4. Illicit experiences may have been so disillusioning, owing to the disaffecting nature of the consorts, that an att.i.tude of pessimism and misanthropy or misogyny is built up. Such an att.i.tude prevents marriage not only directly, but also indirectly, since persons with such an outlook are thereby less attractive to the opposite s.e.x.
5. A taste for s.e.xual variety is built up so that the individual is unwilling to commit himself to a monogamous union.
6. Occasionally, threat of blackmail by a jilted paramour prevents marriage by the inability to escape these importunities.
We consider next the relative birth-rate of the married and the incontinent unmarried. There can not be the slightest doubt that this is vastly greater in the case of the married. The unmarried have not only all the incentives of the married to keep down their birth-rate but also the obvious and powerful incentive of concealment as well.
Pa.s.sing to the relative death-rate of the illegitimate and legitimate progeny, the actual data invariably indicate a decided advantage of the legitimately born. The reasons are too obvious to be retailed.
Now, then, knowing that the racial contribution of the s.e.xually moral is greater than that of the s.e.xually immoral, we may compare the quality of the s.e.xually moral and immoral, to get the evolutionary effect.
For this purpose a distinction must be made between the individual who has been chaste till the normal time of marriage and whose s.e.xual life is truly monogamous, and that abnormal group who remain chaste and celibate to an advanced age. These last are not moral in the last a.n.a.lysis, if they have valuable and needed traits and are fertile, because in the long run their failure to reproduce affects adversely the welfare of their group. While the race suffers through the failure of many of these individuals to contribute progeny, probably this does not happen, so far as males are concerned, as much as might be supposed, for such individuals are often innately defective in their instincts or, in the case of disappointed lovers, have a badly proportioned emotional equipment, since it leads them into a position so obviously opposed to race interests.
But, to pa.s.s to the essential comparison, that between the s.e.xually immoral and the s.e.xually moral as limited above, it is necessary first of all to decide whether monogamy is a desirable and presumably permanent feature of human society.
We conclude that it is:
1. Because it is spreading at the expense of polygamy even where not favored by legal interference. The change is most evident in China.
2. In monogamy, s.e.xual selection puts a premium on valuable traits of character, rather than on mere personal beauty or ability to acquire wealth; and
3. The greatest amount of happiness is produced by a monogamous system, since in a polygamous society so many men must remain unmarried and so many women are dissatisfied with having to share their mates with others.
a.s.suming this, then adaptation to the condition of monogamous society represents race progress. Such a race profits if those who do not comply with its conditions make a deficient racial contribution. It follows then that s.e.xual immorality is eugenic in its result for the species and that if all s.e.xual immorality should cease, an important means of race progress might be lost. An ill.u.s.tration is the case of the Negro in America, whose failure to increase more rapidly in number is largely attributable to the widespread sterility resulting from venereal infection.[185] Should venereal diseases be eliminated, that race might be expected to increase in numbers very much faster than the whites.
It may be felt by some that this position would have an immoral effect upon youth if widely accepted. This need not be feared. On the contrary, we believe that one of the most powerful factors in ethical culture is pride due to the consciousness of being one who is fit and worthy.
The traditional view of s.e.xual morality has been to ignore the selectional aspect here discussed and to stress the alleged deterioration of the germ-plasm by the direct action of the toxins of syphilis. The evidence relied upon to demonstrate this action seems to be vitiated by the possibility that there was, instead, a transmitted infection of the progeny. This "racial poison" action, since it is so highly improbable from a.n.a.logy, can not be credited until it has been demonstrated in cases where the parents have been indubitably cured.
Is it necessary, then, to retain s.e.xual immorality in order to achieve race progress? No, because it is only one of many factors contributing to race progress. Society can mitigate this as well as alcoholism, disease, infant mortality--all powerful selective factors--without harm, provided increased efficiency of other selective factors is ensured, such as the segregation of defectives, more effective s.e.xual selection, a better correlation of income and ability, and a more eugenic distribution of family limitation.
TRADES UNIONISM
A dysgenic feature often found in trades unionism will easily be understood after our discussion of the minimum wage. The union tends to standardize wages; it tends to fix a wage in a given industry, and demand that nearly all workers in that cla.s.sification be paid that wage.
It cannot be denied that some of these workers are much more capable than others. Artificial interference with a more exact adjustment of wages to ability therefore penalizes the better workmen and subsidizes the worse ones. Economic pressure is thereby put on the better men to have fewer children, and with the worse men encourages more children, than would be the case if their incomes more nearly represented their real worth. Payment according to the product, with prizes and bonuses so much opposed by the unions, is more in accord with the principles of eugenics.
PROHIBITION
It was shown in Chapter II that the attempt to ban alcoholic beverages on the ground of direct dysgenic effect is based on dubious evidence.
But the prohibition of the use of liquors, at least those containing more than 5% alcohol, can be defended on indirect eugenic grounds, as well as on the familiar grounds of pathology and economics which are commonly cited.
1. Unless it is present to such a degree as to const.i.tute a neurotic taint, the desire to be stimulated is not of itself necessarily a bad thing. This will be particularly clear if the distribution of the responsiveness to alcoholic stimulus is recalled. Some really valuable strains, marked by this susceptibility, may be eliminated through the death of some individuals from debauchery and the penalization of others in preferential mating; this would be avoided if narcotics were not available.
2. In selection for eugenic improvement, it is desirable not to have to select for too many traits at once. If alcoholism could, through prohibition, be eliminated from consideration, it would just so far simplify the problem of eugenics.
3. Drunkenness interferes with the effectiveness of means for family limitation, so that if his alcoholism is not extreme, the drunkard"s family is sometimes larger than it would otherwise be.
On the other hand, prohibition is dysgenic and intemperance is eugenic in their effect on the species in so far as alcoholism is correlated with other undesirable characters and brings about the elimination of undesirable strains. But its action is not sufficiently discriminating nor decisive; and if the strains have many serious defects, they can probably be dealt with better in some other, more direct way.
We conclude, then, that, on the whole, prohibition is desirable for eugenic as well as for other reasons.
PEDAGOGICAL CELIBACY
Whether women are more efficient teachers than men, and whether single women are more efficient teachers than married women, are disputed questions which it is not proposed here to consider. Accepting the present fact, that most of the school teachers in the United States are unmarried women, it is proper to examine the eugenic consequences of this condition.
The withdrawal of this large body of women from the career of motherhood into a celibate career may be desirable if these women are below the average of the rest of the women of the population in eugenic quality.
But it would hardly be possible to find enough eugenic inferiors to fill the ranks of teachers, without getting those who are inferior in actual ability, in patent as well as latent traits. And the idea of placing education in the hands of such inferior persons is not to be considered.
It is, therefore, inevitable that the teachers are, on the whole, superior persons eugenically. Their celibacy must be considered highly detrimental to racial welfare.
But, it may be said, there is a considerable number of women so deficient in s.e.x feeling or emotional equipment that they are certain never to marry; they are, nevertheless, persons of intellectual ability.
Let them be the school teachers. This solution is, however, not acceptable. Many women of the character described undoubtedly exist, but they are better placed in some other occupation. It is wholly undesirable that children should be reared under a neuter influence, which is probably too common already in education.
If women are to teach, then, it must be concluded that on eugenic grounds preference should be given to married rather than single teachers, and that the single ones should be encouraged to marry. This requires (1) that considerable change be made in the education of young women, so that they shall be fitted for motherhood rather than exclusively for school teaching as is often the case, and (2) that social devices be brought into play to aid them in mating--since undoubtedly a proportion of school teachers are single from the segregating character of their profession, not from choice, and (3) provision for employing some women on half-time and (4) increase of the number of male teachers in high schools.
It is, perhaps, unnecessary to mention a fifth change necessary: that school boards must be brought to see the undesirability of employing only unmarried women, and of discharging them, no matter how efficient, if they marry or have children. The courts must be enabled to uphold woman"s right of marriage and motherhood, instead of, as in some cases at present, upholding school boards in their denial of this right.
Contracts which prevent women teachers from marrying or discontinuing their work for marriage should be illegal, and talk about the "moral obligation" of normal school graduates to teach should be discountenanced.
Against the proposal to employ married school teachers, two objections are urged. It is said (1) that for most women school teaching is merely a temporary occupation, which they take up to pa.s.s the few years until they shall have married. To this it may be replied that the hope of marriage too often proves illusory to the young woman who enters on the pedagogical career, because of the lack of opportunities to meet men, and because the nature of her work is not such as to increase her attractiveness to men, nor her fitness for home-making. Pedagogy is too often a sterilizing inst.i.tution, which takes young women who desire to marry and impairs their chance of marriage.
Again it will be said (2) that married teachers would lose too much time from their work; that their primary interests would be in their own homes instead of in the school; that they could not teach school without neglecting their own children. These objections fall in the realm of education, not eugenics, and it can only be said here that the reasons must be extraordinarily cogent, which will justify the enforcement of celibacy on so large a body of superior young women as is now engaged in school teaching.
The magnitude of the problem is not always realized. In 1914 the Commissioner of education reported that there were, in the United States, 169,929 men and 537,123 women engaged in teaching. Not less than half a million women, therefore, are potentially affected by the inst.i.tution of pedagogical celibacy.
CHAPTER XIX
RELIGION AND EUGENICS
Man is the only animal with a religion. The conduct of the lower animals is guided by instinct,[186] and instinct normally works for the benefit of the species. Any action which is dictated by instinct is likely to result in the preservation of the species, even at the expense of the individual which acts, provided there has not been a recent change in the environment.
But in the human species reason appears, and conduct is no longer governed by instinct alone. A young man is impelled by instinct, for instance, to marry. It is to the interests of the species that he marry, and instinct therefore causes him to desire to marry and to act as he desires. A lower animal would obey the impulse of instinct without a moment"s hesitation. Not so the man. Reason intervenes and asks, "Is this really the best thing for you to do now? Would you not better wait awhile and get a start in your business? Of course marriage would be agreeable, but you must not be short-sighted. You don"t want to a.s.sume a handicap just now." There is a corresponding reaction among the married in respect to bearing additional children. The interests of self are immediate and easily seen, the interests of the species are not so pressing. In any such conflict between instinct and reason, one must win; and if reason wins it is in some cases for the immediate benefit of the individual but at the expense of the species" interests.
Now with reason dominant over instinct in man, there is a grave danger that with each man consulting his own interests instead of those of the species, some groups and even races will become exterminated. Along with reason, therefore, it is necessary that some other forces shall appear to control reason and give the interests of the species a chance to be heard along with the interests of the individual.
One such force is religion. Without insisting that this is the only view which may be taken of the origin of religion, or that this is the only function of religion, we may yet a.s.sert that one of the useful purposes served by religion is to cause men to adopt lines of conduct that will be for the good of the race, although it may sacrifice the immediate good of the individual.[187] Thus if a young Mohammedan be put in the situation just described, he may decide that it is to his material interest to postpone marriage. His religion then obtrudes itself, with quotations from the Prophet to the effect that h.e.l.l is peopled with bachelors. The young man is thereupon moved to marry, even if it does cause some inconvenience to his business plans. Religion, reinforcing instinct, has triumphed over reason and gained a victory for the larger interests of the species, when they conflict with the immediate interests of the individual.
From this point of view we may, paraphrasing Matthew Arnold, define religion as _motivated ethics_. Ethics is a knowledge of right conduct, religion is an agency to produce right conduct. And its working is more like that of instinct than it is like that of reason. The irreligious man, testing a proposition by reason alone, may decide that it is to the interests of all concerned that he should not utter blasphemy. The orthodox Christian never considers the pros and cons of the question; he has the Ten Commandments and the teachings of his youth in his mind, and he refrains from blasphemy in almost the instinctive way that he refrains from putting his hand on a hot stove.
This chapter proposes primarily to consider how eugenics can be linked with religion, and specifically the Christian religion; but the problem is not a simple one, because Christianity is made of diverse elements.
Not only has it undergone some change during the last 1900 years, but it was founded upon Judaism, which itself involved diverse elements. We shall undertake to show that eugenics fits in well with Christianity; but it must fit in with different elements in different ways.