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 s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual 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 formulae 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 att.i.tude 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 s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual selection is to be taken seriously, it is imperative that there be some improvement in the general att.i.tude 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 s.e.x 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 s.e.x 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 const.i.tuent 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 pa.s.sion, where the real community of interest is slight;[99]
and s.e.xual 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 fact.i.tious 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-const.i.tuted 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 att.i.tude of respect toward love, and consciously abandon as far as possible the att.i.tude of jocular cynicism with which they too often treat it,--an att.i.tude 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 n.o.bler 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 att.i.tude 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 s.e.xual 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 const.i.tution. "How can we find a test of a good, sound const.i.tution?" 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 const.i.tution 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 const.i.tution. Longevity is a guide to const.i.tution." 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 const.i.tutional 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 s.e.xual 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 a.s.sociates have shown that there is a tendency to a.s.sortative 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 s.e.xual 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 princ.i.p.ally 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, pa.s.s 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 a.s.sortative 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 s.e.xual attraction are far from offering a satisfactory subst.i.tute.
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 s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual 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 acc.u.mulation 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 s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual 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 s.e.xual 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 cla.s.ses have a much wider range of choice in marriage than the lower cla.s.ses. 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 cla.s.ses +.24 Professional cla.s.ses +.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 princ.i.p.ally a.s.sortative 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 cla.s.s 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 t.i.tle. The hereditary peer can therefore marry almost anyone he likes and if he does not marry one of his own cla.s.s 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 n.o.bilities of Europe have been able to maintain themselves; and a similar process is undoubtedly taking place among the idle rich who occupy an a.n.a.logous 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 cla.s.ses 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 munic.i.p.alities, 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 inst.i.tutional as well as munic.i.p.al action on these lines, although they have not in every case recognized the eugenic aspect, and from their efforts it is probable that suitable inst.i.tutions, such as social centers and recreation piers, and munic.i.p.al dance halls, will be greatly multiplied.