CHAPTER XI! ! !THE IMPROVEMENT OF SEXUAL SELECTION!

 

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.

Improve a Sexless Marriage

!Random mating:

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.

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 colour, hair colour, 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 colour 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.

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 aesthetic 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 colouring of many insects and butterflies.

!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?

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 recognising 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 demoralising 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.

!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.

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. 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 emphasise the high lights and make love solely an affair of emotion. We are not arguing for a rationalisation 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 recognised 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 "rationalise" 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 unrealisable 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 emphasising 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 unfavourable 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]

Though eugenics is popularly supposed to be concerned almost wholly with the physical, properly it gives most attention to mental traits,

recognising 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 honour 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 favour 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 emphasised 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 realised. 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 emphasise 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 recognised 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 emphasised by Benjamin Franklin, and is also one of the time-honoured 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 realised. 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.

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 fulfil 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 organisations 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 recognised 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.

!

!

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 organisations as the Young People's Society of Christian Endeavour 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 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.

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 organisation 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 organised 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.

Applied Eugenics CHAPTER X! ! !METHODS OF RESTRICTION! Part 2

!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 sterilise the defective individuals; but it is not likely that sterilisation 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 sterilisation 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

sterilisation 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.

!

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 sterilisation. It points out[90] that

!a sterilisation law, to be of the greatest possible value, must:

!Consider sterilisation as a eugenic measure, not as a punitive or even therapeutic one.

!Provide due process of law, before any operation is carried out.

!Provide adequate and competent executive agents.

!Designate only proper classes of persons as subject to the law.

!Provide for the nomination of individuals for sterilisation, by suitable procedure.

!Make an adequate investigation of each case, the family history being the most important part, and one which is often neglected at present.

!Have express and adequate criteria for determining upon sterilisation.

!Designate the type of operation authorised.

!Make each distinct step mandatory and fix definitely the responsibility for it.

!Make adequate appropriation for carrying out the measure.

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.

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 sterilise 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.

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 generalisation 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.

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-honoured 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.

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.

!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.

!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.

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 endorsed. 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.

!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 recognised 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 sterilisation, such as a dozen states now possess,

!are not framed with a knowledge of the needs of the case; but a properly drafted sterilisation 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.

!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 minimise 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.
CALEB SALEEBY’S Parenthood & Race Culture: An Outline of Family Eugenics

!