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.
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 revolutionised the intellectual life of the
civilised world. Man came to realise 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
civilisation, 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 characterised 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,
re-emphasising 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 colour, artistic faculty and
!morbid
conditions.
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.
!The program of
eugenics naturally divides itself in two parts:
Reducing the
racial contribution of the least desirable part of the population.
!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.
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:
!To secure a
sufficient number of marriages of the superior.
!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.
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.
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.
CALEB SALEEBY’S Parenthood & Race Culture: An Outline of Family Eugenics
CALEB SALEEBY’S Parenthood & Race Culture: An Outline of Family Eugenics
No comments:
Post a Comment