I propose to take the present opportunity of submitting 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 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 of the two, but it will soon be forced on the attention of the
legislature by the recent report of the Royal Commission on the
Feeble-minded. We may be content to await for awhile the discussions to
which it will give rise, and which I am sure the members of this society
will follow with keen interest, and with readiness to intervene when
what may be advanced seems likely to result in actions of an
anti-eugenic character.
The remarks I am about to make were suggested by hearing of a desire to
further eugenics by means of local associations more or less affiliated
to our own, combined with much doubt as to the most appropriate methods
of establishing and conducting them. It is upon this very important
branch of our wide subject that I propose to offer a few remarks.
It is difficult, while explaining what I have in view, to steer a course
that shall keep clear of the mud flats of platitude on the one hand, and
not come to grief against the rocks of over-precision on the other.
There is no clear issue out of mere platitudes, while there is great
danger in entering into details. A good scheme may be entirely
compromised merely on account of public opinion not being ripe to
receive it in the proposed form, or through a discovered flaw in some
non-essential part of it. Experience shows that the safest course in a
new undertaking is to proceed warily and tentatively towards the desired
end, rather than freely and rashly along a predetermined route, however
carefully it may have been elaborated on paper.
Again, whatever scheme of action is proposed for adoption must be
neither Utopian nor extravagant, but accordant throughout with British
sentiment and practice.
The successful establishment of any general system of constructive
eugenics will, in my view (which I put forward with diffidence), depend
largely upon the efforts of local associations acting in close harmony
with a central society, like our own. A prominent part of its business
will then consist in affording opportunities for the interchange of
ideas and for the registration and comparison of results. Such a central
society would tend to bring about a general uniformity of administration
the value of which is so obvious that I do not stop to insist on it.
Assuming, as I do, that the powers at the command of the local
associations will be almost purely social, let us consider how those
associations might be formed and conducted so as to become exceedingly
influential.
It is necessary to be somewhat precise at the outset, so I will begin
with the by no means improbable supposition that in a given district a
few individuals, some of them of local importance, are keenly desirous
of starting a local association or society, and are prepared to take
trouble to that end. How should they set to work?
Their initial step would seem to be to form themselves into a
provisional executive committee, and to nominate a president, council,
and other officers of the new society. This done, the society in
question, though it would have no legal corporate existence, may be
taken as formed.
The committee would next provide, with the aid of the central society,
for a few sane and sensible lectures to be given on eugenics, including
the A B C of heredity, at some convenient spot, and they would exert
themselves to arouse a wide interest in the subjects by making it known
in the district. They would seek the co-operation of the local medical
men, clergy, and lawyers, of the sanitary authorities, and of all
officials whose administrative duties bring them into contact with
various classes of society, and they would endeavour to collect round
this nucleus that portion of the local community which was likely to be
brought into sympathy with the eugenic cause. Every political
organisation, every philanthropic agency, proceeds on some such lines as
I have just sketched out.
The committee might next issue, on the part of the president and council
of the new society, a series of invitations to guests at their social
gatherings, where differences of rank should be studiously ignored. The
judicious management of these gatherings would, of course, require
considerable tact, but there are abundant precedents for them, among
which I need only mention the meetings of the Primrose League at one end
of the scale, and those held in Toynbee Hall at the other end. Given a
not inclement day, an hour suitable to the occasion, a park or large
garden to meet in, these informal yet select reunions might be made
exceedingly pleasant, and very helpful to the eugenic cause.
The inquiries made by the committee when they were considering the names
of strangers to whom invitations ought to be sent, would put them in
possession of a large fund of information concerning the qualities of
many notable individuals in their district, and their family histories.
These family histories should be utilised for eugenic studies, and it
should be the duty of the local council to cause them to be tabulated in
an orderly way, and to communicate the more significant of them to the
central society.
The chief of the notable qualities, to which I refer in the preceding
paragraph, is the possession of what I will briefly call by the general
term of “Worth.” By this I mean the civic worthiness, or the value to
the State, of a person, as it would probably be assessed by experts, or,
say, by such of his fellow-workers as have earned the respect of the
community in the midst of which they live. Thus the worth of soldiers
would be such as it would be rated by respected soldiers, students by
students, business men by business men, artists by artists, and so on.
The State is a vastly complex organism, and the hope of obtaining a
proportional representation of its best parts should be an avowed object
of issuing invitations to these gatherings.
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 should place second on similar grounds,
and character third, though in real importance it stands first of all.
It is very difficult to rate character justly; the tenure of a position
of trust is only a partial test of it, though a good one so far as it
goes. Again, I wish to say emphatically that in what I have thrown out I
have no desire to impose my own judgment on others, especially as I feel
persuaded that almost any intelligent committee would so distribute
their invitations to strangers as to include most, though perhaps not
all, of the notable persons in the district.
By the continued action of local associations as described thus far, a
very large amount of good work in eugenics would be incidentally done.
Family histories would become familiar topics, the existence of good
stocks would be discovered, and many persons of “worth” would be
appreciated and made acquainted with each other who were formerly known
only to a very restricted circle. It is probable that these persons, in
their struggle to obtain appointments, would often receive valuable help
from local sympathisers with eugenic principles. If local societies did
no more than this for many years to come, they would have fully
justified their existence by their valuable services.
A danger to which these societies will be liable arises from the
inadequate knowledge joined to great zeal of some of the most active
among their probable members. It may be said, without mincing words,
with regard to much that has already been published, that the subject of
eugenics is particularly attractive to “cranks.” The councils of local
societies will therefore be obliged to exercise great caution before
accepting the memoirs offered to them, and much discretion in keeping
discussions within the bounds of sobriety and common sense. The basis of
eugenics is already firmly established, namely, that the offspring of
“worthy” parents are, _on the whole_, more highly gifted by nature with
faculties that conduce to “worthiness” than the offspring of less
“worthy” parents. On the other hand, forecasts in respect to particular
cases may be quite wrong. They have to be based on imperfect data. It
cannot be too emphatically repeated that a great deal of careful
statistical work has yet to be accomplished before the science of
eugenics can make large advances.
I hesitate to speculate farther. A tree will have been planted; let it
grow. Perhaps those who may thereafter feel themselves or be considered
by others to be the possessors of notable eugenic qualities—let us for
brevity call them “Eugenes”—will form their own clubs and look after
their own interests. It is impossible to foresee what the state of
public opinion will then be. Many elements of strength are needed, many
dangers have to be evaded or overcome, before associations of Eugenes
could be formed that would be stable in themselves, useful as
institutions, and approved of by the outside world.
The suggestion I made in the earlier part of this paper that the
executive committee of local associations should co-operate, wherever
practicable, with local administrative authorities, proceeded on the
assumption that the inhabitants of the districts selected as the eugenic
“field” had a public spirit of their own and a sense of common interest.
This sense would be greatly strengthened by the enlargement of mutual
acquaintanceship and the spread of the eugenic idea consequent on the
tactful action of the committee. It ought not to be difficult to arouse
in the inhabitants a just pride in their own civic worthiness, analogous
to the pride which a soldier feels in the good reputation of his
regiment or a lad in that of his school. By this means a strong local
eugenic opinion might easily be formed. It would be silently assisted by
local object lessons, in which the benefits derived through following
eugenic rules and the bad effects of disregarding them were plainly to
be discerned.
The power of social opinion is apt to be underrated rather then
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 our childhood and early
manhood tend to become axiomatic and unchangeable in mature life.
In circumscribed communities especially, social approval and disapproval
exert a potent force. Its presence is only too easily read by those who
are the object of either, in the countenances, bearing, and manner of
persons whom they daily meet and converse with. 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 and has been accepted by them as a
quasi-religion, the result will be manifested in sundry and very
effective modes of action which are as yet untried, and many of them
even unforeseen?
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 gifts to those who are the reverse of “worthy”
are enormous in amount; it is stated that the charitable donations or
bequests in the year 1907 amounted to 4,868,050_l._ I am not prepared to
say how much of this was judiciously spent, or in what ways, but merely
quote the figures to justify the inference that many of the thousands of
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.