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