THE INFLUENCE OF POSITIVISM UPON WOMEN
[Women represent the
affective element in our
nature, as philosophers
and people represent the
intellectual and practical
elements]
In their action, then, upon society, philosophers may hope for the
energetic support of the working classes. But the regenerating movement
requires still the co-operation of a third element, an element
indicated by our analysis of human nature, and suggested also by
historical study of the great crisis of modern times.
The moral constitution of man consists of something more than Intellect
and Activity. These are represented in the constitution of society by
the philosophic body and the proletariate. But besides these there is
Feeling, which, in the theory put forward in the first chapter of this
work, was shown to be the predominating principle, the motive power
of our being, the only basis on which the various parts of our nature
can be brought into unity. Now the alliance between philosophers and
working men, which has been just described, however perfectly it may
be realized, does not represent the element of Feeling with sufficient
distinctness and prominence.
Certainly without Social Feeling, neither philosophers nor proletaries
can exercise any real influence. But in their case its source is not
sufficiently pure nor deep to sustain them in the performance of their
duty. A more spontaneous and more perennial spring of inspiration must
be found.
With the philosopher social sympathies will never be wanting in
coherence, since they will be connected with his whole system of
thought; but this very scientific character will deaden their vigour,
unless they are revived by impulses in which reflection has no share.
Roused as he will be by the consciousness of public duty to a degree
of activity of which abstract thinkers can form no conception, the
emotions of private life will yet be not less necessary for him than
for others. Intercourse with the working classes will be of the
greatest benefit to him; but even this is not enough to compensate the
defects of a life devoted to speculation.
The sympathies of the people again, though stronger and more
spontaneous than those of the philosopher, are, in most cases, less
pure and not so lasting. From the pressure of daily necessities it is
difficult for them to maintain the same consistent and disinterested
character. Great as are the moral advantages which will result from
the incorporation of the people in modern society, they are not enough
by themselves to outweigh the force of self-interest aroused by the
precarious nature of their position. Emotions of a gentler and less
transient kind must be called into play. Philosophers may relieve the
working classes from the necessity of pressing their own claims and
grievances; but the fact still remains, that the instincts by which
those claims are prompted are personal rather than social.
Thus, in the alliance which has been here proposed as necessary
for social reorganization, Feeling, the most influential part of
human nature, has not been adequately represented. An element is
wanting which shall have the same relation to the moral side of our
constitution, as the philosophic body has with Intellect, and the
people with Activity. On this, as well as on other grounds, it is
indispensable that Women be associated in the work of regeneration
as soon as its tendencies and conditions can be explained to them.
With the addition of this third element, the constructive movement at
last assumes its true character. We may then feel confident that our
intellectual and practical faculties will be kept in due subordination
to universal Love. The digressions of intellect, and the subversive
tendencies of our active powers will be as far as possible prevented.
[Women have stood aloof from
the modern movement, because
of its anti-historic and
destructive character]
Indispensable to Positivism as the co-operation of women is, it
involves one essential condition. Modern progress must rise above its
present imperfect character, before women can thoroughly sympathize
with it.
At present the general feeling amongst them is antipathy to the
Revolution. They dislike the destructive character which the Revolution
necessarily exhibited in its first phase. All their social sympathies
are given to the Middle Ages. And this is not merely due, as is
supposed, to the regret which they very naturally feel for the decline
of chivalry, although they cannot but feel that the Middle Ages are
the only period in which the feeling of reverence for women has been
properly cultivated. But the real ground of their predilection is
deeper and less interested. It is that, being morally the purest
portion of Humanity, they venerate Catholicism, as the only system
which has upheld the principle of subordinating Politics to Morals.
This, I cannot doubt, is the secret cause of most of the regret with
which women still regard the irrevocable decay of mediaeval society.
They do not disregard the progress which modern times have made in
various special directions. But our erroneous tendencies towards
bringing back the old supremacy of Politics over Morality, are, in
their eyes, a retrograde movement so comprehensive in its character
that no partial improvements can compensate for it. True, we are
able to justify this deviation provisionally, since the decay of
Catholicism renders political dictatorship necessary. But women, having
comparatively little to do with the practical business of life, can
hardly appreciate this necessity without a more satisfactory theory
of history than they at present possess. It is a complete mistake
to charge women with being retrograde on account of these feelings
of regret which are most honourable to them. They might retort the
charge with far better reason on the revolutionists, for their blind
admiration of Greek and Roman society, which they still persist in
asserting to be superior to Catholic Feudalism; a delusion, the
continuance of which is principally due to our absurd system of
classical education, from which women are fortunately preserved.
However this may be, the feelings of women upon these subjects are a
very plain and simple demonstration of the first condition of social
regeneration, which is, that Politics must again be subordinated to
Morality; and this upon a more intelligible, more comprehensive, and
more permanent basis than Catholicism could supply. A system which
supplied such a basis would naturally involve reverence for women as
one of its characteristic results. Such, then, are the terms on which
women will cordially co-operate in the progressive movement. Nothing
but incapacity to satisfy these terms could induce any thinkers to
condemn the conception as retrograde.
It is not, then, to the Revolution itself that women feel antipathy,
but to the anti-historic spirit which prevailed in its first phase.
The blind abuse lavished on the Middle Ages wounds their strongest
sympathies. They care little for metaphysical theories of society in
which human happiness is made to consist in a continual exercise of
political rights; for political rights, however attractively presented,
will always fail to interest them. But they give their cordial sympathy
to all reasonable claims of the people; and these claims form the real
object of the revolutionary crisis. They will wish all success to
philosophers and workmen when they see them endeavouring to transform
political disputes into social compacts, and proving that they have
greater regard for duties than for rights. If they regret the decline
of the gentle influence which they possessed in former times, it is
principally because they find it superseded by coarse and egotistic
feelings, which are now no longer counterbalanced by revolutionary
enthusiasm. Instead of blaming their antipathies, we should learn
from them the urgent necessity of putting an end to the moral and
intellectual anarchy of our times; for this it is which gives a ground
of real justice to their reproaches.
[But they will sympathize
with constructive
tendencies; and will
distinguish sound philosophy
from scientific specialities]
Women will gladly associate themselves with the Revolution as soon as
its work of reconstruction is fairly begun. Its negative phase must not
be prolonged too far. It is difficult enough for them to understand how
such a phase could ever be necessary; therefore they cannot be expected
to excuse its aberrations. The true connexion of the Revolution
with the Middle Ages must be fairly stated. History, when rightly
interpreted, will show them that its real object is, while laying
down a surer basis for Morality, to restore it to the old position of
superiority over Politics in which the mediaeval system first placed
it. Women will feel enthusiasm for the second phase of the Revolution,
when they see republicanism in the light in which Positivism presents
it, modified by the spirit of ancient chivalry.
Then, and not till then, will the movement of social regeneration be
fairly begun. The movement can have no great force until women give
cordial support to it; for it is they who are the best representatives
of the fundamental principle on which Positivism rests, the victory
of social over selfish affections. On philosophers rests the duty
of giving logical coherence to this principle, and saving it from
sophistical attacks. Its practical working depends upon the proletary
class, without whose aid it would almost always be evaded. But to
maintain it in all its purity, as an inspiration that needs neither
argument nor compulsion, is the work of women only. So constituted, the
alliance of the three classes will be the foreshadowed image of the
normal state to which Humanity is tending. It will be the living type
of perfect human nature.
Unless the new philosophy can obtain the support of women, the attempt
to substitute it for theology in the regulation of social life had
better be abandoned. But if the theory stated in my first chapter be
true, Positivism will have even greater influence with women than with
the working classes. In the principle which animates it, in its manner
of regarding and of handling the great problem of human life, it is but
a systematic development of what women have always felt instinctively.
To them, as to the people, it offers a noble career of social
usefulness, and it holds out a sure prospect of improvement in their
own personal position.
Nor is it surprising that the new philosophy should possess such
qualities. They follow naturally from the reality which is one of its
chief claims to acceptance; in other words, from the exactness with
which it takes account of the facts of every subject that it deals
with. Strong as the prejudices of women are upon religious questions,
it cannot be long before they find out that Positivism satisfies, not
merely their intellectual, but their moral and social wants better than
Catholicism. They will then have no further reason for clinging to
the old system, of the decayed condition of which they are perfectly
aware. At present they not unnaturally confound Positivism with the
scientific specialities on which it is based. Scientific studies have,
as they see, a hardening influence, which they cannot suppose that the
new school of philosophers, who insist so strongly upon the necessity
of studying science, can have escaped. Closer acquaintance with the
subject will show them where their error lies. They will see that the
moral danger of scientific studies arises almost entirely from want of
purpose and from irrational speciality, which always alienate them from
the social point of view. But for the Positivist this danger does not
exist; since, however far he may carry these preliminary studies, he
does so simply in order to gain a stronger grasp of social questions.
His one object is to concentrate all the powers of Man upon the general
advancement of the race. And so long as this object be kept in view,
women’s good sense will readily distinguish between the training
necessary for it, and the puerilities of the learned societies. The
general spirit of this work, however, makes further explanation
unnecessary.
[Women’s position in
society. Like philosophers
and people, their part is
not to govern, but to modify]
The social mission of woman in the Positive system follows as a natural
consequence from the qualities peculiar to her nature.
In the most essential attribute of the human race, the tendency to
place social above personal feeling, she is undoubtedly superior to
man. Morally, therefore, and apart from all material considerations,
she merits always our loving veneration, as the purest and simplest
impersonation of Humanity, who can never be adequately represented in
any masculine form. But these qualities do not involve the possession
of political power, which some visionaries have claimed for women,
though without their own consent. In that which is the great object
of human life, they are superior to men; but in the various means of
attaining that object they are undoubtedly inferior. In all kinds of
force, whether physical, intellectual, or practical, it is certain that
Man surpasses Woman, in accordance with a general law which prevails
throughout the animal kingdom. Now practical life is necessarily
governed by force rather than by affection, because it requires
unremitting and laborious activity. If there were nothing else to do
but to love, as in the Christian utopia of a future life in which there
are no material wants, Women would be supreme. But life is surrounded
with difficulties, which it needs all our thoughts and energies to
avoid; therefore Man takes the command, notwithstanding his inferiority
in goodness. Success in all great efforts depends more upon energy and
talent than upon goodwill, although this last condition reacts strongly
upon the others.
Thus the three elements of our moral constitution do not act in perfect
harmony. Force is naturally supreme, and all that women can do is
to modify it by affection. Justly conscious of their superiority in
strength of feeling, they endeavour to assert their influence in a way
which is often attributed by superficial observers to the mere love
of power. But experience always teaches them that in a world where
the simplest necessaries of life are scarce and difficult to procure,
power must belong to the strongest, not to the most affectionate, even
though the latter may deserve it best. With all their efforts they can
never do more than modify the harshness with which men exercise their
authority. And men submit more readily to this modifying influence,
from feeling that in the highest attributes of Humanity women are their
superiors. They see that their own supremacy is due principally to the
material necessities of life, provision for which calls into play the
self-regarding rather than the social instincts. Hence we find it the
case in every phase of human society that women’s life is essentially
domestic, public life being confined to men. Civilization, so far from
effacing this natural distinction, tends, as I shall afterwards show,
to develop it, while remedying its abuses.
Thus the social position of women is in this respect very similar to
that of philosophers and of the working classes. And we now see why
these three elements should be united. It is their combined action
which constitutes the moral or modifying force of society.
Philosophers are excluded from political power by the same fatality
as women, although they are apt to think that their intellectual
eminence gives them a claim to it. Were our material wants more easily
satisfied, the influence of intellect would be less impeded than it is
by the practical business of life. But, on this hypothesis, women would
have a better claim to govern than philosophers. For the reasoning
faculties would have remained almost inert had they not been needed to
guide our energies; the constitution of the brain not being such as to
favour their spontaneous development. Whereas the affective principle
is dependent on no such external stimulus for its activity. A life of
thought is a more evident disqualification for the government of the
world even than a life of feeling, although the pride of philosophers
is a greater obstacle to submission than the vanity of women. With all
its pretensions, intellectual force is not in itself more moral than
material force. Each is but an instrument; the merit depends entirely
upon its right employment. The only element of our nature which is
in itself moral is Love; for Love alone tends of itself towards the
preponderance of social feeling over self-interest. And since even Love
cannot govern, what can be the claim of Intellect? In practical life
precedence must always depend upon superior energy. Reason, even more
than Feeling, must be restricted to the task of modifying. Philosophers
therefore must be excluded from government, at least as rigidly as
women. It is in vain for intellect to attempt to command; it never
can do more than modify. In fact, the morality which it indirectly
possesses is due to this impossibility of exercising compulsory
power, and would be ruined by the attainment of it, supposing it were
possible. Intellect may do much to amend the natural order of things,
provided that it does not attempt to subvert it. What it can do is by
its power of systematic arrangement to effect the union of all the
classes who are likely to exert a beneficial influence on material
power. It is with this view that every spiritual power has availed
itself of the aid of women, as we see was the case in the Middle Ages.
Proceeding with our sociological analysis of moral force, we shall find
an equally striking resemblance between the influence of Women and that
exercised by the People.
In the first stage of progress, there is no modifying power except what
springs from Feeling; afterwards Intellect combines with it, finding
itself unable to govern. The only element now wanting is Activity; and
this want, which is indispensable, is supplied by the co-operation of
the people. The fact is, that although the people constitute the basis
on which all political power rests, yet they have as little to do
directly with the administration of power as philosophers or women.
Power, in the strict sense of the word, power, that is, which controls
action without persuading the will, has two perfectly distinct sources,
numbers and wealth. The force of numbers is usually considered the more
material of the two; but in reality it is the more moral. Being created
by co-operation, it involves some convergence of ideas and feelings,
and therefore it does not give such free scope for the self-regarding
instincts as the more concentrated power of wealth. But for this very
reason, it is too indirect and precarious for the ordinary purposes
of government. It can influence government morally, but cannot take
an active part in it. The same causes which exclude philosophers and
women apply in the case of the people. Our material necessities are so
urgent, that those who have the means of providing for them will always
be the possessors of power. Now the wealthy have these means; they
hold in their hands the products of labour, by which each generation
facilitates the existence and prepares the operations of its successor.
Consequently the power of the capitalist is one of so concentrated a
kind, that numbers can very seldom resist it successfully. Even in
military nations we find the same thing; the influence of numbers,
though more direct, affects only the mode of acquiring wealth, not
its tenure. But in industrial states, where wealth is acquired by
other ways than violence, the law is evident. And with the advance
of civilization it will operate not less, but more strongly. Capital
is ever on the increase, and consequently is ever creating means of
subsistence for those who possess nothing. In this sense, but in no
other, the cynical maxim of Antiquity, _Paucis nascitur humanum genus_,
will always bear a true meaning. The few provide subsistence for the
many. We come back, then, to the conclusion of the last chapter; that
the working classes are not destined for political power, but that they
tend to become a most important source of moral power. The moral value
of their influence is even more indirect than that of philosophers,
and depends even more in their case upon subordination politically.
In the few cases where government passes for a time into the hands
of the masses, wealth in its turn assumes a sort of moral influence
foreign to its nature. It moderates the violence with which government
is apt to be administered in such cases. The high intellectual and
moral qualities belonging to the working classes are, as we have seen,
in great part due to their social position. They would be seriously
impaired if the political authority that belongs to wealth were
habitually transferred to numbers.
[The united action of
philosophers, women, and
proletaries constitutes
Moral Force]
Such, in outline, is the Positive theory of Moral Force. By it the
despotism of material force may be in part controlled. It rests upon
the union of the three elements in society who are excluded from the
sphere of politics strictly so called. In their combined action lies
our principal hope of solving, so far as it can be solved, the great
problem of man’s nature, the successful struggle of Social Feeling
against Self-love. Each of the three elements supplies a quality
indispensable to the task. Without women this controlling power would
be deficient in purity and spontaneous impulse; without philosophers,
in wisdom and coherence; without the people, in energy and activity.
The philosophic element, although neither the most direct nor the most
efficient, is yet the distinctive feature of this power, because its
function is to organize its constitution and direct its operations in
accordance with the true laws of social life. As being the systematic
organ of the spiritual power it has become identified with it in
name. This, however, may lead to an erroneous conception. The moral
aspect of the spiritual power is more important than the intellectual.
While retaining the name as an historical tradition of real value,
Positivists attach a somewhat different meaning to it. It originated in
a time when theories of society were unknown, and when Intellect was
considered as the central principle of human nature.
Spiritual power, as interpreted by Positivism, begins with the
influence of women in the family; it is afterwards moulded into a
system by thinkers, while the people are the guarantees for its
political efficiency. Although it is the intellectual class that
institutes the union, yet its own part in it, as it should never
forget, is less direct than that of women, less practical than that of
the people. The thinker is socially powerless except so far as he is
supported by feminine sympathy and popular energy.
Thus the necessity of associating women in the movement of social
regeneration creates no obstacle whatever to the philosophy by which
that movement is to be directed. On the contrary, it aids its progress,
by showing the true character of the moral force which is destined
to control all the other forces of man. It involves as perfect an
inauguration of the normal state as our times of transition admit.
For the chief characteristic of that state will be a more complete
and more harmonious union of the same three classes to whom we are
now looking for the first impulse of reform. Already we can see how
perfectly adapted to the constitution of man this final condition of
Humanity will be. Feeling, Reason, Activity, whether viewed separately
or in combination, correspond exactly to the three elements of the
regenerative movement, Women, Philosophers, and People.
Verification of this theory may be found more or less distinctly in
every period of history. Each of the three classes referred to have
always borne out the biological law that the life of relation or animal
life, is subordinated to the life of nutrition. Still more striking is
the application to this case of another general principle, namely, that
Progress is the development of Order; a principle which, as I showed in
the second chapter, connects every dynamical question in Sociology with
the corresponding statical conception. For with the growth of society,
the modifying influence of moral force is always increasing, both by
larger scope being given to each of its three elements specially, and
also by the more perfect consolidation of their union. Robertson has
made an important remark on the gradual improvement in the condition
of women, which is but a particular case of this sociological law.
The general principle on which progress in all three classes depends,
is the biological law, that the preponderance of vegetable life over
animal life diminishes as the organism is higher in the scale and is
more perfectly developed.
During the various phases of ancient Polytheism, the controlling
power consisted simply of the moral influence exerted by women in the
Family. In public life the influence of thinkers had not made itself
independent of the governmental authority, of which it was sometimes
the source, sometimes the instrument. Mediaeval Catholicism went a
step further, and took the first step in systematizing moral force.
It created an independent spiritual authority to which political
governments were subordinated, and this authority was always supported
by women. But the complete organization of moral force was reserved
for modern times. It is only recently that the working classes have
begun to interfere actively in social questions; and, as I have shown
in the preceding chapter, it is from their co-operation that the
new spiritual power will derive its practical efficiency. Limited
originally to the sphere of Feeling, and subsequently extended to the
intellectual sphere, it henceforward embraces the sphere of Activity;
and this without losing its spiritual character, since the influences
of which it consists are entirely distinct from the domain of practical
politics. Each of its three elements persuades, advises, judges;
but except in isolated cases, never commands. The social mission of
Positivism is to regulate and combine their spontaneous action, by
directing each to the objects for which it is best adapted.
And this mission, in spite of strong prejudices to the contrary, it
will be found well calculated to fulfil. I have already shown its
adaptation to the case of the people and of the philosophic body,
whether regarded separately or in combination: I have now to show that
it is equally adapted to the case of women.
In proof of this I have but to refer to the principle on which, as
stated in the first chapter, the whole system of Positivism is based;
the preponderance of affection in our nature. Such a principle is of
itself an appeal to women to associate themselves with the system, as
one of its essential elements. In Catholicism, their co-operation,
though valuable, was not of primary importance, because Catholicism
claimed a divine origin independent of their assistance. But to
Positivism they are indispensable, as being the purest and simplest
embodiment of its fundamental principle. It is not merely in the Family
that their influence will be required. Their duty will often be to call
philosophers and people back to that unity of purpose which originated
in the first place with themselves, and which each of the other
elements is often disposed to violate.
All true philosophers will no doubt accept and be profoundly influenced
by the conviction, that in all subjects of thought the social point
of view should be logically and scientifically preponderant. They
will consequently admit the truth that the Heart takes precedence
of the Understanding. Still they require some more direct incentive
to universal Love than these convictions can supply. Knowing, as
they do, how slight is the practical result of purely intellectual
considerations, they will welcome so precious an incentive, were it
only in the interest of their own mission. I recognized its necessity
myself, when I wrote on the 11th of March, 1846, to her who, in
spite of death, will always remain my constant companion[7]: ‘I was
incomplete as a philosopher, until the experience of deep and pure
passion has given me fuller insight into the emotional side of human
nature’. Strong affection exercises a marvellous influence upon mental
effort. It elevates the intellect at once to the only point of view
which is really universal. Doubtless, the method of pure science leads
up to it also; but only by a long and toilsome process, which exhausts
the power of thought, and leaves little energy for following out the
new results to which this great principle gives rise. The stimulation
of affection under feminine influence is necessary, therefore, for
the acceptance of Positivism, not merely in those classes for whom a
long preliminary course of scientific study would be impossible. It
is equally necessary for the systematic teachers of Positivism, in
whom it checks the tendency, which is encouraged by habits of abstract
speculation, to deviate into useless digressions; these being always
easier to prosecute than researches of real value.
[Superiority of the new
spiritual power to the old.
Self-regarding tendencies of
Catholic doctrine]
Under this aspect the new spiritual system is obviously superior to
the old. By the institution of celibacy, which was indispensable to
Catholicism, its priests were entirely removed from the beneficial
influence exercised by women. Only those could profit from it who
did not belong to the ecclesiastical body; the members of that body,
as Ariosto has remarked in his vigorous satire, were excluded. Nor
could the evil be remedied, except in very rare cases, by irregular
attachment, which inevitably corrupted the priest’s character by
involving the necessity of perpetual hypocrisy.
And when we look at the difference of the spirit by which the two
systems are pervaded, we shall find still more striking evidence that
the new system offers a far larger sphere of moral influence to women
than the old.
Both are based upon the principle of affection; but in Positivism the
affection inculcated is social, in Catholicism it is essentially
personal. The object of Catholic devotion is one of such stupendous
magnitude, that feelings which are unconnected with it are in danger
of being crushed. The priesthood, it is true, wise interpreters in
this respect of a general instinct, brought all the more important
social obligations within the compass of religion, and held them out
as necessary for salvation. Indirectly, the nobler feelings were
thus called into action; but at the same time they were rendered far
less spontaneous and pure. There could be no perfectly disinterested
affection under a system which promised eternal rewards for all acts
of self-denial. For it was impossible, and indeed it would have
been thought sinful, to keep the future out of sight; and thus all
spontaneous generosity was unavoidably tainted by self-interest.
Catholicism gave rise to an ignoble theory of morals which became very
mischievous when it was adopted by the metaphysicians; because, while
retaining the vicious principle, they swept away the checks by which
the priesthood had controlled it. But even when we look at the purest
form in which the love of God was exhibited, we cannot call it a social
feeling, except in so far as the same object of worship was held out
simultaneously to all. Intrinsically, it is anti-social, since, when
attained in absolute perfection, it implies the entire sacrifice of
all other love. And in the best representatives of Christian thought
and feeling, this tendency is very apparent. No one has portrayed the
Catholic ideal with such sublimity and pathos as the author of the
_Imitation_, a work which so well deserved the beautiful translation of
Corneille. And yet, reading it as I do daily, I cannot help remarking
how grievously the natural nobleness of Thomas A’Kempis was impaired by
the Catholic system, although in spite of all obstacles he rises at
times to the purest ardour. Certainly those of our feelings which are
purely unselfish must be far stronger and more spontaneous than ever
has yet been supposed, since even the oppressive discipline of twelve
centuries could not prevent their growth.
[The spirit of Positivism,
on the contrary, is
essentially social. The
Heart and the Intellect
mutually strengthen each
other]
Positivism, from the fact of its conformity with the constitution of
our nature, is the only system calculated to develop, both in public
and in private life, those high attributes of Humanity which, for want
of adequate systematic culture, are still in their rudimentary stage.
Catholicism, while appealing to the Heart, crushed Intellect, and
Intellect naturally struggled to throw off the yoke. Positivism, on the
contrary, brings Reason into complete harmony with Feeling, without
impairing the activity of either.
Scientific study of the relation which each individual bears to the
whole race is a continual stimulus to social sympathy. Without a
theory of society, it is impossible to keep this relation distinctly
and constantly in view. It is only noticed in a few exceptional cases,
and unconnected impressions are soon effaced from the memory. But the
Positivist teacher, taking the social point of view invariably, will
make this notion far more familiar to us than it has ever been before.
He will show us the impossibility of understanding any individual
or society apart from the whole life of the race. Nothing but the
bewilderment caused by theological and metaphysical doctrines can
account for the shallow explanations of human affairs given by our
teachers, attributing as they do to Man what is really due to Humanity.
But with the sounder theory that we now possess, we can see the truth
as it really stands. We have but to look each of us at our own life
under its physical, intellectual, or moral aspects, to recognize what
it is that we owe to the combined action of our predecessors and
contemporaries. The man who dares to think himself independent of
others, either in feelings, thoughts, or actions, cannot even put the
blasphemous conception into words without immediate self-contradiction,
since the very language he uses is not his own. The profoundest
thinker cannot by himself form the simplest language; it requires the
co-operation of a community for several generations. Without further
illustration, the tendency of Positive doctrine is evident. It appeals
systematically to our social instincts, by constantly impressing
upon us that only the Whole is real; that the Parts exist only in
abstraction.
But independently of the beneficial influence which, in this final
state of Humanity, the mind will exercise upon the heart, the direct
culture of the heart itself will be more pure and more vigorous than
under any former system. It offers us the only means of disengaging
our benevolent affections from all calculations of self-interest. As
far as the imperfection of man’s nature admits, these affections will
gradually become supreme, since they give deeper satisfaction than all
others, and are capable of fuller development. Setting the rewards and
punishments of theology aside, we shall attain at last to that which is
the real happiness of man, pure and disinterested love. This is truly
the Sovereign Good, sought for so long by former systems of philosophy
in vain. That it surpasses all other good one fact will show, known to
the tender-hearted from personal experience; that it is even better to
love than to be loved. Overstrained as this may seem to many, it is yet
in harmony with a general truth, that our nature is in a healthier
state when active than when passive. In the happiness of being loved,
there is always some tinge of self-love; it is impossible not to feel
pride in the love of one whom we prefer to all others. Since, then,
loving gives purer satisfaction than being loved, the superiority
of perfectly disinterested affection is at once demonstrated. It
is the fundamental defect of our nature, that intrinsically these
affections are far weaker than the selfish propensities connected with
the preservation of our own existence. But when they have been once
aroused, even though the original stimulus may have been personal,
they have greater capacity of growth, owing to the peculiar charm
inherent in them. Besides, in the exercise of these feelings, all of
us can co-operate with and encourage one another, whereas the reverse
is the case with the selfish instincts. There is, therefore, nothing
unreasonable in supposing that Positivism, by regulating and combining
these natural tendencies, may rouse our sympathetic instincts to a
condition of permanent activity hitherto unknown. When the heart is
no longer crushed by theological dogmas, or hardened by metaphysical
theories, we soon discover that real happiness, whether public or
private, consists in the highest possible development of the social
instincts. Self-love comes to be regarded as an incurable infirmity,
which is to be yielded to only so far as is absolutely necessary.
Here lies the universal adaptability of Positivism to every type of
character and to all circumstances. In the humblest relations of life,
as in the highest, regenerate Humanity will apply the obvious truth, It
is better to give than to receive.
The Heart thus aroused will in its turn react beneficially upon the
Intellect; and it is especially from women that this reaction will
proceed. I have spoken of it so fully before, that I need not describe
it further. It is in Feeling that I find the basis on which the whole
structure of Positivism, intellectually as well as morally considered,
rests. The only remark I have now to add is, that by following out this
principle, philosophical difficulties of the most formidable kind are
at once surmounted. From moral considerations, the intellect may be
readily induced to submit to scientific restrictions, the propriety of
which would remain for a long time matter of debate, were philosophical
discussions the only means of indicating it. Attempt, for instance,
to convince a pure mathematician, however conscientious and talented,
that Sociology is both logically and scientifically superior to all
other studies. He would not readily admit this; and severe exertion
of the inductive and deductive faculties can alone convince him of
it. But by the aid of Feeling, an artisan or a woman can, without
education, readily grasp this great encyclopædic principle, and apply
it practically to the common affairs of life. But for this, the larger
conceptions of philosophy would have but a limited range, and very
few would be capable of the course of study which is yet so important
on social grounds for all. Comprehensiveness of mind is no doubt
favourable to sympathy, but is itself more actively stimulated by it.
When the Positivist method of education is accepted, moral excellence
will be very generally regarded as a guarantee of real intellectual
capacity. The revolutionist leaders of the Convention showed their
sense of this connexion by allowing, as they did sometimes, republican
ardour to outweigh scientific attainment. Of course, so long as men
remain without a systematic theory of morals, such policy would be
likely to fail of its object, and indeed would become positively
mischievous. But the reproach is usually that it was a retrograde
policy, a reproach far more applicable to the present system, in which
the standard of fitness for any office is regulated exclusively by
intellectual considerations, the heart being altogether disregarded.
Historically we can explain this practice by the fact that the
religious faith in which our moral nature has hitherto been trained
has been of a most oppressive character. Ever since the Middle Ages,
the intellect and the heart have been unavoidably at issue. Positivism
is the only system which can put an end to their antagonism, because,
as I have before explained, while subordinating Reason to Feeling, it
does so in such a way as not to impair the development of either. With
its present untenable claims to supremacy, Intellect is in reality the
principal source of social discord. Until it abdicates in favour of
the Heart, it can never be of real service in reconstruction. But its
abdication will be useless, unless it is entirely voluntary. Now this
is precisely the result which Positivism attains, because it takes
up the very ground on which the claims of intellect are defended,
namely, scientific demonstration, a ground which the defenders of
intellect cannot repudiate without suspicion at once attaching to their
motives. But theological or metaphysical remedies can only exasperate
the disease. By oppressing the intellect they provoke it to fresh
insurrection against the heart.
[Intellectual and moral
affinities of women with
Positivism]
For all these reasons, women, who are better judges of moral questions
than ourselves, will admit that Positivism, incontestably superior
as it is to other systems intellectually, surpasses them yet more
in dealing with the affections. Their only objection arises from
confounding Positive Philosophy itself with its preliminary course of
scientific study.
Women’s minds no doubt are less capable than ours of generalizing
very widely, or of carrying on long processes of deduction. They are,
that is, less capable than men of abstract intellectual exertion. On
the other hand, they are generally more alive to that combination of
reality with utility which is one of the characteristics of Positive
speculation. In this respect they have much in common intellectually
with the working classes; and fortunately they have also the same
advantage of being untrammelled by the present absurd system of
education. Nor is their position far removed from what it should be
normally; being less engaged than men in the business of life, their
contemplative faculties are called into activity more easily. Their
minds are neither preoccupied nor indifferent; the most favourable
condition for the reception of philosophical truth. They have far
more affinity intellectually with philosophers who truly deserve
the name, than we find in the scientific men of the present day.
Comprehensiveness of thought they consider as important as positivity,
whereas our savants care for nothing but the latter quality, and even
that they understand imperfectly. Molière’s remarkable expression,
_des clartés de tout_, which I applied in the last chapter to popular
education, was used by him in reference to women. Accordingly we find
that women took a vivid interest in the very first attempt made to
systematize Positive speculation, the Cartesian philosophy. No more
striking proof could be given of their philosophical affinities; and
the more so that in the Cartesian system moral and social speculations
were necessarily excluded. Surely, then, we may expect them to receive
Positivism far more favourably, a system of which the principal
subject of speculation is the moral problem in which both sexes are
alike interested.
Women, therefore, may, like the people, be counted among the future
supporters of the new philosophy. Without their combined aid it could
never hope to surmount the strong repugnance to it which is felt by our
cultivated classes, especially in France, where the question of its
success has first to be decided.
[Catholicism purified
love, but did not directly
strengthen it]
But when women have sufficient acquaintance with Positivism, to see its
superiority to Catholicism in questions of feeling, they will support
it from moral sympathy even more than from intellectual adhesion. It
will be the heart even more than the mind which will incline them
to the only system of philosophy which has fully recognized the
preponderance of Feeling. They cannot fail to be drawn towards a system
which regards women as the embodiment of this principle; the unity
of human nature, of which this principle is the basis, being thus
entrusted to their special charge. The only reason of their regret
for the past, is that the present fails to satisfy their noblest
social instincts. Not that Catholicism ever really satisfied them;
indeed in its general character it is even less adapted to women than
to men, since the dominant quality of woman’s nature is in direct
contradiction with it. Christianity, notwithstanding its claims to
moral perfection, has always confounded the quality of tenderness with
that of purity. And it is true that love cannot be deep unless it is
also pure. But Catholicism, although it purified love from the animal
propensities which had been stimulated by Polytheism, did nothing
otherwise to strengthen it. It has given us indeed too many instances
of purity, pushed to the extent of fanaticism, without tenderness. And
this result is especially common now, because the austerity of the
Christian spirit is not corrected, as it used to be, by the inspiring
influences of Chivalry. Polytheism, deficient as it was in purity,
was really far more conducive than Christianity, to tenderness. Love
of God, the supreme affection round which Catholicism endeavoured
to concentrate all other feelings, was essentially a self-regarding
principle, and as such conflicted with woman’s noblest instincts. Not
only did it encourage monastic isolation, but if developed to the
full extent, it became inconsistent with love for our fellow men. It
was impiety for the knight to love his Lady better than his God; and
thus the best feelings of his nature were repressed by his religious
faith. Women, therefore, are not really interested in perpetuating
the old system; and the very instincts by which their nature is
characterized, will soon incline them to abandon it. They have only
been waiting until social life should assume a less material character;
so that morality, for the preservation of which they justly consider
themselves responsible, may not be compromised. And on this head
Positivism satisfies their heart no less than their understanding with
all the guarantees that they can require. Based as it is upon accurate
knowledge of our nature, it can combine the simple affectionate spirit
of Polytheism with the exquisite purity of Catholicism, without fear
of taint from the subversive sophisms engendered by the spiritual
anarchy of our times. Not however that purity is to be placed on the
same level with tenderness. Tenderness is the more essential of the
two qualities, because more closely connected with the grand object
of all human effort, the elevation of Social Feeling over Self-love.
In a woman without tenderness there is something even more monstrous
than in a man without courage. Whatever her talents and even her energy
may be, they will in most cases prove mischievous both to herself and
to others, unless indeed they should be nullified by the restraint of
theological discipline. If she has force of character it will be wasted
in a struggle against all legitimate authority; while her mental power
will be employed only in destructive sophisms. Too many cases of this
kind present themselves in the social anarchy of the present time.
Such is the Positivist theory on the subject of Women. It marks out
for them a noble field of social usefulness. It extends the scope
of their influence to public as well as private life, and yet in a
way thoroughly in harmony with their nature. Without leaving the
family, they will participate in the controlling power exercised by
philosophers and workmen, seeking even in their own domestic sphere
rather to modify than to govern. In a word, as I shall show more fully
in the last chapter of this introductory work, Woman is the spontaneous
priestess of Humanity. She personifies in the purest form the principle
of Love upon which the unity of our nature depends; and the culture of
that principle in others is her special function.
[Women’s influence over the
working classes and their
teachers]
All classes, therefore, must be brought under women’s influence; for
all require to be reminded constantly of the great truth that Reason
and Activity are subordinate to Feeling. Of their influence upon
philosophers I have spoken. If they are men worthy of their mission,
they will be conscious of the tendency which their life has to harden
them and lead them into useless speculation; and they will feel the
need of renewing the ardour of their social sympathy at its native
source. Feeling, when it is pure and deep, corrects its own errors,
because they clash with the good to which it is ever tending. But
erroneous use of the intellectual or practical faculties, cannot be
even recognized, much less corrected, without the aid of Affection,
which is the only part of our nature that suffers directly from such
errors. Therefore whenever either the philosopher or the people
deviate from duty, it will be the part of women to remonstrate with
them gently, and recall them to the true social principles which are
entrusted to their special charge.
With the working classes, the special danger to be contended against
is their tendency to abuse their strength, and to resort to force for
the attainment of their objects, instead of persuasion. But this danger
is after all less than that of the misuse of intellectual power to
which philosophers are so liable. Thinkers who try to make reasoning
do the work of feeling can very seldom be convinced of their error.
Popular excitement, on the contrary, has often yielded to feminine
influence, exerted though it has been hitherto without any systematic
guidance. The difference is no doubt partly owing to the fact that
there are now few or none who deserve the name of philosophers. For we
cannot give that name to the superficial sophists and rhetoricians of
our time, whether psychologists or ideologists, men wholly incapable
of deep thought on any subject. Independently of this, however, the
difference is explained by the character of the two classes. Women
will always find it harder to deal with intellectual pride than with
popular violence. Appeals to social feeling are their only weapons;
and the social feelings of the workman are stronger than those of the
philosopher. Sophistry is far more formidable to them than passion. In
fact, were it not that the working classes are even now so amenable
to female influence, society would be in extreme danger from the
disorder caused by intellectual anarchy. There are many sophisms which
maintain themselves in spite of scientific refutation, and which would
be destructive of all order, were it not for our moral instincts. Of
this the Communists offer a striking example, in avoiding, with that
admirable inconsistency to which I have already called attention, the
extension of their principle to the Family. Surrounded by the wildest
theories, such as, if they were put in practice, would utterly destroy
or paralyse society, we see large numbers of working men showing in
their daily life a degree of affection and respect for women, which
is unequalled by any other class. It is well to reflect on facts like
these, not only because they lead us to judge the Communist school with
more justice, but because, occurring as they do in the midst of social
anarchy, they show what powerful agencies for good will be at our
disposal in more settled times. Certainly they cannot be attributed to
theological teaching, which has rather had the effect of strengthening
the errors which it attacks by the absurdity of its refutations. They
are simply the result of the influence which women have spontaneously
exercised on the nobler feelings of the people. In Protestant countries
where their influence is less, the mischievous effects of Communistic
theories have been far greater. We owe it to women that the Family has
been so little injured by the retrograde spirit of those republican
reformers, whose ideal of modern society is to absorb the Family into
the State, as was done by a few small tribes in ancient Greece.
The readiness shown by women in applying practical remedies to
erroneous theories of morality is shown in other cases where the
attractiveness of the error would seem irresistible to the coarser
nature of men. The evils consequent on divorce, which has been
authorized in Germany for three centuries, have been much lessened by
women’s instinctive repugnance to it. The same may be said of recent
attacks upon marriage, which are still more serious because the anarchy
of modern life revives all the extravagances of the metaphysical spirit
in ancient times. In no one case has a scheme of society hostile to
marriage met with any real favour from women, plausible as many of them
seemed. Unable in their ignorance of social science to see the fallacy
of such schemes themselves, our revolutionary writers cannot conceive
that women will not be convinced by them. But happily women, like the
people, judge in these matters by the heart rather than by the head. In
the absence of any guiding principle to direct the understanding and
prevent the deviations to which it is always exposed, the heart is a
far safer guide.
There is no need at present of pursuing these remarks farther. It is
abundantly clear that women are in every respect adapted for rectifying
the moral deviations to which every element in the social organism is
liable. And if we already feel the value of their influence, springing
as it does from the unaided inspirations of the heart, we may be sure
it will become far more consolidated and will be far more widely felt,
when it rests on the basis of a sound philosophical system, capable of
refuting sophisms and exposing fallacies from which their unassisted
instinct is insufficient to preserve us.
[Their social influence in
the _salon_]
Thus the part to be played by women in public life is not merely
passive. Not only will they give their sanction individually
and collectively to the verdicts of public opinion as formed by
philosophers and by the people; but they will themselves interfere
actively in moral questions. It will be their part to maintain the
primary principle of Positivism, which originated with themselves, and
of which they will always be the most natural representatives.
But, how, it may be asked, can this be reconciled with my previous
remark that women’s life should still be essentially domestic?
For the ancients, and for the greater part of the human race at the
present time, it would be irreconcilable. But in Western Europe the
solution has long ago been found. From the time when women acquired,
as they did in the Middle Ages, a fair measure of domestic freedom,
opportunities for social intercourse arose, which combined most happily
the advantages of private and of public life, and in these women
presided. The practice afterwards extended, especially in France, and
these meetings became the laboratories of public opinion. It seems now
as if they had died out, or had lost their character. The intellectual
and moral anarchy of our times is most unfavourable to free interchange
of thoughts and feelings. But a custom so social, and which did such
good service in the philosophical movement preceding the Revolution, is
assuredly not destined to perish. In the more perfect social state to
which we are tending, it will be developed more fully than ever, when
men’s minds and hearts have accepted the rallying point offered by the
new philosophy.
This is, then, the mode in which women can with propriety participate
in public life. Here all classes will recognize their authority as
paramount. Under the new system these meetings will entirely lose
their old aristocratic character, which is now simply obstructive.
The Positivist salon will complete the series of social meetings, in
which the three elements of the spiritual power will be able to act
in concert. First, there is the religious assemblage in the Temple of
Humanity. Here the philosopher will naturally preside, the other two
classes taking on a secondary part. In the Club again it is the people
who will take the active part; women and philosophers would support
them by their presence, but without joining in the debate. Lastly,
women in their salons will promote active and friendly intercourse
between all three classes; and here all who may be qualified to take a
leading part will find their influence cordially accepted. Gently and
without effort a moral control will thus be established, by which acts
of violence or folly may be checked in their source. Kind advice, given
indirectly but earnestly, will often save the philosopher from being
blinded by ambition, or from deviating, through intellectual pride,
into useless digressions. Working men at these meetings will learn
to repress the spirit of violence or envy that frequently arises in
them, recognizing the sacredness of the care thus manifested for their
interests. And the great and the wealthy will be taught from the manner
in which praise and blame is given by those whose opinion is most
valued, that the only justifiable use of power or talent is to devote
it to the service of the weak.
[But the Family is their
principal sphere of action]
But, however important the public duties that women will ultimately
be called upon to perform, the Family is after all their highest and
most distinctive sphere of work. It was in allusion to their domestic
influence that I spoke of them as the originators of spiritual power.
Now the Family, although it is the basis of all human society, has
never been satisfactorily defended by any received system of society.
All the corrosive power of metaphysical analysis has been employed
upon it; and of many of the sophisms put forward no rational refutation
has been given. On the other hand, the protection of the theologians
is no less injurious. For they still persist in connecting the
institutions of the Family with their obsolete dogmas, which, however
useful they may have been formerly, are now simply dangerous. From the
close of the Middle Ages the priesthood has been powerless, as the
licentious songs of the troubadours prove, to protect the sanctity of
marriage against the shallow but mischievous attacks which even then
were made against it. And afterwards, when these false principles
became more generally prevalent, and even royal courts disgraced
themselves by giving public approval to them, the weakness of the
priests became still more manifest. Thus nothing can be more monstrous
than these ignorant assertions that theological doctrines have been the
safeguard of the Family. They have done nothing to preserve it from the
most subversive attacks, under which it must have succumbed, but for
the better instincts of society, especially of the female portion of
it. With the exception of a foolish fiction about the origin of Woman,
theology has put forward no systematic defence of marriage; and as
soon as theological authority itself fell into discredit, the feeble
sanction which it gave to domestic morality became utterly powerless
against sophistical attacks. But now that the Family can be shown on
Positive principles to rest on scientific laws of human nature or
of society, the danger of metaphysical controversy and theological
feebleness is past. These principles will be discussed systematically
in the second volume of the larger Treatise to which this work is the
Introduction. But the few remarks to which I must at present limit
myself, will, I hope, at least satisfy the reader as to the capability
of Positivism to re-establish morality upon a firm basis.
[Woman’s mission as a wife.
Conjugal love an education
for universal sympathy]
According to the lower views of the subject, such as those coarsely
expressed by the great hero of reaction, Napoleon, procreation and
maternity are the only social functions of Woman. Indeed many theorists
object even to her rearing her children, and think it preferable
to leave them to the abstract benevolence of the State. But in the
Positivist theory of marriage, the principal function of Woman is one
quite unconnected with procreation. It is a function dependent on the
highest attributes of our nature.
Vast as is the moral importance of maternity, yet the position of
wife has always been considered even more characteristic of woman’s
nature; as shown by the fact that the words woman and wife are in many
languages synonymous. Marriage is not always followed by children; and
besides this, a bad wife is very seldom indeed a good mother. The first
aspect then, under which Positivism considers Woman, is simply as the
companion of Man, irrespective of her maternal duties.
Viewed thus, Marriage is the most elementary and yet the most perfect
mode of social life. It is the only association in which entire
identity of interests is possible. In this union, to the moral
completeness of which the language of all civilized nations bears
testimony, the noblest aim of human life is realized, as far as it
ever can be. For the object of human existence, as shown in the second
chapter, is progress of every kind; progress in morality, that is to
say in the subjection of Self-interest to Social Feeling, holding the
first rank. Now this unquestionable principle leads us by a very sure
and direct path to the true theory of marriage.
Different as the two sexes are by nature, and increased as that
difference is by the diversity which happily exists in their social
position, each is consequently necessary to the moral development
of the other. In practical energy and in the mental capacity which
usually accompanies it, Man is evidently superior to Woman. Woman’s
strength, on the other hand, lies in Feeling. She excels Man in love,
as Man excels her in force. It is impossible to conceive of a closer
union than that which binds these two beings to the mutual service and
perfection of each other, saving them from all danger of rivalry. The
voluntary character too of this union gives it a still further charm,
when the choice has been on both sides a happy one. In the Positive
theory, then, of marriage, its principal object is considered to be
that of completing and confirming the education of the heart by calling
out the purest and strongest of human sympathies.
It is true that sexual instinct, which, in man’s case at all events,
was the origin of conjugal attachment, is a feeling purely selfish. It
is also true that its absence would in the majority of cases, diminish
the energy of affection. But woman with her more loving heart, has
usually far less need of this coarse stimulus than man. The influence
of her purity reacts on man, and ennobles his affection. And affection
is in itself so sweet, that when once it has been aroused by whatever
agency, its own charm is sufficient to maintain it in activity. When
this is the case, conjugal union becomes a perfect ideal of friendship;
yet still more beautiful than friendship, because each possesses and is
possessed by the other. For perfect friendship, difference of sex is
essential, as excluding the possibility of rivalry. No other voluntary
tie can admit of such full and unrestrained confidence. It is the
source of the most unalloyed happiness that man can enjoy; for there
can be no greater happiness than to live for another.
But independently of the intrinsic value of this sacred union, we have
to consider its importance from the social point of view. It is the
first stage in our progress towards that which is the final object of
moral education, namely, universal love. Many writers of the so-called
socialist school, look upon conjugal love and universal benevolence,
the two extreme terms in the scale of affections, as opposed to each
other. In the second chapter, I pointed out the falseness and danger
of this view. The man who is incapable of deep affection for one
whom he has chosen as his partner in the most intimate relations of
life, can hardly expect to be believed when he professes devotion to
a mass of human beings of whom he knows nothing. The heart cannot
throw off its original selfishness, without the aid of some complete
and enduring affection. And conjugal love, concentrated as it is upon
one object exclusively, is more enduring and complete than any other.
From personal experience of strong love we rise by degrees to sincere
affection for all mankind; although, as the scope of feeling widens,
its energy must decrease. The connexion of these two states of feeling
is instinctively recognized by all; and it is clearly indicated by the
Positive theory of human nature, which has now placed it beyond the
reach of metaphysical attacks. When the moral empire of Woman has been
more firmly established by the diffusion of Positivist principles, men
will see that the common practice of looking to the private life of a
statesman as the best guarantee of his public conduct had deep wisdom
in it. One of the strongest symptoms of the general laxity of morals to
which mental anarchy has brought us, is that disgraceful law passed
in France thirty years ago, and not yet repealed; the avowed object
of which was to surround men’s lives with a ‘wall’ of privacy; a law
introduced by psychologist politicians who no doubt needed such a
wall.[8]
[Conditions of marriage.
Indissoluble monogamy]
The purpose of marriage once clearly understood, it becomes easy to
define its conditions. The intervention of society is necessary; but
its only object is to confirm and to develop the order of things which
exists naturally.
It is essential in the first place to the high purposes for which
marriage has been instituted, that the union shall be both exclusive
and indissoluble. So essential indeed are both conditions, that we
frequently find them even when the connexion is illegal. That any one
should have ventured to propound the doctrine that human happiness is
to be secured by levity and inconsistency in love, is a fact which
nothing but the utter deficiency of social and moral principles can
explain. Love cannot be deep unless it remains constant to a fixed
object. The very possibility of change is a temptation to it. So
differently constituted as man and woman are, is their short life too
much for perfect knowledge and love of one another? Yet the versatility
to which most human affection is liable makes the intervention of
society necessary. Without some check upon indecision and caprice, life
might degenerate into a miserable series of experiments, each ending
in failure and degradation. Sexual love may become a powerful engine
for good: but only on the condition of placing it under rigorous and
permanent discipline. Those who doubt the necessity for this, have only
to cast a glance beyond Western Europe at the countries where no such
discipline has been established. It has been said that the adoption or
rejection of monogamy is a simple question of climate. But for this
hypothesis there is no ground whatever. It is as contrary to common
observation as to philosophic theory. Marriage, like every other human
institution, has always been improving. Beginning in all countries with
unrestricted polygamy, it tends in all to the purest monogamy. Tracing
back the history of Northern Europe, we find polygamy there as well as
in the South; and Southern nations, like Northern, adopt polygamy as
their social life advances. We see the tendency to it in those parts of
the East which come into contact with Western civilization.