here, however, that in many cases woman's
education gives no great opportunity to judge of her real intellectual
ability. Her natural endowment in this respect should be judged also by
that of her sisters, brothers, parents, uncles, aunts and grandparents.
If a girl comes of an intellectual ancestry, it is likely that she
herself will carry such traits germinally, even if she has never had an
opportunity to develop them. She can, then, pass them on to her own
children. Francis Galton long ago pointed out the good results of a
custom obtaining in Germany, whereby college professors tended to marry
the daughters or sisters of college professors. A tendency for men of
science to marry women of scientific attainments or training is marked
among biologists, at least, in the United States; and the number of
cases in which musicians intermarry is striking. Such assortative mating
means that the offspring will usually be well endowed with a talent.
Finally, young people should be taught a greater appreciation of the
lasting qualities of comradeship, for which the purely emotional factors
that make up mere sexual attraction are far from offering a satisfactory
substitute.
It will not be out of place here to point out that a change in the
social valuation of reputability and honor is greatly needed for the
better working of sexual selection. The conspicuous waste and leisure
that Thorstein Veblen points out as the chief criterion of reputability
at present have a dubious relation to high mental or moral endowment,
far less than has wealth. There is much left to be done to achieve a
meritorious distribution of wealth. The fact that the insignia of
success are too often awarded to trickery, callousness and luck does not
argue for the abolition altogether of the financial success element in
reputability, in favor of a "dead level" of equality such as would
result from the application of certain communistic ideals. Distinctions,
rightly awarded, are an aid, not a hindrance to sexual selection, and
effort should be directed, from the eugenic point of view, no less to
the proper recognition of true superiority than to the elimination of
unjustified differentiations of reputability.
This leads to the consideration of moral standards, and here again
details are complex but the broad outlines clear. It seems probable that
morality is to a considerable extent a matter of heredity, and the care
of the eugenist should be to work with every force that makes for a
clear understanding of the moral factors of the world, and to work
against every force that tends to confuse the issues. When the issue is
clear cut, most people will by instinct tend to marry into moral rather
than immoral stocks.
True quality, then, should be emphasized at the expense of false
standards. Money, social status, family alignment, though indicators to
some degree, must not be taken too much at their face value. Emphasis is
to be placed on real merit as shown by achievement, or on descent from
the meritoriously eminent, whether or not such eminence has led to the
accumulation of a family fortune and inclusion in an exclusive social
set. In this respect, it is important that the value of a high average
of ancestry should be realized. A single case of eminence in a pedigree
should not weigh too heavily. When it is remembered that statistically
one grandparent counts for less than one-sixteenth in the heredity of an
individual, it will be obvious that the individual whose sole claim to
consideration is a distinguished grandfather, is not necessarily a
matrimonial prize. A general high level of morality and mentality in a
family is much more advantageous, from the eugenic point of view, than
one "lion" several generations back.
While we desire very strongly to emphasize the importance of breeding
and the great value of a good ancestry, it is only fair to utter a word
of warning in this connection. Good ancestry does not _necessarily_ make
a man or woman a desirable partner. What stockmen know as the "pure-bred
scrub" is a recognized evil in animal breeding, and not altogether
absent from human society. Due to any one or more of a number of causes,
it is possible for a germinal degenerate to appear in a good family;
discrimination should certainly be made against such an individual.
Furthermore, it is possible that there occasionally arises what may be
called a mutant of very desirable character from a eugenic point of
view. Furthermore a stock in general below mediocrity will occasionally,
due to some fortuitous but fortunate combination of traits, give rise to
an individual of marked ability or even eminence, who will be able to
transmit in some degree that valuable new combination of traits to his
or her own progeny. Persons of this character are to be regarded by
eugenists as distinctly desirable husbands or wives.
The desirability of selecting a wife (or husband) from a family of more
than one or two children was emphasized by Benjamin Franklin, and is
also one of the time-honored traditions of the Arabs, who have always
looked at eugenics in a very practical, if somewhat cold-blooded way. It
has two advantages: in the first place, one can get a better idea of
what the individual really is, by examining sisters and brothers; and in
the second place, there will be less danger of a childless marriage,
since it is already proved that the individual comes of a fertile stock.
Francis Galton showed clearly the havoc wrought in the English peerage,
by marriages with heiresses (an heiress there being nearly always an
only child). Such women were childless in a much larger proportion than
ordinary women.
"Marrying a man to reform him" is a speculation in which many women have
indulged and usually--it may be said without fear of contradiction--with
unfortunate results. It is always likely that she will fail to reform
him; it is certain that she can not reform his germ-plasm. Psychologists
agree that the character of a man or woman undergoes little radical
change after the age of 25; and the eugenist knows that it is largely
determined, _potentially_, when the individual is born. It is,
therefore, in most cases the height of folly to select a partner with
any marked undesirable trait, with the idea that it will change after a
few years.
All these suggestions have in general been directed at the young man or
woman, but it is admitted that if they reach their target at all, it is
likely to be by an indirect route. No rules or devices can take the
place, in influencing sexual selection, of that lofty and rational ideal
of marriage which must be brought about by the uplifting of public
opinion. It is difficult to bring under the control of reason a subject
that has so long been left to caprice and impulse; yet much can
unquestionably be done, in an age of growing social responsibility, to
put marriage in a truer perspective. Much is already being done, but not
in every case of change is the future biological welfare of the race
sufficiently borne in mind. The interests of the individual are too
often regarded to the exclusion of posterity. The eugenist would not
sacrifice the individual, but he would add the welfare of posterity to
that of the individual, when the standards of sexual selection are being
fixed. It is only necessary to make the young person remember that he
will marry, not merely an individual, but a family; and that not only
his own happiness but to some extent the quality of future generations
is being determined by his choice.
We must have (1) the proper ideals of mating but (2) these ideals must
be realized. It is known that many young people have the highest kind of
ideals of sexual selection, and find themselves quite unable to act on
them. The college woman may have a definite idea of the kind of husband
she wants; but if he never seeks her, she often dies celibate. The young
man of science may have an ideal bride in his mind, but if he never
finds her, he may finally marry his landlady's daughter. Opportunity for
sexual selection must be given, as well as suitable standards; and while
education is perhaps improving the standards each year, it is to be
feared that modern social conditions, especially in the large cities,
tend steadily to decrease the opportunity.
Statistical evidence, as well as common observation, indicates that the
upper classes have a much wider range of choice in marriage than the
lower classes. The figures given by Karl Pearson for the degree of
resemblance between husband and wife with regard to phthisis are so
remarkable as to be worth quoting in this connection:
All poor +.01
Prosperous poor +.16
Middle classes +.24
Professional classes +.28
It can hardly be argued that infection between husband and wife would
vary like this, even if infection, in general, could be proved.
Moreover, the least resemblance is among the poor, where infection
should be greatest. Professor Pearson thinks, as seems reasonable, that
this series of figures indicates principally assortative mating, and
shows that among the poor there is less choice, the selection of a
husband or wife being more largely due to propinquity or some other more
or less random factor. With a rise in the social scale, opportunity for
choice of one from a number of possible mates becomes greater and
greater; the tendency for an unconscious selection of likeness then has
a chance to appear, as the coefficients graphically show.
If such a class as the peerage of Great Britain be considered, it is
evident that the range of choice in marriage is almost unlimited. There
are few girls who can resist the glamor of a title. The hereditary peer
can therefore marry almost anyone he likes and if he does not marry one
of his own class he can select and (until recently) usually has selected
the daughter of some man who by distinguished ability has risen from a
lower social or financial position. Thus the hereditary nobilities of
Europe have been able to maintain themselves; and a similar process is
undoubtedly taking place among the idle rich who occupy an analogous
position in the United States.
But it is the desire of eugenics to raise the average ability of the
whole population, as well as to encourage the production of leaders. To
fulfill this desire, it is obvious that one of the necessary means is to
extend to all desirable classes that range of choice which is now
possessed only by those near the top of the social ladder. It is hardly
necessary to urge young people to widen the range of their
acquaintance, for they will do it without urging if the opportunity is
presented to them. It is highly necessary for parents, and for
organizations and municipalities, deliberately to seek to further every
means which will bring unmarried young people together under proper
supervision. Social workers have already perceived the need of
institutional as well as municipal action on these lines, although they
have not in every case recognized the eugenic aspect, and from their
efforts it is probable that suitable institutions, such as social
centers and recreation piers, and municipal dance halls, will be greatly
multiplied.
It is an encouraging sign to see such items as this from a Washington
newspaper: "The Modern Dancing Club of the Margaret Wilson Social Center
gave a masquerade ball at the Grover Cleveland school last night, which
was attended by about 100 couples." Still more promising are such
institutions as the self-supporting Inkowa camp for young women, at
Greenwood Lake, N. J., conducted by a committee of which Miss Anne Morgan
is president, and directed by Miss Grace Parker. Near it is a similar
camp, Kechuka, for young men, and during the summer both are full of
young people from New York City. A newspaper account says:
There is no charity, no philanthropy, no subsidy connected with
Camp Inkowa. Its members are successful business women, who earn
from $15 to $25 a week. Board in the camp is $9 a week. So every
girl who goes there for a vacation has the comfortable feeling that
she pays her way fully. This rate includes all the activities of
camp life.
Architects, doctors, lawyers, bookkeepers, bank clerks, young
business men of many kinds are the guests of Kechuka. Next week 28
young men from the National City Bank will begin their vacations
there.
Inkowa includes young women teachers, stenographers, librarians,
private secretaries and girls doing clerical work for insurance
companies and other similar business institutions.
Saturday and Sunday are "at home" days at Camp Inkowa and the young
men from Kechuka may come to call on the Inkowa girls, participate
with them in the day's "hike" or go on the moonlight cruise around
the lake if there happens to be one.
"Young men and women need clean, healthy association with each
other," Miss Parker told me yesterday, when I spent the day at Camp
Inkowa. "Social workers in New York city ask me sometimes, 'How
dare you put young men and women in camps so near to each other?'
"How dare you not do it? No plan of recreation or out-of-door life
which does not include the healthy association of men and woman can
be a success. Young men and women need each other's society. And if
you get the right kind they won't abuse their freedom."
The churches have been important instruments in this connection, and the
worth of their services can hardly be over-estimated, as they tend to
bring together young people of similar tastes and, in general, of a
superior character. Such organizations as the Young People's Society of
Christian Endeavor serve the eugenic end in a satisfactory way; it is
almost the unanimous opinion of competent observers that matches "made
in the church" turn out well. Some idea of the importance of the
churches may be gathered from a census which F. O. George of the
University of Pittsburgh made of 75 married couples of his acquaintance,
asking them where they first met each other. The answers were:
Church 32
School (only 3 at college) 19
Private home 17
Dance 7
--
75
These results need not be thought typical of more than a small part of
the country's population, yet they show how far-reaching the influence
of the church may be on sexual selection. Quite apart from altruistic
motives, the churches might well encourage social affairs where the
young people could meet, because to do so is one of the surest way of
perpetuating the church.
An increase in the number of non-sectarian bisexual societies, clubs
and similar organizations, and a diminution of the number of those
limited to men or to women alone is greatly to be desired. It is
doubtful whether the Y. M. C. A. and Y. W. C. A. are, while separated,
as useful to society as they might be. Each of them tends to create a
celibate community, where the chance for meeting possible mates is
practically nil. The men's organization has made, so far as we are
aware, little organized attempt to meet this problem. The women's
organization in some cities has made the attempt, but apparently with
indifferent success. The idea of a merger of the two organizations with
reasonable differentiation as well would probably meet with little
approval from their directors just now, but is worth considering as an
answer to the urgent problem of providing social contacts for young
people in large cities.
It is encouraging that thoughtful people in all walks of life are
beginning to realize the seriousness of this problem of contacts for the
young, and the necessity of finding some solution. The novelist Miss
Maria Thompson Davies of Sweetbriar Farm, Madison, Tenn., is quoted in a
recent newspaper interview as saying:
"I'm a Wellesley woman, but one reason why I'm dead against women's
colleges is because they shut girls up with women, at the most
impressionable period of the girls' lives, when they should be meeting
members of the opposite sex continually, learning to tolerate their
little weaknesses and getting ready to marry them."
"The city should make arrangements to chaperon the meetings of its young
citizens. There ought to be municipal gathering places where, under the
supervision of tactful, warm-hearted women--themselves successfully
married--girls and young men might get introduced to each other and
might get acquainted."
If it is thought that the time has not yet come for such municipal
action, there is certainly plenty of opportunity for action by the
parents, relatives and friends of young persons. The match-making
proclivities of some mothers are matters of current jest: where subtly
and wisely done they might better be taken seriously and held up as
examples worthy of imitation. Formal "full dress" social functions for
young people, where acquaintance is likely to be too perfunctory, should
be discouraged, and should give place to informal dances, beach parties,
house parties and the like, where boys and girls will have a chance to
come to know each other, and, at the proper age, to fall in love. Let
social stratification be not too rigid, yet maintained on the basis of
intrinsic worth rather than solely on financial or social position. If
parents will make it a matter of concern to give their boys and girls as
many desirable acquaintances of the opposite sex as possible, and to
give them opportunity for ripening these acquaintances, the problem of
the improvement of sexual selection will be greatly helped. Young people
from homes where such social advantages can not be given, or in large
cities where home life is for most of them non-existent, must become the
concern of the municipality, the churches, and every institution and
organization that has the welfare of the community and the race at
heart.
To sum up this chapter, we have pointed out the importance of sexual
selection, and shown that its eugenic action depends on young people
having the proper ideals, and being able to live up to these ideals.
Eugenists have in the past devoted themselves perhaps too exclusively to
the inculcation of sound ideals, without giving adequate attention to
the possibility of these high standards being acted upon. One of the
greatest problems confronting eugenics is that of giving young people of
marriageable age a greater range of choice. Much could be done by
organized action; but it is one of the hopeful features of the problem
that it can be handled in large part by intelligent individual action.
If older people would make a conscious effort to help young people widen
their circles of suitable acquaintances, they would make a valuable
contribution to race betterment.
CHAPTER XII
INCREASING THE MARRIAGE RATE OF THE SUPERIOR
No race can long survive unless it conforms to the principles of
eugenics, and indisputably the chief requirement for race survival is
that the superior part of the race should equal or surpass the inferior
part in fecundity.
It follows that the superior members of the community must marry, and at
a reasonably early age. If in the best elements of the community
celibacy increases, or if marriage is postponed far into the
reproductive period, the racial contribution of the superior will
necessarily fall, and after a few generations the race will consist
mainly of the descendants of inferior people, its eugenic average being
thereby much lowered.
In a survey of vital statistics, to ascertain whether marriages are as
frequent and as early as national welfare requires, the eugenist finds
at first no particularly alarming figures.
In France, to whose vital statistics one naturally turns whenever race
suicide is suggested (and usually with a holier-than-thou attitude which
the Frenchman might much more correctly assume toward America), it
appears that there has been a very slight decrease in the proportion of
persons under 20 who are married, but that between the ages of 20 and 30
the proportion of those married has risen during recent years. The same
condition exists all over Europe, according to F. H. Hankins,[105]
except in England and Scotland. "Moreover on the whole marriages take
place earlier in France than in England, Germany or America. Nor is this
all, for a larger proportion of the French population is married than in
any of these countries. Thus the birth-rate in France has continued to
fall in spite of those very conditions which should have sustained it
or even caused it to increase."
In America, conditions are not dissimilar. Although it is generally
believed that young persons are marrying at a later age than they did
formerly, the census figures show that for the population as a whole the
reverse is the case. Marriages are not only more numerous, but are
contracted at earlier ages than they were a quarter of a century ago.
Comparison of census returns for 1890, 1900 and 1910, reveals that for
both sexes the percentage of married has steadily increased and the
percentage listed as single has as steadily decreased. The census
classifies young men, for this purpose, in three age-groups: 15-19,
20-24, and 25-34; and in every one of these groups, a larger proportion
was married in 1910 than in 1900 or 1890. Conditions are the same for
women. So far as the United States as a whole is concerned, therefore,
marriage is neither being avoided altogether, nor postponed unduly,--in
fact, conditions in both respects seem to be improving every year.
So far the findings should gratify every eugenist. But the census
returns permit further analysis of the figures. They classify the
population under four headings: Native White of Native Parentage, Native
White of Foreign Parentage or of Mixed Parentage, Foreign-born White,
and Negro. Except among Foreign-born Whites, who are standing still, the
returns for 1910 show that in every one of these groups the marriage
rate has steadily increased during the past three decades; and that the
age of marriage is steadily declining in all groups during the same
period, with a slight irregularity of no real importance in the
statistics for foreign-born males.
On the whole, then, the marriage statistics of the United States are
reassuring. Even if examination is limited to the Native Whites of
Native Parentage, who are probably of greater eugenic worth, as a group,
than any of the other three, the marriage rate is found to be moving in
the right direction.
But going a step farther, one finds that within this group there are
great irregularities, which do not appear when the group is considered
as a whole. And these irregularities are of a nature to give the
eugenist grave concern.
If one sought, for example, to find a group of women distinctly superior
to the average, he might safely take the college graduates. Their
superior quality as a class lies in the facts that:
(a) They have survived the weeding-out process of grammar and high
school, and the repeated elimination by examinations in college.
(b) They have persevered, after those with less mental ability have
grown tired of the strain and have voluntarily dropped out.
(c) Some have even forced their way to college against great obstacles,
because attracted by the opportunities it offers them for mental
activity.
(d) Some have gone to college because their excellence has been
discovered by teachers or others who have strongly urged it.
All these attributes can not be merely acquired, but must be in some
degree inherent. Furthermore, these girls are not only superior in
themselves, but are ordinarily from superior parents, because
(a) Their parents have in most cases coöperated by desiring this higher
education for their daughters.
(b) The parents have in most cases had sufficient economic efficiency to
be able to afford a college course for their daughters.
Therefore, although the number of college women in the United States is
not great, their value eugenically is wholly disproportionate to their
numbers. If marriage within such a selected class as this is being
avoided, or greatly postponed, the eugenist can not help feeling
concerned.
And the first glance at the statistics gives adequate ground for
uneasiness. Take the figures for Wellesley College, for instance:
_Status in fall of 1912_ _Graduates_ _All students_
Per cent married (graduated 1879-1888) 55% 60%
Per cent married in:
10 years from graduation 35% 37%
20 years from graduation 48% 49%
From a racial standpoint, the significant marriage rate of any group of
women is the percentage that have married before the end of the
child-bearing period. Classes graduating later than 1888 are therefore
not included, and the record shows the marital status in the fall of
1912. In compiling these data deceased members and the few lost from
record are of course omitted.
In the foregoing study care was taken to distinguish as to when the
marriage took place. Obviously marriages with the women at 45 or over
being sterile must not be counted where it is the fecundity of the
marriage that is being studied. The reader is warned therefore to make
any necessary correction for this factor in the studies to follow in
some of which unfortunately care has not been taken to make the
necessary distinction.
Turn to Mount Holyoke College, the oldest of the great institutions for
the higher education of women in this country. Professor Amy Hewes has
collected the following data:
_Decade of graduation Per cent remaining single Per cent marrying_
1842-1849 14.6 85.4
1850-1859 24.5 75.5
1860-1869 39.1 60.9
1870-1879 40.6 59.4
1880-1889 42.4 57.6
1890-1892 50.0 50.0
Bryn Mawr College, between 1888 and 1900, graduated 376 girls, of whom
165, or 43.9%, had married up to January 1, 1913.
Studying the Vassar College graduates between 1867 and 1892, Robert J.
Sprague found that 509 of the total of 959 had married, leaving 47%
celibate. Adding the classes up to 1900, it was found that less than
half of the total number of graduates of the institution had married.
Remembering what a selected group of young women go to college, the
eugenist can hardly help suspecting that the women's colleges of the
United States, as at present conducted, are from his point of view doing
great harm to the race. This suspicion becomes a certainty, as one
investigation after another shows the same results. Statistics compiled
on marriages among college women (1901) showed that:
45% of college women marry before the age of 40.
90% of all United States women marry before the age of 40.
96% of Arkansas women marry before the age of 40.
80% of Massachusetts women marry before the age of 40.
In Massachusetts, it is further to be noted, 30% of all women have
married at the age when college women are just graduating.
It has, moreover, been demonstrated that the women who belong to Phi
Beta Kappa and other honor societies, and therefore represent a second
selection from an already selected class, have a lower marriage rate
than college women in general.
In reply to such facts, the eugenist is often told that the college
graduates marry as often and as early as the other members of their
families. We are comparing conditions that can not properly be compared,
we are informed, when we match the college woman's marriage rate with
that of a non-college woman who comes from a lower level of society.
But the facts will not bear out this apology. Miss M. R. Smith's
statistics[106] from the data of the Collegiate Alumnæ show the true
situation. The average age at marriage was found to be for
_Years_
College women 26.3
Their sisters 24.2
Their cousins 24.7
Their friends 24.2
and the age distribution of those married was as follows:
_Equivalent_
_Percentage of married_ _College_ _non-college_
Under 23 years 8.6 30.1
23-32 years 83.2 64.9
33 and over 8.0 5.0
[Illustration: Wellesley Graduates and Non-graduates
FIG. 36.--Graph showing at a glance the record of the student
body in regard to marriage and birth rates, during the years indicated.
Statistics for the latest years have not been compiled, because it is
obvious that girls who graduated during the last fifteen years still
have a chance to marry and become mothers.]
If these differences did not bring about any change in the birth-rate,
they could be neglected. A slight sacrifice might even be made, for the
sake of having mothers better prepared. But taken in connection with the
birth-rate figures which we shall present in the next chapter, they form
a serious indictment against the women's colleges of the United States.
Such conditions are not wholly confined to women's colleges, or to any
one geographical area. Miss Helen D. Murphey has compiled the statistics
for Washington Seminary, in Washington, Pennsylvania, a secondary school
for women, founded in 1837. The marriage rate among the graduates of
this institution has steadily declined, as is shown in the following
table where the records are considered by decades:
'45 '55 '65 '75 '85 '95 '00
Per cent. married 78 74 67 72 59 57 55
Per cent. who have gone into 20 13 12 19 30 30 39
other occupations than
home-making
A graph, plotted to show how soon after graduation these girls have
married, demonstrates that the greatest number of them wed five or six
years after receiving their diplomas, but that the number of those
marrying 10 years afterward is not very much less than that of the girls
who become brides in the first or second year after graduation (see Fig.
35).
C. S. Castle's investigation[107] of the ages at which eminent women of
various periods have married, is interesting in this connection, in
spite of the small number of individuals with which it deals:
_Century_ _Average age_ _Range_ _Number of cases_
12 16.2 8-30 5
13 16.6 12-29 5
14 13.8 6-18 11
15 17.6 13-26 20
16 21.7 12-50 28
17 20.0 13-43 30
18 23.1 13-53 127
19 26.2 15-67 189
Women in coeducational colleges, particularly the great universities of
the west, can not be compared without corrections with the women of the
eastern separate colleges, because they represent different family and
environmental selection. Their record none the less deserves careful
study. Miss Shinn[108] calculated the marriage rate of college women as
follows, assuming graduation at the age of 22:
_Women over_ _Coeducated_ _Separate_
25 38.1 29.6
30 49.1 40.1
35 53.6 46.6
40 56.9 51.8
She has shown that only a part of this discrepancy is attributable to
the geographic difference, some of it is the effect of lack of
co-education. Some of it is also attributable to the type of education.
The marriage rate of women graduates of Iowa State College[109] is as
follows:
1872-81 95.8
1882-91 62.5
1892-01 71.2
1902-06 69.0
Study of the alumni register of Oberlin,[110] one of the oldest
coeducational institutions, shows that the marriage rate of women
graduates, 1884-1905, was 65.2%, only 34.8% of them remaining unmarried.
If the later period, 1890-1905, alone is taken, only 55.2% of the girls
have married. The figures for the last few classes in this period are
probably not complete.
At Kansas State Agricultural College, 1885-1905, 67.6% of the women
graduates have married. At Ohio State University in the same period, the
percentage is only 54.0. Wisconsin University, 1870-1905, shows a
percentage of 51.8, the figures for the last five years of that period
being:
1901 33.9
1902 52.9
1903 45.1
1904 32.3
1905 37.4
From alumni records of the University of Illinois, 54% of the women,
1880-1905, are found to be married.
It is difficult to discuss these figures without extensive study of each
case. But that only 53% of the women graduates of three great
universities like Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin, should be married, 10
years after graduation, indicates that something is wrong.
In most cases it is not possible to tell, from the alumni records of the
above colleges, whether the male graduates are or are not married. But
the class lists of Harvard and Yale have recently been carefully studied
by John C. Phillips,[111] who finds that in the period 1851-1890 74% of
the Harvard graduates and 78% of the Yale graduates married. In that
period, he found, the age of marriage has advanced only about 1 year,
from a little over 30 to just about 31. This is a much higher rate than
that of college women.
Statistics from Stanford University[112] offer an interesting comparison
because they are available for both men and women. Of 670 male
graduates, classes 1892 to 1900, inclusive, 490 or 73.2% were reported
as married in 1910. Of 330 women, 160 or 48.5% were married. These
figures are not complete, as some of the graduates in the later classes
must have married since 1910.
The conditions existing at Stanford are likewise found at Syracuse, on
the opposite side of the continent. Here, as H. J. Banker has shown,[113]
the men graduates marry most frequently 4.5 years after taking their
degrees, and the women 4.7 years. Of the women 57% marry, of the men
81%. The women marry at the average age of 27.7 years and the men at
28.8. Less than one-fourth of the marrying men married women within the
college. The last five decades he studied show a steady decrease in the
number of women graduates who marry, while the men are much more
constant. His figures are:
_Per cent of men_ _Per cent of women_
_Decade_ _graduates_ _graduates_
_married_ _married_
1852-61 81 87
1862-71 87 87
1872-81 90 81
1882-91 84 55
1892-01 73 48
C. B. Davenport, looking at the record of his own classmates at Harvard,
found[114] in 1909 that among the 328 original members there were 287
surviving, of whom nearly a third (31%) had never married.
"Of these (287)," he continues, "26 were in 'Who's Who in America?' We
should expect, were success in professional life promoted by
bachelorship, to find something over a third of those in Who's Who to be
unmarried. Actually all but two, or less than 8%, were married, and one
of these has since married. The only still unmarried man was a temporary
member of the class and is an artist who has resided for a large part of
the time in Europe. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that
bachelorship favors professional success."
Particularly pernicious in tending to prevent marriage is the influence
of certain professional schools, some of which have come to require a
college degree for entrance. In such a case the aspiring physician, for
example, can hardly hope to obtain a license to practice until he has
reached the age of 27 since 4 years are required in Medical College and
1 year in a hospital. His marriage must in almost every case be
postponed until a number of years after that of the young men of his own
class who have followed business careers.
This brief survey is enough to prove that the best educated young women
(and to a less extent young men) of the United States, who for many
reasons may be considered superior, are in many cases avoiding marriage
altogether, and in other cases postponing it longer than is desirable.
The women in the separate colleges of the East have the worst record in
this respect, but that of the women graduates of some of the
coeducational schools leaves much to be desired.
It is difficult to separate the causes which result in a postponement of
marriage, from those that result in a total avoidance of marriage. To a
large extent the causes are the same, and the result differs only in
degree. The effect of absolute celibacy of superior people, from a
eugenic point of view, is of course obvious to all, but the racial
effect of postponement of marriage, even for a few years, is not always
so clearly realized. The diagram in Fig. 36 may give a clearer
appreciation of this situation.
Francis Galton clearly perceived the importance of this point, and
attempted in several ways to arrive at a just idea of it. One of the
most striking of his investigations is based on Dr. Duncan's statistics
from a maternity hospital. Dividing the mothers into five-year groups,
according to their age, and stating the median age of the group for the
sake of simplicity, instead of giving the limits, he arrived at the
following table:
_Age of mother at_ _Approximate average_
_her marriage_ _fertility_
17 9.00--6 × 1.5
22 7.50--5 × 1.5
27 6.00--4 × 1.5
32 4.50--3 × 1.5
which shows that the relative fertility of mothers married at the ages
of 17, 22, 27 and 32, respectively, is as 6, 5, 4, and 3 approximately.
"The increase in population by a habit of early marriages," he adds, "is
further augmented by the greater rapidity with which the generations
follow each other. By the joint effect of these two causes, a large
effect is in time produced."
Certainly the object of eugenics is not to merely increase human
numbers. Quality is more important than quantity in a birth-rate. But it
must be evident that other things being equal, a group which marries
early will, after a number of generations, supplant a group which
marries even a few years later. And there is abundant evidence to show
that some of the best elements of the old, white, American race are
being rapidly eliminated from the population of America, because of
postponement or avoidance of marriage.
Taking the men alone, we find that failure to marry may often be
ascribed to one of the following reasons:
1. The cultivation of a taste for sexual variety and a consequent
unwillingness to submit to the restraints of marriage.
2. Pessimism in regard to women from premature or unfortunate sex
experiences.
3. Infection by venereal disease.
4. Deficiency in normal sexual feeling, or perversion.
5. Deficiency of one kind or another, physical or mental, causing
difficulty in getting an acceptable mate.
The persons in groups 4 and 5 certainly and in groups 1, 2, and 3
probably to a less extent, are inferior, and their celibacy is an
advantage to the race, rather than a disadvantage, from a eugenic point
of view. Their inferiority is in part the result of bad environment. But
since innate inferiority is so frequently a large factor, the bad
environment often being experienced only because the nature was inferior
to start with, the average of the group as a whole must be considered
innately inferior.
Then there are among celibate men two other classes, largely superior by
nature:
6. Those who seek some other end so ardently that they will not make the
necessary sacrifice in money and freedom, in order to marry.
7. Those whose likelihood of early marriage is reduced by a prolonged
education and apprenticeship. Prolongation of the celibate period often
results in life-long celibacy.
Some of the most important means of remedying the above conditions, in
so far as they are dysgenic, can be grouped under three general heads:
1. Try to lead all young men to avoid a loose sexual life and venereal
disease. A general effort will be heeded more by the superior than by
the inferior.
2. Hold up the rôle of husband and father as particularly honorable, and
proclaim its shirking, without adequate cause, as dishonorable. Depict
it as a happier and healthier state than celibacy or pseudo-celibacy.
For a man to say he has never met a girl he can love simply means he has
not diligently sought one, or else he has a deficient emotional
equipment; for there are many, surprisingly many, estimable, attractive,
unmarried women.
3. Cease prolonging the educational period past the early twenties. It
is time to call a halt on the schools and universities, whose constant
lengthening of the educational period will result in a serious loss to
the race. External circumstances of an educational nature should not be
allowed to force a young man to postpone his marriage past the age of
25. This means that students must be allowed to specialize earlier. If
there is need of limiting the number of candidates, competitive entrance
examinations may be arranged on some rational basis. Superior young men
should marry, even at some cost to their early efficiency. The high
efficiency of any profession can be more safely kept up by demanding a
minimum amount of continuation work in afternoon, evening, or seasonal
classes, laboratories, or clinics. No more graduate fellowships should
be established until those now existing carry a stipend adequate for
marriage. Those which already carry larger stipends should not be
limited to bachelors, as are the most valuable awards at Princeton, the
ten yearly Proctor fellowships of $1,000 each.
The causes of the remarkable failure of college women to marry can not
be exhaustively investigated here, but for the purposes of eugenics they
may be roughly classified as unavoidable and avoidable. Under the first
heading must be placed those girls who are inherently unmarriageable,
either because of physical defect or, more frequently, mental
defect,--most often an over-development of intellect at the expense of
the emotions, which makes a girl either unattractive to men, or inclines
her toward a celibate career and away from marriage and motherhood.
Opinions differ as to the proportion of college girls who are inherently
unmarriageable. Anyone who has been much among them will testify that a
large proportion of them are not inherently unmarriageable, however, and
their celibacy for the most part must be classified as avoidable. Their
failure to marry may be because
(1) They desire not to marry, due to a preference for a career, or
development of a cynical attitude toward men and matrimony, due to a
faulty education, or
(2) They desire to marry, but do not, for a variety of reasons such as:
(a) They are educated for careers, such as school-teaching, where they
have little opportunity to meet men.
(b) Their education makes them less desirable mates than girls who have
had some training along the lines of home-making and mothercraft.
(c) They have remained in partial segregation until past the age when
they are physically most attractive, and when the other girls of their
age are marrying.
(d) Due to their own education, they demand on the part of suitors a
higher degree of education than the young men of their acquaintance
possess. A girl of this type wants to marry but desires a man who is
educationally her equal or superior. As men of such type are relatively
rare, her chances of marriage are reduced.
(e) Their experience in college makes them desire a standard of living
higher than that of their own families or of the men among whom they
were brought up. They become resistant to the suit of men who are of
ordinary economic status. While waiting for the appearance of a suitor
who is above the average in both intelligence and wealth, they pass the
marriageable age.
(f) They are better educated than the young men of their acquaintance,
and the latter are afraid of them. Some young men dislike to marry girls
who know more than they do, except in the distinctively feminine fields.
These and various similar causes help to lower the marriage-rate of
college women and to account for the large number of alumnæ who desire
to marry but are unable to do so. In the interest of eugenics, the
various difficulties must be met in appropriate ways.
Marriage is not desirable for those who are eugenically inferior, from
weak constitutions, defective sexuality, or inherent mental deficiency.
But beyond these groups of women are the much larger groups of celibates
who are distinctly superior, and whose chances of marriage have been
reduced for one of the reasons mentioned above or through living in
cities with an undue proportion of female residents. Then there are,
besides these, superior women who, because they are brought up in
families without brothers or brothers' friends, are so unnaturally shy
that they are unable to become friendly with men, however much they may
care to. It is evident that life in a separate college for women often
intensifies this defect. There are still other women who repel men by a
manner of extreme self-repression and coldness, sometimes the result of
parents' or teachers' over-zealous efforts to inculcate modesty and
reserve, traits valuable in due degree but harmful in excess.
When will educators learn that the education of the emotions is as
important as that of the intellect? When will the schools awake to the
fact that a large part of life consists in relations with other human
beings, and that much of their educational effort is absolutely
valueless, or detrimental, to success in the fundamentally necessary
practice of dealing with other individuals which is imposed on every
one? Many a college girl of the finest innate qualities, who sincerely
desires to enter matrimony, is unable to find a husband of her own
class, simply because she has been rendered so cold and unattractive, so
over-stuffed intellectually and starved emotionally, that a typical man
does not desire to spend the rest of his life in her company. The same
indictment applies in a less degree to men. It is generally believed
that an only child is frequently to be found in this class.
On the other hand, it is equally true--perhaps more important--that many
innately superior young men are rejected, because of their manner of
life. Superior young men should be induced to keep their physical
records clean, in order that they may not suffer the severe depreciation
which they would otherwise sustain in the eyes of superior women.
But in efforts to teach chastity, sex itself must not be made to appear
an evil thing. This is a grave mistake and all too common since the rise
of the sex-hygiene movement. Undoubtedly a considerable amount of the
celibacy in sensitive women may be traced to ill-balanced mothers and
teachers who, in word and attitude, build up an impression that sex is
indecent and bestial, and engender in general a damaging suspicion of
men.[115]
Level heads are necessary in the sex ethics campaign. Whereas the
venereal diseases will probably, with a continuation of present progress
in treatment and prophylaxis, be brought under control in the course of
a century, the problem of differential mating will exist as long as the
race does, which can hardly be less than tens of millions of years.
Lurid presentation, by drama, novel, or magazine-story, of dramatic and
highly-colored individual sex histories, is to be avoided. These often
impress an abnormal situation on sensitive girls so strongly that
aversion to marriage, or sex antagonism, is aroused. Every effort should
be made to permeate art--dramatic, plastic, or literary--with the
highest ideals of sex and parenthood. A glorification of motherhood and
fatherhood in these ways would have a portentous influence on public
opinion.
"The true, intimate chronicle of an everyday married life has not been
written. Here is a theme for genius; for only genius can divine and
reveal the beauty, the pathos, and the wonder of the normal or the
commonplace. A felicitous marriage has its comedy, its complexities, its
element, too, of tragedy and grief, as well as its serenity and fealty.
Matrimony, whether the pair fare well or ill, is always a great
adventure, a play of deep instincts and powerful emotions, a drama of
two psyches. Every marriage provides a theme for the literary artist. No
lives are free from enigmas."[116]
More "temperance" in work would probably promote marriage of able and
ambitious young people. Walter Gallichan complains that "we do not even
recognize love as a finer passion than money greed. It is a kind of
luxury, or pleasant pastime, for the sentimentally minded. Love is so
undervalued as a source of happiness, a means of grace, and a completion
of being, that many men would sooner work to keep a motor car than to
marry."
Men should be taught greater respect for the individuality of women, so
that no high-minded girl will shrink from marriage with the idea that it
means a surrender of her personality and a state of domestic servitude.
A more discriminating idea of sex-equality is desirable, and a
recognition by men that women are not necessarily creatures of inferior
mentality. It would be an advantage if men's education included some
instruction along these lines. It would be a great gain, also if
intelligent women had more knowledge of domestic economy and
mothercraft, because one of the reasons why the well-educated girl is
handicapped in seeking a mate is the belief all too frequently well
founded of many young men that she is a luxury which he can not afford.
Higher education in general needs to be reoriented. It has too much
glorified individualism, and put a premium on "white collar" work. The
trend toward industrial education will help to correct this situation.
Professor Sprague[117] points out another very important fault, when he
says: "More strong men are needed on the staffs of public schools and
women's colleges, and in all of these institutions more married
instructors of both sexes are desirable. The catalogue of one of the
[women's] colleges referred to above shows 114 professors and
instructors, of whom 100 are women, of whom only two have ever married.
Is it to be expected that the curriculum created by such a staff would
idealize and prepare for family and home life as the greatest work of
the world and the highest goal of woman, and teach race survival as a
patriotic duty? Or, would it be expected that these bachelor staffs
would glorify the independent vocation and life for women and create
employment bureaus to enable their graduates to get into the offices,
schools and other lucrative jobs? The latter seems to be what occurs."
Increase of opportunity for superior young people to meet each other, as
discussed in our chapter on sexual selection, will play a very large
part in raising the marriage rate. And finally, the delayed or avoided
marriage of the intellectual classes is in large part a reflection of
public opinion, which has wrongly represented other things as being more
worth while than marriage.
"The promotion of marriage in early adult life, as a part of social
hygiene, must begin with a new canonization of marriage," Mr. Gallichan
declares. "This is equally the task of the fervent poet and the
scientific thinker, whose respective labors for humanity are never at
variance in essentials.... The sentiment for marriage can be deepened by
a rational understanding of the passion that attracts and unites the
sexes. We need an apotheosis of conjugal love as a basis for a new
appreciation of marriage. Reverence for love should be fostered from the
outset of the adolescent period by parents and pedagogues."
If, in addition to this "diffusion of healthier views of the conjugal
relation," some of the economic changes suggested in later chapters are
put in effect, it seems probable that the present racially disastrous
tendency of the most superior young men and women to postpone or avoid
marriage would be checked.
CHAPTER XIII
INCREASE OF THE BIRTH-RATE OF THE SUPERIOR
Imagine 200 babies born to parents of native stock in the United States.
On the average, 103 of them will be boys and 97 girls. By the time the
girls reach a marriageable age (say 20 years), at least 19 will have
died, leaving 78 possible wives, on whom the duty of perpetuating that
section of the race depends.
We said "Possible" wives, not probable; for not all will marry. It is
difficult to say just how many will become wives, but Robert J. Sprague
has reported on several investigations that illuminate the point.
In a selected New England village in 1890, he says, "there were forty
marriageable girls between the ages of 20 and 35. To-day thirty-two of
these are married, 20 per cent. are spinsters.
"An investigation of 260 families of the Massachusetts Agricultural
College students shows that out of 832 women over 40 years of age 755 or
91 per cent. have married, leaving only 9 per cent. spinsters. This and
other observations indicate that the daughters of farmers marry more
generally than those of some other classes.
"In sixty-nine (reporting) families represented by the freshman class of
Amherst College (1914) there are 229 mothers and aunts over 40 years of
age, of whom 186 or 81 per cent. have already married.
"It would seem safe to conclude that about 15 per cent. of native women
in general American society do not marry during the child-bearing
period." Deducting 15 per cent. from the 78 possible wives leaves
sixty-six probable wives. Now among the native wives of Massachusetts 20
per cent. do not produce children, and deducting these thirteen
childless ones from the sixty-six probable wives leaves fifty-three
probable, married, child-bearing women, who must be depended on to
reproduce the original 200 individuals with whom we began this chapter.
That means that each woman who demonstrates ability to bear offspring
must bear 3.7 children. This it must be noted, is a minimum number, for
no account has been taken of those who, through some defect or disease
developed late in life, become unmarriageable. In general, unless every
married woman brings three children to maturity, the race will not even
hold its own in numbers. And this means that each woman must bear four
children, since not all the children born will live. If the married
women of the country bear fewer than nearly four children each, the race
is in danger of losing ground.
Such a statement ought to strike the reader as one of grave importance;
but we labor under no delusion that it will do so. For we are painfully
aware that the bugaboo of the declining birth-rate of superior people
has been raised so often in late years, that it has become stale by
repetition. It no longer causes any alarm. The country is filled with
sincere but mentally short-sighted individuals, who are constantly ready
to vociferate that numbers are no very desirable thing in a birth-rate;
that quality is wanted, not quantity; that a few children given ideal
care are of much more value to the state and the race than are many
children, who can not receive this attention.
And this attitude toward the subject, we venture to assert, is a graver
peril to the race than is the declining birth-rate itself. For there is
enough truth in it to make it plausible, and to separate the truth from
the dangerous untruth it contains, and to make the bulk of the
population see the distinction, is a task which will tax every energy of
the eugenist.
Unfortunately, this is not a case of mere difference of opinion between
men; it is a case of antagonism between men and nature. If a race
hypnotize itself into thinking that its views about race suicide are
superior to nature's views, it may make its own end a little less
painful; but it will not postpone that end for a single minute. The
contest is to the strong, and although numbers are not the most
important element in strength, it is very certain that a race made up
of families containing one child each will not be the survivor in the
struggle for existence.
The idea, therefore, that race suicide and general limitation of births
to the irreducible minimum, can be effectively justified by any
conceivable appeal to economic or sociological factors, is a mistake
which will eventually bring about the extinction of the people making
it.
This statement must not be interpreted wrongly. Certainly we would not
argue that a high birth-rate in itself is necessarily a desirable thing.
It is not the object of eugenics to achieve as big a population as
possible, regardless of quality. But in the last analysis, the only
wealth of a nation is its people; moreover some people, are as national
assets, worth more than others. The goal, then, might be said to be: a
population adjusted in respect to its numbers to the resources of the
country, and that number of the very best quality possible. Great
diversity of people is required in modern society, but of each desirable
kind the best obtainable representatives are to be desired.
It is at once evident that a decline, rather than an increase, in the
birth-rate of some sections of the population, is wanted. There are some
strata at the bottom that are a source of weakness rather than of
strength to the race, and a source of unhappiness rather than of
happiness to themselves and those around them. These should be reduced
in number, as we have shown at some length earlier in this book.
The other parts of the population should be perpetuated by the best,
rather than the worst. In no other way can the necessary leaders be
secured, without whom, in commerce, industry, politics, science, the
nation is at a great disadvantage. The task of eugenics is by no means
what it is sometimes supposed to be: to breed a superior caste. But a
very important part of its task is certainly to increase the number of
leaders in the race. And it is this part of its task, in particular,
which is menaced by the declining birth-rate in the United States.
As every one knows, race suicide is proceeding more rapidly among the
native whites than among any other large section of the population; and
it is exactly this part of the population which has in the past
furnished most of the eminent men of the country.
It has been shown in previous chapters that eminent men do not appear
wholly by chance in the population. The production of eminence is
largely a family affair; and in America, "the land of opportunity" as
well as in older countries, people of eminence are much more
interrelated than chance would allow. It has been shown, indeed, that in
America it is at least a 500 to 1 bet that an eminent person will be
rather closely related to some other eminent person, and will not be a
sporadic appearance in the population.[118]
Taken with other considerations advanced in earlier chapters, this means
that a falling off in the reproduction of the old American best strains
means a falling off in the number of eminent men which the United States
will produce. No improvement in education can prevent a serious loss,
for the strong minds get more from education.
The old American stock has produced a vastly greater proportion of
eminence, has accomplished a great deal more proportionately, in modern
times, than has other any stock whose representatives have been coming
in large numbers as immigrants to these shores during the last
generation. It is, therefore, likely to continue to surpass them, unless
it declines too greatly in numbers. For this reason, we feel justified
in concluding that the decline of the birth-rate in the old American
stock represents a decline in the birth-rate of a superior element.
There is another way of looking at this point. The stock under
discussion has been, on the whole, economically ahead of such stocks as
are now immigrating. In competition with them under equal conditions, it
appears to remain pretty consistently ahead, economically. Now,
although we would not insist on this point too strongly, it can hardly
be questioned that eugenic value is to some extent correlated with
economic success in life, as all desirable qualities tend to be
correlated together. Within reasonable limits, it is justifiable to
treat the economically superior sections of the nation as the
eugenically superior. And it is among these economically superior
sections of the nation that the birth-rate has most rapidly and
dangerously fallen.
The constant influx of highly fecund immigrant women tends to obscure
the fact that the birth-rate of the older residents is falling below
par, and analysis of the birth-rate in various sections of the community
is necessary to give an understanding of what is actually taking place.
In Rhode Island, F. L. Hoffmann found the average number of children for
each foreign-born woman to be 3.35, and for each native-born woman to be
2.06. There were wide racial differences among the foreign born; the
various elements were represented by the following average number of
children per wife:
French-Canadians 4.42
Russians 3.51
Italians 3.49
Irish 3.45
Scotch and Welsh 3.09
English 2.89
Germans 2.84
Swedes 2.58
English-Canadians 2.56
Poles 2.31
In short, the native-born whites in this investigation fell below every
one of the foreign nationalities.
The Massachusetts censuses for 1875 and 1884 showed similar results: the
foreign-born women had 4.5 children each, and the native-born women 2.7
each.
Frederick S. Crum's careful investigation[119] of New England
genealogies, including 12,722 wives, has thrown a great deal of light
on the steady decline in their birth-rate. He found the average number
of children to be:
1750-1799 6.43
1800-1849 4.94
1850-1869 3.47
1870-1879 2.77
There, in four lines, is the story of the decline of the old American
stock. At present, it is barely reproducing itself, probably not even
that, for there is reason to believe that 1879 does not mark the lowest
point reached. Before 1700, less than 2% of the wives in this
investigation had only one child, now 20% of them have only one. With
the emigration of old New England families to the west, and the constant
immigration of foreign-born people to take their places, it is no cause
for surprise that New England no longer exercises the intellectual
leadership that she once held.
For Massachusetts as a whole, the birth-rate among the native-born
population was 12.7 per 1,000 in 1890, 14.9 in 1910, while in the
foreign-born population it was 38.6 in 1890 and 49.1 in 1910. After
excluding all old women and young women, the birth-rate of the
foreign-born women in Massachusetts is still found to be 3/4 greater
than that of the native-born.[120]
In short, the birth-rate of the old American stock is now so low that
that stock is dying out and being supplanted by immigrants. In order
that the stock might even hold its own, we have shown that each married
woman should bear three to four children. At present the married women
of the old white American race in New England appear to be bringing two
or less to maturity.
It will be profitable to digress for a moment to consider farther what
this disappearance of the ancient population of Massachusetts means to
the country. When all the distinguished men of the United States are
graded, in accordance with their distinction, it is regularly found, as
Frederick Adams Woods says, that "Some states in the union, some
sections of the country, have produced more eminence than others, far
beyond the expectation from their respective white populations. In this
regard Massachusetts always leads, and Connecticut is always second, and
certain southern states are always behind and fail to render their
expected quota." The accurate methods used by Dr. Woods in this
investigation leave no room for doubt that in almost every way
Massachusetts has regularly produced twice as many eminent men as its
population would lead one to expect, and has for some ranks and types of
achievement produced about four times the expectation.
Scott Nearing's studies[121] confirm those of Dr. Woods. Taking the most
distinguished men and women America has produced, he found that the
number produced in New England, per 100,000 population, was much larger
than that produced by any other part of the country. Rhode Island, the
poorest New England state in this respect, was yet 30% above New York,
the best state outside New England.
The advantage of New England, however, he found to be rapidly
decreasing. Of the eminent persons born before 1850, 30% were New
Englanders although the population of New England in 1850 was only 11.8%
of that of the whole country. But of the eminent younger men,--those
born between 1880 and 1889, New England, with 7.5% of the country's
population, could claim only 12% of the genius. Cambridge, Mass., has
produced more eminent younger men of the present time than any other
city, he discovered, but the cities which come next in order are
Nashville, Tenn., Columbus, Ohio, Lynn, Mass., Washington, D. C.,
Portland, Ore., Hartford, Conn., Boston, Mass., New Haven, Conn., Kansas
City, Mo., and Chicago, Ill.
There is reason to believe that some of the old New England stock, which
emigrated to the West, retains a higher fecundity than does that part of
the stock which remains on the Atlantic seaboard. This fact, while a
gratifying one, of course does not compensate for the low fertility of
the families which still live in New England.
Within this section of the population, the decline is undoubtedly taking
place faster in some parts than in others. Statistical evidence is not
available, to tell a great deal about this, but the birth-rate for the
graduates of some of the leading women's colleges is known, and their
student bodies are made up largely of girls of superior stork. At
Wellesley, the graph in Fig. 36 shows at a glance just what is
happening. Briefly, the graduates of that college contribute less than
one child apiece to the race. The classes do not even reproduce their
own numbers. Instead of the 3.7 children which, according to Sprague's
calculation, they ought to bear, they are bearing .86 of a child.
The foregoing study is one of the few to carefully distinguish between
families which were complete at the time of study and those families
where additional children may yet be born. In the studies to follow this
distinction may in some cases be made by the reader in interpreting the
data while in other cases families having some years of possible
productiveness ahead are included with others and the relative
proportion of the types is not indicated. The error in these cases is
therefore important and the reader is warned to accept them only with a
mental allowance for this factor.
The best students make an even worse showing in this respect. The
Wellesley alumnæ who are members of Phi Beta Kappa,--that is, the
superior scholars--have not .86 of a child each, but only .65 of a
child; while the holders of the Durant and Wellesley scholarships,
awarded for intellectual superiority,[122] make the following pathetic
showing in comparison with the whole class.
WELLESLEY COLLEGE
Graduates of '01, '02, '03, '04, Status of Fall of 1912
_All_ _Durant or Wellesley_
_scholars_
Per cent married 44 35
Number of children:
Per graduate .37 .20
Per wife .87 .57
It must not be thought that Wellesley's record is an exception, for most
of the large women's colleges furnish deplorable figures. Mount
Holyoke's record is:
_Children per_ _Children per_
_Decade of graduation_ _married_ _graduate_
_graduate_
1842-1849 2.77 2.37
1850-1859 3.38 2.55
1860-1869 2.64 1.60
1870-1879 2.75 1.63
1880-1889 2.54 1.46
1890-1892 1.91 0.95
Nor can graduation from Bryn Mawr College be said to favor motherhood.
By the 376 alumnæ graduated there between 1888 and 1900, only 138
children had been produced up to Jan. 1, 1913. This makes .84 of a child
per married alumna, or .37 of a child per graduate, since less than half
of the graduates marry. These are the figures published by the college
administration.
Professor Sprague's tabulation of the careers of Vassar college
graduates, made from official records of the college, is worth quoting
in full, for the light it throws on the histories of college girls,
after they leave college:
CLASSES FROM 1867 TO 1892
Number of graduates 959
Number that taught 431 (45%)
Number that married 509 (53%)
Number that did not marry 450 (47%)
Number that taught and afterward
married 166 (39% of all who taught)
Number that taught, married and had
children 112 (67% of all who taught
and married)
Number that taught, married and
were childless 54 (33%)
Number of children of those who
taught and had children 287 (1.73 children per family)
Number of children of those who
married but did not teach 686 (2 per married graduate
that did not teach)
Total number of children of all
graduates 973 (1 child per graduate)
Average number of children per
married graduate 1.91
Average number of children per
graduate 1.00
CLASSES FROM 1867 TO 1900
Number of graduates 1739
Number that taught 800 (46%)
Number that married 854 (49%)
Number that did not marry 885 (51%)
Number that taught and afterward
married 294 (31%)
Number that taught, married and had
children 203 (69% of all who taught and married)
Number that taught, married and were
childless 91 (31%)
Number of children of those who
taught and had children 463 (1.57 children per family)
Number of children of those who
married but did not teach 1025 (2 each)
Total number of children of all
graduates 1488 (.8 child per graduate)
Average number of children per
married graduate 1.74 (per married graduate)
Average number of children per graduate 0.8
If the women's colleges were fulfilling what the writers consider to be
their duty toward their students, their graduates would have a higher
marriage and birth-rate than that of their sisters, cousins and friends
who do not go to college. But the reverse is the case. M. R. Smith's
investigation showed the comparison between college girls and girls of
equivalent social position and of the same or similar families, as
follows:
_Number of_ _Per cent childless_
_children_ _at time_
College 1.65 25.36
Equivalent Non-College 1.874 17.89
Now if education is tending toward race suicide, then the writers
believe there is something wrong with modern educational methods. And
certainly all statistics available point to the fact that girls who have
been in such an atmosphere as that of some colleges for four years, are,
from a eugenic point of view, of diminished value to the race. This is
not an argument against higher education for women, but it is a potent
argument for a different kind of higher education than many of the
colleges of America are now giving them.
This is one of the causes for the decline of the birth-rate in the old
American stock. But of course it is only one. A very large number of
causes are unquestionably at work to the same end, and the result can be
adequately changed only if it is analyzed into as many of its component
parts as possible, and each one of these dealt with separately. The
writers have emphasized the shortcoming of women's colleges, because it
is easily demonstrated and, they believe, relatively easily mitigated.
But the record of men's colleges is not beyond criticism.
Miss Smith found that among the college graduates of the 18th century in
New England, only 2% remained unmarried, while in the Yale classes of
1861-1879, 21% never married, and of the Harvard graduates from
1870-1879 26% remained single. The average number of children per
Harvard graduate of the earlier period was found to be 3.44, for the
latest period studied 1.92. Among the Yale graduates it was found that
the number of children per father had declined from 5.16 to 2.55.
[Illustration: BIRTH RATE OF HARVARD AND YALE GRADUATES
FIG. 37.--During the period under consideration it declined
steadily, although marriage was about as frequent and as early at the
end as at the beginning of the period. It is necessary to suppose that
the decline in the birth rate is due principally to voluntary limitation
of families. J. C. Phillips, who made the above graph, thinks that since
1890 the birth rate among these college graduates may be tending
slightly to rise again.]
Figures were obtained from some other colleges, which are incomplete and
should be taken with reservation. Their incompleteness probably led the
number of children to be considerably underestimated. At Amherst,
1872-1879, it was found that 44 of the 440 graduates of the period
remained unmarried. The average number of children per married man was
1.72. At Wesleyan it was found that 20 of the 208 graduates, from 1863
to 1870, remained single; the average number of children per married man
was 2.31.
The only satisfactory study of the birth-rate of graduates of men's
colleges is that recently made by John C. Phillips from the class lists
of Harvard and Yale, 1850-1890, summarized in the accompanying graph
(Fig. 37). In discussing his findings, Dr. Phillips writes:
"Roughly, the number of children born per capita per married graduate
has fallen from about 3.25 in the first decade to 2.50 in the last
decade. The per cent of graduates marrying has remained about the same
for forty years, and is a trifle higher for Yale; but the low figure,
68% for the first decade of Harvard, is probably due to faulty records,
and must not be taken as significant.
"The next most interesting figure is the 'Children Surviving per Capita
per Graduate.' This has fallen from over 2.50 to about 1.9. The per cent
of childless marriages increased very markedly during the first two
decades and held nearly level for the last two decades. For the last
decade at Yale it has even dropped slightly, an encouraging sign. It is
worthy of note that the number of children born to Yale graduates is
almost constantly a trifle higher than that for Harvard, while the
number of childless marriages is slightly less." This is probably owing
to the larger proportion of Harvard students living in a large city.
If the birth-rate of graduates both of separate men's colleges and of
separate women's colleges is alarmingly low, that of graduates of
coeducational institutions is not always satisfactory, either. To some
extent the low birth-rate is a characteristic of educated people,
without regard to the precise nature of their education. In a study of
the graduates of Syracuse University, one of the oldest coeducational
colleges of the eastern United States, H. J. Banker found[123] that the
number of children declined with each decade. Thus married women
graduates prior to the Civil War had 2 surviving children each; in the
last decade of the nineteenth century they had only one. For married men
graduates, the number of surviving children had fallen in the same
length of time from 2.62 to 1.38. When all graduates, married or not,
are counted in the decade 1892-1901, it is found that the men of
Syracuse have contributed to the next generation one surviving child
each, the women only half a child apiece.
Dr. Cattell's investigation of the families of 1,000 contemporary
American men of science all of which were probably not complete however,
shows that they leave, on the average, less than two surviving children.
Only one family in 75 is larger than six, and 22% of them are childless.
Obviously, as far as those families are concerned, there will be fewer
men of inherent scientific eminence in the next generation than in this.
The decline in the birth-rate is sometimes attributed to the fact that
people as a whole are marrying later than they used to; we have already
shown that this idea is, on the whole, false. The idea that people as a
whole are marrying less than they used to is also, as we have shown,
mistaken. The decline in the general birth-rate can be attributed to
only one fact, and that is that married people are having fewer
children.
The percentage of childless wives in the American stock is steadily
increasing. Dr. Crum's figures show the following percentage of
childless wives, in the New England genealogies with which he worked:
1750-1799 1.88
1800-1849 4.07
1850-1869 5.91
1870-1879 8.10
J. A. Hill[124] found, from the 1910 census figures, that one in eight
of the native-born wives is childless, as compared with one in five
among the Negroes, one in nineteen among the foreign born. Childlessness
of American wives is therefore a considerable, although not a
preponderant factor, in this decline of the birth rate.
Dr. Hill further found that from 10 marriages, in various stocks, the
following numbers of children could be expected:
Native-born women 27
Negro-born women 31
English-born women 34
Russian-born women 54
French Canada-born women 56
Polish-born women 62
The women of the old American stock are on the whole more sterile or, if
not sterile, less fecund, than other women in the United States. Why?
In answer, various physiological causes are often alleged. It is said
that the dissemination of venereal diseases has caused an increase of
sterility; that luxurious living lowers fecundity, and so on. It is
impossible to take the time to analyze the many explanations of this
sort which have been offered, and which are familiar to the reader; we
must content ourselves with saying that evidence of a great many kinds,
largely statistical and, in our opinion, reliable, indicates that
physiological causes play a minor part in the decrease of the
birth-rate.[125]
Or, plainly, women no longer bear as many children, because they don't
want to.
This accords with Dr. Cattel's inquiry of 461 American men of science;
in 285 cases it was stated that the family was voluntarily limited, the
cause being given as health in 133 cases, expense in 98 cases, and
various in 54 cases. Sidney Webb's investigation among "intellectuals"
in London showed an even greater proportion of voluntary limitation. The
exhaustive investigation of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics
leaves little room for doubt that in England the decline in the
birth-rate began about 1876-78, when the trial of Charles Bradlaugh and
the Theosophist leader, Mrs. Annie Besant, on the charge of circulating
"neo-Malthusian" literature, focused public attention on the
possibility of birth control, and gradually brought a knowledge of the
means of contraception within reach of many. In the United States
statistics are lacking, but medical men and others in a position to form
opinions generally agree that the limitation of births has been steadily
increasing for the last few decades; and with the propaganda at present
going on, it is pretty sure to increase much more rapidly during the
next decade or two.
Some instructive results can be drawn, in this connection, from a study
of the families of Methodist clergymen in the United States.[126]
Although 98 out of every hundred of them marry, and they marry early,
the birth-rate is not high. Its distribution is presented in the
accompanying graph (Fig. 38). It is evident that they have tended to
standardize the two-child family which is so much in evidence among
college professors and educated classes generally, all over the world.
The presence of a considerable number of large families raises the
average number of surviving children of prominent Methodists to 3.12.
And in so explaining the cause of the declining birth-rate among
native-born Americans, we have also found the principal reason for the
_differential_ nature of the decline in the nation at large, which is
the feature that alarms the eugenist. The more intelligent and
well-to-do part of the population has been able to get and use the
needed information, and limit its birth-rate; the poor and ignorant has
been less able to do so, and their rate of increase has therefore been
more natural in a large percentage of cases.
It is not surprising, therefore, that many eugenists should have
advocated wider dissemination of the knowledge of means of limiting
births, with the idea that if this practice were extended to the lower
classes, their birth-rate would decrease just the same as has that of
the upper classes, and the alarming differential rate would therefore be
abolished.
[Illustration: FAMILIES OF PROMINENT METHODISTS
FIG. 38.--The heavy line shows the distribution of families of
prominent Methodists (mostly clergymen) who married only once. Eleven
percent had no surviving children and nearly half of the families
consisted of two children or less. The dotted line shows the families of
those who were twice married. It would naturally be expected that two
women would bear considerably more children than one woman, but as an
average fact it appears that a second wife means the addition of only
half a child to the minister's family. It is impossible to avoid the
conclusion that the birth-rate in these families is determined more by
the desire of the parents (based on economic grounds) than on the
natural fecundity of the women. In other words, the number of children
is limited to the number whom the minister can afford to bring up on his
inadequate salary.]
Against this it might be argued that the desired result will never be
wholly attained, because the most effective means of birth control
involve some expense, and because their effective use presupposes a
certain amount of foresight and self-control which is not always found
among the lower strata of society.
Despite certain dangers accompanying a widespread dissemination of the
knowledge of how to limit births, it seems to be the opinion of most
eugenists that if free access to such information be not permitted that
at least such knowledge ought to be given in many families, where it
would be to the advantage of society that fewer children be produced.
Such a step, of course, must be taken on the individual responsibility
of a doctor, nurse or other social worker. A propaganda has arisen
during recent years, in the United States, for the repeal of all laws
which prohibit giving knowledge about and selling contraceptives.
Whether or not it succeeds in changing the law it will, like the
Bradlaugh-Besant episode, spread contraception widely. This propaganda
is based largely on social and economic grounds, and is sometimes
unscientific in its methods and avowed aims. But whatever its nature may
be, there seems little reason (judging from analogy in European
countries) to believe that it can be stopped.
The "infant mortality movement" also has an effect here which is rarely
recognized. It is a stock argument of birth control propagandists that a
high birth-rate means a high rate of infant mortality; but A. O. Powys
has demonstrated that cause and effect are to some extent reversed in
this statement, and that it is equally true that a high rate of infant
mortality means a high birth-rate, in a section of the population where
birth control is not practiced. The explanation is the familiar fact
that conception takes place less often in nursing mothers. But if a
child dies early or is bottle-fed, a new conception is likely to occur
much sooner than would otherwise be the case. By reducing infant
mortality and teaching mothers to feed their babies naturally, the
infant mortality movement is thereby reducing the birth-rate in the
poorer part of the population, a eugenic service which to some extent
offsets the dysgenic results that, as we shall show in the last chapter,
follow the "Save the Babies" propaganda.
With the spread of the birth control and infant mortality movements one
may therefore look forward to some diminution of the differential
element in the birth-rate, together with a further decline in that
birth-rate as a whole.
Such a situation, which seems to us almost a certainty within the next
decade or two, will not change the duty of eugenics, on which we have
been insisting in this chapter and, to a large extent, throughout the
present book. It will be just as necessary as ever that the families
which are, and have been in the past, of the greatest benefit and value
to the country, have a higher birth-rate. The greatest task of eugenics,
as we see it, will still be to find means by which the birth-rate among
such families can be increased. This increase in the birth-rate among
superior people must depend largely on a change in public sentiment.
Such a change may be brought about in many ways. The authority of
religion may be invoked, as it is by the Roman Catholic and Mormon
churches[127] whose communicants are constantly taught that fecundity is
a virtue and voluntary sterility a sin. Unfortunately their appeal fails
to make proper discriminations. Whatever may be the theological reasons
for such an attitude on the part of the churches, its practical eugenic
significance is clear enough.
Nothing can be more certain than that, if present conditions continue,
Roman Catholics will soon be in an overwhelming preponderance in the
eastern United States, because of the differential birth-rate, if for no
other reason; and that the Mormon population will steadily gain ground
in the west. Similarly, it is alleged that the population of France is
gradually assuming the characteristics of the Breton race, because that
race is the notably fecund section of the population, while nearly all
the other components of the nation are committing race suicide (although
not so rapidly as is the old white stock in New England). Again, the
rôle of religion in eugenics is shown in China, where ancestor worship
leads to a desire for children, and makes it a disgrace to be childless.
A process analogous to natural selection applies to religions much as it
does to races; and if the Chinese religion, with its requirement of a
high birth-rate, and the present-day American Protestant form of the
Christian religion, with its lack of eugenic teaching, should come into
direct competition, under equal conditions of environment, it is obvious
that the Chinese form would be the eventual survivor, just because its
adherents would steadily increase and those of its rival would as
steadily decrease. Such a situation may seem fanciful; yet the leaders
of every church may well consider whether the religion which they preach
is calculated to fill all the needs of its adherents, if it is silent on
the subject of eugenics.
The influence of economic factors on the birth-rate is marked. The
child, under modern urban conditions, is not an economic asset, as he
was on the farm in earlier days. He is an economic liability instead.
And with the constant rise of the standard of living, with the increase
of taxation, the child steadily becomes more of a liability. Many
married people desire children, or more children, but feel that they can
not have them without sacrificing something that they are unwilling to
sacrifice.
Analysis of this increase in the cost of children, reveals not less than
five main elements which deserve attention from eugenists.
1. It costs more to clothe children than it used to. Not only does
clothing of a given quality cost more now than it did a decade or two
ago, but there are more fabrics and designs available, and many of
these, while attractive, are costly and not durable. Compliance to
fashion has increasingly made itself felt in the clothing of the child.
2. It costs more to feed them than it used to. Not only has food for
everyone increased in price, but the standards for feeding children
have been raised. Once children were expected to be content with plain
fare; now it is more frequently the custom to give them just what the
rest of the family eats.
3. The cost of medical attention has increased. All demand more of the
doctors now than they did in the last generation. The doctors are able
to do more than they formerly could, and particularly for his children,
every man wants the best that he can possibly afford. Hence medical
attendance for a child is constantly becoming more costly, because more
frequent; and further, the amount of money which parents spend on
medical attendance for their children usually increases with any
increase in their income.
4. The cost of domestic labor is greater. Most kinds of domestic service
have more than doubled in price within the memory of relatively young
people. Moreover, it is gradually being realized that a high standard is
desirable in selecting a nurse for children. As a fact, a children's
nurse ought to have much greater qualifications than the nurse whose
duty is to care for sick adults. If a mother is obliged to delegate part
of the work of bringing up her children to some other woman, she is
beginning to recognize that this substitute mother should have superior
ability; and the teachers of subconscious psychology have emphasized the
importance of giving a child only the best possible intellectual
surroundings. Ignorant nursemaids are unwillingly tolerated, and as the
number of competent assistants for mothers is very small, the cost is
correspondingly high. An increase in the number of persons trained for
such work is to be anticipated, but it is likely that the demand for
them will grow even more rapidly; hence there is no reason to expect
that competent domestic help will become any less costly than it is now.
5. The standards of education have risen steadily. There is perhaps no
other feature which has tended more to limit families. Conscientious
parents have often determined to have no more children than they could
afford to educate in the best possible way. This meant at least a
college education, and frequently has led to one and two-child families.
It is a motive of birth control which calls for condemnation. The old
idea of valuable mental discipline for all kinds of mental work to be
gained from protracted difficult formal education is now rejected by
educational psychologists, but its prevalence in the popular mind serves
to make "higher education" still something of a fetish, from which
marvelous results, not capable of precise comprehension, are
anticipated. We do not disparage the value of a college education, in
saying that parents should not attach such importance to it as to lead
them to limit their family to the number to whom they can give 20 years
of education without pecuniary compensation.
The effect of these various factors in the increasing cost of children
is to decrease fecundity not so much on the basis of income of parents,
as on the basis of their standards. The prudent, conscientious parent is
therefore the one most affected, and the reduction in births is greatest
in that class, where eugenics is most loth to see it.
The remedy appears to be a change in public opinion which will result in
a truer idea of values. Some readjustments in family budgets are called
for, which will discriminate more clearly between expenditure that is
worth while, and that which is not. Without depriving his children of
the best medical attention and education, one may eliminate those
invidious sources of expense which benefit neither the children nor
anyone else,--overdressing, for instance. A simplification of life would
not only enable superior people to have larger families, but would often
be an advantage to the children already born.
On the other hand, the fact that higher standards in a population lead
to fewer children suggests a valuable means of reducing the birth-rate
of the inferior. Raise their low standards of living and they will
reduce their own fertility voluntarily (the birth control movement
furnishing them with the possibility). All educational work in the slums
therefore is likely to have a valuable though indirect eugenic outcome.
The poor foreign-speaking areas in large cities, where immigrants live
huddled together in squalor, should be broken up. As these people are
given new ideas of comfort, and as their children are educated in
American ways of living, there is every reason to expect a decline in
their birth-rate, similar to that which has taken place among the
native-born during the past generation.
This elevation of standards in the lower classes will be accomplished
without any particular exertion from eugenists; there are many agencies
at work in this field, although they rarely realize the result of their
work which we have just pointed out.
But to effect a discriminating change in the standards of the more
intelligent and better educated classes calls for a real effort on the
part of all those who have the welfare of society at heart. The
difficulties are great enough and the obstacles are evident enough; it
is more encouraging to look at the other side, and to see evidences that
the public is awakening. The events of every month show that the ideals
of eugenics are filtering through the public mind more rapidly than some
of us, a decade ago, felt justified in expecting. There is a growing
recognition of the danger of bad breeding; a growing recognition in some
quarters at least of the need for more children from the superior part
of the population; a growing outcry against the excessive standards of
luxury that are making children themselves luxuries. The number of those
who call themselves eugenists, or who are in sympathy with the aims of
eugenics, is increasing every year, as is evidenced by the growth of
such an organization as the American Genetic Association. Legislators
show an eager desire to pass measures that as they (too often wrongly)
believe will have a eugenic result. Most colleges and universities are
teaching the principles of heredity, and a great many of them add
definite instruction in the principles of eugenics. Although the
ultimate aim of eugenics--to raise the level of the whole human race--is
perhaps as great an undertaking as the human mind can conceive, the
American nation shows distinct signs of a willingness to grapple with
it. And this book will have failed in its purpose, if it has not
convinced the reader that means are available for attacking the problem
at many points, and that immediate progress is not a mere dream.
One of the first necessary steps is a change in educational methods to
give greater emphasis to parenthood. And this change, it is a great
pleasure to be able to say, is being made in many places. The public
schools are gradually beginning to teach mothercraft, under various
guises, in many cities and the School of Practical Arts, Columbia Univ.,
gives a course in the "Physical Care of the Infant." Public and private
institutions are beginning to recognize, what has long been ignored,
that parenthood is one of the functions of men and women, toward which
their education should be directed. Every such step will tend, we
believe, to increase the birth-rate among the superior classes of the
community; every such step is therefore, indirectly if not directly, a
gain for eugenics; for, as we have emphasized time and again, a change
in public opinion, to recognize parenthood as a beautiful and desirable
thing, is one of the first desiderata of the eugenics program.
The introduction of domestic science and its rapid spread are very
gratifying, yet there are serious shortcomings, as rather too vigorously
set forth by A. E. Hamilton:
"There are rows of little gas stoves over which prospective wives
conduct culinary chemical experiments. There are courses in biology,
something of physiology and hygiene, the art of interior decoration and
the science of washing clothes. There is text-book sociology and
sometimes lectures on heredity or eugenics. But the smile of incredulity
as to my seriousness when I asked a Professor in the Margaret Morrison
Carnegie School [a college of Practical Arts for Women], 'Where are the
babies?' is typical. Babies were impossible. They would interfere with
the curriculum, there was no time for practice with babies, and besides,
where could they be got, and how could they be taken care of? The
students were altogether too busy with calories, balanced rations, and
the history of medieval art."
Perhaps the time is not so far distant when babies will be considered an
integral part of a girl's curriculum. If educators begin systematically
to educate the emotions as well as the intellect, they will have taken a
long step toward increasing the birth-rate of the superior. The next
step will be to correlate income more truly with ability in such a way
as to make it possible for superior young parents to afford children
earlier. The child ought, if eugenically desirable, to be made an asset
rather than a liability; if this can not be done, the parents should at
least not be penalized for having children. In this chapter, emphasis
has been laid on the need for a change in public opinion; in future
chapters some economic and social reforms will be suggested, which it is
believed would tend to make superior parents feel willing to have more
children.
The education of public opinion which, acting through the many agencies
named, will gradually bring about an increase in the birth-rate of
superior people, will not be speedy; but it has begun. The writers,
therefore, feel justified in thinking, not solely as a matter of
optimistic affirmation, but because of the evidence available, that the
race suicide now taking place in the old American stock will soon reach
its lowest limit, and that thereafter the birth-rate in that particular
stock will slowly rise. If it does, and if, as seems probable, the
birth-rate in some inferior sections of the American population at the
same time falls from its present level, a change in the racial
composition of the nation will take place, which, judged by past
history, is bound to be of great eugenic value.
CHAPTER XIV
THE COLOR LINE
"A young white woman, a graduate of a great university of the far North,
where Negroes are seldom seen, resented it most indignantly when she was
threatened with social ostracism in a city farther South with a large
Negro population because she insisted upon receiving upon terms of
social equality a Negro man who had been her classmate.[128]"
The incident seems trivial. But the phenomenon back of it, the "color
line," is so far-reaching that it deserves careful examination.
As the incident suggests, the color line is not a universal phenomenon.
The Germans appear to have little aversion to receiving Negroes--_in
Germany_--on terms of equality. These same Germans, when brought face to
face with the question in their colonies, or in the southern United
States, quickly change their attitude. Similarly a Negro in Great
Britain labors under much less disadvantage than he does among the
British inhabitants of Australia or South Africa.
The color line therefore exists only as the result of race experience.
This fact alone is sufficient to suggest that one should not dismiss it
lightly as the outgrowth of bigotry. Is is not perhaps a social
adaptation with survival value?
The purpose of this chapter is to analyze society's "unconscious
reasoning" which has led to the establishment of a color line--to the
denial of social equality--wherever the white[129] and black races have
long been in contact during recent history; and to see whether this
discrimination appears to be justified by eugenics.
J. M. Mecklin[130] summarizes society's logic as follows:
"When society permits the free social intercourse of two young persons
of similar training and interests, it tacitly gives its consent to the
possible legitimate results of such relations, namely, marriage. But
marriage is not a matter that concerns the contracting parties alone; it
is social in its origin and from society come its sanctions. It is
society's legitimatised method for the perpetuation of the race in the
larger and inclusive sense of a continuous racial type which shall be
the bearer of a continuous and progressive civilization. There are,
however, within the community, two racial groups of such widely
divergent physical and psychic characteristics that the blending of the
two destroys the purity of the type of both and introduces
confusion--the result of the blend is a mongrel. The preservation of the
unbroken, self-conscious existence of the white or dominant ethnic group
is synonymous with the preservation of all that has meaning and
inspiration in its past and hope for its future. It forbids by law,
therefore, or by the equally effective social taboo, anything that would
tend to contaminate the purity of its stock or jeopardize the integrity
of its social heritage."
It is needless to say that the "social mind" does not consciously go
through any such process of reasoning, before it draws a color line. The
social mind rarely even attempts to justify its conclusions. It merely
holds a general attitude of superiority, which in many cases appears to
be nothing more than a feeling that another race is _different_.
In what way different?
The difference between the white race and the black (or any other race)
might consist of two elements: (1) differences in heredity--biological
differences; (2) differences in traditions, environment, customs--social
differences, in short. A critical inquirer would want to know which kind
of difference was greater, for he would at once see that the second kind
might be removed by education and other social forces, while the first
kind would be substantially permanent.
It is not difficult to find persons of prominence who will assert that
all the differences between white and Negro are differences of a social
nature, that the differences of a physical nature are negligible, and
that if the Negro is "given a chance" the significant differences will
disappear. This attitude permeates the public school system of northern
states. A recent report on the condition of Negro pupils in the New York
City public schools professes to give "few, perhaps no, recommendations
that would not apply to the children of other races. Where the
application is more true in regard to colored children, it seems largely
to be because of this lack of equal justice in the cases of their
parents. Race weakness appears but this could easily be balanced by the
same or similar weakness in other races. Given an education carefully
adapted to his needs and a fair chance for employment, the normal child
of any race will succeed, unless the burden of wrong home conditions
lies too heavily upon him."[131]
As the writer does not define what she means by "succeed," one is
obliged to guess at what she means: Her anthropology is apparently
similar to that of Franz Boas of Columbia University, who has said that,
"No proof can be given of any material inferiority of the Negro
race;--without doubt the bulk of the individuals composing the race are
equal in mental aptitude to the bulk of our own people."
If such a statement is wholly true, the color line can hardly be
justified, but must be regarded, as it is now the case sometimes, as
merely the expression of prejudice and ignorance. If the only
differences between white and black, which can not be removed by
education, are of no real significance,--a chocolate hue of skin, a
certain kinkiness of hair, and so on,--then logically the white race
should remove the handicaps which lack of education and bad environment
have placed on the Negro, and receive him on terms of perfect equality,
in business, in politics, and in marriage.
The proposition needs only to be stated in this frank form, to arouse an
instinctive protest on the part of most Americans. Yet it has been urged
in an almost equally frank form by many writers, from the days of the
abolitionists to the present, and it seems to be the logical consequence
of the position adopted by such anthropologists as Professor Boas, and
by the educators and others who proclaim that there are no significant
differences between the Negro and the white, except such as are due to
social conditions and which, therefore, can be removed.
But what are these social differences, which it is the custom to dismiss
in such a light-hearted way? Are they not based on fundamental
incompatibilities of racial temperament, which in turn are based on
differences in heredity? Modern sociologists for the main part have no
illusions as to the ease with which these differences in racial
tradition and custom can be removed.
The social heritage of the Negro has been described at great length and
often with little regard for fact, by hundreds of writers. Only a glance
can be given the subject here, but it may profitably be asked what the
Negro did when he was left to himself in Africa.
"The most striking feature of the African Negro is the low forms of
social organization, the lack of industrial and political cooperation,
and consequently the almost entire absence of social and national
self-consciousness. This rather than intellectual inferiority explains
the lack of social sympathy, the presence of such barbarous institutions
as cannibalism and slavery, the low position of woman, inefficiency in
the industrial and mechanical arts, the low type of group morals,
rudimentary art-sense, lack of race-pride and self-assertiveness, and in
intellectual and religious life largely synonymous with fetishism and
sorcery."[132]
An elementary knowledge of the history of Africa, or the more recent and
much-quoted example of Haiti, is sufficient to prove that the Negro's
own social heritage is at a level far below that of the whites among
whom he is living in the United States. No matter how much one may
admire some of the Negro's individual traits, one must admit that his
development of group traits is primitive, and suggests a mental
development which is also primitive.
If the number of original contributions which it has made to the world's
civilization is any fair criterion of the relative value of a race, then
the Negro race must be placed very near zero on the scale.[133]
The following historical considerations suggest that in comparison with
some other races the Negro race is germinally lacking in the higher
developments of intelligence:
1. That the Negro race in Africa has never, by its own initiative, risen
much above barbarism, although it has been exposed to a considerable
range of environments and has had abundant time in which to bring to
expression any inherited traits it may possess.
2. That when transplanted to a new environment--say, Haiti--and left to
its own resources, the Negro race has shown the same inability to rise;
it has there, indeed, lost most of what it had acquired from the
superior civilization of the French.
3. That when placed side by side with the white race, the Negro race
again fails to come up to their standard, or indeed to come anywhere
near it. It is often alleged that this third test is an unfair one; that
the social heritage of slavery must be eliminated before the Negro can
be expected to show his true worth. But contrast his career in and after
slavery with that of the Mamelukes of Egypt, who were slaves, but slaves
of good stock. They quickly rose to be the real rulers of the country.
Again, compare the record of the Greek slaves in the Roman republic and
empire or that of the Jews under Islam. Without pushing these analogies
too far, is not one forced to conclude that the Negro lacks in his
germ-plasm excellence of some qualities which the white races possess,
and which are essential for success in competition with the
civilizations of the white races at the present day?
If so, it must be admitted not only that the Negro is _different_ from
the white, but that he is in the large eugenically _inferior_ to the
white.
This conclusion is based on the relative achievements of the race; it
must be tested by the more precise methods of the anthropological
laboratory. Satisfactory studies of the Negro should be much more
numerous, but there are a few informative ones. Physical characters are
first to be considered.
As a result of the careful measurement of many skulls, Karl Pearson[134]
has come to the following conclusions:
"There is for the best ascertainable characters a continuous
relationship from the European skull, through prehistoric European,
prehistoric Egyptian, Congo-Gaboon Negroes to Zulus and Kafirs.
"The indication is that of a long differentiated evolution, in which the
Negro lies nearer to the common stem than the European; he is nearer to
the childhood of man."
This does not prove any mental inferiority: there is little or no
relation between conformation of skull and mental qualities, and it is a
great mistake to make hasty inferences from physical to mental traits.
Bean and Mall have made studies directly on the brain, but it is not
possible to draw any sure conclusions from their work. A. Hrdlicka
found physical differences between the two races, but did not study
traits of any particular eugenic significance.
On the whole, the studies of physical anthropologists offer little of
interest for the present purpose. Studies of mental traits are more to
the point, but are unfortunately vitiated in many cases by the fact that
no distinction was made between full-blood Negroes and mulattoes,
although the presence of white blood must necessarily have a marked
influence on the traits under consideration. If the investigations are
discounted when necessary for this reason, it appears that in the more
elementary mental processes the two races are approximately equal. White
and "colored" children in the Washington, D. C., schools ranked equally
well in memory; the colored children were found to be somewhat the more
sensitive to heat.[135] Summing up the available evidence, G. O. Ferguson
concludes that "in the so-called lower traits there is no great
difference between the Negro and the white. In motor capacity there is
probably no appreciable racial difference. In sense capacity, in
perceptive and discriminative ability, there is likewise a practical
equality."
This is what one would, _a priori_, probably expect. But it is on the
"higher" mental functions that race progress largely depends, and the
Negro must be judged eugenically mainly by his showing in these higher
functions. One of the first studies in this line is that of M. J.
Mayo,[136] who summarizes it as follows:
"The median age of white pupils at the time of entering high school in
the city of New York is 14 years 6 months: of colored pupils 15 years 1
month--a difference of 7 months. The average deviation for whites is 9
months; for colored 15 months. Twenty-seven per cent of the whites are
as old as the median age of the colored or older.
"Colored pupils remain in school a greater length of time than do the
whites. For the case studied [150 white and 150 colored], the average
time spent in high school for white pupils was 3.8 terms; for colored
4.5 terms. About 28% of the whites attain the average time of attendance
for colored.
"Considering the entire scholastic record, the median mark of the 150
white pupils is 66; of the 150 colored pupils 62; a difference of 4%.
The average deviation of white pupils is 7; of colored 6.5. Twenty-nine
per cent. of the colored pupils reach or surpass the median mark of the
whites.
"The white pupils have a higher average standing in all subjects ...
the colored pupils are about 3/4 as efficient as the whites in the
pursuit of high school studies."
This whole investigation is probably much too favorable to the Negro
race, first because Negro high school pupils represent a more careful
selection than do the white pupils; but most of all because no
distinction was made between Negroes and mulattoes.
B. A. Phillips, studying the public elementary schools of Philadelphia,
found[137] that the percentage of retardation in the colored schools
ranged from 72.8 to 58.2, while the percentage of retardation in the
districts which contained the schools ranged from 45.1 to 33.3. The
average percentage of retardation for the city as a whole was 40.3. Each
of the colored schools had a greater percentage of retardation than any
of the white schools, even those composed almost entirely of foreigners,
and in those schools attended by both white and colored pupils the
percentage of retardation on the whole varied directly with the
percentage of colored pupils in attendance.
These facts might be interpreted in several ways. It might be that the
curriculum was not well adapted to the colored children, or that they
came from bad home environments, or that they differed in age, etc. Dr.
Phillips accordingly undertook to get further light on the cause of
retardation of the colored pupils by applying Binet tests to white and
colored children of the same chronological age and home conditions, and
found "a difference in the acceleration between the two races of 31% in
favor of the white boys, 25% in favor of the white girls, 28% in favor
of the white pupils with boys and girls combined."
A. C. Strong, using the Binet-Simon tests, found[138] colored school
children of Columbia, S. C., considerably less intelligent than white
children.
W. H. Pyle made an extensive test[139] of 408 colored pupils in
Missouri public schools and compared them with white pupils. He
concludes: "In general the marks indicating mental ability of the Negro
are about two-thirds those of the whites.... In the substitution,
controlled association, and Ebbinghaus tests, the Negroes are less than
half as good as the whites. In free association and the ink-blot tests
they are nearly as good. In quickness of perception and discrimination
and in reaction, the Negroes equal or excel the whites."
"Perhaps the most important question that arises in connection with the
results of these mental tests is: How far is ability to pass them
dependent on environmental conditions? Our tests show certain specific
differences between Negroes and whites. What these differences would
have been had the Negroes been subject to the same environmental
influences as the whites, it is difficult to say. The results obtained
by separating the Negroes into two social groups would lead one to think
that the conditions of life under which the negroes live might account
for the lower mentality of the Negroes. On the other hand, it may be
that the Negroes living under better social conditions are of better
stock. They may have more white blood in them."
The most careful study yet made of the relative intelligence of Negroes
and whites is that of G. O. Ferguson, Jr.,[140] on 486 white and 421
colored pupils in the schools of Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Newport
News, Va. Tests were employed which required the use of the "higher"
functions, and as far as possible (mainly on the basis of skin-color)
the amount of white blood in the colored pupils was determined. Four
classes were made: full-blood Negro, 3/4 Negro, 1/2 Negro (mulatto) and
1/4 Negro (quadroon). It was found that "the pure Negroes scored 69.2%
as high as the whites; that the 3/4 pure Negroes scored 73.2% as high as
the whites; that the mulattoes scored 81.2% as high as the whites; and
that the quadroons obtained 91.8% of the white score." This confirms the
belief of many observers that the ability of a colored man is
proportionate to the amount of white blood he has.
Summarizing a large body of evidence, Dr. Ferguson concludes that "the
intellectual performance of the general colored population is
approximately 75% as efficient as that of the whites," but that pure
Negroes have only 60% of white intellectual efficiency, and that even
this figure is probably too high. "It seems as though the white type has
attained a higher level of development, based upon the common elementary
capacities, which the Negro has not reached to the same degree." "All of
the experimental work which has been done has pointed to the same
general conclusion."
This is a conclusion of much definiteness and value, but it does not go
as far as one might wish, for the deeper racial differences of impulse
and inhibition, which are at present incapable of precise measurement,
are likewise of great importance. And it is the common opinion that the
Negro differs in such traits even more than in intellect proper. He is
said to be lacking in that aggressive competitiveness which has been
responsible for so much of the achievement of the Nordic race; it is
alleged that his sexual impulses are strongly developed and inhibitions
lacking; that he has "an instability of character, involving a lack of
foresight, an improvidence, a lack of persistence, small power of
serious initiative, a tendency to be content with immediate
satisfactions." He appears to be more gregarious but less apt at
organization than most races.
The significance of these differences depends largely on whether they
are germinal, or merely the results of social tradition. In favor of the
view that they are in large part racial and hereditary, is the fact that
they persist in all environments. They are found, as Professor Mecklin
says, "Only at the lower level of instinct, impulse and temperament, and
do not, therefore, admit of clear definition because they are overlaid
in the case of every individual with a mental superstructure gotten from
the social heritage which may vary widely in the case of members of the
same race. That they do persist, however, is evidenced in the case of
the Negroes subjected to the very different types of civilization in
Haiti, Santo Domingo, the United States, and Jamaica. In each of these
cases a complete break has been made with the social traditions of
Africa and different civilizations have been substituted, and yet in
temperament and character the Negro in all these countries is
essentially the same. The so-called 'reversion to type' often pointed
out in the Negro is in reality but the recrudescence of fundamental,
unchanged race traits upon the partial breakdown of the social heritage
or the Negro's failure successfully to appropriate it."
Again, as Professor Ferguson points out, the experimental tests above
cited may be thought to give some support to the idea that the emotional
characteristics of the Negro are really inherent. "Strong and changing
emotions, an improvident character and a tendency to immoral conduct are
not unallied," he explains; "They are all rooted in uncontrolled
impulse. And a factor which may tend to produce all three is a deficient
development of the more purely intellectual capacities. Where the
implications of the ideas are not apprehended, where thought is not
lively and fertile, where meanings and consequences are not grasped, the
need for the control of impulse will not be felt. And the demonstrable
deficiency of the Negro in intellectual traits may involve the dynamic
deficiencies which common opinion claims to exist."
There are other racial and heritable differences of much importance,
which are given too little recognition--namely, the differences of
disease resistance. Here one can speak unhesitatingly of a real
inferiority in respect to the environment of North America.
As was pointed out in the chapter on Natural Selection, the Negro has
been subjected to lethal selection for centuries by the Negro diseases,
the diseases of tropical Africa, of which malaria and yellow fever are
the most conspicuous examples. The Negro is strongly resistant to these
and can live where the white man dies. The white man, on the other hand,
has his own diseases, of which tuberculosis is an excellent example.
Compared with the Negro, he is relatively resistant to phthisis and will
survive where the Negro dies.
When the two races are living side by side, it is obvious that each is
proving a menace to the other, by acting as a disseminator of
infection. The white man kills the Negro with tuberculosis and typhoid
fever. In North America the Negro can not kill the white man with
malaria or yellow fever, to any great extent, because these diseases do
not flourish here. But the Negro has brought some other diseases here
and given them to the white race; elephantiasis is one example, but the
most conspicuous is hookworm, the extent and seriousness of which have
only recently been realized.
In the New England states the average expectation of life, at birth, is
50.6 years for native white males, 34.1 years for Negro males. For
native white females it is 54.2 years and for Negro females 37.7 years,
according to the Bureau of the Census (1916). These very considerable
differences can not be wholly explained away by the fact that the Negro
is crowded into parts of the cities where the sanitation is worst. They
indicate that the Negro is out of his environment. In tropical Africa,
to which the Negro is adapted by many centuries of natural selection,
his expectation of life might be much longer than that of the white man.
In the United States he is much less "fit," in the Darwinian sense.
In rural districts of the South, according to C. W. Stiles, the annual
typhoid death rate per 100,000 population is:
_Whites_ _Negroes_
Males 37.4 75.3
Females 27.4 56.3
These figures again show, not alone the greater intelligence of the
white in matters of hygiene, but probably also the greater inherent
resistance of the white to a disease which has been attacking him for
many centuries. Biologically, North America is a white man's country,
not a Negro's country, and those who are considering the Negro problem
must remember that natural selection has not ceased acting on man.
From the foregoing different kinds of evidence, we feel justified in
concluding that the Negro race differs greatly from the white race,
mentally as well as physically, and that in many respects it may be said
to be inferior, when tested by the requirements of modern civilization
and progress, with particular reference to North America.
We return now to the question of intermarriage. What is to be expected
from the union of these diverse streams of descent?
The best answer would be to study and measure the mulattoes and their
posterity, in as many ways as possible. No one has ever done this. It is
the custom to make no distinction whatever between mulatto and Negro, in
the United States, and thus the whole problem is beclouded.
There is some evidence from life insurance and medical sources, that the
mulatto stands above the Negro but below the white in respect to his
health. There is considerable evidence that he occupies the same
relation in the intellectual world; it is a matter of general
observation that nearly all the leaders of the Negro race in the United
States are not Negroes but mulattoes.
Without going into detail, we feel perfectly safe in drawing this
conclusion: that in general the white race loses and the Negro gains
from miscegenation.
This applies, of course, only to the germinal nature. Taking into
consideration the present social conditions in America, it is doubtful
whether either race gains. But if social conditions be eliminated for
the moment, biologists may believe that intermarriage between the white
and Negro races represents, on the whole, an advance for the Negro; and
that it represents for the white race a distinct loss.
If eugenics is to be thought of solely in terms of the white race, there
can be no hesitation about rendering a verdict. We must unhesitatingly
condemn miscegenation.
But there are those who declare that it is small and mean to take such a
narrow view of the evolution of the race. They would have America open
its doors indiscriminately to immigration, holding it a virtue to
sacrifice one's self permanently for someone else's temporary happiness;
they would equally have the white race sacrifice itself for the Negro,
by allowing a mingling of the two blood-streams. That, it is alleged, is
the true way to elevate the Negro.
The question may well be considered from that point of view, even
though the validity of such a point of view is not admitted.
To ensure racial and social progress, nothing will take the place of
leadership, of genius. A race of nothing but mediocrities will stand
still, or very nearly so; but a race of mediocrities with a good supply
of men of exceptional ability and energy at the top, will make progress
in discovery, invention and organization, which is generally recognized
as progressive evolution.
If the level of the white race be lowered, it will hurt that race and be
of little help to the Negro. If the white race be kept at such a level
that its productivity of men of talent will be at a maximum, everyone
will progress; for the Negro benefits just as the white does from every
forward step in science and art, in industry and politics.
Remembering that the white race in America is nine times as numerous as
the black race, we conclude that it would be desirable to encourage
amalgamation of the two races only in case the average of mulattoes is
superior to the average of the whites. No one can seriously maintain
that this supposition is true. Biologically, therefore, there is no
reason to think that an increase in the number of mulattoes is
desirable.
There is a curious argument in circulation, which points out that
mulattoes are almost always the offspring of Negro mothers and white
fathers, not of Negro fathers and white mothers. Therefore, it is said,
production of mulattoes does not mean at all a decrease in the number of
white births, but merely substitutes a number of mulatto births for an
equivalent number of pure Negro births. It is therefore alleged that the
production of mulattoes is in the long run a benefit, elevating the
Negro race without impairing the white race.
But this argument assumes that most mulatto births are illegitimate,--a
condition which eugenists do not sanction, because it tends to
disintegrate the family. Rather than such a condition, the legitimate
production of pure-blood Negroes is preferable, even though they be
inferior in individual ability to the illegitimate mulattoes offered as
a substitute. There are not at the present time enough desirable white
fathers in the country. If desirable ones are set aside to produce
mulattoes, it would be a great loss to the nation; while if the
mulattoes are the offspring of eugenically undesirable white fathers,
then the product is not likely to be anything America wants.
From whatever standpoint we take, we see nothing good to be said for
miscegenation.[141] We have discussed the problem as a particular one
between the blacks and whites but the argument will hold good when
applied to any two races between which the differences are so marked
that one may be considered decidedly inferior to the other.
Society,--white society,--long ago reached the instinctive conclusion,
which seems to us a correct one, that it must put a ban on intermarriage
between two such races. It has given expression to this feeling by
passing laws to prohibit miscegenation in 22 states, while six other
states prohibit it in their constitutions. There are thus 22 states
which have attempted legally to prevent intermarriage of the white and
black race. While in 20 states there is no law on the subject, it is
needless to say that popular feeling about it is almost uniform, and
that the legislators of New England for instance would refuse to give
their daughters in marriage to Negroes, even though they might the day
before have voted down a proposed law to prohibit intermarriage on the
ground that it was an expression of race prejudice.
In a majority of the states which have no legislation of this kind,
bills have been introduced during the last two or three years, and have
been defeated through the energetic interference of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, an organization of
which Oswald Garrison Villard is chairman of the Board of Directors and
W. E. B. DuBois, a brilliant mulatto, is Director of Publicity and
Research. As this association represents a very large part of the more
intelligent Negro public opinion, its attitude deserves careful
consideration. It is set forth summarily in a letter[142] which was
addressed to legislators in various states, as follows:
"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
earnestly protests against the bill forbidding intermarriage between the
races, not because the Association advocates intermarriage, which it
does not, but primarily because whenever such laws have been enacted
they have become a menace to the whole institution of matrimony, leading
directly to concubinage, bastardy, and the degradation of the Negro
woman. No man-made law can stop the union of the races. If intermarriage
be wrong, its prevention is best left to public opinion and to nature,
which wreaks its own fearful punishments on those who transgress its
laws and sin against it. We oppose the proposed statute in the language
of William Lloyd Garrison in 1843, in his successful campaign for the
repeal of a similar law in Massachusetts: 'Because it is not the
province, and does not belong to the power of any legislative assembly,
in a republican government, to decide on the complexional affinity of
those who choose to be united together in wedlock; and it may as
rationally decree that corpulent and lean, tall and short, strong and
weak persons shall not be married to each other as that there must be an
agreement in the complexion of the parties.'
"We oppose it for the physical reason that to prohibit such
intermarriage would be publicly to acknowledge that black blood is a
physical taint, something no self-respecting colored man and woman can
be asked to admit. We oppose it for the moral reason that all such laws
leave the colored girl absolutely helpless before the lust of the white
man, without the power to compel the seducer to marry. The statistics of
intermarriage in those states where it is permitted show this happens
so infrequently as to make the whole matter of legislation unnecessary.
Both races are practically in complete agreement on this question, for
colored people marry colored people, and white marry whites, the
exceptions being few. We earnestly urge upon you an unfavorable report
on this bill."
Legislation on the subject of marriage is clearly inside the province of
government. That such an argument as is quoted from William Lloyd
Garrison can still be circulated in the United States and apparently
carry weight, is sufficient cause for one to feel pessimistic over the
spread of the scientific spirit in this nation. Suffice it to say that
on this point the National Association is a century behind the times.
The following policy seems to us to be in accordance with modern
science, and yet meet all the legitimate arguments of the National
Association. We will state our attitude as definitely as possible:
1. We hold that it is to the interests of the United States, for the
reasons given in this chapter, to prevent further Negro-white
amalgamation.
2. The taboo of public opinion is not sufficient in all cases to prevent
intermarriage, and should be supplemented by law, particularly as the
United States have of late years received many white immigrants from
other countries (e. g., Italy) where the taboo is weak because the
problem has never been pressing.
3. But to prevent intermarriage is only a small part of the solution,
since most mulattoes come from extramarital miscegenation. The only
solution of this, which is compatible with the requirements of eugenics,
is not that of _laissez faire_, suggested by the National Association,
but an extension of the taboo, and an extension of the laws, to prohibit
all sexual intercourse between the two races.
Four states (Louisiana, Nevada, South Dakota and Alabama) have already
attempted to gain this end by law. We believe it to be highly desirable
that such laws should be enacted and enforced by all states. A necessary
preliminary would be to standardize the laws all over the Union,
particularly with a view to agreement on what a "Negro" legally is; for
in some states the legislation applies to one who is one-sixteenth, or
even less, Negro in descent, while in other states it appears to refer
only to full-blood or, at the most, half-blood individuals.
Such legislation, and what is more important, such public opinion,
leading to a cessation of Negro-white amalgamation, we believe to be in
the interests of national eugenics, and to further the welfare of both
of the races involved. Miscegenation can only lead to unhappiness under
present social conditions and must, we believe, under _any_ social
conditions be biologically wrong.
We favor, therefore, the support of the taboo which society has placed
on these mixed marriages, as well as any legal action which can
practicably be taken to make miscegenation between white and black
impossible. Justice requires that the Negro race be treated as kindly
and considerately as possible, with every economic and political
concession that is consistent with the continued welfare of the nation.
Such social equality and intercourse as might lead to marriage are not
compatible with this welfare.
CHAPTER XV
IMMIGRATION
There are now in the United States some 14,000,000 foreign-born persons,
together with other millions of the sons and daughters of foreigners who
although born on American soil have as yet been little assimilated to
Americanism. This great body of aliens, representing perhaps a fifth of
the population, is not a pool to be absorbed, but a continuous,
inflowing stream, which until the outbreak of the Great War was steadily
increasing in volume, and of which the fountain-head is so inexhaustible
as to appal the imagination. From the beginning of the century, the
inflow averaged little less than a million a year, and while about
one-fifth of this represented a temporary migration, four-fifths of it
meant a permanent addition to the population of the New World.
The character of this stream will inevitably determine to a large extent
the future of the American nation. The direct biological results, in
race mixture, are important enough, although not easy to define. The
indirect results, which are probably of no less importance to eugenics,
are so hard to follow that some students of the problem do not even
realize their existence.
The ancestors of all white Americans, of course, were immigrants not so
very many generations ago. But the earlier immigration was relatively
homogeneous and stringently selected by the dangers of the voyage, the
hardships of life in a new country, and the equality of opportunity
where free competition drove the unfit to the wall. There were few
people of eminence in the families that came to colonize North America,
but there was a high average of sturdy virtues, and a good deal of
ability, particularly in the Puritan and Huguenot invasions and in a
part of that of Virginia.
In the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century, the number of
these "patriots and founders" was greatly increased by the arrival of
immigrants of similar racial stocks from Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia,
and to a less extent from the other countries of northern and western
Europe. These arrivals added strength to the United States, particularly
as a large part of them settled on farms.
This stream of immigration gradually dried up, but was succeeded by a
flood from a new source,--southern and eastern Europe. Italians, Slavs,
Poles, Magyars, East European Hebrews, Finns, Portuguese, Greeks,
Roumanians and representatives of many other small nationalities began
to seek fortunes in America. The earlier immigration had been made up
largely of those who sought escape from religious or political tyranny
and came to settle permanent homes. The newer immigration was made up,
on the whole, of those who frankly sought wealth. The difference in the
reason for coming could not fail to mean a difference in selection of
the immigrants, quite apart from the change in the races.
Last of all began an immigration of Levantines, of Syrians, Armenians,
and other inhabitants of Asiatic Turkey. Beyond this region lie the
great nations of Asia, "oversaturated" with population. So far there has
been little more than the threat of their overflow, but the threat is
certain to become a reality within a few years unless prevented by legal
restriction.
The eugenic results of immigration are partly indirect and partly
direct. Direct results follow if the newcomers are assimilated,--a word
which we shall use rather narrowly to mean that free intermarriage takes
place between them and all parts of the older population. We shall
discuss the direct results first, the nature of which depends largely on
whether the newcomers are racially homogeneous with the population
already in the country.
If they are like, the old and new will blend without difficulty. The
effects of the immigration then depend on whether the immigrants are
better or worse in average quality than the older residents. If as good
or better, they are valuable additions; if inferior they are
biologically a detriment.
But if the new arrivals are different, if they represent a different
subspecies of _Homo sapiens_, the question is more serious, for it
involves the problem of crossing races which are biologically more or
less distinct. Genetics can throw some light on this problem.
Waiving for the moment all question as to the relative quality of two
distinct races, what results are to be expected from crossing? It (1)
gives an increase of vigor which diminishes in later generations and (2)
produces recombination of characters.
The first result may be disregarded, for the various races of man are
probably already much mixed, and too closely related, to give rise to
much hybrid vigor in crosses.
The second result will be favorable or unfavorable, depending on the
characters which go into the cross; and it is not possible to predict
the result in human matings, because the various racial characters are
so ill known. It is, therefore, not worth while here to discuss at
length genetic theory. In general it may be said that some valuable
characters are likely to disappear, as the result of such crosses, and
less desirable ones to take their place. The great bulk of the
population resulting from such racial crosses is likely to be more or
less mongrel in nature. Finally, some individuals will appear who
combine the good characters of the two races, without the bad ones.
The net result will therefore probably be some distinct gain, but a
greater loss. There is danger that complex and valuable traits of a race
will be broken down in the process of hybridization, and that it will
take a long time to bring them together again. The old view that racial
crosses lead fatally to race degeneration is no longer tenable, but the
view recently advanced, that crosses are advantageous, seems equally
hasty. W. E. Castle has cited the Pitcairn Islanders and the
Boer-Hottentot mulattoes of South Africa as evidence that wide crosses
are productive of no evil results. These cases may be admitted to show
that such a hybrid race may be physically healthy, but in respect of
mental traits they hardly do more than suggest the conclusion we
advanced in our chapter on the Color Line,--that such miscegenation is
an advantage to the inferior race and a disadvantage to the superior
one.
On the whole, we believe wide racial crosses should be looked upon with
suspicion by eugenists.
The colonizers of North America mostly belonged to the Nordic race.[143]
The earlier immigrants to the United States,--roughly, those who came
here before the Civil War,--belonged mostly to the same stock, and
therefore mixed with the early settlers without difficulty. The
advantages of this immigration were offset by no impairment of racial
homogeneity.
But the more recent immigration belongs mostly to other races,
principally the Mediterranean and Alpine. Even if these immigrants were
superior on the average to the older population, it is clear that their
assimilation would not be an unmixed blessing, for the evil of
crossbreeding would partly offset the advantage of the addition of
valuable new traits. If, on the other hand, the average of the new
immigration is inferior in quality, or in so far as it is inferior in
quality, it is evident that it must represent biologically an almost
unmixed evil; it not only brings in new undesirable traits, but injures
the desirable ones already here.
E. A. Ross has attempted to predict some of the changes that will take
place in the population of the United States, as a result of the
immigration of the last half-century.[144] "It is reasonable," he
thinks, "to expect an early falling off in the frequency of good looks
in the American people." A diminution of stature, a depreciation of
morality, an increase in gross fecundity, and a considerable lowering of
the level of average natural ability are among other results that he
considers probable. Not only are the races represented in the later
immigration in many cases inferior in average ability to the earlier
immigrant races, but America does not get the best, or even a
representative selection,[145] from the races which are now contributing
to her population. "Europe retains most of her brains, but sends
multitudes of the common and sub-common. There is little sign of an
intellectual element among the Magyars, Russians, South Slavs, Italians,
Greeks or Portuguese" who are now arriving. "This does not hold,
however, for currents created by race discrimination or oppression. The
Armenian, Syrian, Finnish and Russo-Hebrew streams seem
_representative_, and the first wave of Hebrews out of Russia in the
eighties was superior."
While the earlier immigration brought a liberal amount of intelligence
and ability, the later immigration (roughly, that of the last half
century) seems to have brought distinctly less. It is at present
principally an immigration of unskilled labor, of vigorous, ignorant
peasants. Some of this is "promoted" by agents of transportation
companies and others who stand to gain by stirring up the population of
a country village in Russia or Hungary, excite the illiterate peasants
by stories of great wealth and freedom to be gained in the New World,
provide the immigrant with a ticket to New York and start him for Ellis
Island. Naturally, such immigration is predominantly male. On the whole,
females make up one-third of the recent inflow, but among some
races--Greeks, Italians and Roumanians, for example--only one-fifth.
In amount of inherent ability these immigrants are not only less highly
endowed than is desirable, but they furnish, despite weeding out,
altogether too large a proportion of the "three D's"--defectives,
delinquents and dependents. In the single year 1914 more than 33,000
would-be immigrants were turned back, about half of them because likely
to become public charges. The immigration law of 1907, amended in 1910,
1913 and 1917, excludes the following classes of aliens from admission
into the United States:
Idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane
persons, persons who have been insane within 5 years previously;
persons who have had two or more attacks of insanity at any time
previously or who are affected by constitutional psychopathic
inferiority or chronic alcoholism; paupers, vagrants, persons
likely to become public charges; professional beggars, persons
afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or contagious
disease; persons who have been convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude; polygamists, anarchists, contract laborers, prostitutes,
persons not comprehended within any one of the foregoing excluded
classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining
surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such mental or
physical defect being of such a nature as to affect the ability of
the alien to earn a living.
[Illustration: EXAMINING IMMIGRANTS AT ELLIS ISLAND, NEW YORK
FIG. 39.--Surgeons of the United States Public Health Service
test every immigrant, physically and mentally, in order to send back any
who give promise of being undesirable additions to the population. The
above photograph shows how the examination of those whose condition has
aroused suspicion, is conducted. The boy under the measuring bar, in the
foreground, and the three immediately to the left of the desk, are
examples of congenital asthenia and poor physique; two of the four were
found to be dull mentally. Photograph from U. S. Public Health Service.]
Despite the efficiency of the U. S. Public Health Service, it is quite
impossible for its small staff to examine thoroughly every immigrant,
when three or four thousand arrive in a single day, as has frequently
happened at Ellis Island. Under such circumstances, the medical officer
must pass the immigrants with far too cursory an inspection. It is not
surprising that many whose mental defects are not of an obvious nature
manage to slip through; particularly if, as is charged,[146] many of the
undesirables are informed that the immigrant rush is greatest in March
and April, and therefore make it a point to arrive at that time, knowing
the medical inspection will be so overtaxed that they will have a better
chance to get by. The state hospitals of the Atlantic states are rapidly
filling up with foreign-born insane.[147] Probably few of these were
patently insane when they passed through the port of entry. Insanity, it
must be remembered, is predominantly a disease of old age, whereas the
average alien on arrival is not old. The mental weakness appears only
after he has been here some years, perhaps inevitably or perhaps because
he finds his environment in, say, lower Manhattan Island is much more
taxing to the brain than the simple surroundings of his farm overlooking
the bay of Naples.
The amount of crime attributable to certain sections of the more recent
immigration is relatively large. "It was frequently stated to the
members of the Immigration Commission in southern Italy that crime had
greatly diminished in many communities because most of the criminals had
gone to America." The amount of crime among immigrants in the United
States is partly due to their age and sex distribution, partly due to
their concentration in cities, partly to the bad environment from which
they have sometimes come; partly to inherent racial characteristics,
such as make crimes of violence frequent among the Southern Italians,
crimes of gain proportionately more frequent among the Jews, and
violence when drunk more a characteristic of the Slavs. No restriction
of immigration can wholly eliminate the criminal tendencies, but, says
Dr. Warne,[148] after balancing the two sides, "It still remains true
that because of immigration we have a greater amount of pauperism and
crime than would be the case if there were no immigration. It is also an
indisputable fact that with a better regulation of immigration the
United States would have less of these social horrors."
To dwell too much on the undesirable character of part of the present
immigration would be to lose perspective. Most of it consists of
vigorous, industrious, ignorant peasants, induced to come here in search
of a better living than they can get at home. But it is important to
remember that if they come here and stay, they are pretty certain to be
assimilated sooner or later. In cases superior to the average of the
older population, their arrival should be welcomed if not too racially
diverse; but if, as we believe the record of their achievements shows, a
large part of the immigration is on the average inferior to the older
population of the United States, such are eugenically a detriment to the
future progress of the race. The direct biological result to be expected
from the assimilation of such newcomers is the swamping of the best
characteristics of the old American stock, and a diminution of the
average of intelligence of the whole country.
The interbreeding is too slow at present to be conspicuous, and hence
its effects are little noticed. The foreigners tend to keep by
themselves, to form "Little Italies," "Little Russias," transplanted
Ghettoes and "foreign quarters," where they retain their native
languages and customs and marry compatriots. This condition of
segregation can not last forever; the process of amalgamation will be
more rapid with each generation, particularly because of the
preponderance of males in the newer immigration who must marry outside
their own race, if they are to marry at all.
The direct results of immigration that lead to intermarriage with the
older population are fairly easy to outline. The indirect results, which
we shall now consider, are more complex. We have dealt so far only with
the effects of an immigration that is assimilated; but some immigration
(that from the Orient, for example) is not assimilated; other
immigration remains unassimilated for a long time. What are the eugenic
consequences of an unassimilated immigration?
The presence of large numbers of immigrants who do not intermarry with
the older stock will, says T. N. Carver,[149] inevitably mean one of
three things:
1. Geographical separation of races.
2. Social separation of races (as the "color line" in the South and to a
large extent in the North, between Negroes and whites who yet live side
by side).
3. Continuous racial antagonism, frequently breaking out into race war.
This third possibility has been at least threatened, by the conflict
between the white and yellow races in California, and the conflict
between whites and Hindus in British Columbia.
None of these alternatives is attractive. The third is undesirable in
every way and the first two are difficult to maintain. The first is
perhaps impossible; the second is partly practicable, as is shown by the
case of the Negro. One of its drawbacks is not sufficiently recognized.
In a soundly-organized society, it is necessary that the road should be
open from top to bottom and bottom to top, in order that genuine merit
may get its deserts. A valuable strain which appears at the bottom of
the social scale must be able to make its way to the top, receiving
financial and other rewards commensurate with its value to the state,
and being able to produce a number of children proportionate to its
reward and its value. This is an ideal which is seldom approximated in
government, but it is the advantage of a democratic form of government
that it presents the open road to success, more than does an oligarchic
government. That this freedom of access to all rewards that the state
can give should be open to every one (and conversely that no one should
be kept at the top and over-rewarded if he is unworthy) is essential to
eugenics; but it is quite incompatible with the existence within the
state of a number of isolated groups, some of which must inevitably and
properly be considered inferior. It is certain that, at the present time
in this country, no Negro can take a place in the upper ranks of
society, which are and will long remain white. The fact that this
situation is inevitable makes it no less unfortunate for both Negro and
white races; consolation can only be found in the thought that it is
less of a danger than the opposite condition would be. But this
condition of class discrimination is likely to exist, to a much less
extent it is true, in every city where there are foreign-born and
native-born populations living side by side, and where the epithets of
"Sheeny," "Dago," "Wop," "Kike," "Greaser," "Guinea," etc., testify to
the feeling of the older population that it is superior.
While eugenic strength in a state is promoted by variety, too great a
heterogeneity offers serious social difficulties. It is essential if
America is to be strong eugenically that it slow down the flood of
immigrants who are not easily assimilable. At present a state of affairs
is being created where class distinctions are likely to be barriers to
the promotion of individual worth--and equally, of course, to the
demotion of individual worthlessness.
Even if an immigration is not assimilated, then, it yet has an indirect
effect on eugenics. But there are other indirect effects of immigration,
which are quite independent of assimilation: they inhere in the mere
bulk and economic character of the immigration. The arrivals of the past
few decades have been nearly all unskilled laborers. Professor Carver
believes that continuous immigration which enters the ranks of labor in
larger proportion and the business and professional classes in a smaller
proportion than the native-born will produce the following results:
1. Distribution. It will keep competition more intense among laborers
and less intense among business and professional men: it will therefore
raise the income of the employing classes and lower the wages of
unskilled labor.
2. Production. It will give a relatively low marginal productivity to a
typical immigrant and make him a relatively unimportant factor in the
production of wealth.
3. Organization of industry. Immigrants can only be employed
economically at low wages and in large gangs, because of (2).
4. Agriculture. If large numbers of immigrants should go into
agriculture, it will mean one of two things, probably the second:
(a) Continuous subdivision of farms resulting in inefficient and
wasteful application of labor and smaller crops per man, although
probably larger crops per acre.
(b) Development of a class of landed proprietors on the one hand and a
landless agricultural proletariat on the other.
It is true that the great mass of unskilled labor which has come to the
United States in the last few decades has made possible the development
of many industries that have furnished an increased number of good jobs
to men of intelligence, but many who have made a close study of the
immigration problem think that despite this, unskilled labor has been
coming in altogether too large quantities. Professor Ross publishes the
following illustration:
"What a college man saw in a copper-mine in the Southwest gives in a
nutshell the logic of low wages.
"The American miners, getting $2.75 a day, are abruptly displaced
without a strike by a train-load of 500 raw Italians brought in by the
company and put to work at from $1.50 to $2 a day. For the Americans
there is nothing to do but to 'go down the road.' At first the Italians
live on bread and beer, never wash, wear the same filthy clothes night
and day, and are despised. After two or three years they want to live
better, wear decent clothes, and be respected. They ask for more wages,
the bosses bring in another train-load from the steerage, and the partly
Americanized Italians follow the American miners 'down the road.' No
wonder the estimate of government experts as to the number of our
floating casual laborers ranges up to five millions!"
"It is claimed that the natives are not displaced" by the constant
inflow of alien unskilled labor, says H. P. Fairchild,[150] but that they
"are simply forced into higher occupations. Those who were formerly
common laborers are now in positions of authority. While this argument
holds true of individuals, its fallacy when applied to groups is
obvious. There are not nearly enough places of authority to receive
those who are forced out from below. The introduction of 500 Slav
laborers into a community may make a demand for a dozen or a score of
Americans in higher positions, but hardly for 500."
"The number of unskilled workers coming in at the present time is
sufficient to check decidedly the normal tendency toward an improved
standard of living in many lines of industry," in the opinion of J. W.
Jenks, who was a member of the Immigration Commission appointed by
President Roosevelt in 1907. He alludes to the belief that instead of
crowding the older workers _out_, the aliens merely crowd them up, and
says that he himself formerly held that view; "but the figures collected
by the Immigration commission, from a sufficient number of industries in
different sections of the country to give general conclusions, prove
beyond a doubt that in a good many cases these incoming immigrants
actually drive out into other localities and into other unskilled trades
large numbers of American workingmen and workingmen of the earlier
immigration who do not get better positions but, rather, worse ones....
Professor Lauck, our chief superintendent of investigators in the
field, and, so far as I am aware, every single investigator in the
field, before the work ended, reached the conclusion from personal
observation that the tendency of the large percentage of immigration of
unskilled workers is clearly to lower the standard of living in a number
of industries, and the statistics of the commission support this
impression. I therefore changed my earlier views."
If the immigration of large quantities of unskilled labor with low
standards of living tends in most cases to depress wages and lower the
standard of living of the corresponding class of the old American
population, the consequences would appear to be:
1. The employers of labor would profit, since they would get abundant
labor at low wages. If this increase in the wealth of employers led to
an increase in their birth-rate, it would be an advantage. But it
apparently does not. The birth-rate of the employing class is probably
little restricted by financial difficulties; therefore on them
immigration probably has no immediate eugenic effect.
2. The American skilled laborers would profit, since there is more
demand for skilled labor in industries created by unskilled immigrant
labor. Would the increasing prosperity and a higher standard of living
here, tend to lower the relative birth-rate of the class or not?
The answer probably depends on the extent of the knowledge of birth
control which has been discussed elsewhere.
3. The wages and standard of living of American unskilled laborers will
fall, since they are obliged directly to compete with the newcomers. It
seems most likely that a fall in wages and standards is correlated with
a fall in birth-rate. This case must be distinguished from cases where
the wages and standards _never were high_, and where poverty is
correlated with a high birth-rate. If this distinction is correct, the
present immigration will tend to lower the birth-rate of American
unskilled laborers.
The arguments here used may appear paradoxical, and have little
statistical support, but they seem to us sound and not in contradiction
with any known facts. If they are valid, the effect of such immigration
as the United States has been receiving is to reduce the birth-rate of
the unskilled labor with little or no effect on the employers and
managers of labor.
Since both the character and the volume of immigration are at fault,
remedial measures may be applied to either one or both of these
features. It is very desirable that we have a much more stringent
selection of immigrants than is made at the present time. But most of
the measures which have been actually proposed and urged in recent years
have been directed at a diminution of the volume, and at a change in
character only by somewhat indirect and indiscriminate means.
The Immigration Commission made a report to Congress on Dec. 5, 1910, in
which it suggested the following possible methods of restricting the
volume of immigration:
1. The exclusion of those unable to read and write in some language.
2. The reduction of the number of each race arriving each year to a
certain percentage of the average of that race arriving during a given
period of years.
3. The exclusion of unskilled laborers unaccompanied by wives or
families.
4. Material increase in the amount of money required to be in the
possession of the immigrant at the port of arrival.
5. Material increase in the head tax.
6. Limitation of the number of immigrants arriving annually at any port.
7. The levying of the head tax so as to make a marked discrimination in
favor of men with families.
Eugenically, it is probable that (3) and (7), which would tend to admit
only families, would be a detriment to American welfare; (1) and (2)
have been the suggestions which have met with the most favor. All but
one member of the commission favored (1), the literacy test, as the most
feasible single method of restricting undesirable immigration, and it
was enacted into law by Congress, which passed it over President
Wilson's veto, in February, 1917.
Records for 1914 show that "illiteracy among the total number of
arrivals of each race ranged all the way from 64% for the Turkish to
less than 1% for the English, the Scotch, the Welsh, the Scandinavian,
and the Finnish. The Bohemian and Moravian, the German, and the Irish
each had less than 5% illiterate. Races other than the Turkish, whose
immigration in 1914 was more than one-third illiterate, include the
Dalmatians, Bosnians, Herzegovinians, Russians, Ruthenians, Italians,
Lithuanians, and Roumanians."
It is frankly admitted by the proponents of this method of restriction
that it will keep out some who ought to come in, and let in some who
ought to be kept out. It is in some cases a test of opportunity rather
than of character, but "in the belief of its advocates, it will meet the
situation as disclosed by the investigation of the Immigration
Commission better than any other means that human ingenuity can devise.
It is believed that it would exclude more of the undesirable and fewer
of the desirable immigrants than any other method of restriction."
On the other hand, it is argued that the literacy test will fail of
success because those who want to come will learn to read and write,
which will only delay their arrival a few months without changing their
real character. But the effect of such attempts will separate those who
succeed from those who are too inferior to succeed, which would be an
advantage of the plan rather than a defect.
The second method of selection enumerated (2) above, was proposed by
Rev. Sidney L. Gulick, particularly with a view to meeting the need of
restriction of Asiatic immigration.[151] This immigration will be
discussed shortly, but in the meantime the details of his plan may be
presented.
"Only so many immigrants of any people should be admitted as we can
Americanize. Let the maximum permissible annual immigration from any
people be a definite per cent. (say five) of the sum of the
American-born children of that people plus those who have become
naturalized of the same people. Let this restriction be imposed only
upon adult males.
"Taking the 1910 census as our basis, the 5% Restriction Proposal would
have fixed the maximum permissible immigration of males from North and
West Europe at 759,000 annually, while the actual annual immigration for
the last 5 years averages but 115,000. The permissible immigration from
South and East Europe would have been 189,000 annually, while the
average for the last five years has been 372,000. When applied to China,
the policy would have admitted 1,106 males per year, while the number
admitted on the average for the last 5 years has been 1,571. The
proposal would provide for the admission of 1,200 Japanese annually,
here again resulting in the exclusion on the average of 1,238 males
yearly during the years 1911-1915. No estimate is made here of the
effect of the exclusion of males on the arrival of women and children."
The percentage restriction is unsatisfactory to a eugenist, as not
sufficiently discriminating.
The literary restriction has been a great step forward but should be
backed by the addition of such mental tests as will make it fairly
certain to keep out the dull-minded as well as feeble-minded. Long
division would suffice as such a test until better tests relatively
unaffected by schooling can be put into operation, since it is at this
point in the grades that so many dull-minded drop out of the schools.
Oriental immigration is becoming an urgent problem, and it is essential
that its biological, as well as its economic and sociological features
be understood, if it is to be solved in a satisfactory and reasonably
permanent way. In the foregoing discussion, Oriental immigration has
hardly been taken into account; it must now receive particular
consideration.
What are the grounds, then, for forbidding the yellow races, or the
races of British India, to enter the United States? The considerations
urged in the past have been (1) Political: it is said that they are
unable to acquire the spirit of American institutions. This is an
objection which concerns eugenics only indirectly. (2) Medical: it is
said that they introduce diseases, such as the oriental liver, lung and
intestinal flukes, which are serious, against which Americans have never
been selected, and for which no cure is known. (3) Economic: it is
argued that the Oriental's lower standard of living makes it impossible
for the white man to compete with him. The objection is well founded,
and is indirectly of concern to eugenics, as was pointed out in a
preceding section of this chapter. As eugenists we feel justified in
objecting to the immigration of large bodies of unskilled Oriental
labor, on the ground that they rear larger families than our stock on
the same small incomes.
A biological objection has also been alleged, in the possibility of
interbreeding between the yellow and white races. In the past such cases
have been very rare; it is authoritatively stated[152] that "there are
on our whole Pacific coast not more than 20 instances of intermarriage
between Americans and Japanese, and ... one might count on the fingers
of both hands the number of American-Chinese marriages between San Diego
and Seattle." The presence of a body of non-interbreeding immigrants is
likely to produce the adverse results already discussed in the earlier
part of this chapter.
Eugenically, then, the immigration of any considerable number of
unskilled laborers from the Orient may have undesirable direct results
and is certain to have unfavorable indirect results. It should therefore
be prevented, either by a continuation of the "gentlemen's agreement"
now in force between the United States and Japan, and by similar
agreements with other nations, or by some such non-invidious measure as
that proposed by Dr. Gulick. This exclusion should not of course be
applied to the intellectual classes, whose presence here would offer
advantages which would outweigh the disadvantages.
We have a different situation in the Philippine islands, there the
yellow races have been denied admission since the United States took
possession. Previously, the Chinese had been trading there for
centuries, and had settled in considerable numbers almost from the time
the Spaniards colonized the archipelago.
At present it is estimated that there are 100,000 Chinese in the
islands, and their situation was not put too strongly by A. E. Jenks,
when he wrote:[153]
"As to the Chinese, it does not matter much what they themselves desire;
but what their descendants desire will go far toward answering the whole
question of the Filipinos' volition toward assimilation, because they
are _the_ Filipinos. To be specific: During the latter days of my
residence in the Islands in 1905 Governor-General Wright one day told me
that he had recently personally received from one of the most
distinguished Filipinos of the time, and a member of the Insular Civil
Commission, the statement that 'there was not a single prominent and
dominant family among the Christianized Filipinos which did not possess
Chinese blood.' The voice and will of the Filipinos of to-day is the
voice and the will of these brainy, industrious, rapidly developing men
whose judgment in time the world is bound to respect."
This statement will be confirmed by almost any American resident in the
Islands. Most of the men who have risen to prominence in the Islands are
mestizos, and while in political life some of the leaders are merely
Spanish metis, the financial leaders almost without exception, the
captains of industry, have Chinese blood in their veins, while this
class has also taken an active part in the government of the
archipelago. Emilio Aguinaldo is one of the most conspicuous of the
Chinese mestizos. Individual examples might be multiplied without limit;
it will be sufficient to mention Bautista Lim, president of the largest
tobacco firm in the islands and also a physician; his brother, formerly
an insurgent general and later governor of Sampango province under the
American administration; the banker Lim Hap; Faustino Lechoco, cattle
king of the Philippines; Fernandez brothers, proprietors of a steamship
line; Locsin and Lacson, wealthy sugar planters; Mariano Velasco,
dry-goods importer; Datto Piang, the Moro warrior and chieftain; Paua,
insurgent general in southern Luzon; Ricardo Gochuico, tobacco magnate.
In most of these men the proportion of Chinese blood is large.
Generalizing, we are justified in saying that the cross between Chinese
and Filipinos produces progeny superior to the Filipinos. It must be
remembered that it is not a very wide cross, the Malayans, who include
most of the Filipinos, being closely related to the Chinese.
It appears that even a small infusion of Chinese blood may produce
long-continued favorable results, if the case of the Ilocanos is
correctly described. This tribe, in Northern Luzon, furnishes perhaps
the most industrious workers of any tribe in the islands; foremen and
overseers of Filipinos are quite commonly found to be Ilocanos, while
the members of the tribe are credited with accomplishing more steady
work than any other element of the population. The current explanation
of this is that they are Chinese mestizos: their coast was constantly
exposed the raids of Chinese pirates, a certain number of whom settled
there and took Ilocano women as wives. From these unions, the whole
tribe in the course of time is thought to have benefited.[154]
The history of the Chinese in the Philippines fails to corroborate the
idea that he never loses his racial identity. It must be borne in mind
that nearly all the Chinese in the United States are of the lowest
working class, and from the vicinity of Canton; while those in the
Philippines are of a higher class, and largely from the neighborhood of
Amoy. They have usually married Filipino women of good families, so
their offspring had exceptional advantages, and stand high in the
estimation of the community. The requirement of the Spanish government
was that a Chinese must embrace Christianity and become a citizen,
before he could marry a Filipino. Usually he assumed his wife's name, so
the children were brought up wholly as Filipinos, and considered
themselves such, without cherishing any particular sentiment for the
Flowery Kingdom.
The biologist who studies impartially the Filipino peoples may easily
conclude that the American government is making a mistake in excluding
the Chinese; that the infiltration of intelligent Chinese and their
intermixture with the native population would do more to raise the level
of ability of the latter than a dozen generations of that compulsory
education on which the government has built such high hopes.
And this conclusion leads to the question whether much of the surplus
population of the Orient could not profitably be diverted to regions
occupied by savage and barbarian people. Chinese immigrants, mostly
traders, have long been going in small numbers to many such regions and
have freely intermarried with native women. It is a matter of common
observation to travelers that much of the small mercantile business has
passed into the hands of Chinese mestizos. As far as the first few
generations, at least, the cross here seems to be productive of good
results. Whether Oriental immigration should be encouraged must depend
on the decision of the respective governments, and considerations other
than biologic will have weight. As far as eugenics is concerned it is
likely that such regions would profit by a reasonable amount of Chinese
or Japanese immigration which resulted in interbreeding and not in the
formation of isolated race-groups, because the superior Orientals tend
to raise the level of the native population into which they marry.
The question of the regulation of immigration is, as we have insisted
throughout this chapter, a question of weighing the consequences. A
decision must be reached in each case by asking what course will do most
for the future good both of the nation and of the whole species. To talk
of the sacred duty of offering an asylum to any who choose to come, is
to indulge in immoral sentimentality. Even if the problem be put on the
most unselfish plane possible, to ask not what will be for this
country's own immediate or future benefit, but what will most benefit
the world at large, it can only be concluded that the duty of the
United States is to make itself strong, efficient, productive and
progressive. By so doing they will be much better able to help the rest
of the world than by progressively weakening themselves through failure
to regulate immigration.
Further, in reaching a decision on the regulation of immigration, there
are numerous kinds of results to be considered: political, social,
economic and biologic, among others. All these interact, and it is hard
to say that one is more important than another; naturally we have
limited ourselves to the biologic aspect, but not without recognizing
that the other aspects exist and must be taken into account by those who
are experts in those fields.
Looking only at the eugenic consequences, we can not doubt that a
considerable and discriminatory selection of immigrants to this country
is necessary. Both directly and indirectly, the immigration of recent
years appears to be diminishing the eugenic strength of the nation more
than it increases it.
The state would be in a stronger position eugenically (and in many other
ways) if it would decrease the immigration of unskilled labor, and
increase the immigration of creative and directing talent. A selective
diminution of the volume of immigration would tend to have that result,
because it would necessarily shut out more of the unskilled than the
skilled.
CHAPTER XVI
WAR
War always changes the composition of a nation; but this change may be
either a loss or a gain. The modification of selection by war is far
more manifold than the literature on the biological effects of war would
lead the reader to suppose. All wars are partly eugenic and partly
dysgenic; some are mainly the one, some are mainly the other. The racial
effects of war occur in at least three periods:
1. The period of preparation.
2. The period of actual fighting.
3. The period of readjustment after the war.
The first division involves the effect of a standing army, which
withdraws men during a part of the reproductive period and keeps most of
them in a celibate career. The officers marry late if at all and show a
very low birth-rate. The prolonged celibacy has in many armies led to a
higher incidence of venereal diseases which prolongs the celibacy and
lowers the birthrate.[155] Without extended discussion, the following
considerations may be named as among those which should govern a policy
of military preparedness that will safeguard, as far as possible, the
eugenic interests:
1. If the army is a standing one, composed of men serving long terms of
enlistment, they should be of as advanced an age as is compatible with
military efficiency. If a man of 35 has not married, it is probable that
he will never marry, and therefore there is less loss to the race in
enrolling him for military service, than is the case with a man of
20-25.
2. The army (except in so far as composed of inferior men) should not
foster celibacy. Short enlistments are probably the most valuable means
of avoiding this evil.
3. Universal conscription is much better than voluntary service, since
the latter is highly selective, the former much less so. Those in
regular attendance in college should receive their military training in
their course as is now done.
4. Officers' families should be given an additional allowance for each
child. This would aid in increasing the birth-rate, which appears to be
very low among army and navy officers in the United States service, and
probably in that of all civilized countries.
5. Every citizen owes service to his nation, in time of need, but
fighting service should not be exacted if some one else could perform it
better than he where he is expert in some other needed field. The recent
action of England in sending to the front as subaltern officers, who
were speedily killed, many highly trained technicians and young
scientists and medical men who would have been much more valuable at
home in connection with war measures, is an example of this mistake.
Carrying the idea farther, one sees that in many nations there are
certain races which are more valuable on the firing line than in
industries at the rear; and it appears that they should play the part
for which they are best fitted. From this point of view, the Entente
allies were wholly justified in employing their Asiatic and African
subjects in war. In the United States are millions of negroes who are of
less value than white men in organized industry but almost as valuable
as the whites, when properly led, at the front. It would appear to be
sound statesmanship to enlist as many Negroes as possible in the active
forces, in case of war, thus releasing a corresponding number of more
skilled white workers for the industrial machine on whose efficiency
success in modern warfare largely rests.
The creation of the National Army in the United States, in 1917, while
in most ways admirably conducted, was open to criticism in several
respects, from the eugenic point of view:
(a) Too many college men and men in intellectual pursuits were taken as
officers, particularly in the aviation corps. There should have been
more men employed as officers who had demonstrated the necessary
qualifications, as foremen and others accustomed to boss gangs of men.
(b) The burden was thrown too heavily on the old white Americans, by the
exemption of aliens, who make up a large part of the population in some
states. There were communities in New England which actually could not
fill their quotas, even by taking every acceptable native-born resident,
so large is their alien population. The quota should have been adjusted
if aliens were to be exempt.
(c) The district boards were not as liberal as was desirable, in
exempting from the first quota men needed in skilled work at home. The
spirit of the _selective_ draft was widely violated, and necessitated a
complete change of method before the second quota was called by the much
improved questionnaire method.
It is difficult to get such mistakes as these corrected; nevertheless a
nation should never lose sight of the fact that war is inevitably
damaging, and that the most successful nation is the one which wins its
wars with the least possible eugenic loss.
Leaving the period of preparedness, we consider the period of open
warfare. The reader will remember that, in an earlier chapter, we
divided natural selection into (1) lethal, that which operates through
differential mortality; (2) sexual, that which operates through
differential mating; and (3) fecundal, that which operates through
differential fecundity. Again, selection operates both in an inter-group
competition and an intra-group competition. The influence of any agency
on natural selection must be examined under each of these six heads. In
the case of war, however, fecundal selection may be eliminated, as it is
little influenced. Still another division arises from the fact that the
action of selection is different during war upon the armed forces
themselves and upon the population at home; and after the war, upon the
nations with the various modifications that the war has left.
We will consider lethal selection first. To measure the effect of the
inter-group selection of the armed forces, one must compare the
relative quality of the two races involved. The evidence for believing
in substantial differences between races is based (a) upon their
relative achievement when each is isolated, (b) upon the relative rank
when the two are competing in one society, and (c) upon the relative
number of original contributions to civilization each has made. Such
comparisons are fatal to the sentimental equalitarianism that denies
race differences. While there is, of course, a great deal of
overlapping, there are, nevertheless, real average differences. To think
otherwise is to discard evolution and revert to the older standpoint of
"special creation."
Comparison of the quality of the two sides is sometimes, of course, very
difficult. One may feel little hesitation in giving a decision in the
classical war of the Greeks and Persians, or the more modern case of the
English and Afghans, but when considering the Franco-Prussian war, or
the Russo-Japanese war, or the Boer war, or the American civil war, it
is largely a matter of mere opinion, and perhaps an advantage can hardly
be conceded to either side. Those who, misunderstanding the doctrine of
evolution, adhere to the so-called "philosophy of force," would answer
without hesitation that the side which won was, _ipso facto_, the better
side. But such a judgment is based on numerous fallacies, and can not be
indorsed in the sweeping way it is uttered. Take a concrete example:
"In 1806, Prussia was defeated at the battle of Jena. According to the
philosophy of force, this was because Prussia was 'inferior' and France
was 'superior.' Suppose we admit for the moment that this was the case.
The selection now represents the survival of the fittest, the selection
which perfects the human species. But what shall we say of the battle of
Leipsic? At Leipsic, in 1813, all the values were reversed; it is now
France which is the 'inferior' nation.... Furthermore, a large number of
the same generals and soldiers who took part in the battle of Jena also
took part in the battle of Leipsic. Napoleon belonged, therefore, to a
race which was superior to that of Blücher in 1806, but to an inferior
race in 1813, in spite of the fact that they were the same persons and
had not changed their nationality. As soon as we bring these assertions
to the touchstone of concrete reality we see at once how untenable and
even ridiculous are direct biological comparisons."[156]
Without going into further detail, it is readily seen that, on the world
at large, the eugenic effect of a war would be very different according
as the sides differ much or little. Yet this difference in quality,
however great, will have no significance, unless the superior or
inferior side is in general more likely to lose fewer men. Where the
difference has been considerable, as between a civilized and savage
nation, it has been seldom that the superior has not triumphed with
fewer losses. Victory, however, is influenced much less in these later
days by the relative military efficiency of two single nations than by
their success in making powerful alliances. But such alignments are by
no means always associated with better quality, because (a) there is a
natural tendency for the weak to unite against a strong nation, (b) to
side with a group which is apparently succeeding, and (c) the alliances
may be the work of one or a few individuals who happen to be in
positions of power at the critical time.
Modern European wars, especially the latest one, have been marked by the
high quality of the combatants on both sides relative to the rest of the
world. As these same races fight with pertinacity, there is a high
mortality rate, so that the dysgenic result of these wars is
particularly deplorable.
As for the selection taking place _within_ each of the struggling
nations, the combatants and the non-combatants of the same age and sex
must first be compared. The difference here depends largely on how the
army in question was raised. Where the army is a permanent, paid force,
it probably does not represent a quality above the average of the
nation, except physically. When it is conscripted, it is superior
physically and probably slightly in other respects. If it is a
volunteer army, its quality depends largely on whether the cause being
fought for is one that appeals merely to the spirit of adventure or one
that appeals to some moral principle. In the latter case, the quality
may be such that the loss of a large part of the army will be peculiarly
damaging to the progress of the race. This situation is more common than
might be supposed, for by skillful diplomacy and journalism a cause
which may be really questionable is presented to the public in a most
idealistic light. But here, again, one can not always apply sweeping
generalizations to individual cases. It might be supposed, for instance,
that in the Confederate army the best eugenic quality was represented by
the volunteers, the second best by those who stayed out until they were
conscripted, and the poorest by the deserters. Yet David Starr Jordan
and Harvey Ernest Jordan, who investigated the case with care, found
that this was hardly true and that, due to the peculiar circumstances,
the deserters were probably not as a class eugenically inferior to the
volunteers.[157] Again some wars, such as that between the United States
and Spain, probably develop a volunteer army made up largely of the
adventurous, the nomadic, and those who have fewer ties; it would be
difficult to demonstrate that they are superior to those who, having
settled positions at home, or family obligations, fail to volunteer. The
greatest damage appears to be done in such wars as those waged by great
European nations, where the whole able-bodied male population is called
out, and only those left at home who are physically or mentally unfit
for fighting--but not, it appears to be thought, unfit to perpetuate the
race.
Even within the army of one side, lethal selection is operative. Those
who are killed are by no means a haphazard sample of the whole army.
Among the victims there is a disproportionate representation of those
with (1) dauntless bravery, (2) recklessness, (3) stupidity. These
qualities merge into each other, yet in their extremes they are widely
different. However, as the nature of warfare changes with the increase
of artillery, mines, bombs, and gases, and decrease of personal combat,
those who fall are more and more chance victims.
In addition to the killed and mortally wounded, there are many deaths
from disease or from wounds which were not necessarily fatal. Probably
the most selective of any of these three agencies is the variable
resistance to disease and infection and the widely varying knowledge and
appreciation of the need for hygienic living shown by the individual,
as, for instance, by less reckless drinking of unsterilized water. But
here, too, in modern warfare, this item is becoming less selective, with
the advance in discipline and in organized sanitation.
The efficiency of selection will be affected by the percentage that each
side has sent to the front, if the combatants are either above or below
the average of the population. A nation that sends all its able-bodied
males forward will be affected differently from its enemy that has
needed to call upon only one-half of its able-bodied men in order to win
its cause.
Away from the fighting lines of the contending sides, conditions that
prevail are rendered more severe in many ways than in times of peace.
Poverty becomes rife, and sanitation and medical treatment are commonly
sacrificed under the strain. During a war, that mitigation of the action
of natural selection which is so common now among civilized nations, is
somewhat less effective than in times of peace. The scourge of typhus in
Serbia is a recent and graphic illustration.
After a war has been concluded, certain new agencies of inter-group
selection arise. The result depends largely on whether the vanquished
have had a superior culture brought to them, as in the case of the
Philippines, or whether, on the contrary, certain diseases have been
introduced, as to the natives of the New World by the Spanish conquerors
and explorers, or crushing tribute has been levied, or grievous
oppression such as has befallen Belgium.
Sometimes the conquerors themselves have suffered severely as the result
of excessive spoliation, which has produced vicious idleness and
luxurious indulgence, with the ultimate effect of diminishing the
birth-rate.
Within the nation there may be various results. Sometimes, by the
reduction of overcrowding, natural selection will be less severe. On the
other hand, the loss of that part of the population which is more
economically productive is a very serious loss, leading to excessive
poverty with increased severity in the action of natural selection, of
which some of the Southern States, during the Reconstruction period,
offer a good illustration.
Selection is also rendered more intense by the heavy burden of taxation,
and in the very common depreciation of currency as is now felt in
Russia.
Sexual selection as well as lethal is affected by war in manifold ways.
Considering the armed force, there is an inter-group selection, when the
enemy's women are assaulted by the soldiers. While this has been an
important factor in the past, it is somewhat less common now, with
better army discipline and higher social ideals.
Within the group, mating at the outset of a war is greatly increased by
many hurried marriages. There is also alleged to be sometimes an
increase of illegitimacy in the neighborhood of training camps. In each
of these instances, these matings do not represent as much maturity of
judgment as there would have been in times of peace, and hence give a
less desirable sexual selection.
In the belligerent nation at home, the number of marriageable males is
of course far less than at ordinary times. It becomes important, then,
to compare the quality of the non-combatants and those combatants who
survive and return home, since their absence during the war period of
course decreases their reproduction as compared with the non-combatants.
The marked excess of women over men, both during the war and after,
necessarily intensifies the selection of women and proportionately
reduces that of men, since relatively fewer men will remain unmated.
This excess of women is found in all classes. Among superiors there are,
in addition, some women who never marry because the war has so reduced
the number of suitors thought eligible.
The five years' war of Paraguay with Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina
(1864-1869) is perhaps the most glaring case on record[158] in recent
years of the destruction of the male population of a country. Whole
regiments were made up of boys of 16 or less. At the beginning of the
war the population of Paraguay had been given as 1,337,437. It fell to
221,709 (28,746 men, 106,254 women, 86,079 children); it is even now
probably not more than half of the estimate made at the beginning of the
war. "Here in a small area has occurred a drastic case of racial ravage
without parallel since the time of the Thirty Years' War." Macedonia,
however, furnishes a fairly close parallel--D. S. Jordan found whole
villages there in 1913 in which not a single man remained: only women
and children. Conditions were not so very much better in parts of the
South at the close of the Civil War, particularly in Virginia and North
Carolina, where probably 40% of the young men of reproductive age died
without issue. And in a few of the Northern states, such as Vermont,
Connecticut and Massachusetts, the loss was proportionately almost as
great. These were probably as good men as any country has produced, and
their loss, with that of their potential offspring, undoubtedly is
causing more far-reaching effects in the subsequent history of the
United States than has ever been realized.
In the past and still among many savage peoples, inter-group selection
has been affected by the stealing of women from the vanquished. The
effect of this has been very different, depending on whether these women
would otherwise have been killed or spared, and also depending on the
relative quality of their nation to that of their conquerors.
To sum up, there are so many features of natural selection, each of
which must be separately weighed and the whole then balanced, that it is
a matter of extensive inquiry to determine whether a certain war has a
preponderance of eugenic or dysgenic results.
When the quality of the combatants is so high, compared with the rest
of the world, as during the Great War, no conceivable eugenic gains from
the war can offset the losses. It is probably well within the facts to
assume that the period of this war represents a decline in inherent
human quality, greater than in any similar length of time in the
previous history of the world.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that war is becoming much less common
if we consider number of combatants rather than number of wars as times
goes on,[159] and it steadily tends to be more destructive. War, then,
offers one of the greatest problems which the eugenist must face, for a
few months of war may undo all that eugenic reforms can gain in a
generation.
The total abolition of war would, of course, be the ideal, but there is
no possibility of this in the near future. The fighting instinct, it
must be remembered, is one of the most primitive and powerful that the
human mechanism contains. It was evolved in great intensity, to give man
supremacy over his environment--for the great "struggle for existence"
is with the environment, not with members of one's own species. Man long
ago conquered the environment so successfully that he has never since
had to exert himself in physical combat in this direction; but the
fighting instinct remained and could not be baulked without causing
uneasiness. Spurred on by a complex set of psychological and economic
stimuli, man took to fighting his own kind, to a degree that no other
species shows.
Now contrary to what the militarist philosophers affirm, this particular
sort of "struggle for existence" is not a necessity to the further
progressive evolution of the race. On the contrary it more frequently
reverses evolution and makes the race go backward, rather than forward.
The struggle for existence which makes the race progress is principally
that of the species with its environment, not that of some members of
the species with others. If the latter struggle could be supplanted by
the former then racial evolution would go ahead steadily without the
continuous reversals that warfare now gives.
William James saw, we believe, the true solution of the problem of
militarism, when he wrote his famous essay on _The Moral Equivalent of
War_. Here is man, full of fighting instinct which will not be baulked.
What is he to do? Professor James suggested that the youth of the nation
be conscripted to fight the environment, thus getting the fight "out of
its system" and rendering a real service to the race by constructive
reclamation work, instead of slaying each other and thus turning the
hands of the evolutionary clock backward.
When education has given everyone the evolutionary and eugenic view of
man as a species adapted to his environment, it may be possible to work
out some such solution as this of James. The only immediate course of
action open seems to be to seek, if possible, to diminish the frequency
of war by subduing nations which start wars and, by the organization of
a League to Enforce Peace; to avoid war-provoking conquests; to diminish
as much as possible the disastrous effects of war when it does come, and
to work for the progress of science and the diffusion of knowledge which
will eventually make possible the greater step, effective international
organization.
CHAPTER XVII
GENEALOGY AND EUGENICS
Scientific plant breeders to-day have learned that their success often
depends on the care with which they study the genealogy of their plants.
Live-stock breeders admit that their profession is on a sure scientific
basis only to the extent that the genealogy of the animals used is
known.
Human genealogy is one of the oldest manifestations of man's
intellectual activity, but until recently it has been subservient to
sentimental purposes, or pursued from historical or legal motives.
Biology has had no place in it.
Genealogy, however, has not altogether escaped the re-examination which
all sciences received after the Darwinian movement revolutionized modern
thought. Numerous ways have been pointed out in which it could be
brought into line with the new way of looking at man and his world. The
field of genealogy has already been invaded at many points by
biologists, seeking the furtherance of their own aims.
It will be worth while to discuss briefly the relations between the
conventional genealogy and eugenics. It may be that genealogy could
become an even more valuable branch of human knowledge than it now is,
if it were more closely aligned with biology. In order to test this
possibility, one must inquire:
(1) What is genealogy?
(2) What does it now attempt to do?
(3) What faults, from the eugenist's standpoint, seem to exist in
present genealogical methods?
(4) What additions should be made to the present methods?
(5) What can be expected of it, after it is revised in accordance with
the ideas of the eugenist?
The answer to the first question, "What is genealogy?" may be brief.
Genealogy may be envisaged from several points. It serves history. It
has a legal function, which is of more consequence abroad than in
America. It has social significance, in bolstering family pride and
creating a feeling of family solidarity--this is perhaps its chief
office in the United States. It has, or can have, biological
significance, and this in two ways: either in relation to pure science
or applied science. In connection with pure science, its function is to
furnish means for getting knowledge of the laws of heredity. In
application, its function is to furnish a knowledge of the inherited
characters of any given individual, in order to make it possible for the
individual to find his place in the world and, in particular, to marry
wisely. It is obvious that the use of genealogy in the applied science
of eugenics is dependent on previous research by geneticists; for
marriage matings which take account of heredity can not be made unless
the mode of inheritance of human traits has previously been discovered.
The historical, social, legal and other aspects of genealogy do not
concern the present discussion. We shall discuss only the biological
aspect; not only because it alone is germane to the present book, but
because we consider it to have by far the greatest true value, accepting
the criterion of value as that which increases the welfare of mankind.
By this criterion, the historical, legal and social aspects of genealogy
will be seen, with a little reflection, to be of secondary importance to
its biological aspect.
(2) Genealogy now is too often looked upon as an end in itself. It would
be recognized as a science of much greater value to the world if it were
considered not an end but a means to a far greater end than it alone can
supply. It has, indeed, been contended, even by such an authority as
Ottokar Lorenz, who is often called the father of modern scientific
genealogy, that a knowledge of his own ancestry will tell each
individual exactly what he himself is. This appears to be the basis of
Lorenz's valuation of genealogy. It is a step in the right direction:
but
(3) The present methods of genealogy are inadequate to support such a
claim. Its methods are still based mainly on the historical, legal and
social functions. A few of the faults of method in genealogy, which the
eugenist most deplores, are:
(a) The information which is of most value is exactly that which
genealogy ordinarily does not furnish. Dates of birth, death and
marriage of an ancestor are of interest, but of limited biological
importance. The facts about that ancestor which vitally concern his
living descendant are the facts of his character, physical and mental;
and these facts are given in very few genealogies.
[Illustration: LINE OF ASCENT THAT CARRIES THE FAMILY NAME
FIG. 40.--In some pedigrees, particularly those dealing with
antiquity, the only part known is the line of ascent which carries the
family name,--what animal breeders call the tail-male. In such cases it
is evident that from the point of view of a geneticist practically
nothing is known. How insignificant any single line of ascent is, by
comparison with the whole ancestry, even for a few generations, is
graphically shown by the above chart. It is assumed in this chart that
no cousin marriages took place.]
(b) Genealogies are commonly too incomplete to be of real value.
Sometimes they deal only with the direct male line of ascent--the line
that bears the family name, or what animal breeders call the tail-male.
In this case, it is not too much to say that they are nearly devoid of
genuine value. It is customary to imagine that there is some special
virtue inherent in that line of descent which carries the family name.
Some one remarks, for instance, to Mr. Jones that he seems to be fond of
the sea.
"Yes," he replies, "You know the Joneses have been sailors for many
generations."
But the small contribution of heredity made to an individual by the line
of descent carrying his family name, in comparison with the rest of his
ancestry, may be seen from Fig. 40.
Such incomplete pedigrees are rarely published nowadays, but in studying
historic characters, one frequently finds nothing more than the single
line of ascent in the family name. Fortunately, American genealogies
rarely go to this extreme, unless it be in the earliest generations; but
it is common enough for them to deal only with the direct ancestors of
the individual, omitting all brothers and sisters of those ancestors.
Although this simplifies the work of the genealogist immensely, it
deprives it of value to a corresponding degree.
(c) As the purpose of genealogy in this country has been largely social,
it is to be feared that in too many cases discreditable data have been
tacitly omitted from the records. The anti-social individual, the
feeble-minded, the insane, the alcoholic, the "generally no-count," has
been glossed over. Such a lack of candor is not in accord with the
scientific spirit, and makes one uncertain, in the use of genealogies,
to what extent one is really getting all the facts. There are few
families of any size which have not one such member or more, not many
generations removed. To attempt to conceal the fact is not only
unethical but from the eugenist's point of view, at any rate, it is a
falsification of records that must be regarded with great disapproval.
At present it is hard to say to what extent undesirable traits occur in
the most distinguished families; and it is of great importance that this
should be learned.
Maurice Fishberg contends[160] that many Jewish families are
characterized by extremes,--that in each generation they have produced
more ability and also more disability than would ordinarily be expected.
This seems to be true of some of the more prominent old American
families as well. On the other hand, large families can be found, such
as the remarkable family of New England office-holders described by
Merton T. Goodrich,[161] in which there is a steady production of civic
worth in every generation with almost no mental defectives or gross
physical defectives. In such a family there is a high sustained level.
It is such strains which eugenists wish especially to increase.
In this connection it is again worth noting that a really great man is
rarely found in an ancestry devoid of ability. This was pointed out in
the first chapter, but is certain to strike the genealogist's attention
forcibly. Abraham Lincoln is often quoted as an exception; but more
recent studies of his ancestry have shown that he is not really an
exception; that, as Ida M. Tarbell[162] says, "So far from his later
career being unaccounted for in his origin and early history, it is as
fully accounted for as is the case of any man." The Lincoln family was
one of the best in America, and while Abraham's own father was an
eccentric person, he was yet a man of considerable force of character,
by no means the "poor white trash" which he is often represented to have
been. The Hanks family, to which the Emancipator's mother belonged, had
also maintained a high level of ability in every generation;
furthermore, Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks, the parents of Abraham
Lincoln, were first cousins.
The more difficult cases, for the eugenist, are rather to be found in
such ancestries as those of Louis Pasteur and Michael Faraday.
Pasteur[163] might perhaps be justly considered the greatest man France
has ever produced; his father was a non-commissioned soldier who came of
a long line of tanners, while his mother's family had been gardeners for
generations. Faraday, who is worthy to be placed close to Charles
Darwin among eminent Englishmen, was the son of a blacksmith and a
farmer's daughter. Such pedigrees are striking; and yet, as Frederick
Adams Woods has remarked, they ought to strengthen rather than to weaken
one's belief in the force of heredity. When it is considered how rarely
such an ancestry produces a great man, it must be fairly evident that
his greatness is due to an accidental conjunction of favorable traits,
as the modern theory of genetics holds; and that greatness is not due to
the inheritance of acquired characters, on which hypothesis Pasteur and
Faraday would indeed be difficult to explain.
Cases of this sort, even though involving much less famous people, will
be found in almost every genealogy, and add greatly to the interest of
its study, as well as offering valuable data to the professional
geneticist.
(d) Even if the information it furnishes were more complete, human
genealogy would not justify the claims sometimes made for it as a
science, because, to use a biological phrase, "the matings are not
controlled." The results of a certain experiment are exhibited, but can
not be interpreted unless one knows what the results would have been,
had the preceding conditions been varied in this way or in that way.
These controlled experiments can be made in plant and animal breeding;
they have been made by the thousand, by the hundred thousand, for many
years. They can not be made in human society. It is, of course, not
desirable that they should be made; but the consequence is that the
biological meaning of human history, the real import of genealogy, can
not be known unless it is interpreted in the light of modern plant and
animal breeding. It is absolutely necessary that genealogy go into
partnership with genetics, the general science of heredity. If a spirit
of false pride leads genealogists to hold aloof from these experiments,
they will make slow progress. The interpretation of genealogy in the
light of modern research in heredity through the experimental breeding
of plants and animals is full of hope; without such light, it will be
discouragingly slow work.
Genealogists are usually proud of their pedigrees; they usually have a
right to be. But their pride should not lead them to scorn the pedigrees
of some of the peas, and corn, snapdragons and sugar beets, bulldogs and
Shorthorn cattle, with which geneticists have been working during the
last generation; for these humble pedigrees may throw more light on
their own than a century of research in purely human material.
The science of genealogy will not have full meaning and full value to
those who pursue it, unless they bring themselves to look on men and
women as organisms subject to the same laws of heredity and variation as
other living things. Biologists were not long ago told that it was
essential for them to learn to think like genealogists. For the purpose
of eugenics, neither science is complete without the other; and we
believe that it is not invidious to say that biologists have been
quicker to realize this than have genealogists. The Golden Age of
genealogy is yet to come.
(4) In addition to the correction of these faulty methods, there are
certain extensions of genealogical method which could advantageously be
made without great difficulty.
(a) More written records should be kept, and less dependence placed on
oral communication. The obsolescent family Bible, with its chronicle of
births, deaths and marriages, is an institution of too great value in
more ways than one, to be given up. The United States have not the
advantage of much of the machinery of State registration which aids
European genealogy, and while working for better registration of vital
statistics, it should be a matter of pride with every family to keep its
own archives.
(b) Family trees should be kept in more detail, including all brothers
and sisters in every family, no matter at what age they died, and
including as many collaterals as possible. This means more work for the
genealogist, but the results will be of much value to science.
(c) More family traits should be marked. Those at present recorded are
mostly of a social or economic nature, and are of little real
significance after the death of their possessor. But the traits of his
mind and body are likely to go on to his descendants indefinitely.
These are therefore the facts of his life on which attention should be
focused.
(d) More pictorial data should be added. Photographs of the members of
the family, at all ages, should be carefully preserved. Measurements
equally deserve attention. The door jamb is not a satisfactory place for
recording the heights of children, particularly in this day when
removals are so frequent. Complete anthropometric measurements, such as
every member of the Young Men's Christian Association, most college
students, and many other people are obliged to undergo once or
periodically, should be placed on file.
(e) Pedigrees should be traced upward from a living individual, rather
than downward from some hero long since dead. Of course, the ideal
method would be to combine these two, or to keep duplicate pedigrees,
one a table of ascendants and the other of descendants, in the same
stock.
Genealogical data of the needed kind, however, can not be reduced to a
mere table or a family tree. The ideal genealogy starts with a whole
fraternity--the individual who is making it and all his brothers and
sisters. It describes fully the fraternity to which the father belongs,
giving an account of each member, of the husband or wife of that member
(if married) and their children, who are of course the first cousins of
the maker of the genealogical study. It does the same for the mother's
fraternity. Next it considers the fraternity to which the father's
father belongs, considers their consorts and their children and
grandchildren, and then takes up the study of the fraternity of the
father's mother in the same way. The mother's parents next receive
attention; and then the earlier generations are similarly treated, as
far as the available records will allow. A pedigree study constructed on
this plan really shows what traits are running through the families
involved, and is vastly more significant than a mere chain of links,
even though this might run through a dozen generations.
(5) With these changes, genealogy would become the study of heredity,
rather than the study of lineage.
It is not meant to say that the study of heredity is nothing more than
applied genealogy. As understood nowadays, it includes mathematical and
biological territory which must always be foreign to genealogy. It might
be said that in so far as man is concerned, heredity is the
interpretation of genealogy, and eugenics the application of heredity.
Genealogy should give its students a vision of the species as a great
group of ever-changing, interrelated organisms, a great network
originating in the obscurity of the past, stretching forward into the
obscurity of the future, every individual in it organically related to
every other, and all of them the heritors of the past in a very real
sense.
Genealogists do well in giving a realization of the importance of the
family, but they err if they base this teaching altogether on the
family's pride in some remote ancestor who, even though he bore the
family name and was a prodigy of virtues, probably counts for very
little in the individual's make-up to-day. To take a concrete though
wholly imaginary illustration: what man would not feel a certain
satisfaction in being a lineal descendant of George Washington? And yet,
if the Father of his Country be placed at only four removes from the
living individual, nothing is more certain than that this hypothetical
living individual had fifteen other ancestors in George Washington's
generation, any one of whom may play as great or a greater part in his
ancestry; and so remote are they all that, as a statistical average, it
is calculated that the contribution of George Washington to the ancestry
of the hypothetical living individual would be perhaps not more than
one-third of 1% of the total. The small influence of one of these remote
ancestors may be seen at a glance, if a chart of all the ancestors up to
the generation of the great hero is made. Following out the
illustration, a pedigree based on George Washington would look like the
diagram in Fig. 41. In more remote generations, the probable biological
influence of the ancestor becomes practically nil. Thus Americans who
trace their descent to some royal personage of England or the Continent,
a dozen generations ago, may get a certain amount of spiritual
satisfaction out of the relationship, but they certainly can derive
little real help, of a hereditary kind, from this ancestor. And when
one goes farther back,--as to William the Conqueror, who seems to rank
with the Mayflower immigrants as a progenitor of many descendants--the
claim of descent becomes really a joke. If 24 generations have elapsed
between the present and the time of William the Conqueror, every
individual living to-day must have had living in the epoch of the Norman
conquest not less than sixteen million ancestors. Of course, there was
no such number of people in all England and Normandy, at that time,
hence it is obvious that the theoretical number has been greatly reduced
in every generation by consanguineous marriages, even though they were
between persons so remotely related that they did not know they were
related. C. B. Davenport, indeed, has calculated that most persons of the
old American stock in the United States are related to each other not
more remotely than thirtieth cousins, and a very large proportion as
closely as fifteenth cousins.
[Illustration: THE SMALL VALUE OF A FAMOUS, BUT REMOTE, ANCESTOR
FIG. 41.--A living individual who was a lineal descendant of
George Washington might well take pride in the fact, but genetically
that fact might be of very little significance. The above chart shows
graphically how small a part any single ancestor plays, a few
generations back. A general high average of ability in an ancestry is
much more important, eugenically, than the appearance of one or two
distinguished individuals.]
At any rate, it must be obvious that the ancestors of any person of old
American stock living to-day must have included practically all the
inhabitants of England and Normandy, in the eleventh century. Looking
at the pedigree from the other end, William the Conqueror must have
living to-day at least 16,000,000 descendants. Most of them can not
trace back their pedigrees, but that does not alter the fact.
Such considerations give one a vivid realization of the brotherhood of
man; but they can hardly be said to justify any great pride in descent
from a family of crusaders for instance, except on purely sentimental
grounds.
Descent from a famous man or woman should not be disparaged. It is a
matter of legitimate pride and congratulation. But claims for respect
made on that ground alone are, from a biological point of view,
negligible, if the hero is several generations removed. What Sir Francis
Galton wrote of the peers of England may, with slight alterations, be
given general application to the descendants of famous people:
"An old peerage is a valueless title to natural gifts, except so far as
it may have been furbished up by a succession of wise intermarriages....
I cannot think of any claim to respect, put forward in modern days, that
is so entirely an imposture as that made by a peer on the ground of
descent, who has neither been nobly educated, nor has any eminent
kinsman within three degrees."
But, some one may protest, are we not shattering the very edifice of
which we are professed defenders, in thus denying the force of heredity?
Not at all. We wish merely to emphasize that a man has sixteen
great-great-grandparents, instead of one, and that those in the maternal
lines are too often overlooked, although from a biological point of view
they are every bit as important as those in the paternal lines. And we
wish further to emphasize the point that it is the near relatives who,
on the whole, represent what one is. The great family which for a
generation or two makes unwise marriages, must live on its past
reputation and see the work of the world done and the prizes carried
away by the children of wiser matings. No family can maintain its
eugenic rank merely by the power of inertia. Every marriage that a
member of the family makes is a matter of vital concern to the future of
the family: and this is one of the lessons which a broad science of
genealogy should inculcate in every youth.
Is it practicable to direct genealogy on this slightly different line?
As to that, the genealogist must decide. These are the qualifications
which old Professor William Chauncey Fowler laid down as essential for a
successful genealogist:
Love of kindred.
Love of investigation.
Active imagination.
Sound and disciplined judgment.
Conscientious regard to truth.
A pleasing style as a writer.
With such qualifications, one can go far, and it would seem that one who
possesses them has only to fix his attention upon the biological aspect
of genealogy, to become convinced that his science is only part of a
science, as long as it ignores eugenics. After all, nothing more is
necessary than a slight change in the point of view; and if genealogists
can adopt this new point of view, can add to their equipment some
familiarity with the fundamental principles of biology as they apply to
man and are laid down in the science of eugenics, the value of the
science of genealogy to the world ought to increase at least five-fold
within a generation.
What can be expected from a genealogy with eugenic foundation?
First and foremost, it will give genetics a chance to advance with more
rapidity, in its study of man. Genetics, the study of heredity, can not
successfully proceed by direct observation in the human species as it
does with plants and rapidly-breeding animals, because the generations
are too long. Less than three generations are of little value for
genetic researches, and even three can rarely be observed to advantage
by any one person. Therefore, second-hand information must be used. So
far, most of this has been gained by sending field-workers--a new kind
of genealogist--out among the members of a family, and having them
collect the desired information, either by study of extant records, or
by word of mouth. But the written records of value have been usually
negligible in quantity, and oral communication has therefore been the
mainstay. It has not been wholly satisfactory. Few people--aside from
genealogists--can give even the names of all their great-grandparents,
far less can they tell anything of importance about them.
It is thus to genealogy that genetics is driven. Unless family records
are available, it can accomplish little. And it can not get these family
records unless genealogists realize the importance of furnishing them;
for as has already been pointed out, most genealogies at present
available are of little value to genetics, because of the inadequacy of
the data they furnish. It is only in the case of exceptional families,
such as the royal houses of Europe, that enough information is given
about each individual to furnish an opportunity for analysis. What could
be done if there were more such data available is brilliantly
illustrated in the investigation by Frederick Adams Woods of Boston of
the reigning houses of Europe. His writings should be read by every
genealogist, as a source of inspiration as well as information.
More such data must be obtained in the future. Genealogists must begin
at once to keep family records in such a way that they will be of the
greatest value possible--that they will serve not only family pride, but
bigger purposes. It will not take long to get together a large number of
family histories, in which the idea will be to tell as much as possible,
instead of as little as possible, about every individual mentioned.
The value of pedigrees of this kind is greater than most people realize.
In the first place, it must be remembered that these traits, on whose
importance in the pedigree we have been insisting, are responsible not
only for whatever the individual is, but for whatever society
is,--whatever the race is. They are not personal matters, as C. B.
Davenport and H. H. Laughlin well point out; "they come to us from out
of the population of the past, and, in so far as we have children, they
become disseminated throughout the population of the future. Upon such
traits society is built; good or bad they determine the fate of our
society. Apart from migration, there is only one way to get socially
desirable traits into our social life, and that is reproduction; there
is only one way to get them out, by preventing the reproduction. All
social welfare work is merely education of the germs of traits; it does
not provide such germs. In the absence of the germs the traits can not
develop. On the other hand, it is possible with difficulty, if possible
at all, by means of the strongest repressive measures merely, to prevent
the development of undesirable hereditary traits. Society can treat the
delinquent individual more reasonably, more effectively, and more
humanely, if it knows the 'past performance' of his germ-plasm."
In addition to their importance to society, a knowledge of the traits of
a pedigree has a great direct importance to the individual; one of the
most valuable things to be learned from that knowledge is the answer to
the question, "What shall a boy or girl do? What career shall one lay
out for one's children?" A knowledge of the child's inborn nature, such
as can be had only through study of his ancestry, will guide those who
have his education in hand, and will further guide those who decide, or
help the child decide, what work to take up in life. This helps to put
the problem of vocational guidance on a sound basis,--the basis of the
individual's inherent aptitudes.
Not too much must be expected from vocational guidance at the present
time, but in the case of traits that are inherited, it is a fair
inference that a child is more likely to be highly endowed with a trait
which both parents possess, than with one that only one parent
possesses. "Among the traits which have been said to occur in some such
direct hereditary way," H. L. Hollingworth[164] observes, "or as the
result of unexplained mutation or deviation from type, are: mathematical
aptitude, ability in drawing,[165] musical composition,[166] singing,
poetic reaction, military strategy, chess playing. Pitch discrimination
seems to depend on structural factors which are not susceptible of
improvement by practice.[167] The same may be said of various forms of
professional athletic achievement. Color blindness seems to be an
instance of the conspicuous absence of such a unit characteristic."
Again, the knowledge of ancestry is an essential factor in the wise
selection of a husband or wife. Insistence has been laid on this point
in an earlier chapter of this book, and it is not necessary here to
repeat what was there said. But it seems certain that ancestry will
steadily play a larger part in marriage selection in the future; it is
at least necessary to know that one is not marrying into a family that
carries the taint of serious hereditary defect, even if one knows
nothing more. An intelligent study of genealogy will do much, we
believe, to bring about the intelligent selection of the man or woman
with whom one is to fall in love.
In addition to these general considerations, it is evident that
genealogy, properly carried out, would throw light on most of the
specific problems with which eugenics is concerned, or which fall in the
field of genetics. A few examples of these problems may be mentioned, in
addition to those which are discussed in various other chapters of this
book.
[Illustration: HISTORY OF 100 BABIES
FIG. 42.--The top of the diagram shows the children "starting
from scratch." By following down the vertical lines, one can see that
their longevity depends largely on the size of family from which they
come. Those who had 10 or a dozen brothers and sisters are most likely
to live to extreme age. Alexander Graham Bell's data, 2964 members of
the Hyde family in America.]
[Illustration: ADULT MORTALITY
FIG. 43--If child mortality is eliminated, and only those
individuals studied who live to the age of 20 or longer, the small
families are still found to be handicapped. In general it may be said
that the larger the family, the longer a member of it will live. Large
families (in a normal, healthy section of the population) indicate
vitality on the part of the parents. This does not, of course, hold good
in the slums, where mental and financial inefficiency are abundant.
Within certain classes, however, it may be said with confidence that the
weaklings in the population are most likely to be from small families.
Alexander Graham Bell's data.]
1. The supposed inferiority of first-born children has been debated at
some length during the last decade, but is not yet wholly settled. It
appears possible that the first-born may be, on the average, inferior
both physically and mentally to the children who come directly after
him; on the other hand, the number of first-born who attain eminence is
greater than would be expected on the basis of pure chance. More data
are needed to clear up this problem.[168]
2. The advantage to a child of being a member of a large or small family
is a question of importance. In these days of birth control, the
argument is frequently heard that large families are an evil of
themselves, the children in them being handicapped by the excessive
child-bearing of the mother. The statistics cited in support of this
claim are drawn from the slums, where the families are marked by poverty
and by physical and mental inferiority. It can easily be shown, by a
study of more favored families, that the best children come from the
large fraternities. In fact Alexander Graham Bell found evidence,[169]
in his investigation of the Hyde Family in America, that the families of
10 or more children were those which showed the greatest longevity (see
Figs. 42 and 43). In this connection, longevity is of course a mark of
vitality and physical fitness.
3. The question of the effect of child-bearing on the mother is equally
important, since exponents of birth control are urging that mothers
should not bear more children than they desire. A. O. Powys' careful
study[170] of the admirable vital statistics of New South Wales showed
that the mothers who lived longest were those who bore from five to
seven children.
4. The age at which men and women should marry has not yet been
sufficiently determined, on biological grounds. Statistics so far
compiled do not indicate that the age of the father has any direct
influence on the character of the children, but the age of the mother
undoubtedly exercises a strong influence on them. Thus it is now well
established[171] that infant mortality is lowest among the children of
young mothers,--say from 20 to 25 years of age,--and that delay in
child-bearing after that age penalizes the children (see Fig. 44). There
is also some evidence that, altogether apart from the infant mortality,
the children of young mothers attain a greater longevity than do those
of older women. More facts are needed, to show how much of this effect
is due to the age of the mother, how much to her experience, and how
much to the influence of the number of children she has previously
borne.
5. Assortative mating, consanguineous marriage, the inheritance of a
tendency to disease, longevity, sex-linked heredity, sex-determination,
the production of twins, and many other problems of interest to the
general public as well as to the biologist, are awaiting the collection
of fuller data. All such problems will be illuminated, when more
genealogies are kept on a biological basis.
[Illustration: INFLUENCE OF MOTHER'S AGE
FIG. 44.--As measured by the percentage of infant deaths, those
children show the greatest vitality who were born to mothers between the
ages of 20 and 25. Infant mortality increases steadily as the mother
grows older. In this case the youngest mothers (those under 20 years of
age) do not make quite as good a showing as those who are a little
older, but in other studies the youngest mothers have made excellent
records. In general, such studies all show that the babies are penalized
if marriage is delayed beyond the age of 25, or if child-bearing is
unduly delayed after marriage. Alexander Graham Bell's data.]
Here, however, an emphatic warning against superficial investigation
must be uttered. The medical profession has been particularly hasty,
many times, in reporting cases which were assumed to demonstrate
heredity. The child was so and so; it was found on inquiry that the
father was also so and so: _Post hoc, ergo propter hoc_--it was
heredity. Such a method of investigation is calculated to bring genetics
into disrepute, and would hazard the credit of genealogy. As a fact, one
case counts for practically nothing as proof of hereditary influence;
even half a dozen or a dozen may be of no significance. There are two
ways in which genealogical data can be analyzed to deduce biological
laws: one is based on the application of statistical and graphic methods
to the data, and needs some hundreds of cases to be of value; the other
is by pedigree-study, and needs at least three generations of pedigree,
usually covering numerous collaterals, to offer important results. It is
not to be supposed that anyone with a sufficiently complete record of
his own ancestry would necessarily be able by inspection to deduce from
it any important contribution to science. But if enough complete family
records are made available, the professional geneticist can be called
into cooperation, can supplement the human record with his knowledge of
the results achieved by carefully controlled animal and plant breeding,
and between them, the genealogist and the geneticist can in most cases
arrive at the truth. That such truth is of the highest importance to any
family, and equally to society as a whole, must be evident.
Let the genealogist, then, bring together data on every trait he can
think of. As a guide and stimulus, he should read the opening chapters
of Herbert's Spencer's _Autobiography_, or of Karl Pearson's, _Life,
Letters and Labors of Sir Francis Galton_, or C. B. Davenport's
study[172] of C. O. Whitman, one of the foremost American biologists. He
will also find help in Bulletin No. 13 of the Eugenics Record Office,
Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York. It is entitled, _How to Make
a Eugenical Family Study_, and gives a list of questions which should be
answered, and points which should be noted. With some such list as this,
or even with his own common-sense, the genealogist may seek to ascertain
as much as possible about the significant facts in the life of his
ancestors, bearing in mind that the geneticist will ask two questions
about every trait mentioned:
1. Is this characteristic inherited?
2. If so, how?
Nor must it be forgotten that the geneticist is often as much
interested in knowing that a given character is not inherited under
certain conditions, as that it is.
It is highly desirable that genealogists should acquire the habit of
stating the traits of their subjects in quantitative terms. They too
often state that a certain amount is "much"; what should be told is "how
much." Instead of saying that an individual had fairly good health, tell
exactly what diseases he had during his lifetime; instead of remarking
that he was a good mathematician, tell some anecdote or fact that will
allow judgment of the extent of his ability in this line. Did he keep
record of his bank balance in his head instead of on paper? Was he fond
of mathematical puzzles? Did he revel in statistics? Was the study of
calculus a recreation to him? Such things probably will appear trivial
to the genealogist, but to the eugenist they are sometimes important.
Aside from biology, or as much of it as is comprised in eugenics,
genealogy may also serve medicine, jurisprudence, sociology, statistics,
and various other sciences as well as the ones which it now serves. But
in most cases, such service will have a eugenic aspect. The alliance
between eugenics and genealogy is so logical that it can not be put off
much longer.
Genealogists may well ask what facilities there are for receiving and
using pedigrees such as we have been outlining, if they were made up.
All are, of course, familiar with the repositories which the different
patriotic societies, the National Genealogical Society, and similar
organizations maintain, as well as the collections of the Library of
Congress and other great public institutions. Anything deposited in such
a place can be found by investigators who are actively engaged in
eugenic research.
In addition to this, there are certain establishments founded for the
sole purpose of analyzing genealogies from a biological or statistical
point of view. The first of these was the Galton Laboratory of the
University of London, directed by Karl Pearson. There are two such at
work in the United States. The larger is the Eugenics Record Office at
Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York, directed by Charles B.
Davenport. Blank schedules are sent to all applicants, in which the
pedigree of an individual may be easily set down, with reference
particularly to the traits of eugenic importance. When desired, the
office will send duplicate schedules, one of which may be retained by
the applicant for his own files. The schedules filed at the Eugenics
Record Office are treated as confidential, access to them being given
only to accredited investigators.
The second institution of this kind is the Genealogical Record Office,
founded and directed by Alexander Graham Bell at 1601 Thirty-fifth
Street N. W., Washington D. C. This devotes itself solely to the
collection of data regarding longevity, and sends out schedules to all
those in whose families there have been individuals attaining the age of
80 or over. It welcomes correspondence on the subject from all who know
of cases of long life, and endeavors to put the particulars on record,
especially with reference to the ancestry and habits of the long-lived
individual.
The Eugenics Registry at Battle Creek, Mich., likewise receives
pedigrees, which it refers to Cold Spring Harbor for analysis.
Persons intelligently interested in their ancestry might well consider
it a duty to society, and to their own posterity, to send for one of the
Eugenics Record Office schedules, fill it out and place it on file
there, and to do the same with the Genealogical Record Office, if they
are so fortunate as to come of a stock characterized by longevity. The
filling out of these schedules would be likely to lead to a new view of
genealogy; and when this point of view is once gained, the student will
find it adds immensely to his interest in his pursuit.
Genealogists are all familiar with the charge of long standing that
genealogy is a subject of no use, a fad of a privileged class. They do
not need to be told that such a charge is untrue. But genealogy can be
made a much more useful science than it now is, and it will be at the
same time more interesting to its followers, if it is no longer looked
upon as an end in itself, nor solely as a minister to family pride. We
hope to see it regarded as a handmaid of evolution, just as are the
other sciences; we hope to see it linked with the great biological
movement of the present day, for the betterment of mankind.
So much for the science as a whole. What can the individual do? Nothing
better than to broaden his outlook so that he may view his family not as
an exclusive entity, centered in a name, dependent on some illustrious
man or men of the past; but rather as an integral part of the great
fabric of human life, its warp and woof continuous from the dawn of
creation and criss-crossed at each generation. When he gets this vision,
he will desire to make his family tree as full as possible, to include
his collaterals, to note every trait which he can find on record, to
preserve the photographs and measurements of his own contemporaries, and
to take pleasure in feeling that the history of his family is a
contribution to human knowledge, as well as to the pride of the family.
If the individual genealogist does this, the science of genealogy will
become a useful servant of the whole race, and its influence, not
confined to a few, will be felt by all, as a positive, dynamic force
helping them to lead more worthy lives in the short span allotted to
them, and helping them to leave more worthy posterity to carry on the
names they bore and the sacred thread of immortality, of which they were
for a time the custodians.
CHAPTER XVIII
THE EUGENIC ASPECT OF SOME SPECIFIC REFORMS
Nearly every law and custom of a country has an influence direct or
remote on eugenics. The eugenic progress to be expected if laws and
customs are gradually but steadily modified in appropriate ways, is
vastly greater and more practicable than is any possible gain which
could be made at present through schemes for the direct control of
"eugenic marriages."
In this present chapter, we try to point out some of the eugenic aspects
of certain features of American society. It must not be supposed that we
have any legislative panaceas to offer, or that the suggestions we make
are necessarily the correct ones. We are primarily concerned with
stimulating people to think about the eugenic aspects of their laws and
customs. Once the public thinks, numerous changes will be tried and the
results will show whether the changes shall be followed up or
discontinued.
The eugenic point of view that we have here taken is becoming rather
widespread, although it is often not recognized as eugenic. Thinkers in
all subjects that concern social progress are beginning to realize that
the test of whether or not a measure is good is its effect. The
pragmatic school of philosophy, which has been in vogue in recent years,
has reduced this attitude to a system. It is an attitude to be welcomed
wherever it is found, for it only needs the addition of a knowledge of
biology, to become eugenic.
TAXATION
To be just, any form of taxation should repress productive industry as
little as possible, and should be of a kind that can not easily be
shifted. In addition to these qualifications, it should, if possible,
contribute directly to the eugenic strength of the nation by favoring,
or at least by not penalizing, useful families. A heavy tax on land
values (in extreme, the single-tax) and a heavy tax on bachelors have
sometimes been proposed as likely to be eugenic in effect. But they are
open to criticism. The tax on land values appears too likely to be
indiscriminate in working: it would appear to favor inferior families as
much as superior ones. The tax on bachelors is proposed as a means of
getting bachelors to marry; but is this always desirable? It depends on
the quality of the bachelors. Even at present it is our belief that, on
the whole, the married men of the population are superior to the
unmarried men. If the action of sexual selection is improved still
further by the eugenics campaign, this difference in quality will be
increased. It will then be rather an advantage that the bachelors should
remain single, and a tax which would force them into marriage for
reasons of economy, is not likely to result in any eugenic gain. But a
moderate indirect tax by an exemption for a wife and each child after a
general exemption of $2,000 would be desirable.
The inheritance tax seems less open to criticism. Very large
inheritances should be taxed to a much greater degree than is at present
attempted in the United States, and the tax should be placed, not on the
total amount of the inheritance, but on the amount received by each
individual beneficiary. This tends to prevent the unfair guarantee of
riches to individuals regardless of their own worth and efforts. But to
suggest, on the other hand, as has often been done, that inheritances
should be confiscated by the government altogether, shows a lack of
appreciation of the value of a reasonable right to bequeath in
encouraging larger families among those having a high standard of
living. It is not desirable to penalize the kind of strains which
possess directing talent and constructive efficiency; and they certainly
would be penalized if a man felt that no matter how much he might
increase his fortune, he could not leave any of it to those who
continued his stock.
The sum exempted should not be large enough to tempt the beneficiary to
give up work and settle down into a life of complacent idleness, but
enough to be of decided assistance to him in bringing up a family:
$50,000 might be a good maximum. Above this, the rate should advance
rapidly, and should be progressive, not proportional. A 50% tax on
inheritances above $250,000 seems to us desirable, since large
inheritances tend to interfere with the correlation of wealth and social
worth, which is so necessary from a eugenic point of view as well as
from that of social justice.
The Federal estate law, passed in September, 1916, is a step in the
right direction. It places the exemption at $50,000 net. The rate,
however, is not rapid enough in its rise: e.g., estates exceeding
$250,000 but less than $450,000 are taxed only 4%, while the maximum,
for estates above $5,000,000, is only 10%. This, moreover, is on the
total estate, while we favor the plan that taxes not the total amount
bequeathed but the amount inherited by each individual. With the ever
increasing need of revenue, it is certain that Congress will make a
radical increase in progressive inheritance tax on large fortunes, which
should be retained after the war.
Wisconsin and California have introduced an interesting innovation by
providing a further graded tax on inheritances in accordance with the
degree of consanguinity between the testator and the beneficiary. Thus a
small bequest to a son or daughter might be taxed only 1%; a large
bequest to a trained nurse or a spiritualistic medium might be taxed
15%. This is frank recognition of the fact that inheritance is to be
particularly justified as it tends to endow a superior family.
Eugenically it may be permissible to make moderate bequests to brothers,
nephews and nieces, as well as one's own children; and to endow
philanthropies; but the State might well take a large part of any
inheritance which would otherwise go to remote heirs, or to persons not
related to the testator.
At present there is, on the whole, a negative correlation between size
of family and income. The big families are, in general in the part of
the population which has the smallest income, and it is well established
that the number of children tends to decrease as the income increases
and as a family rises in the social scale--a fact to which we have
devoted some attention in earlier chapters. If this condition were to be
permanent, it would be somewhat difficult to suggest a eugenic form of
income tax. We believe, however, that it is not likely to be permanent
in its present extent. The spread of birth control seems likely to
reduce the negative correlation and the spread of eugenic ideas may
possibly convert it into a slight positive correlation, so that the
number of children may be more nearly proportional to the means of the
family. Perhaps it is Utopian to expect a positive correlation in the
near future, yet a decrease in the number of children born to the class
of casual laborers and unskilled workers is pretty certain to take place
as rapidly as the knowledge of methods of birth control is extended; and
at present it does not seem that this extension can be stopped by any of
the agencies that are opposing it.
If the size of a family becomes more nearly proportional to the income,
instead of being inversely proportional to it as at present, and if
income is even roughly a measure of the value of a family to the
community--an assumption that can hardly be denied altogether, however
much one may qualify it in individual cases,--then the problem of taxing
family incomes will be easier. The effect of income differences will be,
on the whole, eugenic. It would then seem desirable to exempt from
taxation all incomes of married people below a certain critical sum,
this amount being the point at which change in income may be supposed to
not affect size of family. This means exemption of all incomes under
$2,000, an additional $2,000 for a wife and an additional $2,000 for
each child, and a steeply-graded advance above that amount, as very
large incomes act to reduce the size of family by introducing a
multiplicity of competing cares and interests. There is also a eugenic
advantage in heavy taxes on harmful commodities and unapprovable
luxuries.
THE "BACK TO THE FARM" MOVEMENT
One of the striking accompaniments of the development of American
civilization, as of all other civilizations, is the growth of the
cities. If (following the practice of the U. S. Census) all places with
2,500 or more population be classed as urban, it appears that 36.1% of
the population of the United States was urban in 1890, that the
percentage had risen to 40.5 in 1900, and that by 1910 not less than
46.3% of the total population was urban.
There are four components of this growth of urban population: (1) excess
of births over deaths, (2) immigration from rural districts, (3)
immigration from other countries, and (4) the extension of area by
incorporation of suburbs. It is not to be supposed that the growth of
the cities is wholly at the expense of the country; J. M. Gillette
calculates[173] that 29.8% of the actual urban gain of 11,826,000
between 1900 and 1910 was due to migration from the country, the
remaining 70.2% being accounted for by the other three causes
enumerated.
Thus it appears that the movement from country to city is of
considerable proportions, even though it be much less than has sometimes
been alleged. This movement has eugenic importance because it is
generally believed, although more statistical evidence is needed, that
families tend to "run out" in a few generations under city conditions;
and it is generally agreed that among those who leave the rural
districts to go to the cities, there are found many of the best
representatives of the country families.
If superior people are going to the large cities, and if this removal
leads to a smaller reproductive contribution than they would otherwise
have made, then the growth of great cities is an important dysgenic
factor.
This is the view taken by O. F. Cook,[174] when he writes:
"Statistically speaking cities are centers of population, but
biologically or eugenically speaking they are centers of depopulation.
They are like sink-holes or _siguanas_, as the Indians of Guatemala call
the places where the streams of their country drop into subterranean
channels and disappear. It never happens that cities develop large
populations that go out and occupy the surrounding country. The movement
of population is always toward the city. The currents of humanity pass
into the urban _siguanas_ and are gone."
"If the time has really come for the consideration of practical eugenic
measures, here is a place to begin, a subject worthy of the most careful
study--how to rearrange our social and economic system so that more of
the superior members of our race will stay on the land and raise
families, instead of moving to the city and remaining unmarried or
childless, or allowing their children to grow up in unfavorable urban
environments that mean deterioration and extinction."
"The cities represent an eliminating agency of enormous efficiency, a
present condition that sterilizes and exterminates individuals and lines
of descent rapidly enough for all but the most sanguinary reformer. All
that is needed for a practical solution of the eugenic problem is to
reverse the present tendency for the better families to be drawn into
the city and facilitate the drafting of others for urban duty.... The
most practical eugenists of our age are the men who are solving the
problems of living in the country and thus keeping more and better
people under rural conditions where their families will survive."
"To recognize the relation of eugenics to agriculture," Mr. Cook
concludes, "does not solve the problems of our race, but it indicates
the basis on which the problems need to be solved, and the danger of
wasting too much time and effort in attempting to salvage the derelict
populations of the cities. However important the problems of urban
society may be, they do not have fundamental significance from the
standpoint of eugenics, because urban populations are essentially
transient. The city performs the function of elimination, while
agriculture represents the constructive eugenic condition which must be
maintained and improved if the development of the race is to continue."
On the other hand, city life does select those who are adapted to it. It
is said to favor the Mediterranean race in competition with the Nordic,
so that mixed city populations tend to become more brunette, the Nordic
strains dying out. How well this claim has been established
statistically is open to question; but there can be no doubt that the
Jewish race is an example of urban selection. It has withstood centuries
of city life, usually under the most severe conditions, in ghettoes, and
has survived and maintained a high average of mentality.
Until recently it has been impossible, because of the defective
registration of vital statistics in the United States, to get figures
which show the extent of the problem of urban sterilization. But Dr.
Gillette has obtained evidence along several indirect lines, and is
convinced that his figures are not far from the truth.[175] They show
the difference to be very large and its eugenic significance of
corresponding importance.
"When it is noted," Dr. Gillette says, "that the rural rate is almost
twice the urban rate for the nation as a whole, that in only one
division does the latter exceed the former, and that in some divisions
the rural rate is three times the urban rate, it can scarcely be doubted
that the factor of urbanization is the most important cause of lowered
increase rates. Urban birth-rates are lower than rural birth-rates, and
its death-rates are higher than those of the latter."
Considering the United States in nine geographical divisions, Dr.
Gillette secured the following results:
RATE OF NET ANNUAL INCREASE
_Division_ _Rural_ _Urban_ _Average_
New England 5.0 7.3 6.8
Middle Atlantic 10.7 9.6 10.4
East North Central 12.4 10.8 11.6
West North Central 18.1 10.1 15.8
South Atlantic 18.9 6.00 16.0
East South Central 19.7 7.4 17.8
West South Central 23.9 10.2 21.6
Mountain 21.1 10.5 17.6
Pacific 12.6 6.6 9.8
---- ---- -----
Average 16.9 8.8 13.65
Even though fuller returns might show these calculations to be
inaccurate, Dr. Gillette points out, they are all compiled on the same
basis, and therefore can be fairly compared, since any unforeseen cause
of increase or decrease would affect all alike.
It is difficult to compare the various divisions directly, because the
racial composition of the population of each one is different. But the
difference in rates is marked. The West South Central states would
almost double their population in four decades, by natural increase
alone, while New England would require 200 years to do so.
Dr. Gillette tried, by elaborate computations, to eliminate the effect
of immigration and emigration in each division, in order to find out the
standing of the old American stock. His conclusions confirm the beliefs
of the most pessimistic. "Only three divisions, all Western, add to
their population by means of an actual excess of income over outgo of
native-born Americans," he reports. Even should this view turn out to be
exaggerated, it is certain that the population of the United States is
at present increasing largely because of immigration and the high
fecundity of immigrant women, and that as far as its own older stock is
concerned, it has ceased to increase.
To state that this is due largely to the fact that country people are
moving to the city is by no means to solve the problem, in terms of
eugenics. It merely shows the exact nature of the problem to be solved.
This could be attacked at two points.
1. Attempts might be made to keep the rural population on the farms, and
to encourage a movement from the cities back to the country. Measures to
make rural life more attractive and remunerative and thus to keep the
more energetic and capable young people on the farm, have great eugenic
importance, from this point of view.
2. The growth of cities might be accepted as a necessary evil, an
unavoidable feature of industrial civilization, and direct attempts
might be made, through eugenic propaganda, to secure a higher birth-rate
among the superior parts of the city population.
The second method seems in many ways the more practicable. On the other
hand, the first method is in many ways more ideal, particularly because
it would not only cause more children to be born, but furnish these
children with a suitable environment after they were born, which the
city can not do. On the other hand, the city offers the better
environment for the especially gifted who require a specialized training
and later the field for its use in most cases.
In practice, the problem will undoubtedly have to be attacked by
eugenists on both sides. Dr. Gillette's statistics, showing the
appalling need, should prove a stimulus to eugenic effort.
DEMOCRACY
By democracy we understand a government which is responsive to the will
of a majority of the entire population, as opposed to an oligarchy where
the sole power is in the hands of a small minority of the entire
population, who are able to impose their will on the rest of the nation.
In discussing immigration, we have pointed out that it is of great
importance that the road for promotion of merit should always be open,
and that the road for demotion of incompetence should likewise be open.
These conditions are probably favored more by a democracy than by any
other form of government, and to that extent democracy is distinctly
advantageous to eugenics.
Yet this eugenic effect is not without a dysgenic after-effect. The very
fact that recognition is attainable by all, means that democracy leads
to social ambition; and social ambition leads to smaller families. This
influence is manifested mainly in the women, whose desire to climb the
social ladder is increased by the ease of ascent which is due to lack of
rigid social barriers. But while ascent is possible for almost anyone,
it is naturally favored by freedom from handicaps, such as a large
family of children. In the "successful" business and professional
classes, therefore, there is an inducement to the wife to limit the
number of her offspring, in order that she may have more time to devote
to social "duties." In a country like Germany, with more or less
stratified social classes, this factor in the differential birth-rate
is probably less operative. The solution in America is not to create an
impermeable social stratification, but to create a public sentiment
which will honor women more for motherhood than for eminence in the
largely futile activities of polite society.
In quite another way, too great democratization of a country is
dangerous. The tendency is to ask, in regard to any measure, "What do
the people want?" while the question should be "What ought the people to
want?" The _vox populi_ may and often does want something that is in the
long run quite detrimental to the welfare of the state. The ultimate
test of a state is whether it is strong enough to survive, and a measure
that all the people, or a voting majority of them (which is the
significant thing in a democracy), want, may be such as to handicap the
state severely.
In general, experts are better able to decide what measures will be
desirable in the long run, than are voters of the general population,
most of whom know little about the real merits of many of the most
important projects. Yet democracies have a tendency to scorn the advice
of experts, most of the voters feeling that they are as good as any one
else, and that their opinion is entitled to as much weight as that of
the expert. This attitude naturally makes it difficult to secure the
passage of measures which are eugenic or otherwise beneficial in
character, since they often run counter to popular prejudices.
The initiative by small petitions, and the referendum as a frequent
resort, are dangerous. They are of great value if so qualified as to be
used only in real emergencies, as where a clique has got control of the
government and is running it for its self-interest, but as a regularly
and frequently functioning institution they are unlikely to result in
wise statesmanship.
The wise democracy is that which recognizes that officials may be
effectively chosen by vote, only for legislative offices; and which
recognizes that for executive offices the choice must be definitely
selective, that is, a choice of those who by merit are best fitted to
fill the positions. Appointment in executive officers is not offensive
when, as the name indicates, it is truly the best who govern. All
methods of choice by properly judged competition or examination with a
free chance to all, are, in principle, selective yet democratic in the
best sense, that of "equality of opportunity." When the governing few
are not the best fitted for the work, a so-called aristocracy is of
course not an aristocracy (government by the best) at all, but merely an
oligarchy. When officers chosen by vote are not well fitted then such a
government is not "for the people."
Good government is then an aristo-democracy. In it the final control
rests in a democratically chosen legislature working with a legislative
commission of experts, but all executive and judicial functions are
performed by those best qualified on the basis of executive or judicial
ability, not vote-getting or speech-making ability. All, however, are
eligible for such positions provided they can show genuine
qualifications.
SOCIALISM
It is difficult to define socialism in terms that will make a discussion
practicable. The socialist movement is one thing, the socialist
political program is another. But though the idea of socialism has as
many different forms as an amoeba, there is always a nucleus that
remains constant,--the desire for what is conceived to be a more
equitable distribution of wealth. The laborer should get the value which
his labor produces, it is held, subject only to subtraction of such a
part as is necessary to meet the costs of maintenance; and in order that
as little as possible need be subtracted for that purpose, the
socialists agree in demanding a considerable extension of the functions
of government: collective ownership of railways, mines, the tools of
production. The ideal socialistic state would be so organized, along
these lines, that the producer would get as much as possible of what he
produces, the non-producer nothing.
This principle of socialism is invariably accompanied by numerous
associated principles, and it is on these associated principles, not on
the fundamental principle, that eugenists and socialists come into
conflict. Equalitarianism, in particular, is so great a part of current
socialist thought that it is doubtful whether the socialist movement as
such can exist without it. And this equalitarianism is usually
interpreted not only to demand equality of opportunity, but is based on
a belief in substantial equality of native ability, where opportunity is
equal.
Any one who has read the preceding chapters will have no doubt that such
a belief is incompatible with an understanding of the principles of
biology. How, then, has it come to be such an integral part of
socialism?
Apparently it is because the socialist movement is, on the whole, made
up of those who are economically unsatisfied and discontented. Some of
the intellectual leaders of the movement are far from inferior, but they
too often find it necessary to share the views of their following, in
order to retain this following. A group which feels itself inferior will
naturally fall into an attitude of equalitarianism, whereas a group
which felt itself superior to the rest of society would not be likely
to.
Before criticising the socialistic attitude in detail, we will consider
some of the criticisms which some socialists make of eugenics.
1. It is charged that eugenics infringes on the freedom of the
individual. This charge (really that of the individualists more than of
socialists strictly speaking) is based mainly on a misconception of what
eugenics attempts to do. Coercive measures have little place in modern
eugenics, despite the gibes of the comic press. We propose little or no
interference with the freedom of the normal individual to follow his own
inclinations in regard to marriage or parenthood; we regard indirect
measures and the education of public opinion as the main practicable
methods of procedure. Such coercive measures as we indorse are limited
to grossly defective individuals, to whom the doctrine of personal
liberty can not be applied without stultifying it.
It is indeed unfortunate that there are a few sincere advocates of
eugenics who adhered to the idea of a wholesale surgical campaign. A few
reformers have told the public for several years of the desirability of
sterilizing the supposed 10,000,000 defectives at the bottom of the
American population. Lately one campaigner has raised this figure to
15,000,000. Such fantastic proposals are properly resented by socialists
and nearly every one else, but they are invariably associated in the
public mind with the conception of eugenics, in spite of the fact that
99 out of 100 eugenists would repudiate them. The authors can speak only
for themselves, in declaring that eugenics will not be promoted by
coercive means except in a limited class of pathological cases; but they
are confident that other geneticists, with a very few exceptions, hold
the same attitude. There is no danger that this surgical campaign will
ever attain formidable proportions, and the socialist, we believe, may
rest assured that the progress of eugenics is not likely to infringe
unwarrantably on the principle of individual freedom, either by
sterilization or by coercive mating.
2. Eugenists are further charged with ignoring or paying too little
attention to the influence of the environment in social reform. This
charge is sometimes well founded, but it is not an inherent defect in
the eugenics program. The eugenist only asks that both factors be taken
into account, whereas in the past the factor of heredity has been too
often ignored. In the last chapter of this book we make an effort to
balance the two sides.
3. Again, it is alleged that eugenics proposes to substitute an
aristocracy for a democracy. We do think that those who have superior
ability should be given the greatest responsibilities in government. If
aristocracy means a government by the people who are best qualified to
govern, then eugenics has most to hope from an aristo-democratic system.
But admission to office should always be open to anyone who shows the
best ability; and the search for such ability must be much more thorough
in the future than it has been in the past.
4. Eugenists are charged with hindering social progress by endeavoring
to keep woman in the subordinate position of a domestic animal, by
opposing the movement for her emancipation, by limiting her activity to
child-bearing and refusing to recognize that she is in every way fitted
to take an equal part with man in the world's work. This objection we
have answered elsewhere, particularly in our discussion of feminism. We
recognize the general equality of the two sexes, but demand a
differentiation of function which will correspond to biological
sex-specialization. We can not yield in our belief that woman's greatest
function is motherhood, but recognition of this should increase, not
diminish, the strength of her position in the state.
5. Eugenists are charged with ignoring the fact of economic determinism,
the fact that a man's acts are governed by economic conditions. To
debate this question would be tedious and unprofitable. While we concede
the important rôle of economic determinism, we can not help feeling that
its importance in the eyes of socialists is somewhat factitious. In the
first place, it is obvious that there are differences in the
achievements of fellow men. These socialists, having refused to accept
the great weight of germinal differences in accounting for the main
differences in achievement, have no alternative but to fall back on the
theory of economic determinism. Further, socialism is essentially a
reform movement; and if one expects to get aid for such a movement, it
is essential that one represent the consequences as highly important.
The doctrine of economic determinism of course furnishes ground for
glowing accounts of the changes that could be made by economic reform,
and therefore fits in well with the needs of the socialist
propagandists. When the failure of many nations to make any use of their
great resources in coal and water power is remembered; when the fact is
recalled that many of the ablest socialist leaders have been the sons of
well-to-do intellectuals who were never pinched by poverty; it must be
believed that the importance of economic determinism in the socialist
mind is caused more by its value for his propaganda purposes than a
weighing of the evidence.
Such are, we believe, the chief grounds on which socialists criticise
the eugenics movement. All of these criticisms should be stimulating,
should lead eugenists to avoid mistakes in program or procedure. But
none of them, we believe, is a serious objection to anything which the
great body of eugenists proposes to do.
What is to be said on the other side? What faults does the eugenist find
with the socialist movement?
For the central principle, the more equitable distribution of wealth, no
discussion is necessary. Most students of eugenics would probably assent
to its general desirability, although there is much room for discussion
as to what constitutes a really equitable division of wealth. In sound
socialist theory, it is to be distributed according to a man's value to
society; but the determination of this value is usually made impossible,
in socialist practice, by the intrusion of the metaphysical and
untenable dogma of equalitarianism.
If one man is by nature as capable as another, and equality of
opportunity[176] can be secured for all, it must follow that one man
will be worth just as much as another; hence the equitable distribution
of wealth would be an equal distribution of wealth, a proposal which
some socialists have made. Most of the living leaders of the socialist
movement certainly recognize its fallacy, but it seems so far to have
been found necessary to lean very far in this direction for the
maintenance of socialism as a movement of class protest.
Now this idea of the equality of human beings is, in every respect that
can be tested, absolutely false, and any movement which depends on it
will either be wrecked or, if successful, will wreck the state which it
tries to operate. It will mean the penalization of real worth and the
endowment of inferiority and incompetence. Eugenists can feel no
sympathy for a doctrine which is so completely at variance with the
facts of human nature.
But if it is admitted that men differ widely, and always must differ, in
ability and worth, then eugenics can be in accord with the socialistic
desire for distribution of wealth according to merit, for this will
make it possible to favor and help perpetuate the valuable strains in
the community and to discourage the inferior strains. T. N. Carver sums
up the argument[177] concisely:
"Distribution according to worth, usefulness or service is the system
which would most facilitate the progress of human adaptation. It would,
in the first place, stimulate each individual by an appeal to his own
self-interest, to make himself as useful as possible to the community.
In the second place, it would leave him perfectly free to labor in the
service of the community for altruistic reasons, if there was any
altruism in his nature. In the third place it would exercise a
beneficial selective influence upon the stock or race, because the
useful members would survive and perpetuate their kind and the useless
and criminal members would be exterminated."
In so far as socialists rid themselves of their sentimental and Utopian
equalitarianism, the eugenist will join them willingly in a demand that
the distribution of wealth be made to depend as far as feasible on the
value of the individual to society.[178] As to the means by which this
distribution can be made, there will of course be differences of
opinion, to discuss which would be outside the province of this volume.
Fundamentally, eugenics is anti-individualistic and in so far a
socialistic movement, since it seeks a social end involving some degree
of individual subordination, and this fact would be more frequently
recognized if the movement which claims the name of socialist did not so
often allow the wish to believe that a man's environmental change could
eliminate natural inequalities to warp its attitude.
CHILD LABOR
It is often alleged that the abolition of child labor would be a great
eugenic accomplishment; but as is the case with nearly all such
proposals, the actual results are both complex and far-reaching.
The selective effects of child labor obviously operate directly on two
generations: (1) the parental generation and (2) the filial generation,
the children who are at work. The results of these two forms of
selection must be considered separately.
1. On the parental generation. The children who labor mostly come from
poor families, where every child up to the age of economic productivity
is an economic burden. If the children go to work at an early age, the
parents can afford to have more children and probably will, since the
children soon become to some extent an asset rather than a liability.
Child labor thus leads to a higher birth-rate of this class, abolition
of child labor would lead to a lower birth-rate, since the parents could
no longer afford to have so many children.
Karl Pearson has found reason to believe that this result can be
statistically traced in the birth-rate of English working people,--that
a considerable decline in their fecundity, due to voluntary restriction,
began after the passage of each of the laws which restricted child labor
and made children an expense from which no return could be expected.
If the abolition of child labor leads to the production of fewer
children in a certain section of the population the value of the result
to society, in this phase, will depend on whether or not society wants
that strain proportionately increased. If it is an inferior stock, this
one effect of the abolition of child labor would be eugenic.
Comparing the families whose children work with those whose children do
not, one is likely to conclude that the former are on the average
inferior to the latter. If so, child labor is in this one particular
aspect dysgenic, and its abolition, leading to a lower birth-rate in
this class of the population, will be an advantage.
2. On the filial generation. The obvious result of the abolition of
child labor will be, as is often and graphically told, to give children
a better chance of development. If they are of superior stock, and will
be better parents for not having worked as children (a proviso which
requires substantiation) the abolition of their labor will be of direct
eugenic benefit. Otherwise, its results will be at most indirect; or,
possibly, dysgenic, if they are of undesirable stock, and are enabled to
survive in greater numbers and reproduce. In necessarily passing over
the social and economic aspects of the question, we do not wish it
thought that we advocate child labor for the purpose of killing off an
undesirable stock prematurely. We are only concerned in pointing out
that the effects of child labor are many and various.
The effect of its abolition within a single family further depends on
whether the children who go to work are superior to those who stay at
home. If the strongest and most intelligent children are sent to work
and crippled or killed prematurely, while the weaklings and
feeble-minded are kept at home, brought up on the earnings of the
strong, and enabled to reach maturity and reproduce, then this aspect of
child labor is distinctly dysgenic.
The desirability of prohibiting child labor is generally conceded on
euthenic grounds, and we conclude that its results will on the whole be
eugenic as well, but that they are more complex than is usually
recognized.
COMPULSORY EDUCATION
Whether one favors or rejects compulsory education will probably be
determined by other arguments than those derived from eugenics;
nevertheless there are eugenic aspects of the problem which deserve to
be recognized.
One of the effects of compulsory education is similar to that which
follows the abolition of child labor--namely, that the child is made a
source of expense, not of revenue, to the parent. Not only is the child
unable to work, while at school, but to send him to school involves in
practice dressing him better than would be necessary if he stayed at
home. While it might fit the child to work more gainfully in later
years, yet the years of gain are so long postponed that the parent can
expect to share in but little of it.
These arguments would not affect the well-to-do parent, or the
high-minded parent who was willing or able to make some sacrifice in
order that his children might get as good a start as possible. But they
may well affect the opposite type of parent, with low efficiency and low
ideals.[179] This type of parent, finding that the system of compulsory
education made children a liability, not an immediate asset, would
thereby be led to reduce the size of his family, just as he seems to
have done when child labor was prohibited in England and children ceased
to be a source of revenue. Compulsory education has here, then, a
eugenic effect, in discouraging the reproduction of parents with the
least efficiency and altruism.
If this belief be well founded, it is likely that any measure tending to
decrease the cost of schooling for children will tend to diminish this
effect of compulsory education. Such measures as the free distribution
of text-books, the provision of free lunches at noon, or the extension
to school children of a reduced car-fare, make it easier for the selfish
or inefficient parent to raise children; they cost him less and
therefore he may tend to have more of them. If such were the case, the
measures referred to, despite the euthenic considerations, must be
classified as dysgenic.
In another and quite different way, compulsory education is of service
to eugenics. The educational system should be a sieve, through which all
the children of the country are passed,--or more accurately, a series of
sieves, which will enable the teacher to determine just how far it is
profitable to educate each child so that he may lead a life of the
greatest possible usefulness to the state and happiness to himself.
Obviously such a function would be inadequately discharged, if the
sieve failed to get all the available material; and compulsory education
makes it certain that none will be omitted.
It is very desirable that no child escape inspection, because of the
importance of discovering every individual of exceptional ability or
inability. Since the public educational system has not yet risen to the
need of this systematic mental diagnosis, private philanthropy should
for the present be alert to get appropriate treatment for the unusually
promising individual. In Pittsburgh, a committee of the Civic Club is
seeking youths of this type, who might be obliged to leave school
prematurely for economic reasons, and is aiding them to appropriate
opportunities. Such discriminating selection will probably become much
more widespread and we may hope a recognized function of the schools,
owing to the great public demonstration of psychometry now being
conducted at the cantonments for the mental classification of recruits.
Compulsory education is necessary for this selection.
We conclude that compulsory education, as such, is not only of service
to eugenics through the selection it makes possible, but may serve in a
more unsuspected way by cutting down the birth-rate of inferior
families.
VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND TRAINING
In arguments for vocational guidance and education of youth, one does
not often hear eugenics mentioned; yet these measures, if effectively
carried out, seem likely to be of real eugenic value.
The need for as perfect a correlation as possible between income and
eugenic worth, has been already emphasized. It is evident that if a man
gets into the wrong job, a job for which he is not well fitted, he may
make a very poor showing in life, while if properly trained in something
suited to him, his income would have been considerably greater. It will
be a distinct advantage to have superior young people get established
earlier, and this can be done if they are directly taught efficiency in
what they can do best, the boys being fitted for gainful occupations,
and the girls for wifehood and motherhood in addition.
As to the details of vocational guidance, the eugenist is perhaps not
entitled to give much advice; yet it seems likely that a more thorough
study of the inheritance of ability would be of value to the educator.
It was pointed out in Chapter IV that inheritance often seems to be
highly specialized,--a fact which leads to the inference that the son
might often do best in his father's calling or vocation, especially if
his mother comes from a family marked by similar capacities. It is
difficult to say how far the occupation of the son is, in modern
conditions, determined by heredity and how far it is the result of
chance, or the need of taking the first job open, the lack of any
special qualifications for any particular work, or some similar
environmental influence. Miss Perrin investigated 1,550 pairs of fathers
and sons in the English _Dictionary of National Biography_ and an equal
number in the English _Who's Who_. "It seems clear," she concluded,
"that whether we take the present or the long period of the past
embraced by the Dictionary, the environmental influences which induce a
man in this country to follow his father's occupation must have remained
very steady." She found the coefficient of contingency[180] between
occupation of father and occupation of son in _Who's Who_ to be .75 and
in the _Dictionary of National Biography_ .76. For the inheritance of
physical and mental characters, in general, the coefficient would be
about .5. She thinks, "therefore, we may say that in the choice of a
profession inherited taste counts for about 2/3 and environmental
conditions for about 1/3."
An examination of 990 seventh and eighth grade boys in the public
schools of St. Paul[181] showed that only 11% of them desired to enter
the occupation of their fathers; there was a pronounced tendency to
choose occupations of a more remunerative or intellectual and less
manual sort than that followed by the father. That this preference
would always determine the ultimate occupation is not to be expected, as
a considerable per cent may fail to show the necessary ability.
While inherited tastes and aptitude for some calling probably should
carry a good deal of weight in vocational guidance, we can not share the
exaggerated view which some sociologists hold about the great waste of
ability through the existence of round pegs in square holes. This
attitude is often expressed in such words as those of E. B. Woods:
"Ability receives its reward only when it is presented with the
opportunities of a fairly favorable environment, _its_ peculiarly
indispensable sort of environment. Naval commanders are not likely to be
developed in the Transvaal, nor literary men and artists in the soft
coal fields of western Pennsylvania. For ten men who succeed as
investigators, inventors, or diplomatists, there may be and probably are
in some communities fifty more who would succeed better under the same
circumstances."
While there is some truth in this view, it exaggerates the evil by
ignoring the fact that good qualities frequently go together in an
individual. The man of Transvaal who is by force of circumstances kept
from a naval career is likely to distinguish himself as a successful
colonist, and perhaps enrich the world even more than if he had been
brought up in a maritime state and become a naval commander. It may be
that his inherited talent fitted him to be a better naval commander than
anything else; if so, it probably also fitted him to be better at many
other things, than are the majority of men. "Intrinsically good traits
have also good correlatives," physical, mental and moral.
F. A. Woods has brought together the best evidence of this, in his
studies of the royal families of Europe. If the dozen best generals were
selected from the men he has studied, they would of course surpass the
average man enormously in military skill; but, as he points out, they
would also surpass the average man to a very high degree as poets,--or
doubtless as cooks or lawyers, had they given any time to those
occupations.[182]
The above considerations lead to two suggestions for vocational
guidance: (i) it is desirable to ascertain and make use of the child's
inherited capacities as far as possible; but (2) it must not be supposed
that every child inherits the ability to do one thing only, and will
waste his life if he does not happen to get a chance to do that thing.
It is easy to suppose that the man who makes a failure as a paperhanger
might, if he had had the opportunity, have been a great electrical
engineer; it is easy to cite a few cases, such as that of General U. S.
Grant, which seem to lend some color to the theory, but statistical
evidence would indicate it is not the rule. If a man makes a failure as
a paperhanger, it is at least possible that he would have made a failure
of very many things that he might try; and if a man makes a brilliant
success as a paperhanger, or railway engineer, or school teacher, or
chemist, he is a useful citizen who would probably have gained a fair
measure of success in any one of several occupations that he might have
taken up but not in all.
To sum up: vocational guidance and training are likely to be of much
service to eugenics. They may derive direct help from heredity; and
their exponents may also learn that a man who is really good in one
thing is likely to be good in many things, and that a man who fails in
one thing would not necessarily achieve success if he were put in some
other career. One of their greatest services will probably be to put a
lot of boys into skilled trades, for which they are adapted and where
they will succeed, and thus prevent them from yielding to the desire for
a more genteel clerical occupation, in which they will not do more than
earn a bare living. This will assist in bringing about the high
correlation between merit and income which is so much to be desired.
THE MINIMUM WAGE
Legal enactment of a minimum wage is often urged as a measure that would
promote social welfare and race betterment. By minimum wage is to be
understood, according to its advocates, not the wage that will support a
single man, but one that will support a man, wife, and three or four
children. In the United States, the sum necessary for this purpose can
hardly be estimated at less than $2.50 a day.
A living wage is certainly desirable for every man, but the idea of
giving every man a wage sufficient to support a family can not be
considered eugenic. In the first place, it interferes with the
adjustment of wages to ability, on the necessity of which we have often
insisted. In the second place, it is not desirable that society should
make it possible for every man to support a wife and three children; in
many cases it is desirable that it be made impossible for him to do so.
Eugenically, teaching methods of birth control to the married unskilled
laborer is a sounder way of solving his problems, than subsidizing him
so he can support a large family.
It must be frankly recognized that poverty is in many ways eugenic in
its effect, and that with the spread of birth control among people below
the poverty line, it is certain to be still more eugenic than at
present. It represents an effective, even though a cruel, method of
keeping down the net birth-rate of people who for one reason or another
are not economically efficient; and the element of cruelty, involved in
high infant mortality, will be largely mitigated by birth control. Free
competition may be tempered to the extent of furnishing every man enough
charity to feed him, if he requires charity for that purpose; and to
feed his family, if he already has one; but charity which will allow him
to increase his family, if he is too inefficient to support it by his
own exertions, is rarely a benefit eugenically.
The minimum wage is admittedly not an attempt to pay a man what he is
worth. It is an attempt to make it possible for every man, no matter
what his economic or social value, to support a family. Therefore, in so
far as it would encourage men of inferior quality to have or increase
families, it is unquestionably dysgenic.
MOTHERS' PENSIONS
Half of the states of the Union have already adopted some form of
pension for widowed mothers, and similar measures are being urged in
nearly all remaining states. The earliest of these laws goes back only
to 1911.
In general,[183] these laws apply to mothers who are widows, or in some
cases to those who have lost their means of support through imprisonment
or incapacity of the husband. The maximum age of the child on whose
account allowance is made varies from 14 to 16, in a few cases to 17 or
18. The amount allowed for each child varies in each state,
approximately between the limits of $100 and $200 a year. In most states
the law demands that the mother be a fit person, physically, mentally
and morally to bring up her children, and that it be to their interest
that they remain with her at home instead of being placed at work or
sent to some institution. In all cases considerable latitude is allowed
the administrator of the law,--a juvenile court, or board of county
commissioners, or some body with equivalent powers.
Laws of this character have often been described as being eugenic in
effect, but examination shows little reason for such a characterization.
Since the law applies for the most part to women who have lost their
husbands, it is evident that it is not likely to affect the differential
birth-rate which is of such concern to eugenics. On the whole, mothers'
pensions must be put in the class of work which may be undertaken on
humanitarian grounds, but they are probably slightly dysgenic rather
than eugenic, since they favor the preservation of families which are,
on the whole, of inferior quality, as shown by the lack of relatives
with ability or willingness to help them. On the other hand, they are
not likely to result in the production from these families of more
children than those already in existence.
HOUSING
At present it is sometimes difficult, in the more fashionable quarters
of large cities, to find apartments where families with children are
admitted. In other parts of the city, this difficulty appears to be much
less. Such a situation tends to discourage parenthood, on the part of
young couples who come of good families and desire to live in the part
of the city where their friends are to be found. It is at least likely
to cause postponement of parenthood until they feel financially able to
take a separate house. Here is an influence tending to lower the
birth-rate of young couples who have social aspirations, at least to the
extent of desiring to live in the pleasanter and more reputable part of
their city. Such a hindrance exists to a much less extent, if at all,
for those who have no reason for wanting to live in the fashionable part
of the city. This discrimination of some apartment owners against
families with children would therefore appear to be dysgenic in its
effect.
Married people who wish to live in the more attractive part of a city
should not be penalized. The remedy is to make it illegal to
discriminate against children. It is gratifying to note that recently a
number of apartment houses have been built in New York, especially with
a view to the requirements of children. The movement deserves wide
encouragement. Any apartment house is an unsatisfactory place in which
to bring up children, but since under modern urban conditions it is
inevitable that many children must be brought up in apartments, if they
are brought up at all, the municipality should in its own interests take
steps to ensure that conditions will be as good as possible for them. In
a few cases of model tenements, the favored poor tenants are better off
than the moderately well-to-do. It is essential that the latter be given
a chance to have children and bring them up in comfortable surroundings,
and the provision of suitable apartment houses would be a gain in every
large city.
The growing use of the automobile, which permits a family to live under
pleasant surroundings in the suburbs and yet reach the city daily,
alleviates the housing problem slightly. Increased facilities for rapid
transit are of the utmost importance in placing the city population (a
selected class, it will be remembered) under more favorable conditions
for bringing up their children. Zone rates should be designed to effect
this dispersal of population.
FEMINISM
The word "feminism" might be supposed to characterize a movement which
sought to emphasize the distinction between woman's nature and that of
man to provide for women's special needs. It was so used in early days
on the continent. But at present in England and America it denotes a
movement which is practically the reverse of this; which seeks to
minimize the difference between the two sexes. It may be broadly
described as a movement which seeks to remove all discrimination based
on sex. It is a movement to secure recognition of an equality of the two
sexes. The feminists variously demand that woman be recognized as the
equal of man (1) biologically, (2) politically, (3) economically.
1. Whether or not woman is to be regarded as biologically equal to man
depends on how one uses the word "equal." If it is meant that woman is
as well adapted to her own particular kind of work as is man to his, the
statement will readily be accepted. Unfortunately, feminists show a
tendency to go beyond this and to minimize differentiation in their
claims of equality. An attempt is made to show that women do not differ
materially from men in the nature of their capacity of mental or
physical achievement. Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Gilman makes the logical
application by demanding that little girls' hair be cut short and that
they be prevented from playing with dolls in order that differences
fostered in this way be reduced.
In forming a judgment on this proposition, it must be remembered that
civilization covers not more than 10,000 years out of man's history of
half a million or more. During 490,000 out of the 500,000 years, man was
the hunter and warrior; while woman stayed at home of necessity to bear
and rear the young, to skin the prey, to prepare the food and clothing.
He must have a small knowledge of biology who could suppose that this
long history would not lead to any differentiation of the two sexes;
and the biologist knows that man and woman in some respects differ in
every cell of their bodies: that, as Jacques Loeb says, "Man and woman
are, physiologically, different species."
But the biologist also knows that sex is a quantitative character. It is
impossible to draw a sharp line and say that those on one side are in
every respect men, and those on the other side in every respect women,
as one might draw a line between goats and sheep. Many women have a
considerable amount of "maleness"; numerous men have distinct feminine
characteristics, physical and mental. There is thus an ill-defined
"intermediate sex," as Edward Carpenter called it, whose size has been
kept down by sexual selection; or better stated there is so much
overlapping that it is a question of different averages with many
individuals of each sex beyond the average of the other sex.
A perusal of Havelock Ellis' book, _Man and Woman_, will leave little
doubt about the fact of sex differentiation, just as it will leave
little doubt that one sex is, in its way, quite as good as the other,
and that to talk of one sex as being inferior is absurd.
It is worth noting that the spread of feminism will reinforce the action
of sexual selection in keeping down the numbers of this "intermediate
sex." In the past, women who lacked femininity or maternal instinct have
often married because the pressure of public opinion and economic
conditions made it uncomfortable for any woman to remain unmarried. And
they have had children because they could not help it, transmitting to
their daughters their own lack of maternal instinct. Under the new
régime a large proportion of such women do not marry, and accordingly
have few if any children to inherit their defects. Hence the average
level of maternal instinct of the women of America is likely steadily to
rise.
We conclude that any claim of biological equality of the two sexes must
use the word in a figurative sense, not ignoring the differentiation of
the two sexes, as extreme feminists are inclined to do. To this
differentiation we shall return later.
2. Political equality includes the demand for the vote and for the
removal of various legal restrictions, such as have sometimes prevented
a wife from disposing of her own property without the consent of her
husband or such as have made her citizenship follow that of her husband.
In the United States, these legal restrictions are rapidly being
removed, at such a rate that in some states it is now the husband who
has a right to complain of certain legal discriminations.
Equal suffrage is also gaining steadily, but its eugenic aspect is not
wholly clear. Theoretically much is to be said for it, as making use of
woman's large social sympathies and responsibilities and interest in the
family; but in the states where it has been tried, its effects have not
been all that was hoped. Beneficial results are to be expected unless an
objectionably extreme feminism finds support.
In general, the demand for political equality, in a broad sense, seems
to the eugenist to be the most praiseworthy part of the feminist
program. The abolition of those laws, which now discharge women from
positions if they marry or have children, promises to be in principle a
particularly valuable gain.
3. Economic equality is often summed up in the catch phrase "equal pay
for equal work." If the phrase refers to jobs where women are competing
on piecework with men, no one will object to it. In practice it applies
particularly to two distinct but interlocking demands: (a) that women
should receive the same pay as men for any given occupation--as,
stenography, for example; and (b) that child-bearing should be
recognized as just as much worthy of remuneration as any occupation
which men enter, and should be paid for (by the state) on the same
basis.
At present, there is almost universally a discrimination against women
in commerce and industry. They sometimes get no more than half as much
pay as men for similar grades of employment. But there is for this one
good reason. An employer needs experienced help, and he expects a man to
remain with him and become more valuable. He is, therefore, willing to
pay more because of this anticipation. In hiring a woman, he knows that
she will probably soon leave to marry. But whatever may be the origin of
this discrimination, it is justified in the last analysis by the fact
that a man is paid as the head of a family, a woman only as an
individual who ordinarily has fewer or no dependents to support. Indeed,
it is largely this feature which, under the law of supply and demand,
has caused women to work for low wages.
It is evident that real economic equality between men and women must be
impossible, if the women are to leave their work for long periods of
time, in order to bear and rear children. It is normally impossible for
a woman to earn her living by competitive labor, at the same time that
she is bearing and rearing children. Either the doctrine of economic
equality is largely illusory, therefore, or else it must be extended to
making motherhood a salaried occupation just as much as mill work or
stenography.
The feminists have almost universally adopted the latter alternative.
They say that the woman who is capable of earning money, and who
abandons wage-earning for motherhood, ought to receive from the state as
nearly as possible what she would have received if she had not had
children; or else they declare that the expense of children should be
borne wholly by the community.
This proposal must be tested by asking whether it would tend to
strengthen and perpetuate the race or not. It is, in effect, a proposal
to have the state pay so much a head for babies. The fundamental
question is whether or not the quality of the babies would be taken into
account. Doubtless the babies of obviously feeble-minded women would be
excluded, but would it be possible for the state to pay liberally for
babies who would grow up to be productive citizens, and to refuse to pay
for babies that would doubtless grow up to be incompetents, dolts,
dullards, laggards or wasters? The scheme would work, eugenically, in
proportion as it is discriminatory and graded.
But the example of legislation in France and England, and the main trend
of popular thought in America, make it quite certain that at present,
and for many years to come, it will be impossible to have babies valued
on the basis of quality rather than mere numbers. It is sometimes
possible to get indirect measures of a eugenic nature passed, and it has
been found possible to secure the passage of direct measures which
prevent reproduction of those who are actually defective. But even the
most optimistic eugenist must feel that, short of the remote future, any
attempt to have the state grade and pay for babies on the basis of their
quality is certain to fail to pass.
The recent action of the municipality of Schönberg, Berlin, is typical.
It is now paying baby bounties at the rate of $12.50 a head for the
first born, $2.50 a head for all later born, and no questions asked. It
is to be feared that any success which the feminists may gain in
securing state aid for mothers in America will secure, as in Schönberg,
in England, in France, and in Australia, merely a small uniform sum.
This acts dysgenically because it is a stimulus to married people to
have large families in inverse proportion to their income, and is felt
most by those whose purpose in having children is least approvable.
The married woman of good stock ought to bear four children. For many
reasons these ought to be spaced well apart, preferably not much less
than three years. She must have oversight of these children until they
all reach adolescence. This means a period of about 12 + 13 = 25 years
during which her primary, though by no means her only, concern will be
mothercraft. It is hardly possible and certainly not desirable that she
should support herself outside of the home during this period. As state
support would pretty certainly be indiscriminate and dangerously
dysgenic, it therefore appears that the present custom of having the
father responsible for the support of the family is not only unavoidable
but desirable. If so, it is desirable to avoid reducing the wages of
married men too much by the competition of single women.
To attain this end, without working any injustice to women, it seems
wise to modify their education in general in such a way as to prepare
women for the kinds of work best adapted to her capacities and needs.
Women were long excluded from a higher education, and when they secured
it, they not unnaturally wanted the kind of education men were
receiving,--partly in order to demonstrate that they were not
intellectually inferior to men. Since this demonstration is now
complete, the continuation of duplicate curricula is uncalled for. The
coeducational colleges of the west are already turning away from the old
single curriculum and are providing for the election of more
differentiated courses for women. The separate women's colleges of the
east will doubtless do so eventually, since their own graduates and
students are increasingly discontented with the present narrow and
obsolete ideals. If the higher education of women, and much of the
elementary education, is directed toward differentiating them from men
and giving them distinct occupations (including primarily marriage and
motherhood) instead of training them so the only thing they are capable
of doing is to compete with men for men's jobs, the demand of "equal pay
for equal work" will be less difficult to reconcile with the interests
of the race. In this direction the feminists might find a large and
profitable field for the employment of their energies.
There is good ground for the feminist contention that women should be
liberally educated, that they should not be regarded by men as inferior
creatures, that they should have the opportunity of self-expression in a
richer, freer life than they have had in the past. All these gains can
be made without sacrificing any racial interests; and they must be so
made. The unrest of intelligent women is not to be lessened or removed
by educating them in the belief that they are not different from men and
setting them to work as men in the work of the world. Except where the
work is peculiarly adapted to women or there is a special individual
aptitude, such work will, for the reasons we have set forth, operate
dysgenically and therefore bring about the decadence of the race which
practices it.
The true solution is rather to be sought in recognizing the natural
differentiation of the two sexes and in emphasizing this differentiation
by education. Boys will be taught the nobility of being productive and
of establishing families; girls will have similar ideals held up to them
but will be taught to reach them in a different way, through cultivation
of the intellectual and emotional characters most useful to that
division of labor for which they are supremely adapted, as well as those
that are common to both sexes. The home must not be made a subordinate
interest, as some feminists desire, but it must be made a much richer,
deeper, more satisfying interest than it is too frequently at present.
OLD AGE PENSIONS
Pensions for aged people form an important part of the modern program of
social legislation. What their merits may be in relieving poverty will
not be discussed here. But beyond the direct effect, it is important to
inquire what indirect eugenic effect they would have, as compared with
the present system where the aged are most frequently supported by their
own children when they have failed through lack of thrift or for other
reasons to make provision for their old age.
The ordinary man, dependent on his daily work for a livelihood, can not
easily support his parents and his offspring at the same time. Aid given
to the one must be in some degree at the expense of the other. The
eugenic consequences will depend on what class of man is required to
contribute thus to parental support.
It is at once obvious that superior families will rarely encounter this
problem. The parents will, by their superior earning capacity and the
exercise of thrift and foresight, have provided for the wants of their
old age. A superior man will therefore seldom be under economic pressure
to limit the number of his own children because of the necessity of
supporting his parents. In inferior families, on the other hand, the
parents will have made no adequate provision for their old age. A son
will have to assume their support, and thus reduce the number of his own
children,--a eugenic result. With old age pensions from the state, the
economic pressure would be taken off these inferior families and the
children would thus be encouraged to marry earlier and have more
children,--a dysgenic result.
From this point of view, the most eugenic course would perhaps be to
make the support of parents by children compulsory, in cases where any
support was needed. Such a step would not handicap superior families,
but would hold back the inferior. A contributory system of old age
pensions, for which the money was provided out of the individual's
earnings, and laid aside for his old age, would also be satisfactory. A
system which led to the payment of old age pensions by the state would
be harmful.
The latter system would be evil in still another way because, as is the
case with most social legislation of this type, the funds for carrying
out such a scheme must naturally be furnished by the efficient members
of the community. This adds to their financial burdens and encourages
the young men to postpone marriage longer and to have fewer children
when they do marry,--a dysgenic result.
It appears, therefore, that old age pensions paid by the state would be
dysgenic in a number of ways, encouraging the increase of the inferior
part of the population at the expense of the superior. If old age
pensions are necessary, they should be contributory.
THE SEX HYGIENE MOVEMENT
Sexual morality is thought by some to be substantially synonymous with
eugenics or to be included by it. One of the authors has protested
previously[184] against this confusion of the meaning of the word
"eugenics." The fallacy of believing that a campaign against sexual
immorality is a campaign for eugenics will be apparent if the
proposition is analyzed.
First, does sexual immorality increase or decrease the marriage rate of
the offenders? We conclude that it reduces the marriage rate. Although
it is true that some individuals might by sexual experience become so
awakened as to be less satisfied with a continent life, and might thus
in some cases be led to marriage, yet this is more than counterbalanced
by the following considerations:
1. The mere consciousness of loss of virginity has led in some sensitive
persons, especially women, to an unwillingness to marry from a sense of
unworthiness. This is not common, yet such cases are known.
2. The loss of reputation has prevented the marriage of the desired
mates. This is not at all uncommon.
3. Venereal infection has led to the abandonment of marriage. This is
especially common.
4. Illicit experiences may have been so disillusioning, owing to the
disaffecting nature of the consorts, that an attitude of pessimism and
misanthropy or misogyny is built up. Such an attitude prevents marriage
not only directly, but also indirectly, since persons with such an
outlook are thereby less attractive to the opposite sex.
5. A taste for sexual variety is built up so that the individual is
unwilling to commit himself to a monogamous union.
6. Occasionally, threat of blackmail by a jilted paramour prevents
marriage by the inability to escape these importunities.
We consider next the relative birth-rate of the married and the
incontinent unmarried. There can not be the slightest doubt that this is
vastly greater in the case of the married. The unmarried have not only
all the incentives of the married to keep down their birth-rate but also
the obvious and powerful incentive of concealment as well.
Passing to the relative death-rate of the illegitimate and legitimate
progeny, the actual data invariably indicate a decided advantage of the
legitimately born. The reasons are too obvious to be retailed.
Now, then, knowing that the racial contribution of the sexually moral is
greater than that of the sexually immoral, we may compare the quality of
the sexually moral and immoral, to get the evolutionary effect.
For this purpose a distinction must be made between the individual who
has been chaste till the normal time of marriage and whose sexual life
is truly monogamous, and that abnormal group who remain chaste and
celibate to an advanced age. These last are not moral in the last
analysis, if they have valuable and needed traits and are fertile,
because in the long run their failure to reproduce affects adversely the
welfare of their group. While the race suffers through the failure of
many of these individuals to contribute progeny, probably this does not
happen, so far as males are concerned, as much as might be supposed, for
such individuals are often innately defective in their instincts or, in
the case of disappointed lovers, have a badly proportioned emotional
equipment, since it leads them into a position so obviously opposed to
race interests.
But, to pass to the essential comparison, that between the sexually
immoral and the sexually moral as limited above, it is necessary first
of all to decide whether monogamy is a desirable and presumably
permanent feature of human society.
We conclude that it is:
1. Because it is spreading at the expense of polygamy even where not
favored by legal interference. The change is most evident in China.
2. In monogamy, sexual selection puts a premium on valuable traits of
character, rather than on mere personal beauty or ability to acquire
wealth; and
3. The greatest amount of happiness is produced by a monogamous system,
since in a polygamous society so many men must remain unmarried and so
many women are dissatisfied with having to share their mates with
others.
Assuming this, then adaptation to the condition of monogamous society
represents race progress. Such a race profits if those who do not comply
with its conditions make a deficient racial contribution. It follows
then that sexual immorality is eugenic in its result for the species and
that if all sexual immorality should cease, an important means of race
progress might be lost. An illustration is the case of the Negro in
America, whose failure to increase more rapidly in number is largely
attributable to the widespread sterility resulting from venereal
infection.[185] Should venereal diseases be eliminated, that race might
be expected to increase in numbers very much faster than the whites.
It may be felt by some that this position would have an immoral effect
upon youth if widely accepted. This need not be feared. On the contrary,
we believe that one of the most powerful factors in ethical culture is
pride due to the consciousness of being one who is fit and worthy.
The traditional view of sexual morality has been to ignore the
selectional aspect here discussed and to stress the alleged
deterioration of the germ-plasm by the direct action of the toxins of
syphilis. The evidence relied upon to demonstrate this action seems to
be vitiated by the possibility that there was, instead, a transmitted
infection of the progeny. This "racial poison" action, since it is so
highly improbable from analogy, can not be credited until it has been
demonstrated in cases where the parents have been indubitably cured.
Is it necessary, then, to retain sexual immorality in order to achieve
race progress? No, because it is only one of many factors contributing
to race progress. Society can mitigate this as well as alcoholism,
disease, infant mortality--all powerful selective factors--without harm,
provided increased efficiency of other selective factors is ensured,
such as the segregation of defectives, more effective sexual selection,
a better correlation of income and ability, and a more eugenic
distribution of family limitation.
TRADES UNIONISM
A dysgenic feature often found in trades unionism will easily be
understood after our discussion of the minimum wage. The union tends to
standardize wages; it tends to fix a wage in a given industry, and
demand that nearly all workers in that classification be paid that wage.
It cannot be denied that some of these workers are much more capable
than others. Artificial interference with a more exact adjustment of
wages to ability therefore penalizes the better workmen and subsidizes
the worse ones. Economic pressure is thereby put on the better men to
have fewer children, and with the worse men encourages more children,
than would be the case if their incomes more nearly represented their
real worth. Payment according to the product, with prizes and bonuses so
much opposed by the unions, is more in accord with the principles of
eugenics.
PROHIBITION
It was shown in Chapter II that the attempt to ban alcoholic beverages
on the ground of direct dysgenic effect is based on dubious evidence.
But the prohibition of the use of liquors, at least those containing
more than 5% alcohol, can be defended on indirect eugenic grounds, as
well as on the familiar grounds of pathology and economics which are
commonly cited.
1. Unless it is present to such a degree as to constitute a neurotic
taint, the desire to be stimulated is not of itself necessarily a bad
thing. This will be particularly clear if the distribution of the
responsiveness to alcoholic stimulus is recalled. Some really valuable
strains, marked by this susceptibility, may be eliminated through the
death of some individuals from debauchery and the penalization of others
in preferential mating; this would be avoided if narcotics were not
available.
2. In selection for eugenic improvement, it is desirable not to have to
select for too many traits at once. If alcoholism could, through
prohibition, be eliminated from consideration, it would just so far
simplify the problem of eugenics.
3. Drunkenness interferes with the effectiveness of means for family
limitation, so that if his alcoholism is not extreme, the drunkard's
family is sometimes larger than it would otherwise be.
On the other hand, prohibition is dysgenic and intemperance is eugenic
in their effect on the species in so far as alcoholism is correlated
with other undesirable characters and brings about the elimination of
undesirable strains. But its action is not sufficiently discriminating
nor decisive; and if the strains have many serious defects, they can
probably be dealt with better in some other, more direct way.
We conclude, then, that, on the whole, prohibition is desirable for
eugenic as well as for other reasons.
PEDAGOGICAL CELIBACY
Whether women are more efficient teachers than men, and whether single
women are more efficient teachers than married women, are disputed
questions which it is not proposed here to consider. Accepting the
present fact, that most of the school teachers in the United States are
unmarried women, it is proper to examine the eugenic consequences of
this condition.
The withdrawal of this large body of women from the career of motherhood
into a celibate career may be desirable if these women are below the
average of the rest of the women of the population in eugenic quality.
But it would hardly be possible to find enough eugenic inferiors to fill
the ranks of teachers, without getting those who are inferior in actual
ability, in patent as well as latent traits. And the idea of placing
education in the hands of such inferior persons is not to be considered.
It is, therefore, inevitable that the teachers are, on the whole,
superior persons eugenically. Their celibacy must be considered highly
detrimental to racial welfare.
But, it may be said, there is a considerable number of women so
deficient in sex feeling or emotional equipment that they are certain
never to marry; they are, nevertheless, persons of intellectual ability.
Let them be the school teachers. This solution is, however, not
acceptable. Many women of the character described undoubtedly exist, but
they are better placed in some other occupation. It is wholly
undesirable that children should be reared under a neuter influence,
which is probably too common already in education.
If women are to teach, then, it must be concluded that on eugenic
grounds preference should be given to married rather than single
teachers, and that the single ones should be encouraged to marry. This
requires (1) that considerable change be made in the education of young
women, so that they shall be fitted for motherhood rather than
exclusively for school teaching as is often the case, and (2) that
social devices be brought into play to aid them in mating--since
undoubtedly a proportion of school teachers are single from the
segregating character of their profession, not from choice, and (3)
provision for employing some women on half-time and (4) increase of the
number of male teachers in high schools.
It is, perhaps, unnecessary to mention a fifth change necessary: that
school boards must be brought to see the undesirability of employing
only unmarried women, and of discharging them, no matter how efficient,
if they marry or have children. The courts must be enabled to uphold
woman's right of marriage and motherhood, instead of, as in some cases
at present, upholding school boards in their denial of this right.
Contracts which prevent women teachers from marrying or discontinuing
their work for marriage should be illegal, and talk about the "moral
obligation" of normal school graduates to teach should be
discountenanced.
Against the proposal to employ married school teachers, two objections
are urged. It is said (1) that for most women school teaching is merely
a temporary occupation, which they take up to pass the few years until
they shall have married. To this it may be replied that the hope of
marriage too often proves illusory to the young woman who enters on the
pedagogical career, because of the lack of opportunities to meet men,
and because the nature of her work is not such as to increase her
attractiveness to men, nor her fitness for home-making. Pedagogy is too
often a sterilizing institution, which takes young women who desire to
marry and impairs their chance of marriage.
Again it will be said (2) that married teachers would lose too much
time from their work; that their primary interests would be in their own
homes instead of in the school; that they could not teach school without
neglecting their own children. These objections fall in the realm of
education, not eugenics, and it can only be said here that the reasons
must be extraordinarily cogent, which will justify the enforcement of
celibacy on so large a body of superior young women as is now engaged in
school teaching.
The magnitude of the problem is not always realized. In 1914 the
Commissioner of education reported that there were, in the United
States, 169,929 men and 537,123 women engaged in teaching. Not less than
half a million women, therefore, are potentially affected by the
institution of pedagogical celibacy.
CHAPTER XIX
RELIGION AND EUGENICS
Man is the only animal with a religion. The conduct of the lower animals
is guided by instinct,[186] and instinct normally works for the benefit
of the species. Any action which is dictated by instinct is likely to
result in the preservation of the species, even at the expense of the
individual which acts, provided there has not been a recent change in
the environment.
But in the human species reason appears, and conduct is no longer
governed by instinct alone. A young man is impelled by instinct, for
instance, to marry. It is to the interests of the species that he marry,
and instinct therefore causes him to desire to marry and to act as he
desires. A lower animal would obey the impulse of instinct without a
moment's hesitation. Not so the man. Reason intervenes and asks, "Is
this really the best thing for you to do now? Would you not better wait
awhile and get a start in your business? Of course marriage would be
agreeable, but you must not be short-sighted. You don't want to assume a
handicap just now." There is a corresponding reaction among the married
in respect to bearing additional children. The interests of self are
immediate and easily seen, the interests of the species are not so
pressing. In any such conflict between instinct and reason, one must
win; and if reason wins it is in some cases for the immediate benefit of
the individual but at the expense of the species' interests.
Now with reason dominant over instinct in man, there is a grave danger
that with each man consulting his own interests instead of those of the
species, some groups and even races will become exterminated. Along
with reason, therefore, it is necessary that some other forces shall
appear to control reason and give the interests of the species a chance
to be heard along with the interests of the individual.
One such force is religion. Without insisting that this is the only view
which may be taken of the origin of religion, or that this is the only
function of religion, we may yet assert that one of the useful purposes
served by religion is to cause men to adopt lines of conduct that will
be for the good of the race, although it may sacrifice the immediate
good of the individual.[187] Thus if a young Mohammedan be put in the
situation just described, he may decide that it is to his material
interest to postpone marriage. His religion then obtrudes itself, with
quotations from the Prophet to the effect that Hell is peopled with
bachelors. The young man is thereupon moved to marry, even if it does
cause some inconvenience to his business plans. Religion, reinforcing
instinct, has triumphed over reason and gained a victory for the larger
interests of the species, when they conflict with the immediate
interests of the individual.
From this point of view we may, paraphrasing Matthew Arnold, define
religion as _motivated ethics_. Ethics is a knowledge of right conduct,
religion is an agency to produce right conduct. And its working is more
like that of instinct than it is like that of reason. The irreligious
man, testing a proposition by reason alone, may decide that it is to the
interests of all concerned that he should not utter blasphemy. The
orthodox Christian never considers the pros and cons of the question; he
has the Ten Commandments and the teachings of his youth in his mind, and
he refrains from blasphemy in almost the instinctive way that he
refrains from putting his hand on a hot stove.
This chapter proposes primarily to consider how eugenics can be linked
with religion, and specifically the Christian religion; but the problem
is not a simple one, because Christianity is made of diverse elements.
Not only has it undergone some change during the last 1900 years, but it
was founded upon Judaism, which itself involved diverse elements. We
shall undertake to show that eugenics fits in well with Christianity;
but it must fit in with different elements in different ways.
We can distinguish four phases of religion:
1. Charm and taboo, or reward and punishment in the present life. The
believer in these processes thinks that certain acts possess particular
efficacies beyond those evident to his observation and reason; and that
peculiar malignities are to be expected as the consequence of certain
other acts. Perhaps no one in the memory of the tribe has ever tested
one of these acts to find whether the expected result would appear; it
is held as a matter of religious belief that the result would appear,
and the act is therefore avoided.
2. Reward and punishment in a future life after death. Whereas the first
system was supposed to bring immediate reward and punishment as the
result of certain acts, this second system postpones the result to an
after-life. There is in nature a system of reward and punishment which
everyone must have observed because it is part of the universal sequence
of cause and effect; but these two phases of religion carry the idea
still farther; they postulate rewards and punishments of a supernatural
character, over and above those which naturally occur. It is important
to note that in neither of these systems is God essentially involved.
They are in reality independent of the idea of God, since that is called
"luck" in some cases which in others is called the favor or wrath of
God. And again in some cases, one may be damned by a human curse,
although in others this curse of damnation is reserved for divine power.
3. Theistic religion. In essence this consists of the satisfaction
derived from doing that which pleases God, or "getting into harmony with
the underlying plan of the universe," as some put it. It is idealistic
and somewhat mystic. It should be distinguished from the idea of doing
or believing certain things to insure salvation, which is not
essentially theistic but belongs under (2). The true theist desires to
conform to the will of God, wholly apart from whether he will be
rewarded or punished for so doing.
4. Humanistic religion. This is a willingness to make the end of ethics
the totality of happiness of all men, or some large group of men, rather
than to judge conduct solely by its effects on some one individual. At
its highest, it is a sort of loyalty to the species.
It must be noted that most cults include more than one of these
elements--usually all of them at various stages. As a race rises in
intelligence, it tends to progress from the first two toward the last
two, but usually keeping parts of the earlier attitude, more or less
clearly expressed. And individual adherents of a religion usually have
different ideas of its scope; thus the religious ideas of many
Christians embrace all four of the above elements; others who equally
consider themselves Christians may be influenced by little more than (4)
alone, or (3) alone, or even (2) alone.
There is no reason to believe that any one of these types of religion is
the only one adapted to promoting sound ethics in all individuals, nor
that a similar culture can bring about uniformity in the near future,
since the religion of a race corresponds to some extent to the inherent
nature of the mind of its individuals. Up to a certain point, each type
of religion has a distinct appeal to a certain temperament or type of
mind. With increasing intelligence, it is probable that a religion tends
to emphasize the interests of all rather than the benefits to be derived
by one; such has been clearly the case in the history of the Christian
religion. The diverse elements of retribution, damnation, "communion
with God" and social service still exist, but in America the last-named
one is yearly being more emphasized. Emphasis upon it is the marked
characteristic of Jesus' teaching.
With this rough sketch of religious ideas in mind, the part religion can
play at the present day in advancing the eugenic interests of the race
or species may be considered. Each religion can serve eugenics just as
well as it can serve any other field of ethics, and by the very same
devices. We shall run over our four types again and note what appeals
eugenics can make to each one.
1. Reward and punishment in this life. Here the value of children,
emotionally and economically, to their parents in their later life can
be shown, and the dissatisfaction that is felt by the childless. The
emotions may be reached (as they have been reached in past centuries) by
the painting of Madonnas, the singing of lullabies, by the care of the
baby sister, by the laurel wreath of the victorious son, by the great
choruses of white-robed girls, by the happiness of the bride, and by the
sentiment of the home. Here are some of the noblest subjects for the
arts, which in the past have unconsciously served eugenics well. In a
less emotional way, a deep desire for that "terrestrial immortality"
involved in posterity should be fostered. The doctrine of the continuity
of germ-plasm might play a large part in religion. It should at least be
brought home to everyone at some point in his education. Man should have
a much stronger feeling of identity with his forebears and his progeny.
Is it not a loss to Christians that they have so much less of this
feeling than the Chinese?
It may be urged in opposition that such conceptions are dangerously
static and have thereby harmed China. But that can be avoided by
shifting the balance a little from progenitors to posterity. If people
should live more in their children than they now do, they would be not
only anxious to give them a sound heredity, but all the more eager to
improve the conditions of their children's environment by modifying
their own.
It may be objected that this sort of propaganda is indiscriminate,--that
it may further the reproduction of the inferior just as much as the
superior. We think not. Such steps appeal more to the superior type of
mind and will be little heeded by the inferior. They will be ultimately,
if not directly, discriminative.
In so far as the foregoing appeals to reason alone it is not religion.
The appeal to reason must either be emotionalized or colored with the
supernatural to be religion.
2. Reward and punishment in a future life. Here the belief in the
absolute, verbal inspiration of sacred writings and the doctrine of
salvation by faith alone are rapidly passing, and it is therefore the
easier to bring eugenics into this type of religion. Even where
salvation by faith is still held as an article of creed, it is
accompanied by the concession that he who truly believes will manifest
his belief by works. Altruism can be found in the sacred writings of
probably all religions, and the modern tendency is to make much of such
passages, in which it is easy for the eugenist to find a warrant. What
is needed here, then, is to impress upon the leaders in this field that
eugenic conduct is a "good work" and as such they may properly include
it along with other modern virtues, such as honest voting and abstinence
from graft as a key to heaven. Dysgenic conduct should equally be taught
to be an obstacle to salvation.
3. Theism. The man who is most influenced by the desire to be at one
with God naturally wants to act in accordance with God's plan. But God
being omnibeneficent, he necessarily believes that God's plan is that
which is for the best interests of His children--unless he is one of
those happily rare individuals who still believe that the end of man is
to glorify God by voice, not by means of human betterment.
This type of religion (and the other types in different degrees) is a
great motive power. It both creates energy in its adherents, and directs
that energy into definite outlets. It need only be made convincingly
evident that eugenics is truly a work of human betterment,--really the
greatest work of human betterment, and a partnership with God--to have
it taken up by this type of religion with all the enthusiasm which it
brings to its work.
4. The task of enlisting the humanist appears to be even simpler. It is
merely necessary to show him that eugenics increases the totality of
happiness of the human species. Since the keynote of his devotion is
loyalty, we might make this plea: "Can we not make every superior man or
woman ashamed to accept existence as a gift from his or her ancestors,
only to extinguish this torch instead of handing it on?"
Eugenics is in some ways akin to the movement for the conservation of
natural resources. In pioneer days a race uses up its resources without
hesitation. They seem inexhaustible. Some day it is recognized that they
are not inexhaustible, and then such members of the race as are guided
by good ethics begin to consider the interests of the future.
No system of ethics is worth the name which does not make provision for
the future. It is right here that the ethics of present-day America is
too often found wanting. As this fault is corrected, eugenics will be
more clearly seen as an integral part of ethics.
Provision for the future of the individual leads, in a very low state of
civilization, to the accumulation of wealth. Even the ants and squirrels
have so much ethics! Higher in the evolutionary scale comes provision
for the future of children; their interests lead to the foundation of
the family and, at a much later date, a man looks not only to his
immediate children but to future generations of heirs, when he entails
his estates and tries to establish a notable family line. Provision for
the future is the essence of his actions. But so far only the individual
or those related closely to him have been taken into consideration. With
a growth of altruism, man begins to recognize that he must make
provision for the future of the race; that he should apply to all
superior families the same anxiety which he feels that his children
shall not tarnish the family name by foolish marriages; that they shall
grow up strong and intelligent. This feeling interpreted by science is
eugenics, an important element of which is religion: for religion more
than any other influence leads one to look ahead, and to realize that
immediate benefits are not the greatest values that man can secure in
life,--that there is something beyond and superior to eating, drinking
and being merry.
If the criterion of ethical action is the provision it makes for the
future, then the ethics of the eugenist must rank high, for he not only
looks far to the future, but takes direct and effective steps to
safeguard the future.
Theoretically, then, there is a place for eugenics in every type of
religion. In practice, it will probably make an impression only on the
dynamic religions,--those that are actually accomplishing something.
Buddhism, for example, is perhaps too contemplative to do anything. But
Christianity, above any other, would seem to be the natural ally of the
eugenist. Christianity itself is undergoing a rapid change in ideals at
present, and it seems impossible that this evolution should leave its
adherents as ignorant of and indifferent to eugenics as they have been
in the past--even during the last generation.
Followers of other religions, as this chapter has attempted to show, can
also make eugenics a part of their respective religions. If they do not,
then it bodes ill for the future of their religion and of their race.
It is not difficult to get people to see the value of eugenics,--to give
an intellectual adhesion to it. But as eugenics sometimes calls for
seeming sacrifices, it is much more difficult to get people to _act_
eugenically. We have at numerous points in this book emphasized the
necessity of making the eugenic appeal emotional, though it is based
fundamentally on sound reasoning from facts of biology.
The great value of religion in this connection is that it provides a
driving power,[188] a source of action, which the intellect alone can
rarely furnish. Reason itself is usually an inhibitor of action. It is
the emotions that impel one to do things. The utilization of the
emotions in affecting conduct is by no means always a part of religion,
yet it is the essence of religion. Without abandoning the appeal to
reason, eugenists must make every effort to enlist potent emotional
forces on their side. There is none so strong and available as religion,
and the eugenist may turn to it with confidence of finding an effective
ally, if he can once gain its sanction.
The task, as this chapter was intended to show, is a complex one, yet we
see no insuperable obstacles to it. Eugenics may not become a part of
the Christian religion, as a whole, until scientific education is much
more widespread than at present, but it is not too soon to make a start,
by identifying the interests of the two wherever such identification is
justified and profitable.
We have endeavored to point out that as a race rises, and instinct
becomes less important in guiding the conduct of its members, religion
has often put a restraint on reason, guiding the individual in racially
profitable paths. What is to happen when religion gives way? Unbridled
selfishness too often takes the reins, and the interests of the species
are disregarded. Religion, therefore, appears to be a necessity for the
perpetuation of any race. It is essential to racial welfare that the
national religion should be of such a character as to appeal to the
emotions effectively and yet conciliate the reason. We believe that the
religion of the future is likely to acquire this character, in
proportion as it adheres to eugenics. There is no room in the civilized
world now for a dysgenic religion. Science will progress. The idea of
evolution will be more firmly grasped. Religion itself evolves, and any
religion which does not embrace eugenics will embrace death.
CHAPTER XX
EUGENICS AND EUTHENICS
Emphasis has been given, in several of the foregoing chapters, to the
desirability of inheriting a good constitution and a high degree of
vigor and disease-resistance. It has been asserted that no measures of
hygiene and sanitation can take the place of such inheritance. It is now
desirable to ascertain the limits within which good inheritance is
effective, and this may be conveniently done by a study of the lives of
a group of people who inherited exceptionally strong physical
constitutions.
The people referred to are taken from a collection of histories of long
life made by the Genealogical Record Office of Washington.[189] One
hundred individuals were picked out at random, each of whom had died at
the age of 90 or more, and with the record of each individual were
placed those of all his brothers and sisters. Any family was rejected in
which there was a record of wholly accidental death (e.g., families of
which a member had been killed in the Civil War). The 100 families, or
more correctly fraternities or sibships, were classified by the number
of children per fraternity, as follows:
Number of Total number
Number of children per of children
fraternities fraternity in group
1 2 2
11 3 33
8 4 32
17 5 85
13 6 78
14 7 98
9 8 72
11 9 99
10 10 100
3 11 33
2 12 24
1 13 13
--- ---
100 669
The average at death of these 669 persons was 64.7 years. The child
mortality (first 4 years of life) was 7.5% of the total mortality, 69
families showing no deaths of that kind. The group is as a whole,
therefore, long-lived.
The problem was to measure the resemblance between brothers and sisters
in respect of longevity,--to find whether knowledge of the age at which
one died would justify a prediction as to the age at death of the
others,--or technically, it was to measure the fraternal correlation of
longevity. A zero coefficient here would show that there is no
association; that from the age at which one dies, nothing whatever can
be predicted as to the age at which the others will die. Since it is
known that heredity is a large factor in longevity, such a finding would
mean that all deaths were due to some accident which made the
inheritance of no account.
In an ordinary population it has been found that the age at death of
brothers and sisters furnishes a coefficient of correlation of the order
of .3, which shows that heredity does determine the age at which one
shall die to considerable extent, but not absolutely.[190]
The index of correlation[191] between the lengths of life within the
fraternity in these 100 selected families, furnished a coefficient
of-.0163±.0672, practically zero. In other words, if the age is known at
which a member of one of these families died, whether it be one month or
100 years, nothing whatever can be predicted about the age at which his
brothers and sisters died.
Remembering that longevity is in general inherited, and that it is found
in the families of all the people of this study (since one in each
fraternity lived to be 90 or over) how is one to interpret this zero
coefficient? Evidently it means that although these people had inherited
a high degree of longevity, their deaths were brought about by causes
which prevented the heredity from getting full expression. As far as
hereditary potentialities are concerned, it can be said that all their
deaths were due to accident, using that word in a broad sense to include
all non-selective deaths by disease. If they had all been able to get
the full benefit of their heredity, it would appear that each of these
persons might have lived to 90 or more, as did the one in each family
who was recorded by the Genealogical Record Office. Genetically, these
other deaths may be spoken of as premature.
In an ordinary population, the age of death is determined to the extent
of probably 50% by heredity. In this selected long-lived population,
heredity appears not to be responsible in any measurable degree
whatsoever for the differences in age at death.
The result may be expressed in another, and perhaps more striking, way.
Of the 669 individuals studied, a hundred--namely, one child in each
family--lived beyond 90; and there were a few others who did. But some
550 of the group, though they had inherited the potentiality of reaching
the average age of 90, actually died somewhere around 60; they failed by
at least one-third to live up to the promise of their inheritance. If we
were to generalize from this single case, we would have to say that
five-sixths of the population does not make the most of its physical
inheritance.
This is certainly a fact that discourages fatalistic optimism. The man
who tells himself that, because of his magnificent inherited
constitution, he can safely take any risk, is pretty sure to take too
many risks and meet with a non-selective--i.e., genetically, a
premature--death, when he might in the nature of things have lived
almost a generation longer.
It should be remarked that most of the members of this group seem to
have lived in a hard environment. They appear to belong predominantly to
the lower strata of society; many of them are immigrants and only a very
few of them, to judge by a cursory inspection of the records, possessed
more than moderate means. This necessitated a frugal and industrious
life which in many ways was doubtless favorable to longevity but which
may often have led to overexposure, overwork, lack of proper medical
treatment, or other causes of a non-selective death. We would not push
the conclusion too far, but we can not doubt that this investigation
shows the folly of ignoring the environment,--shows that the best
inherited constitution must have a fair chance. And what has here been
found for a physical character, would probably hold good in even greater
degree for a mental character. All that man inherits is the capacity to
develop along a certain line under the influence of proper
stimuli,--food and exercise. The object of eugenics is to see that the
inherent capacity is there. Given that, the educational system is next
needed to furnish the stimuli. The consistent eugenist is therefore an
ardent euthenist. He not only works for a better human stock but,
because he does not want to see his efforts wasted, he always works to
provide the best possible environment for this better stock.
In so far, then, as euthenics is actually providing man with more
favorable surroundings,--not with ostensibly more favorable surroundings
which, in reality, are unfavorable--there can be no antagonism between
it and eugenics. Eugenics is, in fact, a prerequisite of euthenics, for
it is only the capable and altruistic man who can contribute to social
progress; and such a man can only be produced through eugenics.
Eugenic fatalism, a blind faith in the omnipotence of heredity
regardless of the surroundings in which it is placed, has been shown by
the study of long-lived families to be unjustified. It was found that
even those who inherited exceptional longevity usually did not live as
long as their inheritance gave them the right to expect. If they had had
more euthenics, they should have lived longer.
But this illustration certainly gives no ground for a belief that
euthenics is sufficient to prolong one's life _beyond_ the inherited
limit. A study of these long-lived families from another point of view
will reveal that heredity is the primary factor and that good
environment, euthenics, is the secondary one.
For this purpose we augment the 100 families of the preceding section by
the addition of 240 more families like them, and we examine each family
history to find how many of the children died before completing the
fourth year of life. The data are summarized in the following table:
CHILD MORTALITY IN FAMILIES OF LONG-LIVED STOCK, GENEALOGICAL RECORD
OFFICE DATA
Size of No. of families No. of families Total no.
family investigated showing deaths of deaths
under 5 years
1 child 6 0 0
2 children 6 0 0
3 " 38 4 5
4 " 40 6 7
5 " 38 4 4
6 " 44 12 13
7 " 34 8 11
8 " 46 13 18
9 " 31 14 20
10 " 27 14 14
11 " 13 6 9
12 " 13 9 16
13 " 1 0 0
14 " 2 0 0
17 " 1 1 2
--- --- ---
340 91 119
The addition of the new families (which were not subjected to any
different selection than the first 100) has brought down the child
mortality rate. For the first 100, it was found to be 7.5%. If in the
above table the number of child deaths, 119, be divided by the total
number of children represented, 2,259, the child mortality rate for this
population is found to be 5.27%, or 53 per thousand.
The smallness of this figure may be seen by comparison with the
statistics of the registration area, U. S. Census of 1880, when the child
mortality (0-4 years) was 400 per thousand, as calculated by Alexander
Graham Bell. A mortality of 53 for the first four years of life is
smaller than any district known in the United States, even to-day, can
show for the _first_ year of life _alone_. If any city could bring the
deaths of babies during their first twelve months down to 53 per 1,000,
it would think it had achieved the impossible; but here is a population
in which 53 per 1,000 covers the deaths, not only of the fatal first 12
months, but of the following three years in addition.
Now this population with an unprecedentedly low rate of child mortality
is not one which had had the benefit of any Baby Saving Campaign, nor
even the knowledge of modern science. Its mothers were mostly poor, many
of them ignorant; they lived frequently under conditions of hardship;
they were peasants and pioneers. Their babies grew up without doctors,
without pasteurized milk, without ice, without many sanitary
precautions, usually on rough food. But they had one advantage which no
amount of applied science can give after birth--namely, good heredity.
They had inherited exceptionally good constitutions.
It is not by accident that inherited longevity in a family is associated
with low mortality of its children. The connection between the two facts
was first discovered by Mary Beeton and Karl Pearson in their pioneer
work on the inheritance of duration of life. They found that high infant
mortality was associated with early death of parents, while the
offspring of long-lived parents showed few deaths in childhood. The
correlation of the two facts was quite regular, as will be evident from
a glance at the following tables prepared by A. Ploetz:
LENGTH OF LIFE OF MOTHERS AND CHILD-MORTALITY OF THEIR DAUGHTERS.
ENGLISH QUAKER FAMILIES, DATA OF BEETON AND PEARSON, ARRANGED BY
PLOETZ
Year of life in which mothers died At
all
0-38 39-53 54-68 69-83 84 up ages
No. of daughters 234 304 305 666 247 1846
No. of them who died in
first 5 years 122 114 118 131 26 511
Per cent. of daughters
who died 52.1 37.5 29.9 19.7 10.5 27.7
LENGTH OF LIFE OF FATHERS AND CHILD-MORTALITY OF THEIR
DAUGHTERS
Year of life in which fathers died At
0-38 39-53 54-68 69-83 84 up all
ages
No. of daughters 105 284 585 797 236 2009
No. of them who died in
first 5 years 51 98 156 177 40 522
Per cent. of daughters
who died 48.6 34.5 26.7 22.2 17.0 26.0
To save space, we do not show the relation between parent and son; it is
similar to that of parent and daughter which is shown in the preceding
tables. In making comparison with the 340 families from the Genealogical
Record Office, above studied, it must be noted that Dr. Ploetz' tables
include one year longer in the period of child mortality, being computed
for the first five years of life instead of the first four. His
percentages would therefore be somewhat lower if computed on the basis
used in the American work.
These various data demonstrate the existence of a considerable
correlation between short life (_brachybioty_, Karl Pearson calls it) in
parent and short life in offspring. Not only is the tendency to live
long inherited, but the tendency _not_ to live long is likewise
inherited.
But perhaps the reader may think they show nothing of the sort. He may
fancy that the early death of a parent left the child without sufficient
care, and that neglect, poverty, or some other factor of euthenics
brought about the child's death. Perhaps it lacked a mother's loving
attention, or perhaps the father's death removed the wage-earner of the
family and the child thenceforth lacked the necessities of life.
Dr. Ploetz has pointed out[192] that this objection is not valid,
because the influence of the parent's death is seen to hold good even to
the point where the child was too old to require any assistance. If the
facts applied only to cases of early death, the supposed objection might
be weighty, but the correlation exists from one end of the age-scale to
the other. It is not credible that a child is going to be deprived of
any necessary maternal care when its mother dies at the age of 69; the
child herself was probably married long before the death of the mother.
Nor is it credible that the death of the father takes bread from the
child's mouth, leaving it to starve to death in the absence of a pension
for widowed mothers, if the father died at 83, when the "child" herself
was getting to be an old woman. The early death of a parent may
occasionally bring about the child's death for a reason wholly
unconnected with heredity, but the facts just pointed out show that such
cases are exceptional. The steady association of the child death-rate
and parent death-rate _at all ages_ demonstrates that heredity is a
common cause.
But the reader may suspect another fallacy. The cause of this
association is really environmental, he may think, and the same poverty
or squalor which causes the child to die early may cause the parent to
die early. They may both be of healthy, long-lived stock, but forced to
live in a pestiferous slum which cuts both of them off prematurely and
thereby creates a spurious correlation in the statistics.
We can dispose of this objection most effectively by bringing in new
evidence. It will probably be admitted that in the royal families of
Europe, the environment is as good as knowledge and wealth can make it.
No child dies for lack of plenty of food and the best medical care, even
if his father or mother died young. And the members of this caste are
not exposed to any such unsanitary conditions, or such economic pressure
as could possibly cause both parent and child to die prematurely. If the
association between longevity of parent and child mortality holds for
the royal families of Europe and their princely relatives, it can hardly
be regarded as anything but the effect of heredity,--of the inheritance
of a certain type of constitution.
Dr. Ploetz studied the deaths of 3,210 children in European royalty,
from this viewpoint. The following table shows the relation between
father and child:
LENGTH OF LIFE OF FATHERS AND CHILD-MORTALITY OF THEIR CHILDREN IN
ROYAL AND PRINCELY FAMILIES, PLOETZ' DATA
At
Year of life in which fathers died Years all
ages
16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76-85 86 up
No. of children. 23 90 367 545 725 983 444 33 3210
No. who died in
first 5 years 12 29 115 171 200 254 105 1 887
Per cent. who
died 52.2 32.2 31.3 31.4 27.6 25.8 23.6 3.0 27.6
Allowing for the smallness of some of the groups, it is evident that
the amount of correlation is about the same here as among the English
Quakers of the Beeton-Pearson investigation, whose mortality was shown
in the two preceding tables. In the healthiest group from the royal
families--the cases in which the father lived to old age--the amount of
child mortality is about the same as that of the Hyde family in America,
which Alexander Graham Bell has studied--namely, somewhere around 250
per 1,000. One may infer that the royal families are rather below par in
soundness of constitution.[193]
All these studies agree perfectly in showing that the amount of child
mortality is determined primarily by the physical constitution of the
parents, as measured by their longevity. In the light of these facts,
the nature of the extraordinarily low child mortality shown in the 340
families from the Genealogical Record Office, with which we began the
study of this point, can hardly be misunderstood. These families have
the best inherited constitution possible and the other studies cited
would make us certain of finding a low child mortality among them, even
if we had not directly investigated the facts.
If the interpretation which we have given is correct, the conclusion is
inevitable that child mortality is primarily a problem of eugenics, and
that all other factors are secondary. There is found to be no warrant
for the statement so often repeated in one form or another, that "the
fundamental cause of the excessive rate of infant mortality in
industrial communities is poverty, inadequate incomes, and low standards
of living."[194] Royalty and its princely relatives are not
characterized by a low standard of living, and yet the child mortality
among them is very high--somewhere around 400 per 1,000, in cases where
a parent died young. If poverty is responsible in the one case, it must
be in the other--which is absurd. Or else the logical absurdity is
involved of inventing one cause to explain an effect to-day and a wholly
different cause to explain the same effect to-morrow. This is
unjustifiable in any case, and it is particularly so when the single
cause that explains both cases is so evident. If weak heredity causes
high mortality in the royal families, why, similarly, can not weak
heredity cause high infant mortality in the industrial communities? We
believe it does account for much of it, and that the inadequate income
and low standard of living are largely the consequences of inferior
heredity, mental as well as physical. The parents in the Genealogical
Record Office files had, many of them, inadequate incomes and low
standards of living under frontier conditions, but their children grew
up while those of the royal families were dying in spite of every
attention that wealth could command and science could furnish.
If the infant mortality problem is to be solved on the basis of
knowledge and reason, it must be recognized that sanitation and hygiene
can not take the place of eugenics any more than eugenics can dispense
with sanitation and hygiene. It must be recognized that the death-rate
in childhood is largely selective, and that the most effective way to
cut it down is to endow the children with better constitutions. This can
not be done solely by any euthenic campaign; it can not be done by
swatting the fly, abolishing the midwife, sterilizing the milk, nor by
any of the other panaceas sometimes proposed.
But, it may be objected, this discussion ignores the actual facts.
Statistics show that infant mortality campaigns _have_ consistently
produced reductions in the death-rate. The figures for New York, which
could be matched in dozens of other cities, show that the number of
deaths per 1,000 births, in the first year of life, has steadily
declined since a determined campaign to "Save the Babies" was started:
1902 181
1903 152
1904 162
1905 159
1906 153
1907 144
1908 128
1909 129
1910 125
1911 112
1912 105
1913 102
1914 95
To one who can not see beyond the immediate consequences of an action,
such figures as the above indeed give quite a different idea of the
effects of an infant mortality campaign, than that which we have just
tried to create. And it is a great misfortune that euthenics so often
fails to look beyond the immediate effect, fails to see what may happen
next year, or 10 years from now, or in the next generation.
We admit that it is possible to keep a lot of children alive who would
otherwise have died in the first few months of life. It is being done,
as the New York figures, and pages of others that could be cited, prove.
The ultimate result is twofold:
1. Some of those who are doomed by heredity to a selective death, but
are kept alive through the first year, die in the second or third or
fourth year. They must die sooner or later; they have not inherited
sufficient resistance to survive more than a limited time. If they are
by a great effort carried through the first year, it is only to die in
the next. This is a statement which we have nowhere observed in the
propaganda of the infant mortality movement; and it is perhaps a
disconcerting one. It can only be proved by refined statistical methods,
but several independent determinations by the English biometricians
leave no doubt as to the fact. This work of Karl Pearson, E. C. Snow, and
Ethel M. Elderton, was cited in our chapter on natural selection; the
reader will recall how they showed that nature is weeding out the
weaklings, and in proportion to the stringency with which she weeds them
out at the start, there are fewer weaklings left to die in succeeding
years.
To put the facts in the form of a truism, part of the children born in
any district in a given year are doomed by heredity to an early death;
and if they die in one year they will not be alive to die in the
succeeding year, and vice versa. Of course there are in addition infant
deaths which are not selective and which if prevented would leave the
infant with as good a chance as any to live.
In the light of these researches, we are forced to conclude that
baby-saving campaigns accomplish less than is thought; that the supposed
gain is to some extent temporary and illusory.
2. There is still another consequence. If the gain is by great exertions
made more than temporary; if the baby who would otherwise have died in
the first months is brought to adult life and reproduction, it means in
many cases the dissemination of another strain of weak heredity, which
natural selection would have cut off ruthlessly in the interests of race
betterment. In so far, then, as the infant mortality movement is not
futile it is, from a strict biological viewpoint, often detrimental to
the future of the race.
Do we then discourage all attempts to save the babies? Do we leave them
all to natural selection? Do we adopt the "better dead" gospel?
Unqualifiedly, no! The sacrifice of the finer human feelings, which
would accompany any such course, would be a greater loss to the race
than is the eugenic loss from the perpetuation of weak strains of
heredity. The abolition of altruistic and humanitarian sentiment for the
purpose of race betterment would ultimately defeat its own end by making
race betterment impossible.
But race betterment will also be impossible unless a clear distinction
is made between measures that really mean race betterment of a
fundamental and permanent nature, and measures which do not.
We have chosen the Infant Mortality Movement for analysis in this
chapter because it is an excellent example of the kind of social
betterment which is taken for granted, by most of its proponents, to be
a fundamental piece of race betterment; but which, as a fact, often
means race impairment. No matter how abundant and urgent are the reasons
for continuing to reduce infant mortality wherever possible, it is
dangerous to close the eyes to the fact that the gain from it is of a
kind that must be paid for in other ways; that to carry on the movement
without adding eugenics to it will be a short-sighted policy, which
increases the present happiness of the world at the cost of diminishing
the happiness of posterity through the perpetuation of inferior strains.
While some euthenic measures are eugenically evils, even if necessary
ones, it must not be inferred that all euthenic measures are dysgenic.
Many of them, such as the economic and social changes we have suggested
in earlier chapters, are an important part of eugenics. Every euthenic
measure should be scrutinized from the evolutionary standpoint; if it is
eugenic as well as euthenic, it should be whole-heartedly favored; if it
is dysgenic but euthenic it should be condemned or adopted, according to
whether or not the gain in all ways from its operation will exceed the
damage.
In general, euthenics, when not accompanied by some form of selection
(i. e., eugenics) ultimately defeats its own end. If it is accompanied
by rational selection, it can usually be indorsed. Eugenics, on the
other hand, is likewise inadequate unless accompanied by constant
improvement in the surroundings; and its advocates must demand euthenics
as an accompaniment of selection, in order that the opportunity for
getting a fair selection may be as free as possible. If the euthenist
likewise takes pains not to ignore the existence of the racial factor,
then the two schools are standing on the same ground, and it is merely a
matter of taste or opportunity, whether one emphasizes one side or the
other. Each of the two factions, sometimes thought to be opposing, will
be seen to be getting the same end result, namely, human progress.
Not only are the two schools working for the same end, but each must
depend in still another way upon the other, in order to make headway.
The eugenist can not see his measures put into effect except through
changes in law and custom--i. e., euthenic changes. He must and does
appeal to euthenics to secure action. The social reformer, on the other
hand, can not see any improvements made in civilization except through
the discoveries and inventions of some citizens who are inherently
superior in ability. He in turn must depend on eugenics for every
advance that is made.
It may make the situation clearer to state it in the customary terms of
biological philosophy. Selection does not necessarily result in
progressive evolution. It merely brings about the adaptation of a
species or a group to a given environment. The tapeworm is the stock
example. In human evolution, the nature of this environment will
determine whether adaptation to it means progress or retrogression,
whether it leaves a race happier and more productive, or the reverse.
All racial progress, or eugenics, therefore, depends on the creation of
a good environment, and the fitting of the race to that environment.
Every improvement in the environment should bring about a corresponding
biological adaptation. The two factors in evolution must go side by
side, if the race is to progress in what the human mind considers the
direction of advancement. In this sense, euthenics and eugenics bear the
same relation to human progress as a man's two legs do to his
locomotion.
Social workers in purely euthenic fields have frequently failed to
remember this process of adaptation, in their efforts to change the
environment. Eugenists, in centering their attention on adaptation, have
sometimes paid too little attention to the kind of environment to which
the race was being adapted. The present book holds that the second
factor is just as important as the first, for racial progress; that one
leg is just as important as the other, to a pedestrian. Its only
conflict with euthenics appertains to such euthenic measures as impair
the adaptability of the race to the better environment they are trying
to make.
Some supposedly euthenic measures opposed by eugenics are not truly
euthenic, as for instance the limitation of a superior family in order
that all may get a college education. For these spurious euthenic
measures, something truly euthenic should be substituted.
Measures which show a real conflict may be typified by the infant
mortality movement. There can be no doubt but that sanitation and
hygiene, prenatal care and intelligent treatment of mothers and babies,
are truly euthenic and desirable. At the same time, as has been shown,
these euthenic measures result in the survival of inferior children, who
directly or through their posterity will be a drag on the race. Euthenic
measures of this type should be accompanied by counterbalancing measures
of a more eugenic character.
Barring these two types, euthenics forms a necessary concomitant of the
eugenic program; and, as we have tried to emphasize, eugenics is
likewise necessary to the complete success of every euthenic program.
How foolish, then, is antagonism between the two forces! Both are
working toward the same end of human betterment, and neither can succeed
without the other. When either attempts to eliminate the other from its
work, it ceases to advance toward its goal. In which camp one works is
largely a matter of taste. If on a road there is a gradient to be
leveled, it will be brought down most quickly by two parties of workmen,
one cutting away at the top, the other filling in the bottom. For the
two parties to indulge in mutual scorn and recrimination would be no
more absurd than for eugenics and euthenics to be put in opposition to
each other. The only reason they have been in opposition is because some
of the workers did not clearly understand the nature of their work. With
the dissemination of a knowledge of biology, this ground of antagonism
will disappear.
APPENDIX A
OVARIAN TRANSPLANTATION
In 1890, W. Heape published an account of some experiments with rabbits.
Taking the fertilized egg of an angora rabbit (i. e., a long-haired,
white one) from the oviduct of its mother previous to its attachment to
the wall of the uterus, he transferred it to the uterus of a Belgian
hare, a rabbit which is short-haired and gray. The egg developed
normally in the new body and produced an animal with all the
characteristics, as far as could be seen, of the real mother, rather
than the foster-mother. Its coat was long and white, and there was not
the slightest trace of influence of the short, gray-haired doe in whose
body it had grown.
Here was a case in which environment certainly failed to show any
modifying influence. But it was objected that the transplanted egg was
already full-grown and fertilized when the transfer was made, and that
therefore no modification need be expected. If the egg were transferred
at an earlier stage, it was thought, the result might be different.
W. E. Castle and J. C. Phillips therefore undertook an experiment to
which this objection should not be possible.[195]
"A female albino guinea-pig just attaining sexual maturity was by an
operation deprived of its ovaries, and instead of the removed ovaries
there were introduced into her body the ovaries of a young black female
guinea-pig, not yet sexually mature, aged about three weeks. The grafted
animal was now mated with a male albino guinea-pig. From numerous
experiments with albino guinea-pigs it may be stated emphatically that
normal albinos mated together, without exception, produce only albino
young, and the presumption is strong, therefore, that had this female
not been operated on she would have done the same. She produced,
however, by the albino male three litters of young, which together
consisted of six individuals, all black. The first litter of young was
produced about six months after the operation, the last about one year.
The transplanted ovarian tissue must have remained in its new
environment therefore from four to ten months before the eggs attained
full growth and were discharged; ample time, it would seem, for the
influence of a foreign body upon the inheritance to show itself were
such influence possible."
While such experiments must not be stretched too far, in application to
the human species, they certainly offer striking evidence of the fact
that the characters of any individual are mainly due to something in the
germ-plasm, and that this germ-plasm is to a surprising degree
independent of any outside influence, even such an intimate influence as
that of the body of the mother in which it reaches maturity.
APPENDIX B
"DYNAMIC EVOLUTION"
As C. L. Redfield has secured considerable publicity for his attempt to
bolster up the Lamarckian theory, it deserves a few words of comment.
His contention is that "the energy in animals, known as intelligence and
physical strength, is identical with the energy known in mechanics, and
is governed by the same laws." He therefore concludes that (1) an animal
stores up energy in its body, in some undescribed and mystical way, and
(2) that in some equally undescribed and mystical way it transmits this
stored-up energy to its offspring. It follows that he thinks superior
offspring are produced by parents of advanced age, because the latter
have had more time to do work and store up energy for transmission. In
his own words:
"Educating the grandfather helps to make the grandson a superior
person.... We are, in our inheritance, exactly what our ancestors
made us by the work they performed before reproducing. Whether our
descendants are to be better or worse than we are will depend upon
the amount and kind of work we do before we produce them."
The question of the influence of parental age on the characters of the
offspring is one of great importance, for the solution of which the
necessary facts have not yet been gathered together. The data compiled
by Mr. Redfield are of value, but his interpretation of them can not be
accepted for the following reasons.
1. In the light of modern psychology, it is absurd to lump all sorts of
mental ability under one head, and to suppose that the father's exercise
of reasoning power, for example, will store up "energy" to be manifested
in the offspring in the shape of executive or artistic ability. Mental
abilities are much subdivided and are inherited separately. Mr.
Redfield's idea of the process is much too crude.
Moreover, Mr. Redfield's whole conception of the increase of
intelligence with increase of age in a parent shows a disregard of the
facts of psychology. As E. A. Doll has pointed out,[196] in criticising
Mr. Redfield's recent and extreme claim that feeble-mindedness is the
product of early marriage, it is incorrect to speak of 20-, 30-, or
40-year standards of intelligence; for recent researches in measurement
of mental development indicate that the heritable standard of
intelligence of adults increases very little beyond the age of
approximately 16 years. A person 40 years old has an additional
_experience_ of a quarter of a century, and so has a larger mental
content, but his intelligence is still nearly at the 16-year level.
Mental activity is the effect, not the cause, of mental growth or
development. Education merely turns inherent mental powers to good
account; it makes very little change in those powers themselves. To
suppose that a father can, by study, raise his innate level of
intelligence and transmit it at the new level to his son, is a naïve
idea which finds no warrant in the known facts of mental development.
2. In his entire conception of the storing-up and transmission of
energy, Mr. Redfield has fallen victim to a confusion of ideas due to
the use of the same word to mean two different things. He thinks of
energy as an engineer; he declares the body-cell is a storage battery;
he believes that the athlete by performing work stores up energy in his
body (in some mysterious and unascertainable way) just as the clock
stores up energy when it is wound. The incorrectness of supposing that
the so-called energy of a man is of that nature, is remarkable. If,
hearing Bismarck called a man of iron, one should analyze his remains to
find out how much more iron he contained than ordinary men, it would be
a performance exactly comparable to Mr. Redfield's, when he thinks of a
man's "energy" as something stored up by work.
As a fact, a man contains less energy, after the performance of work,
than he did at the start. All of his "energy" comes from the metabolism
of food that he has previously eaten. His potential energy is the food
stored up in his body, particularly the glycogen in the liver and
muscles.[197]
Why, then, can one man run faster than another? Mr. Redfield thinks it
is because the sprinter has, by previous work, stored up energy in his
body, which carries him over the course more rapidly than the sluggard
who has not been subjected to systematic training. But the differences
in men's ability are not due to the amount of energy they have stored
up. It is due rather to differences in their structure (using this word
in a very broad sense), which produce differences in the efficiency
with which they can use the stored-up energy (i.e., food) in their
bodies. A fat Shorthorn bull contains much more stored-up energy than
does a race horse, but the latter has the better structure--coördination
of muscles with nervous system, in particular--and there is never any
doubt about how a race between the two will end. The difference between
the results achieved by a highly educated thinker and a low-grade moron
are similarly differences in structural efficiency: the moron may eat
much more, and thereby have more potential energy, than the scholar; but
the machine, the brain, can not utilize it.
The effects of training are not to store up energy in the body, for it
has been proved that work decreases rather than increases the amount of
energy in the body. How is it, then, that training increases a man's
efficiency? It is obviously by improving his "structure," and probably
the most important part of this improvement is in bringing about better
relations between the muscles and the nerves. To pursue the analogy
which Mr. Redfield so often misuses, the effect of training on the human
machine is merely to oil the bearings and straighten out bent parts, to
make it a more efficient transformer of the energy that is supplied to
it.
The foundation stone of Mr. Redfield's hypothesis is his idea that the
animal by working stores up energy. This idea is the exact reverse of
the truth. While the facts which Mr. Redfield has gathered deserve much
study, his idea of "Dynamic Evolution" need not be taken
seriously.[198]
APPENDIX C
THE "MELTING POT"
America as the "Melting Pot" of peoples is a picture often drawn by
writers who do not trouble themselves as to the precision of their
figures of speech. It has been supposed by many that all the racial
stocks in the United States were tending toward a uniform type. There
has never been any real evidence on which to base such a view, and the
study completed in 1917 by Dr. Ales Hrdlicka, curator of the
division of physical anthropology of the U. S. National Museum, furnishes
evidence against it. He examined 400 individuals of the Old White
American stock, that is, persons all of whose ancestors had been in the
United States as far as the fourth ascending generation. He found little
or no evidence that hereditary traits had been altered. Even the
descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers, the Virginia cavaliers, the
Pennsylvania Dutch and the Huguenots, while possibly not as much unlike
as their ancestors were, are in no sense a blend.
The "Melting Pot," it must be concluded, is a figure of speech; and as
far as physical anthropology is concerned, it will not be anything more
in this country, at least for many centuries.
Announcing the results of study of the first 100 males and 100 females
of his series,[199] Dr. Hrdlicka said, "The most striking result of
the examinations is the great range of variation among Old Americans in
nearly all the important measurements. The range of variation is such
that in some of the most significant determinations it equals not only
the variation of any one group, but the combined variations of all the
groups that enter into the composition of the Americans." This fact
would be interpreted by the geneticist as an evidence of hybridity. It
is clear that, at the very beginning, a number of diverse, although not
widely differing, stocks must have made up the colonial population; and
intermarriage and the influence of the environment have not welded these
stocks into one blend, but have merely produced a mosaic-like mixture.
This is good evidence of the permanence of inherited traits, although
it must be qualified by the statement that it does not apply equally to
all features of the body, the face, hands and feet having been found
less variable, for instance, than stature and form of head.
[Illustration: THE "MEAN MAN" OF THE OLD WHITE AMERICAN STOCK
FIG. 45.--Anthropologists have an ideal "mean man," whose every
feature measures the arithmetic mean or average of that feature in all
the individuals of his race. The above diagram drawn to scale from Dr.
Hrdli[vc]ka's measurements represents the mean man of Colonial ancestry.
The outline of the face is almost oblong; the head is high and
well-developed, particularly in the regions which are popularly supposed
to denote superior intelligence. In general, it is a highly specialized
type, denoting an advanced evolution.]
The stature of both American men and women is high, higher than the
average of any European nation except the Scotch. The individual
variation is, however, enormous, amounting to 16.4% of the average in
males and nearly 16% in females. For males, 174 cm. is the average
height, for females 162. The arm spread in males is greater than their
stature, in females it is less.
The average weight of the males is 154 lbs.[typo: missing comma?] of the
females 130. Taking into consideration the tall stature, these weights
are about equal to those among Europeans.
The general proportions of the body must be classed as medium, but great
fluctuations are shown.
The face is, in general, high and oval; in females it occasionally gives
the impression of narrowness. The forehead is well developed in both
sexes. The nose is prevalently long and of medium breadth, its
proportions being practically identical with those of the modern
English. The ears are longer than those of any modern immigrants except
the English. The mouth shows medium breadth in both sexes, and its
averages exactly equal those obtained for modern French.
One of the most interesting results is that there were obtained among
these first 200 individuals studied no pronounced blonds, although the
ancestry is North European, where blondness is more or less
prevalent.[200] The exact distribution is:
Male Female
Light-brown 12% 16%
Medium-brown to dark 77 68
Very dark 11 6
Golden-red and red 0 10
Dr. Hrdlicka's classification of the eye is as follows:
Male Female
Gray 2% 4%
Greenish 7 10
Blues 54 50
Browns 37 36
The head among Old Americans is in many cases notable for its good
development, particularly in males. Among 12 groups of male
immigrants[201] measured at Ellis Island under Dr. Hrdlicka's
direction in recent years, not one group quite equals in this respect
the Americans, the nearest approach being noted in the Irish, Bohemians,
English, Poles, and North Italians. The type of head, however, differs
among the Americans very widely, as is the case with most civilized
races at the present day.
Head form is most conveniently expressed by means of the cephalic index,
that is, the ratio of breadth to length. Anthropologists generally speak
of any one with an index of 75 (or where the breadth is 75% of the
length) and below this as dolichocephalic, or long-headed; from 75 to 80
is the class of the mesocephalic, intermediates; while above 80 is that
of the subbrachycephalic and brachycephalic, or round-headed. For the
most part, the Old Americans fall into the intermediate class, the
average index of males being 78.3 and that of females 79.5.
Barring a few French Huguenots, the Old Americans considered here are
mostly of British ancestry, and their head form corresponds rather
closely to that of the English of the present day. In England, as is
well known, the round-headed type of Central and Eastern Europe, the
Alpine or Celto-Slav type, has few representatives. The population is
composed principally of long-headed peoples, deriving from the two great
European stocks, the Nordic and the Mediterranean. To the latter the
frequency of dark hair and brown eyes is probably due, both in England
and America.
While the average of the Old Americans corresponds closely to the
average of the English, there is a great deal of variation in both
countries. Unfortunately, it is impossible to compare the present
Americans with their ancestors, because measurements of the latter are
lacking. But to assume that the early colonists did not differ greatly
from the modern English is probably justifiable. A comparison of modern
Americans (of the old white stock) with modern English should give basis
for an opinion as to whether the English stock underwent any marked
modifications, on coming to a new environment.
It has already been noted that the average cephalic index is practically
the same; the only possibility of a change then lies in the amount of
variability. Is the American stock more or less variable? Can a
"melting pot" influence be seen, tending to produce homogeneity, or has
change of environment rather produced greater variability, as is
sometimes said to be the case?
The amount of variability is most conveniently measured by a coefficient
known as the standard deviation ([Greek: s]), which is small when the
range of variation is small, but large when diversity of material is
great. The following comparisons of the point at issue may be made.[202]
Avg. [Greek: s]
100 American men 78.3 3.1
1011 Cambridge graduates (English males) 79.85 2.95
For the men, little difference is discernible. The Old Americans are
slightly more long-headed than the English, but the amount of variation
in this trait is nearly the same on the two sides of the ocean.
The average of the American women is 79.5 with [Greek: s] = 2.6. No
suitable series of English women has been found for comparison.(203) It
will be noted that the American women are slightly more round-headed
than the men; this is found regularly to be the case, when comparisons
of the head form of the two sexes are made in any race.
In addition to establishing norms or standards for anthropological
comparison, the main object of Dr. Hrdlicka's study was to determine
whether the descendants of the early American settlers, living in a new
environment and more or less constantly intermarrying, were being
amalgamated into a distinct sub-type of the white race. It has been
found that such amalgamation has not taken place to any important
degree. The persistence in heredity of certain features, which run down
even through six or eight generations, is one of the remarkable results
brought out by the study.
If the process could continue for a few hundred years more, Dr.
Hrdlicka thinks, it might reach a point where one could speak of the
members of old American families as of a distinct stock. But so far this
point has not been reached; the Americans are almost as diverse and
variable, it appears, as were their first ancestors in this country.
APPENDIX D
THE ESSENCE OF MENDELISM
It is half a century since the Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, published
in a provincial journal the results of his now famous breeding
experiments with garden peas. They lay unnoticed until 1900, when three
other breeders whose work had led them to similar conclusions, almost
simultaneously discovered the work of Mendel and gave it to the world.
Breeding along the lines marked out by Mendel at once became the most
popular method of attack, among those who were studying heredity. It
became an extremely complicated subject, which can not be grasped
without extended study, but its fundamentals can be briefly summarized.
Inherited differences in individuals, it will be admitted, are due to
differences in their germ-plasms. It is convenient to think of these
differences in germ-plasms (that is, differences in heredity) as being
due to the presence in the germ-plasm of certain hypothetical units,
which are usually referred to as factors. The factor, nowadays, is the
ultimate unit of Mendelian research. Each of these factors is considered
to be nearly or quite constant,--that is, it undergoes little, or no
change from generation to generation. It is ordinarily resistant to
"contamination" by other factors with which it may come in contact in
the cell. The first fundamental principle of Mendelism, then, is the
existence of relatively constant units, the Mendelian factors, as the
basis for transmission of all the traits that go to make up an animal or
plant.
Experimental breeding gives reason to believe that each factor has one
or more alternatives, which may take its place in the mechanism of
heredity, thereby changing the visible character of the individual plant
or animal in which it occurs. To put the matter a little differently,
one germ-cell differs from another in having alternatives present in
place of some of the factors of the latter. A given germ-cell can never
have more than one of the possible alternatives of each factor. These
alternatives of a factor are called its allelomorphs.
Now a mature germ-cell has a single system of these factors: but when
two germ-cells unite, there result from that union two kinds of
cells--namely, immature germ-cells and body-cells; and both these kinds
of cells contain a double system of factors, because of course they have
received a single entire system from each parent. This is the second of
the fundamental principles of Mendelism: that the factors are single in
the mature germ-cell, but in duplicate in the body-cell (and also in the
immature germ-cell).
In every cell with a double system of factors, there are necessarily
present two representatives from each set of allelomorphs, but these may
or may not be alike--or in technical language the individual may be
homozygous, or heterozygous, as regards the given set of alternative
factors. Looking at it from another angle, there is a single visible
character in the plant or animal, but it is produced by a double factor,
in the germ-plasm.
When the immature germ-cell, with its double system of factors, matures,
it throws out half the factors, retaining only a single system: and the
allelomorphic factors which then segregate into different cells are, as
has been said above, ordinarily uninfluenced by their stay together.
But the allelomorphic factors are not the only ones which are segregated
into different germ-cells, at the maturation of the cell; for the
factors which are not alternative are likewise distributed, more or less
independently of each other, so that it is largely a matter of chance
whether factors which enter a cross in the same germ-cell, segregate
into the same germ-cell or different ones, in the next generation. This
is the next fundamental principle of Mendelism, usually comprehended
under the term "segregation," although, as has been pointed out, it is
really a double process, the segregation of alternative factors being a
different thing from the segregation of non-alternative factors.
From this fact of segregation, it follows that as many kinds of
germ-cells can be formed by an individual, as there are possible
combinations of factors, on taking one alternative from each pair of
allelomorphs present. In practice, this means that the possible number
of different germ-cells is almost infinitely great, as would perhaps be
suspected by anyone who has tried to find two living things that are
just alike.
[Illustration: THE CARRIERS OF HEREDITY
FIG. 46.--Many different lines of study have made it seem
probable that much, although not all, of the heredity of an animal or
plant is carried in the nucleus of the germ-cell and that in this
nucleus it is further located in little rods or threads which can be
easily stained so as to become visible, and which have the name of
chromosomes. In the above illustration four different views of the
nucleus of the germ-cell of an earthworm are shown, with the chromosomes
in different stages; in section 19 each chromosome is doubled up like a
hairpin. Study of the fruit-fly Drosophila has made it seem probable not
only that the hypothetical factors of heredity are located in the
chromosomes, but that each factor has a perfectly definite location in
its chromosome; and T. H. Morgan and his associates have worked out an
ingenious method of measuring the distance from either end, at which the
factor lies. Photomicrograph after Foot and Strobell.]
Such is the essence of Mendelism; and the reader is probably ready to
admit that it is not a simple matter, even when reduced to the
simplest terms. To sum up, the principal features at the base of the
hypothetical structure are these:
1. There exist relatively constant units in the germ-plasm.
2. There are two very distinct relationships which these units may show
to each other. Two (or more) unit factors may be alternatives in the
mechanism of inheritance, indicating that one is a variation (or loss)
of the other; or they may be independent of each other in the mechanism
of inheritance.
3. The mature germ-cell contains a single system of independent factors
(one representative from each set of alternates).
The immature germ-cells, and body-cells, have double systems of
independent factors (two from each set of alternatives).
4. The double system arises simply from the union of two single systems
(i. e., two germ-cells), without union or even contamination of the
factors involved.
In the formation of a single system (mature germ-cells) from a double
(immature germ-cells), pairs of alternates separate, passing into
different germ-cells. Factors not alternates may or may not
separate--the distribution is largely a matter of chance.
Such are the fundamental principles of Mendelism; but on them was early
grafted a theoretical structure due mainly to the German zoölogist,
August Weismann. To understand his part in the story, we must advert to
that much mooted and too often misunderstood problem furnished by the
chromosomes. (See Fig. 46.) These little rods of easily stained
material, which are found in every cell of the body, were picked out by
Professor Weismann as the probable carriers of heredity. With remarkable
acuteness, he predicted their behavior at cell-division, the intricate
nature of which is usually the despair of every beginner in biology.
When Mendelian breeding, in the early years of this century, showed
temporary pairing and subsequent separation of units in the
germ-cell, it was soon realized that the observed facts of breeding
fitted to a nicety the observed facts (predicted by Weismann) of
chromosome-behavior; for at each cell-division the chromosomes, too,
pair and separate again. The observed behavior of transmitted characters
in animals and plants followed, in so many cases, the observed behavior
of the chromosomes, that many students found it almost impossible to
believe that there was no connection between the two, and Dr. Weismann's
prediction, that the chromosomes are the carriers of heredity, came to
be looked on as a fact, by many biologists.
But when so much of Professor Weismann's system was accepted, other
parts of it went along, including a hypothetical system of "determiners"
in the chromosome, which were believed to determine the development of
characters in the organism. Every trait of an animal or plant, it was
supposed, must be represented in the germ-plasm by its own determiner;
one trait, one determiner. Did a notch in the ear run through a
pedigree? Then it must be due to a determiner for a notch in the ear in
the germ-plasm. Was mathematical ability hereditary? Then there must be
a determiner, the expression of which was mathematical ability.
For a while, this hypothesis was of service in the development of
genetics; some students even began to forget that it was a hypothesis,
and to talk as if it were a fact. But the exhaustive tests of
experimental breeding of plants and animals have long caused most of the
advanced students of genetics to drop this simple hypothesis.
In its place stands the factorial hypothesis, evolved by workers in
America, England, and France at about the same time. As explained in
Chapter V, this hypothesis carries the assumption that every visible
character is due to the effects of not one but many factors in the
germ-cell.
In addition to these fundamentals, there are numerous extensions and
corollaries, some of them of a highly speculative nature. The reader who
is interested in pursuing the subject farther must turn to one of the
text-books on Mendelism.
In plant-breeding a good deal of progress has been made in the exact
study of Mendelian heredity; in animal breeding, somewhat less; in human
heredity, very little. The reason is obvious: that experiments can not
be made in man, and students must depend on the results of such matings
as they can find; that only a very few offspring result from each
mating; and that generations are so long that no one observer can have
more than a few under his eyes. These difficulties make Mendelian
research in man a very slow and uncertain matter.
Altogether, it is probable that something like a hundred characters in
man have been pointed out as inherited in Mendelian fashion. A large
part of these are pathological conditions or rare abnormalities.
But the present writers can not accept most of these cases. It has been
pointed out in Chapter V that there are good reasons for doubting that
feeble-mindedness is inherited in a simple Mendelian fashion, although
it is widely accepted as such. We can not help feeling that in most
cases heredity in man is being made to appear much simpler than it
really is; and that particularly in mental characters, analysis of
traits has by no means reached the bottom.
If we were asked to make out a list of characters, as to the Mendelian
inheritance of which there could be little doubt, we would hardly be
able to go farther than the following:
The sex-linked characters (one kind of color-blindness, hemophilia, one
kind of night-blindness, atrophy of the optic nerve, and a few other
rare abnormalities).
Albinism. This appears to be a recessive, but probably involves multiple
allelomorphs in man, as in other animals.
Brachydactyly, apparently a dominant. This is so much cited in
text-books on Mendelism that the student might think it is a common
character. As a fact, it is extremely rare, being found in only a few
families. The similar trait of orthodactyly or symphalangism, which
likewise appears to be a good Mendelian dominant, seems to exist in only
one family. Traits like these, which are easily defined and occur very
rarely, make up a large part of the cases of probably Mendelian
heredity. They are little more than curiosities, their rarity and
abnormal nature depriving them of evolutionary significance other than
to demonstrate that Mendelian heredity does operate in man.
White blaze in the hair or, as it might better be called to show its
resemblance to the trait found in other mammals, piebaldism. A rather
rare dominant.[204]
Huntington's Chorea, which usually appears to be a good dominant,
although the last investigators (Muncey and Davenport) found some
unconformable cases.
A few abnormalities, such as a premature graying of the hair (one family
cited by K. Pearson) are well enough attested to be admitted. Many
others, such as baldness, are probably Mendelian but not yet
sufficiently supported by evidence.
None of these characters, it will be observed, is of much significance
eugenically. If the exact manner of inheritance of some of the more
important mental and physical traits were known, it would be of value.
But it is not a prerequisite for eugenic action. Enough is known for a
working program.
To sum up: the features in the modern view of heredity, which the reader
must keep in mind, are the following:
1. That the various characters which make up the physical constitution
of any individual plant or animal are due to the action (concurrently
with the environment, of course) of what are called, for convenience,
factors, separable hypothetical units in the germ-plasm, capable of
independent transmission.
2. That each visible character is due to the coöperative action of an
indefinitely large number of factors; conversely, that each of these
factors affects an indefinitely large number of characters.
APPENDIX E
USEFUL WORKS OF REFERENCE
The most complete bibliography is that published by the State Board of
Charities of the State of New York (_Eugenics and Social Welfare
Bulletin_ No. III, pp. 130, Albany, 1913).
An interesting historical review of eugenics, with critical comments on
the literature and a bibliography of 100 titles, was published by A. E.
Hamilton in the _Pedagogical Seminary_, Vol. XXI, pp. 28-61, March,
1914.
Much of the important literature of eugenics has been mentioned in
footnotes. For convenience, a few of the books which are likely to be
most useful to the student are here listed:
GENETICS AND EUGENICS, by W. E. Castle. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, 1916.
HEREDITY AND ENVIRONMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEN, by Edwin G.
Conklin. Princeton University Press, 1915.
HEREDITY IN RELATION TO EUGENICS, by C. B. Davenport, Henry
Holt and Co., New York, 1911.
ESSAYS IN EUGENICS, by Francis Galton. Eugenics Education
Society, London, 1909.
BEING WELL-BORN, by Michael F. Guyer. Indianapolis,
Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1916.
THE SOCIAL DIRECTION OF HUMAN EVOLUTION, by W. E. Kellicott.
New York, 1911.
THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF SOCIETY, by Carl Kelsey. New York, D.
Appleton & Co., 1916.
EUGENICS, by Edward Schuster. Collins' Clear Type Press, London
and Glasgow, 1913.
HEREDITY, by J. Arthur Thompson. Edinburgh, 1908.
GENETICS, by Herbert E. Walter. The Macmillan Co., New York,
1913.
AN INTRODUCTION TO EUGENICS, by W. C. D. Whetham and C. D.
Whetham. Macmillan and Co., London, 1912.
HEREDITY AND SOCIETY, by W. C. D. Whetham and C. D. Whetham.
Longmans, Green & Co., London, 1912.
THE FAMILY AND THE NATION, by W. C. D. Whetham and C. D.
Whetham. Longmans, Green & Co., London, 1909.
The publications of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics,
University of London, directed by Karl Pearson, and of the Eugenics
Record Office, Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, N. Y., directed by C. B.
Davenport, furnish a constantly increasing amount of original material
on heredity.
The principal periodicals are the _Journal of Heredity_ (organ of the
American Genetic Association), 511 Eleventh St., N. W., Washington, D.
C. (monthly); and the _Eugenics Review_ (organ of the Eugenics Education
Society), Kingsway House, Kingsway, W. C., London (quarterly). These
periodicals are sent free to members of the respective societies.
Membership in the American organization is $2 a year, in the English 1
guinea a year, associate membership 5 shillings a year.
APPENDIX F
GLOSSARY
ACQUIRED CHARACTER, a modification of a germinal trait after
cell fusion. It is difficult to draw a line between characters that are
acquired and those that are inborn. The idea involved is as follows: in
a standard environment, a given factor in the germ-plasm will develop
into a trait which varies not very widely about a certain mean. The mean
of this trait is taken as representing the germinal trait in its typical
condition. But if the environment be not standard, if it be considerably
changed, the trait will develop a variation far from the mean of that
trait in the species. Thus an American, whose skin in the standard
environment of the United States would be blonde, may under the
environment of Cuba develop into a brunette. Such a wide variation from
the mean thus caused is called an acquired character; it is usually
impressed on the organism after the germinal trait has reached a full,
typical development.
ALLELOMORPH (one another form), one of a pair of factors which
are alternative to each other in Mendelian inheritance. Instead of a
single pair, there may be a group of "multiple allelomorphs," each
member being alternative to every other member of the group.
ALLELOMORPHISM, a relation between two or more factors, such
that two which are present in one zygote do not both enter into the same
gamete, but are separated into sister gametes.
BIOMETRY (life measure), the study of biology by statistical
methods.
BRACHYDACTYLY (short-finger), a condition in which the bones,
particularly of the fingers and toes, fail to grow to their normal
length. In well-marked cases one of these is a reduction from three
phalanges or joints to two.
CHARACTER (a contraction of "characteristic"), a term which is
used, often rather vaguely, to designate any function, feature, or organ
of the body or mind.
CHROMOSOME (color body, so called from its affinity for certain
stains), a body of peculiar protoplasm, in the nucleus of the cell. Each
species has its own characteristic number; the cells of the human body
contain 24 chromosomes each.
CONGENITAL (with birth), present at birth. The term fails to
distinguish between traits which are actually inherited, and
modifications acquired during prenatal life. In the interest of clear
thinking its use should be avoided so far as possible.
CORRELATION (together relation), a relation between two
variables in a certain population, such that for every variation of one,
there is a corresponding variation of the other. Mathematically, two
correlated variables are thus mutually dependent. But a correlation is
merely a statistical description of a particular case, and in some other
population the same two variables might be correlated in a different
way, other influences being at work on them.
CYTOLOGY (cell word), the study of the cell, the constituent
unit of organisms.
DETERMINER (completely end), an element or condition in a
germ-cell, supposed to be essential to the development of a particular
quality, feature, or manner of reaction of the organism which arises
from that germ-cell. The word is gradually falling into disuse, and
"factor" taking its place.
DOMINANCE (mastery), in Mendelian hybrids the capacity of a
character which is derived from only one of two generating gametes to
develop to an extent nearly or quite equal to that exhibited by an
individual which has derived the same character from both of the
generating gametes. In the absence of dominance the given character of
the hybrid usually presents a "blend" or intermediate condition between
the two parents.
DYSGENIC (bad origin), tending to impair the racial qualities
of future generations; the opposite of eugenic.
ENDOGAMY (within mating), a custom of some primitive peoples,
in compliance with which a man must choose his wife from his own group
(clan, gens, tribe, etc.).
EUGENIC (good origin), tending to improve the racial qualities
of future generations, either physical or mental.
EUTHENIC (good thriving), tending to produce beneficial
acquired characters or better conditions for people to live in, but not
tending (except incidentally and indirectly) to produce people who can
hand on the improvement by heredity.
EVOLUTION (unroll), ORGANIC, the progressive change of
living forms, usually associated with the development of complex from
simple forms.
EXOGAMY (out mating), a custom of primitive peoples which
requires a man to choose a wife from some other group (clan, gens,
tribe, etc.) than his own.
FACTOR (maker), a name given to the hypothetical _something_,
the independently inheritable element in the germ-cell, whose presence
is necessary to the development of a certain inherited character or
characters or contributes with other factors to the development of a
character. "Gene" and "determiner" are sometimes used as synonyms of
factor.
FEEBLE-MINDEDNESS, a condition in which mental development is
retarded or incomplete. It is a relative term, since an individual who
would be feeble-minded in one society might be normal or even bright in
another. The customary criterion is the inability of the individual,
because of mental defect existing from an early age, to compete on equal
terms with his normal fellows, or to manage himself or his affairs with
ordinary prudence. American students usually distinguish three grades of
mental defect: Idiots are those who are unable to take care of
themselves, even to the extent of guarding against common physical
dangers or satisfying physical needs. Their mentality does not progress
beyond that of a normal two-year-old child. Imbeciles can care for
themselves after a fashion, but are unable to earn their living. Their
mental ages range from three to seven years, inclusive. Morons, who
correspond to the common acceptation of the term feeble-minded, "can
under proper direction become more or less self-supporting but they are
as a rule incapable of undertaking affairs which demand judgment or
involve unrestricted competition with normal individuals. Their
intelligence ranges with that of normal children from seven to twelve
years of age." There is necessarily a considerable borderline, but any
adult whose intelligence is beyond that of the normal twelve-year-old
child is usually considered to be not feeble-minded.
GAMETE (mate), a mature germ-cell; in animals an ovum or
spermatozoön.
GENETICS (origins), for a long time meant the study of
evolution by experimental breeding and was often synonomous with
Mendelism. It is gradually returning to its broader, original meaning of
the study of variation and heredity, that is, the origin of the
individual's traits. This broader meaning is preferable.
GERMINAL (sprig), due to something present in the germ-cell. A
trait is germinal when its basis is inherited,--as eye color,--and when
it develops with nothing more than the standard environment; remaining
relatively constant from one generation to another, except as influenced
by reproduction.
GERM-PLASM (sprig form), mature germ-cells and the living
material from which they are produced.
HÆMOPHILIA (blood love), an inability of the blood to clot. It
thus becomes impossible to stop the flow of blood from a cut, and one
who has inherited hæmophilia usually dies sooner or later from
hæmorrhage.
HEREDITY (heirship), is usually considered from the outside,
when it may properly be defined as organic resemblance based on descent,
or the correlation between relatives. But a better definition, based on
the results of genetics, looks at it as a mechanism, not as an external
appearance. From this point of view, heredity may be said to be "the
persistence of certain cell-constituents (in the germ-cells) through an
unending number of cell-divisions."
HETEROZYGOTE (different yolk), a zygotic individual which
contains both members of an allelomorphic pair.
HOMOZYGOTE (same yolk), an individual which contains only one
member of an allelomorphic pair, but contains that in duplicate, having
received it from both parents. A homozygous individual, having been
formed by the union of like gametes, in turn regularly produces gametes
of only one kind with respect to any given factor, thus giving rise to
offspring which are, in this regard, like the parents; in other words,
homozygotes regularly "breed true." An individual may be a homozygote
with respect to one factor and a heterozygote with respect to another.
HORMONES (chain), the secretions of various internal glands,
which are carried in the blood and have an important specific influence
on the growth and functioning of various parts of the body. Their exact
nature is not yet understood.
INBORN usually means germinal, as applied to a trait, and it is
so used in this book. Strictly speaking, however, any trait which
appears in a child at birth might be called inborn, and some writers,
particularly medical men, thus refer to traits acquired in prenatal
life. Because of this ambiguity the word should be carefully defined
when used, or avoided.
INHERENT (in stick), as used in this book, is synonymous with
germinal.
INDUCTION (in lead), a change brought about in the germ-plasm
with the effect of temporarily modifying the characters of an
individual produced from that germ-plasm; but not of changing in a
definite and permanent way any such germ-plasm and therefore any
individual inherited traits.
INNATE (inborn), synonymous with inborn.
LATENT (lie hidden), a term applied to traits or characters
whose factors exist in the germ-plasm of an individual, but which are
not visible in his body.
LAW, in natural science means a concise and comprehensive
description of an observed uniform sequence of events. It is thus quite
different from the law of jurists, who mean a rule laid down for the
guidance of an intelligent being, by an intelligent being having power
over him.
MENDELISM, a collection of laws of heredity (see Appendix D)
so-called after the discoverer of the first of them to become known;
also the analytical study of heredity with a view to learning the
constitution of the germ-cells of animals and plants.
MENDELIZE, to follow Mendel's laws of inheritance.
MORES (customs), the approved customs or unwritten laws of a
people; the conventions of society; popular usage or folk-ways which are
reputable.
MUTATION (change), has now two accepted meanings: (1) a
profound change in the germ-plasm of an organism such as will produce
numerous changes in its progeny; and (2) a discontinuous heritable
change in a Mendelian factor. It is used in the first sense by De Vries
and other "mutationists" and in the second sense by Morgan and other
Mendelists; confusion has arisen from failure to note the difference in
usage.
NORMAL CURVE, the curve of distribution of variations of
something whose variations are due to a multiplicity of causes acting
nearly equally in both directions. It is characterized by having more
individuals of a mediocre degree and progressively fewer above and below
this mode.
NUCLEUS (little nut), a central, highly-organized part of every
living cell, which seems to play a directive rôle in cell-development
and contains, among other things, the chromosomes.
PATENT (lie open), a term applied to traits which are
manifestly represented in the body as well as the germ-plasm of an
individual. The converse of "latent."
PROBABILITY CURVE, the same as normal curve. Also called a
Gaussian curve.
PROTOPLASM (first form), "the physical basis of life"; a
chemical compound or probably an emulsion of numerous compounds. It
contains proteins which differ slightly in many species of organism. It
contains carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, and various salts,
but is so complex as to defy exhaustive analysis.
PSYCHIATRY (soul healing), the study of diseases of the mind.
RECESSIVE (draw back), the converse of dominant; applied to one
of a pair of contrasted Mendelian characters which can not appear in the
presence of the other.
REGRESSION (back go), the average variation of one variable for
a unit variation of a correlated variable.
SEGREGATION (aside flock), (1) as used in eugenics means the
policy of isolating feeble-minded and other anti-social individuals from
the normal population into institutions, colonies, etc., where the two
sexes are kept apart. (2) The term is also used technically in genetics,
to refer to the discontinuity of the variation of characteristics
resulting from the independent distribution of factors before or at the
time of formation of the gametes.
SELECTION (apart pick), the choice (for perpetuation by
reproduction) from a mixed population, of the individuals possessing in
common a certain character or a certain degree of some character. Two
kinds of selection may be distinguished: (1) natural selection, in which
choice is made automatically by the failure to reproduce (through death
or some other cause) of the individuals who are not "fit" to pass the
tests of the environment (vitality, disease resistance, speed, success
in mating, or what not); and (2) artificial selection, in which the
choice is made consciously by man, as a livestock breeder.
SEX-LIMITED, a term applied to traits which differ in the two
sexes, because influenced by the hormones of the reproductive glands.
Example, the beard.
SEX-LINKED, a term applied to traits which are connected with
sex _accidentally_ and not physiologically in development. The current
explanation is that such traits happen to be in the same chromosome as
the determiner of maleness or femaleness, as the case may be.
Color-blindness is the classical example in man.
SEXUAL SELECTION, the conscious or unconscious preference by
individuals of one sex, or by that sex as a whole, for individuals of
the other sex who possess some particular attribute or attributes in a
degree above or below the average of their sex. If the deviation of the
chosen character is in the same direction (plus or minus) as in the
chooser, the mating is called assortative; if in one direction
independent of the characteristic of the chooser, it is called
preferential.
SOMA (body), the body as distinguished from the germ-plasm.
From this point of view every individual consists of only two
parts,--germ-plasm and soma or somatoplasm.
TRAIT, a term used by geneticists as a synonym of "character."
UNIT-CHARACTER, in Mendelian heredity a character or
alternative difference of any kind, which is apparently not capable of
subdivision in heredity, but is inherited as a whole, and which is
capable of becoming associated in new combinations with other
characters. The term is now going out of use, as it makes for clearer
thinking about heredity to fix the attention on the factors of the
germ-cells instead of on the characters of the adult.
VARIATION, a deviation in the size, shape, or other feature of
a character or trait, from the mean or average of that character in the
species.
VESTIGIAL (footstep), a term applied to a character which at
some time in the evolutionary history of the species possessed
importance, or functioned fully, but which has now lost its importance
or its original use, so that it remains a mere souvenir of the past, in
a degenerated condition. Example, the muscles which move a man's ears.
ZYGOTE (yolk), the fertilized egg-cell; the united cell formed
by the union of the ovum and spermatozoön after fertilization.
ZYMOTIC, caused by a microörganism,--a term applied to
diseases. Example, tuberculosis.
INDEX
A
Abderholden, E., 422
Acquired character, 437
Administrative aspects, 194
Adult mortality, 345
Afghans, 321
Africa, 290, 291
Agriculture, 307
Aguinaldo, E., 314
Aims of eugenics, 152
Alabama, 187, 202, 296
Alaska, 187
Albinism, 433
Alcohol, 44, 48, 49, 130
Alcoholism, 213, 302
Aleurone, 104
Allelomorphism, 437
Allelomorphs, 108, 427, 437
Alpine Type, 427
America, 432
American Breeders Assn., 154, 194
American Breeders Magazine, 154
American Prison Assn., 182
American Genetic Assn., 154, 277
American stock, 258, 424
Americans, 427, 428
American-Chinese Marriages, 313
Amherst College, 255, 266
Amoy, 315
Ancestral Inheritance Law, 112
Anglian, 426
Anglo-Saxon, 426
Anthropological Soc. of Denmark, 155
Apartment houses, 377
Appearance, 219, 221
Appropriate opportunity, 366
Arabs, 230, 280
Argentina, 326
Aristocracy, 362
Aristodemocracy, 362
Aristotle, 32
Arizona, 187
Arkansas, 241
Armenians, 299, 302, 427
Army, American, 83
Arnold, M., 394
Arsenic, 63
Art, 96
Asiatic immigration, 311
Asiatic Turkey, 299
Assortative mating, 126, 211
Athenians, 133
Atrophy of optic nerve, 433
Atwater, W. O., 422
Austria, 137, 155
Australian, 129
Australian marriages, 222
Automobile, effect of 377
B
Baby saving campaign, 408
Bachelors, tax on, 353
Back to the farm movement, 355
Backward children, 188
Bahama Islands, 203
Baker, O. E., 6
Baltzly, A., 327
Banker, H. J., 267, 245
Banns, 197
Barrington, A., 13
Batz, 207
Baur, E., 104
Bean and Mall, 285
Beans, Fig. 13.
Beeton, M., 144, 404, 408, 411
Beggars, 302
Belgium, 138, 155, 324
Bell, A. G., 144, 183, 226, 345, 347, 350, 402, 407, 411
Bentham, J., 165
Berlin, 140
Bermuda, 205
Bertholet, E., 57
Bertillon, J., 140
Besant, A., 269
Better babies movement, 155
Bezzola, D., 56
Billings, W. C., 313
Binet tests, 287
Biometric method, 31
Biometry, 437
Birth control, 269
Bisexual societies, 234
Bismarck, von, O. E. L., 422
Blakeslee, A. F., Figs. 2, 3, 13, 14
Blascoe, F., 282
Bleeders, 38
Blind, 156
Blindness, 32
Blücher, von G. L., 321
Blumer, J. C., 244
Boas, F., 41, 282, 283
Boer War, 321
Boer-Hottentot mulattoes, 300
Body-plasm, 27
Bohemians, 311, 427
Boston, Mass., 261, 182
Boveri, T., 27
Brachybioty, 409
Brachycephalic heads, 427
Brachydactyly, 433, 437, Fig. 17
Bradlaugh, C., 269
Brazil, 325
Breton race, 273
Bridges, C. B., 101
Brigham Young College, 219
British, 427
British Columbia, 305
British Indian immigration, 312
Bruce, H. A., 23
Bryn Mawr College, 240, 263
Burris, W. P., 97
C
Cæsar, J., 179, 207
Caffeine, 45
California, 172, 192
California University, 100
Cambridge graduates, 428
Cambridge, Mass., 261
Cape Cod, 206
Carnegie Institution of Washington, 154
Carnegie, Margaret Morrison, School, 278
Carpenter, E., 379
Carver, T. N., 305, 367
Castle, C. S., 243
Castle, W. E., 87, 100, 105, 108, 300, 419, 435, Fig. 20
Catlin, G., 130
Cattell, J. McK., 20, 21, 268, 269
Cavour, C. B., 19
Celibacy, 173
Celtic, 41
Celto-Slav Type, 427
Central Europe, 427
Ceylon, 129
Character, 219, 221, 437
Charm and taboo, 395
Chastity, 251, 386
Chicago, Ill., 182, 261
Chicks, 47
Child bearing, Effect of, 346
Child Labor, 368
Childless wives, 268
Child mortality, 403, 407
Children surviving per capita, 267
China, 20, 137, 274
Chinese, 315, 397, Fig. 5
Chinese immigration, 321
Chorea, Huntingdon's, 109, 433
Christianity, 171, 394
Chromosomes, 87, 431, 437
Church acquaintances, 234
Civic Club (Pittsburgh, Penn.), 371
Civil War, 268, 301, 321, 326, 402
Cleopatra, 207
Climate, 42
Cobb, M. V., 96
Co-education, 267, 383
Coefficient of correlation, 212
Coercive means, 184
Cold Spring Harbor, 100
Coldness, 251
Cole, L. J., 45, 51, 63, Fig. 7
Collateral inheritance, 404
College women, 241
Collins, G. N., 104
Colonial ancestry, 426
Colony plan, 188
Color line, 280
Color-blindness, 109, 433
Columbus, C., 132
Columbia, District of, 187
Columbus, Ohio, 261
Columbia University, 10, 41, 100, 278
Combemale, 44
Compulsory education, 369
Confederate Army, 323
Congenital, 438
Conklin, E. G., 435
Connecticut, 76, 128, 192, 261, 326
Connecticut Agricultural College, 82, Fig. 14
Consanguinity, 207
Conscription, 319
Continuity of germ-plasm, 29
Controlled association tests, 288
Cook, O. F., 356
Corn, Fig. 2
Cornell Medical College, 45
Correlation, 13, 212, 438
Cost of clothing, 274
Cost of domestic labor, 275
Cost of food, 274
Cost of medical attention, 275
Courtis, S. A., 77
Cousins, 202
Criminals, 158, 182, 192
Croatians, 427
Crum, Frederick S., 259
Cushing, H., 102
Cynical attitude, 249
Cytology, 438
D
Danes, 426
Dalmatians, 311
Dance acquaintances, 234
Dark family, 168
Darwin, C., 20, 21, 25, 68, 69, 117, 134, 147, 151, 174, 208, 214, 334
Darwinism, 214
Davenport, C. B., 66, 154, 159, 182, 202, 205, 208, 246, 338, 341, 342,
348, 349, 433, 435
Davies, Maria Thompson, 235
Deaf, 157
Deafness, 32, 154
Declaration of Independence, 75
Declining birth rate, 237, 256, 268, 400
Defective germ-plasm, 194
Defectives, 302
Definition of eugenics, 147, 152
Degenerate persons, 193
Delaware, 187
Delayed marriage, 217
Delinquents, 302
Demme, R., 56
Democracy, 360
Denmark, 137
Dependents, 302
Desirability of Restrictive Eugenics, 167
Destitute classes, 214
Determiners, 432, 438
Differences among men, 75
Diffloth, P., 222
Diseases, 38
Disease resistance, 402
Disposition, 219, 221
Distribution, 307
District of Columbia, 187
Divorce, 201
Dolichocephalic heads, 427
Doll, E. A., 421
Dominance, 438
Dominant, 433
Dress, 219, 221
Drinkwater, 342
Drosophila, 101
Drug fiends, 193
Drunkenness, 389
Dublin, L. I., 400
Dubois, P., 23, 24
DuBois, W. E. B., 295
Duncan, J. M., 247
Duncan, F. N., 102, Fig. 17
Dugdale, R. L., 159
Durant scholarship, 262
Dyer family, 206
Dynamic evolution, 421
Dynamic of manhood, 223
Dysgenic, definition of, 438
Dysgenic types, 176
E
Earle, E. L., 94
Early marriages, 247
Eastern Europe, 427
East, E. M., 104
East north central states, 358
East south central states, 358
Ebbinghaus tests, 288
Economic determinism, 365
Economic equality of sexes, 380
Economic status, 250
Economic standing of parents, 370
Edinburgh, 57
Education, 219, 221
Education, compulsory, 368
Education and race suicide, 253
Edwards, J., 161
Egypt, 206
Egyptian, 285, Fig. 6
Elderton, E. M., 10, 55, 57, 60, 122, 153, 413
Elderton, W. P., 124
Elevation of standards, 277
Ellis, H., 96, 224, 379
Ellis Island, 302, 303, 427
Emancipation of women, 364
Emerson, R. A., 104
Endogamy, 222, 438
England, 15, 16, 121, 122, 138, 237, 381, 427, 432
English, 259, 311, 321, 426, 427, 428
Epilepsy, 58, 79
Epileptics, 193, 302
Eskimo, 49, 127
Estabrook, A. H., 143, 159, 168
Equalitarianism, 362
Equality, 229
Equality of opportunity, 366
Equal pay for equal work, 380
Essence of Mendelism, 429
Eugenic aspect of specific reforms, 352
Eugenic laws, 191
Eugenic marriages, 352
Eugenics and euthenics, 438
Eugenics Education Society, 153
Eugenics movement, 147
Eugenics registry, 350
Eugenics Record Office, 153, 194, 202, 348, 349, 436
Eugenics Review, 436
Eugenics and social welfare, Bulletin, 435
Euthenics, 155, 415, 416, 417, 438
Euthenics, eugenics and, 402
Eye, 59
Evolution, 438
Exogamy, 22, 438
F
Facial attractiveness, 215
Fairchild, H. P., 308
Family alignment, 229
Faraday, M., 334
Farrabee, W. C., 132
Fecundal selection, 137
Feebly inhibited, 182
Feeble minded, 157, 172, 302
Feeble-mindedness, 71, 176
Féré, C. S., 44
Fernandez brothers, 314
Ferguson, G. O., Jr., 287, 288
Fertility, relative, 247
Filipinos, 315
Financial aspect, 173
Financial success, 219
Finger prints, Fig. 25
Finger tip, Figs. 21, 22
Finns, 299, 302, 311
Fishberg, M., 126
Florida, 187
Foot, Egyptian, Fig. 6
Foreign-born, 238
Formal social functions, 236
Foster, M., 29
France, 138, 155, 206, 237
Franco-Prussian war, 321
Franklin, B., 230
Frederick the Great, 19
Fredericksburg, Va., 288
Freiburg, University, of, 125
French-Canadians, 259
French revolution, 18
Freud, S., 213
G
Gallichan, W., 252
Galton, Eugenics Laboratory, 153, 349
Galton, F., V, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 89, 90, 95, 99, 110, 111,
112, 113, 147, 148, 151, 152, 162, 222, 228, 230, 247, 342, 435
Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics, 269, 436
Galton-Pearson law, 113, 114
Gamete, 439
Garibaldi, G., 19
Garrison, W. L., 295, 296
Genealogical Record Office, 402, 405, 407, 409, 411, 412
Genealogy and eugenics, 329, 439
Genesis, 64
Genetics, 340, 439
Genius, hereditary, 151
George, F. O., 234
Georgia, 187
Geographical distribution, 261
German, 35, 259, 280, 311
German society for race hygiene, 163
Germany, 20, 137, 155, 299, 360
Germinal, 439
Germ-plasm, 25, 429, 440
Ghetto, 305
Gifted families, 213
Gillette, J. M., 356, 358, 359
Gilman, C. P., 378
Gilmore, C. F., 136, 216, 227
Gini, C., 344, 346
Giotto, 342
Gochuico, Ricardo, 315
Goddard, H. H., 71, 105, 108, 160, 176, 188
Gonorrhea, 63
Goodrich, M. T., 333
Goring, C., 124, 214
Grant, Madison, 301, 420
Grant, U. S., 374
Great Britain, 130, 232
Great race, 426
Great war, ix, 298, 327
Greek idea of eugenics, 150
Greek slaves, 284
Greeks, 299, 302, 321, 427
Greenwood lake, 233
Growth of eugenics, 147
Gruber von, and Rubin, 204
Guatemala Indians, 356
Guinea pigs, 45, 419
Gulick, J. T., 134
Gulick, L. H., 223
Gulick, S. L., 311, 313
Gustavus Adolphus, 19
Guyer, M. F., 194, 435
H
Habitual criminal, 194
Hair, white blaze in, 433
Haiti, 284, 289
Hall, G. S., 225
Hall of Fame, 17, 19
Hamilton, A. E., 278, 433, 435
Hankins, F. H., 237
Hanks Family, 333
Hap, L., 314
Hapaa, 131
Harrison, Mrs. E. H., 154
Harris, J. A., 100, 211, 404
Hart, H. H., 186
Hartford, Conn., 261
Harvard University, 87, 245, 246, 266
Health, 219, 221
Heape, W., 419
Hebrews, 41, 302
Hebrews, East European, 299
Hebrews, Russian, 302
Heller, L. L. 64
Helsingfors, 54
Hemophilia, 38, 40, 433
Hereditary genius, 16, 151
Hereditary, 440
Heredity, laws of, 99
Heredity, talent and genius, 151
Heron, D., 14, 15, 140, 153
Herzegovinians, 311
Heterozygote, 440
Heterozygous, 427, 433
Hewes, A., 240
Hibbs, H. H., Jr., 411
Hickory Family, 168
Higher education, 276
Hill folk, 168
Hill, J. A., 268
Hindus, 305
Hitchcock, C. H., 333
Hodge, 44
Hoffman, F. L., 128, 259
Holland, 137, 143, 155
Hollingworth, H. L., 342
Home acquaintances, 234
Homo sapiens, 300
Homozygote, 440
Homozygous, 427
Hooker, J., 68
Hopetown, 203
Hormones, 440
Horsley, V., 55
Housekeeping, 219, 221
Housing, 376
Howard, A., 104
Howard, G., 104
Howard University, 388
Hrdlicka, A., 285, 424, 426, 427, 428
Huguenots, 424, 427
Humanistic religion, 396
Humanitarian aspect, 171
Hungary, 155, 302
Hunter, W., 69
Huntington, E., 42
Huntington's Chorea, 180
Huxley, J. L., 3
Hyde Family, 346, 411
I
Idiots, 188, 302
Illegitimacy, 325
Illegitimate children, 208, 386
Illinois, 172, 208
Illinois, University of, 244
Ilocano, 315
Imbeciles, 188
Immigration, 298
Immigration Commission, 304, 310
Immortality, 29
Improvement of sexual selection, 211
Inborn, definition of, 440
Inborn characters, 32
Income Tax, 353
Increasing the marriage rate of the superior, 237
Indiana, 172, 179, 208
Indian, American, 49, 130
Individualism, 253
Induction, 440
Infant mortality, 121, 413
Infant mortality movement, 414
Infusorian, 26
Inherent, 440
Inheritance of mental capacities, 84
Inheritance Tax, 353
Innate, 441
Inkowa Camp, 233
Inquiries into human faculty, 5, 152
Insane, 15, 302
Insanity, 178
Institut Solvay, 155
Intelligence, 106
Intermarriage, 206
International Eugenics Congress, 155
International Eugenics Society, 155
Iowa, 208
Isabella, Queen of Spain, 19
Ishmael Family, 168
Islam, 284
Italian, 41, 259, 299, 302, 308, 311
Italians, Southern, 304
Italy, 19, 137
Ireland, 299
Irish, 41, 259, 311, 427
J
Jacob, 64
Jamaica, 289
James, W., 51, 327
Japan, 137
Japanese, 127
Japanese immigration, 312
Jefferson, T., 75
Jefferson Reformatory, 191
Jena, Battle of, 321
Jenks, A. E., 295, 314
Jenks, J. W., 308
Jennings, H. S., 105
Jesus, 396
Jews, 52, 133, 284, 304
Jewish eugenics, 394
Jewish race, 358
Johnson, E. H., 282
Johnson, R. H., vi, 117
Johnstone, E. R., 188
Jones, E., 213
Jordan, D. S., 323, 326
Jordan, H. E., 323
Journal of Heredity, 154, 436
Judaism, 394
Juke family, 143, 159, 168, 169
K
Kafirs, 285
Kaiser of Germany, 204
Kallikak Family, 160
Kansas, 172, 194, 208
Kansas City, Mo., 261
Kansas State Agrigultural College, 244
Kechuka Camp, 435
Kellogg, V., 215, 321, 318
Kelsey, C., 435
Kentucky, 172
Keys, F. M., Fig. 1
Key, W. E., 168
Knopf, S. A., 127
Kornhauser, A. W., 370
Kuczynski, R. R., 260
L
Laban, 64
Laitinen, T., 54, 55
Lamarck, J. B., 37
Lamarckian, 35
Lamarckian Theory, 421
Lamarckism, 37
Late marriages, 218
Latent, 441
Lauck, W. J., 308
Laughlin, H. H., 341
Law, 441
Laws, eugenic, 196
Laws of heredity, 99
Lead, 57, 63, Fig. 7
League to enforce peace, 328
Lechoco, F., 314
Legal aspects, 194
Legislative aspects, 194
Leipzig, 321
Lethal chamber, 184
Lethal selection, 145
Levantines, 299
Lewin, G. R. L., 62
Lim, B., 314
Lincoln, A., 20, 333
Lincoln, T., 333
Lithuanians, 311
Living wage, 375
Loeb, J., 379
Lombroso, C., 179, 182
London, 140, 141
Longevity, 403
Longfellow, H. E., 153
Lorenz, O., 330
Loscin and Lascin, 314
Louisiana, 187, 296
Lunatics, 193
Lutz, F. E., Fig. 16
Luzon, 315
Lynn, Mass., 261
M
Macedonia, 326
MacNicholl, T. A., 55, 56
Madonnas, 397
Magyars, 299, 302, 427
Maine, 172
Maine, University of, 47
Mairet, 44
Maize, 104
Malaria, 63
Malayans, 315
Mall, Bean &, 285
Malone, Widow, 204
Malthus, 117, 134, 145, 151
Mamelukes, 284
Management, 221
Manchester, 57
Mann, Mrs. Horace, 153
Marks, school, 216
Marriage laws, 196
Marriage rate, 237
Marshall, Gov. Thomas R., 191
Martha's Vineyard, 154
Maryland, 206
Massachusetts, 123, 241, 255, 259, 260, 261, 295, 326
Mass. Agricultural College, 255
Mass. State Prison, 182
Maternal impression, 64
Maternity, 221
Mayo, M. J., 286
Mean American man, 425
Mechanism of inheritance, 431
Mecklin, J. M., 280, 281, 283
Medical colleges, 246
Mediterranean, 49, 52
Mediterranean race, 280, 357
Melting pot, 424, 428
Mendel, G., 427
Mendelian units, 105
Mendelism, 430, 441
Mendelism, essence of, 427
Mendelssohn, F. B., 96
Mental capacities, inheritance of, 84
Mental measurements, 75
Mesocephalic heads, 427
Mestizos, 314
Methodist clergymen, 270
Methods of restriction, 184
Metis, Spanish, 314
Meyerbeer, G., 96
Mice, 45
Michigan, 172, 194
Middle Atlantic states, 358
Middletown, Conn., 192
Military celibacy, 320
Miller, K., 388
Mill, J. S., 165, 174
Milton, J., 21
Minimum wage, 374
Minnesota, 172, 202
Miscegenation, 209, 291
Missouri, 208, 288
Modesty, 251
Modification of the germ-plasm, 25
Mohammed, 179
Money, 229
Monogamy, 222, 387
Moody, L., 153
Moral equivalent of war, 27
Moral perverts, 193
Moravians, 311
Mores, 222, 441
Morgan, A., 233
Morgan, T. H., 4, 100, 101
Mormon Church, 273
Moron, 188
Mothers' pensions, 375, 376
Mother's age, influence of, 347
Motivated ethics, 394
Mountain states, 358
Mount Holyoke College, 240, 263
Movement, eugenic, 147
Mozambique, 129
Mulatto, 288
Muller, H. J., 101, Fig. 19
Multiple factors, 104
Muncey, E. B., 433
Murphey, H. D., 242
Music, 96
Mutation, 441
Mutilations, 38
Myopia, 13, 59
McDonald, A., 286
N
Nam Family, 143, 168
Naples, 303
Napoleon, 18, 179, 321
Nashville, Tenn., 261
Nasmyth, G., 322
National army, 319
National association for the advancement of colored people, 294, 295
National committee for mental hygiene, 172
Native whites, 238
Natural inheritance, 152
Natural selection, 148
Nature, 1
Nearing, S., 261
Nebraska, 208
Negroes, 238, 280
Negro women, 387
Nevada, 187, 192, 296
New England, 260, 265, 274, 291, 358, 426
New Hampshire, 208
New Haven, Conn., 261
New Jersey, 179, 193, 202
New Mexico, 187
Newport News, Va., 288
Newsholme A., 140, 141
New York, 11, 77, 172, 182, 186, 193, 233, 282, 286
New world, 324
Nice, 45, 47
Nicolin, 45
Night-blindness, 109, 433
Nilsson-Ehle, H., 104
Nobility, 118
Nordic, 426
Nordic race, 280, 301, 357
Normal curve, 441
Normal school girls, 262
Norman conquest, 338
Normandy, 338
North Carolina, 326
North Dakota, 193
North European, 426
North Italians, 427
Northern United States, 326
Norway, 137
Norwich, Conn., 192
Novikov, J., 322
Nucleus, 441
Nurture, 1
O
Oberlin college, 244
Occupation, diseases of, 62
Odin, A., 258
Ohio, 172
Ohio State University, 244
Oklahoma, 202, 208
Oliver, T., 62
Oregon, 208
Organization of industry, 307
Oriental immigration, 313
Origin of eugenics, 147
Orthodactyly, 101, 102, 384, 433
Ovarian transplantation, 419
Ovize, 44
P
Pacific, 358
Paget parish, Bermuda, 205
Paine, J. H., Figs. 16, 21
Paraguay, 325
Parents of great men, 423
Paris, 140, 155
Parker, G., 233
Parole, 209
Partial segregation, 250
Past performance, 342
Passing of the great race, 426
Pasteur, L., 333, 334
Patent, definition of, 441
Paternity, 219
Paul, C., 63
Paupers, 157, 302
Pearl, R., 47, 48, 99, 423
Pearson, K., 10, 12, 55, 56, 57, 60, 85, 93, 99, 118, 119, 120,
121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 134, 143, 144, 153, 212, 215,
224, 227, 231, 232, 344, 348, 349, 368, 404, 408, 409, 411,
413, 428, 433
Pedagogical celibacy, 390
Peerage, 232
Pennsylvania, 167, 187, 202, 208
Pennsylvania Dutch, 424
Pennsylvania, feeble-minded citizens of, 168
Pennsylvania, University of, 132
Penrose, C. A., 203
Perrin, 372
Percy, H., Fig. 19
Perry, S. J., 124
Persians, 321
Perversion, 248
Pessimism, 247
Peters, I. L., 226
Phi Beta Kappa, 241, 262
Philanthropy, 33
Philippine islands, 313
Philippines, 324
Phillips, B. A., 287
Phillips, J. C., 245, 267, 419
Phthisis, 126
Physical care of the infant, 278
Physical culture, 219
Physico-chemical effects, 38
Piang, Datto, 314
Piebaldism, 103, 433, Fig. 20
Pike, F. H., 3
Pikipitanges, 132
Pilgrim fathers, 424
Piney folk, 168
Pitcairn islanders, 300
Pittsburgh, 138
Pittsburgh, University of, 234
Pituitary gland, 103
Plato, 150
Ploetz, A., 118, 119, 408, 409, 410
Plymouth, England, 118
Poisons, racial, 48, 61, 63, Fig. 7
Poles, 259, 299, 427
Polygamy, 387
Polynesians, 127, 129
Pope, E. G., 124
Popenoe, C. H., 78
Popenoe, P., vi, 244, 245, 270, 402, 423
Population, Malthusian, 151
Portland, Ore., 261
Portuguese, 299, 302
Possible improvement of the human breed, etc., 152
Poulton, E. B., 43
Powys, A. O., 272, 346
Pragmatic school, 352
Preferential mating, 214
Pre-natal care, 70
Pre-natal culture, 70
Pre-natal influence, 64
Pre-natal life, 155
Princeton college, 249
Probability curve, 78, 80, 441
Proctor fellowship, 249
Production, 307
Professional classes, 232
Professor's families, 228
Progressive changes, 39
Prohibited degrees of marriage, 222
Prohibition, 389
Propaganda, eugenic, 195
Prophylaxis, 252
Prostitution, 251
Protestant Christianity, 274
Protoplasm, 442
Prussia, 121, 321
Pseudo-celibacy, 248
Psychiatry, 442
Psychopathic inferiority, 302
Ptolemies, 206
Public charities association, 168
Punishment, 192
Punitive purpose, 192
Puritan, 298
Pyle, W. H., 287
Q
Quadruplets, Fig. I
Quaker families, 118, 144
Quakers, English, 411
R
Rabaud, E., 73
Rabbits, 45
Race betterment conference, first, 1
Race suicide, 257
Racial poisons, 48, 61, 63, 338, Fig. 7
Radot, R. V., 333
Rapists, 193
Recessive, 433, 442
Reconstruction period, 325
Redfield, C. L., 40, 421, 422, 423
Refraction, 59
Regression, 112, 442
Reid, G. A., 50, 125, 129
Religion and eugenics, 393
Remote ancestors, 338
Research fellowship, 153
Reserve, 251
Restriction, methods of, 184
Restrictive eugenics, 175, 184
Retrogression, 42
Revolutionary war, 426
Reward and punishment, 395
Rhode Island, 261
Rice, J. M., 95
Richmond, Va., 288
Riis, J., 1
Roman catholic church, 273
Roman republic, 284
Rome custodial asylum, 186
Roosevelt, T., 308
Ross, E. A., X, 301
Roumanians, 299, 311, 427
Round-headed type, 427
Rousseau, J. J., 75
Royal families, 17, 20, 118, 410
Rubin, von Gruber and, 204
Ruskin, 342
Russell Sage Foundation, 186
Russia, 137, 302, 325
Russian Jews, 427
Russians, 259, 302, 311, 427
Russo-Hebrew, 302
Russo-Japanese war, 321
Ruthenians, 311
S
Sacerdotal celibacy, 222
St. Louis, 154
St. Paul, public schools of, 372
Salpingectomy, 185
San Domingo, 289
Save the babies propaganda, 273, 412
Saxon, 426
Scandinavia, 299
Scandinavian, 311
Schönberg, Berlin, 382
School acquaintance, 234
Schuster, E., 93, 153, 435
Scope of eugenics, 152
Scotch, 259, 311
Scotland, 237
Scrub, 229
Seashore, C. E., 343
Segregation, 88, 185, 430, 442
Selection, 442
Selection, natural, 148
Selective conscription, 320
Self-repression, 251
Sewall, S. E., 153
Sex determination, 347
Sex equality, 379
Sex ethics, 252
Sex histories, 252
Sex hygiene movement, 385
Sex hygienists, 154
Sex-limited, 442
Sex-linked, 442
Sex-linked characters, 433
Sexual perverts, 193
Sexual selection, 136, 215, 262, 325, 442
Sexual variety, 247
Shepherd's purse, 104
Shinn, M. W., 243
Short-fingerness, 102
Shorthorn cattle, 423
Short-sightedness, 12
Shull, G. H., 104
Sibs, 202
Sidis, B., 86
Simpson, Q. V., Fig. 20
Single tax, 353
Sing Sing, 182
Sixty family, 168
Slavs, 299, 304
Smith's island, 206
Smith, M. R., 241, 265
Snow, E. C., 121, 413
Social status, 229
Socialism, 362
Solvay Institut, 155
Soma, 443
Somerset parish, Bermuda, 205
South Atlantic, 358
South Carolina, 187
South Dakota, 208, 296
South Italians, 427
South Slavs, 302
Southern United States, 291, 325
Southwestern state normal school, 217
Spain, 19, 137
Spanish, 324
Spanish conquest, 131
Spanish wells, 203
Spartans, 171
Spencer, H., 33, 34, 35, 41, 136, 165, 348
Spermatozoa, 45
Spirochæte, 62
Sprague, R. J., 240, 253, 255, 262
Standards of education, 275
Stanford University, 245
Starch, D., 21
State Board of Charities of New York, 435
Station for Experimental Evolution, 100
Sterilization, 185
Stetson, G. R., 286
Stevenson, R. L., 131, 301
Stiles, C. W., 291
Stockard, C. R., 44, 45, 47
Strong, A. C., 287
Stuart line, 19
Sturge, M. D., 55
Sturtevant, A. H., 101
Subordination of women, 362
Substitution tests, 288
Superficial characteristics, 227
Superior, marriage rate of, 237
Superiority of eldest, 344
Sweden, 138, 155
Swedes, 259
Switzerland, 56, 138, 155
Symphalangism, 433, Fig. 17
Syphilis, 63
Syphilitics, 193
Syracuse University, 245
Syrians, 299, 302
T
Taboo, 222, 297
Tail-male line, 331
Talent, hereditary, 151
Tarbell, I. M., 333
Tasmania, 131, 132
Taxation, 352
Taylor, J. H., Figs. 22, 25
Telegony, 73
Ten commandments, 394
Tennessee, 187
Terman, L. M., 106
Teutonic, 426
Teutonic nations, 52
Texas, 202
Theism, 398
Theistic religion, 395
Theognis of Megara, 150
Therapeutic, 192
Thirty Years' war, 326
Thompson, J. A., 29, 34, 435
Thorndike, E. L., 10, 11, 21, 76, 79, 90, 91, 373
Threadworn, 7
Tobacco, 45, 63
Todde, C., 45
Trades unionism, 388
Training school of Vineland, N. J., 188
Trait, 443
Transmissibility, 38
Tropical fevers, 133
Tropics, 35
Truro, 206
Tuberculosis, 57, 124, 199, 302
Turkey, 137
Turkish, 311
Turner, J. M. W., 68, 342
Turpitude, moral, 194
Twins, 90, Figs. 24, 25
U
Unfitness, 121
Unit-character, 443
United States, 16, 24, 137, 155, 289, 291, 407
U. S. public health service, 303
University of London, 153
University of Pittsburgh, 216
Unlike, marriage of, 212
Uruguay, 325
Use and disuse, 38
Useful works of reference, 435
Utah, 187, 208
Uterine infection, 38
V
Vagrants, 302
Variation, 443
Variate difference correlation, 121
Vasectomy, 184
Vassar College, 240
Vedder, E. B., 387
Veblen, T., 228
Venereal diseases, 248, 251
Venereal infection, 386
Vermont, 326
Vestigial, 443
Victor Emmanuel, 19
Villard, O. G., 294
Vineland, N. J., 71
Vineyard, Martha's, 154
Virginia, 326
Vision, 59
Vocational guidance, 371
Vocational training, 371
Voisin, 206
Volta bureau, 154
W
Wales, 122, 138
Wallin, J. E. W., 188
Walter, H. E., 435
War, 318
Warne, F. J., 304
Washington, 192, 208
Washington, D. C., 154, 233, 261, 286
Washington, G., 337
Washington Seminary, 242
Weakness, matings involving, 200
Webb, S., 269
Wedgewood, E., 208
Weismann, A., 25, 26, 44, 431
Weldon, W. F. R., 99, 118
Wellesley College, 235, 239, 242, 262, 263
Wellesley scholarships, 262
Welsh, 259, 311
West, B., 342
West, J., 132
West north central states, 358
West south central states, 358
West Virginia, 187
Westergaard, H., 57
Wheat, 104
Whetham, W. C. D., 435, 436
White slavery, 193
Whitman, C. O., 348
Who's Who, 246
Willcox, W. F., 269
Williams, W., 303
William the Conqueror, 338
William of Occam, 93
William of Orange, 19
William the Silent, 19
Wilson, J. A., 13
Wilson, W., 310
Wisconsin, 172, 194
Wisconsin, University of, 45, 63, 244
Woman suffrage, 380
Woman's colleges, 383
Woods, A. W., 334
Woods, E. B., 372, 373
Woods, F. A., 3, 17, 18, 19, 89, 144, 260, 327, 341, 373
Wright, L. E., 314
Wright, S., vi., 433
Y
Yale College, 245, 265, 266
Yerkes, R. M., 87, 88
Young Men's Christian Association, 155, 235, 336
Young Peoples Society of Christian Endeavor, 234
Young Women's Christian Association, 235
Yule, G. U., 144
Z
Zero Family, 168
Zygote, 26, 443
Zymotic, 443
Zulus, 284
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES
[1] See Woods, Frederick Adams, "Laws of Diminishing Environmental
Influences," _Popular Science Monthly_, April, 1910, pp. 313-336;
Huxley, J. S., _The Individual in the Animal Kingdom_, Cambridge and New
York, 1912. Pike, F. H., and Scott, E. L., "The Significance of Certain
Internal Conditions of the Organism in Organic Evolution," _American
Naturalist_, Vol. XLIX, pp. 321-359, June, 1915.
[2] There is one line of experiment which is simple and striking enough
to deserve mention--namely, ovarian transplantation. A description of
this is given in Appendix A.
[3] Galton, Francis, _Inquiries into Human Faculty_, 1907 edition, pp.
153-173. This volume of Galton's, which was first published in 1883, has
been reissued in Everyman's Library, and should be read by all
eugenists.
[4] What is said here refers to positive correlations, which are the
only kind involved in this problem. Correlations may also be negative,
lying between 0 and -1; for instance, if we measured the correlation
between a man's lack of appetite and the time that had elapsed since his
last meal, we would have to express it by a negative fraction, the minus
sign showing that the greater his satiety, the less would be the time
since his repast. The best introduction to correlations is Elderton's
_Primer of Statistics_ (London, 1912).
[5] Dr. Thorndike's careful measurements showed that it is impossible to
draw a hard and fast line between identical twins and ordinary twins.
There is no question as to the existence of the two kinds, but the
ordinary twins may happen to be so nearly alike as to resemble identical
twins. Accordingly, mere appearance is not a safe criterion of the
identity of twins. His researches were published in the _Archives of
Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods_, No. 1, New York, 1905.
[6] _A First Study of the Inheritance of Vision and the Relative
Influence of Heredity and Environment on Sight._ By Amy Barrington and
Karl Pearson. Eugenics Laboratory (London), Memoir Series V.
[7] Dr. James Alexander Wilson, assistant surgeon of the Opthalmic
Institute, Glasgow, published an analysis of 1,500 cases of myopia in
the _British Medical Journal_, p. 395, August 29, 1914. His methods are
not above criticism, and too much importance should not be attached to
his results, which show that in 58% of the cases heredity can be
credited with the myopia of the patient. In 12% of the cases it was due
to inflammation of the cornea (keratitis) while in the remaining 30% no
hereditary influence could be proved, but various reasons made him feel
certain that in many cases it existed. The distribution of myopia by
trades and professions among his patients is suggestive: 65% of the
cases among school children showed myopic heredity; 63% among housewives
and domestic servants; 68% among shop and factory works; 60% among
clerks and typists; 60% among laborers and miners. If environment really
played an active part, one would not expect to find this similarity in
percentages between laborers and clerks, between housewives and
schoolteachers, etc.
[8] _The Influence of Unfavourable Home Environment and Defective
Physique on the Intelligence of School Children._ By David Heron.
Eugenics Laboratory (London), Memoir Series No. VIII.
[9] _Hereditary Genius; an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences._
London, 1869.
[10] Woods, Frederick Adams, "Heredity and the Hall of Fame," _Popular
Science Monthly_, May, 1913.
[11] Woods, Frederick Adams, _Mental and Moral Heredity in Royalty_, New
York, 1906. See also "Sovereigns and the Supposed Influence of
Opportunity," _Science_, n. s., XXXIX, No. 1016, pp. 902-905, June 19,
1914, where Dr. Woods answers some criticisms of his work.
[12] _Educational Psychology_, Vol. III, p. 306. Starch's results are
also quoted from Thorndike.
[13] Jean Baptiste Lamarck, a French naturalist, born in 1744, was one
of the pioneers in the philosophical study of evolution. The theory
(published in 1809) for which he is best known is as follows: "Changes
in the animal's surroundings are responded to by changes in its habits."
"Any particular habit involves the regular use of some organs and the
disuse of others. Those organs which are used will be developed and
strengthened, those not used diminished and weakened, and the changes so
produced will be transmitted to the offspring, and thus progressive
development of particular organs will go on from generation to
generation." His classical example is the neck of the giraffe, which he
supposes to be long because, for generation after generation, the
animals stretched their necks in order to get the highest leaves from
the trees.
[14] Boas, F., _Changes in Body Form of Descendants of Immigrants_,
1911.
[15] _Civilization and Climate._ By Ellsworth Huntington, Yale
University Press, 1916.
[16] _American Naturalist_, L., pp. 65-89, 144-178, Feb. and Mar., 1916.
[17] _Proc. Am. Philos. Soc._ LV, pp. 243-259, 1916.
[18] Dr. Reid is the author who has most effectively called attention to
this relation between alcohol and natural selection. Those interested
will find a full treatment in his books, _The Present Evolution of Man_,
_The Laws of Heredity_, and _The Principles of Heredity_.
[19] _Principles of Psychology_, ii, p. 543.
[20] Leon J. Cole points out that this may be due in considerable part
to less voluntary restriction of offspring on the part of those who are
often under the influence of alcohol.
[21] For a review of the statistical problems involved, see Karl
Pearson. An attempt to correct some of the misstatements made by Sir
Victor Horsley, F. R. S., F. R. C. S., and Mary D. Sturge, M. D., in
their criticisms of the Galton Laboratory Memoir: _First Study of the
Influence of Parental Alcoholism_, etc.; and Professor Pearson's various
popular lectures, also _A Second Study of the Influence of Parental
Alcoholism on the Physique and Intelligence of Offspring_. By Karl
Pearson and Ethel M. Elderton. Eugenics Laboratory Memoir Series XIII.
[22] _A First Study of the Influence of Parental Alcoholism on the
Physique and Intelligence of Offspring._ By Ethel M. Elderton and Karl
Pearson. Eugenics Laboratory Memoir Series X. Harald Westergaard, who
reëxamined the Elderton-Pearson data, concludes that considerable
importance is to be attached to the selective action of alcohol, the
weaklings in the alcoholic families having been weeded out early in
life.
[23] Prohibition would have some _indirect_ eugenic effects, which will
be discussed in Chapter XVIII.
[24] Chapter XXX, verses 31-43. A knowledge of the pedigree of Laban's
cattle would undoubtedly explain where the stripes came from. It is
interesting to note how this idea persists: a correspondent has recently
sent an account of seven striped lambs born after their mothers had seen
a striped skunk. The actual explanation is doubtless that suggested by
Heller in the _Journal of Heredity_, VI, 480 (October, 1915), that a
stripe is part of the ancestral coat pattern of the sheep, and appears
from time to time because of reversion.
[25] Such a skin affection, known as icthyosis, xerosis or xeroderma, is
usually due to heredity. Davenport says it "is especially apt to be
found in families in which consanguineous marriages occur and this fact,
together with the pedigrees [which he studied], suggests that it is due
to the absence of some factor that controls the process of cornification
of the skin. On this hypothesis a normal person who belongs to an
affected family may marry into a normal family with impunity, but cousin
marriages are to be avoided." See Davenport, C. B., _Heredity in
Relation to Eugenics_, p. 134. New York, 1911.
[26] Its eugenics is to be effected through the mental exertion of
mothers. And we have lately been in correspondence with a western
attorney who is endeavoring to form an association of persons who will
agree to be the parents of "willed" children. By this means, he has
calculated (and sends a chart to prove it) that it will require only
four generations to produce the Superman.
[27] _Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, Vol. I, p. 302, New York,
1897. The letter is dated 1844.
[28] Goddard, H. H., _Feeble-mindedness_, p. 359. New York, the
Macmillan Company, 1914.
[29] For a review of the evidence consult an article on "Telegony" by
Dr. Etienne Rabaud in the _Journal of Heredity_, Vol. V, No. 9, pp.
389-400; September, 1914.
[30] It will be recalled that the coefficient of correlation measures
the resemblance between two variables on a scale between 0 and-1 or +1.
If the correlation is zero, there is no constant relation; if it is
unity, any change in one must result in a determinate change in the
other; if it is 0.5, it means that when one of the variables deviates
from the mean of its class by a given amount, the other variable will
deviate from the mean of its class by 50% of that amount (each deviation
being measured in terms of the variability of its own class, in order
that they may be properly comparable.)
[31] Sidis, Boris, M.A., Ph.D., M.D., "Neurosis and Eugenics," _Medical
Review of_ _Reviews_, Vol. XXI, No. 10, pp. 587-594, New York, October,
1915. A psychologist who writes of "some miraculous germ-plasm
(chromatin) with wonderful dominant 'units' (Chromosomes)" is hardly a
competent critic of the facts of heredity.
[32] In a letter to the _Journal of Heredity_, under date of August 4,
1916.
[33] Galton, Francis, _Inquiries into Human Faculty_, p. 167, London,
1907.
[34] Woods, Frederick Adams, _Heredity in Royalty_, New York, 1906.
[35] _Op. cit._, pp. 170-171.
[36] Thorndike, E. L., "Measurements of Twins," _Arch. of Philos.,
Psych. and Sci. Methods_, No. 1, New York, 1905; summarized in his
_Educational Psychology_, Vol. III, pp. 247-251, New York, 1914.
Measured on a scale where 1 = identity, he found that twins showed a
resemblance to each other of about .75, while ordinary brothers of about
the same age resembled each other to the extent of about .50 only. The
resemblance was approximately the same in both physical and mental
traits.
[37] The quotations in this and the following paragraph are from
_Thorndike's Educational Psychology_, pp. 304-305, Vol. III.
[38] _Biometrika_, Vol. III, p. 156.
[39] "William of Occam's Razor" is the canon of logic which declares
that it is unwise to seek for several causes of an effect, if a single
cause is adequate to account for it.
[40] Schuster, Edgar, _Eugenics_, pp. 150-163, London, 1913.
[41] _Educational Psychology_ (1914), Vol. III, p. 235.
[42] Cobb, Margaret V., _Journal of Educational Psychology_, viii, pp.
1-20, Jan., 1917.
[43] This is not true of the small English school of biometrists,
founded by Sir Francis Galton, W. F. R. Weldon and Karl Pearson, and now
led by the latter. It has throughout denied or minified Mendelian
results, and depended on the treatment of inheritance by a study of
correlations. With the progress of Mendelian research, biometric methods
must be supplemented with pedigree studies. In human heredity, on the
other hand, because of the great difficulties attendant upon an
application of Mendelian methods, the biometric mode of attack is still
the most useful, and has been largely used in the present book. It has
been often supposed that the methods of the two schools (biometry and
Mendelism) are antagonistic. They are rather supplementary, each being
valuable in cases where the other is less applicable. See Pearl,
Raymond, _Modes of Research in Genetics_, p. 182, New York, 1915
[44] Few people realize what large numbers of plants and animals have
been bred for experimental purposes during the last decade; W. E. Castle
of Bussey Institution, Forest Hills, Mass., has bred not less than
45,000 rats. In the study of a single character, the endosperm of maize,
nearly 100,000 pedigreed seeds have been examined by different students.
Workers at the University of California have tabulated more than 10,000
measurements on flower size alone, in tobacco hybrids. T. H. Morgan and
his associates at Columbia University have bred and studied more than
half a million fruit flies, and J. Arthur Harris has handled more than
600,000 bean-plants at the Carnegie Institution's Station for
Experimental Evolution, Cold Spring Harbor, L. I. While facts of human
heredity, and of inheritance in large mammals generally, are often
grounded on scanty evidence, it must not be thought that the fundamental
generalizations of heredity are based on insufficient data.
[45] For a brief account of Mendelism, see Appendix D.
[46] Of course these factors are not of equal importance; some of them
produce large changes and some, as far as can be told, are of minor
significance. The factors, moreover, undergo large changes from time to
time, thus producing mutations; and it is probable small changes as
well, the evidence for which requires greater refinements of method than
is usual among those using the pedigree method.
[47] _A Critique of the Theory of Evolution_, by Thomas Hunt Morgan,
professor of experimental zoölogy in Columbia University. Princeton
University Press, 1916. This book gives the best popular account of the
studies of heredity in Drosophila. The advanced student will find _The
Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity_ (New York, 1915), by Morgan,
Sturtevant, Müller, and Bridges, indispensable, but it is beyond the
comprehension of most beginners.
[48] "On the Inheritance of Some Characters in Wheat," A. and G. Howard,
_Mem. Dep. of Agr. India_, V: 1-46, 1912. This careful and important
work has never received the recognition it deserves, apparently because
few geneticists have seen it. While the multiple factors in wheat seem
to be different, those reported by East and Shull appear to be merely
duplicates.
[49] "The Nature of Mendelian Units." By G. N. Collins, _Journal of
Heredity_, V: 425 ff., Oct., 1914.
[50] Dr. Castle, reviewing Dr. Goddard's work (_Journal of Abnormal
Psychology_, Aug.-Sept., 1915) concludes that feeble-mindedness is to be
explained as a case of multiple allelomorphs. The evidence is inadequate
to prove this, and proof would be, in fact, almost impossible, because
of the difficulty of determining just what the segregation ratios are.
[51] In strict accuracy, the law of ancestral inheritance must be
described as giving means of determining the probable deviation of any
individual from the mean of his own generation, when the deviations of
some or all of his ancestry from the types of their respective
generations are known. It presupposes (1) no assortative mating, (2) no
inbreeding and (3) no selection. Galton's own formula, which supposed
that the parents contributed 1/2, the grandparents 1/4, the
great-grandparents 1/8, the next generation 1/16, and so on, is of value
now only historically, or to illustrate to a layman the fact that he
inherits from his whole ancestry, not from his parents alone.
[52] Johnson, Roswell H., "The Malthusian Principle and Natural
Selection," _American Naturalist_, XLVI (1912), pp. 372-376.
[53] Karl Pearson, _The Groundwork of Eugenics_, p. 25, London, 1912.
[54] "Let _p_ be the chance of death from a random, not a constitutional
source, then 1-_p_ is the chance of a selective death in a parent and
1-_p_ again of a selective death in the case of an offspring, then
(1-_p_)^2 must equal about 1/3, = .36, more exactly 'therefore' 1-_p_ =
.6 and _p_ = .40. In other words, 60% of the deaths _are selective_."
[55] _Archiv f. Rassen-u. Gesellschafts Biologie_, VI (1909), pp. 33-43.
[56] Snow, E. C., _On the Intensity of Natural Selection in Man_,
London, 1911.
[57] _Biometrika_, Vol. X, pp. 488-506, London, May, 1915.
[58] Pearson, Karl, _Tuberculosis, Heredity and Environment_, London,
1912. Among the most careful contributions to the problem of
tuberculosis are those of Charles Goring (_On the Inheritance of the
Diathesis of Phthisis and Insanity_, London, 1910), Ernest G. Pope (_A
Second Study of the Statistics of Pulmonary Tuberculosis_, London, Dulau
& Co.), and W. P. Elderton and S. J. Perry (_A Third Study of the
Statistics of Pulmonary Tuberculosis. The Mortality of the Tuberculous
and Sanatorium Treatment_), London, 1909. See also our discussion in
Chapter I.
[59] While most physicians lay too great stress on the factor of
infection, this mistake is by no means universal. Maurice Fishberg, for
example (quoted in the _Medical Review of Reviews_, XXII, 8, August,
1916) states: "For many years the writer was physician to a charitable
society, having under his care annually 800 to 1,000 consumptives who
lived in poverty and want, in overcrowded tenements, having all
opportunities to infect their consorts; in fact most of the consumptives
shared their bed with their healthy consorts. Still, very few cases were
met with in which tuberculosis was found in both the husband and wife.
Widows, whose husbands died from phthisis, were only rarely seen to
develop the disease."
[60] In 9th Trans. of _American Association for the Study and Prevention
of Tuberculosis_, p. 117.
[61] _Geographical and Historical Pathology_ (New Sydenham Society,
1883), Vol. III, p. 266.
[62] Reid, G. Archdall, _The Present Evolution of Man_, and _The Laws of
Heredity_.
[63] _In the South Seas,_ p. 27; quoted by G. Archdall Reid, _The
Principles of Heredity_ (New York, 1905), p. 183. Dr. Reid has discussed
the rôle of disease and alcohol on the modern evolution of man more
fully than any other writer.
[64] See, for example, John West's _History of Tasmania_, Vol. II,
Launceston, Tasmania, 1852.
[65] See Hollingworth, H. L., _Vocational Psychology_, p. 170, New York,
1916.
[66] Net increase here refers only to the first year of life, and was
computed by deducting the deaths under one year, in a ward, from the
number of births in the same ward for the same year. For details of this
study of the Pittsburgh vital statistics, see the _Journal of Heredity_,
Vol. VIII, pp. 178-183 (April, 1917).
[67] Quoted from Newsholme and Stevenson, _The Decline of Human
Fertility_, London, 1906.
[68] Heron, David, _On the Relation of Fertility in Man to Social
Status_, London, 1906. The account is quoted from Schuster, Edgar,
_Eugenics_, pp. 220-221, London, 1913.
[69] _Ztschft. f. Sozialwissenschaft,_ VII (1904), pp. 1 ff.
[70] Two of the best known of these tribes are the "Jukes" and "Nams."
"An analysis of the figures of the Jukes in regard to the birth-rate
shows that of a total of 403 married Juke women, 330 reproduced one or
more children and 73 were barren. The average fecundity, counting those
who are barren, is 3.526 children per female. The 330 women having
children have an average fecundity of 4.306 as compared with that of
4.025, based on 120 reproducing women in the Nam family."--Estabrook, A.
H., _The Jukes in 1915_, p. 51, Washington, Carnegie Institution, 1916.
[71] Woods, Frederick Adams, _Heredity in Royalty_, New York, 1906.
[72] Beeton, Miss M., Yule, G.U., and Pearson, Karl, _On the Correlation
between Duration of Life and the Number of Offspring_, Proc. R. S.
London, 67 (1900), pp. 159-171. The material consisted of English and
American Quaker families. Dr. Bell's work is based on old American
families, and has not yet been published.
[73] The entire field of race betterment and social improvement is
divided between _eugenics_, which considers only germinal or heritable
changes in the race; and _euthenics_, which deals with improvement in
the individual, and in his environment. Of course, no sharp line can be
drawn between the two spheres, each one having many indirect effects on
the other. It is important to note, however, that any change in the
individual during his prenatal life is euthenic, not eugenic. Therefore,
contrary to the popular idea of the case, the "Better Babies" movement,
the agitation for proper care of expectant mothers, and the like, are
not _directly_ a part of eugenics. The moment of conception is the point
at which eugenics gives place to euthenics. Eugenics is therefore the
_fundamental_ method of human progress, euthenics the _secondary_ one;
their relations will be further considered in the last chapter of this
book.
[74] The clan has now reached its ninth generation and its present
status has been exhaustively studied by A. H. Estabrook (_The Jukes in
1915_: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1916). He enumerates 2,820
individuals, of whom half are still living. In the early 80's they left
their original home and are now scattered all over the country. The
change in environment has enabled some of them to rise to a higher
level, but on the whole, says C. B. Davenport in a preface to
Estabrook's book, they "still show the same feeble-mindedness,
indolence, licentiousness and dishonesty, even when not handicapped by
the associations of their bad family name and despite the fact of being
surrounded by better social conditions." Estabrook says the clan might
have been exterminated by preventing the reproduction of its members,
and that the nation would thereby have saved about $2,500,000. It is
interesting to note that "out of approximately 600 living feeble-minded
and epileptic Jukes, there are only three now in custodial care."
[75] Key, Dr. Wilhelmina E., _Feeble-minded Citizens in Pennsylvania_,
pp. 11, 12, Philadelphia, Public Charities Assn., 1915.
[76] The most recent extensive study of this point is A. H. Estabrook's
_The Jukes in 1915_ (Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1916). The
Jukes migrated from their original home, in the mountains of New York, a
generation ago, and are now scattered all over the country. Estabrook
tried to learn, at first hand, whether they had improved as the result
of new environments, and free from the handicap of their name, which for
their new neighbors had no bad associations. In general, his findings
seem to warrant the conclusion that a changed environment in itself was
of little benefit. Such improvement as occurred in the tribe was rather
due to marriage with better stock; marriages of this kind were made more
possible by the new environment, but the tendency to assortative mating
restricted them. It is further to be noted that while such marriages may
be good for the Juke family, they are bad for the nation as a whole,
because they tend to scatter anti-social traits.
[77] Key, _op. cit._, p. 7.
[78] Figures furnished (September, 1917) by the National Committee for
Mental Hygiene, 50 Union Square, New York City.
[79] This applies even to such an acute thinker as John Stuart Mill,
whose ideas were formed in the pre-Darwinian epoch, and whose works must
now be accepted with great reserve. Darwin was quite right in saying,
"The ignoring of all transmitted mental qualities will, as it seems to
me, be hereafter judged as a most serious blemish in the works of Mr.
Mill." (_Descent of Man_, p. _98_.) A quotation from the _Principles of
Political Economy_ (Vol. 1, p. 389) will give an idea of Mr. Mill's
point of view: "Of all the vulgar methods of escaping from the effects
of social and moral influences on the mind, the most vulgar is that of
attributing diversities of conduct and character to inherent natural
differences"!
[80] _Feeble-mindedness, its Causes and Consequences._ By H. H. Goddard,
director of the Research Laboratory of the Training School at Vineland,
New Jersey, for feeble-minded boys and girls. New York, The Macmillan
Co., 1914.
[81] Probably the word now covers a congeries of defects, some of which
may be non-germinal. Epilepsy is so very generally found associated with
various other congenital defects, that action should not be delayed.
[82] Goddard, H. H., _Feeble-Mindedness_, pp. 14-16.
[83] See the recent studies of C. B. Davenport, particularly _The Feebly
Inhibited_, Washington, Carnegie Institution, 1915.
[84] In this connection diagnosis is naturally of the utmost importance.
The recent action of Chicago, New York, Boston, and other cities, in
establishing psychological clinics for the examination of offenders is a
great step in advance. These clinics should be attached to the police
department, as in New York, not merely to the courts, and should pass on
offenders before, not after, trial and commitment.
[85] As a result of psychiatric study of the inmates of Sing Sing in
1916, it was said that two-thirds of them showed some mental defect.
Examination of 100 convicts selected at random in the Massachusetts
State Prison showed that 29% were feeble-minded and 11% borderline
cases. The highest percentage of mental defectives was found among
criminals serving sentence for murder in the second degree,
manslaughter, burglary and robbery. (Rossy, C. S., in _State Board of
Insanity Bull._, Boston, Nov., 1915). Paul M. Bowers told the 1916
meeting of the American Prison Association of his study of 100
recidivists, each of whom had been convicted not fewer than four times.
Of these 12 were insane, 23 feeble-minded and 10 epileptic, and in each
case Dr. Bowers said the mental defect bore a direct causal relation to
the crime committed. Such studies argue for the need of a little
elementary biology in the administration of justice.
[86] For a sane and cautious discussion of the subject see Wallin, J. E.
W., "A Program for the State Care of the Feeble-Minded and Epileptic,"
_School and Society_, IV, pp. 724-731, New York, Nov. 11, 1916.
[87] Johnstone, E. R., "Waste Land Plus Waste Humanity," _Training
School Bulletin_, XI, pp. 60-63, Vineland, N. J., June, 1914.
[88] "Report of the Committee on the Sterilization of Criminals,"
_Journal of the Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology_, September,
1916. Of the operations mentioned, 634 are said to have been performed
on insane persons and one on a criminal.
[89] Guyer, M. F., Wisconsin Eugenics Legislation. Trans. Amer. Asso.
Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality, 1917, pp. 92-97.
[90] Eugenics Record Office, Bulletin No. 10 A, _The Scope of the
Committee's Work_, Cold Spring Harbor, L. I., Feb., 1914; No. 10 B, _The
Legal, Legislative and Administrative Aspects of Sterilization_, same
date.
[91] Eugenics Record Office Bulletin No. 9: _State Laws Limiting
Marriage Selection Examined in the Light of Eugenics_. Cold Spring
Harbor, L. I., June, 1913.
[92] Penrose, Clement A., _Sanitary Conditions in the Bahama Islands_,
Geographical Society of Baltimore, 1905.
[93] See von. Gruber and Rüdin, _Fortpflanzung, Vererbung,
Rassenhygiene_, p. 169, München, 1911.
[94] Davenport, Charles B., _Heredity in Relation to Eugenics_, pp. 184
ff., New York, 1911.
[95] Harris, J. Arthur, "Assortative Mating in Man," _Popular Science
Monthly_, LXXX, pp. 476-493, May, 1912. The most important studies on
the subject are cited by Dr. Harris.
[96] An interesting and critical treatment of sexual selection is given
by Vernon L. Kellogg in _Darwinism To-day_, pp. 106-128 (New York,
1908). Darwin's own discussion (_The Descent of Man_) is still very well
worth reading, if the reader is on his guard. The best general treatment
of the theory of sexual selection, especially as it applies to man, is
in chapter XI of Karl Pearson's _Grammar of Science_ (2d ed., London,
1900).
[97] Diffloth, Paul, _Le Fin de L'Enigme_, Paris, 1907.
[98] The best popular yet scientific treatment of the subject we have
seen is _The Dynamic of Manhood_, a book recently written by Luther H.
Gulick for the Young Men's Christian Association (New York, The
Association Press, 1917).
[99] The sympathy which we mentioned as the beginning of the
hypothetical love affair does lead to a partial identity of will, it is
true; but there is often too little in common between the man and woman
to make this identity at all complete. As Karl Pearson points out, it is
almost essential to a successful marriage that two people have sympathy
with each other's aims and a considerable degree of similarity in
habits. If such a bond is lacking, the bond of sympathy aroused by some
trivial circumstance will not be sufficient to keep the marriage from
shipwreck. The occasional altruism of young men who marry inferior girls
because they "feel sorry for them" is not praiseworthy.
[100] Ellis, Havelock, _The Task of Social Hygiene_, pp. 208-209,
Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1912.
[101] G. Stanley Hall (_Adolescence_, II, 113) found the following
points, in order, specified as most admired in the other sex by young
men and women in their teens: eyes, hair, stature and size, feet,
eyebrows, complexion, cheeks, form of head, throat, ears, chin, hands,
neck, nose. The voice was highly specialized and much preferred. The
principal dislikes, in order, were: prominent or deep-set eyes, fullness
of neck, ears that stand out, eyebrows that meet, broad and long feet,
high cheek-bones, light eyes, large nose, small stature, long neck or
teeth, bushy brows, pimples, red hair. An interesting study of some of
the trivial traits of manner which may be handicaps in sexual selection
is published by Iva Lowther Peters in the _Pedagogical Seminary_, XXIII,
No. 4, pp. 550-570, Dec., 1916.
[102] It has been suggested that the same goal would be reached if a
young man before marriage would take out a life insurance policy in the
name of his bride. The suggestion has many good points.
[103] The correlation between fecundity and longevity which Karl Pearson
has demonstrated gives longevity another great advantage as a standard
in sexual selection. See _Proc. Royal Soc. London_, Vol. 67, p. 159.
[104] It is objected that if the long-lived marry each other, the
short-lived will also marry each other and thus the race will gain no
more than it loses. The reply to this is that the short-lived will marry
in fewer numbers, as some of them die prematurely; that they will have
fewer children; and that these children in turn will tend to die young.
Thus the short-lived strains will gradually run out, while the
long-lived strains are disseminated.
[105] Hankins, F. H., "The Declining Birth-Rate," _Journal of Heredity_,
V, pp. 36-39, August, 1914.
[106] Smith, Mary Roberts, "Statistics of College and Non-college
Women," Quarterly Pubs. of the _American Statistical Assn._, VII, p. 1
ff., 1900.
[107] "Statistics of Eminent Women," _Pop. Sci. Mo._, June, 1913.
[108] "Marriage of College Women," _Century Magazine_, Oct., 1895.
[109] Blumer, J. O., in _Journal of Heredity_, VIII, p. 217, May, 1917.
[110] The statistics of this and the following middle west universities
were presented by Paul Popenoe in the _Journal of Heredity_, VIII, pp.
43-45.
[111] _Harvard Graduates' Magazine_, XXV, No. 97, pp. 25-34, September,
1916.
[112] Popenoe, Paul, "Stanford's Marriage-Rate," _Journal of Heredity_,
VIII, p. 170-173.
[113] Banker, Howard J., "Co-education and Eugenics," _Journal of
Heredity_, VIII, pp. 208-214, May, 1917.
[114] _Eugenics: Twelve University Lectures_, p. 9, New York, 1914.
[115] Cf. Gould, Miriam C., "The Psychological Influence upon Adolescent
Girls of the Knowledge of Prostitution and Venereal Disease," _Social
Hygiene_, Vol. II, pp. 191-207, April, 1916. This interesting and
important study of the reactions of 50 girls reveals that present
methods or indifference to the need of reasonable methods of teaching
sex-hygiene are responsible for "a large percentage of harmful results,
such as conditions bordering on neurasthenia, melancholia, pessimism and
sex antagonism."
[116] Gallichan, Walter M., _The Great Unmarried_, New York, 1916.
[117] Sprague, Robert J., "Education and Race Suicide," _Journal of
Heredity_, Vol. VI, pp. 158 ff., April, 1915. Many of the statistics of
women's colleges, cited in the first part of this chapter, are from Dr.
Sprague's paper.
[118] Odin calculated that 16% of the eminent men of France had at least
one relative who was in some way eminent; that 22% of the men of real
talent had such relation; and that among the geniuses the percentage
rose to 40. There are thus two chances out of five that a man of genius
will have an eminent relative; for a man picked at random from the
population the chance is one in several thousand. See Odin, A., _La
Genése des Grands Hommes_, Vol. I, p. 432 and Vol. II, Tableau xii,
Lausanne, 1895.
[119] Crum, Frederick S., "The Decadence of the Native American Stock,"
_Quarterly Pubs. Am. Statistical Assn._, XIV, n. s. 107, pp. 215-223,
Sept., 1914.
[120] Kuczynski, R. R., _Quarterly Journ. of Economics_, Nov. 1901, and
Feb., 1902.
[121] Nearing, Scott, "The Younger Generation of American Genius," _The
Scientific Monthly_, II, pp. 48-61, Jan., 1916. "Geographical
Distribution of American Genius," _Popular Science Monthly_, II, August,
1914.
[122] In the chapter on Sexual Selection it was shown that the Normal
School girls who stood highest in their classes married earliest. This
may seem a contradiction of the Wellesley marriage rates in this table.
The explanation probably is that while mental superiority is itself
attractive in a mate, there are interferences built up in the collegiate
life.
[123] Banker, Howard J., "Co-education and Eugenics," _Journal of
Heredity_, VIII, pp. 208-214, May, 1917.
[124] Hill, Joseph A., "Comparative Fecundity of Women of Native and
Foreign Parentage," _Quarterly Pubs. Amer. Statistical Assn._, XIII,
583-604.
[125] See Willcox, W. F., "Fewer Births and Deaths: What Do They Mean?"
_Journal of Heredity_, VII, pp. 119-128, March, 1916.
[126] The data are published in full by Paul Popenoe in the _Journal of
Heredity_, October, 1917. It must be noted that, in spite of their small
salaries, the Methodist clergymen marry earlier and have more children
than do other men of equal education and social status, such as the
Harvard and Yale graduates. This difference in marriage and birth-rate
is doubtless to be credited in part to their inherent nature and in part
to the action of religious idealism. It confirms the belief of eugenists
that even under present economic circumstances the birth-rate of the
superior classes might be raised appreciably by a campaign of eugenic
education.
[127] For an official statement of the attitude of the birth-rate of the
Mormon church, see _Journal of Heredity_, VII, pp. 450-451, Oct., 1916.
[128] Mecklin, John M., _Democracy and Race Friction, a Study in Social
Ethics_, New York, 1914. p. 147.
[129] It would be more accurate to say the Nordic race. Other white
races have not uniformly shown this discrimination. The Mediterranean
race in particular has never manifested the same amount of race feeling.
The Arabs have tended to receive the Negro almost on terms of equality,
partly on religious grounds; it seems probable that the decadence of the
Arabs is largely due to their miscegenation.
[130] Mecklin, _op. cit._, p. 147.
[131] Blascoer, Frances, _Colored School Children in New York_, Public
Education Association of the City of New York, 1915. The preface, from
which the quotation is taken, is by Eleanor Hope Johnson, chairman of
the committee on hygiene of school children.
[132] Mecklin, _op. cit._, p. 32.
[133] The Negro's contribution has perhaps been most noteworthy in
music. This does not necessarily show advanced evolution; August
Weismann long ago pointed out that music is a primitive accomplishment.
For an outline of what the Negro race has achieved, particularly in
America, see the _Negro Year Book_, Tuskegee Institute, Ala.
[134] _Social Problems; Their Treatment, Past, Present and Future_, p.
8, London, 1912.
[135] Stetson, G. R., "Memory Tests on Black and White Children,"
_Psych. Rev._, 1897, p. 285. See also MacDonald, A., in _Rep. U. S.
Comm. of Educ.,_ 1897-98.
[136] Mayo, M. J., "The Mental Capacity of the American Negro," _Arch.
of Psych._, No. 28.
[137] Phillips, B. A., "Retardation in the Elementary Schools of
Philadelphia," _Psych. Clinic_, VI, pp. 79-90; "The Binet Tests Applied
to Colored Children," _ibid._, VIII, pp. 190-196.
[138] Strong, A. C., _Ped. Sem._, XX, pp. 485-515.
[139] Pyle, W. H., "The Mind of the Negro Child," _School and Society_,
I, pp. 357-360.
[140] Ferguson, G. O., Jr., "The Psychology of the Negro," _Arch. of
Psych._ No. 36, April, 1916.
[141] Though the Negro is not assimilable, he is here to stay; he should
therefore be helped to develop along his own lines. It is desirable not
to subject him to too severe a competition with whites; yet such
competition, acting as a stimulus, is probably responsible for part of
his rapid progress during the last century, a progress which would not
have been possible in a country where Negroes competed only with each
other. The best way to temper competition is by differentiation of
function, but this principle should not be carried to the extent of
pocketing the Negro in blind-alley occupations where development is
impossible. As mental tests show him to be less suited to literary
education than are the whites, it seems likely that agriculture offers
the best field for him.
[142] This letter, and much of the data regarding the legal status of
Negro-white amalgamation, are from an article by Albert Ernest Jenks in
the _Am. Journ. Sociology_, XXI, 5, pp. 666-679, March, 1916.
[143] A recent readable account of the races of the world is Madison
Grant's _The Passing of the Great Race_ (New York, 1916).
[144] _The Old World in the New._ By E. A. Ross, professor of Sociology
in the University of Wisconsin, New York, 1914.
[145] Cf. Stevenson, Robert Louis, _The Amateur Emigrant_.
[146] Interview with W. Williams, former commissioner of immigration, in
the _New York Herald_, April 13, 1912.
[147] Of the total number of inmates of insane asylums of the entire U.
S. of Jan. 1, 1910, 28.8% were whites of foreign birth, and of the
persons admitted to such institutions during the year 1910, 25.5% were
of this class. Of the total population of the United States in 1910 the
foreign-born whites constituted 14.5%. Special report on the insane,
Census of 1910 (pub. 1914).
[148] _The Tide of Immigration._ By Frank Julian Warne, special expert
on foreign-born population, 13th U. S. Census, New York, 1916.
[149] _Essays in Social Justice._ By Thomas Nixon Carver, professor of
Political Economy in Harvard University, Cambridge, 1915.
[150] Fairchild's and Jenks' opinions are quoted from Warne, Chapter
XVI.
[151] _America and the Orient: A Constructive Policy_, by Rev. Sidney L.
Gulick, Methodist Book Concern. The _American Japanese Problem: a Study
of the Racial Relations of the East and West_, New York, Scribner's.
[152] _Oriental Immigration._ By W. C. Billings, surgeon, U. S. Public
Health Service; Chief Medical Officer, Immigration Service; Angel Island
(San Francisco), Calif., _Journal of Heredity_, Vol. VI (1915), pp.
462-467.
[153] _Assimilation in the Philippines, etc._ By Albert Ernest Jenks,
professor of anthropology in the University of Minnesota. _American
Journal of Sociology_, Vol. XIX (1914), p. 783.
[154] Students of the inheritance of mental and moral traits may be
interested to note that while the ordinary Chinese mestizo in the
Philippines is a man of probity, who has the high regard of his European
business associates, the Ilocanos, supposed descendants of pirates, are
considered rather tricky and dishonest.
[155] An important study of this subject was published by Professor
Vernon L. Kellogg in _Social Hygiene_ (New York), Dec, 1914.
[156] Nasmyth, George, _Social Progress and the Darwinian Theory_, p.
146, New York, 1916. While his book is too partisan, his Chapter III is
well worth reading by those who want to avoid the gross blunders which
militarists and many biologists have made in applying Darwinism to
social progress; it is based on the work of Professor J. Novikov of the
University of Odessa. See also _Headquarters Nights_ by Vernon Kellogg.
[157] Jordan, D. S., and Jordan, H. E., _War's Aftermath_, Boston, 1915.
[158] Jordan, David Starr, _War and the Breed_, p. 164. Boston, 1915.
Chancellor Jordan has long been the foremost exponent of the dysgenic
significance of war, and this book gives an excellent summary of the
problem from his point of view.
[159] See Woods, Frederick Adams, and Baltzly, Alexander, _Is War
Diminishing_? New York, 1916.
[160] See an interesting series of five articles in _The American
Hebrew_, Jan and Feb., 1917.
[161] _Journal of Heredity_, VIII, pp. 277-283, June, 1917.
[162] _The Early Life of Abraham Lincoln_, New York, 1896. For the
Emancipator's maternal line see _Nancy Hanks_, by Caroline Hanks
Hitchcock. New York, 1899.
[163] _The Life of Pasteur_ by his son-in-law, René Vallery Radot,
should be read by every student of biology.
[164] Hollingworth, H. L., _Vocational Psychology_, pp. 212-213, New
York, 1916.
[165] Sir Francis Galton and C. B. Davenport have called attention to
the probable inheritance of artistic ability and lately H. Drinkwater
(_Journal of Genetics_, July, 1916), has attempted to prove that it is
due to a Mendelian unit. The evidence alleged is inadequate to prove
that the trait is inherited in any particular way, but the pedigrees
cited by these three investigators, and the boyhood histories of such
artists as Benjamin West, Giotto, Ruskin and Turner, indicate that an
hereditary basis exists.
[166] The difficulty about accepting such traits as this is that they
are almost impossible of exact definition. The long teaching experience
of Mrs. Evelyn Fletcher-Copp (_Journal of Heredity_, VII, 297-305, July,
1916) suggests that any child of ordinary ability can and will compose
music if properly taught, but of course in different degree.
[167] Seashore, C. E., in _Psychol. Monogs,_ XIII, No. 1, pp. 21-60,
Dec., 1910. See also Fletcher-Copp, _ubi sup._ Mrs. Copp declares that
the gift of "positive pitch" or "absolute pitch," i. e., the ability to
name any sound that is heard, "may be acquired, speaking very
conservatively, by 80% of normal children," if they begin at an early
age. It may be that this discrepancy with Seashore's careful laboratory
tests is due to the fact that the pupils and teachers trained by Mrs.
Copp are a selected lot, to start with.
[168] The contributions on this subject are very widely scattered
through periodical literature. The most important is Karl Pearson's
memoir (1914), reviewed in the _Journal of Heredity_, VI, pp. 332-336,
July, 1915. See also Gini, Corrado, "The Superiority of the Eldest,"
_Journal of Heredity_, VI, 37-39, Jan., 1915.
[169] _Journal of Heredity_, VIII, pp. 299-302, July, 1917.
[170] _Biometrika_, IV, pp. 233-286, London, 1905.
[171] See, for example, _Journal of Heredity_, VIII, pp. 394-396,
September, 1917. A large body of evidence from European sources, bearing
on the relation between various characters of the offspring, and the age
of the parents, was brought together by Corrado Gini in Vol. II,
_Problems in Eugenics_ (London, 1913).
[172] Davenport, Charles B., "The Personality, Heredity and Work of
Charles Otis Whitman," _American Naturalist_, LI, pp. 5-30, Jan., 1917.
[173] Gillette, John M., _Constructive Rural Sociology_, p. 89, New
York, 1916.
[174] Cook, O. F., "Eugenics and Agriculture," _Journal of Heredity_,
VII, pp. 249-254, June, 1916.
[175] Gillette, John M., "A Study in Social Dynamics: A Statistical
Determination of the Rate of Natural Increase and of the Factors
Accounting for the Increase of Population in the United States,"
_Quarterly Publications of the American Statistical Association,_ n. s.
116, Vol. XV, pp. 345-380, December, 1916.
[176] The popular demand for "equality of opportunity" is, if taken
literally, absurd, in the light of the provable inequality of abilities.
What is wanted is more correctly defined as an equal consideration of
all with an _appropriate_ opportunity for each based on his demonstrated
capacities.
[177] _Essays in Social Justice._ By Thomas Nixon Carver, Harvard
University Press, 1915, pp. 168-169.
[178] Answering the question "How Much is a Man Worth?" Professor Carver
states the following axioms:
"The value of a man equals his production minus his consumption."
"His economic success equals his acquisition minus his consumption."
"When his acquisition equals his production then his economic success
equals his value."
"It is the duty of the state to make each man's acquisition equal his
production. That is justice."
Of course, "production" is here used in a broad sense, to mean the real
social value of the services rendered, and not merely the present
exchange value of the services, or the goods produced.
[179] Kornhauser, A. W., "Economic Standing of Parents and the
Intelligence of their Children," _Jour. of Educ. Psychology_, Vol. IX.,
pp. 159-164, March, 1918.
[180] The coefficient of contingency is similar in significance to the
coefficient of correlation, with which readers have already become
familiar. Miss Perrin's study is in _Biometrika_, III (1904), pp.
467-469.
[181] "The Social Waste of Unguided Personal Ability." By Erville B.
Woods, _American Journal of Sociology_, XIX (1913), pp. 358-369.
[182] See also "Eugenics: With Special Reference to Intellect and
Character," by E. L. Thorndike. In _Eugenics: Twelve University
Lectures_, pp. 319-342, New York, 1914.
[183] See U. S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau Publication, No.
7, "Laws Relating to Mothers' Pensions in the United States, Denmark and
New Zealand," Washington, 1914.
[184] _American Journal of Sociology_, Vol. XX, No. 1, pp. 96-103, July,
1914.
[185] According to Captain (now Lt. Col.) E. B. Vedder of the Medical
Corps, U. S. A., 50% of the Negroes of the class applying for enlistment
in the army are syphilitic. He believes that the amount of infection
among Negro women is about the same. (_Therapeutic Gazette_, May 15,
1916.) Venereal disease must, then, play a much more important part than
is generally supposed, in cutting down the birth-rate of the Negro race,
but it would of course be a mistake to suppose that an abnormally low
birth-rate among Negroes is always to be explained on this ground.
Professor Kelly Miller points out (_Scientific Monthly_, June, 1917)
that the birth-rate among college professors at Howard University, the
leading Negro institution for higher education, is only 0.7 of a child
and that the completed families will hardly have more than two children.
He attributes this to (1) the long period of education required of Negro
"intellectuals", (2) the high standard of living required of them, and
(3) the unwillingness of some of them to bring children into the world,
because of the feeling that these children would suffer from race
prejudice.
[186] One can not draw a hard and fast distinction between reason and
instinct in this way, nor deny to animals all ability to reason. We have
simplified the case to make it more graphic. The fact that higher
animals may have mental processes corresponding to some of those we call
reason in man does not impair the validity of our generalization, for
the present purpose.
[187] See _Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays_, By Rabbi Max Reichler, New
York, Bloch Publishing Co., 1916.
[188] Dublin, Louis I., "Significance of the Declining Birth Rate,"
_Congressional Record_, Jan. 11, 1918.
[189] At the request of Alexander Graham Bell, founder and director of
the Genealogical Record Office, Paul Popenoe made an examination and
report on these records in the fall of 1916. Thanks are due to Dr. Bell
for permitting the use in this chapter of two portions of the
investigation.
[190] Beeton, Mary, and Karl Pearson, _Biometrika_ I, p. 60. The actual
correlation varies with the age and sex: the following are the results:
COLLATERAL INHERITANCE
Elder adult brother and younger adult brother .2290 ± .0194
Adult brother and adult brother .2853 ± .0196
Minor brother and minor brother .1026 ± .0294
Adult brother and minor brother -.0262 ± .0246
Elder adult sister and younger adult sister .3464 ± .0183
Adult sister and adult sister .3322 ± .0185
Minor sister and minor sister .1748 ± .0307
Adult sister and minor sister -.0260 ± .0291
Adult brother and adult sister .2319 ± .0145
Minor brother and minor sister .1435 ± .0251
Adult brother and minor sister -.0062 ± .0349
Adult sister and minor brother -.0274 ± .0238
[191] The method used is the ingenious one devised by J. Arthur Harris
(_Biometrika_ IX, p. 461). The probable error is based on n=100.
[192] A. Ploetz, "Lebensdauer der Eltern und Kindersterblichkeit,"
_Archiv für Rassen-u Gesellschafts-Biologie_, VI (1909), pp. 33-43.
[193] Or it may be supposed that the environment is so good as to make a
non-selective death less likely, and therefore such deaths as do occur
must more frequently be selective.
[194] Hibbs, Henry H., Jr., _Infant Mortality: Its Relation to Social
and Industrial Conditions_, New York, 1916.
[195] See Castle, W. E., _Heredity_, pp. 30-32, New York, 1911.
[196] Doll, E. A., "Education and Inheritance," _Journal of Education_,
Feb. 1, 1917.
[197] Atwater's celebrated experiments proved that all the energy (food)
which goes into an animal can be accounted for in the output of heat or
work. They are conveniently summarized in Abderhalden's _Text-book of
Physiological Chemistry_, p. 335.
[198] In this connection see farther Raymond Pearl's review of Mr.
Redfield's "Dynamic Evolution" (_Journal of Heredity_) VI, p. 254, and
Paul Popenoe's review, "The Parents of Great Men," _Journal of
Heredity_, VIII, pp. 400-408.
[199] See Dr. Hrdlicka's communication to the XIXth International
Congress of Americanists, Dec. 28, 1915 (the proceedings were published
at Washington, in March, 1917); or an account in the _Journal of
Heredity_, VIII, pp. 98 ff., March, 1917.
[200] Cf. Grant, Madison, _The Passing of the Great Race_p. 74 (New
York, 1916): "One often hears the statement made that native Americans
of Colonial ancestry are of mixed ethnic origin. This is not true. At
the time of the Revolutionary War the settlers in the 13 colonies were
not only purely Nordic, but also purely Teutonic, a very large majority
being Anglo-Saxon in the most limited meaning of that term. The New
England settlers in particular came from those counties in England where
the blood was almost purely Saxon, Anglian, and Dane."
[201] Comprising Armenians, Croatians, English, Greeks, Russian Jews,
Irish, South Italians, North Italians, Magyars, Poles, Rumanians and
Russians, 500 individuals in all.
[202] English data from K. Pearson, _Biometrika_ V, p. 124.
[203] Pearson (_ubi supra_) measured 12-year-old English school
children, and found the average cephalic index for 2298 boys to be
78.88, with [Greek: s] = 3.2, for 2188 girls 78.43, with [Greek: s] =
3.9. It is not proper to compare adolescents with adults, however.
[204] Sewall Wright has pointed out (_Journal of Heredity_, VIII, p.
376) that the white blaze in the hair can not be finally classed as
dominant or recessive until the progeny of _two_ affected persons have
been seen. All matings so far studied have been between an affected
person and a normal. It may be that the white blaze (or piebaldism)
represents merely a heterozygous condition, and that the trait is really
a recessive. The same argument applies to brachydactyly.
* * * * *
The following pages contain advertisements of a few of the Macmillan
books on kindred subjects.
~Comparative Free Government~
BY JESSE MACY
Professor Emeritus of Political Science
AND
JOHN W. GANNAWAY
Professor of Political Science in Grinnell College
_Cloth, 8vo, $2.25_
The United States is made the basis for this study because it has been
in fact the pioneer in securing world recognition for free government,
and it is the originator of the Presidential type. The first part of
"Comparative Free Government" is devoted to a somewhat detailed
description of the organization and processes of government in the
United States, together with a brief comparative study of selected South
American republics. The second part is devoted chiefly to a study of the
cabinet type. England is given first place as the originator of the
system. The object of the book is to throw light upon the growth and
perfection of free government in all states rather than to make a
general comparison of governmental institutions. It is particularly
adapted to use as a text in college courses.
* * * * *
~Problems of Child Welfare~
By GEORGE B. MANGOLD, Ph.D.
Director of the School of Social Economy of Washington University
_Cloth, 8vo, $2.00_
Although this book is designed especially for use as a text in college
courses on philanthropy, it will also appeal to that growing class of
men and women who in a systematic way are endeavoring to acquaint
themselves with the various aspects of practical sociology. Much of the
constructive philanthropy of to-day must deal directly with the child,
the improvement of his conditions being the direct objective. Those
problems which affect children in an indirect way, whether in the field
of remedial or preventive philanthropy, are not treated. Under each
separate problem are discussed the causes and conditions, the machinery
of social betterment, and the plans and programme of improvement.
* * * * *
SOCIAL SCIENCE TEXT-BOOKS
EDITED BY RICHARD T. ELY
* * * * *
~History of Economic Thought~
A Critical Account of the Origin and Development of the Economic
Theories of the Leading Thinkers and the Leading Nations.
By LEWIS H. HANEY
_Cloth, xvii + 567 pp., 8vo, $2.00_
"Dr. Haney's work is both complete and exhaustive without being
discursive. We shall look far before finding anything of its kind so
satisfying."--_The Argonaut._
"This valuable precis of the world's economic wisdom serves not only as
a trustworthy text-book, but also as an authoritative denotement of old
economic landmarks. In the light it casts on bygone commercial and
political conditions, the rapid progress and impulsive changes in
present-day methods of trade and legislation become clearly outlined and
intelligible."--_American, Philadelphia._
"The present volume is of suitable compass, and the treatment is such as
to make it satisfactory as a text-book."--_The Nation._
"The book should be of value to English readers and students of
economics, for unlike French and German economic writers, who have
produced several histories of economic thought, only one has been
written previously in English, and that is now out of date. Dr. Haney
has made a distinct contribution to economic literature and one
reflecting credit on American scholarship."--_The Boston Transcript._
* * * * *
~Outlines of Sociology~
BY FRANK W. BLACKMAR
Professor of Sociology in the University of Kansas
AND
JOHN L. GILLIN
Associate Professor of Sociology in the University of Wisconsin
_586 pp., crown octavo, $2.25_
In this volume not only the theoretical phases of sociology are treated
with some degree of completeness, but the practical bearings of the
science are also brought out in a series of chapters dealing with social
pathology and methods of social investigation. This survey of the whole
field, including both the theoretical and the so-called "practical,"
finds its justification in the unity it gives to sociology in the mind
of the beginner. It prevents that vicious one-sidedness sometimes
resulting from a study of one phase of a subject before a general survey
has been made. With this purpose in mind the subject-matter has been
grouped under the following headings: Part I. The Nature and Import of
Sociology; Part II. Social Evolution; Part III. Socialization and Social
Control; Part IV. Social Ideals; Part V. Social Pathology; Part VI.
Methods of Social Investigation; Part VII. The History of Sociology. It
has been the endeavor of the authors to bring together in this book the
results of the most recent discussions in the various fields of
sociology, to present the accepted conclusions of sociologists
respecting the origin, nature, structure, functions and abnormal
phenomena of society without controversy, and in a simple, direct way
suited to the ordinary college undergraduate.
* * * * *
~Social Problems, A Study of Everyday Social Conditions~
By EZRA THAYER TOWNE, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and Political Science, Carleton College
_$1.00_
"A carefully written record and analysis of the growth in modern society
of the attempt to deal intelligently with social problems, such, for
instance, as immigration, unemployment, divorce, liquor, conservation,
and so on. Dr. Towne has carried out this task with excellent judgment
and intelligence. A valuable book for any library."--_Outlook._
"A teacher would find this book admirable for private study; a solitary
student with its aid might go far toward mastering these
subjects."--_Boston Transcript._
"Professor Towne of Carleton College has rendered good public service in
furnishing the best introduction to the study of present day social
conditions which has yet appeared for the use of high school and
undergraduate college students. Up to date, well proportioned,
progressive in attitude and spirit, yet conservatively sound in
judgment, it can scarcely fail to fulfil its purpose to give to all who
study it a 'better understanding of our own times' and proof of 'the
possibility of wise, sane, constructive social action.'"--_Survey._
"Prof. Towne aided by a lucid style and the ability to make statistics
interesting has stripped the subjects he deals with to their barest
necessities and has packed into the book the kind of information that
will stimulate to further study and research those who are at all
interested in strengthening civilization where evil conditions sap its
vitality."--_Philadelphia Press._
* * * * *
~Outlines of Economics~
By RICHARD T. ELY, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Political Economy
at the University of Wisconsin; THOMAS S. ADAMS, Ph.D.,
Professor of Political Economy at Yale University; MAX O.
LORENZ, Associate Statistician of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, and Professor A. A. YOUNG of Cornell.
_Third Revised Edition, Cloth, 8vo, $2.25_
"It is a sign of the time when such a standard and authoritative book as
this requires such revision for its third edition that it was not
possible to use the old type. The chapters on transportation, insurance,
socialism, and agriculture needed expansion to include legislation. The
Federal Reserve system demanded a chapter to itself, and so did labor
legislation. The statistics and references have been brought down to
date, and the book in general is more useful to the teacher, and more
attractive to the reader. The authors are both open-minded and
conservative, not condemning new ideas for their newness nor yet
accepting them for the same reason and without challenge. The book is a
useful antidote to the economic poisons which command attention through
their promises of the millennium, which they are less able to deliver,
nevertheless, than writers like these whose imaginations and benevolence
are corrected by their knowledge."--_New York Times._
"So far as the practical side of the subjects with which this volume
deals is concerned, everything has been done by the authors to keep
their work abreast of the times and the latest developments so that the
readers and students may find there the important things of contemporary
record as well as the highlights of economic history. The theoretical
side of economics has not been neglected in this general revision and
that chapter has been simplified and made more easily comprehensible to
those first entering the study of this subject. This volume maintains
the same high standard it held at the time it was first published. It is
one of the best books on this subject."--_Philadelphia Press._
"Anyone who got his foundations in political economy out of the
text-books of the last generation cannot fail to be struck with the
enormous range of subjects covered in such a book as this, compared with
what was then included; and there is always some danger that in the mind
of the student this wealth of material, important as it is, may yet
carry with it the drawback of more or less submerging the central
truths. In Professor Ely's book, the distribution of emphasis, as well
as of space, is such as to reduce this danger."--_The Nation._
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
Printed in the United States of America
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Applied Eugenics" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.