ART AND SEXUAL SELECTION
The explanation which we have given in the preceding chapter of the
pairing dresses of the birds can of course be equally well applied to
the secondary sexual characters of man. And it holds good also, we
believe, with regard to the most primitive _voluntary_ alterations
in the appearance of either sex. It is true, indeed, that artificial
embellishments or deformations, the work of the individual himself,
never can appeal so strongly to the instincts of the other sex as
those alterations which are physiologically connected with sexual
development. But when, as is the case with most primitive tribes,
the so-called means of attraction have remained almost unchanged
during innumerable successive generations, one may safely conclude
that the instincts of either sex will gradually grow prompt to react
with eminent force upon impressions received from such individuals
as exhibit these conventional signs of their sex and tribe. Whether
the acquired qualities are considered as hereditary, or whether the
consistency in the predilections of all the members of the same tribe
be explained—in the Weissmannian or the neo-Darwinian way—as a result
of selection, there will always be found in either sex a sort of
constitutional liking for certain fixed qualities in the appearance of
the opposite sex. An appearance and a behaviour which, in the ancestors
of an individual, male or female, have stirred the instinctive life of
the opposite sex through generations past by, must needs improve his
or her chances in courtship. The more a suitor approaches the ideal
which unconsciously, and one may say physiologically, is embodied in
the inherited impulses of every female, the more helplessly is she
exposed to the fascination of his charms. And when, at a certain higher
state of development, the males begin to practise a selection between
rival females, they will undoubtedly be influenced in their choice by
the same sort of inherited predilections. And there is no reason why
these predilections should be restricted to anatomical qualities—why
artificial adornments, perhaps even detached gems, which have only
been traditional during some generations, should not influence sexual
preferences in the same direct way—that is, without any intervention of
an æsthetic judgment, as secondary sexual characters proper influence
them. This circumstance justifies us in treating the outward physical
appearance and the conventional means of embellishing it in conjunction
with each other. An outward sign, whether natural or artificial, which
has often enough been connected with the impression of the other sex
will necessarily tend to awaken sexual feelings.
For such an effect it is of course not indispensable that these signs
should have originated in an endeavour to charm the sex. As in the
foregoing chapter, we have to keep the question of influence upon the
other sex apart from the question of the positive causes—that is,
conscious or unconscious motives, which have called forth the various
secondary sexual characters and activities. For convenience of
exposition it is advantageous to begin with the first-mentioned phase
of the problem.
Without as yet pronouncing any definite views as to the aims the
pursuit of which has led to the different systems of adornment, we
may safely maintain that any conspicuous garments, independently of
their ornamental qualities, which have served to distinguish the adult
and marriageable individuals from other members of the tribe, have
been of importance as means of attraction. According to the ingenious
explanation of Dr. Westermarck, even clothing was originally invented
not to conceal nudity, but to set it off.[301] There is room, as will
be shown later on, for objecting to any definite statement with regard
to a question such as this, the answer to which is to be sought for
in several directions at once. But there can be no doubt about the
fact that the simplest dresses, and especially those which have been
interpreted as indicating a sense of modesty, practically accentuate
the things they technically conceal. At a stage of development where
nudity is the normal state, veiling must necessarily suggest the same
emotions as unveiling in a civilised society. As Dr. Westermarck
has been able to show, dresses are adopted by a majority of tribes
on the attainment of puberty and on the occasions of great feasts;
it is therefore natural that they should act as powerful sexual
incitements.[302] And this view receives additional support from the
arguments of its opponents. The large collection of facts that Dr.
Schurtz has quoted in proof of his assertion that clothing originally
aimed at “the concealment of sexual differences” may of course be
interpreted with equal and, we believe, with greater probability in
the inverse sense.[303] One has only to look, for example, at some of
the richly-embroidered cinctures of the Guiana natives in order to
understand that these coverings, whatever may have been their original
purpose, can never have acted as an effective means of diverting the
attention.
The differences between the sexes will, however, be emphasised not
only by the special garments for which Dr. Schurtz proposes the
above-mentioned explanation, but also by every article of dress or
ornament. For the intellectualistically prejudiced observer it is
undoubtedly most natural to consider the various kinds of fixed or
detached ornament, such as paintings and tattooings, ribbons, laces,
collars, and so on, as means of influencing an æsthetic sense in the
spectator. But it is evidently more in accordance with the principles
of comparative psychology to assume that all these garnitures
originally had their main significance not as beautifying things or
as things of beauty themselves, but as marks by which the personality
of the decorated man or woman was distinguished. To illustrate this
argument it is not necessary to go back to the primitive stages. Even
among civilised men, gems and jewels, when seen on a member of the
opposite sex, have chiefly a symbolic value. In the string of pearls
which encircles a woman’s neck, or in the gay feather of a man’s hat,
the charm and fascination of a whole human being are concentrated to
a single focus. To the lover’s attention everything that has some
connection with the beloved shines with a borrowed light. We all know
that handkerchiefs and shoes can be adored with an almost fetichistic
devotion. All the more must a gem which is conspicuously carried on
the body be able to imbibe and exhale the charms of its wearer. The
lyrical poetry of all ages is there to prove the emotional value which
can thus be attached to lifeless things. And the psychology of the
emotions in its turn gives a simple explanation of the fact that loving
imagination always dwells with predilection upon some single part of
the attire of the beloved. A small and conspicuous object which can
easily be embraced by the senses affords a vehicle which can carry into
the mind the whole complex of feelings and impulses that are attached
to the notion of the beloved. Well knowing this law of emotional
mechanics, an intelligent woman who is anxious to please does not cover
herself with jewels and ornaments. She prefers some single brilliant
gem, which does not so much call for admiration itself, as draw
attention to her charms and heighten the impression which they produce.
It may seem very far-fetched to explain the primitive means of
attraction by reference to the art of pleasing among modern men. But
however much the forms of courtship may have been changed by higher
development, their psychological basis is still the same at all stages
of culture. There is no need, as far as purely erotic purposes are
concerned, to embellish the appearance; what is wanted is only to
enable the appearance itself to produce its most effectual impression.
When this point is kept in mind, it is easily understood that ornaments
such as a simple piece of glass in the hair or a band of shells twisted
around the neck can be as charming in the eyes of primitive man as any
of the gems that are used among civilised nations. And there is no
reason to doubt that the savage beaux and belles really have increased
their chances by putting wooden slabs in their lips and ears, or pins
of bone through their nose.
In the last-mentioned cases the effect has, moreover, been strengthened
by the appearance of strangeness that is given to the face by deforming
adornments. Eyes that might pass by with indifference an accustomed
impression, are unavoidably arrested by any extraordinary character.
As amongst the birds and mammals, horns, accrescences, and gorgeous
plumage, independently of their possible æsthetic qualities, assist
the males in courting the females, so also amongst men any means of
correcting the normal appearance, be it through flattening the head,
filling, extracting, or blackening the teeth, elongating the ears or
compressing the waist, will, in virtue only of its singularity, act
as an effectual instrument of charming.[304] For the marriageable
individual it has evidently been advantageous to be distinguished by
these extravagant transformations, which, as is well known, are usually
inflicted at the very time of puberty. And, on the other hand, among
individuals so distinguished, those who extort an interest for their
person by the most singular qualities ought to have an increased chance
of charming the opposite sex. In the discussion of sexual preferences
there has been much talk of a supposed constitutional predilection
for novelty and variation. But it is undoubtedly more in accordance
with the strictly psychological position to doubt whether, in the
primitive stages, novelty really has been appreciated for its own
sake, or whether it is only by facilitating the attention, and thereby
intensifying the impression, that it has gained the favour of the
opposite sex for one particular male or female.
Whichever formula may be preferred in the interpretation, it remains
as an indisputable fact that even in some of the higher animals an
exceptional appearance gives an advantage in courtship. It is needless
to point out to how great an extent in civilised communities man is
influenced in sexual preference by a bias for a peculiar appearance
which distinguishes the chosen one from any other man or woman. This
predilection, however, is always neutralised by a repugnance for
everything that deviates too much from the common characteristics of
the group. The two principles which have regulated the development
of secondary sexual characters—to wit, the necessity of marks for
accentuating sex-distinction and that of tribal signs—are thus
brought into conflict with each other. This conflict is particularly
conspicuous in the lower stages of development. Owing to the peculiar
conditions of life which prevail here, the second principle will
generally be of especial importance among the savage tribes of mankind.
The observation has often been made that too great uniformity of
work impedes the development of individual characters in physical
appearance. In savage communities, where the division of labour is
almost unknown, all men must necessarily be more or less like one
another.[305] Especially if the home of the tribe be some closely
defined area of uniform climatic conditions, there will be within
the tribe almost no material for selection. Where endogamic marriage
prevails, the conception “lover,” which is transmitted from mother to
daughter, and which, by “objective heredity,” becomes imprinted on
the mind of every girl that grows up in this narrow _milieu_, must
therefore be one with a very restricted content. Alongside of this
increasing predilection for a fixed and narrowly circumscribed type
of the opposite sex there will, as its complementary feeling, develop
a strong antipathy to every feature that diverges from this type. For
the evolution of national ideals this negative influence has been of
perhaps even greater importance than the positive preferences.
It is evident that strictly endogamous marriage customs could never
be upheld in tribes which have any intercourse with their neighbours
if the social institution were not supported by a real psychological
aversion to outsiders. It has therefore been congruous with the
advantages of society to promote in the youth the feeling that any man
or woman outside the tribe is a being with whom no emotional exchange
is to be thought of. To make this feeling possible, on the other hand,
it is necessary that everything which is connected with the foreigner
should be held up to contempt. Their dress, their language, their
manners, and so on, have thus been considered as something to be kept
at a distance. It is needless to point out that marriage systems are
not alone responsible for the development of this feeling. Religious
differences, so important in primitive communities, have undoubtedly
often given rise to the common notion that people outside one’s own
tribe do not, properly speaking, belong to the human species. Continual
war induces a feeling of contempt, which in the stronger tribe is
mingled with pride and in the weaker with bitterness, and which in
both cases extends to the smallest details of physical appearance and
behaviour. And apart from all regard to these social causes, the
primitive man, in civilised as well as in savage nations, is always apt
to look upon everything unusual with a feeling of scornful disdain. No
doubt such a disdain can even be coincident with exogamous marriage
customs. But it seems evident that it must everywhere have strongly
influenced sexual selection during those unknown endogamic periods in
which the racial and tribal differences were developed and fixed.[306]
And it may even now be observed among living tribes of man to how
great a degree antipathy to every detail in the outward appearance of
foreigners precludes union between members of different tribes. The
national and parochial dresses of modern peasants no doubt exercise
a great influence on the love-life of the respective boys and girls.
The most telling example that could be quoted in this connection is
the case of Savakot and Äyrämäiset in Eastern Finland. When examining
a Savakko youth as to the reason why none of his tribe had ever
chosen a wife from among their neighbours, Ahlqvist[307] received the
characteristic answer: “Se kuin on heillä Äyrämäisillä niin hirveä
vaatteen manieri niin siihen ei meidän pojat uskalla puuttua”—that is,
As these Äyrämä girls have such horrid dresses, our boys do not dare to
approach them.
This instance, although it is one of modern times and refers to
relatively civilised individuals, can no doubt be considered as
illustrative with regard to the distinguishing marks and dresses of
primitive men. The outward signs of the tribe not only exercise a
strong attraction upon all its members; they are also for outsiders
associated with a repugnance which is perhaps equally strong. In
the same way as it has been advantageous for the young of both
sexes to have an appearance which appeals as powerfully as possible
to the instinctive predilections of the opposite sex, it has been
necessary for them not to exhibit qualities which could be confounded
with those of the alien. The individual who endeavours to attract
attention for his person by a conspicuous and extravagant appearance
is, therefore, narrowly restricted within the boundaries prescribed by
tribal sympathies and antipathies. The safest expedient by which to
distinguish himself from others without outraging the national idea is,
therefore, that of exaggerating the common characteristics of the tribe.
These theoretical reasonings can be amply corroborated by ethnological
facts. As early as 1814 Humboldt observed and commented upon the
fact that the deformations which appear most arbitrary generally
only tend to carry into excess some natural peculiarity of the
tribe.[308] And since his time, numerous instances have been adduced
in the ethnological literature, all pointing in the same direction.
In the case of people who blacken their teeth it has been remarked
that the dental enamel is naturally darker than usual; where heads
are artificially deformed, it is found that there exists a general
disposition to develop pointed or flat crania; where the hair-growth
is scanty, baldness is artificially produced; and so forth.[309] By
exaggerating and accentuating in their own appearance the common
qualities of the tribe, the individual males or females have thus
created a more and more differentiated tribal type. And the inherited
predilections and aversions of the opposite sex have, on the other
hand, by continuously influencing positive and negative choice,
contributed to the fixing of these types as tribal ideals, not of
beauty, but of sexual attractiveness.