Her needs are the same and her environment is the same. But she is
not so well endowed as man to supply the one or to meet the other.
Her disabilities are of two kinds, physical and mental. The physical
are: first, inferior muscular strength, and secondly, childbearing.
The latter means more or less incompetence for active work at monthly
periods, or several months of gestation and lactation, and some years
of care of children. The mental disabilities are: first, inferior power
of mental co-ordination; and secondly, greater emotional sensibility,
which interferes more or less with rational action.[17]
[17] This is, of course, only true where the sexes of the same
subspecies or race are compared.
From these facts it is evident that, were woman of the same sex as
man, that is, were she simply another kind of man, she would soon be
eliminated from the earth under the operation of the ordinary law of
the survival of the fittest. This need not be through any agencies
different from those now actually in operation among men under the
circumstances of peaceful trade. And such is often the actual history
of male men who possess marked feminine characteristics. It does
not follow from this, that some women might not sustain themselves
apart from men, in agriculture, trade, and the professions. This is
especially possible where the struggle is not very severe; but in the
cases which exist, few are really independent of male assistance, which
has furnished the capital, either of cleared land, money, or as an
appointing power. The general result, as above stated, is self-evident
from the facts.
Remedies for this disability are frequently proposed. A higher
education, while an unquestioned advantage, does not remove it. The
ballot would only result in removing any disability of an artificial
character which might exist, but could not effect those imposed by
nature. There is no method of human contrivance by which the natural
difficulty may be overcome.
But Nature has supplied a most effective remedy. Woman not being of
the same sex as man, supplies a necessity which is almost universal,
so that she is placed, if she exercise reasonable care, in a position
better than that of man in relation to the struggle for existence.
The antagonist of man, his fellow man, is eliminated from the list of
the antagonists of woman, and that is an advantage which cannot be
overestimated. Not only is man removed from the field as a competitor,
but he becomes an active helper in resisting the forces of nature. More
than this, he is willing under the circumstances, to divide with her
what he extracts from both man and nature. Were these the only benefits
that woman derives from man they would constitute a sufficient reason
for the usual preference which she displays for his protection, rather
than for a life of independence. But she is herself possessed of a
sex-interest which is satisfied by such a relation. Not only this, but
her love of children constitutes a further inducement, which is highly
effective in bringing about her customary relation with man.
It is self-evident then that any system which looks to a career for
women independent of man, such as man pursues, is abnormal, and
injurious to her interests.
The support and protection given by man to woman is then clearly
rendered as an equivalent for the services she renders him in the
capacity of a wife. It is universally implied, if not distinctly stated
in the contract between them, that she shall not be the wife of some
other man, and that the children she bears shall be also those of the
male party to the contract, or the husband. It is not necessary that
any such obligation should be entered into by the man, for the obvious
reason that he does not bear children. If the woman violates this
contract, the man is under no moral or legal obligation to support her.
If the man has other wives he does not thereby forfeit protection and
support of the wife, since she has none to offer him. This general fact
would not prevent a woman possessed of wealth who supported a husband,
from withdrawing such support in case he should become polygamous. But
such a situation is so exceptional as to deserve but a passing notice
in a consideration of the whole question.
It is frequently insisted that responsibility of man to woman in the
matter of monogamic relations, is ethically the same as that of woman
to man. This has not been the view of mankind generally, and it is
distinctly negatived by the facts in the case. The marriage relation is
clearly a contract in which the consideration on one side is support
and protection, and the consideration on the other is monogamic
wifehood, or the definite paternity of children and their care and
education. The immediate reason why particular men and women marry
particular women and men, is, or ought to be, love and affection; but
these admirable sentiments, are the offspring of natural conditions of
sex, without which woman, and especially man, would not marry at all.
And these natural conditions are clearly satisfied by the maintenance
of the contract as above described. In order to further enforce this
position I merely refer to the well-known fact that man cannot commit
marital infidelity in the same sense that woman can, on account of his
physical diversity. His unfaithfulness introduces no new blood into
a family, and makes no defect in the inheritance, as does the same
act on the part of the woman. The woman is in a position of trust,
precisely like the responsible officers of a bank. It is in the power
of both to defraud those who trust them. Hence it is that woman has
been always held to stricter account in this matter than man, and
always must be. For this reason the jealousy displayed by husbands
is more justifiable than that displayed by wives; and the result of
marital infidelity on the part of wives is usually more disastrous to
the offending parties. It is in consequence of these facts that there
exists some difference in the ethical feelings of the sexes on this
question. It is undoubtedly true that there are more women willing
to live in polygamy than men willing to live in polyandry, in spite
of the verbal objections that women make to such a system in modern
times. I do not now refer to promiscuity, in which the affections
are in no wise concerned. In this everyway inferior relation, men
are the most numerous offenders. It is for the reasons above stated
that women are more monogamous in their tendencies than men. Not only
does the question of support and protection during child-bearing and
at other times make it more to their interest to be so, but they are
more inclined to attach themselves to particular persons than men, on
account of their superior affectional endowments. This is an inevitable
result of their occupation in the family and with the family for
countless ages, and is as much a product of their evolution, as is the
superior rationality and self-control of the male sex.
The above picture may seem to some persons of progressive views on
"the woman question" somewhat onesided. But the relation of man to
the contract is not yet completely described. Meanwhile I refer to a
sentiment attributed to a single woman, a teacher in a girls' school,
I believe near Pittsburg, quoted by a lady writer in the _Popular
Science Monthly_, several months ago. This lady, believing that the
strength of the emotional elements of character in women constitutes a
disability, and stands in the way of her so-called equality with man,
had resolved to suppress that part of her nature, and to live a life
free from its consequences. She hoped thus to attain a condition not
only equal, but superior to that of men, and was prepared to teach the
girls committed to her care that this was their duty to themselves
and to the world. For this reason she would not marry. The fallacy in
this reasoning consists in the omission of certain important premises.
The principal one of these is, that neither she nor any other woman
can exterminate in a life-time, the heritage which woman has derived
from the entire history of the human species, to say nothing of the
inheritance from the ancestors of mankind, where the same traits exist
in the diminished ratio of a smaller mentality. In order to accomplish
this change in female character, it would be necessary that the same
course should be pursued by many successive generations of women; how
many, it is impossible to calculate. This would require that such women
should marry, which is what the lady whose views are referred to above,
desired to avoid. In fact it is typical women who will marry, and
typical women will be therefore produced to the end of time, unless
some new system of sex relations shall be introduced.
It is sometimes suggested that a change in intersex relations is
desirable in order to effect a fuller emancipation of women from
present conditions. With the remark in passing, that the natural
restraints imposed by the present marriage system on woman are not
greater than those imposed on man, although different, we may refer
to the alternative arrangement which has been sometimes adopted. This
is that woman should be free from all obligation to fidelity to any
particular man, and that man should be free from the obligation to
support any particular woman. In other words it is sometimes proposed
that we return to the primitive state of human society. Such a system
has descended to us from ancient times, and it only needs to be
mentioned to satisfy us that woman is the loser by it to a degree that
is disastrous to the interests of society in every respect. It is only
a being devoid of the developed traits of womanhood who could succeed
in a polyandrous career, since she must renounce the pleasures of
family life, even if she is exceptionally able to accumulate the means
of support for her self and children in later years.
A second alternative, that woman may secure the support of one man,
while her marital relations are polyandrous, is an impossible dream of
the imagination. This could be only possible under the condition that
the child-bearing sex should be the stronger sex, and fully capable of
self-support and self-protection; a condition which is not found in
mankind.
A third alternative is the communistic relation where the state
supports women and children, without inquiry as to parentage, and
without reference to the monogamic or promiscuous relation of the
sexes. Such a system, could it continue long enough, would result
in the breaking up of the sentiment of conjugal affection which now
characterises our race, and the destruction of marital fidelity. The
question is whether or not this system would be preferable to that of
monogamic marriage above described. As it is a proposition for the
amelioration of the present condition of women, the decision should
rest with them. The women of the white race would probably declare
against it by a very large majority, were a vote to be taken. This
vote would be, however, largely influenced by custom, and not by a
deliberate conclusion derived from experience. Since experience of
such system cannot be had at present, we are compelled to rely on such
knowledge as we possess in the premises.
It may be safely assumed that the monogamic tendency is constitutional
with the majority of women. In spite of curiosity and other
inducements, the idea of love for a single person is deeply ingrained
in her nature. It is an ideal to be realised somehow and at some time,
and anything short of it is a disaster only to be endured through
some irresistible necessity. No normal woman would hazard the risks
to person and property involved in indefinite matrimonial relations.
The idea of the family becomes the more fixed in proportion as it is
realised in actual experience. In spite of pessimists and unfortunates,
the mutual love of man and woman is a sentiment deeply seated in the
nature of both. Its strength is attested by the enormous popularity
of the literature of which it forms the theme, and of the drama where
its history and vicissitudes are depicted. Men and women who underrate
its power, or who attempt to resist its effects, are like dead leaves
before the winds. Would men and women be satisfied with a system
which should place these affections in constant suspense, and which
should afford no safeguard for the protection of inexperience, or
defense against the temporary effects of superficial attractions and
repulsions? I suspect not, for more would be lost than gained by such
possibilities. Relief from unfortunate connections is certainly proper,
but this can be had in such a way as to render it certain that the best
interests of both parties are subserved, by a system of time contracts
of marriage, such as I crudely suggested in _The Open Court_ for
November 1888. But the emotions of sex cannot be safely left without
safeguards derived from the experience of mankind. This is not only on
account of the force of these passions themselves, but because of the
material necessities which are so intimately involved with them. The
element of paternal interest will have to be eliminated from the man,
and of conjugal fidelity from the woman before a communal system can
be possible. And the absence of these traits is only characteristic of
some of the lower races of men at the present time. Evolution has not
weakened, but has greatly strengthened them, and it is not likely that
our race will go backward in this respect.
Of course it may be asserted that this evolution has taken the wrong
direction, and is not an improvement. I think the contrary may be shown
to be true. The paternal instinct is as important to the adolescent
stages of man as the maternal is for the period of infancy. Paternity
stimulates the man to labor for the support and education of his
children, and for their general well-being. Without such support many
would die, reach an imperfect development, or become feeble members
of society. The fidelity of the woman develops the same trait in
man, and it stimulates him to the greatest exertions to secure her
well-being also. Such forces as these cannot be withdrawn from society
without infinite loss. It is the knowledge that this is _my_ wife
and that these are _my_ children, that sustains more than half of
human industry. With a communistic system these inducements would be
withdrawn, and mankind would sink into comparative apathy, were it
possible for the system to endure long enough.
It is evident that monogamic and polygamic systems are the only ones
possible to modern society. The polygamic requires little notice
because the general equality in numbers of the sexes deprives it of
foundation. It is only possible where women are in excess, and where
they are willing to sustain it. No man who is successfully married is
likely to incur the additional obligations which it imposes. It may
be therefore dismissed from notice with the further remark that it is
not on the other hand deserving of the obloquy cast upon it by certain
persons who are evidently "compounding for sins they have a mind to by
damning those they're not inclined to."
The monogamic relation having been defined in the preceding paragraphs
I recur to some of its obligations. I have spoken of the infidelity of
woman as of a higher degree of criminality than that of man, and have
shown the basis of justice on which this general sentiment rests. But
it must not be forgotten that while he who hires a murderer, and he who
receives stolen goods does not commit the actual crime, he is highly
culpable, and shares in the condemnation which should follow it. In
the case of the marital infidelity of the woman, he may be the greater
criminal of the two, as the instigator to a deed which would not have
been otherwise even suggested. In any case his folly is extraordinary,
as he takes his life in his hands, and risks that of his partner; for
men are wont to preserve their family rights by summary process. It
would be incredible that such risks should be taken were it not that
history and contemporary literature offer many examples. The few cases
where palliating circumstances could be claimed would chiefly occur in
countries where divorce laws do not exist.
The advantages to woman, arising from the monogamic relation, are then,
support and protection, and undivided affection if she deserve it,
together with the satisfaction of the conjugal and maternal instincts.
In order to secure these advantages she must pursue a course towards
her husband in some degree comparable to that by which her husband
secures the confidence and esteem of his fellow man. Faithfulness in
adhering to contracts, and personal complaisance cover much of the
ground. As regards the man, he must see to it, that he does nothing
that tends to the disintegration of the family relations of other men.
The ill disguised laudation of the infidelity of wives which is so
prominent in French literature, is a mark of a low civilisation, and
it rightly excites the disgust of all men who have any respect for
their own rights. It looks as though certain French literature had
been written by boys. Men who are responsible for such invasion of the
rights of others, cannot expect better treatment themselves, and they
must not be surprised if they are repaid in their own coin. While the
preservation of the rights of the marriage contract lies primarily with
woman, for natural reasons; man is held by his fellow man to a strict
accountability, and he attempts any invasion of them at his personal
peril.
The principles above laid down are those out of which have grown
our laws on the subject. Some women and men appear to think them
unjust to women. It is true that in some respects, woman is at a
disadvantage. This disadvantage is, however, of natural origin and
cannot be overcome. On the other hand, she has a full equivalent in the
advantages which she also derives from the natural order of things. The
result is that there is no real cause of complaint, unless it be that
sometimes the gallantry of men towards women whom they do not know,
leads them to do injustice to man in cases of dispute. And here is
an advantage to women which is an offset to the injustice which they
sometimes experience from the same source. The correction of these
faults is a part of the process of ethical development which is going
on in human society. And perhaps the most effective agency in this
development is the relation of the members of the family to each other,
where affection takes the place of force, since it is the source of our
deepest pleasures and our severest pains.
E. D. COPE.
THE ANALYSIS OF THE SENSATIONS.
ANTIMETAPHYSICAL.
I.
The great results that physical research in the last centuries has
achieved, not only in its own domain, but also, by the assistance it
has afforded, in the domain of other sciences, have brought it about
that physical ways of thinking and physical methods of procedure have
everywhere attained to especial prominence, and that the greatest
expectations are associated with their employment. In conformity with
this drift of modern research the physiology of the senses, gradually
leaving the paths that had been entered upon by men like Goethe,
Schopenhauer, and others, but especially with the greatest success
by Johannes Müller, has also almost exclusively assumed a physical
character. This tendency must appear to us as not exactly the proper
and the desirable one, when we reflect that physics despite its
considerable development nevertheless constitutes but a _portion_ of a
greater collective body of knowledge, and that it is incompetent with
its limited intellectual methods, created for especial and limited
purposes, to exhaust the entire material of the province now under
consideration. However, without renouncing the support of the science
of physics, it is possible for the physiology of the senses not only
to continue its own special development, but also to afford physical
science itself valuable assistance. The following simple considerations
will serve to illustrate this relation.
II.
Colors, sounds, temperatures, pressures, spaces, times, and the like,
are united with one another in the most manifold ways; and to these are
joined moods of mind, feelings, and wills. Out of this complication,
that which is relatively the more fixed and the more permanent stands
prominently forth, engraves itself in the memory, and expresses itself
in language. As relatively more permanent appear, first, _complexes_
of colors, sounds, pressures, and so forth, that are connected in time
and space, that therefore receive special names, and are designated as
_bodies_. Such complexes are by no means absolutely permanent.
My table is now brightly and now darkly lighted. It may be warmer or
colder. It may receive an ink stain. One of its legs may get broken. It
can be repaired, polished, and replaced part for part. But for me, amid
all, it remains the table at which I daily write.
My friend can put on a different coat. His countenance can assume a
serious or joyful expression. The complexion of his face, under the
effects of light or of emotion, can change. His shape can be altered by
a movement, or can be permanently transformed. But the sum total of the
permanent, as compared with gradual alterations of this kind, always
remains so great, that the latter vanish. It is the same friend with
whom I take my daily walk.
My coat can receive a stain, a tear. The very manner of my expression
indicates that the gist of the thing is a quantity of permanency, to
which the new element is added and from which that which is lacking is
subsequently deducted.
Our greater intimacy with this quantity of permanency, and its
preponderance as contrasted with the changeable, impel us to the
partly instinctive, partly voluntary and conscious economy of mental
representation and designation which is expressed in ordinary thought
and speech. That which has been _once_ perceptually represented
receives _a single_ designation, _a single_ name.
As relatively permanent, is exhibited, further, that complex of
memories, moods, and feelings, joined to a particular body (the human
body), which is denominated the "I" or "Ego." I can be engaged with
this subject or with that subject, I can be quiet or animated, excited
or ill-humoured. Yet—pathological cases not considered—enough that is
permanent remains to recognise the ego as the same. Moreover, the ego
also is only of relative permanency.
* * * * *
The apparent permanency of the ego consists pre-eminently in the
fact of its _continuity_, and in its slow change. The many thoughts
and plans of yesterday that are continued to-day, and of which our
environment in waking hours continually reminds us (and therefore in
dreams the ego can be very indistinct, doubled, or entirely wanting),
and the little habits that are unconsciously and involuntarily kept up
for longer periods of time, constitute the fundamental root of the ego.
There can hardly be greater differences in the ego of different people,
than occur in the course of years in _one_ person. When I recall
to-day my early youth, I should take the boy that I then was, with the
exception of a few single features, for a different person, did not the
chain of memories that make up my personality now lie before me. Many
a treatise that I myself wrote twenty years ago, now makes upon me a
very strange impression. The very gradual character of the changes of
the body also contributes to the permanency of the ego, but in a much
less degree than people imagine. Such things are much less analysed
and noticed than the intellectual and the moral ego. Individually,
personally, people have a very poor knowledge of themselves.
Once, when a young man, I espied in the street a face in profile that
was very displeasing and repulsive to me. I was not a little taken
aback when a moment afterwards I found that it was my own, which, in
passing by a place where mirrors were sold, I had perceived reflected
from two mirrors that stood at the proper inclination to each other.