Chapter IX: Part II: Darwinism and the Atomistic Interpretation of Inheritance (3)

We set out in the first place to contrast the views of the modern geneticist with the Selection hypothesis in its original form. The main differences arise in connexion with two issues. One concerns Darwin’s own view that evolution is a continuous process. Darwin believed that selection operates on all the individuals of every generation. This implies either that acquired characters are inherited or alternatively that all differences between parent and offspring are hereditary differences in the modern sense. The views to which modern geneticists have been led by their experiments are diametrically opposed to both conclusions. The other question concerns the creative rôle of selection. This belief arose from ideas about hybridization and artificial selection current among those biologists to whom Darwin addressed his argument. Darwin himself did not stress the point; but it was this corollary of his theory which accounts for the successful appeal which Natural Selection made to Darwin’s contemporaries. They were satisfied that, if a struggle for existence occurs, evolution must be taking place. This was because all biologists before Mendel confused the characters which do blend with the genes that do not. To the modern geneticist this corollary has no significance, because experiment has forced him to reject views about hybridization prevalent before the publication of Mendel’s researches. To Morgan, as to Darwin, selection through the survival of the fitter is essentially like artificial selection. Morgan differs radically from Darwin in his understanding of the way in which artificial selection itself operates. According to Morgan selection has no creative significance. “Selection has not produced anything new, but only more of certain kinds of individuals; Evolution however means producing new things, not more of what already exists.”

Thus from the standpoint of Morgan the status of evolution is more satisfactory in the light of modern research. For there is no need to advance any special device to explain why new types are not swamped out of existence through the blending of characters on crossing. From the point of view of the Darwinians, if they were still with us, the outlook would be disconcerting. The modern geneticist no longer regards evolution as an imperative consequence of the struggle for existence. On the other hand the modern view presents no greater difficulty than the former one in explaining the tendency towards greater adaptation. It is free from the objection that it proves too much. New hereditary types would persist even if there were no struggle for existence. Since there is one, the chance that a given mutant will reach the age at which it can produce offspring will be greater if the mutant character has “survival value.” At present there are insufficient experimental data to make profitable the discussion of the amount of advantage necessary to ensure survival. At the same time it is of interest to record that the application of Mendelian method furnishes materials for a precise statement of what selection can achieve and the rate at which it works, when the extent of differential fertility or mortality in a population is known. The mathematical theory of selection has been made the subject of some illuminating researches by J. B. S. Haldane and by Fisher. Haldane’s calculations have led him to conclusions very different from the dialectical deductions which some eugenists have drawn from the recent decline of the European birth rate.[7]

VIII. THE SURVIVAL OF THE EUGENIST

“I am that ancient hunter of the plains,
That raked the shaggy flitches of the bison:
Pass, world: I am the dreamer that remains,
The Man, clear-cut against the last horizon.”
Roy Campbell, _Flaming Terrapin_

Concerning Vesalius one of his biographers has said: “in dissecting monkeys he became convinced that the many discrepancies between the Galenic teaching and his own observations on the human body were due to the circumstance that Galen had derived most of his knowledge from dissecting monkeys, and had not thought it necessary to mention the fact.” Perhaps the biographer of a future Vesalius who succeeds in laying the foundations of social anatomy will record that “in studying the writings of the Eugenists he became strengthened in the conclusion that they were discussing the habits of fruit flies rather than human beings, but had not thought it necessary to mention the fact.”

I have called this essay _The Survival of the Eugenist_; but I wish to make it clear that I entertain no lack of sympathy for _Eugenics_ as defined in general terms by Galton, the Galen of social biology. I have chosen this title to lay emphasis on the part which eugenists have played in perpetuating a certain attitude towards human society. This attitude starts from an examination of those characteristics which man shares with all other animals, but neglects the equally important task of defining those characteristics which distinguish man from all other animals. The weakness of all mechanistic systems hitherto proposed lies in their refusal to recognize the existence of anything which does not yet come within the province of scientific method. A mechanistic philosopher can legitimately entertain the hope that the study of human society will become an ethically neutral science, and that the methods of biology will fertilize sociological enquiry, as the methods of physics and chemistry have fertilized biological investigation. He is not entitled to pretend that biology can at present provide a key to the interpretation of human history. I am well aware that there are eugenists who would repudiate any such pretensions. At the same time the general tendency of eugenic propaganda has been to exaggerate, and grossly exaggerate, the applicability of genetic principles to the analysis of human society. This tendency is a legacy of the period in which Eugenic ideas had their origin.

Whatever disadvantages the Christian cosmogony imposed upon the study of human society, it possessed the merit of emphasizing that the proper study of mankind is man. The immediate influence of the evolutionary controversy was a reversion to the Galenic practice in social anatomy. There is nothing surprising in this reaction. To Huxley and Spencer the important fact was that Man is a brute. It was necessary for them to emphasize man’s genetic similarity to other animals in opposition to the traditional view which placed man in a special category apart from other natural objects. How strongly the need to emphasize Man’s new status was felt can be inferred by a well-known dictum in _Man’s Place in Nature_. “Whatever systems of organs be studied,” wrote Huxley, “the comparison of their modification in the ape series leads to one and the same result--that the structural differences which separate man from the gorilla and the chimpanzee are not so great as those which separate the gorilla from the lower apes.” In his dispute with Owen, Huxley went much further than any modern anatomist would be prepared to follow him. If like Cuvier he had based his objections on the structure of the human foot instead of the hippocampus major, Owen might have made a stronger case. His opponents were too busy disposing of man’s Cartesian spirit to devote much attention to his Cuvierian sole.

The evolution of Thomas Henry Huxley, of Herbert Spencer and of Francis Galton was a precocious baby. Its parents and relatives entertained high hopes of its future career. In that tradition it has been nursed by their loyal disciples who have encouraged it to discourse upon sociology before it has learned to read and write. Huxley, Spencer and Galton were fundamentally right in recognizing that any theory of the development of human society implies certain biological assumptions. Their anticipations of immediate progress in the biological treatment of human society was inevitably coloured by the issues which made the first claim on their attention. Those issues are no longer topical. The experimental biologist of to-day cannot approach the structure of human society from quite the same angle. The pioneers of evolution were goaded by theological opposition to adopt an attitude which is easy to condone but unnecessary to emulate. To justify their right to speculate, they found it necessary to convince the non-scientific public that their speculations were correct. To do so they were driven to minimize the gap between man and the apes and make the best of any evidence pointing to the missing link which popular imagination demanded.

The missing link provided the occasion for one of the first sociological exploits of anatomical science. There is an account of the incident given in Dr. Haddon’s _History of Anthropology_. Three years after _The Origin of Species_ was published Dr. James Hunt, President of the Anthropological Society, read his paper on “The Negro’s Place in Nature.” In it he maintained that “the analogies are far more numerous between the ape and the negro than between the ape and the European.” In 1866 he recorded a further contribution to the detection of the missing link by asserting that “there is as good reason for classifying the negro as a distinct species from the European as there is for making the ass a distinct species from the zebra.” In this discussion Huxley gave the exponents of the missing link a half-hearted support tempered somewhat by his humane and sceptical disposition. An obituary notice of Dr. Hunt in a New York paper announced in 1870 the “Death of the Best Man in England.” Sixty years after the publication of Hunt’s first communication, a leading American anthropologist, Professor Kroeber, summed up the present state of knowledge in the following terms:

“The only way in which a decision could be arrived at along this
line of consideration would be to count all features to see whether
the Negro or the Caucasian was the most unape-like in the plurality
of cases. It is possible that in such a reckoning the Caucasian
would emerge with a lead. But it is even more clear that which ever
way the majority fell, it would be a well-divided count.”

Speculation upon the ancestry of man has continued with unabated vigour to the present time. Huxley’s generation had one good excuse for confusing the process of social and organic evolution. It cannot be pleaded by our own. Modern men were known to be associated with the later palæolithic cultures. The Mousterian artefacts had been associated with the Neanderthal type. There was much to encourage the hope that further research would reveal a close parallelism between the physical differentiation of specific or racial types and successive stages of cultural development. It now appears that Mousterian artefacts were also fashioned by types who, as Sir Arthur Keith puts it, “would excite no comment, if dressed in modern garb in any assemblage of modern Europeans.” Our own species has served a long apprenticeship in a much earlier phase of cultural development than that which was at one time attributed specifically to the Neanderthalers. The data presented in Sir Arthur Keith’s book _The Antiquity of Man_ show that it is not easy to press blood relationships out of stone implements. There are already signs of a reaction against the extravagant claims which have been put forward by some physical anthropologists. The most recent hypothesis of the origin of civilization completely breaks with the earlier tradition to harp on the racial aspect of the problem. Professor Elliott Smith is distinguished both as a physical and cultural anthropologist, and it is therefore noteworthy that his theory emphasizes the characteristics of man’s physical environment as the significant factors in the appearance of the first civilized communities of the Nilotic region.

Under Weismann’s influence environment as an aspect of the problem of development assumed a nebulous outline. For a generation biologists were hypnotized by the discredit of the Lamarckian teaching. Eventually the progress of experimental embryology and cell anatomy relegated Weismann’s theory of germinal selection to the same limbo as the Lamarckian hypothesis. In Weismann’s hands the Selection doctrine had assumed a particularly rigid form. Evolution was necessarily a continuous process. All differences between parents and offspring were genetic. Heredity and variation were coextensive processes. From this it followed that a continuous evolutionary process had accompanied the development of social institutions. It was a natural step to confuse the two. The conviction that eugenic legislation is a matter of overwhelming urgency arose as a direct outcome of that step. That the same confusion still dominates eugenic propaganda is illustrated by a statement made by Mr. Lidbetter, a prominent eugenist, in his paper at the World Population Congress of 1927, “It is a platitude,” Mr. Lidbetter stated, “in these days to speak of natural selection as the essential agent in human progress.” It may be a platitude. It is not a truism. It is simply a misuse of terms. Social development is the communication of social tradition and social accomplishment from one generation to another, with the addition of new ingredients in each. Organic evolution is brought about by the transmission through the gametes of new hereditable properties. The mechanism of one is education. The mechanism of the other is sexual reproduction. It is possible that they react upon one another, but the extent to which they do so cannot be ascertained by _a priori_ reasoning. The experimental study of genetic variation has made it abundantly clear that evolution is not a continuous process. At present we do not know the precise conditions relevant to the production of mutant types; consequently it is unjustifiable to make any general assumptions about genetic variation in human societies without recourse to direct experimental inquiry.

That is the task which now lies before the social biologist. Its successful accomplishment will not be facilitated by under-estimating the difficulties inherent in the problem. The study of human inheritance is beset by innumerable obstacles. Man is a slow-breeding animal of low fertility. His chromosomes are numerous. The geneticist cannot control his matings. In spite of these drawbacks some insight into the nature of hereditary transmission within the human species can be gained by formulating the results of random mating on certain hypothetical assumptions. Familial studies of colour blindness, brachydactyly and the blood groups provide clear illustrations of Mendelian phenomena. So long as family pedigrees are employed to demonstrate the inheritance of physical characteristics, it is not difficult to recognize the nature of the environmental influences with which the hereditary materials react, and to make allowance for them. The geneticist is on familiar ground. The constituents of man’s physical environment have been classified by the physicist, the chemist and the bacteriologist. Their effects upon the physical characteristics of an organism form the subject matter of physiology. It is possible to speak of the action of sunlight and humidity, oxygen pressure and diet, infectious and contagious germs, iodine and calcium salts with some measure of confidence. All these things are features of man’s physical environment or of the physical environment of any other animal. The methods for investigating their influence are well tried. The concept of a uniform physical environment is tangible. It can be explained to a pragmatist or a presbyterian, a behaviourist or a bimetallist.

It is another thing to speak about a uniform social environment. The factors which determine man’s social behaviour are obscure and elusive. Even to-day any dogmatism on the relative importance of heredity and environment assumes an almost frivolous aspect when the attitude of the experimental biologist is brought to bear on the evidence. Analogies from the animal kingdom have been pressed into the service of those who emphasize the rôle of either the one or the other. Kropotkin’s _Mutual Aid_ was the _reductio ad absurdum_ of that attitude to social problems. Kropotkin was neither more nor less scientific than the exponents of nature red in tooth and claw. Both were irrelevant. The same irrelevance has been evident whenever biologists have attempted to rationalize their political sentiments. The anti-feminist appeals to the fighting and protective male. The feminist can retort by invoking the worm Bonellia of which the male lives as a parasite in the generative passages of the female. The eugenist pictures the human poultry farm nicely mapped out in pens, each surrounded by its own partition of wire-netting with a few holes here and there. Maybe the Rhode Island Reds have scratched their way into the proper preserve of the Partridge Cochins. Sooner or later the cosmic poultryman, aided by wise statesmen, will put them back where they belong. His opponents can reply that class differences exist in insect communities. The difference between a white ant queen and a termite worker is more striking than the difference between royalty and factory girls; and it is a difference determined by diet. Encouraging illustrations in support of any social doctrine can be brought forward by those who prefer analogy to analysis.

It might be hoped that the study of human history would assist, but the record of history is ambiguous. A striking instance of this ambiguity is to be found in Professor Carr Saunders’ book on the Population Problem. In the course of a temperate and on the whole well-balanced discussion of the racial factor in history, Carr Saunders remarks that the

“Nordic peoples are mostly Protestant and the Mediterranean peoples
mostly Catholic and Greek. The fact,” he continues, “that during
the Reformation a choice was set before most European nations as to
what religion should be adopted--the issue hanging in the balance
for some time in many places--seems to indicate that the conditions
were more or less equalized and the adoption of the Protestant
religion by the Nordic type was influenced by certain innate
characters attaching to that type.”

Even if we make a very generous allowance for the genetic homogeneity of the Nordic and Mediterranean populations in mediæval times, an entirely different interpretation of the same facts is equally plausible. At the time when Christianity received official recognition the countries to which Carr Saunders refers as predominantly Nordic lay on the fringe of Roman Imperial domination or completely outside it. The process of christianizing the Nordic geographical region was still in its infancy when the Holy Roman Empire embarked on its ephemeral and inglorious career. It was hardly complete, when controversy within the Western Church began to assume sinister proportions. With the exception of the Saxons the conversion of the Germanic peoples, including the Frisians, took place in the early part of the eighth century. The official conversion of Saxony occurred about A.D. 800. Christianity was accepted by the ruling powers of Denmark towards the end of the tenth century and by those of Norway and Sweden at the beginning of the eleventh century. The conversion of East Prussia, Latvia and Pomerania occurred during the twelfth century, and the conversion of Lithuania did not occur until the middle of the fourteenth century. In those countries which Christianity penetrated last of all the conflict between the ruling houses and the temporal claims of the Papacy was generally most acute. Where reformers could seek protection in the clemency of monarchs at loggerheads with the Pope, they spread their doctrines successfully. Where there only existed a religious movement, it was speedily extinguished. The Reformed doctrines spread in those countries where Christianity had been more recently introduced, and where the political sovereignty of the Pope and the economic power of the Church as a landowner were least firmly entrenched and least agreeable to the secular authorities. Catholicism had taken root in the ancient civilization of the Mediterranean region, when the Nordic peoples were outside the pale. If it is true that the Nordic peoples gravitated to Protestantism, it is equally true that they happened to inhabit the geographical region most remote from Rome. There is no reason to suppose that their choice of locality was determined by any characters peculiar to their type or relevant to the progress of theological discovery.

In seeking to make allowance for the significant factors of man’s social environment there is no body of accredited information to which the geneticist can turn. There are as many schools of psychology as there are schools of philosophy. The introspective psychologist approaches social behaviour from a purely teleological standpoint, interpreting the means in relation to the end it fulfils. The behaviourist adopts a mechanistic attitude, seeking to interpret the end as predestined by the means. One speaks of a directing intelligence and instinctive action. The other speaks of intelligent behaviour and unconditioned response. Between the two schools there is a great gulf fixed. It is that which separates the philosophy of Plato from the teaching of Democritus. It is not merely a difference of perspective or of minor issues. Such differences exist in an exact science. The psychologists disagree about the very nature of inquiry into the basis of social behaviour; and there is no immediate prospect that they will come to terms. Meanwhile the eugenist finds himself impaled on the horns of a dilemma. The methods of animal genetics are mechanistic; but the behaviourist is suspicious of the genetical standpoint; while the introspective psychologist fails to define the characteristics of social behaviour in a form suitable for genetic analysis.

When Binet and Terman published their psychological tests, it seemed that there was a brighter prospect for the objective study of mental inheritance. Of late the psychologists themselves have begun to adopt a less confident attitude. Recently the Stanford school of workers have conceded a conservative allowance of 20 per cent. for the influence of home environment on the intelligence quotient. We have no grounds for believing that the ingenious system of home ratings adopted by Miss Burks (1927) in this investigation include all the significant factors. Consequently this figure represents a minimum. The Chicago school have investigated the intelligence quotients of foster children, and adopt an even more sceptical attitude to the value of the I.Q. as a measure of genetic endowment. Tallman has investigated the intelligence quotients of sixty pairs of identical twins. It was found that the mean difference between pairs of brothers and sisters of different ages on the one hand and pairs of non-identical twins on the other was larger than the difference between pairs of non-identical twins and pairs of identical twins. Accepting the most conservative allowance, it may be stated with some confidence that the contribution of environment to the intelligence quotient is at least as large as the recorded differences between racial and occupational groups subject to different environmental influences.

For two generations eugenists have been writing about mental inheritance. As far as I am aware Professor MacDougall alone has pointed out that the attempt to formulate a concept of mental inheritance raises a very formidable issue which challenges the foundations of current biological philosophy. He himself faces the difficulty by returning to the Lamarckian fold. Lamarck’s position was at least consistent. He conceived heredity in mental terms. His theory was teleological throughout. Galton was not consistent, and his disciples have been less so. Since Weismann’s time the study of heredity has become more and more explicitly materialistic. To the modern geneticist heredity is one aspect of the physical process involved in the production of a new unit of living matter. His hypotheses are conceived in physical units. The gene has space-time dimensions. Mental inheritance is a meaningless collocation of words, unless it is possible to bring the concept of mentality within the mechanistic framework. That is what the behaviourist school in psychology has undertaken to do. The future of social biology depends on the success which attends their efforts.

Fifty years have passed since Francis Galton published _Hereditary Genius and An Enquiry into Human Faculty_. Since then there have been notable changes in the attitude which scientists have adopted both towards heredity and human faculty. The work of Mendel, Bateson and Morgan has enormously enriched our knowledge of hereditary transmission in animals. The work of Loeb, Sherrington and Pavlov has opened up new horizons in the study of animal behaviour. The biological analysis of social behaviour presupposes that both methods can be brought to bear upon it. It may be premature to adopt a confident attitude to the prospects, but it is legitimate to state that there is no likelihood of solving the problem which Galton propounded so long as eugenists continue to regard it as the exclusive prerogative of the evolutionist. The enthusiasms engendered first by the reception of Darwin’s hypothesis and subsequently by the spectacular advances which have resulted from Mendel’s discovery, encouraged the eugenist to adopt an extremist attitude. New and no less noteworthy developments in the physiology of the nervous system have encouraged the behaviourist to go as far as possible in the opposite direction.

It is not difficult to understand how this has happened. In Galton’s time the analysis of animal conduct had not progressed beyond the recognition of those simple units of behaviour which Pavlov calls “unconditioned” reflexes. The scratch reflex evoked on stimulating the lumbosacral region in the spinal dog is an example of this type. Given the same external situation, it can be elicited in any member of the canine species. There are therefore two principal factors which determine the scratch reflex. One is the immediate stimulus. The other is the _inherited_ structure of the nervous system. Simple reflexes of this kind play very little part in man’s social behaviour; but modern physiology recognizes a more complex type, which Pavlov calls the “conditioned” reflex. The study of these promises to meet some of the requirements of a biological analysis of man’s social behaviour. The conditioned reflex is not characteristic of all the members of a species subjected to the same immediate situation. It depends upon the time relations of other stimuli which have previously acted upon the organism. Within certain limits it is possible both to predict the outcome, when the time relations of previous stimuli are defined, and to account for a totally different pattern of behaviour in two individuals who inherit the same neuromuscular organization. It was natural that Galton’s generation should harp on the hereditary basis of social conduct. They were beginning to understand a type of behaviour in which the genetic factor is the significant variable, and to apply their knowledge to the interpretation of “instinct” in animals. It is not surprising that the behaviourists should adopt the opposite point of view. They are beginning to understand a type of behaviour in which the genetic factor is less important, and to apply the new methods to the study of Man himself.

Even if the behaviourist reaction goes too far in neglecting the genetic aspect of social behaviour, it will have performed one considerable service to social biology. Biology and sociology coincide in the attempt to distinguish what characteristics of human society are related to those characteristics which man shares with all other animals, and what characteristics of human society are related to characteristics which man shares with no other animals. The geneticist is only concerned with the former, since the material basis of inheritance in man and other animals is substantially the same. It is the physiologist who is brought into contact with the characteristics which distinguish man from other animals. Man inherits an immensely developed forebrain; and this circumstance frees him from many of the restrictions which heredity imposes upon the brute creation. The forebrain is the structural basis of conditioned behaviour; and what distinguishes man pre-eminently from all other animals is the extent to which his behaviour is conditioned by previous experience. A truly biological analysis of human society must build on the recognition that man is the most teachable of animals. This is a profound truth which the eugenist has neglected. The behaviourist has reopened the door which the eugenist closed. The selectionists succeeded in presenting evolution in a form acceptable to their contemporaries. Man was dragged down from his celestial eminence. His place among the brutes became an accepted commonplace of the naturalistic outlook. Sentence had been passed upon him. Henceforth he must live within the prison of his own genetic limitations. Before the portals of his primeval dungeon Heredity stood with a flaming sword. In his new surroundings Man could still demand a retrial, because selectionism was the product of his own forebrain. That trial is still in process. Science has not yet promulgated its final verdict. Galton conducts the prosecution. Watson cross-examines for the defence. Man is released on bail, pending the result of his appeal.

In English law there is a wholesome provision which forbids the public discussion of evidence until the case is closed. In science there is no penalty for contempt of court. It is a pity that there is not. The discussion of the genetical foundations of racial and occupational classes in human society calls for discipline, for restraint and for detachment. Nothing could make the exercise of these virtues more difficult than to force the issue into the political arena in the present state of knowledge. This is precisely what the eugenist has done. The result is that social biology is encumbered with a vocabulary of terms which have no place in an ethically neutral science; and a growing literature of inquiries repeats all the shortcomings which animal genetics has outgrown. Of these shortcomings anecdotalism is the least. All biologists recognize the disastrous consequences of constructing evolutionary hypotheses on the testimony of the stock breeder and the pigeon fancier. Only an undue haste to establish conclusions which can be made the basis of legislation has arrested the development of social biology in its anecdotage.

Quotations from well-known contributions by eugenic writers will exempt me from the charge of overstating the danger to which I allude, when I speak of the anecdotal method. Few would deny the desirability of shedding further light on the contribution of heredity to feeblemindedness. It is the concern of the social biologist to do so. Goddard’s familial studies on this problem have been extensively quoted by eugenic writers. In his investigation several hundred individuals in the Vineland training-school for mental defectives were classified by the Binet test as morons. Goddard conducted inquiries into the family histories of these individuals, and records them in his book. He concludes that a certain type of feeblemindedness is determined by a single Mendelian factor. This conclusion is logically untenable apart from the evidence, because his criterion of feeblemindedness was a segment arbitrarily cut off from a normal distribution curve; but the method which he employs rather than the conclusions he infers is the issue to which I would direct attention. Mendel initiated a new epoch in genetics by clearly defining the nature of the character which he studied. That practice is the keystone of the science which has developed from his pioneer labours. The Binet test may be legitimately employed as a means of providing an objective definition of feeblemindedness; but since the Binet test is a recent innovation, it is obvious that Goddard could not employ it to identify feeblemindedness in the parents and grandparents of his cases at the time of writing. The method he adopted is stated in the following passage (_Feeblemindedness_, p. 20):

“The ease with which it is sometimes possible to get satisfactory
evidence on the fifth generation is illustrated in the Kallikak
family. The field worker accosts an old farmer--‘Do you remember
an old man Martin Kallikak (Jr.) who lived on the mountain edge
yonder?’ ‘Do I? Well I guess. Nobody’d forget him. Simple, not
quite right here (tapping his head), but inoffensive and kind. All
the family was that. Old Moll, simple as she was, would do anything
for a neighbour. She finally died, burned to death in a chimney
corner. She had come in drunk and sat down there. Whether she fell
over in a fit or her clothes caught fire nobody knows. She was
burned to a crisp when they found her. That was the worst of them,
they would drink. Poverty was their best friend in this respect,
or they would have been drunk all the time. Old Martin could never
stop as long as he had a drop. Many’s the time he’d rolled off of
Billy Parson’s porch. Billy always had a barrel of cider handy.
He’d just chuckle to see Martin drink and drink until finally he’d
lose his balance and over he’d go.’”

At the conclusion of this recital Goddard asks, “Is there any doubt that Martin was feebleminded?”

It may at least be said for Goddard’s work that it contains some presumptive indications that genetic factors play a significant part in determining certain kinds of feeblemindedness. It is doubtful whether any plausible conclusions can be drawn from the dreary history of the Jukes. In his monograph on the Jukes in 1915, Estabrook only ventures to proffer one definite statement concerning hereditary transmission in the Jukes family. It is that “there is an hereditary factor in licentiousness.” I have searched through his memoir for a single indication of the way in which he defines licentiousness and its allelomorphic opposite chastity. Out of a large number of monotonously similar family case histories I shall quote the only one which contains any suggestion of the meaning he attaches to the latter. This (Case G) is as follows:

“A cousin mating of chaste individuals was followed in the first
generation by no licentiousness. In the second generation from the
cousin mating no licentiousness appears, although the father of
one of the children of this generation had cohabited previous to
marriage. Their one daughter was chaste, but she has one daughter
brought up in a good home free from bad influences, who was very
erotic but is at present chaste. The third child of this cousin
mating of chaste people, Addie, married a man who had acquired
syphilus and had one son an inefficient syphilitic who died of
tuberculosis. Addie died of syphilis at 20. The fourth child Alta
V 78 who was always chaste, married but had no children. Horace
the only other child of Alfred who reached maturity was reputed
chaste but was intemperate: he married a chaste woman and had nine
children, all of whom are chaste.”

Before we take the risk of wrecking the machinery of social biology by exceeding the speed limit of rational inquiry, it is desirable to ascertain the reasons for such haste. Dr. Estabrook has recorded his own reasons in quantitative terms. “Dugdale estimated a loss to society of $1,250,000 by the Jukes family from 1800 to 1875. The loss to society caused by mental deficiency, crime, prostitution, syphilis and pauperism of these 2,800 people is now estimated at $2,093,685. If the drink bill is added, this total becomes $2,516,685.” The reason for this addition will be more apparent to a prohibitionist than to a brewer. Mr. Chesterton might retort by asking whether there are no idle young clubmen in New York whose annual upkeep is equivalent to the loss entailed by the Jukes during the last century and a half. Deplorable as the history of the Jukes may be, its consequences to civilization may be less disastrous than half an hour’s conversation between a manufacturer of armaments and a newspaper proprietor. In such matters private values influence our opinions more than those issues which can be discussed in the public forum of science. Estabrook’s arithmetic does not convince me that we should exchange the experimental and sceptical temper of scientific inquiry for the facile slogans of the parliamentary candidate.

The eugenic movement was founded to encourage “the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally.” That aim might be taken as a statement of the scope of social biology, when due allowance is made for the full requirements of a scientific inquiry into the nature of “mental inheritance.” There are a few prominent eugenists who have adhered to this praiseworthy and modest programme. Professor Carr Saunders who has been prominently associated with the eugenic movement in England has consistently expressed himself with discrimination and restraint on the complex issues which the genetic structure of human society involves. If I am disinclined to follow him in the alarmist attitude which he adopts towards the differential fertility which has accompanied the recent decline of the European birth-rate, I entirely agree with him in recognizing that the differential fertility of occupational groups is a matter for careful and comprehensive investigation. To make any satisfactory predictions about the outcome of the present decline it is necessary to ascertain what factors have contributed to the reduction of the birth-rate, what genetic differences distinguish different occupational groups, and how such differences are transmitted. The impressive array of evidence which Beveridge, Stevenson and Carr Saunders have presented strongly suggests that the spread of contraceptive practice has been the main factor in the decline of the birth-rate. The German and Swedish data of Grotjahn and Edin point to the conclusion that contraceptive practice is spreading to all sections of society. If this is so the problem of differential fertility is solving itself. Of genetic differences which distinguish occupational groups we have no definite information. Even if we had, it would be necessary to know how such differences are transmitted before prophesying disaster. Haldane’s mathematical analysis of the effect of selection shows that a selective process must be continued for a very long period in order to produce an appreciable effect on the distribution of a character which depends on the co-operation of several recessive genes. An attitude of calvinistic gloom towards the future of human society is not a necessary consequence of the biological study of human society.

In discussing the influence of eugenic propaganda in this essay I have been primarily concerned with the dangers of speculating upon questions whose philosophical importance is less apparent than their practical interest. I trust that I have made it abundantly clear that I am in no sense hostile to eugenics as defined above. Were I to indulge in the luxury of stating a purely personal opinion about the genetics of human society, it would be somewhat as follows. It is probable that extremes of intellectual accomplishment or defect are significantly determined by genetic variation. It is highly unlikely that extreme types of defective are reproducing disproportionately. It is also doubtful whether genius has ever been biologically fertile. Between the two extremes there is probably a neutral zone in which somatic variability plays a larger part than genetic differences in determining social behaviour. At present it is impossible to assess with precision the mean genotypic endowment of different social groups, whether occupational or racial. Even if it were, the precise significance of the mean would be problematical. I think it highly unlikely that such mean differences as may exist provide any basis for establishing new social barriers or reinforcing old ones, still less for curtailing opportunities of education and the exercise of political responsibility. On the other hand it is not unlikely that there does exist a section of genetic types on the borderline of extreme defect not segregated from the rest of the community and more fertile than others of the same social grade. With Mr. Chesterton I am inclined to doubt whether they represent a larger proportion in one social class than in any other. Unlike Mr. Chesterton I see no reason why society should not deal with this issue as a genetic problem, when it is clearly proved to be a genetic problem. Indeed I think it arguable that it would be wiser not to take any risk of encouraging the feebleminded to breed. At present I see no way of stopping them.

There can be no disagreement concerning the desirability of exploring every avenue in human genetics. This cannot be done without enlarging the scope of the official census with the support of a sympathetic government. Hitherto Eugenic propaganda has been dominated by an explicit social bias which, in England, can only serve to render the Eugenic standpoint unpalatable to a section of the community which for good or ill seems to be assuming the rôle of a governing class. The greatest obstacle to the spread of a sane eugenic point of view is the eugenists themselves. By recklessly antagonizing the leaders of thought among the working classes the protagonists of eugenics have done their best to make eugenics a matter of party politics, with results which can only delay the acceptance of a national minimum of parenthood. These last remarks I repeat are a statement of purely personal opinion. Biologists share the human frailty which prompts all of us to entertain beliefs fortified by insufficient evidence; but there is no reason why the biologist should fail to make it clear, when he is speaking as a professional biologist and when he is speaking as a private citizen. From a purely scientific standpoint the problem of human inheritance can only be regarded as a virgin field in which the prospects of an early and abundant harvest are by no means bright. I believe that the eugenists have performed a useful task in emphasizing the need for a biological analysis of human society. The furtherance of that task will not be promoted by propaganda which overstates the achievements of the present, while underestimating the difficulties which lie ahead. Evolutionary inquiry was brought to an end in ancient Greece, when philosophy became the handmaiden of politics. Further progress was checked when philosophy became the bondservant of theology. Eugenics like Greek philosophy derived its first impulse from natural science. It soon entered into alliance with the politician. It is fast finding its most stalwart supporters among the clergy. It can only realize the aims of its founder by bringing the science of genetics into closer relationship with other methods of studying human biology and annulling the marriage of biological inquiry with political propaganda. As a private citizen the biologist is entitled to his own opinions concerning the merits of sterilizing the unfit, just as he is entitled to his own opinions on the Single tax or the advantages of capital punishment. Such opinions usually belong to his private world. In his public capacity, as a biologist, he is primarily concerned with sterilizing the instruments of research before undertaking surgical operations upon the body politic.