SIR FRANCIS GALTON
Sir Francis Galton, born at Birmingham, England, in 1822, was a grandson of Dr. Erasmus Darwin. He graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1844. Galton travelled in the north of Africa, on the White Nile and in the western portion of South Africa between 1844 and 1850. Like his immortal cousin, Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton is a striking instance of a man of great and splendid inheritance, who, also inheriting wealth, devotes it and his powers to the cause of humanity. He published several books on heredity, the first of which was "Hereditary Genius." The next "Inquiries into Human Faculty," which was followed by "Natural Inheritance." The "Essays in Eugenics" include all the most recent work of Sir Francis Galton since his return to the subject of eugenics in 1901. This volume has just been published by the Eugenics Education Society, of which Sir Francis Galton is the honorary president. As epitomised for this work, the "Essays" have been made to include a still later study by the author, which will be included in future editions of the book. The epitome has been prepared by special permission of the Eugenics Education Society, and those responsible hope that it will serve in some measure to neutralise the outrageous, gross, and often wilful misrepresentations of eugenics of which many popular writers are guilty.
I.—The Aims and Methods of Eugenics
The following essays help to show something of the progress of eugenics during the last few years, and to explain my own views upon its aims and methods, which often have been, and still sometimes are, absurdly misrepresented. The practice of eugenics has already obtained a considerable hold on popular estimation, and is steadily acquiring the status of a practical question, and not that of a mere vision in Utopia.
The power by which eugenic reform must chiefly be effected is that of public opinion, which is amply strong enough for that purpose whenever it shall be roused. Public opinion has done as much as this on many past occasions and in various countries, of which much evidence is given in the essay on restrictions in marriage. It is now ordering our acts more intimately than we are apt to suspect, because the dictates of public opinion become so thoroughly assimilated that they seem to be the original and individual to those who are guided by them. By comparing the current ideas at widely different epochs and under widely different civilisations, we are able to ascertain what part of our convictions is really innate and permanent, and what part has been acquired and is transient.
It is, above all things, needful for the successful progress of eugenics that its advocates should move discreetly and claim no more efficacy on its behalf than the future will justify; otherwise a reaction will be justified. A great deal of investigation is still needed to show the limit of practical eugenics, yet enough has been already determined to justify large efforts being made to instruct the public in an authoritative way, with the results hitherto obtained by sound reasoning, applied to the undoubted facts of social experience.
The word "eugenics" was coined and used by me in my book "Human Faculty," published as long ago as 1883. In it I emphasised the essential brotherhood of mankind, heredity being to my mind a very real thing; also the belief that we are born to act, and not to wait for help like able-bodied idlers, whining for doles. Individuals appear to me as finite detachments from an infinite ocean of being, temporarily endowed with executive powers. This is the only answer I can give to myself in reply to the perpetually recurring questions of "why? whence? and whither?" The immediate "whither?" does not seem wholly dark, as some little information may be gleaned concerning the direction in which Nature, so far as we know of it, is now moving—namely, towards the evolution of mind, body, and character in increasing energy and co-adaptation.
The ideas have long held my fancy that we men may be the chief, and perhaps the only executives on earth; that we are detached on active service with, it may be only illusory, powers of free-will. Also that we are in some way accountable for our success or failure to further certain obscure ends, to be guessed as best we can; that though our instructions are obscure they are sufficiently clear to justify our interference with the pitiless course of Nature whenever it seems possible to attain the goal towards which it moves by gentler and kindlier ways.
There are many questions which must be studied if we are to be guided aright towards the possible improvement of mankind under the existing conditions of law and sentiment. We must study human variety, and the distribution of qualities in a nation. We must compare the classification of a population according to social status with the classification which we would make purely in terms of natural quality. We must study with the utmost care the descent of qualities in a population, and the consequences of that marked tendency to marriage within the class which distinguishes all classes. Something is to be learnt from the results of examinations in universities and colleges.
It is desirable to study the degree of correspondence that may exist between promise in youth, as shown in examinations, and subsequent performance. Let me add that I think the neglect of this inquiry by the vast army of highly educated persons who are connected with the present huge system of competitive examination to be gross and unpardonable. Until this problem is solved we cannot possibly estimate the value of the present elaborate system of examinations.
II.—Restrictions in Marriage
It is necessary to meet an objection that has been repeatedly urged against the possible adoption of any system of eugenics, namely, that human nature would never brook interference with the freedom of marriage. But the question is how far have marriage restrictions proved effective when sanctified by the religion of the time, by custom, and by law. I appeal from armchair criticism to historical facts. It will be found that, with scant exceptions, marriage customs are based on social expediency and not on natural instincts. This we learn when we study the fact of monogamy, and the severe prohibition of polygamy, in many times and places, due not to any natural instinct against the practice, but to consideration of the social well-being. We find the same when we study endogamy, exogamy, Australian marriages, and the control of marriage by taboo.
The institution of marriage, as now sanctified by religion and safeguarded by law in the more highly civilised nations, may not be ideally perfect, nor may it be universally accepted in future times, but it is the best that has hitherto been devised for the parties primarily concerned, for their children, for home life, and for society. The degree of kinship within which marriage is prohibited is, with one exception, quite in accordance with modern sentiment, the exception being the disallowal of marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, the propriety of which is greatly disputed and need not be discussed here. The marriage of a brother and sister would excite a feeling of loathing among us that seems implanted by nature, but which, further inquiry will show, has mainly arisen from tradition and custom.
The evidence proves that there is no instinctive repugnance felt universally by man to marriage within the prohibited degrees, but that its present strength is mainly due to what I may call immaterial considerations. It is quite conceivable that a non-eugenic marriage should hereafter excite no less loathing than that of a brother and sister would do now.
The dictates of religion in respect to the opposite duties of leading celibate lives, and of continuing families, have been contradictory. In many nations it is and has been considered a disgrace to bear no children, and in other nations celibacy has been raised to the rank of a virtue of the highest order. During the fifty or so generations that have elapsed since the establishment of Christianity, the nunneries and monasteries, and the celibate lives of Catholic priests, have had vast social effects, how far for good and how far for evil need not be discussed here. The point I wish to enforce is the potency, not only of the religious sense in aiding or deterring marriage, but more especially the influence and authority of ministers of religion in enforcing celibacy. They have notoriously used it when aid has been invoked by members of the family on grounds that are not religious at all, but merely of family expediency. Thus at some times and in some Christian nations, every girl who did not marry while still young was practically compelled to enter a nunnery, from which escape was afterwards impossible.
It is easy to let the imagination run wild on the supposition of a whole-hearted acceptance of eugenics as a national religion; that is, of the thorough conviction by a nation that no worthier object exists for man than the improvement of his own race, and when efforts as great as those by which nunneries and monasteries were endowed and maintained should be directed to fulfil an opposite purpose. I will not enter further into this. Suffice it to say, that the history of conventual life affords abundant evidence on a very large scale of the power of religious authority in directing and withstanding the tendencies of human nature towards freedom in marriage.
Seven different forms of marriage restriction may be cited to show what is possible. They are monogamy, endogamy, exogamy, Australian marriages, taboo, prohibited degrees, and celibacy. It can be shown under each of these heads how powerful are the various combinations of immaterial motives upon marriage selection, how they may all become hallowed by religion, accepted as custom, and enforced by law. Persons who are born under their various rules live under them without any objection. They are unconscious of their restrictions, as we are unaware of the tension of the atmosphere. The subservience of civilised races to their several religious superstitions, customs, authority, and the rest, is frequently as abject as that of barbarians.
The same classes of motives that direct other races direct ours; so a knowledge of their customs helps us to realise the wide range of what we may ourselves hereafter adopt, for reasons as satisfactory to us in those future times, as theirs are or were to them at the time when they prevailed.
III.—Eugenic Qualities of Primary Importance
The following is offered as a contribution to the art of justly appraising the eugenic values of different qualities. It may fairly be assumed that the presence of certain inborn traits is requisite before a claim to eugenic rank can be justified, because these qualities are needed to bring out the full values of such special faculties as broadly distinguish philosophers, artists, financiers, soldiers, and other representative classes. The method adopted for discovering the qualities in question is to consider groups of individuals, and to compare the qualities that distinguish such groups as flourish or prosper from others of the same kind that decline or decay. This method has the advantage of giving results more free from the possibility of bias than those derived from examples of individual cases.
In what follows I shall use the word "community" in its widest sense, as including any group of persons who are connected by a common interest—families, schools, clubs, sects, municipalities, nations, and all intermediate social units. Whatever qualities increase the prosperity of most or every one of these, will, as I hold, deserve a place in the first rank of eugenic importance.
Most of us have experience, either by direct observation or through historical reading, of the working of several communities, and are capable of forming a correct picture in our minds of the salient characteristics of those that, on the one hand, are eminently prosperous, and of those that, on the other hand, are as eminently decadent. I have little doubt that the reader will agree with me that the members of prospering communities are, as a rule, conspicuously strenuous, and that those of decaying or decadent ones are conspicuously slack. A prosperous community is distinguished by the alertness of its members, by their busy occupations, by their taking pleasure in their work, by their doing it thoroughly, and by an honest pride in their community as a whole. The members of a decaying community are, for the most part, languid and indolent; their very gestures are dawdling and slouching, the opposite of smart. They shirk work when they can do so, and scamp what they undertake. A prosperous community is remarkable for the variety of the solid interests in which some or other of its members are eagerly engaged, but the questions that agitate a decadent community are for the most part of a frivolous order.
Prosperous communities are also notable for enjoyment of life; for though their members must work hard in order to procure the necessary luxuries of an advanced civilisation, they are endowed with so large a store of energy that, when their daily toil is over, enough of it remains unexpended to allow them to pursue their special hobbies during the remainder of the day. In a decadent community the men tire easily, and soon sink into drudgery; there is consequently much languor among them, and little enjoyment of life.
I have studied the causes of civic prosperity in various directions and from many points of view, and the conclusion at which I have arrived is emphatic, namely, that chief among those causes is a large capacity for labour—mental, bodily, or both—combined with eagerness for work. The course of evolution in animals shows that this view is correct in general. The huge lizards, incapable of rapid action, unless it be brief in duration and associated with long terms of repose, have been supplanted by birds and mammals possessed of powers of long endurance. These latter are so constituted as to require work, becoming restless and suffering in health when precluded from exertion.
We must not, however, overlook the fact that the influence of circumstance on a community is a powerful factor in raising its tone. A cause that catches the popular feeling will often rouse a potentially capable nation from apathy into action. A good officer, backed by adequate supplies of food and with funds for the regular payment of his troops, will change a regiment even of ill-developed louts and hooligans into a fairly smart and well-disciplined corps. But with better material as a foundation, the influence of a favourable environment is correspondingly increased, and is less liable to impairment whenever the environment changes and becomes less propitious. Hence, it follows that a sound mind and body, enlightened, I should add, with an intelligence above the average, and combined with a natural capacity and zeal for work, are essential elements in eugenics. For however famous a man may become in other respects, he cannot, I think, be justly termed eugenic if deficient in the qualities I have just named.
Eugenists justly claim to be true philanthropists, or lovers of mankind, and should bestir themselves in their special province as eagerly as the philanthropists, in the current and very restricted meaning of that word, have done in theirs. They should interest themselves in such families of civic worth as they come across, especially in those that are large, making friends both with the parents and the children, and showing themselves disposed to help to a reasonable degree, as opportunity may offer, whenever help is really needful. They should compare their own notes with those of others who are similarly engaged. They should regard such families as an eager horticulturist regards beds of seedlings of some rare variety of plant, but with an enthusiasm of a far more patriotic kind. For, since it has been shown that about 10 per cent. of the individuals born in one generation provide half the next generation, large families that are also eugenic may prove of primary importance to the nation and become its most valuable asset.
IV.—Practical Eugenics
The following are some views of my own relating to that large province of eugenics which is concerned with favouring the families of those who are exceptionally fit for citizenship. Consequently, little or nothing will here be said relating to what has been well termed by Dr. Saleeby "negative" eugenics, namely, the hindrance of the marriages and the production of offspring by the exceptionally unfit. The latter is unquestionably the more pressing subject, but it will soon be forced on the attention of the legislature by the recent report of the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded.
Whatever scheme of action is proposed for adoption must be neither Utopian nor extravagant, but accordant throughout with British sentiment and practice.
By "worth" I mean the civic worthiness, or the value to the state, of a person. Speaking only for myself, if I had to classify persons according to worth, I should consider each of them under the three heads of physique, ability and character, subject to the provision that inferiority in any one of the three should outweigh superiority in the other two. I rank physique first, because it is not only very valuable in itself and allied to many other good qualities, but has the additional merit of being easily rated. Ability I place second on similar grounds, and character third, though in real importance it stands first of all.
The power of social opinion is apt to be underrated rather than overrated. Like the atmosphere which we breathe and in which we move, social opinion operates powerfully without our being conscious of its weight. Everyone knows that governments, manners, and beliefs which were thought to be right, decorous, and true at one period have been judged wrong, indecorous, and false at another; and that views which we have heard expressed by those in authority over us in early life tend to become axiomatic and unchangeable in mature life.
In circumscribed communities especially, social approval and disapproval exert a potent force. Is it, then, I ask, too much to expect that when a public opinion in favour of eugenics has once taken sure hold of such communities, the result will be manifested in sundry and very effective modes of action which are as yet untried?
Speaking for myself only, I look forward to local eugenic action in numerous directions, of which I will now specify one. It is the accumulation of considerable funds to start young couples of "worthy" qualities in their married life, and to assist them and their families at critical times. The charitable gifts to those who are the reverse of "worthy" are enormous in amount. I am not prepared to say how much of this is judiciously spent, or in what ways, but merely quote the fact to justify the inference that many persons who are willing to give freely at the prompting of a sentiment based upon compassion might be persuaded to give largely also in response to the more virile desire of promoting the natural gifts and the national efficiency of future generations.
V.—Eugenics as a Factor in Religion
Eugenics strengthen the sense of social duty in so many important particulars that the conclusions derived from its study ought to find a welcome home in every tolerant religion. It promotes a far-sighted philanthropy, the acceptance of parentage as a serious responsibility, and a higher conception of patriotism. The creed of eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution; not on a passive form of it, but on one that can, to some extent, direct its own course.
Purely passive, or what may be styled mechanical evolution displays the awe-inspiring spectacle of a vast eddy of organic turmoil, originating we know not how, and travelling we know not whither. It forms a continuous whole, but it is moulded by blind and wasteful processes—namely, by an extravagant production of raw material and the ruthless rejection of all that is superfluous, through the blundering steps of trial and error.
The condition at each successive moment of this huge system, as it issues from the already quiet past and is about to invade the still undisturbed future, is one of violent internal commotion. Its elements are in constant flux and change.
Evolution is in any case a grand phantasmagoria, but it assumes an infinitely more interesting aspect under the knowledge that the intelligent action of the human will is, in some small measure, capable of guiding its course. Man has the power of doing this largely so far as the evolution of humanity is concerned; he has already affected the quality and distribution of organic life so widely that the changes on the surface of the earth, merely through his disforestings and agriculture, would be recognisable from a distance as great as that of the moon.
As regards the practical side of eugenics, we need not linger to reopen the unending argument whether man possesses any creative power of will at all, or whether his will is not also predetermined by blind forces or by intelligent agencies behind the veil, and whether the belief that man can act independently is more than a mere illusion.
Eugenic belief extends the function of philanthropy to future generations; it renders its action more pervading than hitherto, by dealing with families and societies in their entirety, and it enforces the importance of the marriage covenant by directing serious attention to the probable quality of the future offspring. It sternly forbids all forms of sentimental charity that are harmful to the race, while it eagerly seeks opportunity for acts of personal kindness. It strongly encourages love and interest in family and race. In brief, eugenics is a virile creed, full of hopefulness, and appealing to many of the noblest feelings of our nature.