central evil of prostitution, still more hopeless is it to attempt the
legal suppression of all the multitudinous minor provocations of the
sexual impulse offered by civilization. Let it be assumed that only by
such suppression, and not by frankly meeting and fighting temptations,
can character be formed, yet it would be absolutely impossible to
suppress more than a fraction of the things that would need to be
suppressed. "There is almost no feature, article of dress, attitude,
act," Dr. Stanley Hall has truly remarked, "or even animal, or perhaps
object in nature, that may not have to some morbid soul specialized
erogenic and erethic power." If, therefore, we wish to suppress the
sexually suggestive and the possibly obscene we are bound to suppress
the whole world, beginning with the human race, for if we once enter on
that path there is no definite point at which we can logically stop. The
truth is, as Mr. Theodore Schroeder has so repeatedly insisted,[217] that
"obscenity" is subjective; it cannot reside in an object, but only in
the impure mind which is influenced by the object. In this matter Mr.
Schroeder is simply the follower, at an interval, of St. Paul. We must
work not on the object, but on the impure mind affected by the object.
If the impure heart is not suppressed it is useless to suppress the
impure object, while if the heart is renewed the whole task is achieved.
Certainly there are books, pictures, and other things in life so unclean
that they can never be pure even to the purest, but these things by
their loathsomeness are harmless to all healthy minds; they can only
corrupt minds which are corrupt already. Unfortunately, when ignorant
police officials and custom-house officers are entrusted with the task
of searching for the obscene, it is not to these things that their
attention is exclusively directed. Such persons, it seems, cannot
distinguish between these things and the noblest productions of human
art and intellect, and the law has proved powerless to set them right;
in all civilized countries the list is indeed formidable of the splendid
and inspiring productions, from the Bible downwards, which officials or
the law courts have been pleased to declare "obscene." So that while the
task of moralizing the community by force must absolutely fail of its
object, it may at the same time suffice to effect much mischief.
It is one of the ironies of history that the passion for extinguishing
immorality by law and administration should have arisen in what used to
be called Christendom. For Christianity is precisely the most brilliant
proof the world has ever seen of the truth that immorality cannot so be
suppressed. From the standpoint of classic Rome Christianity was an
aggressive attack on Roman morality from every side. It was not so only
in appearance, but in reality, as modern historians fully recognize.[218]
Merely as a new religion Christianity would have been received with calm
indifference, even with a certain welcome, as other new religions were
received. But Christianity denied the supremacy of the State, carried on
an anti-military propaganda in the army, openly flouted established
social conventions, loosened family life, preached and practised
asceticism to an age that was already painfully aware that, above all
things, it needed men. The fatal though doubtless inevitable step was
taken of attempting to suppress the potent poison of this manifold
immorality by force. The triumph of Christianity was largely due to the
fine qualities which were brought out by that annealing process, and the
splendid prestige which the process itself assured. Yet the method of
warfare which it had so brilliantly proved to be worthless was speedily
adopted by Christianity itself, and is even yet, at intervals,
spasmodically applied.
That these attempts should have such results as we see is not surprising
when we remember that even movements, at the outset, mainly inspired by
moral energy, rather than by faith in moral legislation, when that
energy becomes reckless, violent and intolerant, lead in the end to
results altogether opposed to the aims of those who initiated them. It
was thus that Luther has permanently fortified the position of the Popes
whom he assailed, and that the Reformation produced the
Counter-Reformation, a movement as formidable and as enduring as that
which it countered. When Luther appeared all that was rigid and inhuman
in the Church was slowly dissolving, certainly not without an inevitable
sediment of immorality, yet the solution was in the highest degree
favourable to the development of the freer and larger conceptions of
life, the expansion of science and art and philosophy, which at that
moment was pre-eminently necessary for the progress of civilisation,
and, indirectly, therefore, for the progress of morals.[219] The violence
of the Reformation not only resulted in a new tyranny for its own
adherents--calling in turn for fresh reformations by Puritans, Quakers,
Deists, and Freethinkers--but it re-established, and even to-day
continues to support, that very tyranny of the old Church against which
it was a protest.
When we try to regulate the morals of men on the same uniform pattern we
have to remember that we are touching the most subtle, intimate, and
incalculable springs of action. It is useless to apply the crude methods
of "suppression" and "annihilation" to these complex and indestructible
forces. When Charles V retired in weariness from the greatest throne in
the world to the solitude of the monastery at Yuste, he occupied his
leisure for some weeks in trying to regulate two clocks. It proved very
difficult. One day, it is recorded, he turned to his assistant and said:
"To think that I attempted to force the reason and conscience of
thousands of men into one mould, and I cannot make two clocks agree!"
Wisdom comes to the rulers of men, sometimes, usually when they have
ceased to be rulers. It comes to the moral legislators not otherwise
than it comes to the immoral persons they legislate against. "I act
first," the French thief said; "then I think."
It seems to some people almost a paradox to assert that immorality
should not be encountered by physical force. The same people would
willingly admit that it is hopeless to rout a modern army with bows and
arrows, even with the support of a fanfare of trumpets. Yet that
metaphor, as we have seen, altogether fails to represent the inadequacy
of law in the face of immorality. We are concerned with a method of
fighting which is not merely inadequate, but, as has been demonstrated
many times during the last two thousand years, actually fortifies and
even dignifies the foe it professes to attack. But the failure of
physical force to suppress the spiritual evil of immorality by no means
indicates that a like failure would attend the more rational tactics of
opposing a spiritual force by spiritual force. The virility of our
morals is not proved by any weak attempt to call in the aid of the
secular arm of law or the ecclesiastical arm of theology. If a morality
cannot by its own proper virtue hold its opposing immorality in check
then there is something wrong with that morality. It runs the risk of
encountering a fresh and more vigorous movement of morality. Men begin
to think that, if not the whole truth, there is yet a real element of
truth in the assertion of Nietzsche: "We believe that severity,
violence, slavery, danger in the street and in the heart, secrecy,
stoicism, tempter's art and devilry of every kind, everything wicked,
tyrannical, predatory and serpentine in man, serves as well for the
elevation of the human species as its opposite."[220] To ignore altogether
the affirmation of that opposing morality, it may be, would be to breed
a race of weaklings, fatally doomed to succumb helplessly to the first
breath of temptation.
Although we are passing through a wave of moral legislation, there are
yet indications that a sounder movement is coming into action. The
demand for the teaching of sexual hygiene which parents, teachers, and
physicians in Germany, the United States and elsewhere, are now striving
to formulate and to supply will, if it is wisely carried out, effect far
more for public morals than all the legislation in the world.
Inconsistently enough, some of those who clamour for moral legislation
also advocate the teaching of sexual hygiene. But there is no room for
compromise or combination here. A training in sexual hygiene has no
meaning if it is not a training, for men and women alike, in personal
and social responsibility, in the right to know and to discriminate,
and in so doing to attain self-conquest. A generation thus trained to
self-respect and to respect for others has no use for a web of official
regulations to protect its feeble and cloistered virtues from possible
visions of evil, and an army of police to conduct it homewards at 9 p.m.
Nor, on the other hand, can any reliable sense of social responsibility
ever be developed in such an unwholesome atmosphere of petty moral
officialdom. The two methods of moralization are radically antagonistic.
There can be no doubt which of them we ought to pursue if we really
desire to breed a firmly-fibred, clean-minded, and self-reliant race of
manly men and womanly women.
FOOTNOTES:
[191] Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas_, Vol. I, p.
160; see also chapter on sexual morality in Havelock Ellis, _Studies in
the Psychology of Sex_, Vol. VI, "Sex in Relation to Society," chap. IX.
[192] It must be remembered that in medieval days not only adultery but
the smallest infraction of what the Church regarded as morality could be
punished in the Archdeacon's court; this continued to be the case in
England even after the Reformation. See Archdeacon W.W. Hales'
interesting work, _Precedents and Proceedings in Criminal Causes_
(1847), which is, as the author states, "a History of the Moral Police
of the Church."
[193] _The Social Evil in New York City_, p. 100.
[194] This has been emphasized in an able and lucid discussion of this
question by Dr. Hans Hagen, "Sittliche Werturteile," _Mutterschutz_,
Heft I and II, 1906. Such recognition of popular morals, he justly
remarks, is needed not only for the sake of the people, but for the sake
of law itself.
[195] Grabowsky, in criticizing Hiller's book, _Das Recht über sich Selbst_
(_Archiv für Kriminalanthropologie und Kriminalistik_, Bd. 36, 1809),
argues that in some cases immorality injures rights which need legal
protection, but he admits it is difficult to decide when this is the
case. He does not think that the law should interfere with homosexuality
in adults, but he does consider it should interfere with incest, on the
ground that in-breeding is not good for the race. But it is the view of
most authorities nowadays that in-breeding is only injurious to the race
in the case of an unsound stock, when the defect being in both partners
of the same kind would probably be intensified by heredity.
[196] The occurrence of, for instance, incestuous, bestial, and homosexual
acts--which are generally abhorrent, but not necessarily
anti-social--makes it necessary to exercise some caution here.
[197] I quote from a valuable and interesting study by Dr. Eugen Wilhelm,
"Die Volkspsychologischen Unterschiede in der französischen und
deustchen Sittlichkeits-Gesetzgebung und Rechtsprechung,"
_Sexual-Probleme_, October, 1911. It may be added that in Switzerland,
also, the tyranny of the police is carried to an extreme. Edith Sellers
gives some extraordinary examples, _Cornhill_, August, 1910.
[198] The absurdities and injustice of the German law, and its
interference with purely private interests in these matters, have often
been pointed out, as by Dr. Kurt Hiller ("Ist Kuppelei Strafwürdig?"
_Die Neue Generation_, November, 1910). As to what is possible under
German law by judicial decision since 1882, Hagen takes the case of a
widow who has living with her a daughter, aged twenty-five or thirty,
engaged to marry an artisan now living at a distance for the sake of his
work; he comes to see her when he can; she is already pregnant; they
will marry soon; one evening, with the consent of the widow, who looks
on the couple as practically married, he stays over-night, sharing his
betrothed's room, the only room available. Result: the old woman becomes
liable to four years' penal servitude, a fine of six thousand marks,
loss of civil rights, and police supervision.
[199] In another respect the French code carries private rights to an
excess by forbidding the unmarried mother to make any claim on the
father of her child. In most countries such a prohibition is regarded as
unreasonable and unjust. There is even a tendency (as by a recent Dutch
law) to compel the father to provide for his illegitimate child not on
the scale of the mother's social position but on the scale of his own
social position. This is, possibly, an undue assertion of the
superiority of man.
[200] The same point has lately been illustrated in Holland, where a
recent modification in the law is held to press harshly on homosexual
persons. At once a vigorous propaganda on behalf of the homosexual has
sprung into existence. We see here the difference between moral
enactments and criminal enactments. Supposing that a change in the law
had placed, for instance, increased difficulties in the way of burglary.
We should not witness any outburst of literary activity on behalf of
burglars, because the community, as a whole, is thoroughly convinced
that burglary ought to be penalized.
[201] Apart from the attitude towards immorality, we have an illustration
of the peculiarly English tendency to unite religious fervour with
individualism in Quakerism. In no other European country has any similar
movement--that is, a popular movement of individualistic mysticism--ever
appeared on the same scale.
[202] E.F. Fuld, Ph.D., _Police Administration_, 1909.
[203] Ex-Police Commissioner Bingham, of New York, estimated (_Hampton's
Magazine_, September, 1909) that "fifteen per cent. or from 1500 to 2000
members of the police force are unscrupulous 'grafters' whose hands are
always out for easy money." See also Report of the Committee of Fourteen
on _The Social Evil in New York City_, p. 34.
[204] Fuld, _op. cit._, pp. 373 _et seq._ This last opinion by no means
stands alone. Thus it is asserted by the Committee of Fourteen in their
Report on The _Social Evil in New York City_ (1910, p. xxxiv) that "some
laws exist to-day because an unintelligent, cowardly public puts
unenforceable statutes on the book, being content with registering their
hypocrisy."
[205] It is also a blundering policy. Its blind anathema is as likely as
not to fall on its own allies. Thus the Report of the municipally
appointed and municipally financed Vice Commission of Chicago is not
only an official but a highly moral document, advocating increased
suppression of immoral literature, and erring, if it errs, on the side
of over-severity. It has been suppressed by the United States Post
Office!
[206] This system applies only to spirits, not to beer and wine, but it
has proved very effective in diminishing drunkenness, as is admitted by
those who are opposed to the system. A somewhat similar system exists in
England under the name of the Trust system, but its extension appears
unfortunately to be much impeded by English laws and customs.
[207] Jacques Bertillon, in a paper read to the Académie des Sciences
Morales et Politiques, 30th September, 1911.
[208] During the present century a great wave of immorality and sexual
crime has been passing over Russia. This is not attributable to the
laws, old or new, but is due in part to the Russo-Japanese War, and in
part to the relaxed tension consequent on the collapse of the movement
for political reform. (See an article by Professor Asnurof, "La Crise
Sexuelle en Russie," _Archives d'Anthropologie Criminelle_, April,
1911.)
[209] It was by this indirect influence that I was induced to write the
present chapter. The editor of a prominent German review wrote to me for
my opinion regarding a Bill dealing with the prevention of immorality
which had been introduced into the English Parliament and had aroused
much interest and anxiety in Germany, where it had been discussed in all
its details. But I had never so much as heard of the Bill, nor could I
find any one else who had heard of it, until I consulted a Member of
Parliament who happened to have been instrumental in causing its
rejection.
[210] J. Schrank, _Die Prostitution in Wien_, Bd. I, pp. 152-206.
[211] The history of this movement in Germany may be followed in the
_Vierteljahrsberichte des Wissenschaftlich-humanitären Komitees_, edited
by Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, a great authority on the matter.
[212] Report on _The Social Evil in New York City_, p. 38; see also Rev
Dr. J.P. Peters, "Suppression of the 'Raines Law Hotels,'" _American
Academy of Political and Social Science_, November, 1908.
[213] It is probably needless to add that the specific object of the
Act--the Puritanic observance of Sunday--was by no means attained. On
Sunday, the 8th December, 1907, the police made a desperate attempt to
enforce the law; every place of amusement was shut up; lectures,
religious concerts, even the social meetings of the Young Men's
Christian Association, were rigorously put a stop to. There was, of
course, great popular indignation and uproar, and the impromptu
performances got up in the streets, while the police looked on
sympathetically, are said to have been far more outrageous than any
entertainment indoors could possibly have been.
[214] _The Social Evil in Chicago_, p. 112.
[215] The methods of Maria Theresa never had any success; the methods of
Calvin at Geneva had, however, a certain superficial success, because
the right conditions existed for their exercise. That is to say, that a
theocratic basis of society was generally accepted, and that the
suppression of immorality was regarded by the great mass of the
population, including in most cases, no doubt, even the offenders
themselves, as a religious duty. It is, however, interesting to note
that, even at Geneva, these "triumphs of morality" have met the usual
fate. At the present day, it appears (Edith Sellers, _Cornhill_, August,
1910), there are more disorderly houses in Geneva, in proportion to the
population, than in any other town in Europe.
[216] See e.g. P. Hausmeister, "Zur Analyse der Prostitution," _Geschlect
und Gesellschaft_, 1907, p. 294.
[217] Theodore Schroeder, _"Obscene" Literature and Constitutional Law_,
New York, 1911.
[218] Thus Sir Samuel Dill (_Roman Society_, p. 11) calls attention to the
letter of St. Paulinus who, when the Empire was threatened by
barbarians, wrote to a Roman soldier that Christianity is incompatible
with family life, with citizenship, with patriotism, and that soldiers
are doomed to eternal torment. Christians frequently showed no respect
for law or its representatives. "Many Christian confessors," says Sir
W.M. Ramsay (_The Church in the Roman Empire_, chap. xv), "went to
extremes in showing their contempt and hatred for their judges. Their
answers to plain questions were evasive and indirect; they lectured
Roman dignitaries as if the latter were the criminals and they
themselves the judges; and they even used violent reproaches and coarse,
insulting gestures." Bouché-Leclercq (_L'Intolérance Religieuse et le
Politique_, 1911, especially chap. X) shows how the early Christians
insisted on being persecuted. We see much the same attitude to-day among
anarchists of the lower class (and also, it may be added, sometimes
among suffragettes), who may be regarded as the modern analogues of the
early Christians.
[219] It may well be, indeed, that in all ages the actual sum of
immorality, broadly considered--in public and in private, in thought and
in act--undergoes but slight oscillations. But in the nature of its
manifestations and in the nature of the manifestations that accompany
it, there may be immense fluctuations. Tarde, the distinguished thinker,
referring to the "delicious Catholicism" of the days before Luther,
asks: "If that amiable Christian evolution had peacefully continued to
our days, should we be still more immoral than we are? It is doubtful,
but in all probability we should be enjoying the most æsthetic and the
least vexatious religion in the world, in which all our science, all our
civilization, would have been free to progress" (Tarde, _La Logique
Sociale_, p. 198). As has often been pointed out, it was along the lines
indicated by Erasmus, rather than along the lines pursued by Luther,
that the progress of civilization lay.
[220] Nietzsche, _Beyond Good and Evil_, chap. II. A century earlier
Godwin had written in his _Political Justice_ (Book VII, chap. VIII):
"Men are weak at present because they have always been told they are
weak and must not be trusted with themselves. Take them out of their
shackles, bid them enquire, reason, and judge, and you will soon find
them very different beings. Tell them that they have passions, are
occasionally hasty, intemperate, and injurious, but that they must be
trusted with themselves. Tell them that the mountains of parchment in
which they have been hitherto entrenched, are fit only to impose upon
ages of superstition and ignorance, that henceforth we will have no
dependence but upon their spontaneous justice; that, if their passions
be gigantic, they must rise with gigantic energy to subdue them; that if
their decrees be iniquitous, the iniquity shall be all their own."
X
THE WAR AGAINST WAR
Why the Problem of War is specially urgent To-day--The Beneficial
Effects of War in Barbarous Ages--Civilization renders the Ultimate
Disappearance of War Inevitable--The Introduction of Law in
disputes between Individuals involves the Introduction of Law in
disputes between Nations--But there must be Force behind Law--Henry
IV's Attempt to Confederate Europe--Every International Tribunal of
Arbitration must be able to enforce its Decisions--The Influences
making for the Abolition of Warfare--(1) Growth of International
Opinion--(2) International Financial Development--(3) The
Decreasing Pressure of Population--(4) The Natural Exhaustion of
the Warlike Spirit--(5) The Spread of Anti-military Doctrines--(6)
The overgrowth of Armaments--(7) The Dominance of Social
Reform--War Incompatible with an Advanced Civilization--Nations as
Trustees for Humanity--The Impossibility of Disarmament--The
Necessity of Force to ensure Peace--The Federated State of the
Future--The Decay of War still leaves the Possibilities of Daring
and Heroism.
There are, no doubt, special reasons why at the present time war and the
armaments of war should appear an intolerable burden which must be
thrown off as soon as possible if the task of social hygiene is not to
be seriously impeded. But the abolition of the ancient method of
settling international disputes by warfare is not a problem which
depends for its solution on the conditions of the moment. It is implicit
in the natural development of the process of civilization. At one stage,
no doubt, warfare plays an important part in constituting states and so,
indirectly, in promoting civilization. But civilization tends slowly
but surely to substitute for war in the later stages of this process the
methods of law, or, in any case, methods which, while not always
unobjectionable, avoid the necessity for any breach of the peace.[221] As
soon, indeed, as in primitive society two individuals engage in a
dispute which they are compelled to settle not by physical force but by
a resort to an impartial tribunal, the thin end of the wedge is
introduced, and the ultimate destruction of war becomes merely a matter
of time. If it is unreasonable for two individuals to fight it is
unreasonable for two groups of individuals to fight.[222]