Roswell H. Johnson

Nearly every law and custom of a country has an influence direct or remote on eugenics. The eugenic progress to be expected if laws and customs are gradually but steadily modified in appropriate ways, is vastly greater and more practicable than is any possible gain which could be made at present through schemes for the direct control of "eugenic marriages."

In this present chapter, we try to point out some of the eugenic aspects of certain features of American society. It must not be supposed that we have any legislative panaceas to offer, or that the suggestions we make are necessarily the correct ones. We are primarily concerned with stimulating people to think about the eugenic aspects of their laws and customs. Once the public thinks, numerous changes will be tried and the results will show whether the changes shall be followed up or discontinued.

The eugenic point of view that we have here taken is becoming rather widespread, although it is often not recognized as eugenic. Thinkers in all subjects that concern social progress are beginning to realize that the test of whether or not a measure is good is its effect. The pragmatic school of philosophy, which has been in vogue in recent years, has reduced this attitude to a system. It is an attitude to be welcomed wherever it is found, for it only needs the addition of a knowledge of biology, to become eugenic.

TAXATION

To be just, any form of taxation should repress productive industry as little as possible, and should be of a kind that can not easily be shifted. In addition to these qualifications, it should, if possible, contribute directly to the eugenic strength of the nation by favoring, or at least by not penalizing, useful families. A heavy tax on land values (in extreme, the single-tax) and a heavy tax on bachelors have sometimes been proposed as likely to be eugenic in effect. But they are open to criticism. The tax on land values appears too likely to be indiscriminate in working: it would appear to favor inferior families as much as superior ones. The tax on bachelors is proposed as a means of getting bachelors to marry; but is this always desirable? It depends on the quality of the bachelors. Even at present it is our belief that, on the whole, the married men of the population are superior to the unmarried men. If the action of sexual selection is improved still further by the eugenics campaign, this difference in quality will be increased. It will then be rather an advantage that the bachelors should remain single, and a tax which would force them into marriage for reasons of economy, is not likely to result in any eugenic gain. But a moderate indirect tax by an exemption for a wife and each child after a general exemption of $2,000 would be desirable.

The inheritance tax seems less open to criticism. Very large inheritances should be taxed to a much greater degree than is at present attempted in the United States, and the tax should be placed, not on the total amount of the inheritance, but on the amount received by each individual beneficiary. This tends to prevent the unfair guarantee of riches to individuals regardless of their own worth and efforts. But to suggest, on the other hand, as has often been done, that inheritances should be confiscated by the government altogether, shows a lack of appreciation of the value of a reasonable right to bequeath in encouraging larger families among those having a high standard of living. It is not desirable to penalize the kind of strains which possess directing talent and constructive efficiency; and they certainly would be penalized if a man felt that no matter how much he might increase his fortune, he could not leave any of it to those who continued his stock.

The sum exempted should not be large enough to tempt the beneficiary to give up work and settle down into a life of complacent idleness, but enough to be of decided assistance to him in bringing up a family: $50,000 might be a good maximum. Above this, the rate should advance rapidly, and should be progressive, not proportional. A 50% tax on inheritances above $250,000 seems to us desirable, since large inheritances tend to interfere with the correlation of wealth and social worth, which is so necessary from a eugenic point of view as well as from that of social justice.

The Federal estate law, passed in September, 1916, is a step in the right direction. It places the exemption at $50,000 net. The rate, however, is not rapid enough in its rise: e.g., estates exceeding $250,000 but less than $450,000 are taxed only 4%, while the maximum, for estates above $5,000,000, is only 10%. This, moreover, is on the total estate, while we favor the plan that taxes not the total amount bequeathed but the amount inherited by each individual. With the ever increasing need of revenue, it is certain that Congress will make a radical increase in progressive inheritance tax on large fortunes, which should be retained after the war.

Wisconsin and California have introduced an interesting innovation by providing a further graded tax on inheritances in accordance with the degree of consanguinity between the testator and the beneficiary. Thus a small bequest to a son or daughter might be taxed only 1%; a large bequest to a trained nurse or a spiritualistic medium might be taxed 15%. This is frank recognition of the fact that inheritance is to be particularly justified as it tends to endow a superior family. Eugenically it may be permissible to make moderate bequests to brothers, nephews and nieces, as well as one's own children; and to endow philanthropies; but the State might well take a large part of any inheritance which would otherwise go to remote heirs, or to persons not related to the testator.

At present there is, on the whole, a negative correlation between size of family and income. The big families are, in general in the part of the population which has the smallest income, and it is well established that the number of children tends to decrease as the income increases and as a family rises in the social scale—a fact to which we have devoted some attention in earlier chapters. If this condition were to be permanent, it would be somewhat difficult to suggest a eugenic form of income tax. We believe, however, that it is not likely to be permanent in its present extent. The spread of birth control seems likely to reduce the negative correlation and the spread of eugenic ideas may possibly convert it into a slight positive correlation, so that the number of children may be more nearly proportional to the means of the family. Perhaps it is Utopian to expect a positive correlation in the near future, yet a decrease in the number of children born to the class of casual laborers and unskilled workers is pretty certain to take place as rapidly as the knowledge of methods of birth control is extended; and at present it does not seem that this extension can be stopped by any of the agencies that are opposing it.

If the size of a family becomes more nearly proportional to the income, instead of being inversely proportional to it as at present, and if income is even roughly a measure of the value of a family to the community—an assumption that can hardly be denied altogether, however much one may qualify it in individual cases,—then the problem of taxing family incomes will be easier. The effect of income differences will be, on the whole, eugenic. It would then seem desirable to exempt from taxation all incomes of married people below a certain critical sum, this amount being the point at which change in income may be supposed to not affect size of family. This means exemption of all incomes under $2,000, an additional $2,000 for a wife and an additional $2,000 for each child, and a steeply-graded advance above that amount, as very large incomes act to reduce the size of family by introducing a multiplicity of competing cares and interests. There is also a eugenic advantage in heavy taxes on harmful commodities and unapprovable luxuries.

THE "BACK TO THE FARM" MOVEMENT

One of the striking accompaniments of the development of American civilization, as of all other civilizations, is the growth of the cities. If (following the practice of the U. S. Census) all places with 2,500 or more population be classed as urban, it appears that 36.1% of the population of the United States was urban in 1890, that the percentage had risen to 40.5 in 1900, and that by 1910 not less than 46.3% of the total population was urban.

There are four components of this growth of urban population: (1) excess of births over deaths, (2) immigration from rural districts, (3) immigration from other countries, and (4) the extension of area by incorporation of suburbs. It is not to be supposed that the growth of the cities is wholly at the expense of the country; J. M. Gillette calculates[173] that 29.8% of the actual urban gain of 11,826,000 between 1900 and 1910 was due to migration from the country, the remaining 70.2% being accounted for by the other three causes enumerated.

Thus it appears that the movement from country to city is of considerable proportions, even though it be much less than has sometimes been alleged. This movement has eugenic importance because it is generally believed, although more statistical evidence is needed, that families tend to "run out" in a few generations under city conditions; and it is generally agreed that among those who leave the rural districts to go to the cities, there are found many of the best representatives of the country families.

If superior people are going to the large cities, and if this removal leads to a smaller reproductive contribution than they would otherwise have made, then the growth of great cities is an important dysgenic factor.

This is the view taken by O. F. Cook,[174] when he writes: "Statistically speaking cities are centers of population, but biologically or eugenically speaking they are centers of depopulation. They are like sink-holes or siguanas, as the Indians of Guatemala call the places where the streams of their country drop into subterranean channels and disappear. It never happens that cities develop large populations that go out and occupy the surrounding country. The movement of population is always toward the city. The currents of humanity pass into the urban siguanas and are gone."

"If the time has really come for the consideration of practical eugenic measures, here is a place to begin, a subject worthy of the most careful study—how to rearrange our social and economic system so that more of the superior members of our race will stay on the land and raise families, instead of moving to the city and remaining unmarried or childless, or allowing their children to grow up in unfavorable urban environments that mean deterioration and extinction."

"The cities represent an eliminating agency of enormous efficiency, a present condition that sterilizes and exterminates individuals and lines of descent rapidly enough for all but the most sanguinary reformer. All that is needed for a practical solution of the eugenic problem is to reverse the present tendency for the better families to be drawn into the city and facilitate the drafting of others for urban duty.... The most practical eugenists of our age are the men who are solving the problems of living in the country and thus keeping more and better people under rural conditions where their families will survive."

"To recognize the relation of eugenics to agriculture," Mr. Cook concludes, "does not solve the problems of our race, but it indicates the basis on which the problems need to be solved, and the danger of wasting too much time and effort in attempting to salvage the derelict populations of the cities. However important the problems of urban society may be, they do not have fundamental significance from the standpoint of eugenics, because urban populations are essentially transient. The city performs the function of elimination, while agriculture represents the constructive eugenic condition which must be maintained and improved if the development of the race is to continue."

On the other hand, city life does select those who are adapted to it. It is said to favor the Mediterranean race in competition with the Nordic, so that mixed city populations tend to become more brunette, the Nordic strains dying out. How well this claim has been established statistically is open to question; but there can be no doubt that the Jewish race is an example of urban selection. It has withstood centuries of city life, usually under the most severe conditions, in ghettoes, and has survived and maintained a high average of mentality.

Until recently it has been impossible, because of the defective registration of vital statistics in the United States, to get figures which show the extent of the problem of urban sterilization. But Dr. Gillette has obtained evidence along several indirect lines, and is convinced that his figures are not far from the truth.[175] They show the difference to be very large and its eugenic significance of corresponding importance.

"When it is noted," Dr. Gillette says, "that the rural rate is almost twice the urban rate for the nation as a whole, that in only one division does the latter exceed the former, and that in some divisions the rural rate is three times the urban rate, it can scarcely be doubted that the factor of urbanization is the most important cause of lowered increase rates. Urban birth-rates are lower than rural birth-rates, and its death-rates are higher than those of the latter."

Considering the United States in nine geographical divisions, Dr. Gillette secured the following results:

	Rate of Net Annual Increase
Division	Rural	Urban	Average
New England	5.0	7.3	6.8
Middle Atlantic	10.7	9.6	10.4
East North Central	12.4	10.8	11.6
West North Central	18.1	10.1	15.8
South Atlantic	18.9	6.00	16.0
East South Central	19.7	7.4	17.8
West South Central	23.9	10.2	21.6
Mountain	21.1	10.5	17.6
Pacific	12.6	6.6	9.8
	——	——	——
Average	16.9	8.8	13.65

Even though fuller returns might show these calculations to be inaccurate, Dr. Gillette points out, they are all compiled on the same basis, and therefore can be fairly compared, since any unforeseen cause of increase or decrease would affect all alike.

It is difficult to compare the various divisions directly, because the racial composition of the population of each one is different. But the difference in rates is marked. The West South Central states would almost double their population in four decades, by natural increase alone, while New England would require 200 years to do so.

Dr. Gillette tried, by elaborate computations, to eliminate the effect of immigration and emigration in each division, in order to find out the standing of the old American stock. His conclusions confirm the beliefs of the most pessimistic. "Only three divisions, all Western, add to their population by means of an actual excess of income over outgo of native-born Americans," he reports. Even should this view turn out to be exaggerated, it is certain that the population of the United States is at present increasing largely because of immigration and the high fecundity of immigrant women, and that as far as its own older stock is concerned, it has ceased to increase.

To state that this is due largely to the fact that country people are moving to the city is by no means to solve the problem, in terms of eugenics. It merely shows the exact nature of the problem to be solved. This could be attacked at two points.

1. Attempts might be made to keep the rural population on the farms, and to encourage a movement from the cities back to the country. Measures to make rural life more attractive and remunerative and thus to keep the more energetic and capable young people on the farm, have great eugenic importance, from this point of view.

2. The growth of cities might be accepted as a necessary evil, an unavoidable feature of industrial civilization, and direct attempts might be made, through eugenic propaganda, to secure a higher birth-rate among the superior parts of the city population.

The second method seems in many ways the more practicable. On the other hand, the first method is in many ways more ideal, particularly because it would not only cause more children to be born, but furnish these children with a suitable environment after they were born, which the city can not do. On the other hand, the city offers the better environment for the especially gifted who require a specialized training and later the field for its use in most cases.

In practice, the problem will undoubtedly have to be attacked by eugenists on both sides. Dr. Gillette's statistics, showing the appalling need, should prove a stimulus to eugenic effort.

DEMOCRACY

By democracy we understand a government which is responsive to the will of a majority of the entire population, as opposed to an oligarchy where the sole power is in the hands of a small minority of the entire population, who are able to impose their will on the rest of the nation. In discussing immigration, we have pointed out that it is of great importance that the road for promotion of merit should always be open, and that the road for demotion of incompetence should likewise be open. These conditions are probably favored more by a democracy than by any other form of government, and to that extent democracy is distinctly advantageous to eugenics.

Yet this eugenic effect is not without a dysgenic after-effect. The very fact that recognition is attainable by all, means that democracy leads to social ambition; and social ambition leads to smaller families. This influence is manifested mainly in the women, whose desire to climb the social ladder is increased by the ease of ascent which is due to lack of rigid social barriers. But while ascent is possible for almost anyone, it is naturally favored by freedom from handicaps, such as a large family of children. In the "successful" business and professional classes, therefore, there is an inducement to the wife to limit the number of her offspring, in order that she may have more time to devote to social "duties." In a country like Germany, with more or less stratified social classes, this factor in the differential birth-rate is probably less operative. The solution in America is not to create an impermeable social stratification, but to create a public sentiment which will honor women more for motherhood than for eminence in the largely futile activities of polite society.

In quite another way, too great democratization of a country is dangerous. The tendency is to ask, in regard to any measure, "What do the people want?" while the question should be "What ought the people to want?" The vox populi may and often does want something that is in the long run quite detrimental to the welfare of the state. The ultimate test of a state is whether it is strong enough to survive, and a measure that all the people, or a voting majority of them (which is the significant thing in a democracy), want, may be such as to handicap the state severely.

In general, experts are better able to decide what measures will be desirable in the long run, than are voters of the general population, most of whom know little about the real merits of many of the most important projects. Yet democracies have a tendency to scorn the advice of experts, most of the voters feeling that they are as good as any one else, and that their opinion is entitled to as much weight as that of the expert. This attitude naturally makes it difficult to secure the passage of measures which are eugenic or otherwise beneficial in character, since they often run counter to popular prejudices.

The initiative by small petitions, and the referendum as a frequent resort, are dangerous. They are of great value if so qualified as to be used only in real emergencies, as where a clique has got control of the government and is running it for its self-interest, but as a regularly and frequently functioning institution they are unlikely to result in wise statesmanship.

The wise democracy is that which recognizes that officials may be effectively chosen by vote, only for legislative offices; and which recognizes that for executive offices the choice must be definitely selective, that is, a choice of those who by merit are best fitted to fill the positions. Appointment in executive officers is not offensive when, as the name indicates, it is truly the best who govern. All methods of choice by properly judged competition or examination with a free chance to all, are, in principle, selective yet democratic in the best sense, that of "equality of opportunity." When the governing few are not the best fitted for the work, a so-called aristocracy is of course not an aristocracy (government by the best) at all, but merely an oligarchy. When officers chosen by vote are not well fitted then such a government is not "for the people."

Good government is then an aristo-democracy. In it the final control rests in a democratically chosen legislature working with a legislative commission of experts, but all executive and judicial functions are performed by those best qualified on the basis of executive or judicial ability, not vote-getting or speech-making ability. All, however, are eligible for such positions provided they can show genuine qualifications.

SOCIALISM

It is difficult to define socialism in terms that will make a discussion practicable. The socialist movement is one thing, the socialist political program is another. But though the idea of socialism has as many different forms as an amoeba, there is always a nucleus that remains constant,—the desire for what is conceived to be a more equitable distribution of wealth. The laborer should get the value which his labor produces, it is held, subject only to subtraction of such a part as is necessary to meet the costs of maintenance; and in order that as little as possible need be subtracted for that purpose, the socialists agree in demanding a considerable extension of the functions of government: collective ownership of railways, mines, the tools of production. The ideal socialistic state would be so organized, along these lines, that the producer would get as much as possible of what he produces, the non-producer nothing.

This principle of socialism is invariably accompanied by numerous associated principles, and it is on these associated principles, not on the fundamental principle, that eugenists and socialists come into conflict. Equalitarianism, in particular, is so great a part of current socialist thought that it is doubtful whether the socialist movement as such can exist without it. And this equalitarianism is usually interpreted not only to demand equality of opportunity, but is based on a belief in substantial equality of native ability, where opportunity is equal.

Any one who has read the preceding chapters will have no doubt that such a belief is incompatible with an understanding of the principles of biology. How, then, has it come to be such an integral part of socialism?

Apparently it is because the socialist movement is, on the whole, made up of those who are economically unsatisfied and discontented. Some of the intellectual leaders of the movement are far from inferior, but they too often find it necessary to share the views of their following, in order to retain this following. A group which feels itself inferior will naturally fall into an attitude of equalitarianism, whereas a group which felt itself superior to the rest of society would not be likely to.

Before criticising the socialistic attitude in detail, we will consider some of the criticisms which some socialists make of eugenics.

1. It is charged that eugenics infringes on the freedom of the individual. This charge (really that of the individualists more than of socialists strictly speaking) is based mainly on a misconception of what eugenics attempts to do. Coercive measures have little place in modern eugenics, despite the gibes of the comic press. We propose little or no interference with the freedom of the normal individual to follow his own inclinations in regard to marriage or parenthood; we regard indirect measures and the education of public opinion as the main practicable methods of procedure. Such coercive measures as we indorse are limited to grossly defective individuals, to whom the doctrine of personal liberty can not be applied without stultifying it.

It is indeed unfortunate that there are a few sincere advocates of eugenics who adhered to the idea of a wholesale surgical campaign. A few reformers have told the public for several years of the desirability of sterilizing the supposed 10,000,000 defectives at the bottom of the American population. Lately one campaigner has raised this figure to 15,000,000. Such fantastic proposals are properly resented by socialists and nearly every one else, but they are invariably associated in the public mind with the conception of eugenics, in spite of the fact that 99 out of 100 eugenists would repudiate them. The authors can speak only for themselves, in declaring that eugenics will not be promoted by coercive means except in a limited class of pathological cases; but they are confident that other geneticists, with a very few exceptions, hold the same attitude. There is no danger that this surgical campaign will ever attain formidable proportions, and the socialist, we believe, may rest assured that the progress of eugenics is not likely to infringe unwarrantably on the principle of individual freedom, either by sterilization or by coercive mating.

2. Eugenists are further charged with ignoring or paying too little attention to the influence of the environment in social reform. This charge is sometimes well founded, but it is not an inherent defect in the eugenics program. The eugenist only asks that both factors be taken into account, whereas in the past the factor of heredity has been too often ignored. In the last chapter of this book we make an effort to balance the two sides.

3. Again, it is alleged that eugenics proposes to substitute an aristocracy for a democracy. We do think that those who have superior ability should be given the greatest responsibilities in government. If aristocracy means a government by the people who are best qualified to govern, then eugenics has most to hope from an aristo-democratic system. But admission to office should always be open to anyone who shows the best ability; and the search for such ability must be much more thorough in the future than it has been in the past.

4. Eugenists are charged with hindering social progress by endeavoring to keep woman in the subordinate position of a domestic animal, by opposing the movement for her emancipation, by limiting her activity to child-bearing and refusing to recognize that she is in every way fitted to take an equal part with man in the world's work. This objection we have answered elsewhere, particularly in our discussion of feminism. We recognize the general equality of the two sexes, but demand a differentiation of function which will correspond to biological sex-specialization. We can not yield in our belief that woman's greatest function is motherhood, but recognition of this should increase, not diminish, the strength of her position in the state.

5. Eugenists are charged with ignoring the fact of economic determinism, the fact that a man's acts are governed by economic conditions. To debate this question would be tedious and unprofitable. While we concede the important rÔle of economic determinism, we can not help feeling that its importance in the eyes of socialists is somewhat factitious. In the first place, it is obvious that there are differences in the achievements of fellow men. These socialists, having refused to accept the great weight of germinal differences in accounting for the main differences in achievement, have no alternative but to fall back on the theory of economic determinism. Further, socialism is essentially a reform movement; and if one expects to get aid for such a movement, it is essential that one represent the consequences as highly important. The doctrine of economic determinism of course furnishes ground for glowing accounts of the changes that could be made by economic reform, and therefore fits in well with the needs of the socialist propagandists. When the failure of many nations to make any use of their great resources in coal and water power is remembered; when the fact is recalled that many of the ablest socialist leaders have been the sons of well-to-do intellectuals who were never pinched by poverty; it must be believed that the importance of economic determinism in the socialist mind is caused more by its value for his propaganda purposes than a weighing of the evidence.

Such are, we believe, the chief grounds on which socialists criticise the eugenics movement. All of these criticisms should be stimulating, should lead eugenists to avoid mistakes in program or procedure. But none of them, we believe, is a serious objection to anything which the great body of eugenists proposes to do.

What is to be said on the other side? What faults does the eugenist find with the socialist movement?

For the central principle, the more equitable distribution of wealth, no discussion is necessary. Most students of eugenics would probably assent to its general desirability, although there is much room for discussion as to what constitutes a really equitable division of wealth. In sound socialist theory, it is to be distributed according to a man's value to society; but the determination of this value is usually made impossible, in socialist practice, by the intrusion of the metaphysical and untenable dogma of equalitarianism.

If one man is by nature as capable as another, and equality of opportunity[176] can be secured for all, it must follow that one man will be worth just as much as another; hence the equitable distribution of wealth would be an equal distribution of wealth, a proposal which some socialists have made. Most of the living leaders of the socialist movement certainly recognize its fallacy, but it seems so far to have been found necessary to lean very far in this direction for the maintenance of socialism as a movement of class protest.

Now this idea of the equality of human beings is, in every respect that can be tested, absolutely false, and any movement which depends on it will either be wrecked or, if successful, will wreck the state which it tries to operate. It will mean the penalization of real worth and the endowment of inferiority and incompetence. Eugenists can feel no sympathy for a doctrine which is so completely at variance with the facts of human nature.

But if it is admitted that men differ widely, and always must differ, in ability and worth, then eugenics can be in accord with the socialistic desire for distribution of wealth according to merit, for this will make it possible to favor and help perpetuate the valuable strains in the community and to discourage the inferior strains. T. N. Carver sums up the argument[177] concisely:

"Distribution according to worth, usefulness or service is the system which would most facilitate the progress of human adaptation. It would, in the first place, stimulate each individual by an appeal to his own self-interest, to make himself as useful as possible to the community. In the second place, it would leave him perfectly free to labor in the service of the community for altruistic reasons, if there was any altruism in his nature. In the third place it would exercise a beneficial selective influence upon the stock or race, because the useful members would survive and perpetuate their kind and the useless and criminal members would be exterminated."

In so far as socialists rid themselves of their sentimental and Utopian equalitarianism, the eugenist will join them willingly in a demand that the distribution of wealth be made to depend as far as feasible on the value of the individual to society.[178] As to the means by which this distribution can be made, there will of course be differences of opinion, to discuss which would be outside the province of this volume. Fundamentally, eugenics is anti-individualistic and in so far a socialistic movement, since it seeks a social end involving some degree of individual subordination, and this fact would be more frequently recognized if the movement which claims the name of socialist did not so often allow the wish to believe that a man's environmental change could eliminate natural inequalities to warp its attitude.

CHILD LABOR

It is often alleged that the abolition of child labor would be a great eugenic accomplishment; but as is the case with nearly all such proposals, the actual results are both complex and far-reaching.

The selective effects of child labor obviously operate directly on two generations: (1) the parental generation and (2) the filial generation, the children who are at work. The results of these two forms of selection must be considered separately.

1. On the parental generation. The children who labor mostly come from poor families, where every child up to the age of economic productivity is an economic burden. If the children go to work at an early age, the parents can afford to have more children and probably will, since the children soon become to some extent an asset rather than a liability. Child labor thus leads to a higher birth-rate of this class, abolition of child labor would lead to a lower birth-rate, since the parents could no longer afford to have so many children.

Karl Pearson has found reason to believe that this result can be statistically traced in the birth-rate of English working people,—that a considerable decline in their fecundity, due to voluntary restriction, began after the passage of each of the laws which restricted child labor and made children an expense from which no return could be expected.

If the abolition of child labor leads to the production of fewer children in a certain section of the population the value of the result to society, in this phase, will depend on whether or not society wants that strain proportionately increased. If it is an inferior stock, this one effect of the abolition of child labor would be eugenic.

Comparing the families whose children work with those whose children do not, one is likely to conclude that the former are on the average inferior to the latter. If so, child labor is in this one particular aspect dysgenic, and its abolition, leading to a lower birth-rate in this class of the population, will be an advantage.

2. On the filial generation. The obvious result of the abolition of child labor will be, as is often and graphically told, to give children a better chance of development. If they are of superior stock, and will be better parents for not having worked as children (a proviso which requires substantiation) the abolition of their labor will be of direct eugenic benefit. Otherwise, its results will be at most indirect; or, possibly, dysgenic, if they are of undesirable stock, and are enabled to survive in greater numbers and reproduce. In necessarily passing over the social and economic aspects of the question, we do not wish it thought that we advocate child labor for the purpose of killing off an undesirable stock prematurely. We are only concerned in pointing out that the effects of child labor are many and various.

The effect of its abolition within a single family further depends on whether the children who go to work are superior to those who stay at home. If the strongest and most intelligent children are sent to work and crippled or killed prematurely, while the weaklings and feeble-minded are kept at home, brought up on the earnings of the strong, and enabled to reach maturity and reproduce, then this aspect of child labor is distinctly dysgenic.

The desirability of prohibiting child labor is generally conceded on euthenic grounds, and we conclude that its results will on the whole be eugenic as well, but that they are more complex than is usually recognized.

COMPULSORY EDUCATION

Whether one favors or rejects compulsory education will probably be determined by other arguments than those derived from eugenics; nevertheless there are eugenic aspects of the problem which deserve to be recognized.

One of the effects of compulsory education is similar to that which follows the abolition of child labor—namely, that the child is made a source of expense, not of revenue, to the parent. Not only is the child unable to work, while at school, but to send him to school involves in practice dressing him better than would be necessary if he stayed at home. While it might fit the child to work more gainfully in later years, yet the years of gain are so long postponed that the parent can expect to share in but little of it.

These arguments would not affect the well-to-do parent, or the high-minded parent who was willing or able to make some sacrifice in order that his children might get as good a start as possible. But they may well affect the opposite type of parent, with low efficiency and low ideals.[179] This type of parent, finding that the system of compulsory education made children a liability, not an immediate asset, would thereby be led to reduce the size of his family, just as he seems to have done when child labor was prohibited in England and children ceased to be a source of revenue. Compulsory education has here, then, a eugenic effect, in discouraging the reproduction of parents with the least efficiency and altruism.

If this belief be well founded, it is likely that any measure tending to decrease the cost of schooling for children will tend to diminish this effect of compulsory education. Such measures as the free distribution of text-books, the provision of free lunches at noon, or the extension to school children of a reduced car-fare, make it easier for the selfish or inefficient parent to raise children; they cost him less and therefore he may tend to have more of them. If such were the case, the measures referred to, despite the euthenic considerations, must be classified as dysgenic.

In another and quite different way, compulsory education is of service to eugenics. The educational system should be a sieve, through which all the children of the country are passed,—or more accurately, a series of sieves, which will enable the teacher to determine just how far it is profitable to educate each child so that he may lead a life of the greatest possible usefulness to the state and happiness to himself. Obviously such a function would be inadequately discharged, if the sieve failed to get all the available material; and compulsory education makes it certain that none will be omitted.

It is very desirable that no child escape inspection, because of the importance of discovering every individual of exceptional ability or inability. Since the public educational system has not yet risen to the need of this systematic mental diagnosis, private philanthropy should for the present be alert to get appropriate treatment for the unusually promising individual. In Pittsburgh, a committee of the Civic Club is seeking youths of this type, who might be obliged to leave school prematurely for economic reasons, and is aiding them to appropriate opportunities. Such discriminating selection will probably become much more widespread and we may hope a recognized function of the schools, owing to the great public demonstration of psychometry now being conducted at the cantonments for the mental classification of recruits. Compulsory education is necessary for this selection.

We conclude that compulsory education, as such, is not only of service to eugenics through the selection it makes possible, but may serve in a more unsuspected way by cutting down the birth-rate of inferior families.

VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND TRAINING

In arguments for vocational guidance and education of youth, one does not often hear eugenics mentioned; yet these measures, if effectively carried out, seem likely to be of real eugenic value.

The need for as perfect a correlation as possible between income and eugenic worth, has been already emphasized. It is evident that if a man gets into the wrong job, a job for which he is not well fitted, he may make a very poor showing in life, while if properly trained in something suited to him, his income would have been considerably greater. It will be a distinct advantage to have superior young people get established earlier, and this can be done if they are directly taught efficiency in what they can do best, the boys being fitted for gainful occupations, and the girls for wifehood and motherhood in addition.

As to the details of vocational guidance, the eugenist is perhaps not entitled to give much advice; yet it seems likely that a more thorough study of the inheritance of ability would be of value to the educator. It was pointed out in Chapter IV that inheritance often seems to be highly specialized,—a fact which leads to the inference that the son might often do best in his father's calling or vocation, especially if his mother comes from a family marked by similar capacities. It is difficult to say how far the occupation of the son is, in modern conditions, determined by heredity and how far it is the result of chance, or the need of taking the first job open, the lack of any special qualifications for any particular work, or some similar environmental influence. Miss Perrin investigated 1,550 pairs of fathers and sons in the English Dictionary of National Biography and an equal number in the English Who's Who. "It seems clear," she concluded, "that whether we take the present or the long period of the past embraced by the Dictionary, the environmental influences which induce a man in this country to follow his father's occupation must have remained very steady." She found the coefficient of contingency[180] between occupation of father and occupation of son in Who's Who to be .75 and in the Dictionary of National Biography .76. For the inheritance of physical and mental characters, in general, the coefficient would be about .5. She thinks, "therefore, we may say that in the choice of a profession inherited taste counts for about 2/3 and environmental conditions for about ."

An examination of 990 seventh and eighth grade boys in the public schools of St. Paul[181] showed that only 11% of them desired to enter the occupation of their fathers; there was a pronounced tendency to choose occupations of a more remunerative or intellectual and less manual sort than that followed by the father. That this preference would always determine the ultimate occupation is not to be expected, as a considerable per cent may fail to show the necessary ability.

While inherited tastes and aptitude for some calling probably should carry a good deal of weight in vocational guidance, we can not share the exaggerated view which some sociologists hold about the great waste of ability through the existence of round pegs in square holes. This attitude is often expressed in such words as those of E. B. Woods: "Ability receives its reward only when it is presented with the opportunities of a fairly favorable environment, its peculiarly indispensable sort of environment. Naval commanders are not likely to be developed in the Transvaal, nor literary men and artists in the soft coal fields of western Pennsylvania. For ten men who succeed as investigators, inventors, or diplomatists, there may be and probably are in some communities fifty more who would succeed better under the same circumstances."

While there is some truth in this view, it exaggerates the evil by ignoring the fact that good qualities frequently go together in an individual. The man of Transvaal who is by force of circumstances kept from a naval career is likely to distinguish himself as a successful colonist, and perhaps enrich the world even more than if he had been brought up in a maritime state and become a naval commander. It may be that his inherited talent fitted him to be a better naval commander than anything else; if so, it probably also fitted him to be better at many other things, than are the majority of men. "Intrinsically good traits have also good correlatives," physical, mental and moral.

F. A. Woods has brought together the best evidence of this, in his studies of the royal families of Europe. If the dozen best generals were selected from the men he has studied, they would of course surpass the average man enormously in military skill; but, as he points out, they would also surpass the average man to a very high degree as poets,—or doubtless as cooks or lawyers, had they given any time to those occupations.[182]

The above considerations lead to two suggestions for vocational guidance: (i) it is desirable to ascertain and make use of the child's inherited capacities as far as possible; but (2) it must not be supposed that every child inherits the ability to do one thing only, and will waste his life if he does not happen to get a chance to do that thing. It is easy to suppose that the man who makes a failure as a paperhanger might, if he had had the opportunity, have been a great electrical engineer; it is easy to cite a few cases, such as that of General U. S. Grant, which seem to lend some color to the theory, but statistical evidence would indicate it is not the rule. If a man makes a failure as a paperhanger, it is at least possible that he would have made a failure of very many things that he might try; and if a man makes a brilliant success as a paperhanger, or railway engineer, or school teacher, or chemist, he is a useful citizen who would probably have gained a fair measure of success in any one of several occupations that he might have taken up but not in all.

To sum up: vocational guidance and training are likely to be of much service to eugenics. They may derive direct help from heredity; and their exponents may also learn that a man who is really good in one thing is likely to be good in many things, and that a man who fails in one thing would not necessarily achieve success if he were put in some other career. One of their greatest services will probably be to put a lot of boys into skilled trades, for which they are adapted and where they will succeed, and thus prevent them from yielding to the desire for a more genteel clerical occupation, in which they will not do more than earn a bare living. This will assist in bringing about the high correlation between merit and income which is so much to be desired.

THE MINIMUM WAGE

Legal enactment of a minimum wage is often urged as a measure that would promote social welfare and race betterment. By minimum wage is to be understood, according to its advocates, not the wage that will support a single man, but one that will support a man, wife, and three or four children. In the United States, the sum necessary for this purpose can hardly be estimated at less than $2.50 a day.

A living wage is certainly desirable for every man, but the idea of giving every man a wage sufficient to support a family can not be considered eugenic. In the first place, it interferes with the adjustment of wages to ability, on the necessity of which we have often insisted. In the second place, it is not desirable that society should make it possible for every man to support a wife and three children; in many cases it is desirable that it be made impossible for him to do so. Eugenically, teaching methods of birth control to the married unskilled laborer is a sounder way of solving his problems, than subsidizing him so he can support a large family.

It must be frankly recognized that poverty is in many ways eugenic in its effect, and that with the spread of birth control among people below the poverty line, it is certain to be still more eugenic than at present. It represents an effective, even though a cruel, method of keeping down the net birth-rate of people who for one reason or another are not economically efficient; and the element of cruelty, involved in high infant mortality, will be largely mitigated by birth control. Free competition may be tempered to the extent of furnishing every man enough charity to feed him, if he requires charity for that purpose; and to feed his family, if he already has one; but charity which will allow him to increase his family, if he is too inefficient to support it by his own exertions, is rarely a benefit eugenically.

The minimum wage is admittedly not an attempt to pay a man what he is worth. It is an attempt to make it possible for every man, no matter what his economic or social value, to support a family. Therefore, in so far as it would encourage men of inferior quality to have or increase families, it is unquestionably dysgenic.

MOTHERS' PENSIONS

Half of the states of the Union have already adopted some form of pension for widowed mothers, and similar measures are being urged in nearly all remaining states. The earliest of these laws goes back only to 1911.

In general,[183] these laws apply to mothers who are widows, or in some cases to those who have lost their means of support through imprisonment or incapacity of the husband. The maximum age of the child on whose account allowance is made varies from 14 to 16, in a few cases to 17 or 18. The amount allowed for each child varies in each state, approximately between the limits of $100 and $200 a year. In most states the law demands that the mother be a fit person, physically, mentally and morally to bring up her children, and that it be to their interest that they remain with her at home instead of being placed at work or sent to some institution. In all cases considerable latitude is allowed the administrator of the law,—a juvenile court, or board of county commissioners, or some body with equivalent powers.

Laws of this character have often been described as being eugenic in effect, but examination shows little reason for such a characterization. Since the law applies for the most part to women who have lost their husbands, it is evident that it is not likely to affect the differential birth-rate which is of such concern to eugenics. On the whole, mothers' pensions must be put in the class of work which may be undertaken on humanitarian grounds, but they are probably slightly dysgenic rather than eugenic, since they favor the preservation of families which are, on the whole, of inferior quality, as shown by the lack of relatives with ability or willingness to help them. On the other hand, they are not likely to result in the production from these families of more children than those already in existence.

HOUSING

At present it is sometimes difficult, in the more fashionable quarters of large cities, to find apartments where families with children are admitted. In other parts of the city, this difficulty appears to be much less. Such a situation tends to discourage parenthood, on the part of young couples who come of good families and desire to live in the part of the city where their friends are to be found. It is at least likely to cause postponement of parenthood until they feel financially able to take a separate house. Here is an influence tending to lower the birth-rate of young couples who have social aspirations, at least to the extent of desiring to live in the pleasanter and more reputable part of their city. Such a hindrance exists to a much less extent, if at all, for those who have no reason for wanting to live in the fashionable part of the city. This discrimination of some apartment owners against families with children would therefore appear to be dysgenic in its effect.

Married people who wish to live in the more attractive part of a city should not be penalized. The remedy is to make it illegal to discriminate against children. It is gratifying to note that recently a number of apartment houses have been built in New York, especially with a view to the requirements of children. The movement deserves wide encouragement. Any apartment house is an unsatisfactory place in which to bring up children, but since under modern urban conditions it is inevitable that many children must be brought up in apartments, if they are brought up at all, the municipality should in its own interests take steps to ensure that conditions will be as good as possible for them. In a few cases of model tenements, the favored poor tenants are better off than the moderately well-to-do. It is essential that the latter be given a chance to have children and bring them up in comfortable surroundings, and the provision of suitable apartment houses would be a gain in every large city.

The growing use of the automobile, which permits a family to live under pleasant surroundings in the suburbs and yet reach the city daily, alleviates the housing problem slightly. Increased facilities for rapid transit are of the utmost importance in placing the city population (a selected class, it will be remembered) under more favorable conditions for bringing up their children. Zone rates should be designed to effect this dispersal of population.

FEMINISM

The word "feminism" might be supposed to characterize a movement which sought to emphasize the distinction between woman's nature and that of man to provide for women's special needs. It was so used in early days on the continent. But at present in England and America it denotes a movement which is practically the reverse of this; which seeks to minimize the difference between the two sexes. It may be broadly described as a movement which seeks to remove all discrimination based on sex. It is a movement to secure recognition of an equality of the two sexes. The feminists variously demand that woman be recognized as the equal of man (1) biologically, (2) politically, (3) economically.

1. Whether or not woman is to be regarded as biologically equal to man depends on how one uses the word "equal." If it is meant that woman is as well adapted to her own particular kind of work as is man to his, the statement will readily be accepted. Unfortunately, feminists show a tendency to go beyond this and to minimize differentiation in their claims of equality. An attempt is made to show that women do not differ materially from men in the nature of their capacity of mental or physical achievement. Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Gilman makes the logical application by demanding that little girls' hair be cut short and that they be prevented from playing with dolls in order that differences fostered in this way be reduced.

In forming a judgment on this proposition, it must be remembered that civilization covers not more than 10,000 years out of man's history of half a million or more. During 490,000 out of the 500,000 years, man was the hunter and warrior; while woman stayed at home of necessity to bear and rear the young, to skin the prey, to prepare the food and clothing. He must have a small knowledge of biology who could suppose that this long history would not lead to any differentiation of the two sexes; and the biologist knows that man and woman in some respects differ in every cell of their bodies: that, as Jacques Loeb says, "Man and woman are, physiologically, different species."

But the biologist also knows that sex is a quantitative character. It is impossible to draw a sharp line and say that those on one side are in every respect men, and those on the other side in every respect women, as one might draw a line between goats and sheep. Many women have a considerable amount of "maleness"; numerous men have distinct feminine characteristics, physical and mental. There is thus an ill-defined "intermediate sex," as Edward Carpenter called it, whose size has been kept down by sexual selection; or better stated there is so much overlapping that it is a question of different averages with many individuals of each sex beyond the average of the other sex.

A perusal of Havelock Ellis' book, Man and Woman, will leave little doubt about the fact of sex differentiation, just as it will leave little doubt that one sex is, in its way, quite as good as the other, and that to talk of one sex as being inferior is absurd.

It is worth noting that the spread of feminism will reinforce the action of sexual selection in keeping down the numbers of this "intermediate sex." In the past, women who lacked femininity or maternal instinct have often married because the pressure of public opinion and economic conditions made it uncomfortable for any woman to remain unmarried. And they have had children because they could not help it, transmitting to their daughters their own lack of maternal instinct. Under the new rÉgime a large proportion of such women do not marry, and accordingly have few if any children to inherit their defects. Hence the average level of maternal instinct of the women of America is likely steadily to rise.

We conclude that any claim of biological equality of the two sexes must use the word in a figurative sense, not ignoring the differentiation of the two sexes, as extreme feminists are inclined to do. To this differentiation we shall return later.

2. Political equality includes the demand for the vote and for the removal of various legal restrictions, such as have sometimes prevented a wife from disposing of her own property without the consent of her husband or such as have made her citizenship follow that of her husband. In the United States, these legal restrictions are rapidly being removed, at such a rate that in some states it is now the husband who has a right to complain of certain legal discriminations.

Equal suffrage is also gaining steadily, but its eugenic aspect is not wholly clear. Theoretically much is to be said for it, as making use of woman's large social sympathies and responsibilities and interest in the family; but in the states where it has been tried, its effects have not been all that was hoped. Beneficial results are to be expected unless an objectionably extreme feminism finds support.

In general, the demand for political equality, in a broad sense, seems to the eugenist to be the most praiseworthy part of the feminist program. The abolition of those laws, which now discharge women from positions if they marry or have children, promises to be in principle a particularly valuable gain.

3. Economic equality is often summed up in the catch phrase "equal pay for equal work." If the phrase refers to jobs where women are competing on piecework with men, no one will object to it. In practice it applies particularly to two distinct but interlocking demands: (a) that women should receive the same pay as men for any given occupation—as, stenography, for example; and (b) that child-bearing should be recognized as just as much worthy of remuneration as any occupation which men enter, and should be paid for (by the state) on the same basis.

At present, there is almost universally a discrimination against women in commerce and industry. They sometimes get no more than half as much pay as men for similar grades of employment. But there is for this one good reason. An employer needs experienced help, and he expects a man to remain with him and become more valuable. He is, therefore, willing to pay more because of this anticipation. In hiring a woman, he knows that she will probably soon leave to marry. But whatever may be the origin of this discrimination, it is justified in the last analysis by the fact that a man is paid as the head of a family, a woman only as an individual who ordinarily has fewer or no dependents to support. Indeed, it is largely this feature which, under the law of supply and demand, has caused women to work for low wages.

It is evident that real economic equality between men and women must be impossible, if the women are to leave their work for long periods of time, in order to bear and rear children. It is normally impossible for a woman to earn her living by competitive labor, at the same time that she is bearing and rearing children. Either the doctrine of economic equality is largely illusory, therefore, or else it must be extended to making motherhood a salaried occupation just as much as mill work or stenography.

The feminists have almost universally adopted the latter alternative. They say that the woman who is capable of earning money, and who abandons wage-earning for motherhood, ought to receive from the state as nearly as possible what she would have received if she had not had children; or else they declare that the expense of children should be borne wholly by the community.

This proposal must be tested by asking whether it would tend to strengthen and perpetuate the race or not. It is, in effect, a proposal to have the state pay so much a head for babies. The fundamental question is whether or not the quality of the babies would be taken into account. Doubtless the babies of obviously feeble-minded women would be excluded, but would it be possible for the state to pay liberally for babies who would grow up to be productive citizens, and to refuse to pay for babies that would doubtless grow up to be incompetents, dolts, dullards, laggards or wasters? The scheme would work, eugenically, in proportion as it is discriminatory and graded.

But the example of legislation in France and England, and the main trend of popular thought in America, make it quite certain that at present, and for many years to come, it will be impossible to have babies valued on the basis of quality rather than mere numbers. It is sometimes possible to get indirect measures of a eugenic nature passed, and it has been found possible to secure the passage of direct measures which prevent reproduction of those who are actually defective. But even the most optimistic eugenist must feel that, short of the remote future, any attempt to have the state grade and pay for babies on the basis of their quality is certain to fail to pass.

The recent action of the municipality of SchÖnberg, Berlin, is typical. It is now paying baby bounties at the rate of $12.50 a head for the first born, $2.50 a head for all later born, and no questions asked. It is to be feared that any success which the feminists may gain in securing state aid for mothers in America will secure, as in SchÖnberg, in England, in France, and in Australia, merely a small uniform sum. This acts dysgenically because it is a stimulus to married people to have large families in inverse proportion to their income, and is felt most by those whose purpose in having children is least approvable.

The married woman of good stock ought to bear four children. For many reasons these ought to be spaced well apart, preferably not much less than three years. She must have oversight of these children until they all reach adolescence. This means a period of about 12 + 13 = 25 years during which her primary, though by no means her only, concern will be mothercraft. It is hardly possible and certainly not desirable that she should support herself outside of the home during this period. As state support would pretty certainly be indiscriminate and dangerously dysgenic, it therefore appears that the present custom of having the father responsible for the support of the family is not only unavoidable but desirable. If so, it is desirable to avoid reducing the wages of married men too much by the competition of single women.

To attain this end, without working any injustice to women, it seems wise to modify their education in general in such a way as to prepare women for the kinds of work best adapted to her capacities and needs. Women were long excluded from a higher education, and when they secured it, they not unnaturally wanted the kind of education men were receiving,—partly in order to demonstrate that they were not intellectually inferior to men. Since this demonstration is now complete, the continuation of duplicate curricula is uncalled for. The coeducational colleges of the west are already turning away from the old single curriculum and are providing for the election of more differentiated courses for women. The separate women's colleges of the east will doubtless do so eventually, since their own graduates and students are increasingly discontented with the present narrow and obsolete ideals. If the higher education of women, and much of the elementary education, is directed toward differentiating them from men and giving them distinct occupations (including primarily marriage and motherhood) instead of training them so the only thing they are capable of doing is to compete with men for men's jobs, the demand of "equal pay for equal work" will be less difficult to reconcile with the interests of the race. In this direction the feminists might find a large and profitable field for the employment of their energies.

There is good ground for the feminist contention that women should be liberally educated, that they should not be regarded by men as inferior creatures, that they should have the opportunity of self-expression in a richer, freer life than they have had in the past. All these gains can be made without sacrificing any racial interests; and they must be so made. The unrest of intelligent women is not to be lessened or removed by educating them in the belief that they are not different from men and setting them to work as men in the work of the world. Except where the work is peculiarly adapted to women or there is a special individual aptitude, such work will, for the reasons we have set forth, operate dysgenically and therefore bring about the decadence of the race which practices it.

The true solution is rather to be sought in recognizing the natural differentiation of the two sexes and in emphasizing this differentiation by education. Boys will be taught the nobility of being productive and of establishing families; girls will have similar ideals held up to them but will be taught to reach them in a different way, through cultivation of the intellectual and emotional characters most useful to that division of labor for which they are supremely adapted, as well as those that are common to both sexes. The home must not be made a subordinate interest, as some feminists desire, but it must be made a much richer, deeper, more satisfying interest than it is too frequently at present.

OLD AGE PENSIONS

Pensions for aged people form an important part of the modern program of social legislation. What their merits may be in relieving poverty will not be discussed here. But beyond the direct effect, it is important to inquire what indirect eugenic effect they would have, as compared with the present system where the aged are most frequently supported by their own children when they have failed through lack of thrift or for other reasons to make provision for their old age.

The ordinary man, dependent on his daily work for a livelihood, can not easily support his parents and his offspring at the same time. Aid given to the one must be in some degree at the expense of the other. The eugenic consequences will depend on what class of man is required to contribute thus to parental support.

It is at once obvious that superior families will rarely encounter this problem. The parents will, by their superior earning capacity and the exercise of thrift and foresight, have provided for the wants of their old age. A superior man will therefore seldom be under economic pressure to limit the number of his own children because of the necessity of supporting his parents. In inferior families, on the other hand, the parents will have made no adequate provision for their old age. A son will have to assume their support, and thus reduce the number of his own children,—a eugenic result. With old age pensions from the state, the economic pressure would be taken off these inferior families and the children would thus be encouraged to marry earlier and have more children,—a dysgenic result.

From this point of view, the most eugenic course would perhaps be to make the support of parents by children compulsory, in cases where any support was needed. Such a step would not handicap superior families, but would hold back the inferior. A contributory system of old age pensions, for which the money was provided out of the individual's earnings, and laid aside for his old age, would also be satisfactory. A system which led to the payment of old age pensions by the state would be harmful.

The latter system would be evil in still another way because, as is the case with most social legislation of this type, the funds for carrying out such a scheme must naturally be furnished by the efficient members of the community. This adds to their financial burdens and encourages the young men to postpone marriage longer and to have fewer children when they do marry,—a dysgenic result.

It appears, therefore, that old age pensions paid by the state would be dysgenic in a number of ways, encouraging the increase of the inferior part of the population at the expense of the superior. If old age pensions are necessary, they should be contributory.

THE SEX HYGIENE MOVEMENT

Sexual morality is thought by some to be substantially synonymous with eugenics or to be included by it. One of the authors has protested previously[184] against this confusion of the meaning of the word "eugenics." The fallacy of believing that a campaign against sexual immorality is a campaign for eugenics will be apparent if the proposition is analyzed.

First, does sexual immorality increase or decrease the marriage rate of the offenders? We conclude that it reduces the marriage rate. Although it is true that some individuals might by sexual experience become so awakened as to be less satisfied with a continent life, and might thus in some cases be led to marriage, yet this is more than counterbalanced by the following considerations:

1. The mere consciousness of loss of virginity has led in some sensitive persons, especially women, to an unwillingness to marry from a sense of unworthiness. This is not common, yet such cases are known.

2. The loss of reputation has prevented the marriage of the desired mates. This is not at all uncommon.

3. Venereal infection has led to the abandonment of marriage. This is especially common.

4. Illicit experiences may have been so disillusioning, owing to the disaffecting nature of the consorts, that an attitude of pessimism and misanthropy or misogyny is built up. Such an attitude prevents marriage not only directly, but also indirectly, since persons with such an outlook are thereby less attractive to the opposite sex.

5. A taste for sexual variety is built up so that the individual is unwilling to commit himself to a monogamous union.

6. Occasionally, threat of blackmail by a jilted paramour prevents marriage by the inability to escape these importunities.

We consider next the relative birth-rate of the married and the incontinent unmarried. There can not be the slightest doubt that this is vastly greater in the case of the married. The unmarried have not only all the incentives of the married to keep down their birth-rate but also the obvious and powerful incentive of concealment as well.

Passing to the relative death-rate of the illegitimate and legitimate progeny, the actual data invariably indicate a decided advantage of the legitimately born. The reasons are too obvious to be retailed.

Now, then, knowing that the racial contribution of the sexually moral is greater than that of the sexually immoral, we may compare the quality of the sexually moral and immoral, to get the evolutionary effect.

For this purpose a distinction must be made between the individual who has been chaste till the normal time of marriage and whose sexual life is truly monogamous, and that abnormal group who remain chaste and celibate to an advanced age. These last are not moral in the last analysis, if they have valuable and needed traits and are fertile, because in the long run their failure to reproduce affects adversely the welfare of their group. While the race suffers through the failure of many of these individuals to contribute progeny, probably this does not happen, so far as males are concerned, as much as might be supposed, for such individuals are often innately defective in their instincts or, in the case of disappointed lovers, have a badly proportioned emotional equipment, since it leads them into a position so obviously opposed to race interests.

But, to pass to the essential comparison, that between the sexually immoral and the sexually moral as limited above, it is necessary first of all to decide whether monogamy is a desirable and presumably permanent feature of human society.

We conclude that it is:

1. Because it is spreading at the expense of polygamy even where not favored by legal interference. The change is most evident in China.

2. In monogamy, sexual selection puts a premium on valuable traits of character, rather than on mere personal beauty or ability to acquire wealth; and

3. The greatest amount of happiness is produced by a monogamous system, since in a polygamous society so many men must remain unmarried and so many women are dissatisfied with having to share their mates with others.

Assuming this, then adaptation to the condition of monogamous society represents race progress. Such a race profits if those who do not comply with its conditions make a deficient racial contribution. It follows then that sexual immorality is eugenic in its result for the species and that if all sexual immorality should cease, an important means of race progress might be lost. An illustration is the case of the Negro in America, whose failure to increase more rapidly in number is largely attributable to the widespread sterility resulting from venereal infection.[185] Should venereal diseases be eliminated, that race might be expected to increase in numbers very much faster than the whites.

It may be felt by some that this position would have an immoral effect upon youth if widely accepted. This need not be feared. On the contrary, we believe that one of the most powerful factors in ethical culture is pride due to the consciousness of being one who is fit and worthy.

The traditional view of sexual morality has been to ignore the selectional aspect here discussed and to stress the alleged deterioration of the germ-plasm by the direct action of the toxins of syphilis. The evidence relied upon to demonstrate this action seems to be vitiated by the possibility that there was, instead, a transmitted infection of the progeny. This "racial poison" action, since it is so highly improbable from analogy, can not be credited until it has been demonstrated in cases where the parents have been indubitably cured.

Is it necessary, then, to retain sexual immorality in order to achieve race progress? No, because it is only one of many factors contributing to race progress. Society can mitigate this as well as alcoholism, disease, infant mortality—all powerful selective factors—without harm, provided increased efficiency of other selective factors is ensured, such as the segregation of defectives, more effective sexual selection, a better correlation of income and ability, and a more eugenic distribution of family limitation.

TRADES UNIONISM

A dysgenic feature often found in trades unionism will easily be understood after our discussion of the minimum wage. The union tends to standardize wages; it tends to fix a wage in a given industry, and demand that nearly all workers in that classification be paid that wage. It cannot be denied that some of these workers are much more capable than others. Artificial interference with a more exact adjustment of wages to ability therefore penalizes the better workmen and subsidizes the worse ones. Economic pressure is thereby put on the better men to have fewer children, and with the worse men encourages more children, than would be the case if their incomes more nearly represented their real worth. Payment according to the product, with prizes and bonuses so much opposed by the unions, is more in accord with the principles of eugenics.

PROHIBITION

It was shown in Chapter II that the attempt to ban alcoholic beverages on the ground of direct dysgenic effect is based on dubious evidence. But the prohibition of the use of liquors, at least those containing more than 5% alcohol, can be defended on indirect eugenic grounds, as well as on the familiar grounds of pathology and economics which are commonly cited.

1. Unless it is present to such a degree as to constitute a neurotic taint, the desire to be stimulated is not of itself necessarily a bad thing. This will be particularly clear if the distribution of the responsiveness to alcoholic stimulus is recalled. Some really valuable strains, marked by this susceptibility, may be eliminated through the death of some individuals from debauchery and the penalization of others in preferential mating; this would be avoided if narcotics were not available.

2. In selection for eugenic improvement, it is desirable not to have to select for too many traits at once. If alcoholism could, through prohibition, be eliminated from consideration, it would just so far simplify the problem of eugenics.

3. Drunkenness interferes with the effectiveness of means for family limitation, so that if his alcoholism is not extreme, the drunkard's family is sometimes larger than it would otherwise be.

On the other hand, prohibition is dysgenic and intemperance is eugenic in their effect on the species in so far as alcoholism is correlated with other undesirable characters and brings about the elimination of undesirable strains. But its action is not sufficiently discriminating nor decisive; and if the strains have many serious defects, they can probably be dealt with better in some other, more direct way.

We conclude, then, that, on the whole, prohibition is desirable for eugenic as well as for other reasons.

PEDAGOGICAL CELIBACY

Whether women are more efficient teachers than men, and whether single women are more efficient teachers than married women, are disputed questions which it is not proposed here to consider. Accepting the present fact, that most of the school teachers in the United States are unmarried women, it is proper to examine the eugenic consequences of this condition.

The withdrawal of this large body of women from the career of motherhood into a celibate career may be desirable if these women are below the average of the rest of the women of the population in eugenic quality. But it would hardly be possible to find enough eugenic inferiors to fill the ranks of teachers, without getting those who are inferior in actual ability, in patent as well as latent traits. And the idea of placing education in the hands of such inferior persons is not to be considered.

It is, therefore, inevitable that the teachers are, on the whole, superior persons eugenically. Their celibacy must be considered highly detrimental to racial welfare.

But, it may be said, there is a considerable number of women so deficient in sex feeling or emotional equipment that they are certain never to marry; they are, nevertheless, persons of intellectual ability. Let them be the school teachers. This solution is, however, not acceptable. Many women of the character described undoubtedly exist, but they are better placed in some other occupation. It is wholly undesirable that children should be reared under a neuter influence, which is probably too common already in education.

If women are to teach, then, it must be concluded that on eugenic grounds preference should be given to married rather than single teachers, and that the single ones should be encouraged to marry. This requires (1) that considerable change be made in the education of young women, so that they shall be fitted for motherhood rather than exclusively for school teaching as is often the case, and (2) that social devices be brought into play to aid them in mating—since undoubtedly a proportion of school teachers are single from the segregating character of their profession, not from choice, and (3) provision for employing some women on half-time and (4) increase of the number of male teachers in high schools.

It is, perhaps, unnecessary to mention a fifth change necessary: that school boards must be brought to see the undesirability of employing only unmarried women, and of discharging them, no matter how efficient, if they marry or have children. The courts must be enabled to uphold woman's right of marriage and motherhood, instead of, as in some cases at present, upholding school boards in their denial of this right. Contracts which prevent women teachers from marrying or discontinuing their work for marriage should be illegal, and talk about the "moral obligation" of normal school graduates to teach should be discountenanced.

Against the proposal to employ married school teachers, two objections are urged. It is said (1) that for most women school teaching is merely a temporary occupation, which they take up to pass the few years until they shall have married. To this it may be replied that the hope of marriage too often proves illusory to the young woman who enters on the pedagogical career, because of the lack of opportunities to meet men, and because the nature of her work is not such as to increase her attractiveness to men, nor her fitness for home-making. Pedagogy is too often a sterilizing institution, which takes young women who desire to marry and impairs their chance of marriage.

Again it will be said (2) that married teachers would lose too much time from their work; that their primary interests would be in their own homes instead of in the school; that they could not teach school without neglecting their own children. These objections fall in the realm of education, not eugenics, and it can only be said here that the reasons must be extraordinarily cogent, which will justify the enforcement of celibacy on so large a body of superior young women as is now engaged in school teaching.

The magnitude of the problem is not always realized. In 1914 the Commissioner of education reported that there were, in the United States, 169,929 men and 537,123 women engaged in teaching. Not less than half a million women, therefore, are potentially affected by the institution of pedagogical celibacy.