till




THE CONSERVATION
OF THE
FAMILY
BY
PAUL POPENOE
ilfO/Ell


BALTIMORE
THE WILLIAMS & WILKINS COMPANY
1926




COPYRIGHT 1926
THE WILLIAMS & WILKINS COMPANY
Made in United States of America
Published July, 1926
COMPOSED AND PRINTED AT THE
WAVERLY PRESS
EOR
THE WILLIAMS & WILKINS COMPANY
BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A.




BY PAUL POPENOE
APPLIED EUGENICS (In collaboration with
Roswell H. Johnson)
MODERN MARRIAGE: A Handbook
THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY








CONTENTS
Preface...........................
PART I
THE NORMAL FAMILY
Introduction.............................................. 3
I. Type of Mating............................................ 9
II. Choice of a Mate........................................ 23
III. Social Sanctions................................          28
IV. Reproduction..o..o. o.............................. 35
V. Influence............ 0......................39
PARTIH
CONDITIONS THAT INTERFERE WITH THE NORMAL FUNCTIONING Or THEW FAMILY
Introduction..........0.0..0..0....................47
I. Celibacy and the Ascetic Ideal,.................48
II. Premarital Incontinence........................56
III. Delayed Marriage.........................68
IV. Broken Homes.....................................         72
V. Prostitution...o...................o........84
VI. Venereal Diseases........  oo....................91
V#II. Infertility,. o.........o....................96
VIII. Illegitimacy,............................100
1~X. Abortion................o.....................113
X. Inadequate Reproduction in Superior Families..........125
XI. Excessive Reproduction in Inferior Families,.............137
PART III
MEANS OF SOCIAL CONTROL
Introduction...,... oo...o....o................................ 157
I. Education....... o.................. o...............165
II. Public Opinion..........o..o.......... o..................... 187
III. Economic Reforms.... o......................205
IV. Community Organization,....... o................221
Vii




Vill              CONTENTS
PART IV
CONCLUSION
The Cagn oe....................,245
LIST OF REFYERENCES...........................255
IND~........................................259




PREFACE


This book is the complement of my Modern Marriage: A Handbook (New York, 1925). In the latter volume I pointed out some
of the things that an individual can do to make his marriage more
successful. The present book considers mainly the things that
an individual can not do for himself, and which society must do
for him. The two lines of approach are necessary to get a balanced
view of the subject.
In preparing this volume, I have profited by suggestions from
many friends, particularly Dr. Thomas H. Haines of the National
Committee for Mental Hygiene; Professor Roswell H. Johnson
of the University of Pittsburgh, my collaborator in Applied
Eugenics; Dr. John M. Cooper, associate professor of sociology at
the Catholic University of America; Dr. Louis I. Dublin, statistician of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; and my
former colleagues on the staff of the American Social Hygiene
Association, especially Dr. M. A. Bigelow, Miss Mary A. Clark,
Dr. M. J. Exner, Dr. Thomas W. Galloway, Mrs. G. R. Luce,
Dr. Valeria H. Parker, Miss J. B. Pinney, and Mr. George E.
Worthington. But no one except myself should be held responsible for anything presented in the following pages.
The section on Illegitimacy, first presented at the annual meeting
of the Eugenics Research Association, June 16, 1923, was printed
in the Journal of Social Hygiene, December, 1923, and I am indebted to Mr. Ray H. Everett, managing editor of that publication,
for permission to use it here.
PAUL POPENOE.
Coachella, California.


ix








PART I
THE NORMAL FAMILY








INTRODUCTION


Monogamy, with its ideal of life-long union of a man and a
woman for their mutual benefit and for the production of children,
has too long been taken for granted, particularly by the normal,
law-abiding people who adopt and adhere to that standard, and
who make up the great bulk of the population. They think it
need not be examined critically. Some of them think it should
not be so examined. They react to discussion in a purely emotional
way.
Meanwhile, those for whom the old sanctions have no force are
criticizing it unmercifully and, because of their lack of any sound
basis for criticism, destructively. They themselves fully believe
that they are the progressive and scientific members of the community, and that those who cling blindly to monogamy are oldfashioned, non-progressive, behind   the times-mid-Victorian,
indeed!
The extremists on one side are as irrational as are the extremists
on the other. Debating, as each does, largely from prejudice and
emotional bias, it is not surprising that they disagree, and that
their disagreement is becoming greater all the time.
Why this uncertainty, about one of the oldest and most farreaching problems of life? Are there no facts from which one may
induce sound principles for guidance-whether one accepts the
argument of authority, the sanction of religion, or not?
Certainly there are,--plenty of them: facts perfectly familiar
to biologists, though evidently little known to many others.
The confusion exists, in the first place, because the problem
has been looked at piecemeal; because instead of seeking for the
principles involved, reformers have seized each on a small fragment of the whole, and tried to make off with it as his own prize.
In the second place, many have forgotten that the whole question
of the family is primarily-though by no means exclusively-a
3




4


ITHE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


biological question, and it has not usually been examined from the
biological side. It is significant that there are few biologists
among those who are crying out so loudly for the break-up of the
old-fashioned home.
Why is family life not oftener considered from the biological
point of view? First, because biology even now forms a much
smaller part of formal education than do religion, law, history,
and economics. Secondly, because some of the normal biological
features are particularly intimate, while some of the abnormal
are unpleasant to contemplate. Discussion of both classes has
therefore been taboo. But it is now coming to be realized that
the family can not prosper if it is thus shrouded in secrecy and befogged with mystery. This book is intended as an elementary
introduction to the subject, for readers who have not previously
approached it on this side. While it can touch only a few of the
salient points, since a complete discussion of so large a topic would
require many volumes, it attempts to present the fundamental
biological data, together with some data that belong to other
sciences but are here regarded from a biological point of view.
As soon as the family is studied biologically, it is seen to represent
an evolutionary adaptation for the benefit of mankind. It is
therefore no more out of date than is man's habit of walking
upright, which is likewise an evolutionary adaptation for his
benefit.
True, mankind is not perfectly adapted to monogamy. It is not
perfectly adapted to anything. It is certainly not perfectly adapted
to walking upright. Hernia is the best known of the disabilities
entailed by the standing position, but stooped shoulders, flat feet,
and a score of other handicaps are likewise results of this "unnatural" mode of locomotion. But no one argues, because of
these real disabilities, that mankind should stop trying to walk
upright, and return to all-fours, or walk on its hands, or wriggle
along on its belly. Common sense recognizes that the upright
position is now an essential part of man's nature, and uses every
effort to compensate for defects, to remove disabilities, and to
make the upright position as efficient as possible.




INTRODUCTION


5


When common sense becomes a little more prevalent in discussions of marriage, it will necessarily take a similar attitude.
It will recognize that man's intelligence and ingenuity are to be
exercised in conforming to monogamy, just as in conforming to
the upright posture. A person who asserts the necessity of experimenting to find some form of mating better adapted to human
nature will be regarded in the same way as one who would proceed
down Broadway on his hands and knees, in the hope of finding
in that way a better adjustment to his inborn tendencies.
To push the illustration a little farther, there are those who have
to wear trusses, or to undergo operations for rupture; there are
also those who have to travel in wheel chairs or on drutches. They
are not looked on, however, as the bold, emancipated, progressive
leaders of the race, but are pitied as defectives who are unable to
enjoy the advantages of normal health. In the same way there
will always be husbands and wives who can not measure up to the
normal standard, and who will require clinics and divorce courts;
who even with the help of these will not find happiness. But no
one will suppose that they are showing the world something better
than it already has, or that their deformed natures represent
Emancipation and the Progress of Evolution.
In short, monogamy is one of the biological foundations of
society. Many of the excrescences of a legal, social, religious, or
economic nature, which the ignorance of ages has plastered on this
biological foundation, should be removed. I am wholly in sympathy with the proposal to remove all such excrescences that have
outlived their usefulness, or that never had any. Obviously, I
could not enumerate and discuss all these details without swamping
my central thesis, which is that the biological foundations of
society, solid and relatively permanent, must be safeguarded carefully at the time that this top-hamper is being cleared away.
Most adults have a pretty good idea of what the family now is,
and I have therefore dealt with that topic only incidentally. It
can be understood best in the light of its historical development,
and there are fortunately some excellent works on this-not only
monumental ones like those of Edward Westermarck, Ch. Letour





6       ~THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


neau, and G. E. Howard, but others better suited to popular consumption, such as that of Willystine Goodsell.
Part I is a review of some well-known facts concerning what the
family ought to be; or, to use the language of biology, it is an
examination of conditions which exist when the institution is
adapted most effectively to human nature and to the progress of
evolution.
When one inquires what, in modern civilization, is a normal
family, it must be recognized that each will answer according to
his point of view, and that the definitions given by the lawyer,
the clergyman, the department store advertiser, the politician,
the physician, the census enumerator, the poet, and the evolutionist, will differ notably.
From the biological point of view adopted in this book, the
normal family may be defined briefly as one in which two adults
live together happily and give birth to an appropriate number of
healthy and intelligent children, whom they bring up to lives of
usefulness.
It is not possible to specify the number of children that make
up a normal family, except by the use of a sliding scale. I shall
point out that, on the average, four children from each marriage
are necessary merely to keep the population from decreasing.
This figure therefore represents the minimum in good stock; but,
as I shall further show, a normal family in superior stock should
contain more children than this; while in inferior stock fewer
children are called for. Where both parents are defective, there
should be no children at all, and yet the family may be called
normal with relation to the germinal character of the adults who
compose it.
Part II goes on to consider some of the obstacles to the normal
functioning of the familyý-particularly those that are more or less
biological in character. Part III takes up in a more general way
the question of how society can make the family what it ought
to be.
In a book of this type, it is not possible, perhaps even not desirable, altogether to avoid seeming dogmatic. If an author should




INTRODUCTION


7


discuss fully every debatable point, and set forth adequately the
evidence on which he has reached each of his conclusions, he would
produce a chaotic encyclopedia that would attract readers as little
as it would publishers. In this instance, the subject is fortunately
one on which there is no lack of public discussion, and on most
phases of it every reader will have at least some ideas of his own.
He may compare these with mine, and hold to those that suit him
best. In any case it will be clear, I hope, that I am less interested
in enforcing any particular conclusion, than in having the family
studied more generally from a biological point of view.
I have thought it more useful to outline the general principles
involved, than to risk bewildering the reader by piling up statistics
or narrating series of individual cases. My belief is that, to a
large degree, the difficulties in which the family now finds itself
are due precisely to the fact that isolated and individual cases
have been multiplied and held up to astonish the public, until
sight has been lost of the broad underlying facts and principles.
I have no short-cuts to suggest, no panaceas to offer, not even
exact, final solutions,-for there are none. The causes of the
trouble in which the American family is now involved can be
reached only by a thoroughgoing analysis, and they can be removed
only by innumerable readjustments. Back of everything else
is the need of education.
My discussion is based on the existing social and economic
organization  of society. Undoubtedly    this organization  will
undergo some change, as everything else does, in the future, but
it would be quite out of the field of this book to speculate on that
point. If the United States should abandon the regime of private
property and competition, and convert itself into a coioperative
commonwealth, or a dictatorship of a superman, or a dictatorship
of the proletariat, some details of this discussion of home life would
have to be changed, but I believe that the broad principles would
remain unaltered. But as the present book is tied to reality, it
could not well proceed on any other basis than that of society
as it now exists. Many writers have undertaken to describe what
a family would be under one of the Utopias, and there is no objec





8        THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


tion to such an exercise of the imagination; but one of my objects
in this book is to show that it is not necessary to await the creation
of a Utopia, to have a satisfactory family life; that it can just as
well be had here and now, with relatively little effort, if people
really want it.
The family is, in. fact, the oldest institution in existence. So
far as one can guess intelligently, it has changed surprisingly little
in 500,000 years. Often called the foundation of society, it justifies
this name by the contributions it makes to (1) the perpetuation
of the race, (2) the security of the state, (3) the happiness of the
individual, (4) the education of the population, and by economic,
social, religious, psychological, hygienic, esthetic, and other contributions that have varied with different ages but are always
important.
In the face of all this, it might seem that the family is the one
indispensable institution without which civilization can not proceed; and in the face of its history, it would be surprising if the
changes in the form of civilization during the last four or five
generations had so altered the human race as to make the family
no longer a necessary institution.
Compared with the family, all other social and economic institutions are recent. None of them has been subjected to experiment
and selection, none of them has been validated by the results of
this experiment and selection, to anything like the same degree
that the family has. The monogamous family may therefore
be expected, a priori, to be much more stable and permanent than
any other existing human institution.




I. TYPE OF MATING


What type of mating works best? There are plenty of types
to choose from, not only in history, but in every-day life. It is no
exaggeration to say that every conceivable form of human mating
has been tried at one time or another, by some part of the human
race.
The fact that there are approximately equal numbers of boys
and girls born points to monogamy as the "natural state" of mankind and also makes it improbable that men are, as is often alleged,
polygamous by nature while women are monogamous.
A thorough examination of all forms of mating from the evolutionary point of view would be tedious and unnecessary here, but
it will be worth while to consider briefly some of the more important, which I will classify loosely under four heads as (1)
promiscuity, (2) free love, (3) polygamy, and (4) monogamy.
PROMISCUITY
1. Although some earlier writers imagined a state of primitive
society in which mankind lived as a promiscuous horde, with no
family organization of any kind, children being cared for by the
group as a whole, it is now generally agreed that such a picture
has no basis in fact. There is not now and so far as history discloses there never has been any tribe which lived in such a manner.
Even the higher anthropoid apes have a more or less monogamous family, which lasts beyond the time needed for the offspring to
become self-supporting. Sometimes, it appears, this is varied by
polygamy, one male having two or more females. If any inference
at all is justified, concerning the "original" state of man at the time
he emerged from apehood, one might suppose that it was something
like that now found among the anthropoids.
The rudest and least progressive savage peoples at the present
time are not promiscuous but, on the contrary, much more nearly
9




10


10       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


monogamous than are many tribes somewhat higher in culture
(John M. Cooper). From this and other evidence it has been inferred with some plausibility that the "original" custom of mankind was a more or less close approach to monogamy; that this
tended to break down to some extent as an increase in civilization
began to interfere with the natural operation of the human instincts
(although monogamy has been the standard of at least the bulk
of the population in all historic times); and that, with a further
increase in civilization, marriage customs tend to swing back to a
stricter monogamy, as at present.
Not only is there no evidence that any people has ever been
wholly promiscuous, but there iis presumptive evidence against
the success of any such experiment. It seems likely that such a
state of affairs would be so favorable to the spread of venereal
diseases as to exterminate the population, by sterility or death.
If venereal diseases were not in existence, the almost continual
pregnancy of all females, without any feeling of individual responsibility for their care on the part of the males, would impose a severe
handicap on the tribe; while if this pregnancy were avoided by
abortion, as it is in some peoples, disease and sterility would be
likely to spread widely. In any case, the tribe would be at a disadvantage in competing with any neighbors who had a better social
organization, and would therefore tend to disappear.
It is scarcely necessary, however, to speculate on the results
of a system of general promiscuity, since it has never been known
to occur among men.
Indeed, promiscuity is by no means universal even among the
lower animals. Some sort of a family (either monogamous or
polygamous) that lasts at least beyond the time of mating is
found among whales, seals, hippopotami, many of the deer
family, squirrels and some other rodents, and a few carnivora,
not to mention monkeys. Among birds, life-long monogamy is the
rule (with a few exceptions); some birds will not even take another
mate if the first one dies. These facts have no direct bearing on
man's case, but they do show that some sort of family life has been
found advantageous under a variety of different circumstances,




TYPE OF MATING


II


in the animal world, and that the family is, therefore, no mere
recent and "artificial" invention of the human race.
FREE LOVE
2. A modification of promiscuity is the theory, held in manifold
forms and designated by various polite and impolite names, which
is best known under the title "free love."
The distinction between free love and promiscuity can not be
drawn sharply, but the theoretical difference is that promiscuity
represents a sexual union without any lasting community of mutual
interest, a mere satisfaction of passion; while free love represents
the union of two persons who are attracted to each other by broader
personal interests, and who wish to live together so long as mutual
affection exists, but no longer.
As in religion, each advocate of free love has his own particular
cult, and it is difficult to group these for examination, but a large
part of the views of free-lovers can be comprehended under the
title given in Europe of "The New Morality," the argument of
which is that sexual relations are a personal matter, of no public
concern, so long as they represent the mutual desire of the partners
and do not end in the birth of undesired children.
It would be hard to tell a bigger falsehood in so few words. The
emotional forces tied to sex are so great that mating affects not
only the two persons involved but, it might be said fairly, everyone
else. Countless lives have been ruined, armies raised, peoples set
against each other in war, cities pillaged and burned, and nations
destroyed as the result of this temporary relationship between
man and woman which seems, at the moment, so exclusively
personal.
In view of the emotional forces tied to it, and their possible
consequences, the relationship is always of direct concern to the
relatives and friends of the two persons who enter into it. It is also
of concern to the state in a variety of ways.
If it results in progeny, the state's interest is obvious.
If it does not result in progeny, the state's interest is different,
but none the less keen. The question must then be answered,




12


12       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


why is it not resulting in progeny? Are the emotional forces
involved being employed to foster a family life, with its feelings of
responsibility and altruism? Or are they being turned into individualistic, anti-social channels?
The keynote of relationship between the sexes is here being
struck. Is it a purely selfish keynote? If so, and if that keynote
is widely imitated, it will be hard to get an unselfish and responsible
tone maintained when and where it is wanted and needed; for in
this respect it is easy to lower one's ideals, but harder to raise them.
Much of the trouble of the modern family is due to nothing but
the existence of this selfish keynote, developed either in irresponsible, temporary matings, or in the atmosphere which such matings
have produced. To say that the state should stand idly by and
express no interest in the generation of these emotional states is
nonsense.
Even when applied personally rather than socially, the theory
of free love at once runs afoul of two destructive snags-venereal
diseases and pregnancy. The theorists therefore usually find it
necessary to project their dream into the future, admitting that its
full realization awaits the day when these obstacles shall have been
removed by science.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that they are removed.
The theory still makes no headway, for a glance shows how spasmodic is its motive power, and how strong are the currents of
human nature running against it. Such fundamental and scarcely
alterable instincts or dispositions as mutual affection, parental
feeling, and jealousy, will quickly drive on the rocks the ship that
sets sails for this Utopia.
It is easy to inveigh against these instincts as undesirable remnants of an imperfect stage of human nature. Without passing
any judgment on whether they are such or not, one ma ybe sure
that they are at least not to be cast off like the cocoon of the
caterpillar, as it emerges into the higher life of the butterfly. They
exist, and probably will continue to exist, for at least as long a time
as they have occupied in getting implanted,-and that is a good
many millions of years. In fact, they are probably much stronger




TYPE OF MATING


13


in the human species now than they were 100,000 years ago. While
they continue to exist, the attempt to practice "the new morality"
will continue, as it always has, to leave in its wake nothing but
human happiness and inefficiency.
Abundant experience shows that in most free love matings one
partner, usually the woman, is abandoned sooner or later. If this
regime were the rule, the result would tend to be that a woman,
after devoting the best years of her life to a man, would find herself
cast aside in favor of some younger and more stimulating partner.
But even while the relationship endures, it is not adequate. Mutual
intercourse, even if permanent and intimate, does not bring about
the most complete mutual understanding. The latter can arise
only when a man and woman who are inwardly one live together,
work together, create and bring up a family together, free from all
need for secrecy, from all compunctions, and from the shadow of
instability and separation. In the "free" intimacy, the partners
usually expect constant stimulation from each other; whereas in
marriage, after the first few months, no such demand is made,
but the two settle down to explore the deeper recesses of each
other's natures, and to enjoy social amenities and life in common,
animated by a sense of mutual perfect trust and of unconditional
interdependence which arises in a happy marriage after some years
duration, but can not, by definition, exist in a more transient
mating.
A favorite masquerade of free love is as trial marriage. Advocates of this frequently adopt an extremely unctuous attitude
toward the production of children. It is a Very Serious Matter,
they exclaim; it requires due preparation. It demands a harmonious home. A man and woman can not tell whether they are
suited to each other, physically and mentally, until they have lived
together for a time. Therefore let the state legalize temporary
unions, under Birth Control auspices, with divorce by mutual
consent. In this way people would practice the elements of family
life, until they became skilful and wise enough to find permanent mates and establish happy homes in which flocks of radiant
youngsters might grow to maturity in an atmosphere of love and
efficiency.




14


14       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


Even a superficial analysis will show how little substance there
is in this plea. I pass by the more obvious difficulties,-the impossibility of guaranteeing that a union will be childless, except
by recourse to the abortionist; and the difficulty of dissolving the
union by "mutual consent," which usually means the callous
abandonment of one by the other. To make the question diagrammatically simple, suppose either (a) that the two persons involved
take their relationship seriously, or else (b) that they do not.
(a) If they take it seriously, if it represents to them a deep
and peculiar emotional experience, then it is clear that it can not
be terminated without producing corresponding effects on their
personalities. Many people who have been through the divorce
mill make good husbands or wives in a second mating, but he is a
bold advocate who will attempt to prove that because of having
been a partner in a broken home, they are able to put more happiness into, and take more happiness out of, a new marriage than
is the man or woman who goes to a mate without any scars, any
disillusionments, without the mental conflicts, the injury to selfesteem, the pessimism, and the bitter memories, that are a natural
result of life for some time under the most intimate circumstances
with a mate who was unworthy.
(b) If, on the other hand, they do not take it seriously, if it
represents to them a mere search for thrills, a selfish and casual
episode,, then it is obvious that it reveals a deficient education, a
shallow character, which further indulgence will make still more
shallow and defective, and which is a disastrous preparation for
permanent and happy family life. Far from encouraging such
persons to continue in this direction, society should make it as
difficult as possible for them to do so.
The plea that experience is desirable in order to demonstrate
whether the partners are physically mated is hardly worth refuting.
Physical compatibility is almost wholly a matter of education.
Physical abnormalities that destroy the happiness of a marriage
are rare, and can be discovered by a physician's examination bef ore
marriage-it requires no free love mating to bring them to light.
In other respects a trial marriage, or a series of trial marriages,




TYPE OF MATING


15


would not be a preparation for but a handicap to successful family
life thereafter. All the evils of delayed marriage (outlined in
Part II, Section III) then enter in. Many of the evils of premarital incontinence (outlined in Part II, Section II), also make
themselves felt. One of the best tests of the merits of a proposal
of this sort is to examine the histories of the people who now practice it. Judged by that test, trial marriage is not a success.
Everything that can be said against childless free love holds
good with tenfold strength if it is proposed that free love matings
result in children. Free lovers sometimes represent a selected
class which has no interest in children, considering the reproduction of the race a proper function of the Lower Orders or of those
who are "not smart." Occasionally, when the Birth Control clinic
and the abortionist have both failed them, they become almost
sentimental in descanting on the Sacredness of Motherhood; but
more frequently sterility due to chronic gonorrhea saves them
from having to take this heroic pose. At other times, the parties
start with the idea that they will not let children invade their
freedom, and then one or the other awakens to the need of children, precipitating a crisis which is one of the common tragedies
of free love matings.
For the sake of clearness, the problem may be viewed from a
slightly different angle by inquiring, why do people want to enter
into a free love union, when they could just as well marry? The
reasons alleged are nearly always incomplete, and usually not the
real reasons at all. But back of them all is what I believe most
unprejudiced persons will admit to be the real reason, namely, the
desire to avoid responsibility. If this is actually the fundamental
reason that inspires a free love mating, it is evidently one which
society cannot encourage. Irresponsibility is anti-social both in
family life and in the other activities of existence.
A defense of free love by means of an attack on monogamy as
out of date has no scientific foundation. Some writers, recognizing
this, have attempted a flank attack. A good example of these is
H. G. Wells. Monogamy is the standard, he admits; it is the best
in general; but there may be people who find something else--




16


16       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


say bigamy--suits their own particular needs. These exceptional
people should not be interfered with, since they get individual
happiness by deviating from the standard, while their example
can not possibly weaken, can not even threaten, an institution so
strongly intrenched as monogamy.
This point of view, which is shared with slight variation by
many a Little Group of Serious Thinkers, does not permit its
occupants to see far. Once they have admitted that monogamy
is the standard, they have given away their whole position, for
society can not authorize any marked deviation from a necessary
institution. Push the argument a little farther. There are people
-plenty of them-who are so peculiarly constituted as to find
their greatest individual happiness in murder, arson, incest, highway robbery, or rape. Their plea of individual happiness is not
admitted. Why admit it, then, in the case of free love?
The answer offered is that those things concern others than the
individual, while marriage concerns only the individual-or, more
exactly, the two individuals involved. This is so superficial that
it should mislead no one. Marriage usually concerns children,
and it always concerns society as a whole. Few persons are able
to violate well-established social customs without suffering mentally
as the result. Moreover, the young, the inexperienced, the adventurous, the weak-minded are always too ready to follow an example, or to be carried away by arguments whose fallacy they can
not discover until years later, after the harm has been done. An
illustration of this is the girl who is taught at college that she wants
a Career, and who only comes to her senses at the age of 30 or 40,
realizing that she has made a tragic mistake but that it is then too
late for her to remedy it by finding a home of her own.
Not many will plead for "freedom" where murder, arson, incest,
rape, or robbery is concerned. But because of the emotional
complexities, and the wealth of conventions (some of them obsolete) by which marriage is surrounded, some persons seem to
think that anything is allowable in a discussion of matrimony.
Jndeed, they take the same attitude toward love that is enounced
in another field of esthetics by so many contented critics: "I don't




TYPE OF MATING


17


know anything about Art, but I know what I like." It is high
time that this attitude were abandoned, and the discussion of
marriage kept on a scientific basis. When it is so kept, it will be
seen quickly enough that promiscuity, whether dressed in its
ancient and cruder or its more modern and more genteel forms,
has no biological foundation.
POLYGAMY
3. Polygamy is found in two forms-polyandry, or the union
of one woman with a number of men, and polygyny, or the union
of one man with a number of women. Apart from prostitution,
polyandry exists as a standard only in rare cases. It is obvious
that a polyandrous society must decrease gradually in numbers,
and probably become extinct; hence this form of mating has no
permanent importance in evolution.
When one speaks of polygamy, therefore, one usually means
polygyny, which, after monogamy, has been the predominant
form of mating in the human species. It produces an accelerated
evolution in certain directions, but examination will show that
these are only in part good.
Not only is selection among women virtually non-existent,
since they are in so much demand that nearly every female finds a
husband; but this evil is intensified by the necessity, in most cases,
of importing women from a lower group, to make up the desired
number of plural wives or concubines. Thus among the Arabs
the importation of Negresses into the harem has probably been an
important factor in the decline of the race (Paul Popenoe, 1923).
The evil is intensified still further, if there is any ground for the
doubtful conclusion of A. S. Parkes and others, that polygyny
tends to result in a preponderance of male births; for thus the
proportion of males would increase in each generation, and make
the deficit in the number of available wives still greater.
Among the men, on the other hand, there is usually a stringent
selection for one quality only, namely, wealth; since the support
of several wives is costly. The wealthy man can afford it; the
average man must content himself with one wife, or go unmated.




18


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


The children born are therefore predominantly the offspring of
wealthy fathers; this means the perpetuation of some qualities
that are desirable, some that are not so.
The principal exception to this is among the poor, where women,
rather than being objects of luxury, are drudges, and therefore
assets. The poor man is benefitted by having as many wives as he
can get, since they represent so much unpaid labor. This again
does not mean the perpetuation of the most valuable racial strains.
This source of labor is not open to the man of middle class, for
his wives insist on being maintained "in the style to which they are
accustomed." The result is that in any polygynous society the
actual proportion of men in the population who have plural wives
is very small.
In Muslim countries, however, unlimited freedom of divorce
at the will of the man has brought about a condition of "serial
polygamy," which is by no means unknown in the United States.
The man who can afford only one wife at a time can yet afford to
discard her and take a new one, and he makes use of this privilege
so freely that in urban communities the individual who has been
married for any length of time, and who has yet had only one
partner, is the exception. Men who have had 10 or 20 wives in as
many years are not particularly rare.1 It is obvious that this
tends to destroy family solidarity and continuity, and leaves a
situation similar to that often found in a regime of free love.
There is also a selection, particularly among young men, of the
physical outlook on marriage, as opposed to what might be termed
the romantic or idealistic. The man with plural wives is likely
to be one who regards women as created for his convenience.
The man with a higher appreciation of the personality of woman
and the possibilities of happiness in marriage will take only one
wife. Sometimes a woman with force of character and an enlight1 Interesting light has been thrown on this point recently by Paul W. Harrison
and H. St. J. B. Philby. The latter reports that up to 1920 Ibn Sa'fid, Sultan
of Najd (CentralArabia) had had more than 100 wives (together with uncounted
concubines); and, as he assured the author with an anticipatory smile, he is
"a young man yetl"




TYPE OF MATING


19


ened outlook on life insists that her husband (especially if, as often
happens, he is also her cousin) shall neither divorce her nor bring
additional wives into the harem. In both cases, these superior
monogamists leave fewer children to carry on their standards than
do the Solomons.
The result of these various selective factors is that polygyny
tends to produce quantity rather than quality of children.
Fortunately the results can be studied in nature; one is not
obliged to depend on ratiocination. In a patriarchal and militant
civilization, where the number of males was kept small by warfare,
polygyny seems to have worked fairly well for a limited time.
But the evolution of these societies on modern lines has invariably
resulted in the virtual disappearance of polygamy, so that, in
Turkey, Egypt, and other Muslim countries today, it has even
been or is about to be legally outlawed, and has in fact been rare
for a long time.
Whatever may have been the advantages or disadvantages of
polygyny in an earlier period, then, it is out of date now and needs
no further consideration.
MONOGAMY
4. From what has been said, it will be evident that monogamy
has, biologically, no real competitor. It represents an adaptation
of the human race; it has survived and spread at the expense of
other types of mating because it has been found more favorable
to the needs and perpetuation of the race, and more nearly in accord
with human nature, than have its competitors.
As regards its effect on individual character, the testimony is
generally favorable. "The deepening of the sense of responsibility,
the education of the individual in self-discipline, the development
of patience and charity, the overcoming of selfishness, the preservation of the emotional life from disintegration and from subjection
to passing moods-these are elements of the inner life which may
be described as absolute and permanent conditions of all high
social culture" and can be maintained only under monogamy, says
F. W. Foerster; while Anna Garlin Spencer remarks that "it has




20


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


given man an ethical training in self-sacrificing, courageous, and
persistent labor for the benefit of his group, and an institutional
command of the resources of nature and of human capacity, which
have proved invaluable to social progress." The selfish, cynical,
superficial type of personality, that is developed under more or
less promiscuous regimes, is unfavorable to the progress of civilization. Only under an enlightened monogamy can it be avoided with
certainty.
Those who argue from the practice of primitive peoples overlook
the fact that love is a more complex thing for civilized man than
for the savage. Romantic love in particular is a relatively recent
invention. Monogamy favors the exploration and development
of this field, as promiscuity and polygamy do not. Observation
and history show that the normal person finds full and wellrounded satisfaction of instincts (which means happiness) only
in life-long communion with the object of love. The personality
which falls short of this, and attempts to get satisfaction by a
series of casual, selfish experiences, is nothing but a personality
suffering from arrested development. It has not attained to
adult stature, but has remained at the infantile level, when the
whole world is valued in terms of the immediate gratification that
it furnishes to one's senses. (Cf. Part II, Section IV.)
Considering the question from a wholly selfish point of view,
but a different one from that described in the preceding paragraph,
it is easy to see why monogamy has appealed to most men and
women who have developed beyond the infantile stage. The
man wishes to raise children only of his own begetting, and he
desires to see the family traditions and possessions, oftentimes
also his life work, continued in a secure, well-ordered way. He
wants to avoid the loneliness or disquiet of bachelorhood, and
at the same time it pleases him to call one woman his own and
share her with no one.
Monogamy offers woman the possibility of comparable advantages, even though (like man) she sometimes fails to get them in
practice. So far as the ideal of relationship is concerned, she finds
that her will is recognized publicly as equal to that of the man



TYPE OF MATING


21


she is an individual personality, and not merely an inmate of a
harem, much less a commodity to be bought and sold from day to
day. She has a choice in the selection of her mate, and after
marriage she monopolises that mate, not having to share him with
others. If the mating is for life, the man is obliged to respect
her will to a much greater extent than he would if she were
merely one of numerous consorts, or if he intended to abandon her
shortly.
Such considerations as these, which might be much extended,
explain why monogamy benefits man and woman from the narrowest, personal point of view-taking no account of many broader
influences which are in fact of great importance. If promiscuity
represents the expression of an irresponsible, autoerotic, infantile
type of reaction, unable to see beyond a small immediate gain to
a much greater but slightly more remote gain, then it is fair to
say that failure to be monogamous is not the act of a normal adult,
but of one whose mind has not developed properly.
As regards sexual selection, monogamy tends to favor the more
substantial and permanent qualities, as against the more transient
physical or financial qualities which have been found in every case
to bulk large under a regime of polygamy or promiscuity.
As regards the birth-rate, monogamy apparently tends to
result more nearly in the production of a normal number of children than does any other system. It is especially favorable
to the net birth-rate, that is, to the survival of children born,
because each of them has two parents to watch over his physical,
mental, and economic needs.
As regards the quality of parenthood, there can scarcely be any
serious argument. Monogamy is in a class by itself. The attention of neither husband nor wife should be distracted from the
family by any overwhelming emotional experience outside of it;
because children need the care of both parents. So far, in the
history of the family, the public pledge of fidelity between man
and woman has served better than anything else to guarantee to
children upbringing in a home where their interests are given proper
attention, and their minds directed along the most useful lines.




22           THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY
Whatever temporary or incidental defects there may be in its
operation, then, there seems to be no question about the general
principle involved. Monogamy, when examined from a biological
point of view, without regard to prejudices or conventions, is found
to be the only type of mating suitable to modern mankind.




II. CHOICE OF A MATE


Improvement in the selection of mates will probably do more
than any other one thing for the conservation of the family.
It is popularly supposed in some circles that "falling in love"
is capricious and determined by chance or some mystical force
against which it is useless for human beings to struggle. Such a
theory serves the purpose of romancers, but anyone who considers
the question soberly can testify that marriage, at least, is usually
preceded by a good deal of careful consideration on the part of
both partners.
Broadly, it has been shown by many students that people are
attracted to each other by unlikeness in sexual traits and likeness
in all other traits.
It is the latter that makes largely for compatibility, and the
basis of it exists to some extent even under the continental system,
where marriages are arranged largely by the parents of the young
people; and in the oriental system, where the bride and groom
never see each other until after they are married. The relatives
in each case try to pick out a mate who is "suitable," that is, of
similar rank and wealth, and this very fact tends to give the young
people a common background which makes for harmony and compatibility as they later become acquainted with each other.
Much more can be done, however, through education of the
young people themselves. The qualities desirable in mating
may be divided into two groups, according as they refer primarily
to the mutual relations of husband and wife, or to the endowment
of their offspring.
PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Of particular traits that may be mentioned, age is generally first
thought of. Everyone agrees that the husband should be a little,
23




24


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


though not too much, older than his wife. Too great discrepancy
in this respect is not only unphysiological, but interferes with the
feeling of perfect comradeship that should exist in a marriage.
In most cases the reproductive system matures between the
twelfth and sixteenth years of life, and in the narrowest sense
young people are ready for marriage any time thereafter. But
it is not at all desirable that marriage take place until after physical
development as a whole has been largely completed. Among
white Americans, this occurs somewhere between the ages of 18
and 21, in most cases. Mental development is still slower, and
requires five or six years longer to reach its term.
Other considerations agreeing, young people should marry soon
after they complete their physical development, and before they
complete their mental development. If marriage is delayed until
the latter is closed, it commonly finds both personalities set in their
ways, with a large stock of habits, and moving in a rut. They
do not fit so well into married life, which requires a continual give
and take-especially give.
Imaginary evils of early marriage are delineated so often that
it is worth while to look at the biological facts for a moment.
From a eugenic point of view, early marriage in good stock is
advantageous not only because the generations come closer together, but because the fertility of women is greatest, shortly
after the maturity of the reproductive system. The younger the
wife at marriage, the smaller the percentage of wives who bear no
children, and the larger the size of family. This holds good in the
white race down to about the age of 15. G. D. Maynard, studying
the New Zealand birth statistics, found that "if fecundity be
measured by the percentage of women who bear children within
24 months after marriage, the age of maximum fecundity for New
Zealand wives lies probably between the ages of 15 and 20"; while
in England the largest family seemed to be associated with marriage at 16, in Scotland at 18.
Obstetricians have long observed that childbirth among young
mothers is particularly easy and safe. A detailed study by John
W. Harris, of the records of 160 white and 340 Negro mothers at




CHOICE OF A MATE


25


Johns Hopkins Hospital, all between the ages of 12 and 16, and
bearing their first child in every case, led him to write:
Based upon the study of 500 patients comprised in this report, it seems
permissible to conclude that pregnancy and labor are attended by no greater
danger to the young primipara than to older women. On the other hand, the
duration of labor is actually shorter. As our figures show that the size of the
children is not inferior to that noted in older women, and that abnormal pelves
occur quite as frequently,1 this result must be attributed to the greater elasticity
of the soft parts. Consequently, speaking from a purely obstetrical point of
view, the ages under consideration appear to be the optimum time for occurrence of first labor.
All this is not an argument for child marriage. The facts are
presented merely to show that, physiologically, early marriage
and childbearing are in many respects favorable to mother and
child. Of course, the physiological considerations are by no means
the only ones that count. Education can not be ignored.
But education and other social factors must not be stressed to
the point that the fundamental biological factors are ignored.
From the latter point of view, it must be recognized that relatively
early marriage (say any time after 18 for women and 21 for men)
is advantageous.
In both sexes, early marriage tends to remove the strain on the
emotions which is imposed by a long period of celibacy, and which
often results in damage to the personality. But it is particularly
important to women-so much so that it is little less than a crime
to advise girls to wait until they are 30 or more to marry, in order
to enjoy life more fully, get a better preparation, or what not.
Early marriage gives a girl a wider choice of mates. It results
in early and less painful childbearing, with fewer stillbirths and
miscarriages, more breast-fed infants, and fewer infant deaths.
It is more likely to produce children that are vigorous, long-lived,
and intelligent. It allows parents to space their children at reasonable distances and still have a family of normal size without exhaustion of the mother. It is advantageous to the education of
SThis means merely that "the white girl of 13 to 16 years has as large a
pelvis as her older sister."




26


6THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


the children in the home. Finally, early marriage is normally
favorable to the vigor and longevity of the mother herself.
Early marriage is natural, and most young people would marry
early if they were left alone, and enabled to do so. But a man must
support his wife: this means a paying job first, and this may not
be reached for some years--if ever. Then there is the distraction
of other interests and pursuits. Finally, there is wrong advice,
of which women are the greatest victims, since they pay a heavier
penalty for delaying marriage than do men.
Parents do their daughters a great disservice when they seize
upon some trivial talent which the girl possesses, as for music,
and urge her to prepare herself for a musical career, rather than
for marriage. There is probably not one such case in a hundred
where the advice is really justified; but the girl, misled by the
vanity of her parents, and the praise of incompetent teachers who
want a pupil (the percentage of inefficiency probably being greater
among music teachers than in any other branch of the teaching
profession), spends great amounts of time and money in training,
only to find later that there is no career for her, or, if there is,
that she would have preferred a family. If such girls were encouraged to prepare for family life, in the first place, and at the same
time to develop their talents for their own pleasure and that of
their friends, many a broken heart would be avoided.
Race, health, beauty, and education are among the other traits
most frequently called to mind, and so often discussed as to require
no further comment here. Financial and social position almost
always play a part in the selection of a mate, and while they may
be given too much weight, it is inaccurate to protest against them
as interferences with good mating. As Roswell H. Johnson has
shown (1921), they form one of the most available rough-and-ready
measurements of the real value of a family.
EUGENIC CONSIDERATIONS
Other matters of personal importance will occur to every reader,
for they loom large in all discussions of marriage. The traits
that are primarily of importance to the children are not quite so
often considered. They may be summed up as good ancestry.




01OICE OP A MATIt                  27
This should include a good average of both physical and mental
traits. Health, fertility, vigor, and longevity are most to be
desired on the physical side; on the mental side general intelligence,
self-control, energy, efficiency, usefulness, and altruism.
It is necessary to emphasize the average of the ancestry, because
young people frequently make the mistake of being swayed by a
few outstanding traits, either good or bad. The average is much
more significant. Descent from some great but remote ancestor is
of little value compared with a high average among uncles and
aunts.
In addition to the foregoing, it is of course important that the
young people have an intelligent 'idea of what marriage means,
and what its duties and privileges are; that they be educated for
parenthood; and that they have enough money to make a start.




III. SOCIAL SANCTIONS


While the state should interfere with lovers as little as possible,
it is necessary that every mating be (1) restricted, (2) pre-announced, and (3) recorded. None of these precautions will in any
way infringe the rights and legitimate privileges of any man or
woman. If any of them is omitted, society will to that extent lack
needful protection.
RESTRICTIONS ON MARRIAGE
1. Marriage must be safeguarded by prohibiting it to certain
classes of people whose mating would result in far more harm to
society than benefit to themselves. Certain restrictions have long
been enforced; a few others should be established. Among the
restrictions of most interest are:
(a) Age. Probably few personal interests would be injured
if the limit were placed at 21 for men and 18 for women. People
who are not old enough to vote or to exercise the other rights of
adult life can scarcely be considered old enough to undertake the
delicate and difficult responsibilities of matrimony.
Such a restriction would have a eugenic value, in tending to
equalize the birth rate in the more capable and less capable parts
of the population. At present the necessity of getting an education
or a start in business prevents most superior young men (and
therefore most superior young women) from marrying before 25,
while among the poor and shiftless marriage makes little difference, and can be undertaken years earlier than this without inconvenience. The result is early marriage and larger families
among a part of the population where these extra children are not
needed. If they were restrained until 21 and 18, the superior part
of the population would start more nearly even with them.
When it is recalled that there are in the United States at the
present time more than 600,000 husbands or wives less than 16
28




SOCIAL SANCTIONS


29


years old (Fred S. Hall and Mary E. Richmond), it will be evident
that any attempt to raise the legal age of marriage to 18 and 21
would be revolutionary and disastrous. Many states still retain
the old common law standard of 12 years for girls and 14 for boys.
Undue haste to change this legislation is almost certain to mean
an increase of juvenile delinquency, illegitimacy, promiscuity, and
abortion. But if public opinion generally accepts the desirability
of changes which will bring about earlier marriage among the
educated and later marriage among the uneducated, a gradual
improvement can be brought about, which can be registered from
time to time by a slight raise of the legal age, if circumstances
permit.
(b) Consanguinity, in the nearer degrees, is generally considered a bar to marriage. One-third of the states of the union
prohibit the marriage of first cousins, Oklahoma extends the restriction to second cousins. Biologically such a restriction is not
justified, and its universal enforcement would have deprived the
world of much talent. There is no longer any mystery about this
matter. The marriage of relatives merely means that the mates
have, to a greater extent than usual, the same inherited traits.
Their children therefore get a double dose of these traits. If the
traits are good the offspring are better, while if the traits are bad
the children are naturally handicapped to an unusual extent.
From a strictly biological point of view, then, cousin marriages
might be commended in good families and condemned in defective
stock.
The argument against such marriages must be made on other
grounds than the genetic. It is obvious, for instance that two
young people are likely to be better off if they have the advice,
influence, and support of two family circles back of them, rather
than merely of the single one in which they grew up together. And
it is clear that the love which binds the members of a family together is not the same as that which joins mates for life: the two
ought not to be confused, and it is therefore desirable that thoughts
of mating should not arise in the minds of close relatives.
Such reasons as these are good arguments against cousin mar



30


30       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


riage, but they scarcely justify any legal interference. The existing laws against cousin marriage should be abolished.
(c) Mental defects. Insanity has always been a bar to marriage,
because of the legal principle that an insane person is not competent
to enter into a contract. The biological reasons against such a
marriage are equally weighty, to say the least; and there is a tendency nowadays to extend the restriction to include the feebleminded.
This is a step in the right direction, but it immediately involves
the difficulty of telling who is feebleminded. The term is a relative one, and it is not always easy to draw the line, especially in
border-line cases.- The difficulty is all the greater in those states
where the question must be legally determined, not by experts,
but by a jury of 12 men who may be "good and true" but who
certainly know nothing about the subject.
It is highly desirable to prevent the feebleminded from marrying,
or at least from bearing children, but it is doubtful if legal restrictions on marriage are likely to accomplish much at the present
time. More is to be expected from education of the public, from
segregation of the feebleminded, or from putting them in charge
of responsible relatives with the understanding that they are not
to mate unless previously sterilized.
In any case it is even more desirable to keep down the birth-rate
in the large part of the population that is mentally "low grade,"
than to prevent the obviously feebleminded from marrying; f or
the greater part of mental defect comes from the former class of
matings. There is an appalling amount of feeblemindedness lying
concealed ("recessive") in the germ-plasm of people who possess
intelligence that seems to be normal. The number of these "carriers" in the population is much greater than the number of persons
who are frankly feebleminded or imbecile. Whenever two of these
carriers marry each other, some of their children are likely to be
feebleminded. So even if all the recognized feebleminded were
prevented from reproducing, for a number of generations, an
abundant new crop of feebleminded children would be produced
each year from the seemingly normal parents who are carriers




SOCIAL SANCTIONS


31


of the recessive defect. The real problem of society is therefore
to lessen the reproduction of all the inefficient or less intelligent
strata of the population, while at the same time striving greatly to
increase the reproduction of the most efficient and highly endowed
part.
In some states epilepsy has been made a bar to marriage, but
this is a term that means a good many different things, none of
them fully understood, and it is doubtful whether legal prohibitions
can be of much avail at present except in extreme cases where they
are scarcely needed.
(d) Physical defects usually taken into account in marriage
consist of a few infectious diseases. Impotence is regarded as
ground for annulment rather than for prohibition of marriage, the
theory no doubt being that this condition (like sterility) can only
become known after marriage has been consummated. Congenitally deaf, dumb, or blind should not have children in marriage,
unless they have extraordinary counterbalancing qualities.
Venereal infections and, in a few states, tuberculosis, are the
diseases most taken into account. As they stand on a different
footing, I shall consider them separately, beginning with the latter.
Broadly speaking, one who is tuberculous ought not to marry;
and one ought not to marry a tuberculous person. But to forbid
the marriage of all such would be to prevent a very considerable
part of society from mating. Many of these persons will be cured,
many will avoid having children, others may have such superior
traits as to outweigh the defect. Moreover, a tuberculous person
is little more likely to infect others-even his wife-if married than
if not married. Hence at the present time it is not feasible to
forbid marriage of the tuberculous. An intensification of the
educational campaign, to lead people for the sake of posterity
voluntarily to avoid such marriage, and to realize the desirability
of mating in sound stocks, is all that can be demanded.
Syphilis and gonorrhea are in a different category, because of
their higher infectiousness and the practical certainty of communication to a mate. There is every reason why no one infected
with a venereal disease should be permitted to wed. The question
is merely one of means to be used to make the prohibition effective.




32


32       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


M-any states have attempted to reach this goal either by requiring the applicants for a marriage license to swear that they are not
infected with venereal diseases, or by making the man present a
certificate showingr that he has been examined by a physician and
found to be free from such diseases.
The obstacles interfering with the complete success of such a law
as this are serious. In the first place, denial of a license will not
always prevent mating, for the class of people infected with venereal diseases is not the most responsible and high-minded class
in the community. In the second place, the measure comes too
late to prevent all cases of infection, for a person with syphilis
in some stages can infect another merely by kissing or by drinking
out of the same cup: therefore freedom from syphilis ought to be
assured before two people become engaged. In the third place,
it is practically impossible for even a specialist to certify, after a
prolonged and expensive examination, that a given person is free
from syphilis or gonorrhea, and it is therefore out of the question
for the average physician, in a hasty $3 examination, to assert such
freedom. Moreover, there will always be found incompetent and
dishonest doctors who will give worthless certificates. Finally,
from a scientific point of view the examination ought to apply to
women as well as men, but this is repugnant to public sentiment,
particularly since in many towns there are no women physicians
available to make the examinations for their own sex.
All these and other obstacles, coupled with the indifference or
hostility of. a large part of the medical profession, have interfered
seriously with the enforcement of such measures in the states that
now have them. The educational result, in arousing the public
to the seriousness of venereal diseases, and their particular menace
to the family, is good. On the other hand, an examination, incorrectly or fraudulently reporting a man to be uninfected, may
give his bride a false sense of security.
Many people, arguing that no law is ever 100 per cent enforced,
believe that on the whole these medical certificate laws are a
gain-that they are much better than nothing. But the ideal
toward which reformers should look is an enlightened public senti



SOCIAL SANCTIONS                3


33


ment which will lead every person, male or female, who is about
to marry, to have a thorough physical examination, and at the
same time receive such instruction as may fit his or her own case.
Cases differ so that it is impossible for any blanket legislation to
fit them all.
PUBLISHING THE BANNS
2. So much for the principal ways in which marriage is or should
be restricted. In addition to such precautions, it should be published in advance, to prevent hasty, secret, and ill-considered
marriages.
What is needed here is a revival of the old custom of publishing1.
the banns. If every application were posted two weeks before a(
marriage license is issued, few legitimate interests would be menaced and a large proportion of undesirable marriages would be
prevented. Friends and relatives, public sentiment, or sobering-up
would come to the rescue, and a proposed match be abandoned
which, if carried through secretly, as it now may be, would end
only in misery and divorce. Such a measure is now being adopted
by many states.
COMMON LAW MARRIAGE
3. Marriages must not only be restricted and pre-announced,
but they must also be recorded. This means simply the abolition
of that American anomaly, the common law marriage.
In one-half of the States, a man and woman can contract a legal
marriage-as binding as any other-without license, ceremony,
or publicity of any kind, simply by agreeing with each other that
they will henceforth be man and wife. The agreement need not
even be in writing-a telephone conversation is sufficient! In
some states they need not ever have lived together-perhaps they
would not need even to have seen each other. A famous case
concerns a man in Minnesota who signed a marriage contract in
duplicate and sent the two copies to a woman in Missouri. She
signed them and returned one copy to him. The man was shortly
afterward killed in a railway accident and the woman, who had never




34


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


lived with him, sued for damages, which she got, as widow of the
deceased. Another type is represented by cases where a man picks
up a prostitute on the street, takes her to a hotel, and registers
her as his wife. On the basis of this "public declaration" it may be
possible for her to sue for the establishment of her legal rights as
his wife, and get a jury to give them to her. One need not sympathize with the man in such a position and yet realize that the
result tends to degrade the institution of marriage.
It is obvious that if the state is going to exercise any control at
all over marriage, it can not afford to leave such a loophole as this.
The fact that common law marriage benefits only people who,
on the average, represent the least desirable part of the community,
is all the more reason why the custom should be abolished. The
people who practice common law marriage are those who should
be under the greatest control, not under the least control or none
at all.
The United States is the only civilized country where common
law marriage is now tolerated. A remnant of old English common
law, it has been abolished in England since 1753. It became established in American law, as Otto E. Koegel has shown, through
indifference and ignorance, almost by accident. The American
Bar Association and virtually all students of the question have
pronounced in favor of its abolition. Public sentiment should
demand that the legislatures of all states where it still lingers wipe
it out of existence.
Some other forms of marriage are open to one of the great objections against the common law marriage, namely, its lack of
solemnity. There is a real advantage in a formal ceremonial
which makes people realize that a wedding is something different
from every-day life. The church ritual justifies itself here. The
ordinary office of a justice of the peace, decorated with spittoons,
cigar stubs, constables, and loafers, is not a suitable place for a
wedding. The state should provide a dignified hall in the county
court house, and designate a suitable jurist, for the increasing number of people who are not married in their own homes or in a church
-even if their ceremony consists, as it may in some states, of
nothing more than the signature of a civil contract.




IV. REPRODUCTION


It is unnecessary to argue that the normal family consists not
merely of mates, but of parents and children. The family has
meant that, since the beginning of time; normal mates are not
satisfied unless they have children; and a community made up of
mates without children would become extinct in short order. The
family did not create children: children created the family. Among
lower animals, a home and family are found only when they are
necessary, which commonly means for a short time. Among human
beings, with almost infinitely higher mental capacity, the home and
family exist for the duration of life because they are necessary
throughout life.
It is worth while, however, to recognize that under certain
conditions a childless family, though not normal, may yet be approvable. If, for instance, there is some reason, as inherited defect,
why two people should not have children, yet they love each other,
it is better for them to marry than to remain single, for they thus
increase their own happiness, and probably that of others, without
injuring society.
Apart from such exceptional cases, a normal family is certainly
one that includes children. The latter may be considered both
as to quantity and as to quality.
The number of children in a family must be regarded both from
the point of view of the parents, and that of society.
QUANTITY IN CHILDREN
Society is interested first of all in perpetuation; suicide is as
abnormal for a race as for an individual. It has been shown repeatedly by statisticians that an average of about four children
per family is necessary to keep a population even stationary in
numbers, without providing for any increase.
It might at first sight be supposed that if each married couple
35




36


36       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


produced two children to replace themselves, the population
would be kept up; but a moment's thought will show that this is
not true, because these two children can not be depended on to
grow up, marry, and produce two more children in turn. Some
w ill die before marriage, or before their marriage has been fruitful;
others never marry; still others marry but for one reason or another
have no children. To allow for such conditions, it has been found
that an average couple must bear four children or bring three to
maturity; and these are therefore the basic figures in any consideration of a normal family.
But it must never be forgotten that they are merely averages.
The interests of society are best fostered if it is made up of families
of more than four children among the superior part of the population, and of less than four in the inferior part, ranging down to no
children at all among the defectives and genuine undesirables.
How does this statement of quantity compare with the interests
of the parents themselves? Not well, it might seem at first glance,
for it is notorious that the prosperous, efficient, and useful families
of the nation are frequently smaller than that, while among the
poor, shiftless, and feebleminded, large families are all too common,
to their own distress as well as to that of the commonwealth.
"The people in big houses have small families; the people in small
houses have big families."
ADVANTAGES OF LARGE FAMILIES
Both these conditions will be considered later. Here it is only
necessary to point out that, from a biological point of view, it is
to the interest of superior parents themselves to have four or more
children. The reasons-and they are of ten strong ones-which
have discouraged childbearing in this class, and have made the
two-child family, or even the only child, seem desirable, are not
biological, but matters of finance, ambition, social aspiration, and
convenience.
Among the biological reasons against small families, and in favor
of a family of four or more children, are such as the following:
a. A healthy woman is benefited by repeated pregnancies.




REPRODUCTION


37


Her system is organized for that purpose, and it finds full expression
of its potentialities, and corresponding full degree of well-being,
only in repeated pregnancies.
b. The inherent quality of the children is better in such families.
The first-born commonly starts with a slight handicap-he is
lighter in weight and shorter in length, at birth, and this is apparently reflected in his subsequent life. He is, for instance, not so
long-lived, on the average, as are the three or four children who
follow him. If the family is limited to one or two children, it is
made up of first-borns from 50 to 100 per cent, while in the larger
family the percentage of later-than-first is higher.
c. The education of the children is better. The character of
the "only child" is proverbial, and the proverb is too often justified. In a larger family, the children have normal contacts with
their brothers and sisters: not only do they benefit, but their
influence on their parents is better than is that of an only child.
Normal parents under favorable circumstances will derive much
more pleasure and satisfaction from four children than from two.
d. The parents of a large family have a greater chance of giving
birth to a particularly talented child, than have the parents of a
small family-other considerations agreeing, of course. As the
inherited units are distributed by chance, the situation resembles
that in a lottery. The more tickets, or children, one has, the
greater the likelihood of drawing a capital prize.
As to quantity, then, there is no antagonism between the biological interests of the parents and of society. In both cases a family
of four or more children is desirable, and the small family is harmful,
in superior stock.
QUALITY IN CHILDREN
As to quality, the interests of the two are always in complete
agreement, both parents and society desiring that every child be
as good a child as possible.
An opposite view has been maintained sometimes: it has been
charged that some societies, or a dominant part of some societies,
cared little about the quality of the children born, but wanted




38


38       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


abundant quantity for industrial exploitation or military aggression-wanted mere cannon fodder, in short, instead of good citizens.
It is doubtful if such a view has ever been maintained seriously in
responsible quarters. It is true that many writers on population
have shown little concern as to quality, but this is usually because
they did not appreciate sufficiently the extent and importance of
inherent differences among children. They tended to believe that
all children are created equal, and that nothing more is necessary
than good education to produce good citizens in abundance.
Such a view is entirely out of harmony with the facts, and is
rapidly becoming obsolete. And if anyone has actually thought
that quantity, without regard to quality, was a desirable aim in
population, he was wholly wrong. A high average quality of
population has never been anything but a benefit to a country,
whereas a large quantity, with low quality, has in the long run
never been anything but a handicap, even in new and undeveloped
countries where quantity is most desirable.
This brief and summary discussion of an immense problem is
perhaps sufficient to establish the only point it was intended to
establish: namely, that the normal family, as here considered, will
average four children, running higher than this in the superior
part of the population and lower in the inferior part.




V. INFLUENCE


A normal family must promote the welfare of father, mother,
and children. If it does so, it will also benefit society as a whole.
INFLUENCE ON MEN
1. The evolution of the family during hundreds of thousands
of years has been toward binding the father closer to the
mother and child. It may be assumed, therefore, that he is now
reasonably well adjusted to the home, and that its influence on him
and his influence on it will be, on the whole, favorable.
This assumption is borne out by an examination of the facts.
I believe it is safe to say that men desire marriage and a home
(including children) as much as women do, if not more; that they
get as much satisfaction out of their home life as do their wives,
if not more; and that home life exerts as much steadying and inspiring influence on'them as it does on women, if not more.
This 'I's not to say that any man fits perfectly into his home, or
does his full duty by it-any more than any woman. But the
changes have been rung so often on that excellent motto, "What
is home without a mother," and the man in the case has been so
often pushed into the background, that it is worth while to emphasize, occasionally, the fact that a husband and a father is part of a
family; that in most respects he comes fully as near, on the average,
to contributing his share as does any other part of the family;
and that the personal benefits he derives from it in the shape of
greater comfort, stimulus to ambition, comradeship, satisfaction
in his children, and the like, are fully recognized by the average
man.
So far as he is concerned, the changes necessary to make the
family life influence his happiness and productivity more favorably
are mainly such educational changes as will make family life in
general more harmonious, will perpetuate love between the mates;
39




40


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


and particularly such economic changes as will enable him to establish and care for his family without excessive sacrifices.
On the other hand, most fathers need better education to fulfill
all their duties within the home. Nearly all of them need to give
more time to their wives and children, and to assume a larger
share of responsibility for the details of child training. Other
delinquencies of the father, such as the economic (many men tend
to make their wives dependents, either by parsimony or by indulgence) are rather too remote from the biologic field to be considered in this brief summary.
INFLUENCE ON WOMEN
It is the woman, more often than the man, who complains of
marriage; who finds herself dissatisfied and disillusioned. In
most communities, four out of every five divorces are sought by
women. Frequently, her revolt is due to wrong education, to
lack of sufficient occupation of the right kind, and to the agitation
of mismated wives and disappointed spinsters.
Frequently dissatisfaction is due to the failure of a well-intentioned but ill-educated husband to understand his wife's nature;
or her failure to understand her own.
Sometimes, on the other hand, woman is entitled to complain
justly that home life becomes for her an imprisonment, in which
she is cut off from contact with almost everything worth while
in the world and condemned to spend her years in menial labor,
unrewarded and even unrecognized.
In so far as such a condition really exists, it is often her own fault
as much as that of any one else, and due to a wrong point of view,
an easy acceptance of the line of least resistance, and lack of imagination or ambition to step out of the rut. An education of young
women which prepared them better for motherhood, which inculcated a more scientific attitude toward the home, and which made
them more efficient in the discharge of their domestic duties, and
better able to see the fallacies in the propaganda of home-breakers,
and which showed them how to take a larger part (though not by a
"icareer") in the cultural and expressive opportunities of life, would
do more than anything else to remove the sources of irritation.




INFLUENCE


41


In short, a large part of the complaint made by women regarding
home influence is due to wrong education and surroundings. But
there is enough legitimate ground for complaint to demand improvements in the education of men, as well as of the women
themselves. Finally, every reorganization and improvement in
society that tends to make domestic life simpler and less burdensome, and frees for more productive uses the time of such women
as are now actually absorbed to a large extent by unproductive
labor, may be advantageous.
INFLUENCE ON CHILDREN
3. The importance of the influence of the child on the home,
and the home on the child, does not lack recognition. Sometimes,
indeed, there is a sentimental halo cast over the whole relationship.
This is intensified by the fact that perhaps not one woman in a
hundred is prepared effectively for motherhood, and some of the
other 99 tend to assume that "instinct" furnishes them all the
training and equipment necessary and that "mother love" is an
adequate substitute for knowledge and efficiency.
As the fact has become more generally realized during the last
few decades, that a child's personality is largely formed during the
first five years, and quite definitely in the first two years, of his life,
the home has not lacked assailants as well as defenders. It has
been accused, and often justly, of exercising a cramping and deforming influence on the child's emotional life, of teaching him
to be subservient to authority, whether right or wrong, and of
laying the bases of complexes that may work out disastrously in
future years, when they are quite forgotten and unsuspected.
Among the dangers to which the child is exposed are, first, lack
of love, and secondly, unwisely directed love.
Disharmony in the family life gives the infant a background
which it can never outgrow. It starts him with an equipment of
fundamental antagonisms and feelings of inferiority which color
his whole future emotional life.
Unwisely directed love produces not only the unpleasantly
familiar "spoiled child," but the child with a mother-complex




42


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


or a father-complex. The affections are imbedded so tenaciously
in a parent (usually the one of the opposite sex) that its personality
is unable to free itself at the customary time-the age of adolescence-and the child goes through life with its emotions still fixed
in an infantile way on its parent. The result is either failure to
marry, or failure to find happiness in marriage.
Such dangers have led some people to argue that children would
be better brought up if they were taken away from their parents
soon after birth and entrusted to the impersonal justice and
scientific attentions of a state-managed institution. J.-J. Rousseau, the great apostle of individualism and natural education in
the eighteenth century, sent all his own children to a foundling
asylum and never knew what became of them. Probably few
persons adopt this view as a matter of conviction. If they do,
a study of America's 1400 orphan asylums, containing some 150,000
children (half of whom have both parents living), will make clear
that no brooder can supply the intimate contacts which form a
child's personality, and which it finds only in its own home. Every
child needs a little love. A recent study of foster children by the
New York State Charities Aid Association leads its authors to
conclude that even the worst home is better than an orphanage,
the results being measured by the child's success in getting along
in the world after it reached maturity. While this may be an
extreme conclusion, its foundation is solid.
It is precisely because the home is not perfect, that it is a
good educational institution. Life itself is not perfect. It demands constant adjustment to its imperfections. The children
in an orphan asylum are cogs in a machine which either never makes
a mistake or, if it does, never acknowledges it. Everything goes
according to rule, and the children are turned out as mechanical
products. They have never learned to think.
The same sort of arguments apply also against the school, which
many parents attempt to make shoulder a burden that should be
carried in the home.
The relationship of a child to its home has far more mutual
service and reciprocity in it than has the relationship of a child




INFLUENCE


43


to its school. All parts of the family are well fitted (as is the case
with any organic whole) to subserve each others' needs and to
supplement each others' efforts. It is generally recognized that
the increasing subordination of family life, in large cities, and the
increasing prominence of the school (ending in the 24-hour school
and the 12-month school) in the life of the child, is dangerous;
and that it is, in fact, producing an annual crop of children not
well fitted to be citizens. The normal family is the only effective
school for the life of the citizen, and it is hard to see how, human
nature being what it is, this situation can ever be changed. "The
man who has learned how to lead both an individual and a peaceful
life within a large family will find it surprisingly easy to get on
with his fellow-citizens in the larger world, for he will have learned
the difficult art of respecting the interests of others while maintaining his own."
So long as individuality and variety of character remain an
advantage to the world, the family can not be replaced. The
stereotyped character which tends to be produced by schools, and
still more by institutions, will never be anything except a disadvantage to its possessors and to society.
Further, as Helen Bosanquet has pointed out, it takes a particular child to elicit the good traits of a parent. Few people are able
to give to children at large the same sympathy and help that they
can give to their own offspring. If they try to do so, they are
likely to end merely as officious busybodies. Moreover, it is
impossible to make an artificial family by throwing together a
man, a woman, and a few children under the same roof. It is the
inheritance, the traditions, and the love that are the alchemy which
transmutes this assortment of human beings into a family.
Another important reason, generally overlooked, why a mother
can care for and educate her children better than can any outsider
shepherding the infants of a score of strangers, is that she knows
the inherited capacities and defects of the child. The greater
part of education consists in developing the former and suppressing
the latter, and as a knowledge of heredity becomes more widespread, this function of the home will become more and more




44


44        THE CONSERVATION OF THlE FAMILY


valuable. In most cases, the child will have talents like those of
his parents. His own home is the environment in which these
talents will most naturally develop and find exercise. There
will be fewer round pegs in square holes, when this phase of family
life receives the emphasis it deserves.
In all of these essential respects, there is no substitute for the
monogamous family-with all its faults.
A home in which the parents control their love for the benefit
of their children, and develop an atmosphere of comradeship,
instead of seeking to gratify their selfish vanity by making their
children mere worshippers of the parental god or goddess, will
obviate the danger of the parent-complex. The surplus love
turned toward the other mate, instead of toward the child, will
do away with disharmony and obviate the dangers on that side.
If such wisdom on the part of the parents is coupled with early
marriage and reasonably large families, so that their love is more
spread out, and not concentrated like the sun's rays through a
lens, in a withering blast on a defenseless "only child," there will
be few complaints heard about the reciprocal influence of children
and the home.
The woman who thinks that she is reserved by nature for greater
things, and that she has a message which must be given to the
world, while her children are turned over to a servant, may be told
emphatically that "No mother is too good to be wasted on her own
children."
To sum up, the kind of influence that characterizes a normal
home, and promotes the well-being of all its members, and thereby
of society as a whole, requires better education of parents than is
now the rule. Man must understand woman, and learn to look
upon her as an individual, a personality. Woman must not only
understand man, but must understand herself, her own biology.
Both need further guidance in the care of children. But given
these improvements, no other institution can take the place of the
family.




PART II
CONDITIONS THAT INTERFERE WITH THE NORMAL
FUNCTIONING OF THE FAMILY








INTRODUCTION


The following part discusses some of the conditions that interfere at the present time in America with the normal, biological
functioning of the family that has been outlined in Part I.
It will be evident that the various abnormalities are not sharply
distinct from each other. Most of them are interrelated.
It follows that there is no specific remedy for any of these evils.
Measures that tend to mitigate one will also tend to mitigate some,
or all, of the others. In general, the cure of any one of them is to
be sought only in a complete program for the conservation of the
family. Every effort to this end will tend to reduce the separate
evils. On the other hand, any measure that is advertised to cure
a particular evil, without reference to the whole program of conservation, is to be looked upon with suspicion.
It is perhaps needless to say that the division of subjects in this
Part II is dictated merely by convenience, and follows the line of
popular classification. It is not intended to be systematic, logical,
or rigorous. Moreover, there are many minor ills that have
scarcely been mentioned.


47




I. CELIBACY AND THE ASCETIC IDEAL


For the present purpose, celibacy may be defined as a life in
which one deliberately and permanently renounces sex. It does
not, therefore, apply to the persons (if they are any such) who remain unmarried because they can not find suitable partners,
much as they want to do so. Still less does it apply to those, aptly
called pseudo-celibates, who remain unmarried but find an outlet
for their sexual dispositions in illegitimate ways.
A life of celibacy is chosen by men and women for at least three
very different types of reasons.
1. In every generation there is a certain proportion of people
who, through illness or inborn defect, are lacking in normal sexual
instincts, or who may even have the instincts of the opposite sex
rather than those which go regularly with their own. Obviously,
such persons are usually not interested in marriage and parenthood, and are likely to remain celibate. It is highly desirable that
they do so, for should they have children they might pass on their
own abnormal constitutions, and the existence of people with
such constitutions is not advantageous to a race.
2. There is also a certain proportion of high-minded people who,
because they come of families in which there is some inheritable
defect, as for example insanity, make up their minds that it is their
duty not to marry. Where the grounds are weighty, this attitude
is commendable. Sometimes, however, it is adopted because of a
hypercritical point of view which leads the individual to magnify
a small defect and to ignore a hundred real merits that ought to be
perpetuated. It is necessary to maintain a proper perspective
here. A eugenic conscience is a good thing, but it must not have a
hair-trigger. The race can well afford to carry a moderate burden
of defects if they are associated with numerous qualities of great
value.
Even if reproduction is undesirable, it is not always necessary
48




CELIBACY AND THE ASCETIC IDEAL


49


that persons of this class remain celibate. They might in many
instances mate with others like themselves, after sterilization, and
enjoy a normal married life except for parenthood. This would
increase their personal happiness and would thereby benefit the
race, which is always benefited by an increase in the happiness of
its members.
3. The third type of celibacy is that which is based on the ascetic
ideal, assuming that a life without sex is "higher" and more spiritual
than one in which all the instincts find normal satisfaction. Such
a point of view is directly or indirectly an outgrowth of religious
ideas, and has been found in many different religions, in many
different countries and ages. It was foreshadowed among the
ancient Hebrews, and at the time of Jesus it was a tenet of a
prominent sect called the Essenes. Jesus, who speaks of marriage
as an ordinance of God (Matt. 19:4) may have had the Essenes
in mind when he remarked that some men remain unmarried for
the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul, in the seventh chapter
of his first epistle to the Corinthians, took the typical ascetic
stand, urging his readers to remain unmarried in order that they
might devote all their energy to the service of God; but adding that
if any were weak, they should marry rather than do something
worse.
Paul's authority, together with the influence of ideas from various
oriental cults, and of reaction against sensuous elements of GrecoRoman culture, eventually carried the day, in spite of the opposition of some early leaders, and ascetic celibacy became regarded
as the highest type of life, especially desirable for priests; although
it was not the law of the church until three or four centuries after
Christ, and the law was not enforced strictly until about 1,000 A.D.
What was legally necessary for religious devotees was naturally
supposed to be desirable for others who devoted themselves to
human welfare; so celibacy was either required or advised for
teachers, lawyers, and members of many other professions, during
the middle ages and later; indeed, remnants of this point of view
can be seen up to the present, as for example, in the idea that certain teachers in universities should be bachelors.




50


50       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


One can easily imagine the tremendous eugenic loss to the race,
from a system which led many of the well-educated and intelligent
people of the community, the natural leaders, to leave no offspring.
Their talents were buried with them in the grave.
While asceticism is probably superstitious in origin, all sorts of
attempts have of course been made to rationalize it and find a supposed justification. The name refers it to the course of training of
Greek athletes (askesis = exercise), among whom (as with modern
ones) it was the custom to abstain from sexual intercourse for some
time before entering a contest. This seems plausible enough,
for such intercourse involves the expenditure of energy, and one
would not expend it in this way, any more than by running up. 10
flights of stairs, just before going into the arena. Nevertheless,
it is by no means certain that this is the real origin of the custom,
for the same continence was required before many other ceremonies
not of an athletic character. The true explanation (or part of it)
is perhaps the feeling of primitive people that continence, like other
sacrifices, is pleasing to the gods.
Even if one accepts the customary explanation of Greek ciskesis,
yet to push the argument farther and say that, in order to keep his
time, thought, and vigor for other work, one should refrain from
sexual intercourse throughout life, is no more logical than to
say that a pedestrian, in order to get all his energy into his legs,
should carry both arms in plaster casts until death. It overlooks
the fact that the best development of any part or function of the
body is promoted by the harmonious development of the whole.
Paul himself, in one of his favorite analogies, likening the Church
to the members of a body (Romans 12, 1 Cor. 12) came much nearer
to sound biology, and if he had applied the same reasoning to
marriage, the Christian Church would have been spared what is,
from a biological point of view, one of the greatest blots on its
record.
Without going more fully into the origin of the ascetic ideal
(which iis studied at length in standard works on theology, ethics,
and morals, as well as in special histories like that of H. C. Lea),
one may easily discern the element of truth in this (as in most




CELIBACY AND THE ASCETIC IDEAL


51


errors), which led Paul astray.' From the narrowest point of
view, it is true that a married man, charged with the care of a
family, can not devote as much time and energy to public service
as can a single man. But the narrowest point of view does not
extend far, and when the question is examined more carefully,
the conclusion may be reversed. Grant that the married man can
not devote all his energy to the worship of God: but can the
single man, either? The latter is too often the victim of inner
conflicts, due to an attempt to suppress one of the most important
functions of his body-conflicts that not only use up part of his
energy, leaving him inferior in this respect to the happily married,
but may in extreme instances deprive him of all energy whatever.
There have been many more Saint Anthonies than history records.
In other cases the celibate tries, vainly, to avoid conflict by lapsing into pseudo-celibacy. Only the most unsophisticated would
assume that such a life is, on the average, less distracting than
normal family life.
Finally, and most important of all in some respects, the celibate
continually tends toward being self-centered. He is essentially
"a narrow, frequently a warped, individual, ignorant, not only of
half of humanity, but of himself," and it is difficult for him to gain
the poise, the altruism, the well-rounded outlook of the successful
father of a family. He lacks that prolongation and enrichment of
the individual life that a family offers.
It appears, then, that the attempt to divert all mental and bodily
energy for a long time into one channel is, as might have been
expected, largely illusory, and defeats itself.
It is sometimes said that, whatever damage celibacy may have
done to the race, it has at least been profitable to the Roman
Catholic church, by giving it a body of workers without any other
ties than those of their creed and hierarchy. Without entering
into doctrinal controversy, it would perhaps be fair to compare
1 It is supposed that Paul looked for the second coming of Christ within a
few years. If one expected the end of the world shortly, one might be pardoned
for thinking it important to devote every energy to God's work, regardless of
human affairs such as marriage.




52


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


100 Roman Catholic priests or nuns in any age or all ages, with 100
married protestant clergymen or women who devoted themselves
to social work. The selection could be made in each case either
at random, or by picking out the hundred greatest. An impartial
consideration would hardly show that the celibate surpassed the
married.
Moreover, it is only fair to charge against celibacy part of the
breakdown in the system. The licentiousness of the clergy--
not an unnatural result from the unnatural standards required of
them-was one of the causes of the Reformation, which gave the
death blow to Rome's dream of universality and world dominion.
In addition, when it began, the ranks of the Church's ablest supporters had been decimated by a thousand years of celibacy: It
might have been better off with a married clergy. And at the
present time, it is destroying in each generation some of the good
strains in its own ranks, through celibacy, while its rivals are
perpetuating theirs. The Roman Catholic church itself may,
therefore, some day realize, as other churches have, that the maintenance of compulsory celibacy among its workers is not an asset.
A proverb has it that "He travels fastest who travels alone."
But he rarely travels farthest; he rarely gets as much enjoyment
from his travels as does one who has company; and in case of
accident his travels will be brought to a sudden end, while the
traveler with companions will be given care and can in due time
proceed to his destination. Life is not a sprint, but a long distance
contest. In spite of some conspicuous exceptions, an unprejudiced
observer will see that in the long run and on the average most of the
good work in the world is done by normal people leading normal
lives in the midst of happy families; and that most of the trouble
in the world is made by abnormal people unhappily married or not
married at all.
If these premises are well founded, it is incorrect to assume that
a superior man or woman is likely to benefit the world more by
remaining single and devoting his whole energy to his work.
But the argument may be carried still farther than this, to
maintain that even if a man could accomplish more in his profession




CELIBACY AND THE ASCETIC IDEAL


53


through celibacy, he would nevertheless, no matter how philanthropic his work, yet benefit the world most by marrying and
having children, at the loss of some of his efficiency on the job.
Looking over the world philosophically, one canot help seeing that
it needs just now not so much an increase in material achievement
as in good citizens. The conflicts and maladjustments of society
are, in the last analysis, due to the fact that man has still the
original nature that he had a thousand generations ago, but has
altered his surroundings so greatly that he and his nature do not
fit together. More progress would be made in the long run if
there were a let-up for a few generations or a few centuries in the
improvements of "civilizations" (which improvements are used
by the existing population largely to oppress or kill each other),
while attention was centered on improving the quality of the race
through the production of more capable people and a reduction
in the proportion of defectives and degenerates. Anyone who
contemplates a life of celibacy with the idea that he can thereby
most benefit the race, should consider carefully the possibilities in
this direction, avoiding egotism and bearing in mind that, if he
really has a talent, the best thing he can do is to keep it in circulation. Ordinarily, it is better for a man to pass his talent on to four
or five children, by whom it may be multiplied indefinitely even
if he does not use it at all himself, than it is for him to develop it
to the full and let it die with him.
Moreover, he should remember that no matter how absorbing
his career may be at the outset, it may look much less absorbing
in his declining years, when the enthusiasm of his comrades has
died with them, and when he surveys the universe, disillusioned
and alone. There is a saying to the effect that family life is a
luxury in youth, a convenience in middle life, and a necessity in old
age; and like many such sayings, it contains a germ of truth that is
worth noting.
Finally, the celibate must recall that he is deliberately choosing
to let the torch go out, that has been handed on to him from the
very beginning of life in the universe. In each generation it has
found a tender. Had there been one break in the almost infinite




54


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


line, he himself would not be here today. Every one of his myriad
of ancestors answered up to the responsibility placed on him.
Is he to be the first to refuse the chance of terrestrial immortality
that is offered to him? Is he alone to be found wanting?
Of course, no two cases are just alike. Each man must decide
for himself. There may be instances where celibacy is desirable.
But it can not be maintained as a general rule that celibacy is
desirable in order to let people benefit the world by their endeavors.
What has been said of the demerits of celibacy applies, by and
large, to women as well as men; but with greater force, for biologically both marriage and parenthood play a larger part in the normal
life of women than of men.
If, in spite of all this, one is obliged-because of ill health, for
example-to choose a celibate life, he should look the facts squarely
in the face and make the best of his situation. Deprived of the
normal outlet for a part of his energy, he should seek the outlet
nearest the normal one. Women commonly find comfort in
teaching, nursing, or caring for the children of others. The nun
regards herself as the bride of Christ, and to make the symbolism
more satisfying she is garbed in a white wedding dress and formally
united with him in a marriage ceremony at the altar, before she
takes the veil.
Unless an adequate outlet is found for the energy which is denied
its normal outlet in marriage and parenthood, that energy is certain
to make trouble inwardly. The celibate man too often becomes
a contemptible old granny, thinking only of himself, a masturbator
and woman-hater. The celibate woman too often develops into
a typical "old maid," lavishing her affections on a cat or dog, and
filled with a deep and imaginary sense of the wrongs which her
sex suffers in a man-made world.
Throughout the foregoing discussion, my definition of celibacy
must be borne in mind, as a deliberate and permanent renunciation
of sex in life. It is entirely different from either continence or
chastity, both of which will be dealt with in the following section.
It does not include the transitory kind of asceticism that sometimes follows satiety, when "the devil a monk would be." Tempo



CELIBACY AND THE ASCETIC IDEAL                 55
rary abstinence is a necessary and desirable thing on many occasions, for various reasons, but these reasons are not any of those
which lead one permanently to renounce the world, the flesh, and
the devil in favor of a celibate life.
Biologically, there is no superior virtue whatever in ascetic
celibacy. For the defective man or woman it is just the thing.
For the able and normal it means loss and damage both to the
one who practices it, and to the race.




If. PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE


Sexual intercourse, more or less promiscuous, before marriage,
interferes with the family by making young people:
1. Less likely to marry. Roswell Hill Johnson (1917) has analyzed this situation. While it is true that some individuals of
feeble sexuality might by experience become so awakened as to
be less satisfied with a continent life, and might thus in some cases
be led to marriage, this is more than counterbalanced by the
following considerations.
a. The mere consciousness of loss of virginity has led in some
sensitive persons, especially women, to a feeling of inferiority and
an unwillingness to marry because of supposed unworthiness.
b. The loss of reputation has prevented marriage with the
desired mate. This is not at all uncommon.
c. Infection with syphilis or gonorrhea has forced abandonment
of marriage. This is especially common.
d. Illicit experiences may have been so disappointing or disgusting, owing to the character of the consort, that an attitude of
pessimism and hatred of the opposite sex is built up. Such an
attitude prevents marriage not only directly, but indirectly, since
persons with such an outlook are thereby less attractive to the
opposite sex.
e. A taste for sexual variety is built up so that the individual
is unwilling to commit himself to a restriction of that variety.
f. Occasionally, threat or blackmail by a jilted paramour prevents marriage.
For these and similar reasons, experience of sexual intercourse
in illegitimate ways tends to keep a certain number of people from
marrying.
2. But of those who do go ahead and marry, a large part if not
all have been rendered less fit to marry than they would otherwise
have been, for such reasons as:
56




PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE


57


a. Infection with a venereal disease, which is not only damaging
to health, expensive to cure, and the cause of loss of efficiency, but
is all too likely to flare up again and infect wife and children.
b. Financially, a young man in particular is likely to be impaired, for patronage of prostitution is frequently an expensive
indulgence in every way.
c. Mentally the incontinent of both sexes are almost certain to
undergo deterioration, particularly in respect to their standards
of mate selection. The more flashy and physical qualities come
to be too highly valued, to the subordination of the more substantial and eugenic qualities that are of much greater importance
in the long run.
3. Finally, if they do marry, those who have had previous sexual
experience are less likely to be able to succeed in marriage. Premarital intercourse almost always represents a purely selfish seeking
for excitement and gratification, and the man or woman who goes
into marriage with this point of view is severely handicapped from
the start.
The man who has been a patron of prostitutes with the idea of
proving his fitness for marriage and getting a sexual education is
particularly deluded. He succeeds in neither aim.
In the first place, he does not in any way prove his fitness for
marriage by patronizing a prostitute. It has often happened that
a man under such circumstances experienced such feelings of
disgust or aversion that he was entirely impotent, and therefore
thought himself defective, whereas in normal marriage he would
be wholly normal. On the other hand, success in intercourse
with a prostitute, who practices all the tricks of her trade, is no
qualification for love of a wife.
In the second place, the attempt to make up a sex-life of fragmentary episodes, in which he is thinking only of his own sensations-and this is what the patronage of prostitution amounts tois, psychologically, little more than a form of masturbation. It is
the worst possible kind of preparation for married life. Probably
the most perfect relationship, both physical and mental, can never
exist between married people, if either one of them has had previous




58


58       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


sexual experience. This fact, which is widely ignored, deserves
the strongest emphasis. The ability to form the deepest and
finest bond with one of the opposite sex is a highly specialized and
delicate ability. It is easily destroyed. Once lost, it can not be
regained.
Often the man who has had previous experience does not dare
to tell his bride. He denies it, and throughout the rest of his
married life is constantly in fear of exposure, and continually feels
that he is a liar and cheat. The same situation holds good for the
woman who has been incontinent, and deceives her husband on
that point. Mental states thus produced are constant sources of
internal friction.
While premarital incontinence thus tends to make people less
likely to marry, less fit to marry, and less able to find happiness
in marriage, it is true, as Professor Johnson pointed out, that men
and women who are incontinent before marriage are probably,
on the average, eugenically inferior to those who conform to the
standards of the race. Therefore their failure to marry, their
sterility from venereal diseases, and the like, are to a certain extent
of value to the race in preventing this type from multiplying. But
this is a crude and costly way of getting racial progress, and although it may have been of immense advantage in the past, it
must now be supplanted by more discriminating and efficient
methods of eugenics.
So much for the direct influence of premarital incontinence on
matrimony. But there are effects on the individual which are
perhaps quite as serious as any that have been mentioned, and
which also have an important indirect influence on the home.
1. It tends to deteriorate character by weakening or destroying
such important traits as altruistic disinterestedness, the sense of
responsibility, and the habit of self-control. Few will question
that these are necessary to the individual or the race. Few persons of experience will question that they suffer under a regime
of promiscuity or anything -resembling that. Every "man of the
world" knows that repeated yielding to sexual impulses soon
allows them to reach a position of domineering over his life. Nor



PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE


59


mally, this difficulty is corrected by the acceptance of responsibilities for a wife and children. Sexual impulses, instead of ruling the
individual for his own selfish gratification regardless of consequences, are then tied up to the whole of life and made useful.
These feelings of altruism and parental responsibility have undoubtedly been increased by natural selection. Those who had
them left offspring to inherit them; those who lacked them left
fewer or no offspring, because of the customs that discouraged
parentage outside of marriage. But if promiscuity should become general, the way would be open for these necessary qualities
gradually to disappear.
Both for the individual and for the race, therefore, it is desirable
that the unselfish responsibility which goes with marriage and
parenthood should be maintained, and not give place to the selfish
irresponsibility which goes with promiscuity or free love.
2. Whatever is true of men in this respect is doubly true of
women. The sexual problems of the latter are relatively simple
until they have been "awakened." As is well known, the sexual
impulses are diffused in them; while no less strong than in man,
they are not focused at one point, and are not so easily aroused
from the physical side. After initiation, however, woman faces
the same problems as man, perhaps in an even more extreme degree.
Not only is she then the victim of her own imperious nature, but
she is also exposed to be the prey of every male of a certain type
who encounters her. It is a matter of popular and age-long
experience that women suffer more from irregular sexual relations
than do men. But a man can not be incontinent unless some
woman is also incontinent. This means either the maintenance
of a class of professional prostitutes, which is objectionable for
reasons too well known to be rehearsed here, or else the continual
seduction of women who have had no previous sexual experience.
The latter are then put in the position above sketched. For the
purpose of the argument of this paragraph, it is not even necessary
to assume that there is anything "sinful" about promiscuity. It
is a mere biological fact that it leads to serious psychological
consequences for the woman who enters upon it. The man, there



60


60       TIHE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


fore, who adheres to the familiar code of male ethics: "Co as far
as the girl will let you," is either grossly ignorant of the feminine
constitution, or else is assuming a very serious responsibility in
starting a woman on a path from which, once begun, she can too
often draw back only with great difficulty and torment.
There are of course no statistics as to the proportion of young
people who remain continent before marriage. In parts of Europe,
it is said to be unusual for any man to enter marriage without having had previous sexual experience of one kind or another. The
same is true of parts of Latin America. In the United States it
has sometimes been said that three-fifths of the young men have
been incontinent. This is probably too high an estimate at present.
M. W. Peck and F. L. Wells' found, among college graduate men
whom they examined, that less than two-fif ths had had experience
of sexual intercourse before marriage; and in the majority of these
cases only once or at least very infrequently. In replies got by
Paul S. Achilles from 316 New York high school students (male;
average age 1.7 years), 7 percent of them claimed to have had
experience of sexual intercourse. In similar replies obtained from
40 male and 31 female extension students at Columbia University
(average ages 22 and 21 respectively), 50 percent of the men and
22 percent of the women said that they had had sexual experience.
It is not stated whether some of these were married people or not.
Whatever the figures may be, any man of experience knows that
in most cases they represent a small proportion of hardened rounders, and a large proportion of men who have lapsed only a f ew times,
perhaps only once, from the standards they hold. Moreover,
with the increase of sound ideas of mating and reproduction, and
with the growing repression of commercialized prostitution, it is
1 Among the incontinent college graduates whom they studied, Dr. Peck and
Dr. Wells found that a distinct majority reported having had no dealings with
prostitutes. They consider that in the occasional incontinence of these men
(of whom 11 out of 12 took the first step before the age of 21), "probably a
leading factor is response to the invitation of more mature women," and that
the supposed urge of passion has played no part: "A normal, coercive, organic
'hunger,' appeasable through organic contacts as such, seems out of the question."




PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE


61


well-nigh certain that the proportion of men who remain continent
until marriage is growing larger each year in many strata of society.
It is even more difficult to arrive at any conclusion regarding
continence among women. Opinions tend to range themselves
into two groups-that of the unsophisticated who assume that
all women are "virtuous" except a few sinners, and that of the
cynical who assume that there is as much incontinence among
women as among men. The truth lies somewhere between these
extremes. Aside from the study of Dr. Achilles, mentioned
above, the only one known to me is that of Katherine Bement
Davis, who questioned 1,000 married women, college graduates or
of similar educational status. Seventy-one, answering anonymously under conditions of complete secrecy, admitted having had
sexual intercourse prior to marriage, but in 35 of these cases it was
only with the man whom they afterward married. Excluding the
latter leaves only about three in a hundred who were incontinent.
Regardless of the exact figures, there is unquestionably a great
difference between those for men and those for women. This
reflects the double standard of morality, the effect of which was
to wink at, or even approve, premarital experience on the part
of men, but to punish severely a woman who followed the same
course.
Such a standard was partly based on the biological fact that a
woman may become pregnant by sexual intercourse, a man not;
and on the social fact that men wished to keep the lines of inheritance free from all contamination, because they were responsible
for the maintenance of the offspring of their wives, and did not wish
to pay the cost of bringing up some other man's child. The socalled sex necessity of the male, which was often urged to justify
this double standard, was of course purely fictitious; though it is
true that man's sex urge before marriage is more physical, woman's
more psychical.
In a sense, the double standard worked both ways-a fact often
ignored. While actual sexual intercourse on the part of the man
was regarded more lightly than in the case of the woman (for the
reasons named in the preceding paragraph, and others), the man




62


62       TIL.E CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


who "trifled" with a woman's serious affections was reprobated
much more severely than was a woman in the reverse case. The
lover who jilted his betrothed was looked upon as a scoundrel;
he was open to physical punishment from her male relatives, if
they were big enough to administer it, and to damages in a "breach
of promise" suit, when the ex-betrothed, if a good actress, could
easily persuade a jury to convey a substantial part of his fortune
to her. On the other hand, a woman might and of ten did jilt a
succession of men, and was merely thought rather smart.
This reciprocal phase of the double standard was presumably
based on the idea that marriage was a more serious thing for a
woman than for a man. But it has no more merit than has the
commonly discussed phase, and is equally due to become obsolete.
When one turns to analyze more fully the causes of the existence
of premarital incontinence in American society, they are found
to be greatly confused and complicated, but it will not be difficult to
distangle a few of the important ones, which will be mentioned without regard to the order of their importance.
1. Commercialized prostitution, the profits of which depend on
a continuous supply of new customers, has been responsible for the
beginning of most premarital incontinence in men. So much nonsense has been written about the imperiousness of man's passion,
which drove him to incontinence, that it is forgotten that probably
not one man in a hundred has ever been driven to the first step
by the imperiousness of this passion. The first offense commonly
is induced by the gang spirit, the desire to be thought a man, the
desire for adventure, the satisfaction of curiosity, seduction by an
older woman'-these factors ranking in importance more or less
in the order named. To these must be added innumerable cases
where an ignorant father has given money to his adolescent son
and advised him to go to a house of prostitution for the assumed
benefit of his health.
Most men will, I believe, recognize the truthfulness of this
analysis. It will be seen that there is no place in it f or the imperiousness of passion, but that the main influence is commercially
exploited and advertised prostitution, particularly in a red light




PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE


63


district. The abolition of such segregated areas, and the steady
progress toward the suppression of all commercialized prostitution,
result in the elimination of nearly all these factors which led to the
first step. Most of all in this matter, it is the first step that costs
-too often it leads to others, while, if it is never taken, the young
man finds no great difficulty in remaining continent until marriage.
2. Delayed marriage, if accompanied by overstimulation of the
sexual dispositions, is a fundamental cause of premarital incontinence. In a sense, it covers nearly everything else, for if people
married at the age of puberty, (as lower animals do), there would
be little or no occasion for premarital incontinence.
The result of evolution, however, which has given man greatly
increased mental powers, has been to lengthen the period of mental
preparation, and of physical development as well. Delay in entering actively on the sexual life is one of the adaptations that has had
to go along with this evolution. It is important from a racial,
as well as from a personal, point of view, that sex should not enter
to play a distracting role in the life of youth until mental development is nearly completed. This is one of the reasons why sexual
activity is not desirable for some years after puberty, although the
reproductive organs are ready, in the narrowest sense, for use at
that time, The sexual impulses are so much stronger than many
others that, if overstimulated and turned loose at this period,
they will hold the floor to the exclusion of all rivals. The intellectual life of a whole nation may suffer if sexual activity is the rule
among its young people. Competent observers generally agree
that the Latin American countries, among others, are handicapped
by precisely this condition.
Delay in marriage, while an evil in all circumstances, is a much
less serious evil if it is not accompanied by overstimulation of the
baulked sexual dispositions. But in modern civilization such overstimulation is difficult to avoid, the whole tone of the daily press,
the stage, motion pictures, and fiction being one of eroticism, while
the failure to develop other interests and to furnish young people
with any other emotional outlet leaves them helpless. The way
out of this situation will be discussed in Part III.




64


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


3. The third cause which may be mentioned as contributing to
premarital intercourse is faulty education-using the term in a
very broad sense, to cover lack of a biological point of view, misunderstanding of the psychology of marriage, and faulty training
in self-control.
The last-mentioned requirement depends on parents, as it depends on education beginning in earliest infancy and continuing
'through life.2 But anyone who takes the trouble to do so can inform himself about the biological aspects of the problem.
In spite of this, it is sometimes asserted that premarital continence is a mere Puritan dogma, that it is contrary to the facts and
implications of science, and that it must be discarded. Those who
hold this idea (which is most often, no doubt, merely a rationalization of their own overstimulated sexual impulses) usually take their
stand on a half-digested reading at third hand of doctrines to which
the Jewish neurologist, Sigmund Freud, has given currency.
Their argument, in brief, is that the desire for sexual intercourse
is "natural" and strong, that any thwarting of a strong natural
desire is harmful to the individual, and that the sexual impulse
must therefore be "expressed"-if finances or any other reason
cause a delay in marriage, so much the worse for marriage. Young
people must look after themselves; "we'll be young only once."
Those who hold any such idea as the foregoing have overlooked
some essential facts, which J. A. Hadfield summarizes effectively.
If one is going to do the "natural" thing, he must do the whole
of it. He can not pick and choose, taking what part of "Nature"
he wants and throwing aside all the rest. Sexual intercourse is
natural, but monogamy is no less natural. The parental instinct
2 Some educators make a great mistake by representing to young men that
they have a desperate and terrible struggle ahead of them in order to "subjugate their passions." Such an attitude makes many men think success is
unattainable. Worse, it is incorrect. The average young man who avoids
overstimulation will not find that continence makes any overwhelming demand
on his self-mastery. The college students interviewed by Dr. Peck and Dr.
Wells agreed that "spooning," the reading of problem novels, and the viewing
of problem plays, increased their difficulties; and that physical and mental
activity were the greatest aids to self-control.




PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE


65


and the herd instinct are just as much a part of one's nature as
is the mating instinct. If one is going with Nature, he must go
the whole way, and that means to go to monogamy, which is the
final (up to the present, that is) development of evolution, supplanting the mere random and uncontrolled impulse to mate of
which promiscuity is the present expression, and which has not,
so far as the evidence indicates, been the normal condition of mankind or any of its ancestors for several million years.
Libertinism does not satisfy other fundamental instincts of
mankind, but antagonizes them. Moreover, it does not satisfy
more than a part-and that the smallest part-of the individual's
own sexual craving, for it ordinarily gratifies only the physical
aspect of this craving. But Dr. Freud himself has insisted that
the instinct3 for sexual intercourse has both physical and mental
components, and that it is the latter, not the former, which is most
often repressed. He points out what every experienced person
knows, that for complete satisfaction there must be perfect mental
as well as physical unity between the mates, and that gratification
of the physical component without mental harmony at the same
time is certain to result in still further damage to the personality,
by the accumulation of psychic tension.
It must be clear to anyone that, under modern social conditions,
this complete mental and physical fusion can exist only in legal
marriage; for outside of marriage it is known by both parties to be
illicit and reprobated by conventional society. The individual
who attempts to get rid of inner conflicts by sexual license therefore
not only fails to do this, but gets into more conflicts than he faced
before.
But, the "emancipated" man or woman replies, why worry about
what Mrs. Grundy thinks? Ignore the conventions of society,
live above them, and there will be no conflict.
This is easier said than done, for few persons indeed have been
brought up in such an atmosphere that the conventions and tabus
3 In this section I am using the term "instinct" in its popular sense. Whatever opinion one may hold as to the ultimate nature and units of instinctive
action, the effect is the same, for the present purpose.




66


66       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


of society have played no part in their lives even in infancy.
Everyone feels the impalpable pressure of unseen social conventions, whether he is aware of it or not, and the attempt to live
" above" them is pretty certain to end in disaster, sooner or later.
For confirmation of this, one need only turn to the evidence,
In the early days of psychoanalysis, some analysts who had patients
suffering from baulked sexual dispositions did advise intercourse
as a relief. They testify that the prescription not only failed to
cure, but often made matters worse than before, for the mere
expression in conduct of an instinctive tendency does not mean that
it is liberated psychologically from the complex that has given the
trouble, or that the patient is free from his conflict.
To put the matter more simply, mental and nervous disturbances
due to lack of a normal sexual life can not be cured by mere physical
intercourse, for they are due primarily to mental, not physical,
factors (otherwise masturbation would be sufficient for a cure);
and these mental factors are not eliminated, but rather aggravated,
by mere physical satisfaction of the sexual instincts. In the
development of the personality, coitus is constructive if in its
proper place, destructive otherwise.
From this brief excursion over the well-trodden paths of Freudian
psychology, it will perhaps be evident that any attempt to justify
premarital incontinence through it is hopeless. It is of no use to
shut one's eyes to the customs and institutions of society: they
exist because there is a reason for their existence; and so far as
monogamy is concerned, it was pointed out in Part I that it exists
because it satisfies fundamental needs of the race. The monogamous family is an adaptation, favored by natural selection, to
ensure better progress of the group, better protection of infancy,
and greater individual happiness. It is therefore the scientifically
correct and up-to-date thing, and libertines who exploit their own
inclinations under the guise of Progress are merely arguing their
own ignorance and adding to their own mental confusion.
Far from making for progress in society, a general attempt to
release the sexual instincts from social restraint would make society
impossible, just as would a general attempt to release any other




PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE


67


strong instinct from social restraint. If it is proper for people to
have sexual intercourse outside of marriage because they have a
strong impulse in that direction, why is it not equally proper to
satisfy all other strong impulses as they arise?  Most men have
felt the impulse to kill an opponent in a quarrel-why not obey it?
Why not praise the soldier for desertion on the firing line, the thief
for walking off with one's pocket book?    He has had a baulked
disposition, and could not be expected to suffer by repressing it,
thereby becoming the victim of an inner conflict. I have suggested
this line of thought in Part I, but it is so pertinent that it is worth
mentioning here again, for it contains the key to many problems
of the conservation of the family.
From every scientific point of view, the case is clear. The men
and women who live promiscuously before marriage are not living
"according to nature." They have simply failed to keep up with
nature-they are at least some millions of years behind the times.
Premarital incontinence is damaging alike to the individual and
to the race. It makes people not more fit but less fit for marriage,
if it does not prevent their marriage altogether. While it has had
a eugenic value in sterilizing the inferior, it is time that this same
result be-got bJ more efficient and less costly ways. For the protection of men, women, and children, either singly or as a family,
every effort is therefore justified that will tend to reduce the
amount of premarital incontinence.




III. DELAYED MARRIAGE


The. average age of first marriage of the white population of the
United States is about 27 years for men and 24 for women.
Biologically, marriage several years earlier than this would be
advantageous, yet this is not a bad age, if it were the rule and not
merely an average. The fact that it is an average, however, means
that there are as many who marry above that age as below it.
If there is any difference in the inherent quality of the two groups,
there will be serious racial differences in the results.
It is notorious that there are differences. Negroes marry
younger than whites, for instance. Graduates of women's colleges,
instead of marrying at 24, marry several years later (and in a
large percentage of cases do not marry at all).
As these problems form a main topic of applied eugenics, with
which Roswell H. Johnson and I have dealt in another book;
and as apart from this the problems created by delayed marriage
enter into almost every page of the present book, they will not be
discussed at length in this section. The present summary statement is included merely for convenience.
The causes of delayed marriage are almost wholly social or
economic. They reflect the increased demands for higher education, the necessity for longer preparation before men are ready to
earn a living, the higher standards of living which make women
unwilling to marry a man who has a small salary, the increased
desire for freedom to pursue one's own inclinations, and so on.
The consequences include such serious matters as:
1. A tendency toward the increase of premarital incontinence.
2. A tendency toward the increase of pr'ostitution. The charge
has often been made that prostitution is supported not so much by
young, unmarried men as by older, married men. There is no
conclusive evidence on this point, and one must depend largely on
impressions. My own, based on a somewhat extended, first-hand
68




DELAYED MARRIAGE~6


69


observation of prostitution in civilian communities during the
war, is that unmarried 'men preponderate largely among the
patrons. I think this is becoming more true all the time, as prostitution is more closely repressed. It is continually more difficult
for a married man to frequent prostitutes without risk of detection,
and the consequences of detection are continually more serious,
as public opinion is aroused on this subject.
To the extent that married men are patrons of prostitution, the
cause is probably (a) that they became used to sexual variety in
the period before marriage, (b) that they do not understand or
are incapable of understanding real love, and (c) that their wives
do not enter normally into the physical side of the marriage relation. Wrong education and delayed marriage are largely responsible in each case.                         1
3. Increase of venereal diseases, growing out of the two factors
previously enumerated.
4. Fewer children, because (a) people who marry late have a
shorter period left when they are capable of having children, (b)
they lose inclination for children, and (c) sterility is more likely
to have set in.
5. Neuroses and other mental disturbances, due to a strain or a
supposed strain on the emotions, resulting from continence accompanied by overstimulation, or from illegitimate incontinence, or
from deprivation of children.
6. Sterility. Apart from such obvious causes as gonorrhea,
delay in childbearing frequently leads to barrenness. Some of
the causes of this are well-known, some are obscure. But the
fact is clear. just as nothing succeeds like success, so nothing
promotes fertility like bearing a child or two.
7. Unhappy marriages, due to all the foregoing causes together
with the fact that older men and women are set in their ways and
do not adjust themselves to marriage so easily.
To these conditions, and many others that will occur to the
reader, must be added the special penalties which the woman
suffers, in more painful or dangerous childbirth and greater infant
m6rtality, as well as 'Ovarian diseases.




70


70       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


Many of the changes necessary to bring about earlier marriage
in the part of the population where 'it is most needed are discussed
in Part III. Perhaps the most hopeful change, in this connection,
is that which is now slowly occurring in the educational world,
where an attempt is being made to increase the flexibility of the
system so that superior students can get through more rapidly,
without having to drag along in lockstep with the mediocre and the
dullards. If the efforts in this direction are pushed to their logical
conclusion, there seems to be no reason why a young person of
superior ability should not shorten the present period of preparation
for life by from three to five years. This would mean the possibility, in favorable cases, of marriage just that much sooner than at
present. From the standpoint of eugenics, then, as well as from
others, the development of the school system in this direction is
to be welcomed enthusiastically.
Some changes of public sentiment are desirable, so that young
people will not feel it necessary, at the beginning of their married
life, to live on the same scale that their parents have attained after
a quarter of a century of effort. Many a young couple wants to
marry, and could marry and live in comfort, but postpones marriage
from a feeling that it would require too great a sacrifice of its artificial and ill-chosen standards.
On the other hand, many a father could easily aid his son to get
a start in life, but does not do so. Sometimes the son refuses aid,
having a false feeling of pride about "standing on his own feet."
If the son also refused a legacy at his father's death, his feeling of
pride would be consistent; but this has rarely been known to occur.
A wise father will remember that his wealth is going to his children
eventually, and will not hesitate to let them use a little more of it
in his own life-time, if such use will mean earlier and happier
marriage for them.
If such a practice were so universal as to have the compulsion of
custom, it might work unfavorably, for parents would then be
tempted to limit the number of their children to those whom they
could supply with ample marriage portions. Something of this
sort seems to occur in parts of Europe where every daughter must




DELAYED MARRIAGE


71


be provided with a dowry. But so long as the practice is voluntary
and applies only to those parents who have a surplus, there seems
to be no reason against it,
In the interests of eugenics, the business world might well take a
firm stand against the practice of paying young men in certain professions only a nominal wage at first. A young lawyer, for instance,
may get his B.A. at a college of liberal arts, follow this with a fouryear course in law, and emerge at the age of 26 or 28, when he should
be already married. He enters some firm with a high reputation,
and is compelled to work for several years for $10 or $15 a week, on
the supposition that the mere honor of working for such a famous
partnership is compensation enough. The same attitude prevails
in some of the more respectable banks, and many other businesses;
while every young physician expects to serve as hospital interne for
a year or two, for nothing more than his board and clothes. Colleges not only offer many fellowships that carry pay inadequate for
a married man, but in some cases even make celibacy a requirement
for the tenure of these positions. If the industrial world can consider the justice of a minimum wage for the unskilled, it would
seem reasonable to ask that young men of the type under consideration here-men from good families and endowed with superior
ability-be recognized as worth at least a living wage, and be no
longer required to postpone marriage in order to work for mere
honor.




IV. BROKEN HOMES


The break-up of homes is generally supposed to be more frequent
each year. There is no way of getting at the actual number, for
they include many different types, and in some instances the fact
that the home is virtually broken is known only to the intimates
of those concerned. Broken homes may for the present purpose
be roughly classified as follows:
1. Internally broken, but outwardly intact.
2. Outwardly as well as inwardly broken, by
a. Abandonment, desertion, or non-support;
b. Separation mutually agreed upon;
c. Divorce.
In a sense, a home is also broken by the death of husband or
wife; but as other members of the family usually rise to the occasion
and preserve many of the features of home life, this case will not
be discussed in the present section.
Divorce is often thought of as constituting the real problem of
broken homes, but this is an error, for it is not the decree of a
court that breaks a home: it is the internal conditions. Divorce,
therefore, is merely one evidence of the existence of broken homes.
Any honest attempt to deal with divorce or any of the other special
problems involved must begin at the beginning and inquire what
breaks homes, rather than spend time arguing about how, when a
home has once been broken irremediably, the fact can best be
registered in legal form.
Taking divorce records, however, as the only authentic data on
the number of broken homes, it is known-that they have been
increasing rapidly in the United States-doubling and quadrupling
with the decades until there is now a divorce recorded for every
seven marriages-a rate higher than that of any foreign country
72




BROKEN HOMES


73


and twice as high as most. To cite only some recent years, the
figures are:
YEAR                 MARRIAGES              DIVORCES
1916                1,040,684               112,036
1922                1,126,418               148,554
1923                1,223,825               165,139
It will be seen that divorces are still increasing in number more
rapidly than marriages. Thus while marriages increased in 1923
over 1922 by 8.4 percent, divorces increased by 11 percent. In
some states and cities, there is now a divorce for every three, or
even every two, marriages.1
The problem of broken homes has, as was intimated above, been
much obscured by the fact that it was popularly assumed to bq
equivalent to the problem of divorce, that it was treated almost
wholly from the legal and economic sides, and that the atmosphere
was clouded by lawyers' technicalities and quibbles over nonsupport, restitution of conjugal rights, forgiveness and resumption
of cohabitation, separation from bed and board, interlocutory decrees, alimony, and so on. These matters are biologically immaterial, and the present treatment will largely ignore them, endeavoring to get down to the biological conditions underlying the
1 This form of comparison, which is made by the Census Bureau and widely
circulated, is not statistically justifiable. Since a divorce usually follows only
after some years of marriage, the number should not be contrasted with the
number of marriages in the same year, but with the number of marriages that
occurred say five years previously. Moreover, some marriages are terminated
by death of one partner, before they have a chance to appear in the divorce
record. Both of these sources of error tend to make the divorce rate appear
even lower than it is, in comparison with the marriage rate. Again, in many
cities and states the number of marriages represents the resident population,
while the divorce records are filled with transients, who have come from other
states for the sole purpose of divorce. It would be impossible, with the imperfection of American vital statistics, to avoid all the fallacies, and the comparison
given above is therefore accepted, with this warning to the reader against taking
it at its face value.




74


74       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


break-up of homes. This is the more necessary because the reasons
set forth in pleas for divorce are almost never the true reasons.
Usually the separating partners lie fluently to suit their own purposes; often they themselves do not know what are the real, fundamental reasons that have caused their matrimonial bark to drift
on the rocks. It is high time, therefore, that the point of view
were changed for a while, and divorce studied from a different
angle.
In passing judgment on a marriage, the interests to be considered,
in order of importance, are: (1) the welfare of society or of' the
race, (2) of the children, (3) of husband and wife. The usual view
looks in a mirror instead of at the facts, putting the interests of
husband and wife paramount and light-heartedly assuming that if
their whims are sufficiently consulted, their children and the race
will profit accordingly. Reformers of the marriage institution
mostly emphasize this tendency, instead of breaking away from it,
and their writings are full of impassioned and often persuasive
pleas for the sacredness of personal freedom, the immorality of a
marriage in which love has died, and the shocking fate of children
compelled to live in an inharmonious household. While there is
some truth in all this, and the interests of the three are closely
interrelated, yet one must adopt a starting point.
Here is the fork of the road. It is necessary for each one to clear
his mind, before discussing broken homes, and to take his stand
either on the side of the egoists, to whom nothing looms so large
as their own pleasure, or on the side of those who believe that only
in a strong and progressive society in which children are given first
consideration, is the greatest and most lasting happiness of husband and wife, and the greatest welfare of all, to be found.
From the latter standpoint, which is here adopted, the common
plea that love is the only justification for marriage, and that when
it has ceased to exist, it is worse to compel people to live together
than to allow them to separate, requires careful analysis. In the
first place, "love" does not mean the same to any two persons.
The romantic and highly egoistic idea of love, which is reflected
in most present-day literature and art, is a relatively late develop



BROKEN HOMES


75


ment in civilization, being little heard of before the time of the
Crusades, when returning knights imported oriental habits of reflection and poetic analysis of love.2 Many of the people who sing of
2 The Arabian Nights furnish abundant illustrations of the oriental attitude
toward love. An earlier illustration, given by 'Ali ibn Husain al-Masidi
(died about 956 A.D.) in his Murfij al-Dhahab wa Ma'adin al-Jawahir (Meadows of Gold and Mines of Precious Stones) vi, 368ff, is derived from a gathering at the home of Yahya ibn Khalid al-Barmak, tutor of the Caliph Harfin
al-Rashid. This nobleman proposed to his guests that each should give a
summary definition of love.
'Ali ibn al-Haitham: "Love is the fruit of the conformity of species and the
index of the fusion of two souls. It emanates from divine beauty, from the
pure and subtle principle of substance. Its extent is unlimited; its development a cause of loss to the body."
Abo Malikan of Hadhramaut: "Love is a magic breath; it is more hidden
and more incandescent than a live coal in the ashes; it exists only by the union of
two souls and the mingling of two forms. It penetrates into and infuses itself
into the heart, as the moisture of a fog does into the pores of the earth. It
reigns over everything, conquers all intelligences, and commands all wills."
Muhammad ibn al-Hudhail: "Love places its seal on the eyes and its imprint
on the heart; it circulates through the body and penetrates to the depths of the
entrails. It throws thought into disorder and the intelligence into mobility;
with it nothing remains unaltered; no promise binds it; all misfortunes descend
on it. Love is a drop dipped from the ocean of death, a swallow taken from the
reservoirs of annihilation. But it draws its expansive force from nature itself
and from the beauty which resides in all created beings. The man who loves is
prodigal, deaf to the appeals of prudence, and insensible to reproaches."
Hisham ibn al-Hakim of Kifa: "Destiny has made of love a net, from which
can escape only hearts that are sincere in misfortune. When a lover falls into
its depths and is caught in its meshes, he can never emerge from it safe and sane,
nor can he avoid it by flight. Love is born of the beauty of the human figure
and of the affinity and sympathy between souls. With it death penetrates to
the entrails and to the depths of the heart; the most elegant tongue is frozen;
the king becomes a subject, the master becomes a slave and abases himself
before the lowest of his servitors."
Ibrahim ibn Yassar al-Naththam: "Love is more evasive than a mirage,
more rapid than wine circulating in the arteries. It is a delicate clay baked
in the oven of divine power. So long as it is restrained, its fruits are full of
flavor; but if it excedes its bounds it becomes a mortal madness, a malady
whose ravages are terrible and irremediable. Like a cloud, it dissolves in rain
on human hearts; there it causes trouble to germinate and brings grief to fruition.
The man conquered by love suffers without respite; he even heaves his bosom




76


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


it so enthusiastically are neurotics. On the other hand, many people
are quite incapable of such love, who are nevertheless capable of
happy marriage and the successful rearing of a family.
Examination will show that the romantic love on which the
advocates of divorce by mutual consent are wont to insist so fervently is essentially the love that is felt in youth-the mating love.
But it is absurd to suppose, as the reformers do, that this love can,
or should, exist unchanged throughout life. There must be an
evolution in the feeling of love, as in other things. In normal human beings the evolution is something like this:
1. The infant loves himself. He is concerned wholly with what
he can get out of the world, and seeks continually to gratify himself
by getting pleasurable sensations.
2. The child goes a step farther, and begins to love his parents
(especially the one of opposite sex); then others who are near to
him and from whom he benefits.
3. About the time of puberty, the affections are largely directed.
toward those of the same sex (i.e., homosexual). This is the age
when a boy is loyal to "the gang," while girls often have "crushes"
with schoolmates or teachers of the same sex.
4. After the age of puberty, the youth begins to take an interest
in the opposite sex outside the family circle. This period of "puppy
love" is sometimes painful to bystanders; but so are various other
manifestations of adolescence. The period is characterized by
normal and acute interest not in a single person of the opposite sex,
but in all, though preference is shown for various individuals at
various times. It is the age of the flapper, and of flirtation; it is
a preparation for marriage, in which, by the familiar process of trial
and error, the boy or girl is developing the emotional nature,
establishing ideals, and getting ready to mate. It is followed by
5. The period of mating, in which the affections are at last fixed
only with an effort. Paralysis menaces him: constantly plunged in melancholy
he passes his nights without sleep, his days without peace; grief makes him hungry but he is nourished only by his sighs."
And so on through a long line of other worthies. All this is quite in the
modern style, of which one will find very few examples in classical antiquity.




BROKEN HOMES


77


upon a single person, and marriage takes place. Life is now normally suffused with sexual feelings for some years, unless the edge
has been taken off this period by premarital incontinence, in which
case satiety may manifest itself rapidly. The saying of Alexander
Dumas, Jr., that within two weeks after marriage every man feels
he has made a mistake in marrying, is not true, but it has an element of truth in it in so far as premarital incontinence followed by
rapid satiety in marriage tends to produce a feeling of revulsion.
6. Within a few years, this phase of love is normally enlarged
by the arrival of children, and parental love becomes an important part of adult life, the love of the mate not occupying the
exclusive place that it did in the previous period. S. T. Coleridge
throws a sidelight on this in his Table Talk of September 27, 1830.
So-and-so, he remarks, "once said that he could make nothing of
love, except that it was friendship accidentally combined with
desire. Whence I conclude that he was never in love. For what
shall we say of the feelings which a man of sensibility has toward
his wife with her baby at her breast! How pure from sensual
desire! Yet how different from friendship!"
7. As the strength of all physical feelings wanes with advancing
age, this sort of love is again gradually broadened into a love for
all humanity, which finds its outlet in benevolence and philanthropy, and remains until the end of life, although there is a temporary flare-up of sexual interest at one period (in women, about the
menopause; in men, usually between 50 and 60), as if the organism,
realizing that it was rapidly reaching the point where its fundamental purpose of reproduction could no longer be fulfilled, wanted
to make the most of its few remaining opportunities. The soberest
men and women sometimes become foolish at this point. When a
prominent person suddenly breaks into print as a champion of
free love, or immerses himself in sexual studies, reference to Who's
Who nearly always confirms the suspicion that he is at the age of
final incandescence.
This evolution of the emotional life, which is here presented in a
much simplified and inadequate outline,3 is of the highest impor3 There are, of course, other points of view from which the same subject may
be analysed.




78


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


tance in any consideration of happiness in married life. While
every normal person goes through this development, the stages
are not sharply separated. Moreover, the feelings of no stage
are wholly lost; they are merely expanded and subordinated
as the next stage is entered. The person who expects to remain
all the rest of his life in any one of these stages except the last is
either defective or a fool.
There are, nevertheless, all too many cases of arrested development. Many a spoiled child really never gets beyond the first
stage, and goes through life trying to force everybody and everything to minister to his own pleasure; indulging in a tantrum or
developing symptoms of hysteria when he can not have his own
way. Many another never outgrows the post-adolescent stage:
thus the flapper with gray hair, and the elderly male flirt who is
constantly trying to make an impression on young women ("No
fool like an old fool!") are familiar to all.
Such an analysis simplifies the question of love in marriage.
The man or woman who finds, after a few years of married life,
that the old thrill is being lost, and who seeks continually to renew
it by flirtation or adultery, is simply confessing that he or she is
suffering from arrested development-that evolution is not proceeding normally. As a matter of fact, such people have usually never
freed themselves from the auto-erotic stage of childhood; marriage
means to them merely the opportunity to secure pleasurable sensations. Such individuals are always unhappily mated. When
their "love" cools, they feel that they must rekindle the fire by
finding a new mate-either legally or illegally; and so continue
through life until satiety or physical decline leaves them to seek
satisfaction in salacious fiction or in the bald-headed row at "leg
shows."
Is it necessary to remould the institution of marriage, merely
to gratify the auto-erotic cravings of these cases of arrested development? Would it not be saner to alter modern educational
methods in such a way as to permit these people to go through the
normal course of development, which ends by building up a home
full of children that radiates altruism into all the activities of life?




BROKEN HOMES


79


Before agreeing, then, to the cant phrase that it is immoral for
two people to continue to live together when love has ceased to
exist between them, one must inquire just what love means in this
connection. No one can or should continue long in the intense,
auto-erotic form of "love" that neurasthenics and reformers have
in mind; and many people (perhaps most, if the whole world is
considered) who are capable of happy marriage and successful
parenthood, are not capable of any such introspective expression of
love.
In some ways it would be preferable to turn the statement
around, and to say that marriage is immoral if hatred exists between
the partners. But this is largely subject to control. The selfish,
fickle, and feebly-inhibited will always give trouble in this respect.
Marriage can not be "factory rebuilt" for such defectives. Some
people never find happiness in marriage, no matter how many times
they try their luck; the same people often never find happiness in
work or in anything else. Happiness simply is not in them. Is it
not time to realize that persons so constituted can not adjust to
any adult situation? And is it not stupid to talk of remaking the
mores for the benefit of a small minority who are hopeless anyhow,
really of defective mental constitution? If there is a remedy for
this evil, it is in early training, mental hygiene, and biological
education, not in trial marriage or easy divorce.
An analysis of love, then, suggests the solution to many problems
of broken homes. Here again, it is found that society is at work,
in its usual way, to settle the problem at the wrong end-to wail
over the consequences instead of removing the causes. Any
movement to prevent broken homes by such measures as trial
marriage and divorce by mutual consent is a crime against the race
unless it is at the same time accompanied by a much more vigorous
effort to remove the causes of broken homes.
Approaching a little nearer to individual broken homes, it will be
found that at the bottom of most of them (some students have said
90 percent or more) there is the fundamental problem of sexual
maladjustment. People who are perfectly adjusted to each other
in this respect do not seek separation, either by desertion or divorce.




80


80       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


This fact frequently does not transpire in cases of publicityfrequently, indeed, discordant partners themselves do not realize
just what the trouble is. But lawyers and judges who hear many
divorce petitions know that this is the truth. It is safe to say
that sexual maladjustment plays a part in almost every divorce,
and that it is the most important factor in a majority, even though
not known to be such by the parties concerned. Could anything
be more illogical than the present policy of society, to (1) let people
marry in ignorance, (2) let them divorce because of this ignorance,
and (3) then let them, still ignorant, make new matings, many of
which will be broken up in the same way and for the same reason?
Obviously, here is one of the strategic points for an attack against
the evil. A clearer understanding of what love really means, a
better preparation for marriage on the part of both men and women,
more deliberate and carefully considered mating, and clinics which,
when necessary, could furnish enlightenment concerning particular
problems, would do more to abate the evil than all legal reforms
put together.
Beyond this, there are of course innumerable minor problems,
legal, economic, social, and what not, which require study and
action. To discuss these fully would both be outside the province
of this book, and unnecessary, because these are precisely the phases
of the whole question that are already getting attention-much
more than they deserve, in comparison with the fundamental issues.
It is worth noting, in passing, that marriages in which husband
and wife are of different race or nationality figure preponderantly
in the divorce record; and that to a large extent divorce is sought
by those who have neither children nor property to hold them
together. In a study of divorce petitions filed in Minneapolis,
Mildred D. Mudgett found that half of the applicants were clients
of some charitable agency, and most of the families had court
records for one cause or another-one family had appeared in all
the courts of the city, a total of 28 times, another 21, and so on
down. There is a great danger in looking at the mass statistics of
divorce, and becoming alarmed over them, without analyzing
them to find just what sort of people contribute them. It is




BROKEN HOMES


81


known that both the delinquent rich and the delinquent poor
appear in large ratio in the records of all forms of broken homes.
Is the institution of monogamy to be remodeled for the benefit of
these two classes, or is some other remedy more appropriate?
Even after the necessary changes have been made, so that people
will have a wider choice in marriage, be educated to choose more
wisely, and understand the physiology and psychology of love,
there will remain enough cases of broken homes to require some
sort of court action. As to desertion, abandonment, non-support,
and the like, the obvious thing to do is to bring back the departing
partner and, by social case work or law enforcement, to adjust the
difficulty in some more intelligent and effective way than is involved
where a man or woman merely packs and departs, leaving no
address.
For such cases, and for all divorce cases filed, there should be
clinics, to which reference will be made in the first instance. Here
investigation would often remove causes of misunderstanding and
friction (particularly if due to ignorance about love and marriage),
and the matrimonial ship might start again on its course in a
smoother sea. Even today, humane lawyers and intelligent judges,
though little qualified for the attempt, succeed in effecting many
reconciliations.
The requirement in some states that all applications for divorce
be published and all hearings be public has been harmful. Under
these conditions of pitiless publicity both parties bow their necks
and are not in a mood to consider reconciliation-self-esteem is too
much injured. Mutual consent and collusion, which, under
present laws, are unlimited sources of fraud and deceit, may make
such publicity necessary, but it would probably be just as effective
if the facts were made public only six months after a divorce is
granted, and not published at all when a divorce is denied. The
break-up of many homes that are only slightly cracked would
thereby be prevented.
Certainly it is an outrage that a biological question should be
made a matter of typical police court procedure, with shyster
lawyers ranting and bullying the witnesses for the edification of




82


82       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


eager spectators. It is hard to see why lawyers properly have any
business at all in such a matter. A Court of Domestic Relations,
with its own investigators and the routine assistance of a competent
clinic, should handle all problems involving broken homes, and
lawyers should not be permitted to make a living by exploiting
family differences. Since they get a fee for securing a divorce,
and nothing for effecting a reconciliation, it is too much to expect
that they will be as much interested in the latter as in the former
result. Many-to their honor-do seek, and often effect, reconciliations, but they are not specially qualified for such an effort and
should be superseded by those who are better trained for the
attempt. The situation is worsened by the fact that divorce practice is either in the hands of young attorneys, who have to take
anything they can get in order to live, or of men who are not the
most reputable in the profession. The average lawyer with selfrespect and high standards despises divorce work and will not take
it if he can avoid it.
From the foregoing, it ought to be clear that "mutual consent"
is not an adequate excuse for the break-up of a home. In many
cases incompatibility can be cured by re-education more satisfactorily than by divorce. Grounds that are really valid, from a eugenic
viewpoint, include such as insanity or other serious mental disability, chronic alcoholism, long imprisonment for crime, and
extreme cruelty or other evidence that the offender is not normal.
In these cases the innocent partner should be given an opportunity
to establish a new home and contribute children to society, while
the offending one should be prevented from future reproduction.
At first sight it would appear that no grounds could commend
themselves more to a biologist than infertility and impotence.
But neither case is so simple as it may seem.I
Fritz Lenz has pointed out that if infertility were admitted
without question, in petitions for divorce, the way would be open
to unlimited abuse. People could cohabit for a time, with contraception or abortion, and then ask for divorce on the ground that the
union was childless: it would be extremely difficult to disprove
their claim.




BROKEN HOMES                            83
Impotence in man is often wholly mental in origin, due to his
own wrong education or that of his wife. Reference to a clinic
is the correct procedure.
In sum, the attempt to deal with broken homes by the customary
legal palliatives is limited in its usefulness. Whatever is done,
there should be uniform legislation, instead of the present chaotic
condition in which each state makes different requirements. But
the real hope for success is in prevention rather than cure. It is
foolish to waste time on a "divorce problem." The real problem
is to prevent unhappy marriages by (1) better education for marriage and (2) better selection of mates. After all this, if there are
still difficulties, a clinic can do much. The actual legal registration
of the fact of a broken home is the least of all problems. If the
energy now directed toward getting "reforms" in the divorce laws
were directed for a time toward making marriage more carefully
considered and intelligently entered, the results would be surprising.




V. PROSTITUTION


Prostitution, sometimes referred to as the oldest of professions,
has been in existence, in a multiplicity of forms, since the beginning
of history, in all civilized and many uncivilized countries. So
varied have been its manifestations that it has even been difficult
to agree on a definition of it. For the purpose of the present discussion, it will perhaps be sufficient to fall back on common usage,
defining prostitution as more or less promiscuous sexual intercourse
in which a woman gives her body for hire (not necessarily paid in
cash, but often in some other form of remuneration, as clothes or
entertainment).
It is naturally impossible to arrive at any exact idea of the
number of women engaged in prostitution, or the number of men
who are their regular or occasional patrons. Some fantastic
figures have been in circulation. Among the more reliable calculations is that of the Chicago Vice Commission, which supposed that
there were 5,000 commercial prostitutes in that city in 1911. Investigators in San Francisco (1917) believed there were 1,000 prostitutes in the segregated district, popularly known as the Barbary
Coast, and 3,000 more scattered throughout the city. George J.
Kneeland estimated 25,000 for the borough of Manhattan alone
(1911) in his report on Commercialized Prostitution in New York.
This has been thought by many to be an over-estimate. According
to much more thorough investigations which Bascom Johnson
records there were in Manhattan in 1921 not more than 3,000
prostitutes.4
The causes which have created prostitution are extremely numerous and diverse, hence an analysis is not simple. Obviously the
institution represents a partial breakdown or inadequacy of the
ordinary family. For the present purpose I believe it will be most
useful to attack the question from a little different point of view,
by inquiring first the reasons why women become prostitutes,
and secondly the reason why men become patrons of prostitutes.
84




PROSTITUTION


85


Such an approach is quite contrary to that of a certain school of
writers, which holds that the only reason for the existence of prostitution, is the depravity of the male sex. It is true that if there
were no patrons there would be no prostitutes. But it is naive to
suppose that the demand is wholly created by the patrons. Prostitution is a business-hence the demand is fostered by advertising, solicitation, and every means that can be devised to create new
customers and keep old ones. The prostitute does whatever she
can in this direction, and she is helped by innumerable middlemen
-the army of parasites who live, directly or indirectly, off her
earnings. Hence any attempt to eliminate prostitution by attacking solely the men who patronize it is inadequate. They should
be dealt with vigorously, but the easiest and quickest results are
to be had from attacking the business agents and property owners.
On the other hand, it is certainly as much of an offence against society to buy as to sell, in this business, and the males who patronize
prostitution should be prosecuted at least as vigorously as the
females whom they patronize.
Returning to the analysis of reasons why women take up prostitution as a career, one recognizes that there are as many different
reasons as there are prostitutes, and that no easy generalization
will do more than blur the picture. Nevertheless, it is possible to
classify some of the reasons roughly in a number of overlapping
groups, of which the following particularly deserve consideration.
1. Biological. The existence of girls with (a) strong sexual impulses and (b) weak inhibitions. From one-third to one-half of all
commercial prostitutes examined in the United States have been
found to be feebleminded. Most of the rest are mentally defective
in one way or another. Jau Don Ball and Hayward G. Thomas
determined that 97 percent of the 320 prostitutes on the Barbary
Coast in 1915-1917 were mentally abnormal. Walter L. Treadway
ascertained that 80 percent of 206 women (147 white, 59 Negro)
whom   he examined at the State Industrial Farm    for Women,
Lansing, Kansas, had an abnormal personal make-up, and 55 percent had some definite mental defect, which in almost every case
was directly accountable for their life of prostitution. L. 0.




86


86       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


Weldon examined 100 delinquent white women in Louisville, Ky.,
and found 38 of them definitely feebleminded, 43 constitutional
psychopathic inferiors, and 12 with various psychotic conditions,
leaving only 7 of the 100 who could by any stretch of the imagination be called mentally normal. Such evidence might be
multiplied indefinitely: the illustrations given have been chosen
merely because they were made by trained investigators and are
representative of several different localities. It is evident that
prostitution is largely a problem of mental disease and defect.
2. Social. Delayed marriages on the one hand, unhappy
marriages and broken homes on the other, help many young
women to drift into prostitution. Most prostitutes have been
married at one time or another-often prior to entering the profession. Most of theii' come from abnormal homes-undisciplined,
joyless, without traditions. In many cases the mother has worked
outside, and therefore maintained no effective supervision over her
children.
3. Esthetic. The longing of young women for luxuries which
they can not afford out of legitimate wages puts a premium on
their earning "easy money" in this way. Taken in conjunction
with the materialistic standards that are widely held, with the
idea that it is of paramount importance to "have a good time,"
and with the feeble inhibitions and lack of perspective of these
women, the love of luxury is a potent influence that must be reckoned with in every proposal to deal with prostitution. A vain,
shallow, indolent, oversexed girl who has made a meagre living by
hard work in unattractive surroundings finds that by prostitution
she can seemingly live without working, get abundant sexual
gratification, wear expensive clothes, dwell in a comfortable hotel
or apartment house, take her meals at good restaurants, enjoy many
entertainments, and have the society of men of good standing in the
community. Is it surprising that the real but sometimes more
remote disadvantages of a life of prostitution are obscured to her
weak intellect by these apparently real and more immediate
attractions?
Prostitutes are fond of relating that they were forced into their




PROSTITUTION


87


calling as an alternative to starvation. In general, the reasons
they give for becoming prostitutes can never be taken seriously,
for they represent merely what the speaker thinks she is expected
to say, or what she thinks will produce a favorable impression.
In this particular case it is safe to assert that, in the United States
at least, not one prostitute in a thousand ever became such as an
alternative to starvation-although many prostitutes, because of
defective mentality and will power, can perhaps earn little more
than a bare living by honest work. It is the desire for unearned
luxury that tempts.
4. Educational. Defective information concerning sex and
parenthood, defective training in self-control, defective standards
of values, help to produce many prostitutes.
5. Political. The organization of prostitution in large cities
gives ward bosses a chance to intrench themselves. New prostitutes must be recruited continually to keep business good.
6. Economic. Prostitution apparently offers (a) easy money
for the woman herself and (b) an extremely lucrative revenue
to the middlemen and exploiters of prostitution.
The first, second, and fourth of these factors, with appropriate
changes, help to explain why men become patrons of prostitutes.
An economic factor also operates (cf. No. 6, above) in that some
young men think it is cheaper to patronize prostitutes than it is
to marry.
The interplay of all these and similar factors, then, tends to
produce both supply and demand. The factors are of varying
weight but, as usual where the family is concerned, the biological
ones are at the bottom. Without defective women and unscrupulous, concupiscent men, "the business"' would not last long.
On the other hand, the biological factors are far from sufficient
to account for the great development of organized prostitution.
1 This is the euphemism by which those engaged in it commonly refer to
commercialized prostitution. An interesting parallel is "the trade," which
in Great Britain now always means the organized traffic in alcoholic liquors.
A century or two ago, the same term would have been understood as meaning.
the industry of exporting slaves from Africa to America.




88


88       THlE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


This is to be explained principally by the economic factors. Prostitution-in modern times in the United States, at least-has been
a highly orgaifized industry, based on graft and corrupt politics
in large cities, and using all the familiar devices of modern business
to attract customers and increase profits. This fact points plainly
to the easiest line of attack, as I have insisted above.
Among the results of prostitution have been:
1. Degradation of a large number of men and women in each
generation.
2. Wide spread of venereal diseases.
3. Corruption and graft in politics.
4. Fostering of all sorts of sexual offenses such as seduction and
rape, and of sexual perversions.
5. Broken homes.
6. juvenile delinquency.
All these evils interact. The effect of all of them has been wholly
bad on the individuals concerned. Some of the effects have been
beneficial, from the narrowest point of view, to the family and
society, because the withdrawal from family life, and sterilization
through venereal diseases or early death, of physical and mental
inferiors has prevented them from perpetuating their kind, and has
thus tended to purify the race. But the evil effects of prostitution, and the fact that they reached a great many superior people
as well as inferior ones, make it an undesirable method of eugenics.
It must be supplanted by more humane, intelligent, and discriminating methods of purifying the race.
Methods of attack (described in many publications of the American Social Hygiene Association, New York City) have been
worked out so carefully and applied so successfully in the United
States during the last 10 or 20 years that victory can now be
counted on. Briefly the effort is made in the first instance to
eliminate the organized, commercial features of prostitution; both
because this is the source of the most harm, and because it is the
most easily reached. While many individual prostitutes are in the
business because they enjoy it and prefer it to other ways of making
a living, the middlemen who exploit it are interested only iin the




PROSTITUTION


89


money there is in it. Once it is made unprofitable-a feasible task
for any community-they will quit and turn to something else.
The evil flowing from the commercial organization of prostitution will be understood if it is borne in mind that the harm wrought
by prostitution is in direct proportion to the number of persons it
affects. In order that the business may be most profitable, it is
necessary to have it concentrated in a central location and well
advertised. Segregation in a Red Light District makes it easily
accessible to all. This is one of the strongest arguments against the
policy of segregation. Even if abolishing a Red Light District did
no more than scatter the inmates, it would yet be a benefit, for it
would make them less easily found and thereby diminish the volume
of their business.
But as a fact, any kind of honest law enforcement does much
more than this. It makes a large proportion of the prostitutes
and almost all the middlemen-the pimps, panders, procurers,
madames, and the like-drop out altogether. The few prostitutes
who remain must keep under cover and find customers only by
stealth, with the result that they will find perhaps a tenth as many
as formerly, and the harm they can do is diminished correspondingly.
Beyond this, however, the fundamental theory on which segregation has been practiced is incorrect in every way. It has been
alleged by its defenders that, prostitution being a necessary evil,
the wisest course is to recognize it as such and to concentrate it in
one district where order can be maintained and the evil aspects
reduced to the minimum.
Probably no well-informed person in the United States now
accepts this specious plea. The results of abolition of the Red
Light Districts (of which some 250 have been closed in the United
States during the last 25 years) have been so uniformly favorable
as to leave the segregationists not a leg to stand on. And it is
also recognized that under any circumstances segregation never
affected more than a small fraction of the prostitutes in a community. Most of them were outside the District and not subject
to farcical "regulation," but they profited by the general stimulus
to prostitution which the District furnishes.




90


90       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


The first step, -then., in the repression of prostitution is to regard
it as a crime, and honestly to enforce the law against it, treating
anyone engaged in it in any form as a criminal, and making no
distinction of sex.
There is a widespread European school of thought which regards
any open advertisement or solicitation as a crime, but holds that
the act of prostitution itself is a purely personal matter which must
not be interfered with. In other words, this point of view would
punish a woman for asking a man to commit an act which, i  n
when committed, is considered to be entirely legal. It would be
hard to find a better illustration of the extent to which ancient
prejudices interfere with the application of common sense to law
enforcement.
While a law enforcement campaign is the keynote to the immediate repression of prostitution, it must be accompanied by
vigorous efforts to deal with all of the factors mentioned above,
which keep prostitution in existence. Better sex education, widespread mental hygiene, more recreation, segregation of the feebleminded, protection of the home and family (especially of juveniles),
more careful mating and more intelligent marriage-every such
improvement will indirectly reduce prostitution.




VI. VENEREAL DISEASES


Of the four or five diseases commonly known as venereal because
they are most frequently transmitted through sexual intercourse,
the two important ones are gonorrhea and syphilis.
Inasmuch as they are usually contracted in ways that the patients are ashamed to have known, there are no trustworthy figures
as to their prevalence. It may be said safely, however, that gonorrhea is the most common of serious infectious diseases, aside from
measles, and that from one-third to one-half of the men in the
United States have it at one time or another. Syphilis appears
to be about one-fif th as common as gonorrhea, and it is thought
that 10 percent of the American population have it sooner or later.
Perhaps one in eight of these cases is contracted accidentally,
from germs which infected persons leave on dishes, tools, bath
tubs, and in other suitable localities in homes, hotels, restaurants,
barber shops, soda fountains, and so on. The remaining cases
represent infection through sexual intercourse.
When contracted legitimately, the disease is commonly called
innocent: such are the infections of faithful wives by faithless
husbands; of children at the time of birth, or before, or after.
While these form a large part of the total, yet the greater number
of cases is due to illegitimate intercourse, and even the innocent
cases go back to such a source originally. So sexual promiscuity is
the actual means of the dissemination of all venereal diseases.
Widespread experience in recent years, particularly during the
war, has demonstrated more clearly than ever that the main r6le
in the dissemination of these diseases is played by the professional
prostitute.' This had often been denied, and the blame had been
On the other hand, men are the carriers of the disease from infected to
non-infected prostitutes, as well as to non-infected wives. Therefore it is idle
to attempt, as has often been done, to control venereal diseases merely by the
"'sanitation" of prostitutes.
91




92


92       THlE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


placed on the casual offender, largely, it appears, through the not
disinterested reiteration by prostitutes themselves of the claim that
the professional did not carry disease.
The absurdity of this might have been seen in a moment by anyone with an elementary knowledge of contagion. In fact it is now
indisputable that the amount of disease spread by a woman is
roughly in proportion to the number of opportunities she has.
As the professional prostitute exposes ten men to infection for
every one who is exposed by the amateur, the damage the two do is
measured pretty nearly by the same ratio. The experience of the
Surgeon General's office indicates that from 75 to 90 percent of all
infection of men is due to professional prostitutes.
This finding argues a high amount of infection among prostitutes
themselves, and the army's experience furnished abundant data
to prove it. Those who have been associated with the fight against
the venereal diseases have fallen into the habit of assuming, a
priori, that every woman who is sexually promiscuous is infected;
and this assumption is not far from right. Examination of thousands of cases has shown that from 80 to 90 percent of such women
are infected with one or other of the venereal diseases, while those
who are not themselves definitely diseased may yet spread disease
to other persons.
In short, it is now well established that intercourse outside of
marriage is almost certain exposure to venereal disease.
The effects on the family may relate primarily to the individual,
or to his offspring.
Economically, the venereal diseases are a national burden, the
extent of which may be realized when it is borne in mind that on
any given day probably from 8 to 10 percent of the population suffer
with these infections. The loss of earning power may burden a
family severely. A still heavier handicap is imposed when an
infected person becomes insane. At least 12 percent of all the
insane in the country owe their condition to nothing else, syphilis
being the cause of all cases of locomotor ataxia and general paresis.
Premature death is another result of syphilis, which, with pneumonia, tuberculosis, and -heart disease, is one of the four great




VE~NEREAL DISE~ASES              9


93


killers in civilization, although it is rare indeed to find a death
officially credited to it, for good manners require the doctor to
write something else on the death certificate.
The effect on reproduction is more serious, in some respects,
because it is in so many cases the innocent wife and child who
suffer from the folly of the husband and father. Syphilis is a
frequent cause of miscarriages and stillbirths. Of the offspring
of syphilitic parents, some 75 percent are destroyed by the disease
before birth or within the first year following. Most of the remainder, though they may live to become adult, never know a really
well day. Gonorrhea particularly causes barrenness, so that in
large groups perhaps half of all absolute barrenness, or of "one
child barrenness" where a single child is born and the mother
never again conceives, is due to the invasion of the reproductive
organs by the gonococcus. A large proportion of the surgical
operations performed on the reproductive organs of women are
the result of infection with gonorrhea, although they are given some
other name.
Sickness, miscarriages, barrenness, insanity, and death are then
among the prices the family pays for the existence of venereal diseases. These often have a certain racial value, in so far as they
more often affect people who are inferior to the average of the population in intelligence and self-control. But the eugenic progress
of the race can be brought about in other ways that do not involve
such frightful suffering, particularly of innocent wives and little
children. The venereal diseases must go.
This proposal involves no real difficulty, from a strictly scientific
point of view. There are no diseases whose whole hi-stoiry' is better
known than syphilis and gonorrhea. There are few that are
theoretically easier, not only to control but to exterminate. That
so little has been done in this direction is due to ignorance and
prudery.
To get venereal diseases regarded as any other dangerous infectious diseases, proper subjects for strict quarantine and control
until a cure has been effected, requires some vigorous exercise of
public will-power, but a good deal of progress has already been




94            THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY
made in this direction, dating largely from the World War. During
the conflict the American war department applied energetically
the measures that common-sense dictated, succeeded in keeping
the infection of the army down to a previously unheard-of degree
(much lower than prevails in the civil community), and thereby
gave a tremendous lesson to the public.
The "American Program" for combating venereal diseases calls
for a fourfold attack, comprising law enforcement, medical, educational, and recreational measures.. It is based on the fact that
these diseases are spread almost wholly through sexual promiscuity,
and particularly through commercial prostitution.
No one of these lines of attack, by itself, is sufficient. But if
all four of them are pushed intelligently and simultaneously, there
is now abundant evidence available to show that results are greater
than anyone could have supposed, when the campaign was started
15 or 20 years ago.




VII. INFERTILITY


The increasing prevalence of childlessness in American families
is a frequent topic of discussion. Frederick S. Crum found that
the percentage, in the old native stock, increased from 1.88 in the
last half of the eighteenth century to 8.10 in the decade 1870-1879;
while J. A. Hill, analyzing the figures of the 1910 census, showed
that one in eight of the native-born wives is childless, as compared
with one in five of the Negresses and one in nineteen of the foreignborn. More recent studies have shown that in some large sections
of the old white population, at least one wife in five is childless.
Some of this childlessness is voluntary, but an important part
of it is not. Many students have supposed that most parents
want at least one child, at some time or other, and that the number
of voluntary, wholly sterile marriages is therefore small. Every
reader will know, in his own circle of acquaintances, a number of
married couples who desire children and who would be eugenic
parents, but who are not. It has often been guessed that something like 10 percent of all modern, civilized marriages are actually
infertile. This guess is probably not far from the truth.
Hundreds of general causes of this infertility have been suggested,
from eating too much meat (F. Houssay) to imperfect ventilation
of houses (L. Hill), and from the nervous strain of city life, through
the spread of twin beds, to the wearing of corsets. All such general
causes may play a part, but little progress in prevention is to be
expected from blanket diagnoses. Detailed analysis is necessary
to untangle the innumerable and involved factors. While any
extensive consideration of the biological aspects would be beyond
the scope of this book, it is necessary to outline at least a few of the
principal lines of investigation, because nothing can prevent the
normal functioning of a family more completely than sterility.
Obviously, the childlessness of a family may be the fault either
of the man or of the woman. While it is customary unthinkingly
95




96


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


to blame the wife, the responsibility belongs quite as often to her
husband. The man should be examined first, because examination
is much easier in the male sex. Sterility existing from birth is
relatively rare in either sex. In most cases the condition is due to
faulty development or unhygienic living.
In men the most frequent single cause of sterility is chronic
gonorrhea. Indeed, some students have thought that this is as
frequent as all other causes put together. It is declining slowly in
importance in the United States, however, as the seriousness of
infection with gonorrhea comes to be more widely and fully understood. The common history has been that a man contracts
gonorrhea in his youth from some prostitute, treats it with patent
medicines, or has it treated by some quack doctor, and, thinking
that he has eradicated the germs, actually succeeds merely in
driving them more deeply into the reproductive organs, whence
they can never be disloged.
Among other diseases, mumps is a well-known danger in adolescence, when it sometimes attacks the testicles. Malaria, syphilis,
tuberculosis, and a number of other infections are in rare instances
followed by sterility, the exact nature of which is often obscure.
Alcohol has often been accused of causing sterility in men, but
the evidence is contradictory. Lead poisoning is a better attested
danger: those exposed to it in their work should bear this in mind.
Among modern occupational diseases, the disability that follows
exposure to the X-ray is racially one of the most serious. Temporary or permanent sterility is easily acquired in this way. Worse
still, the germ-plasm may be so altered as to result in the birth of
defective children. Matrimonially, any one who has had much
to do with X-rays is what an insurance agent would call a bad risk.
In women the mechanism of reproduction is more complicated
than in men, and the possible causes of barrenness are therefore
more numerous. Here again gonorrhea plays an important r61e,
the germs invading the tubes and ovaries and making conception
impossible. In general, all the diseases and poisons mentioned as
affecting men may also affect women. Misplacements of the
reproductive organs and alterations in their normal functioning,




INFERTILITY


97


due to ill health, are often responsible. The internal glands are
blamed in a somewhat vague way for a large part of women's
sterility. Thyroid diseases and diabetes are both fairly frequent
causes of barrenness. Recent students have laid emphasis on infantilism-a condition in which the reproductive organs have not
developed normally but have remained in a more or less infantile
state. This arrested development is associated with extreme fatness, and also with the Baby Doll type of female beauty.
Experiments in breeding smaller animals have brought to light
a cause of infertility which may also play an important part in
man. It has been found that certain inherited factors are lethalthat is, in certain combinations they produce, for an unknown
reason, an embryo that can not develop but dies in the womb at an
early age. The stock example is that of yellow mice. In matings
of these with each other, one-fourth of the expected offspring fail
to develop more than a few days. These are the ones which
received a pure yellow inheritance from both parents (technically,
those homozygous for this factor). It happens that a double dose
of yellowness is absolutely fatal, although a single dose from the
ancestry produces a perfectly normal yellow animal.
Many other cases of the same sort have been found, and it is
easy to push the explanation to cover a wide range of happenings.
It is probable, as C. B. Davenport and others have urged, that
there are certain marriages in which no children are produced,
simply because each parent carries inherited factors which, united
with those of the other, are lethal in effect. In such a case both
parents might be fertile if married to other people.
It is difficult to prove such an explanation in any given case in
man, because it is difficult to exclude all other plausible explanations. The marriage of Napoleon Bonaparte and Josephine Beauharnais is cited as an illustration. The latter was a widow who
had had children by her first husband, and was therefore not
naturally barren. She had no children by Napoleon. He was
not sterile, however, for he had children by other women, illegitimately, and also by his second wife, Maria Luisa of Austria.
What more natural than to suppose that Napoleon and Josephine
were genetically incompatible?




98


98       THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


If Josephine had had children by some other man, after her
divorce from Napoleon, the case would be stronger. But as this
necessary part of the proof is lacking, nothing is proved. She
may have become barren after the birth of her children, and before
she married Napoleon. She was no more faithful to the marriage
vow than he was, and may have contracted gonorrhea. Any one
of a score of other possible explanations may apply.
The same difficulty is met in all human cases. The theory of
sterility due to genetic incompatibility is well founded, but its
detailed application to man is now impossible.
Attention has been called recently to a vitamin, named "fatsoluble E," in the absence of which from the dietary, both sexes
become sterile. But since only an infinitesimal amount of it is
needed, and since it is abundant in some common foods such as the
wheat germ, green leaves (lettuce, etc.) and vegetable oils, it does
not appear likely at first sight that it plays an important part in
human sterility. Nevertheless, it seems to be established that any
marked dietetic or hygienic irregularity that affects the whole body
may lower the level of fertility.
Finally, some investigators are convinced that the most frequent
cause of sterility in woman arises from her failure (due to ignorance
of the art of love on the part of bot~h herself and her husband) to
find satisfaction in her love-life.
The results of infertility are personally unfortunate in all cases
where the individuals want children. Racially they may be either
good or bad, depending on whether or not the quality of the persons
affected is such as society wants to see perpetuated.
Gonorrhea, which is possibly the greatest single cause of infertility in modern civilization, attacks those who are probably, on
the average, eugenically inferior. Their contribution of children
can often be spared. But it is by no means con-fined to such
classes, and it is an evil in so many other ways that a better eugenic
substitute can be found for it.
The effects of gonorrhea have probably been particularly ig
nificant in the Negro race in the United States. Infection is widespread here. Negroes drafted into the army in 1917-1918 were




INFERTILITY


99


found to show seven times as much infection as the whites. The
natural fecundity of the Negro is such that except for such checks
as this they would have outbred the whites rapidly and eventually
made of America another Dark Continent. As it is, they have been
losing ground steadily since the Civil War, in comparison with the
whites. The campaign against venereal diseases during the last
decade has necessarily tended to diminish this cause of infertility
among the Negroes, and hence to make them increase in numbers
more rapidly. On the other hand, it happens that a widespread
emigration of Negroes from southern farms to northern cities has
occurred at the same time. As the Negro is less fecund under the
latter conditions, perhaps both because of the colder climate and
the urban life, the birth-rate of the race has been diminished more
than enough to counteract any gain which accrued to it through
the reduction in venereal diseases.
In superior homes infertility is an evil from every point of view,
and one deserving of more attention than it has had from those
interested in the family. It has been too easy in recent years to
assume that when such people had no children, it was their own
choice, and to ignore the many cases in which infertility of undiscoverable origin left the partners broken-hearted.
The remedies for infertility are so varied that they can not be
summed up easily. Most of them may be inferred readily from the
nature of the causes outlined above. The extermination of gonorrhea will eliminate the greatest single cause of infertility, while
hygiene, physical education, and a better understanding of marriage
will deal with many of the others.
One remedy which young men and women can apply to some
extent is to marry into fecund families. Francis Galton long ago
pointed out that marriage with an only child was likely to result
in the extermination of the family; for the fact that the child had
no brothers or sisters was some presumptive evidence that it came
from a stock whose natural fertility was below par. Marriage into
healthy families where there are numerous children is one of the
best possible safeguards of continued fertility.




VIII. ILLEGITIMACY


Births outside of wedlock are decreasing steadily in almost all
civilized countries. Among white births in the United States,
something like one in every 60 is illegitimate, the proportion being
higher in cities and lower in the country, and varying, moreover,
to a marked degree in different states.
Aside from the faulty vital statistics of many American states,
the proportion of foreign-born and of Negro population, especially
the latter, influences the figures. Data on Negro illegitimacy are
so fragmentary that little definite information can be derived from
them; moreover, the social significance of illegitimacy among
Negroes is not exactly the same as among whites. I have therefore
left Negro illegitimacy out of consideration in this section. So far
as one can guess from the figures to be had, there may be some
35,000 illegitimate Negro births in the United States each year.
It would probably not be far wrong to say that there are about as
many illegitimate Negro as illegitimate white births in a year,
although there are only one-tenth as many Negroes as whites in
the population. This excess of Negro births doubtless reflects
such facts as the smaller amount of criminal abortion in that race,
as well as differences in marriage customs.
The sequel of these illegitimate births, as described by social
workers, and with some approach to exactness in all too many cases,
is that the father either is not disclosed or, if known, is mildly reprobated by his associates, and occasionally forced by the mother's
relatives or the law, to make a contribution toward the maintenance
of his child. This is almost never more than $200 a year, for courts
are as niggardly in mulcting a man convicted of "bastardy" as they
are liberal in mulcting a man convicted of "breach of promise."
On the other hand, the woman in the case is hounded and ostracised, while the child is often given away, a few days after birth,
to some one who conveniently lets it die. If it lives, and can not
100




ILLEGITIMACY


101


conceal the secret of its birth, it carries the contempt of its fellowmen through life. It is not strange that such a situation has
aroused the reformatory zeal of many sincere and well-meaning
persons. And it is not strange, bearing in mind American tendencies in social reform, that these persons have almost uniformly
attempted to improve the situation by more laws. The possible
effects of such laws in many directions have been almost wholly
ignored. Whatever else they may be, they are certainly a long
step in the direction of legalized polygamy. The North Dakota
law of 1919, one of the most advanced-or retrogressive, according
to the point of view-of American statutes on this subject, reads:
"Every child is hereby declared to be the legitimate child of its
natural parents, and as such is entitled to support and education,
to the same extent as if it had been born in lawful wedlock. It
shall inherit from its natural parents and from their kindred heir
lineal and collateral."
The Arizona law of 1921 is similar in terms. Here are laws,
expressing more or less accurately the ideal toward which many
interested people are looking, that certainly have broad implications and, as will be pointed out in more detail later, would tend
to introduce some fundamental changes in the American conception of family life. It is of the highest importance to find out what
kind of people make up the small group (say 35,000 mothers and an
equal number of babies each year) for whom the traditional ideas
about marriage are legally to be set aside.
In the first place, the mothers are mostly young. From oneninth to one-fifth of them, in various groups studied, are little
more than children, i.e., under 18 years of age. About the same
proportion of the fathers is under the legal age of majority (K. F.
Lenroot). The following table shows the number of illegitimate
births (including Negro but excluding stillbirths) per 1000 total
births, according to age of mother, in the registration area, 1920
(excluding California and Massachusetts):
10  to  14  years..........................................  668.6
16  to  19  years........................................  113.2
20  to  24  years.........................................  25.7
25 years and upward.................................. 35.0




102


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


In the second place, the mothers are mostly from economically
inferior strata of the population. A study by Emma 0. Lundberg
and Katharine F. Lenroot, of unmarried mothers in Boston, 1914,
revealed the status of 691 whose occupations were reported:
Not gainfully employed.................................... 98
Clerks and kindred workers..................................... 68
Semi-skilled workers...................................... 192
Servants..............................................  326
All others...........................................  7
691
Miss Lenroot summarizes other studies by saying, "Available
information indicates that the great majority of the mothers are
gainfully employed prior to the child's birth, chiefly in domestic
service or as semi-skilled factory workers. Almost half the fathers
are in the ranks of semi-skilled workers, or clerks and kindred workers." In other words, the economic status of the father averages
a little higher than that of the mother. Sometimes, indeed, he is a
gentleman, in the worst sense of the word.
In the third place, the mothers are, to a large extent, of inferior
mentality. Of 468 in the Boston investigation, as to whose mental
condition something was known, 100 were reported as feebleminded or subnormal, and half a dozen as insane. It can hardly
be doubted that many of the 382 described as "normal, so far as
known" were at least border-line cases. "These," says Miss
Lenroot, "are understatements. Considering together the mental
condition of parents and maternal grandparents, only fragmentary
evidence being available, it was found that of 2178 children born
out of wedlock who were under care of social agencies, at least 19
percent had a heritage in which there was known or probable
insanity, feeblemindedness, or other subnormal or abnormal mental
condition." Moreover, the feebleminded women are more likely
to have had several illegitimate children, than are the more normal
ones. I have found no definite information about the mentality
of the fathers, but their economic status, and the fact that a feebleminded male is not sexually attractive to most women, make it




ILLEGITIMACY


103


probable that the level of intelligence of the fathers averages a
little higher than that of the mothers.
In the fourth place, the mothers are of previous bad character,
without taking into account the fact of illegitimate maternity,
which to some persons would be ipso facto evidence. The same
holds true of the fathers. Miss Lenroot continues:
"Repeated infractions of the moral code, serious alcoholism, or
other anti-social characteristics were reported in the histories of 42
percent of the mothers of children born out of wedlock in one year,
for whom social information was available, while the mothers of 54
percent of the children under care of social agencies, and of the
same percent of children under care of the state, were so reported.
Considering together the character of mother, father, and maternal
grandparents for the group of 2178 children under care of social
agencies, only 38 percent of the children had parents and grandparents who were of good character, so far as known."
The typical' illegitimate child, then, may be said to be the offspring of a young mother of inferior status mentally, morally, and
economically; and of a father who is probably a little superior to
the mother in age, mentality, and economic status, if not in morals.
The lack of records concerning illegitimate children, except
during the first few months of life, makes it impossible to study the
character of the offspring of such unions in the way that would be
desirable. The frequency of mental defect and congenital syphilis
in the population of orphanages, many of whose inmates are of
illegitimate birth, doubtless reflects something of the facts; but the
principal induction statistically established is the high infant
mortality which, in America as in most parts of the world, is two or
three times the average. Many erroneous conclusions have been
drawn from this fact. One would expect the mortality of illegitimate children to be above the average, because they do not form an
average group, but one selected for abundance of natural handicaps,
1 Undoubtedly the public records are defective, in that the illegitimate
mothers of the highest mental and economic status are more likely to succeed
in keeping their condition from becoming a matter of record. I have no basis
for estimating the amount of this influence.




104


104      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


in addition to the social difficulties of the mother. While some
of the high mortality is doubtless due to faulty feeding, consequent
on the early separation of mother and child, a much larger part
must be due to defective heredity, congenital syphilis, and similar
handicaps. It is significant that, excluding diseases directly due
to nutrition, the Boston investigation showed the mortality for the
ordinary diseases of infancy (closely associated with heredity) to be
two or three times the average. Before using the infant mortality
rate to work up any more sympathy, the reformers might well
publish a comparison with the rate in a really comparable group of
legitimate children.
All of these facts about the inferior heredity of illegitimate
children as a class are well known, but it has seemed necessary to
rehearse them here as a foundation for the very obvious conclusions
to which I wish to call attention, namely, that the high infant
mortality of these children is, from the narrowest point of view,
eugenic, and tends to purify the racial germ plasm of elements
which it is much better off without. The ostracism of illegitimate
mothers and the callous indifference often manifested toward the
fate of their children are social attitudes which have certainly not
been built up by any conscious eugenic effort on the part of the
race; but their effects are eugenic in a crude, harsh, and drastic
way.
if, then, it is desired to modify the present status of illegitimacy
in such a way as to save the lives of a larger proportion of these
children, it is important that this action, which is eugenically a
step backward, be accompanied by some definite eugenic measure
to counterbalance it. Otherwise this humanitarian reform, like
many others, will leave the race really worse off than before, in
regard to the perpetuation of defective strains of germ plasm.
This is the direct result; the indirect results on the public attitude
toward the home and family may be much more important, though
not recognized so easily.
In view of the momentous results that may follow the legislative
changes requested on behalf of this small and anti-social part of the
population, it would seem naturaL that these changes be scrutinized




ILLEGITIMACY10


105


very carefully from a eugenic point of view. But this point of view
is precisely the one that is almost always ignored, in any discussion
of the subject. I propose to comment very briefly on a few of the
salient points in the proposed changes, and for convenience I will
take them up under seven heads as classified by the Children's
Bureau (1921):
1. Birth registration. It is agreed that full registration of illegitimate and all other births is desirable on every account. The
reformers, however, commonly make much of the supposed importance of secrecy. "Together with efforts to secure complete and
accurate birth registration must go concern that no record shall
be so used that the child's future happiness may be in any way
endangered." To this end it is proposed that the details of birth
certificates be confidential, to be consulted only upon court order,
or by some similar procedure.
Surely, this is going too far, in promoting supposed private interests at the expense of public welfare. For the improvement of
sexual selection, it is requisite that details of birth be much more
widely known than at present. Birth certificates, and similar
information, should be freely accessible to the public for this reason.
This is of particular importance in the case of illegitimacy, because
of the frequent germinal inferiority, for reasons noted above, of
such individuals. Certainly from this point of view, few facts
could be of more concern to a young person contemplating marriage, than the fact of the prospective partner's illegitimacy. Yet
to safeguard the supposed happiness of one individual, it is proposed
to penalize the happiness of unnumbered future generations, not
to mention the interests of the state in cutting off inferior lines of
descent. Could any proposal be more shortsighted?
The reason for secrecy is, of course, to prevent the innocent child
from bearing a stigma. But, after all, is there any reason why
the innocent child should not bear a stigma? It is inescapably
stigmatized by birth, through inheritance from anti-social, probably
mentally defective, and otherwise abnormal parents. The stigma
will not be pleasant for the child to bear, any more than would any
other infirmity; but the harm done to society by temporarily




106


106      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


concealing this stigma-which, however, can not be so far concealed that it will not appear in the individual's children-is vastly
greater.
In this connection a popular line of reform is the euphemistic.
The name "bastard" is subject to justifiable protest, because of its
connotations. "Illegitimate" is rejected because it is argued that
the parentage, not the child, is illegitimate. "Children born out of
wedlock," a circumlocution popularized by the Children's Bureau,
and "children whose parents have not married each other"
(a Norwegian phrase) are objected to as cumbersome and not lending themselves to adjectival use. "Ex-nuptual," the expression
used by some writers, is unsatisfactory because the prefix is commonly used in English with an entirely different meaning (cf. expresident, ex-convict, etc.). Many think that the individual in
question should be termed a "natural child," as if, by implication,
there is something unnatural about a birth inside wedlock. But
the climax is attained by the mealy-mouthed who refer to the
bastard as a "love child," thereby recording their view that the
product of a furtive mating between some weakly-inhibited reprobate and a feebleminded servant girl is typically an emblem of love,
by contrast with the child born -in monogamy. If a new name is to
be given to the illegitimate child, surely it must be something very
different in implication from these two!
2. The problem of establishing paternity. In order that the
lines of descent in the race may be known, the establishment of
filiation, though sometimes difficult, is of fundamental importance.
If the mother or someone representing her does not take steps to
that end, the state should do so. The notorious French law,
adopted in the time of Napoleon, stood for a century as the symbol
of a non-biological attitude: "The investigation of paternity is
forbidden." It was amended in 1912.
3. Responsibility of the father. The extent to which the father
should be liable for the support of his illegitimate offspring is a
cri'tical problem in this investigation, and one to which reformers
have devoted much of their attention, even though for the most
part "zeal outruns discretion." A common form of panacea




ILLEGITIMACY                 0


107


among legislators has been the adoption of the miraculous formula
*that an illegitimate child is "the lawful child of the father." But
as Ernst Freund points out, this light-hearted action is taken
without any clear conception of what it involves, iin regard to
custody, right of inheritance, and name. In practice, such a
provision iis unworkable, as I believe the ill-advised North Dakota
law of 1919 has shown.
If the father is to be responsible for the support of the child,
he must in justice have some control over that child, a fact which
reformers often dislike to face, because it is not compatible with
their vindictive attitude toward the father and their sentimental
attitude toward the mother. A legal father, for instance, is
responsible for all the debts of his children. What would happen
if this rule were applied to an illegitimate child not subject to
paternal control?
Again, what is to be done about paternal responsibility in the
case of a promiscuous woman? In such cases it is often impossible
to establish paternity by the methods now in vogue, although,
as Roswell H. Johnson pointed out (1919), application of the
technique of anthropology and genetics would solve most problems.
The Norwegian law is logically consistent in making all culpable
males responsible, thus giving the child a sort of collective or group
father. But such an easy solution does not advance the eugenic
interests of the state.
4. Inheritance rights; name. From a eugenic point of view,
inheritance of the parental property is of great importance, because
of the influence of relative wealth in encouraging or discouraging
reproduction on the part of the heirs. I believe it is indicated
clearly, for reasons outlined above, that on the average, a man's
illegitimate children will be of less eugenic value than his legitimate
children. If so, it is not desirable that the illegitimate should
inherit equally, and the North Dakota law, which provides for
equal shares, is dysgenic.
But in any case, a father in the United States is not legally
compelled to bequeath property to his children, as he is in some
foreign countries: he can cut off any or all of his legitimate children




108


108      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


without a cent. He can not be compelled to bequeath part of his
fortune to an illegitimate child, without a change in the fundamental principles of American law; and if the right of inheritance
is dependent on the father's inclination, as it is in fact, then the
wording of the North Dakota law is foolish, for the illegitimate child
has a "right" to inherit, anyhow, just as a stranger has, provided
the testator wishes to name him in his will.
As to the paternal name, one type of thoroughgoing reformer
would make it compulsory on the child to take his father's name;
most would make it optional. In some ways the interests of
eugenics would be better served if every child, by taking his
father's name, thereby advertised his genealogy; but this would
involve many practical difficulties, and the point is unimportant,
since a change of name, legally or otherwise, is easy enough, and
the father might often buy off his illegitimate offspring in this
respect.
While the interests of the illegitimate child must be given proper
consideration, the interests of a legitimate family may often require
at least equal consideration. The married mother who bears an
illegitimate child is a case in point; the married father may be
another, if the admission of his illegitimate offspring would break
up a desirable home. Such examples offer a strong argument for
the principle that cases of illegitimacy should be dealt with by
some agency that can use its discretion, even though such an agency
might need the wisdom of Solomon.
5. Care by mother. The question under this head is whether
the mother should be obliged to keep her child, at least during the
nursing period, or whether, as at present, she may give it away
immediately and never hear of it again. Probably this question
can be settled in accord with the facts of each individual case.
6. Surrender of child. The question here is, "should the parents
of a child born out of wedlock be permitted to surrender the child
for adoption, or to any agency or person outside their own family,
without the consent of a court of competent jurisdiction or of an
authorized state agency?" Social workers generally answer, No.
7. State supervision. This involves the question whether the




ILLEGITIMACY


109


state should assume protection and supervision of all children born
out of wedlock, by virtue of the fact of such birth, or whether it
should intervene only in cases which are neglected or dependent,
or in danger of becoming so. Social workers are divided in their
views on this point, which involves many considerations that can
not be dismissed offhand, or even judged without experience of
their practical import. Nevertheless, I venture to suggest that
here, as in many other phases of the whole problem, circumstances
should govern; and that it is preferable to deal with individual
cases before a domestic relations court, or some other agency that
has authority to use its own discretion, rather than to attempt by
mass legislation to spread on the statute-books iron-clad rules
that may be more far-reaching than their framers expect.
Everyone must sympathize with the plight of the child born
out of wedlock, and be anxious to see him accorded every mitigation of his lot that is compatible with the welfare of the whole race:
but beyond this a eugenist can not go. The mores of monogamy
have been built up, as the product of a sort of natural selection,
throughout the evolution of man; they are not to be tampered
with except after much more careful study than seems to have been
given to the subject by most of those who argue that "every child
has a right to have two parents." Moreover, even if the constitution should be amended to declare that there is no stigma attached
to illegitimacy, society would continue to stigmatize the illegitimate
so long as people feel that there is cause for pride in descent from
intelligent, self-controlled, socially-minded ancestors, and cause
for humiliation in descent from feebleminded, weakly-inhibited,
anti-social ancestors.
The trouble is that the reformers who want to give every child
two parents are guided not by biology, which has already given
every child two parents, but by sentiment. Their principal desire
is not to further the progressive evolution of the race, but to make
things easier for the unmarried mother and to secure better nurture
for her child. Both of these ambitions are commendable within
limits, but not beyond.
As far as the mother is concerned, it can not be held that the




110


110      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


father is the invariable sinner, and the woman in the case merely a
weak and helpless victim of his perfidy. "It has never struck me,"
Thomas Hardy remarks, "that the spider is invariably male and
the fly invariably female." Reformers would remove the stigma
from her by making her motherhood just as sacred and honorable
as any other kind of motherhood. Apart from the fact that such
an end can not be achieved, in the face of the present mores, it may
well be asked why all motherhood should be placed on the same
basis. There is a big distinction between thoughtfulness and a
sense of responsibility, and the kind of motherhood that produces
children out of levity, recklessness, and the inability to escape the
consequences. I see no reason why the former type should not be
honored and the latter stigmatized.
In order to make the two kinds of motherhood more indistinguishable, there is a short cut to human morality much in vogue
in some quarters, which consists in getting hold of the man in the
case and forcing him to marry the woman, provided, of course,
he is not already married to some other woman. Apart from the
fact that in many cases this produces loveless marriages, which turn
out badly (as I believe experienced social workers all testify),
thereby leading to further marital unfaithfulness and increased
disintegration of the monogamous ideal, it must be noted that this
kind of marriage does not provide for good sexual selection. From
a eugenic point of view, it is -therefore not to be encouraged.
In addition to mitigating the lot of the unmarried mother, the
other object of the reformers is to wipe out the unmerited sufferings
of illegitimate children by obliterating the distinction between
legitimacy and illegitimacy. This, too, is easier said than done,
as I have already pointed out: the illegitimate child is in most
cases ineradicably marked at birth, by his inheritance. Is not
F. W. Foerster right when he remarks that "Such an artificial leveling is absolutely impossible: the actual difference between the concrete and physically inevitable effect which results from the two
kinds of motherhood is so fundamental that it can not be obliterated
by any abstract leveling"?
One can not even accept the primary assumption that it is desir



ILLEGITIMACY


111


able that every child should have two parents. Does it not depend
on what kind of parents they are? Some children would be better
off without any parents, than with those they have. In many
cases the present system (if properly administered) of creches and
adoption for illegitimate children may be the best, provided their
antecedents are not concealed in such a way that they will burst
forth to cause agony later in life at marriage.
It appears, then, from the eugenic point of view, and with reference to conditions in the United States at the present time, that
all proposed reforms which  have for their object the endeavor to
make illegitimate maternity pleasanter and more respectable, and
to give illegitimate children a better start in life, must be looked
upon with suspicion, if not with actual disfavor. The results can
hardly be other than, directly, to increase the number of undesirable
citizens in the community, and directly, to break down the ideal
of monogamous family life, which would result eventually in the
production of a still further increased number of inferior children
and the provision of still worse nurture for them, through the disintegration of the monogamous partnership ideal. At present,
the only real protection for motherhood is offered by a powerful
and authoritative institution such as monogamy, which binds
and educates the individual father to the protection of the individual mother and their common children.
A peculiar confusion is evident in the minds of many who deal
with this problem. Thus Professor Freund declares: "The view
that the interest of the child is the paramount interest to which
all other considerations should yield is not only attractive, but
socially sound. The view, on the other hand, that in the interest
of the institution of marriage the fruit of illicit relations must be
penalized and made odious is intrinsically abhorrent."
Now it must be evident to any student of history that marriage
is a development, not for the benefit and protection of man, so
much as for the benefit and protection of woman and child. Anything, therefore, that safeguards the home is for the interest of
mother and infant; while measures, such as many of the proposed
reforms in the illegitimacy laws, which, while professing to work




112


112      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


for the welfare of mother and child, actually tend to break down
the ideal of the home, are in the long run certain to injure mother
and child more than anything else.
It seems to me, therefore, that the illegitimacy problem is being
attacked from the wrong side. The number of children born out
of wedlock in the United States is so small, in relation to the
legitimates, and their eugenic quality is, on the average, so low,
that mass legislation intended to benefit them, but actually much
more than counterbalancing any good it may do them, by the
harm done to the normal and eugenic part of society, is unwise.
The difficulties and injustices arising in actual cases must of
course be met as well as is humanly possible; but can not these
problems be left largely to the discretion of a domestic relations
court, with a minimum of red tape, mandate, hard and fast law,
and compulsory judicial procedure? Then, attention can be
centered on illegitimacy in a broader way with a view, if not to
wiping it out, at least to reducing it to small proportions. Effective
measures for doing this are numerous and no longer experimental.
They include such familiar procedures as:
Better education of young people, especially in physiology,
ethics, and mental hygiene.
More facilities for recreation.
Proper care or segregation of the feebleminded, particularly
women of child-bearing age.
Suppression of prostitution.
Supervision of feebly-inhibited men and women.
Finally, and most important of all, every eugenic measure that
will tend to raise the level of the race and reduce the number of
feebly-inhibited and feebleminded persons born, thereby reducing
the number of potential illegitimate parents.




IX. ABORTION


Abortion' is one of the most important and least-studied of the
hindrances to normal family life. In many savage societies 'it has
been a recognized means of limiting the increase of population,
and in classical antiquity it was openly tolerated at times. Roman
legislators laid down the unscientific principle that the fetus is
pars viscerstni midieris-a part of the woman's intestines; wherefore
she has as much right to have it removed as to have her appendix
cut out. Christian doctrine declared the sinfulness of abortion
and led to its being regarded as a crime, so that in almost every
civilized country it is now a violation of the law, and repugnant to
official morals, at least, to have any part in procuring an abortion.
The gen eral relaxation of authority, and the general trend
toward materialism and individualism, have resulted, in all civilized countries, in wide and apparently increasing practice of abortion. Obviously, no accurate figures of its frequency can be obtained. In the United States the estimate most frequently quoted
is that of W. J. Robinson, who put the number at 1,000,000 annually. Other guesses have ranged from 50,000 to 3,000,000, but
most conservative social workers feel that the number can not be
less than 250,000 a year (A. W. Meyer). For comparison it may be
recalled that there are something less than 2,500,000 births in the
United States each year. The number of abortions in Germany
has been estimated at from 300,000 to 500,000 a year; in Paris,
according to L. Tissier and others, the number of births and of
abortions is approximately equal. All of the above figures, it must
be insisted, are mere guesses, even though the best guesses avail' The word is here used to apply only to abortions that are induced artificially. Spontaneous abortions occurring before about the seventh month are
usually called miscarriages; those at a later period stillbirths. This is popular
usage: physicians often refer to any early miscarriage as an abortion, without
implying anything criminal.
113




114


114      THlE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


able. Without laying particular weight on any of them, one may
say with some confidence that the number of abortions on both
sides of the Atlantic is large and that it is probably increasing.
There is reason to believe that most of the abortions are performed by licensed physicians, although midwives and nurses also
contribute. E. B. Reuter mentions court records purporting to
show that there are at least 2,000 persons in New York City who
make this their profession, while a writer in Ilygeia (November,
1924) states that the coroner's office of Chicago has a list of over
400 physicians and midwives known to be doing criminal abortions. Perhaps one case in a thousand is prosecuted, but even,then a conviction is seldom obtained. The victim has every reason
for not wanting to testify, and if she does take the stand, she is
unable to give an exact account of what happened. Moreover, it
is merely her word against that of the abortionist, since there are
usually no other witnesses available; and physicians dislike to
testify for a number of reasons, one of which is that the defense
attorneys often make them uncomfortable.
To the number of abortions induced by specialists must be added
those (an unknown but not a small proportion of the total) induced
by the women themselves. These are usually by means of drugs,
of which popular superstition supposes several to be effective. In
addition, thinly-disguised advertisements offering "female- pills"
or powders "to restore suppressed menstruation" are to be seen on
all sides.
Inasmuch as the signs of pregnancy are not infallible during the
earlier months, and suppression of menstruation, which is the
evidence usually accepted by women, may be due to numerous
other causes, many women who are not pregnant become the
victims of abortionists. J. R. Spinner, who says there are thousands of such cases of "imaginary abortion" in Germany each
year, has recorded 100 of which the details were known. In this
series, 45 percent of the operations resulted in the death of the
woman.
Both unmarried and married women contribute to the number
of abortions, but physicians seem to be generally agreed that most




ABORTION11


115


are among married women. In the group of 826 married college
graduate women who replied (anonymously) to the questionnaire
of Katherine Bement Davis, 92 admitted having had a total of 144
abortions (some of them, however, by order of a physician to save
their lives). The admissions were as follows:
NUMBER OF WOMEN ADMITTING ABORTIONS  NUMBER OF ABORTIONS
63                             1
19                             2
5                             3
2                             4
1                             5
1                             7
1                             8
The principal effects are: on the woman, sometimes death, often
protracted illness and ensuing barrenness (not to mention expense),
inflammations, infections, persistent bleeding, repeated spontaneous abortions thereafter; and perversion of the feelings normally associated with motherhood and child love; on society, the
loss of an equivalent number of children. If, as is probable, people
who practice abortion average inherently inferior to the rest of the
population in some important respects, the loss of their offspring
is not an unmixed evil. But the same gain can be got better in
other ways.
More than perhaps any other problem concerning the family,
abortion is viewed through a fog of emotion. On the one hand
are those to whom the very thought is abhorrent, to whom abortion
is merely murder, and who regard even a serious discussion of its
causes and consequences as wicked. On the other hand are those
who, having attempted to emancipate themselves from all authority, regard abortion as a natural form of birth control. They
assume as a matter of course that a woman must be absolute mistress of her own body, and consider that if she desires to procure
an abortion, no one else has a right to say anything about it.
These seem to think that having an abortion performed is comparable, both physically and ethically, to having a tooth pulled.




116


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


The second view seems to have been gaining ground, particularly
in Europe, where the subject has been discussed more openly than
in the United States. As long ago as 1905, a Woman's Congress
in Germany adopted a resolution demanding that abortion be
punishable only when effected by another person against the
wish of the pregnant woman herself; and the Social Democratic
Party in that country-the largest political group-has included
in its platform the demand that the laws against abortion be much
modified, if not wholly abrogated.
As this point of view has been spreading steadily in America,
it is of the highest importance that everyone interested in the conservation of the family examine it and decide for himself how far
it is well taken. Although many facts that would be desirable
are not available, one can draw some sound inferences from a few
simple biological principles.
For the sake of concreteness, I shall proceed by listing and examining the arguments offered in favor of unrestricted abortion.
Most of these have been summarized conveniently by a German
woman physician, Kate Frankenthal. I print a synopsis of her
views in italics, to distinguish them from my comments. She
argues:
1. That existing laws against abortion represent merely the expression of a legislature dominated by men and religion, and that
they are now out of date, as women, who have achieved political freedom, can no longer submit to dictation from such sources. If freedom
of women means anything, it means freedom to abort. The law
should conform to the wishes of a majority of the population. In this
case the women are the only ones to be considered. The vast majority
of them want the right to abort. Vox populi, vox dei!
In answer one might challenge a number of the premises stated,
but it is sufficient to say that to repeal every useful law which
happens to oppose the convenience or desire of a large class would
lead quickly to anarchy. A great number of people want to smuggle foreign purchases through the customs, and want to evade the
income tax; but to abolish these sources of revenue for that reason
would be simple-minded. The question to be determined is




ABORTION


117


whether or not freedom to abort is desirable. This is far too big a
problem to be decided merely by the vote of those most stridently
interested.
2. The law against abortion is not obeyed, therefore it should be
repealed, as its maintenance brings the whole principle of law-enforcement into contempt.
This argument is no stranger to prohibitionists in the United
States. It is fallacious. If the law is worth keeping, it should be
enforced. Of course, it is not to be looked on as the only reliance
against the prevalence of abortion. It is merely one of numerous
measures which aid to diminish the number of abortions. There
is no doubt that the presence of the law is a deterrent to many
women. If unrestricted abortions are not desirable, then this
deterrent, among others, is valuable, and should be reenforced
rather than removed.
3. The morality of a people must be based on more solid ground
than fear of punishment.
This has a familiar sound.2 It is all too true. But it has generally been found desirable, nevertheless, to keep laws against murder, rape, burglary, and the like-and to enforce them, so far as
possible. Why not repeal them, in order to have public morality
and order rest on more solid grounds than fear of punishment?
4. There are many abortions that ought to be performed in the
2 Fear deserves a footnote. It is continually urged by reformers that society
should not try to make people good through fear. Fear of pregnancy, fear of
gonorrhea, fear of Mrs. Grundy, fear of the unwritten law, fear of ostracismall such motives for self-control are declared to be low and degrading. Granted
that fear is neither the "highest" motive to which appeal can be made, nor the
most effective in many cases, it yet has its place, among others, at the present
time. To discard it until other and surer means of control are available would
be folly. The child is taught first to fear fire: otherwise he might easily come
to disaster before he was old enough to know that fire, properly handled, is a
valuable servant and friend. Many children die of old age without ever getting
beyond the mental horizon of childhood. Fear is still one of the best agencies
for controlling such persons. It has been so roundly condemned in recent years
by New Thought cults of religion and pseudo-psychology that it is in danger of
being regarded in a false light. Evil as some fears are in many cases, yet a
normal, biological fear has its place, and an essential one, in the world.




118


118      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


interests of the state much more than those of the woman involved
(cases of bad heredity, poverty, and the like). Freedom would permit
these to be performed, to the state's benefi~t. Under the present law,
the state sujfers.
This is nonsense. One may also argue that there are many
tenement houses in New York City which ought to be burned down,
and that it would be to the state's interest to have them thus
removed. But there are laws against arson, nevertheless, and they
are enforced. There are (a) greater evils connected with the
proposed remedy, than the good it would produce; and (b) there
are other ways of getting the job done, that are less harmful than
to throw open the gates to all abortion.
5. The danger from abortion is imaginary, or at worst lies in the
fact that it is performed furtively, by incompetent quacks. Under
proper conditions, when the best members of the profession were
encouraged to handle such cases, an abortion would be a routine minor
operation. Far more serious surgical cases are handled daily by the
hundred without grave results.
Such ignorance of biology comes strangely from a physician.
While there is usually nothing except danger of an infection in the
removal of an appendix, for example, the removal of a growing
fetus is particularly difficult. The whole object of the fetus-to
speak figuratively-is to avoid the danger of being removed.
Hence it is attached to the wall of the womb by a special organ,
the placenta, that is particularly well adapted to holding on, and
particularly resistant to being dislodged. If it were not so, the
race would probably have become extinct hundreds of thousands
of years ago, through excessive miscarriage.
The placenta grows into the wall of the womb in a remarkably
intimate way, thrusting innumerable root-like projections into
this wall. The tissue around them breaks down, and the maternal
blood soaks directly through a thin membrane of the placental
tissue, thus getting into the circulation of the fetus. The danger
incurred in an abortion is either (a) to dislodge the whole placenta
and start a hemorrhage that will cause death, or else (b) to leave
part of the placental tissues in the womb, thus starting blood




ABORTION


119


poisoning and causing death. Those who think that the premature separation of the fetus from the womb is a slight matter
are not well informed.
6. There are some women who simply ought not to bear children.
Abortion is an absolute necessity for them.  [This is an amplification
of her point No. 4.1    Such cases include married women whose
health will not permit them to be mothers, women the victims of rape,
and innocent young girls seduced by dissolute men of mature age.
In answer to this it may be said that there are other ways of
preventing childbirth than resort to an abortionist.3 If a woman's
health is such that she can not bear children, it is possible for her
to be rendered permanently sterile. Moreover, both law and
medical ethics justify abortion to save a woman's life, and many
such operations are performed annually. The argument involving
rape is largely fictitious, for it seems to be well established that
conception rarely follows real rape by violence. Throu'gh fear
and shock, however, the victim may miss a menstrual period, and
therefore suppose that she is pregnant. The innocent young girl
seduced by an older and dissolute man arouses pity; but what of the
innocent young boy seduced by an older and dissolute woman?
3 There are some amusing contradictions in the attitudes of those who defend abortion. American Birth Control propagandists, for tactical reasons,
usually lay great emphasis on the appalling evil of abortion, representing that
their panacea would cure this as well as all other maladies of society. But as the
same propagandists are often believers in the desirability of free abortion, the
weight of their testimony is somewhat diminished. Occasionally one of them
forgets to be politic, and speaks right out in meeting. Thus at the First
American Birth Control Conference (New York, 1921), Andr6 Tridon declared,
in the course of a formal address: "I also believe one thing, that the meaning
of the perfectly insignificant operation called abortion should be made clear to
all women who have been mothers several times, and who are planning to have
no more children. As I said before, the operation is extremely insignificant,
much less dangerous than having your nails manicured, or having your face
shaved in a more or less antiseptic barber shop..... You may tell me, of
course, that we will be breaking the law by doing so. Well, there was a famous
man who said that in many cases the law was an ass..... When you are
feeling that you are breaking the law not to further your own personal private
happiness, but the happiness of the community, then breaking the law is not a
crime, but a public duty."




120


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


Chivalry usually leads to emphasis on the former case, and no
mention of the latter. Is the woman in the second case also to
have the benefit of the abortionist's services? If not, who is to
draw the line?
So much for Dr. Frankenthal's principal lines of argument.
All of them are specious. Turning to the broader aspects of the
problem, one must ask just what abortion really is, from a biological
point of view.
Advocates of abortion usually assume that it is on the same level
as the prevention of conception. It involves the elimination from
the mother's body of a fertilized egg-cell which is wholly incapable
of living under any other conditions. It can not be called the
destruction of life, but only of potential life; and potential life is
being destroyed by wholesale, on all sides, every day, in the ordinary course of nature.
Such a naive point of view is untenable.
The fact is that in the ovaries of the human female in infancy
there are several hundred thousand undeveloped egg-cells. By
the time of puberty most of these have already degenerated and,
presumably, been absorbed by the body. Perhaps 30,000 or 40,000
are left. Of this great number only 15 or 20 at the most (usually
only three or four) will ever be fertilized and develop into babies.
Some of the others are discharged, each month or oftener, and
expelled from the body. The remainder either die with their
carrier, or degenerate after the menopause. There is thus a great
waste, so to speak, of egg-cells, constantly taking place, and not
to be prevented by any known means. (The waste is vastly greater
in the male.)
Once the egg-cell is fertilized, and implants itself in the wall of
the womb, it is on another basis. It is then a living creature in a
different sense. It will never be wasted or destroyed, under normal conditions, but will develop into a child. It is not viablethat is, not capable of living alone if removed from the wombuntil somewhat late in its development. The period is usually
placed at the fifth month. But viability varies in each case.
Moreover, the exact age of the fetus is never known with certainty.




ABORTION


121


He who would kill it and consider himself guiltless because it was
not viable is therefore walking along a very narrow line, if there
be any line at all.
Dr. Frankenthal herself admits this. The measure championed
by the German Social Democratic Party proposed that abortion
should be unpunished only if performed during the first three
months of the fetal life. This, as Dr. Frankenthal says, is purely
arbitrary, therefore unreasonable, even if the age could be known
exactly-and it can not. She might have added that expert
abortionists prefer not to operate in less than three months, for the
chances of success are not so good.
Closer consideration will show that any line of demarcation is
unwarranted. Why draw the line at three months, since the fetus
is no more capable of living alone at four than at three? Why draw
it at five, since, strictly speaking, the fetus is no more capable of
living alone at seven or eight than at five? It can in any case
exist, after it comes into the world, only with the greatest care and
assistance. No baby ever born could live for a day unaided.
Logically, then, there seems to be no more reason to permit the
murder of a child before delivery than after delivery.
Indeed, the argument may be extended still farther, with full
justification. A child two or three years old can not live without
the assistance of other people. It is as wholly incapable of an
independent, unaided existence as is a three months' fetus. It has
to be cared for, protected, and fed; and whether this care, feeding,
and protection take place within the mother's body or outside it is a
secondary consideration. If abortion is legal, why not the slaughter
of a child at any time before it is able to protect itself and manage
its own affairs?
This has been the logic of many savage peoples, and of many
others who were well up in the scale of civilization, and who did
not hesitate to destroy infants to keep down the population. After
the introduction of Christianity in the Roman Empire, several
centuries of vigorous effort were necessary, before child exposure
and child murder could be made formally illegal-much less
abolished.




122


122      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


The fact is that the attempt to set a limit, before which abortion
is no crime, is a survival of the savage's idea that life does not
exist in the womb until it can be felt-that is, until the period of
quickening, about four months after conception. Prior to that
time, it was supposed that the fetus was not alive. This superstition is retained in the old English common law, but it is surprising
to find it adopted by modern writers.4 Needless to say, the fetus
is just as much endowed with life one day after conception, as it is
at the date of quickening.
There is another biological argument against interference with
the developing fetus. It is not a parasite, growing at the expense
of the mother's body, and to be removed like a cancer. It is an
independent living organism which exists in symbiosis with the
mother-that is, each one gives to as well as receives from the
other. Both benefit from the arrangement. The mother supplies
principally food; the child, on its part,-even if but a few months
from conception-returns the favor by supplying various internal
secretions to its mother. The hullabaloo of Birth Control agitators
has almost obscured the fact, in the minds of many women, that
pregnancy is a beneficial experience to the mother. Normally, it
increases her well-being, physically and mentally. Abortion terminates this mutually profitable symbiosis. It is unfair to the
mother as well, as to the child.
In addition to mother and child, there is the father to be considered. Is he to have any say about an abortion? The advocates
seem to give him a short shrift. All he can do, says Dr. Frankenthal, if his wife will not let her children live, is to leave her and go
to some other woman. On the other hand, if he himself demands
4Superstitions regarding pregnancy die hard. Some uncivilized races still
hold to the notion that a baby possesses no individual existence (or perhaps no
soul) until after it has been put to the breast and taken its first food; hence they
feel that the killing of a newborn babe before it has nursed is not murder, but a
reasonable form of birth control. Again, the superstition of "prenatal culture"
or "4maternal impressions" has had quasi-scientific support in civilized countries
up to recent times. Now, however, it is generally relinquished by physicians to
midwives, by midwives to old grannies, and by old grannies to Doctor Marie C.
Stopes.




ABORTION


123


abortions, and his wife wants to bear children, she can not honorably oppose his wishes-all she can do is to leave him and bring
up her children alone. It is doubtful whether such even-handed
justice will gain many adherents.
Most advocates of abortion lack the courage to follow their own
arguments to a logical conclusion. Instead of giving every woman
free rein in the matter, they would set up some kind of a tribunal
to pass on each case and decide whether or not abortion is permissible in the premises.
Such a proposal has no merit. Under ordinary circumstances no
board of arbitrators can properly be given the right to take lifeand abortion amounts to exactly that. A plausible plea can often
be made in favor of allowing some woman to have an abortion performed, but it would be highly unsafe to give any tribunal power
to weigh such cases and pronounce judgment of death.
Ordinary murder seems to me to furnish a close parallel. No
tribunal has the right to mark out any person for slaughter, and
when such a right is assumed by mobs, revolutionary committees,
or secret organizations, it is regarded as a menace to society. The
man who kills must take the responsibility on his own shoulders.
His action may afterward be approved. He may have killed in
self-defense, or in defense of wife or child, and no one will condemn
him. But he must expect, in advance, to be held to account for
his actions. The time for him to exercise discretion is before he
pulls the trigger.
True, a judge or jury may sentence a criminal to death. If so,
he has had his day in court. He has been tried, heard in his own
defense, had the power to summon witnesses, had the protection
of procedure that is devised expressly to prevent the conviction of
an innocent man; and after all this a jury of his peers has found
him guilty of capital offense against society. Even then, he has
the right of appeal.
Is the same process to be applied to an unborn child? If so,
what is the charge against him?
Even this time-honored procedure is gradually falling into disfavor, and it is probable that capital punishment will be a thing




124          THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY
of the past in civilized countries in the near future. More and
more, public opinion is coming to think that when the state itself
commits murder, it is destroying some of its most precious ethical
values.
And certainly any state that permits the promiscuous murder of
unborn children is inevitably destroying the sentiments and feelings
on which its very existence depends.
What, then, is the way out? As usual, there is no panacea.
On the one hand, every measure that tends to cut down extramarital intercourse will cut down the demand for abortions. On
the other hand, every measure that tends toward the readjustment
of the birth-rate, and toward a better public understanding of the
place of children in life, will likewise curtail the demand for abortions. Beyond that, an awakening to the tremendous proportions
of the evil, and a vigorous campaign of law-enforcement, are
needed.




X. INADEQUATE REPRODUCTION IN SUPERIOR
FAMILIES
1. Who are the superior? No one denies that some people are.
worth more to the community, and to themselves, than are others.
Not only the genius, the inventor, the statesman, the prophet;
but the hard-working father and mother, who enjoy life, help
others to do the same, contribute something worth while to th
world, and bring up a good-sized family of healthy and usefur
children-all these persons are generally recognized as good citizens,
worthy of honor.
On the other hand there is a very different class, even though a
limited one, comprising the feebleminded, the degenerate, the
physically defective, the "born criminal," and the like. It is
generally agreed that society could get along without them, and
that in most instances both they and the nation would be better
off if they had not been born.
While there are always voices raised in protest when the eugenist
speaks of superior persons, it thus appears that the existence of
some differences is never denied, even though no two persons agree
as to the exact limits of the classes that contain the desirable and
the undesirable citizens.
For the present purpose superior people will be defined as those
who have, to a greater degree than the average, inherited the capability of (a) living past maturity, (b) reproducing adequately, (c)
living happily, and (d) making contributions to the productivity,
happiness, and progress of society. Emphasis is laid on the inborl
capability, because there may be some who are born with such
capability but who through no fault of their own do not achieve
success: they are yet to be classed among the eugenic superiors.
On the other hand there are those who, though "born to the
purple," are not born with the traits above mentioned. Regard-.
less of their rank and wealth, they are to be classed as eugenically
inferior.
125)




126


126.,THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


It is not necessary here to go into further detail, or to make any
invidious distinctions. If the above-mentioned traits tend to go
together (they do, in fact, to a marked extent) then by definition
something like one-half of the American nation-i.e., all above the
average-is to be regarded as superior, in varying degree.
2. What is adequ~ate reprodutction?  A  common-sense view
would suppose that the birth-rate of this group should, in the interest of the race, be at least enough to maintain its own numbers
from generation to generation. Most of the progress made in any
country is due to the superior half of its population. Within
limits, the amount of progress will depend directly on the proportion of superior people. If the percentage falls, the progress of the
race will begin to slow down. If the percentage rises, the race
will make strides ahead more rapidly than ever before. One
might at least hope, therefore, that the superior part of the population would have enough children to keep from dying out. This
would require, as shown in Part I, that each married pair have at
least four children, or bring at least three to maturity.
The number of superior people in each generation is made
up primarily of those born in that class, and secondarily, of those
who have come up from the ranks, who have emerged from the
horde of unskilled workers (urban or rural) to display talents far
beyond those of their original associates. It has been supposed
by some writers that the number of those in the class last-mentioned
is practically unalimited, and that nothing more is needed than to
give them a chance; to develop education, promote social justice,
and thereby produce, from any walk of life whatsoever, as many
leaders as may be needed in each generation. By this hypothesis,
it would make little difference whether the present group of
superiors reproduced itself or not, for if it did not, it could be
replaced easily from the great reservoir of undeveloped talent at
the bottom of the social order.
Such a hypothesis 'is untenable. The reasons, which are set
forth at length in Applied Eugenics and elsewhere, can not be
summarized here further than to say that it does not square with
the facts of heredity. But granting for the sake of argument that




INADýEQUATE REPRODUCTION IN SUPERIOR FAMILIES      127.
proper education and a square deal had unlimited power to raise
men from the depths to the heights, yet this would not be an adequate substitute for the reproduction of those already on the
heights; for it will be generally admitted that the homes and family
circles of the latter are, if not better, at least easier places in which
to develop good character than are the lowest types of congested
and insanitary tenements. Thus on any hypothesis it is desirable
that those who have demonstrated themselves to be superior
should reproduce. Every effort should be made to draw from the
"csubmerged tenth" the utmost of human ability that it contains;
but this effort can not possibly make it less desirable for the present
prosperous and efficient members of the community to bear
children.
It is, moreover, obviously desirable that the most highlyendowed bear the most children, and that the least highly-endowed
bear the fewest, if there are to be differences in the birth-rate.
These are elementary biological facts that seem self-evident,
yet it is surprising how often they are ignored in discussions of
population.
3. What is the presen2 reproduction of the superiors? It is im-,
possible to answer this question directly, since there are no figures
applying directly to superiors in the sense in which the word is here
used. But by examining the birth-rate in a number of different
groups, one can see something of the movement of evolution.
It will be found that the old native white stock is dying out
rapidly in the northeastern states, where it is being replaced by the
children of more recent immigrants; and that, on the whole, the
increase of population comes from people living in the country
(above all, in the west and south) and from the poorer part of
city populations everywhere. The more well-to-do in all cities
have lower birth-rates, and usually do not perpetuate themselves.
Thus there is a constant drain of people, in each generation,
from the farms to the cities, where they die without having left
sufficient representatives to take their places. At the same time
there is a constant rise of the abler residents of the city's worst




128


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


districts, into affluence and better residential districts, where they
likewise die without having left children to fill their places.
The result of these broad trends is that an important part of the
natural ability of the country is used up in each generation. American cities now contain roughly half of the entire population of the
nation. The successful, well-to-do part of the city population
dies without leaving enough children to fill the ranks. The disappearance of this element from the nation is, however, prevented
because the poorer districts of the cities, and the remaining half
of the population living in the country, send forward each year a
batch of new recruits.
Two questions are thus presented. (a) Is it desirable that the
most productive part of the urban population should die off? (b)
Is the reservoir, in the lower urban and the rural population, which
is now making up the deficit, inexhaustible; or will the best elements
in this reservoir gradually be exhausted, too, until only the dregs
are left?
The first question can be answered without hesitation. It is a
national calamity that the part of the population which does the.
most for progress should, in each generation, perish. Although.
this section by no means contains all of the eugenically superior
(as defined above), and does contain many who are inferior; yet it
contains a larger proportion of eugenically superior than do the'
lowest strata-the "submerged tenth" or perhaps even the "submerged third."
The second question has been more debated. It can not be
disputed seriously, however, that it is possible in time to exhaust
this or any other human reservoir, and that the average quality will ~
tend to be lower each year.
Turning from these broad and general considerations to a few
details, the discussion will here be limited to members of the white
race in America.
College graduates form a group which is distinctly superior to
the average in mental ability and family background. Neither
men nor women have a birth-rate high enough to reproduce
the group. So far as is known, however, the birth-rate of college




INADEQUATE REPRODUCTION IN SUPERIOR FAMILIES        129
men is about twice as high as that of college women. For example,
the number of children' per graduate is, at
Yale.................................................. 1.99
Harvard............................................. 1.71
Syracuse (men)........................................ 1.66
Vassar................................................ 0.90
Wellesley............................................. 0.86
Syracuse (women)...................................... 0.83
Bryn Mawr..........................................000.37
Wellesley (honor scholars)................................ 0.20
The number of children per married graduate is, at
Yale................................................. 2.57
Harvard.............................................. 2.51
Syracuse (men)........................................ 2.06
Vassar................................................ 1.82
Wellesley..........................................00***1.56
Syracuse (women)...................................... 1.46
Bryn Mawr......................0.84
Wellesley (honor scholars)........................... 90*0.0057
Among college professors and men of science, the two-child family
has been virtually standardized.
A study published late in 1924 by the Bureau of Census gives
the number of children that had been borne to fathers aged 45 to 49
in various occupations. The age of the fathers makes it certain
that the family is complete or nearly so. The average size of
family, in groups where more than 1,000 births altogether were
reported, is given in the tabulation on page 130.
Most of the people represented in these groups are no doubt of
good stock, the perpetuation of which is desirable, and it is gratifying to note that, so far as this fragmentary investigation represents
the entire situation, they are more than perpetuating themselves.
But it will be noted that none of these furnishes the bulk of the
leadership of the nation. Among the 1000 leading American men
1I give the gross birth-rate in every case, since the child mortality is in some
cases not known. If the net birth-rate (which is the significant one, eugenically)
could be given, it would of course be lower. See Paul Popenoe, 1917.




130


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


TOTAL
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF  TOTA
ONIRTHS  CHILDREN  CILDREN
OCCUPATION              REPORTED  LIVING  CHILDREN
IN 1923  IN 1923   1923
Coal mine operatives...................... 2,679  6.6      8.1
Farm laborers...........................  3,074  6.0      7.2
General laborers......................... 10,069  5.8     7.2
Semi-skilled operatives....................  3,602  5.4    6.4
Carpenters.............................  2,048   5.4      6.2
Mechanics..............................  1,622   5.0      5.9
Retail and wholesale dealers...............  3,252  4.8    5.5
Other merchants, miscellaneous............  1,243  4.0     4.5
of science, there is not one son of a day laborer. It takes 48,000
unskilled laborers to produce one man distinguished enough to
get in Who's Who, while the same number of Congregational
ministers produces 6,000 persons eminent enough to be included
in that work of reference.
Bootblacks, who had the highest birth-rate next to coal miners,
in the above study, had just about twice as many children as did
the bankers whose shoes they shined. Dentists, physicians, and
surgeons had three children apiece, as did architects, artists,
chemists, lawyers, judges, musicians, technical engineers, actors,
designers, inventors, and brokers. As there are many unmarried
or childless men in the latter occupations, it is evident that these
professions are not reproducing themselves. Yet these and similar
groups are the ones from which a number of children much larger
than the average would be of particular benefit to the race.
4. What are the immediate causes of the low fecundity of the superior? Among them are:
(a) Late marriages. While the average age at marriage in the
United States, as in most other civilized countries, has shown a
slight tendency to drop in recent decades, the age at marriage of
the most highly educated part of the community shows a tendency
to increase, the period of preparation being lengthened steadily.
Many professional schools now require a bachelor's degree for
entrance. The graduate of such a school must establish himself
in business after he gets his diploma; he can rarely hope to marry




INADEQUATE REPRODUCTION IN SUPERIOR FAMILIES


131


before the age of 30 and, with the stress of competition, the age
tends to be pushed up towards 40. The unskilled laborer, on the
other hand, can marry as soon as he reaches maturity. Indeed,
his earning power may be greater at 20, in the vigor of youth, than
at 40.
(b) Fewer marriages. In the nation as a whole, the percentage
of marriages is rising slightly, but in the higher ranks there is a
tendency to bachelorhood, which leaves one-fourth of the men
college graduates permanently unwed. The marriage rate of
college women is more variable, and uniformly lower. In some
of the coeducational colleges of the middle west it reaches 60 percent, or even 70 percent, while in other institutions, including all
the separate women's colleges of the east, and such widely different
coeducational universities as Stanford and Syracuse, it is below 50
percent.
(c) Fewer children per marriage. This is the great cause of the
falling birth-rate. Is it voluntary or involuntary?
Although the number of sterile marriages has increased steadily
for many decades, they are not the principal source of the fall.
It is a matter of common notoriety that people are nowadays having
fewer children than their parents did, because they do not want too'
many children, and because they take deliberate and more or less
effective means to prevent having children. Studies at the Uni'
versity of Wisconsin by E. A. Ross and at the University of Cali-i
fornia by S. J. Holmes showed that the present students come from
three-child families, while their grandparents had five or six
children each.2
Of 1,000 married women above the average in education, who
answered the questionnaire of Katherine Bement Davis, threefourths stated that they used contraceptive methods. It is interesting to note that those who used such methods had both more
pregnancies and more living children than those who never used
any contraceptive measures. Of the women who "took no precau2 J. McKeen Cattell has pointed out the statistical reasons why people always
come from larger families than they themselves have. The above figures can
not, therefore, be taken quite at their face value.




132


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


tions," none had had more than seven pregnancies, and only 12
had had more than five. Of the women who used contraceptives,
six had had eight pregnancies each, two had had nine, two eleven,
while one woman reported 12 and another 13 pregnancies-an
eloquent testimonial to the efficiency of Birth Control! Those
(average age 37 years) who had used contraceptives had had 2.5
pregnancies and 1.93 children each, while those (average age 41
years) who had never used such measures had had 1.65 pregnancies
and 1.31 children each. These paradoxical results may indicate
to some extent that the women who did not use contraceptives
were those who had less need of them, because of a natural tendency
to barrenness. But the number of cases in which there had not
even been one pregnancy was slightly greater among those who
used contraceptives, than among those who did not.
While all the factors that have been mentioned in Section 7
enter into the declining birth-rate, it is not disputed, I believe, that
voluntary limitation of pregnancies is the chief factor.
5. What are the indirect causes of the low fertility of the superior?
They are largely associated with life in great cities, and they have
been found in every civilization that built great cities. They
represent the interaction of biologic, economic, national, social,
religious, and ethical influences, which operate first on the frequency and manner of sexual intercourse and secondly on the
changing of its natural result. From this formula it will be clear
that no simple explanation can be given.
Biological causes of the lower birth-rate in the city may include
the general unwholesome conditions of city life, the higher nervous
tension, too poor or too rich diet, greater prevalence of venereal
diseases, greater frequency of abortion and resulting barrenness,
and the like. These are unquestionably of less importance than
the social and economic factors. Broadly, the birth-rate may be
said to vary inversely with social position. The latter is a function
of revenue and education. Hence the birth-rate is likely to be
lowest where revenue is highest and education most specialized.
But such generalizations convey little meaning. It is more
profitable to analyze some of the causes in detail, even at the risk
of losing a certain amount of perspective.




INADEQUATE REPRODUCTION IN SUPERIOR FAMILIES


133


For the present purpose, the broadest distinction that can be
made in society is that between hand-workers and brain-workers.
While the classes are not sharply distinct, and there is a continual
transfer from one to the other, popular usage recognizes the distinction as valid, and boys and girls starting out in life are often
much concerned as to whether they will land in one or the other
class-whether they will have dirty hands or white collars.
Among the poorer hand-workers there is little voluntary limitation of the size of family. The people in this class do not know how
to limit their families, and sometimes do not care a great deal about
learning, because they do not feel the burden of a fairly large
family as keenly as people in the higher classes. The child is not
such a handicap; it goes to work at an early age, and contributes
something to the family. Moreover, this class always contains a
certain proportion of the thoughtless and improvident and subnormal, who would not exercise the restraint necessary to prevent
childbirth, even if they knew how.
Among the more intelligent hand-workers, the skilled laborers
and trades union members, there is more widespread limitation of
families. Many of these people want to keep down the number of
laborers in the population, thereby hoping to raise wages. Others
want to give their children better opportunities than they themselves had, which means that the child will have a longer education
and probably not make any financial return to the parents before
his own marriage. Others are ambitious to get ahead themselves, and do not want the trouble or expense of children.
Passing to the brain-workers, one finds that voluntary restriction of the size of family is nearly universal. Among the merely
well-to-do, the ambition of the father frequently causes this: he
is immersed in his work, determined to forge ahead, and leaves
every detail of home life to his wife; or he wants all his money to
put into his business. The wife, on her side, is often a climber; the
couple is determined to have a better automobile than it can afford;
to keep up appearances; children interfere in many ways with
these efforts, consequently they are not born. Many wives want
some sort of "career;" many others are of the purely parasitic type;




134


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


while even those who do want children find city life particularly
unfavorable for bringing up a family of the normal size; expenses
excessive on every side and conveniences-even a place to live--
hard to obtain. Desire to travel, to acquire "culture," and other
distractions likewise tend to keep down the birth-rate, so that this
class rarely bears enough children to maintain its own numbers.
Above the level of the well-to-do are the wealthy, practicing
birth control almost universally, conspicuous exceptions being
some of the enormously rich families who desire to found "dynasties." In a study of 600 millionaires, P. Sorokin found the average
family to consist of four or five children. Ambition and love of
ease are prevailing motives among the wealthy; riches bring cares,
opportunities for selfish enjoyment-in short, a multiplicity of
competing interests, to which children are sacrificed. Both men
and women are usually insatiable climbers; the girls are too often
brought up as pampered parasites, educated at "finishing" schools
and women's separate colleges; their ideals are normally impossible
of attainment, and by the time they are ready to settle down and
marry some man in moderate circumstances, sharing with him the
trials as well as the joys of bringing up a family, they have often
passed the age when marriage is possible.
This class, like many others, rarely reproduces its own numbers.
It is continually dying out at the top and being replaced from below.
This condition is in a way particularly unfortunate, because its
example is so widely admired and followed by people in classes
below it.
6. How can conditions be changed to favor the production of larger
families among the superior?  If the foregoing analysis is in large
part correct, it is obvious that a new attitude toward reproduction
is required, with the reconstruction of features of society that favor
the present wrong attitudes.
It is no simple matter to bring about such a change. It means
innumerable readjustments, large and small. Much of Part III
will be devoted to this problem. Here it is sufficient to point out
a few lines along which one might hope for immediate progress.
Obviously a thoroughgoing reconstruction of education is neces



INADEQUATE REPRODUCTION IN SUPERIOR FAMILIES


135


sary. This must (a) prepare young people to be intelligent parents
and (b) make it feasible, especially for superior young men, to
earn enough to maintain a family, at an earlier age than is now
often possible. All phases of education directly concerned with
the home must be handled in a very different manner from the
present., Economic fair play is needed, so that income may be more proportionate to real worth. Taxation may be revised to this end.
Most important of all is a change in attitude toward reproduc"tion, on which Roswell H. Johnson has been insisting effectively for
many years. Let honor be given where it is due, and pity or contempt where they, on the other hand, are deserved.
Faulty education of men is the reason for the celibacy of many
young women. Vigorous effort must be made to correct it. On
the other hand, are all superior single women wholly to be excused
for their situation? It seems probable that many of them have
deliberately allowed themselves to fall into a rut, where they
make no marriageable acquaintances, or where they absorb an
anti-social misanthropy that too often cloaks an inferiority complex
based on their celibacy. The healthy and intelligent married
woman who could have a normal family and who has only a child or
two is, in most cases, pulling back on the wheels of racial progress.
There was much talk during the World War of the heroism and
nobility of those women who gave their sons to death: is there not
an occasional word to be said for those who give sons, and daughters, to life? If, on the other hand, the husband is responsible for
limitation of births beyond necessity, double condemnation must
be his, since he has not even the trouble of bearing the children.
In men's industrial work, various grades of efficiency are recognized. There is the ambitious, productive man, filled with the
pride of good workmanship; there is the slacker, the loafer and
"soldier;" lowest of ajl, there is the parasitic agitator, whose only,
work is sabjtage, and who js regded as a criminal.
In wontalh's work-motherhood-these same grades may be
distinguished. There is the productive mother; there is the slacker,
the parasite letting others do her work; finally there is the vicious




136          THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY
and criminal element engaged in sabotage. This consists largely of
oversexed and incontinent young spinsters and divorcees, and of
undersexed, celibate spinsters of older age, all of whom, under the
banner of individualism, are destroying the machinery of society.
Far from being admired as emancipated women whose careers
should be emulated, these (and their male accomplices) should be
regarded with the contempt they deserve, and which their brothers
of similar records in industry actually receive-contempt of every
honest worker, and of the public which, in the long run, is the chief
sufferer from every attempt to foster revolt in place of evolution.




XI. EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR
FAMILIES
Children born in homes where squalor, poverty, disease, crime,
and mental defect are the rule, usually either die young or live
to be handicap to themselves, their parents, and the nation. A
sentimental and unbiological attitude toward parenthood has in
the past too often encouraged such a travesty on real parenthood:
so that, for example, a feebleminded girl in the almshouse would
be encouraged to become the wife of some degenerate farmer in the
neighborhood, in order that she might know the beauty of maternity and-above all-in order that the community might no
longer be put to the expense of her support. Of course, when she
came back to the almshouse, 10 years later, after being deserted
by her husband, and brought with her four or five feebleminded
offspring to add to the burden of the county, the problem of
motherhood was sometimes seen, by a few persons, in a different
light.
In homes where foresight and prudence are lacking, where
alcoholism is common, and where little restraint is put on natural
inclinations, the birth-rate is likely to be high. One hundred
dependent families of native white stock, reported by H. J. Halverson, showed an average of 6.5 children each. Feebleminded
persons who applied for relief to the Associated Charities of Madison, Wis., were found, according to 0. E. Baker (Paul Popenoe,
1918) to have 6.2 children each. A. H. Estabrook discovered, in
his study of the great Juke clan, a group of several thousand
criminals, imbeciles, paupers, and ne'er-do-wells, that the women
have on the average 4.3 children apiece-twice as many as do
college professors' wives.
Without going into tedious detail on this subject (the facts of
which have often been exaggerated) it will be admitted by most
people that childbirth in families markedly characterized by
137)




138


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


"the three D's"-defect, delinquency, and degeneracy--is rarely
a blessing to any one concerned, and that if it can be prevented, the
gain will be unmixed.
Considering the character of the parents, little can be expected
from their voluntary co-operation. They are not capable of it,
even if they wanted to give it. Society must interfere, for their
benefit as well as its own. The methods of interference most widely
favored are sterilization and segregation.
Advocates of sterilization argue that nothing more is necessary
than to perform compulsorily (under suitable laws) appropriate
operations on men and women of the classes under discussion.
Such operations make it impossible for the persons to have children, although they do not otherwise interfere with the sexual life
in any way. They are relatively inexpensive; they are done once
for all; and society may then wash its hands of the case, confident
that it will not in the future be troubled by the offspring of these
misfits.
Of the objections that may be brought against this procedure,
two are most often heard. (1) Sterilization does not safeguard
all the interests of society, for while it does (in most cases, at least)
remove the individual from the list of possible parents, it does not
make it any less likely that he or she will be a sexual delinquent,
spreading vice and disease on all sides. It is therefore not adapted
to the delinquent type, unless accompanied by proper supervision.
(2) Such a course does not adequately discharge society's duty
to the individual. The man under consideration is, it must be
remembered, physically or mentally defective in one way or
another, and quite incapable of holding his own in competition
with the normal members of society, in the struggle for existence.
This defect is, indeed, one of the reasons for his delinquency, in
many cases. Simply to sterilize him and then to set him free,
to stand or fall, is cruel. It is also unwise from the narrowest
point of view, for it is nearly certain that he will make trouble for
society in many other ways than by mere reproduction: he will
become, or continue to be, a dependent or a delinquent. And




EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES


139


whatever is true of men in these respects is doubly true of women.
Society therefore owes to itself, as well as to the individual concerned, to give further protection by life-long custodial care. This
objection is valid with reference to some classes of defectives, but
the experience of California, where some 5,000 operations have been
performed to date, indicates that there are many defectives who
can not only be trusted safely in charge of relatives after sterilization, and live useful lives in the community, but may even marry
happily. Usually the individual and his relatives are much pleased
to have had the operation performed.
Segregation with life-long custodial care, which is already in'
operation in most states for a minute percentage of the feebleminded, should be extended to take in other misfits who can not
hope to make their own way in the world successfully, and whose
inadequacy is a source of harm both to themselves and to society,
There is a third measure, much more widely "agitated" than
either sterilization or segregation, which requires consideration
here. This is Birth Control, which I write with capital letters
to distinguish it from the proper sense which the words would
naturally have if used alone.
Birth Control, while pseudo-biological, has in fact become a
quasi-religious cult, its god a modern Moloch whom     only the
continual sacrifice of little children can prevent from wreaking
vengeance on his abject worshippers. Like other new cults, it is
marked by zeal, fanaticism, intolerance, and enjoyment of mild
martyrdom, together with lack of a sense of humor. That it is
actually religious (i.e., based on belief in a different order of things
than any found in this world) may be seen by considering it in
France. Quality of population is as desirable in France as in any
other nation; but beyond this, if there is any nation whose people
might be pardoned for temporarily seeking quantity, it is France,
where deaths often exceed births, where more than three millions
of population were lost through the World War, where thousands of
acres of good farm land are lying idle for lack of hands, and where
several millions of unassimilable immigrants have had to be im



140


140      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


ported in recent years to do the necessary work of the country.
Yet in these circumstances the Birth Control missionaries are just
as indiscriminately active in France as elsewhere, rending heaven
with their outcry against "breeding like rabbits," in a country
where two children already make a large family!
Like most other cults, Birth Control professes admirable purposes: indeed, it promises a near approach to, if not actual arrival
at, the Millennial Dawn, for the success of the cult would, so its
votaries say, exterminate war, wipe out poverty and misery, remedy
the housing shortage, allay industrial unrest, reduce ignorance and
crime, diminish alcoholism, emancipate woman, favor early marriage, prolong the span of human life, check the spread of venereal
diseases, abolish child labor, eliminate illegitimacy, obviate abortion, and produce a new race of supermalthusians, superior in
physique, mentality, wealth, culture, and ethics to anything now
known.
/;The real meaning of Birth Control is birth prevention, or more
exactly, the prevention of conception, which is to be brought
about by the use of certain methods, on which the propagandists
differ widely. All the benefits mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and others too numerous to mention, are to ensue from the
general practice of "voluntary parenthood." If mothers bear
children only if, when, and as wanted, the New Era will be ushered
in. At a blast from the trumpet of a feminist Gabrielle, multitudes of happy parents with their child will begin to throng the
streets of gold, while Capitalism and Militarism will be cast into
outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Now the fact is that some means of control of conception has
been in use ever since the beginning of history; that artificial means
of preventing conception are in almost universal use at the present
day among civilized people; and that it is highly desirable, if not
necessary, for parents to use intelligence in planning and producing
their families. These facts are denied by few thinking and independent people. Birth control practice, in one form or another,
is recognized by the general population as proper. Why, then,
t he, furore?




EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES


141


The principal hindrance to an extension of rational birth control
practice at the present time is nothing more nor less than the
Birth Control propaganda. In a nation which has been notorious
for bad propaganda for bad causes, nothing has surpassed in badness that of Birth Control, and the sooner the extreme and characteristic forms of this propaganda are repudiated and suppressed,
the sooner will the proper spread and legalization of birth control
practice be possible.
Scientifically, the main objections to the Birth Control propaganda are:
1. It is a purely emotional production, an appeal to sentiment,
based on individual cases written up in the style which Suffering
Womanhood popularized in describing its symptoms to the late
lamented Lydia E. Pinkham.
2. It has no constructive program-not even a program of
application. It simply proposes to let down the bars. Even its
proponents admit that this will do some harm, but they claim that
the harm will be more than counterbalanced by the resulting good.
"The end justifies the means." But why should there not be an
intelligent plan of action that would at least minimize, if not wholly
prevent, this harm? Since the Birth Control propagandists virtually admit that letting down the bars will increase sexual promiscuity, is it not incumbent on them to come forward with a constructive program, instead of their present wholly negative and
destructive one? Unless, indeed, they take the position that an
increase of promiscuity is a negligible matter.
3. The Birth Control propaganda has been pushed with a reckless disregard for biology, and for science in general; and largely by
persons who have no acquaintance with science, and seemingly no
desire to become acquainted with it. Many of the conspicuous
professional agitators are either spinsters, or unhappily married
women and divorcees, with no children or at most a child or two.
Any psychologist knows why they are crusading for Birth Control.
Not one of them has, to my knowledge, ever shown a sound conception of the population problem.
This problem presents innumerable aspects, but the present




142


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


discussion may be limited to four, which represent the respective
interests of (a) the family, (b) the nation, (c) the race, and (d) the
world. A large volume would be too small to expound any one of
these fully. Here only a salient point or two can be mentioned.
(a) It is to the interest of the family to have a number of children
proportioned to their quality, and also to such factors as the
finances of the parents and the strength of the mother. Normal
people do not bear children altruistically, to prevent race suicide;
but selfishly, because they find greater pleasure in superior children
than in anything else. The first great disservice which the Birth
Control propagandists have done the family is to talk as if children
were an almost intolerable burden, a curse to be avoided at almost
any cost. A child or two may be endured in case of necessity, but
every pregnancy is for the mother a step toward the grave, for the
father a step toward bankruptcy, for both a step toward slavery.
Such an attitude, probably quite unconscious, strikes the reader
in every chapter of Margaret Sanger's books. Nothing could be
more untrue. Childbearing is desirable in order that people may
be happy individuals and good citizens.
(b) The interest of the nation is to be strong, vigorous, and progressive. To this end it requires an optimum population, proportionate to the food supply, to the organization of industry, and to
many other economic factors. The Birth Control obsession is
based on two fallacies: first, that "the fewer people, the better they
will live," and secondly, that the optimum has already been passed
in modern civilization. England, it is asserted, would be better
off with 10 or 15 million less people than it actually has; and the
implication always is, if conditions are so hideous now, think what
they will be in two or three more generations!
If the case were as bad as represented, these excess millions might
well colonize Canada, Australia, and South Africa. But the fact
is that no nation can afford to have a sudden drop in its population,
for the whole intricate structure of modern civilization is built
on a given body of people, and any large withdrawal of people
from under it is equivalent to withdrawing the foundations from a
skyscraper. If population is to be reduced, it must be done very




EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES


143


gradually, by decreasing birth-rate, until a stationary population
is attained. Less than a stationary population--i.e., a declining
population-is a source of danger in many ways, unless the decline
is almost imperceptibly slow.
How is it with Great Britain in this respect? The population
was some 37 millions in 1925. A. L. Bowley has calculated that,
if the present rates of birth, death, and emigration continue, the
population will increase to about 45 or 46 million about 1941,
and thereafter will begin to diminish. Other statisticians have
put the maximum at not more than 41 or 42 millions. It does not
appear, then, that there is reason to go into hysterics over the
future of Great Britain, for the decline is likely to be more rapid
and to come sooner than the calculations indicate, because the
death rate is not likely to rise rapidly, while the birth rate is likely
to fall and emigration to increase.
France has already been mentioned. It offers an admirable
illustration of what actually happens in a Birth Control state.
There Africans, Asiatics, and illiterate Slavs are being imported
by the hundred thousand to keep the machinery going, and thereby
presumably forcing down still further the birth rate of the old
native stock. The French people have proved abundantly that
they have no sentimental repugnance to the idea or the methods
of birth control. They have had a chance to experience the effects.
They ought to be the best witnesses for it. But aside from a few
fanatics, the French people certainly show little pleasure over the
results of the policy.
New England is an equally good example. How is it with the
United States as a whole?
The fact is that, in the old white stock of the northeastern United
States, the birth rate has been falling for a century or more.
Among Mayflower descendants whose ancestry was studied by
S. J. Holmes and C. M. Doud, parents born between 1810 and 1830
had six children, while those born between 1870 and 1880 had one
and a half.
The increase in population in the United States is now almost
wholly due to immigrants, and to the old white population on the
farms.




144


144      THlE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


With restriction of immigration, the foreign source of increase
will dry up steadily. With continuing trend of population toward
the cities, the rural source of increase will dry up steadily.
Moreover, the increase has been due in part to a falling death
rate. But this can not continue to fall indefinitely-all people
must die some time. Therefore this source of increase will tend
to disappear.
The plain conclusion is that overpopulation in the United States
in any generation that can now be foreseen is a bogey as mythical
as the Minotaur. On the contrary, the stage is all set for a steady
decrease in the rate of growth of the nation. It is of no great
importance to call for a lower birth rate in general now, (although
some decline will not be harmful), but it is of tremendous importance to call for a higher birth rate among those people who can be
assets rather than liabilities to the nation.
(c) The racial aspect of birth control is one of the most important
and most ignored. If charity begins at home, Birth Control should
begin abroad. Continued limitation of offspring in the white
race simply invites the black, brown, and yellow races to finish the
work already begun by Birth Control, and reduce the whites to a
subject race preserved merely f or the sake of its technical skill,
as the Greeks were by the Romans.
A reasonable regard for self-preservation and racial values makes
it appear that Birth Control missionaries might well be sent to the
other races of the world, and required to convert those races before
they were allowed to return and establish their peculiar kind of
millennium at home.
(d) Looking at the world as a whole, the first question to be
asked is whether the food supply will be sufficient a few centuries
hence, to feed the population that will exist at that time. There
is no need here to indulge in the popular pastime of belaboring
the corpse of Thomas R. Malthus. It is sufficient to say, in the
first place, that the population of the world will probably not continue to increase as rapidly as some statisticians have supposed,
and in the second place that the development of the vegetable food
resources of the world, by applying even such knowledge of plant



EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES 14


145


breeding and horticulture as is now available, can increase those
resources almost incredibly. Animal food ought to be abandoned
anyway, for it is intolerably wasteful to feed a hog seven pounds of
good food in the form of corn, in order to get back one pound of
bad food in the form of bacon.
The world as a whole is not entitled to much sympathy as yet.
The real points of anxiety should be that the best families, the best
nations, and the best races are perpetuated. The great care
should be that orderly and progressive evolution is not upset by the
destruction of the superior types and the reproduction only of the
inferior.
4. The Birth Control. propaganda has been pushed with utter
disregard for popular psychology. It has been provocative and
vulgar where it should have been subtle and persuasive. If it had
been handled differently, success might have been expected before
this.
5. The Birth Control propaganda has been backed by no body
of experimental or statistical evidence to substantiate its claims.
Its arguments have been a tissue of untruths and misrepresentations so glaring as to deceive no one except those who expect rejuvenation from goat glands and the Electronic Reactions of
Abrams. To this the propagandists reply that because of the
American laws, it is impossible to get any evidence in America.
They could, however, get it in Europe, if it is to be had. Instead
of this, they content themselves with generalities and absurd
claims which no disinterested person can take seriously. Holland
is the favorite stage setting for these pearls, a familiar one of which
is the assertion that "the average stature of the Dutch has iincreased over four inches in 50 years" as a result of the teachings
of Birth Control.
In the light of these facts, what should be the attitude of those
who are interested in the conservation of the family?
1. The present Birth Control, cult should, be repudiated by all
responsible people.
2. Effective measures should be adopted to make knowledge
concerniing family limitation available to those who want it,




146


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


through the clinics for marriage and parenthood that I have described elsewhere in this book. Here such scanty scientific information as is available concerning contraception could be given,
together with enlightenment as to the proper place of childbearing
in family life, and warning against the harmful practices recommended by the professional Birth Controllers.
The immediate demand of the latter is for the repeal of the federal law which prohibits the circulation of contraceptive information by classing it with the circulation of obscene literature, pornographic pictures, and instruction in abortion. It has been saidwith what truth I know not-that the inclusion of contraception
in this law was inadvertent. Certainly it does not belong there.
But this does not mean that the bars should be thrown down, and
no restraint whatever put on the circulation of such information.
That would merely invite a commercialization of the subject,
with each manufacturer and dealer seeking to get as many customers as possible for his own products, regardless of the merit of
these or the use to be made of them.
Repeal of the federal law would by no means remove all obstacles
to the dissemination of information regarding contraceptives, for
many states also have such laws. The federal law does not hinder
a physician from giving information in any case where it is needed,
and the laws of most states do not: where they do, I believe they
are never enforced. It appears then, however desirable it may be
to have the legal situation cleared up, that the existing laws do not
interfere with a reasonable use of contraceptive information.
They do, however, prevent Uplifters from advertising Birth Control clinics of their own.
The common proposal to put the control of contraceptive information in the hands of physicians is open to some objections.
It might be argued that parenthood is not a disease, and hence
not primarily the concern of physicians. Practically, moreover,
it can be argued that the narrow education of physicians does not
qualify them particularly to deal with the broader phases of family
limitation.
On the other hand, the Birth Control advocates declare that free




EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES


147


knowledge of contraception is especially necessary for mothers who
are sick or defective. In such cases a physician would be the
natural one to consult.
Beyond this, the danger from the use of many contraceptives
(inflammation, sterility, and the like) is great enough to make it
desirable that they should be used by those who understand what
they are doing. Until there are especially trained biologists available, therefore, it seems desirable that contraceptive knowledge
should be sought from competent gynecologists. But as I have
remarked above, these should be associated in a clinic with experts
on heredity and mental hygiene, if family limitation is to be put
on a scientifically sound and constructive basis.
The relation of physicians to contraception has one aspect
that is not without its amusing features. Birth Control propagandists have insistently harped on the supposed fact that the
medical profession possesses knowledge of tremendous import,
which it would give to the public if it were permitted to do so
by the repeal of the federal law. Many persons have therefore
gone to physicians to get this mysterious information, and have
been astonished to be told that the physician knew of nothing
that answered to the description given by the propagandists.
The physician was telling the truth, although the client felt
sure he was lying. There is no contraceptive method that possesses the perfection which the propagandists lead one to expect.
But the propaganda has been so enthusiastic that many physicians
began seriously to think that there must be some potent and mystical knowledge which they had overlooked and which they were
really supposed to have. The result is that more than 7,000 of
them have written to a New York Birth Control propagandist,
earnestly desiring to get this knowledge which they are represented to conceal!
It goes without saying that the medical colleges must deal with
problems of the conservation of the family in a broader and more
fundamental way, if their graduates are in the future to play the
part which they are expected to play, and ought to play, in the
community. But even with this, the public would be much dis



148


148      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


appointed if it found out how unsatisfactory is all the real knowledge in existence concerning contraceptives.
3. But as a prerequisite to any direct action for the wider
spread of contraceptive information, the general campaign for
eugenics and social hygiene must be linked up in such a way as
to give the public a proper perspective. Contraception is not an
evil in its place, but its place is not isolated. The second great
disservice which the "sob sisters" of the Birth Control press
bureaus have done to family conservation is to isolate contraception. It is not the free and universal knowledge of contraception
that is objectionable. It is the free and universal knowledge of
nothing but contraception, to which objection must be made vigorously. Contraception is only a means, though an important and
necessary one, to intelligent family life under modern conditions.
(Even Roman Catholics insist on this, although they demand
that conception be prevented by continence, rather than by intercourse "with precautions.") It is one of the numerous necessary
and important items in a plan for the conservation of the family
and the regulation of population. Unfortunately, the devotees
of the cult can see nothing except contraception. What little lipservice they give to the fact that childbearing among superior
people is both a duty and a privilege, is wholly drowned out by the
volume of their clamor as to the evils of childbearing among their
putative clients. It is indeed only recently that the principal
organs of Birth Control in the United States have, largely at the
instance of Roswell H. Johnson, made even a perfunctory declaration in their creeds that they believe in adequate reproduction
among superior people, as well as in the restraint of excessive reproduction among inferiors; and even this perfunctory declaration
is flouted.
The Sixth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control
Conference (New York, March, 1925) furnished a good picture of
the situation that exists. At the final session Professor Johnson,
seeing that nothing had been done in the course of the previous
sessions to encourage the birth of superior children, introduced a
resolution "that this conference believes that persons whose




EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES


149


progeny gives promise of being of decided value to the community
should be encouraged to bear as large families, properly spaced,
as they feel they feasibly can." The resolution was seconded by
Francis B. Sumner and, after some opposition, was carried.
This action aroused the indignation of Margaret Sanger (Mrs.
J. Noah H. Slee), president of the American Birth Control League,
who devoted the leading editorial in the June, 1925, issue of the
Birth Control Review to an attack on it. She declared that the
resolution was presented at a sparsely attended meeting, and would
probably have been defeated if introduced at a fully attended
session. It was counter to all the real interests of the Birth Control
movement, she believed; and after making a confused attack on the
whole principle of the inheritance of ability, she laid down the law
that "Birth Control in itself, urging not larger families but smaller
families by the instrument of qualitative control, offers an instrument of liberation to overburdened humanity."
Professor Johnson's resolution is still on the minutes of the
meeting, but it is clear that the present management of the American Birth Control League will not be enthusiastic in putting it
into effect.
To harp so insistently and exclusively on the virtues of contraception is harmful in every way. It is-to use an inadequate
simile-as if a campaign should be started to get people to eat
more protein. No hint would ever be given that the body needed
any other nourishment than protein. The merits of protein,
and the dire plight of those deprived of it, would be exploited with
all the force of passionate rhetoric: protein, Protein, and more
protein, free and unlimited access to PROTEIN, would be declared
to be the only salvation of society.
A biologist might well point out to such propagandists that while
protein is a necessary part of the diet, most people eat too much
protein already, and that protein-starvation is rare. He might
urge that a general campaign of dietary reform would be more to
the point: that people should be taught the place of proteins in the
diet, their relation to the type of activity engaged in by different
individuals, and so on. To all this the propagandists, if actuated




150


150      THE, CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


by the same spirit as those for Birth Control, would probably reply
simply by giving the objector a hard look and shouting at the tops
of their voices, "PROTEIN!"
Going back to the defective classes described at the beginning
of this section, it will not be supposed that a knowledge of contraceptive methods, if they possessed it, would make much difference
in their situation. Their recklessness, ignorance, alcoholism, lack
of self-control, and disregard for the future, are sufficient guarantees that they will never keep down their own birth-rate effectively.
If it must be restricted, for their own good or that of society, such
restriction must be imposed by some force from without.
The stratum of society on which the Birth Control propagandists
pin their hopes is that of the "poor but honest" in the tenements,particularly the recent immigrants. To a marked extent this
class, too, will prove unable to control its own birth-rate, even if
provided with the necessary knowledge. While there is much
good stock in this part of the population, it also contains more than
its share of inferior stock: for the inefficient, improvident, and dullwitted in other classes of society tend to sink to this level, just as a
stone tends to sink to the bottom of the pond. There are doubtless
thousands of families characterized by poverty, ignorance, and
maladjustment, where contraceptive methods should be known and
applied. In a minority, perhaps even a majority, of cases, some
good would result from intelligent and effective effort to provide
these people with the knowledge in question.
Meanwhile, the widespread preaching of the Birth Control gospel
in its "official" and one-sided form is heard and heeded mainly
by those who do not need it. For every one who needs, gets, and
uses the idea of birth repression there are a dozen who do not need
it, but who get it and use it. There are thousands of families in
which neither poverty, ignorance, ill-health, nor maladjustment
exist, where parents are by tradition, birth, and education fully
able to bear and rear superior offspring, and where the only obstacle
to the birth of such offspring is the parents' feeling that a Ford is
no longer compatible with their social pretentions, and that they
must have a six-cylinder sedan next year instead of a baby. For




EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES


1511


such people, a very different type of education is needed from that\
which is being broadcasted by the priestesses and prophetesses of i
Voluntary Parenthood. The cult has so far done infinitely morej
harm than good. Desirable as it is that the poverty of a few
individual cases (doubtfully blamed on a few helpless babies) be
relieved, it is more important that human welfare be safeguarded
by the conservation of the family, and the birth and growth of
healthy, happy, useful children, in homes that possess the necessary
qualifications for producing such children. If the words "birth
control" have any rational meaning, they must refer to a control
that works both ways. Traffic on Fifth Avenue would make little
advance if the system of police control invariably stopped moving
vehicles but never started them. Similarly, birth control, if it
must stop some births, must start others. And from a racial point
of view, the latter function is much more important than the
former.
To sum up: The practice of contraception is regarded by most
biologists as an inevitable part of modern married life. The fact
is scarcely open to discussion. The knowledge exists, it is widespread, and no sane person will suppose for a moment that the
bulk of mankind can be prevented from making use of it1 even if
such prevention were desirable-which, on the whole, it is not.
But the knowledge must be used rightly. One of the greatest
obstacles to the right use and understanding of contraception is the
Birth Control propaganda that has been poured forth in the United
States during the last decade or two.
It is necessary, however, to go farther, and to point out that the
general adoption of the "small family plan" is not from any point
of view an unmixed blessing.
1. There is not yet known any wholly satisfactory means of
contraception. Many of the methods most widely praised, especially by Birth Control propagandists, are inefficient. Robert
L. Dickinson's investigation of this point simply proves what every
1 Connecticut, however, has a law which makes it a misdemeanor to use a
contraceptive. A record of the arrests and convictions under this statue
would be instructive.




152


152      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


experienced married person already knew. Many of the methods
are harmful, permanent sterility being a particularly unfortunate
result in some cases. Most if not all methods are esthetically
repugnant, in greater or less degree, to sensitive persons. Years of
research will be required before contraception- is in one-tenth as
satisfactory a position, scientifically, as Birth Control propagandists would have it appear to be now.
2. The dissemination of knowledge concerning contraception
tends to increase sexual promiscuity. I believe that no one who
is acquainted with the underworld denies this. Even the Birth
Control propagandists admit it, implicitly or explicitly. If the
thought is objectionable to them, they usually take refuge in the
stereotyped plea that the chastity of womankind can be of little
value if it depends solely on the fear of pregnancy.
3. Any and all methods of family limitation, however advantageous to the individual, work a certain and probably a serious detriment to the race. This 'May be made clear if it is put in diagrammatic form. In days when there was little control of conception,
weak, infertile, and feeble families produced, say, one child.
Strong, fertile, long-lived parents produced, say, 10 children. If
the weak families were as numerous as the strong ones (of course,
they really were not), yet in the following generation strong children would outnumber weak children 10 to 1.
But with a universal family limitation, which held nearly all
families down to two or three children, it is clear that under the
same imaginary conditions the succeeding generation would see
the strong children outnumber the weak not 10 to 1, but only two
or three to one. In the course of a few more generations, the
proportion of weak children in the community would increase
notably, and the average vitality of the whole population would be
pulled down correspondingly.
Whatever the exact proportions may be, this is in principle
precisely what is now happening. The level of inborn vigor of the
race is falling in each generation, because almost as many children
are born in weak stocks as would have been born formerly, while
fewer children are born in strong stocks than was formerly the
case.




EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES       153
4. General practice of family limitation will lead to an increase
in the proportion of males in the population, since boy babies predominate among the first-born, and to a less extent in the second
or third born. The average equality of the two sexes is made up
by the later-born children; but if these are not born at all, there
will be an excess of boys. This may or may not be a desirable
change.
5. Finally there is a great danger, during the transition period,
in a rapid spread of birth control, for it results in a population made
up of elderly people with a minimum of the young. Such a population is not progressive,-it tends rather to be reactionary. It
tends to contain a disproportionate number of neurotic and arteriosclerotic introverts, suffering from balked dispositions and constantly seeking relief from these in some outbreak or other.
All these are not arguments for unregulated childbirth. They
are simply facts.








PART III
MEANS OF SOCIAL CONTROL








INTRODUCTION


The question of the extent to which, and the manner in which,
society should by direct or indirect compulsion limit the freedom
of the individual is one that has been discussed since the beginning
of civilization. There is yet no near approach to a consensus,
among the most conscientious students of the subject. Certainly
I shall not presume, in a few pages of a biological sketch, to settle
the problems involved.
Nevertheless, some sort of working hypothesis on this subject
is indispensable in any rational discussion of such a question as the
conservation of the family. I can not therefore, even if I would,
avoid entering on this hotly-contested field. Without attempting
any far-reaching examination of an interminable and, as I think,
insoluble problem, I shall call attention to a few simple principles
that seem to me to furnish the best guidance available in this
wilderness.
As a starting point it has been agreed, by all except out-and-out
pessimists, that the survival of any given group or nation is desirable, at least to the members of the group, and that customs which
tend to bring about the extinction of the group are to be repressed.
The group must not only survive but, as it can not stand still
and does not want to go backward, it must progress. To this
end it must be made up of healthy, happy, useful, reproductive
people. On a large scale, the interests of the individual and of the
group coincide.
In detail, men and women are always wanting to do things that
are not for the interests of the group. It is generally admitted
that the state has the right and duty to repress any action that
tends to weaken or destroy it. The problem is to determine
which are the acts that affect only the individual, which those
that affect others and are therefore proper subject for interference
from others, if the effect on them is undesirable. It is about this
point that the smoke of controversy is densest.
157




158


158      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


The whole trend of science during the last century has been
toward demonstrating that actions which affect no one except the
individual who does them are fewer than was thought-if indeed
there be any such actions. No one lives to himself alone, and what
appears to be the most personal and intimate performance has
often been found, on analysis, to be far-reaching in its consequences.
To take a stock illustration, nothing could apparently be more
personal than failure to brush one's teeth; yet if the man who
abjures oral hygiene thereby loses some of his molars, gets a focal
infection which leads to chronic rheumatism, renders himself unfit
for military service when his country is invaded, becomes unable
to work and support his family, and sees his children die from lack
of means to care for them, it is evident that his hostility to the
tooth-brush was, in fact, of much more serious consequence to
others than to himself.
Scientifically, then, a large part of John Stuart Mill's acute
reasoning is as much out of date as the bow and arrow. The
action that seems' most innocent may involve the welfare of an
entire nation. The tourist returning from Honolulu who bringrs
in his baggage a few tropical fruits to please his children at home
may thereby introduce to California the Mediterranean fruit fly,
which will decimate the orchards of the state and levy a toll of a
hundred million dollars a year on the American people. Freedom
of action, in any general sense, does not exist.
How is it with freedom of opinion? This question has been
even more hotly debated, if possible, than that of freedom of action.
It seems plausible that, if a man must guard his actions, he may
at least be permitted to think what he pleases, and there are many
who hold any other point of view to be monstrous. On the other
hand, there have been notable examples of the tendency of society
to object to freedom of thought as well as freedom of action.
Greece put Socrates to death, the Hebrews, with the approval of
the Romans, crucified Jesus, the Papacy brought Galileo to his
knees in short order. Few would now argue that any one of these
actions was right; but such cases as the imprisonment of conscientious objectors and advocates of communism are nearer at




INTRODUCTION


159


hand and there is yet no general agreement as to how such persons
should be dealt with.
Here again, however, the progress of psychology is gradually
clearing up the situation. It is well recognized that most beliefs
do influence action. The man who, walking through a graveyard
at midnight, sees a dim white object approaching him, will react
differently according to whether he does or does not believe in
ghosts. Even if a man kept his beliefs to himself, and never
divulged them to anyone else, they would be certain to influence
his own actions, and thereby be of importance to his fellow-men;
while if, as is almost invariably the case, he does communicate
his beliefs to others, the actions of others are in turn influenced.
It might be said that beliefs likely to result in desirable actions are
approvable, while beliefs likely to result in harmful actions must
be looked upon with disfavor by society. But, as has already
been pointed out, almost every action reaches much farther than its
perpetrator suspects. Therefore there is no escape from the conclusion that every belief as well as every action of an individual is
of importance to society as a whole, and a proper subject for scrutiny with a view to the protection of society.
Stated thus baldly, this sounds like the doctrine of the Iinquisition; yet in fact it is everywhere acted upon in daily life. The
day of individualism is past. If anything deserves to be damned
by the application of the apparently deadly epithet, "mid-Victorian," individualism does. No man is now allowed to maintain an
open cesspool in his back-yard. It is of no use for him to assert
that it is artistic, that the luxuriant vegetation growing around
the edges furnishes the kind of beauty needed in this prosaic
world, that those are Philistines who can not appreciate the
iridescent reflection of the surrounding tenements, on its still
surface, or the marvelous algae which fringe its edges, and which
seen through a microscope reveal a whole new world of unimagined
sublimity. Anyone who would talk thus would be silenced quickly
by his neighbors and by the board of health.
It is still the custom in some circles of the intelligentsia to talk
in the same strain about books that are psychologically what the




160


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


open cesspool is physically; but the day when this sort of talk will
be taken seriously, even among the literati, is passing rapidly.
Censorship, indeed, is in much the same position as birth control.
It is universally admitted to be necessary. The only question is,
how is it to be done? Some would prevent births by continence,
others by abortion, some would censor "Art" by public opinion,
others by fig leaves. But both parties, while attempting to annihilate each other, are actually in full accord on the original principles involved. As the developments of psychology have revealed
with startling clearness the unsuspected extent to which character
is influenced by surroundings, by "contagion," by emotional
states which have long been forgotten, it has become more and more
obvious that mental sanitation and hygiene are just as important
and legitimate functions of the state as are physical sanitation and
hygiene.
In all ages there have been offenders against the accepted code.
There always will be. It is only a decadent civilization that gives
them freedom of action. Any strong and progressive civilization
must and will fight incessantly to protect itself. Any wise man will
recognize that a continual fight is necessary in the nature of things.
As public assent is gained in support of one principle, research
will already have enunciated a new one, for the adoption of which
a new fight must be started at once. It would be delightful if a
population could be found that would at once recognize the validity
of any newly-discovered truth, and act upon it; but there has
never been such a population.
The questions really open are (1) how are standards of judgment
to be established and (2) how are they to be enforced? In the
past, standards of judgment have been fixed largely by tradition,
prejudice, and often deliberate incitement of bigotry; they have
been enforced with a sledge hammer, a bonfire, or a guillotine.
In both cases the procedure is inadequate.
1. Since standards of judgment are based on the decision whether
a given action is or is not favorable to the progress of the race,
it is evident that they should be formed after scientific investigation, which will determine by experimental or statistical inquiry,




INTRODUCTION16


161


just what the effects of the action in question are likely to be.'
It is not to be supposed that such a decision can always be made
easily, nor that it can be made at all, in every case. Yet this ideal
is being more nearly reached every year.
Within the memory of every adult now living, it was almost
universally supposed that the establishment of a Red Light District offered the best means to minify the evils of prostitution and
to control the spread of venereal diseases. As a result of some
20 years of painstaking investigation, it is now proved to the satisfaction of everyone who knows anything at all about it, that such
a means is the worst, rather than the best, possible to gain the ends
in view. It is not rash to predict that no reader of this book will
live to see the establishment of segregated districts advocated by
any intelligent body of public opinion in the United States. Here
is a case where the old standards set by ignorance, tradition, and
self-interest have been superseded by those set by scientific research. Innumerable others of the same sort will occur to every
reader.
What of the cases in which there is not yet enough evidence
for a decision? Clearly it is the duty of the state (a) to use every
effort to get evidence, by subsidizing research; (b) to go slowly,
meanwhile, in encouraging or allowing changes in existing customs.
Human customs ordinarily represent a means of adjustment of
mankind to its civilization; there was a reason for their coming
into existence. As societies change, customs have to change:
so that theoretically and broadly it may be said that no custom is
ever exactly right, but that none is wholly wrong and purposeless.
On the average, more trouble will probably ensue from giving up
old customs before they have been definitely shown to be wrong,
1 This proposition was stated by Francis Bacon (de Augmentis 7, 3) with his
usual clearness. Moral philosophers, he said, ought to set themselves vigorously to work for the purpose of discovering what are the actual effects produced
on human character by particular modes of education, by the indulgence of
particular habits, by the study of particular books, by society, by emulation, by
imitation. Then we might hope to find out what mode of training was most
likely to preserve and restore moral health.




162


162      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


than by holding to them until they are so shown. But when once
the proof is available, all the weight of the state should be thrown
toward changing them, regardless of vested interests which usually
try to maintain any status quo, no matter what it is.
The only people likely to dissent from this analysis of the situation are those who think that social problems can be settled definitely and correctly. Such an attitude, which is unfortunately
widespread, is wholly erroneous. Human nature is so complicated
and contradictory, civilization is such a patchwork and jumble,
that to anyone who looks at it soberly, it is inconceivable that any
ideal condition can ever be reached, in the adjustment of civilization to mankind. The best that can be hoped for-and even this
will not often be attained,-is a more or less rough approximation,
in which the gains will outweigh the losses. But to expect that,
outside of the New Jerusalem, there will ever come a time when,
for instance, all wealth will be distributed precisely in proportion
to what people deserve, or the best men will be elected to all offices,
or all laborers will take joy in their creative work, or all children
will be properly trained by their parents, or all husbands and wives
will love each other-to expect, in short, that a wholly satisfactory
situation will ever be found, is to expect sheer impossibility. All
that the most sanguine can demand is that affairs will go at least
a little better, and that such changes as are made shall be in something like the right direction, if not on precisely the path that is
late-r found to have been straightest.
In short, society is justified in controlling in any way necessary
for its own preservation, the actions-and even the beliefsof its members. Standards should be set by free and sympathetically-protected scientific research. The current standard should
be the consensus of the most skilled students in the field, at any
given time.
Such a procedure is in line with evolution, because it replaces the
hit or miss methods of the past with intelligence. Hitherto, mankind has proceeded largely through experimenting at random
("trial and error"). Those who went wrong died or left no descendants; those who went right survived and perpetuated the species.




INTRODUCTION


163


Such, in extremely broad outline, has been the process followed
alike by man, bird, fish, earthworm, and ameba.
Such crude methods are no longer necessary, if mankind will use
what little reason it has. It can study the consequences of actions;
it can control actions; it can therefore direct its progress with some
intelligence.
In the light of these facts, one can appraise the claims of those
who cry that monogamy is out of date, and that free experiment in
sexual relations must be encouraged, in order that an arrangement
better suited to human nature may be discovered. While they
consider themselves the last word in progressiveness, they are in
fact returning to the Stone Age. There has been plenty of experimentation already; mankind has done little else in its entire history.
Whole races, nations, and civilizations have perished because their
experiments were made on a wrong hypothesis. The records of
many of these experiments are available in history, and modern
men and women can profit by them. They all point to one roadmonogamy-as the road along which evolutionary progress is to be
made. The others are known to be beset with danger. What is
needed now is not fresh experiments, but the application of intelligence to make the best use of the road that is known to be opento broaden it, clear it of obstacles, and keep traffic moving down it
most expeditiously.
2. The means by which action may be made to conform to the
accepted standards are innumerable, and have formed the subject
of some detailed and highly interesting treatises in recent years.
Here it will be sufficient to sketch only the broad outlines of the
picture, since it is the purpose of the succeeding sections of this
Part to fill in the details. To get conformity to the standards
which investigation has shown to be most desirable, society should:
(a) Make conformity possible, by removing obstacles (economic,
for example).
(b) Make conformity attractive, by education, economic conditions, public opinion, and the like.
(c) Make all alternatives unattractive or unattainable.
(d) Punish excessive or conspicuous failures to conform; and in




164          THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY
particular, stamp out all commercialized efforts to balk conformity
or to exploit non-conformity for gain.
These are put in the order of their importance. Unfortunately,
there is a common tendency to reverse the order.
To say that a community can not guide both the actions and the
thoughts of its members is not at all in accord with facts. To the
parrot phrase, "You can't change human nature," one might with
equal truth retort that human nature never does anything except
change. Every community is continually molding the thoughts
and actions of its members, for good or ill, in every conceivable
direction. Prussia made its peculiar official ideals seem attractive
not only to its own citizens but to most of the other Germans, for
half a century or more. In war time every state makes its aims
seem good to its own citizens-widespread examples of this are
part of recent history. Any organized effort can make social aims
much more attractive than anti-social aims, because they are more
nearly in accord with that mysterious and elusive thing,-human
nature.




I. EDUCATION


Education for family life not only begins with the infant in the
home, but this phase is more important than any other, for the
emotional attitude toward sex and parenthood, which the child
adopts before he is five years old, largely determines his attitude
toward them in all of his later years.
The primary factor in education is therefore the example of the
child's own parents.
Next to this comes their definite instruction of him. At the
age of two or three, the child begins to ask questions bearing on sex.
Normally, he would continue to ask them for the rest of his life.
But if, as is usually the case, he is put off with evasions and lies, or
is reprimanded for inquiring about such a subject, he finds that
nothing is to be gained from that line of investigation. Then in
place of dismissing the questions largely from his mind, as the result
of having received satisfactory information about them, he broods
over them, seeks information from worse sources, and acquires a
set of complexes.
No parent can waive responsibility in this matter. The duty of
educating the child belongs to the parent and to no one else.
Much discussion has been wasted on the question whether it is
the duty of the father or the mother. Manifestly it is the duty of
both. Whichever one is asked a question must answer it simply
and truthfully. It happens that this is most likely to be the
mother, merely because she is with the children during more hours
of the day than is the father.
Many parents shirk their duty by telling the child that he is
"too young to understand," and inwardly (though falsely) resolving that before the child reaches puberty he shall be given the
necessary information.
If it is delayed until the child reaches adolescence, the duty is
found by most parents to be difficult-so much so that in the great
165




166


166      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


majority of cases it is shirked forever. Meanwhile the child has,
in 99 cases out of a hundred, already picked up a miscellaneous
collection of misinformation, much of it of the most harmful
character.
Clearly, the parent should so instruct his child in this particular,
that nothing will ever have to be unlearned. Frank and accurate,
though simple, answers should be given to the first questions. The
parent who lies to his own child, by palming off such ancient and
vicious fables as "the silver spade," "the stork,". ".the doctor's
satchel;" or who takes refuge in the pious evasion that babies
come from heaven, has betrayed his child's confidence.
If the child is told early enough, it will be no more embarrassing
to tell him the truth, than to lie to him.
WHY PARENTS FAIL
When the matter, presented in this way, sounds so simple,
why do an overwhelming majority of parents shirk their duty,
and take refuge in evasions or lies? Some, of course, are not
convinced of the desirability of sex education; others are merely
lazy or indifferent, or not intelligent enough to think of the matter
at all. Those who believe that their children ought to be educated
properly, but do not educate them, are held back mainly by three
reasons:
1. Their own mental attitude toward sex is so confused and unsound, if not perverted, that it can not be communicated to a child.
2. They do not begin early enough.
3. They have not a suitable vocabulary. Many parents, for
instance, know no other names to describe reproduction and the
reproductive organs, than the popular terms, of more or less illrepute, that pass on from generation to generation among the
ignorant. These terms have connotations and associations that
are rightly regarded as objectionable. There is a scientific vocabulary which is free from objections. It should be used consistently from the first, to the exclusion of any other.
It is not necessary to tell the children much, but it is necessary
to tell them early. It is not to be supposed that they will under



EDUCATION


167


stand everything they are told; but if it is evident to them that
nothing is being concealed, they will attach little importance to the
subject. The child's mind is not morbidly or pruriently concerned
with sex-at least, not until after the parents make it so.
In this connection there is a school of pedagogy which would
smother the facts with sentiment. If the child asks where its little
sister came from, the mother is advised to defer the conversation
until a propitious moment about twilight, when the lamps are
dimmed, and when, to the accompaniment of soft music, she will
take the child into her arms and explain, in a voice hushed yet
vibrant with emotion, how little sister was cared for in a warm,
soft nest under mother's heart; how mother hoped and prayed
during the long, long months of waiting; how mother suffered in
bringing her child into the world; how she loves her correspondingly; and so on.
Much of this is untrue, most of it is unwise. Little sister did not
develop in a nest under mother's heart, but in mother's lower abdomen. When the child later discovers this fact for himself, he will
wonder why his mother lied to him so unnecessarily, and what there
is about the lower abdomen to make it so indecent that the womb
must be moved out of it up to the position normally occupied by the
stomach. Moreover, the sentimental emphasis in this sort of
pedagogy is likely to be altogether too effective, and to play an
important part in forming mother complexes, from which the child
may suffer greatly in future years. In direct conversation, plain,
simple facts are called for. The sentiment can be instilled better
by illustration, in the parents' own attitude toward each other
and toward their children, as expressed silently in every day life.
A new pregnancy in the family offers an excellent opportunity
for the children to learn not only about the development of a new
baby, but of the proper attitude toward a pregnant woman.
By the time the child starts to school he should have as much
actual information as will be called out by his own questionsthe extent of these of course varies greatly with different children--
and, much more important, he should have acquired sound emotional attitudes toward everything connected with family life,




168


168      THE CONSERVATION OF THlE FAMILY


in so far as it has come under his observation. Parents who are
either prudish or vulgar in their relations with each other can hardly
expect their children to grow up without being either prudish or
vulgar.
A reasonable amount of dressing, bathing, and romping together
of the members of the family is an excellent way to develop a natural and wholesome outlook on the human body; but understanding of the physical differences should be included gradually with the
broader differences between the sexes of temperament, dress, division of labor, and relations to the child himself.
On the other hand, parents must be extremely careful about
letting children, even infants, see the more intimate phases of
married life. Such revelations make an impression at a much
earlier age than the parents realize; and the impression thus gained
is premature.
Reticence concerning family matters, in the presence of outsiders, should be cultivated to include sexual matters along with
others that are private affairs of the particular family.
Physical hygiene must be watched carefully but unostentatiously,
particularly as regards care of the genitalia. Good habits should
be formed, bad ones avoided or broken promptly. Ceaseless vigilance is required to protect the child from contamination by ill--
educated playmates, or by older persons, especially domestic
servants.
Even at this age, parents may begin to emphasize the ideas of
heredity and parenthood, in connection with sex. These lines
of thought are scientifically the soundest, and personally the most
useful in giving children a right attitude toward reproduction.
EDUCATION DURING SCHOOL YEARS
During school years, this type of education should be continued
in the home, and should be re-enforced by nature study, and by
the teacher's attitude, in the school. The latter is often unf avorable at present, under the system that places most primary pupils
in the hands of inexperienced girls whose own attitude toward
family life is either not developed or is developed in wrong direc



EDUCATION


169


tions. It would be worth while trying the experiment of placing
education in the hands of mature married women, whose children
have grown up. Such women usually have leisure, which they are
either unable to occupy, or else occupy in unprofitable ways.
Many of them would welcome an opportunity to do some useful
and remunerative work. Their influence on the children, as regards preparation for family life, could scarcely be worse than that
of the callow normal school graduates who hold the ground at
present. On the average, it would probably be much better.
Anyone above the mental age of eight or nine years may be able to
teach children the multiplication table, but how to produce good
character in children is not to be learnt merely by passing the final
examinations of a normal school course in child psychology. It is
to be learnt by living, and by bringing up a family of children.
This point of view is opposed sometimes. Thus M. A. Bigelow
writes: "The greatest medical teachers have not had the diseases
they describe so clearly. The best elementary teachers and specialists on the care of children are not always mothers; on the contrary some of these are men. The fact is that these teachers have
learned, not from personal experience, but from the great accumulation of scientific knowledge of medicine, hygiene, and education.
There is an abundance of such knowledge relating to sex that may
be clearly understood by bright women who have no bi-personal
knowledge of sex. Therefore I believe that it is nonsense to insist
that only women with complete sexual experiences can be efficient
guides for other women."
Dr. Bigelow's idea is perhaps valid in a limited field of specialization, as anatomy or physiology, and it may be that he intended to
apply it only in such a field. It seems to me inapplicable to more
elementary teaching-and it is the latter that is of greatest importance. The teacher's own mental attitude toward her subject
is of little concern in a discussion of, say, typhoid fever. Abundant observation shows, on the other hand, that it is of great
concern in a discussion of sexual intercourse or of parenthood; and
Dr. Bigelow himself makes this abundantly clear in other connections. The same restricted outlook, the same lack of compre



170


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


hension and balance, that have been charged against monastic
celibates, too often characterize the pedagogical celibate. Even
for those who have taken no vows of life-long celibacy, "the outlook
on existence is necessarily one-sided, and is especially curtailed in
the direction of family life and the domestic circle, subjects on
which right thinking and personal experience are of supreme importance in the national welfare." Whatever exceptions may be
found, I believe that on the average the normal, experienced mother
(or father) will be likely to have a more wholesome point of view
than the inexperienced bachelor maid; and I agree with the W. C. D.
Whethams that in this case "the personality of the teacher and
the manner in which the subject is presented are of far greater
importance than the actual substance of the information imparted."
It is generally recognized that the school can not possibly take
the place of the parents in sex education. This is partly because
the school does not get the children early enough; more largely
because of sound psychological reasons why this teaching should
begin in the home. But to a small extent, at least, it is also due
to the inexperience of many teachers, the superficiality of their
training, and the lack of intimate contact with the pupils. While
these hindrances can not be removed altogether, it seems likely
that a mature woman who had brought up her own children successfully, gaining their confidence and answering their questions, would
be much more likely to be of assistance to her pupils, if they came
to her with their difficulties, than would be the self-conscious young
girl, just out of college, who is still trying to resolve her own difficulties and get answers to her own questions.
Nature study in the schools is of course to be looked upon merely
as a supplement to education in the home, and not in any way as
a substitute for it. The idea of introducing a child to the problem
of reproduction by means of pollination in flowers seems to me
highly questionable as an introduction, although it makes a good
follow-up. As an introduction, it is open to the great danger that
the child will not transfer the knowledge from botany to mankind.
In even the smallest home there is an opportunity for children




EDUCATION


171


to keep a few pets,-mice, rats, guinea-pigs, and rabbits being
particularly suitable. From the breeding of these the child can
learn naturally enough the detail which embarrasses the parent
most to explain-that is, the dependence of reproduction on coitus.
Country children usually get this information from watching barnyard animals. The child's almost inevitable inquiry, whether
human beings reproduce in the same way, should be answered
simply and casually in the affirmative.
It is often objected that such a procedure tends to put reproduction on a purely physical plane, in the child's mind; whereas, in
fact, this aspect needs less emphasis than any other, reproduction
in mankind being predominantly mental and spiritual in its feelingtones, in spite of the inescapable physical foundation.
All this is true enough, but largely immaterial, for the child
must learn some time of the fact of coitus, and if he learns it in this
early and natural way, it will be much less troublesome than to
learn it later in life. The number of girls who do not get this fact
until long after puberty, and who suffer for years from the fear
that they may become pregnant merely through a kiss or an embrace, is astounding. It is the parents' part to see that the child's
education does not stop short with mere knowledge of copulation,
but that this is relegated to its proper place through observation
in his own home of the psychical side of love. While the latter
must be emphasized incessantly, the physical side is a fact which
can not be ignored without disastrous results, and if the parents
close their eyes to this, the children will not.
From start to finish, it ought not to be necessary to say that the
child must be trained in self-mastery. Unfortunately, flabby wills
are not so often made the subject of training as are flabby muscles,
although they are almost equally capable of development, in
normal girls and boys.
By the time they are 10 years old-therefore still in the primary
grades-most boys and many girls have already learned something
about coitus, prostitution, and venereal diseases. Usually what
they have learned from older or vicious associates is incorrect and
harmful; but they have learned something. If the parents have




172


172      THlE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


not anticipated this by conveying at least a minimum of accurate
information on the same subjects, so much the worse for all concerned. If, however, an attitude of complete confidence exists
between parent and child (and normally there is nothing to break
such an attitude until the time of adolescence, several years after
the age mentioned) there should be no difficulty in giving both
sexes an inkling of the facts. It is idle to suppose that they will
remain ignorant. If they are not given any sound information,
they are simply left at the mercy of worse-educated comrades,
chance hearsay, and the commemorative inscriptions on the walls
of public toilets. Most parents, with the attitude which is imputed-incorrectly-to the ostrich, argue that their children could
not possibly know of "such evil things" at such a tender age; when
in fact it has been proved again and again that the child knew
as much as the parents.
The moral is that education must be continuous (although only
occasional); that the child must always receive a little correct information in the home before he receives a lot of incorrect information outside. Both parents have still their part to play; the
subject should be brought up in talks with either one, and on
appropriate occasions, when it comes up naturally, it should be discussed by parents and child together. In such talks it is as important for parents to avoid an attitude of superstitious timidity, as
one of flippant cynicism.
THE PRE-ADOLESCENT PERIOD
Before puberty, it is essential that boys be prepared to understand in part the normal development that they will undergo.
If they do not, much harm may be done through worry or, in the
case of extremely religious boys (and religious feeling is frequently
one of the marked characteristics of this age), through a sense of
guilt or sin.
In addition to recognizing that change of voice, growth of additional hair, and other physical manifestations are due to invisible
internal secretions (from the testicles), the boy should be led to




EDUCATION


173


expect, and to regard as perfectly natural, three manifestations
that may confuse him if he is not instructed:
1. He should learn that seminal emissions are a healthful, not a
harmful, experience, and that they are not a cause for embarrassment or shame, much less for fear.
2. He should learn to expect erotic dreams from time to time, and
to take them as a matter of course. These sometimes cause remorse and mental anguish to religious-minded boys who have insensibly absorbed the common idea that sex is indecent and sinful.
3. He should learn that erections are likewise merely an evidence
of his development, and of the preparation of his body for the part
he is destined to play when he is mature, as a father. There should
be no guilty feeling about them, nor, of course, any spirit of facetiousness. They will occur mainly when he awakes in the morning; when he is dancing or otherwise in contact with girls; and when
he is engaged in such exercise as riding a horse or bicycle.
It is inevitable that novel and striking personal experiences
like the three just mentioned should make a strong impression on
the boy's mind. It is therefore necessary, for the sake of wholesome mental development, that this impression be turned to good
account by the parent, in making the boy feel his preparation for
adult life. There is no reason why he should not view such phenomena with lively interest, but he should be encouraged to have
an objective attitude, and not to regard them as important save as
indications of growth.
Girls should be instructed fully regarding menstruation, learning
that it is merely a discharge of superfluous blood which had been
prepared for the nourishment of an egg-cell, and which was not
needed because the egg-cell was not fertilized and therefore could
not develop. Full instructions should be given for the hygiene of
this period, but it should be regarded as a normal condition, not
as a sickness or a curse. Boys should also have some correct ideas
about menstruation, to discount the vulgar and superstitious ones
with which they will come in contact, and to form the basis for
future tact and understanding in their attitude toward menstruating women. Both boys and girls will have gained correct ideas




174


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


of the anatomy of the sexes by observation in the home, supplemented by answers to inquiries concerning facts that are not selfevident.
IN HIGH SCHOOL
The same type of education in the home should continue throughout the high school period. It is not at all a question of whether
or not one thinks that a child of this age ought to know of such
things as prostitution and venereal diseases. The fact is that he
does know of them-that, unless immured, he can not be prevented
from knowing of them; and it is of the greatest consequence that
his knowledge be accurate, sensible, and in proper perspective,
rather than fragmentary, perverted, and sensational.
Mothercraft can be taught in high schools and preparatory
schools. It is being taught in a few, with excellent results. While
it can thus reach no more than three or four girls in ten (since the
others leave school at the end of the eighth grade, or sooner) these
are in some ways the pick of the. whole population, and efforts
to educate them are therefore more worth while than would be
efforts with any other fraction. Girls at this period may well
have the care of a real baby, and there are thousands of healthy
babies in unfit homes who would benefit greatly from daily mothering by a class of eager high school students. But some schools
which advertise instruction in home-making as a specialty, teach
girls only by letting them dress and undress a large doll. Such
methods argue a complete atrophy of the sense of humor.
Since only two or three in a hundred go beyond high school,
this is the last period at which the public educational system has
any opportunity to exert a wide influence, and it is especially desirable that preparation for family life be largely completed before
the end of this period. Many high schools now have lecture courses
of one kind or another. Some of these are conspicuously successful,
others just as conspicuous failures, depending at present almost
wholly on the personality of the teacher in charge.
I remember when lectures on "sex," by a local physician, were
introduced at the high school in my own city, not so many years




EDUCATION


175


ago. The boys were notified that they were to meet in the assembly hall at a given hour. Most of them entered it in apprehension,
while the girls walked by hastily and silently, as a child does
before a house placarded for smallpox. Before the period was
half over, the rout began, as stragglers with white faces emerged
hurriedly from the hall and made for the open air. Two or three
who did not start quickly enough fainted on the spot and had to be
carried out by the survivors seated near them. One youth, who
happened to be sitting in a window sill, fell backward and broke a
pane of glass, which cut him around the head; he was carried out
bleeding, while little groups of girls watched furtively around the
corners and doubtless supposed that all this was a normal part of
instruction in sex.
All this perhaps sounds ludicrous, but it was a tragedy; and
I am telling it merely because it illustrates a kind of sex education
that is still too frequent. Parents who let their children grow up
in ignorance or worse, and then depend on a few 40-minute lectures
in high school, given by a local physician, to undo the harm of 10
years and furnish guidance for a lifetime, are more than stupid.
Yet in one form or another, this is the course adopted by many
parents, and one that has even been advocated by a few educators.
"Keep the child 'innocent' until he reaches adolescence, then let
the family physician or clergyman have a confidential talk with
him and give him the instruction he needs to avoid the snares and
pitfalls of life."
THE DOCTOR'S PART
I can imagine few classes of men worse equipped to fulfill this
function than the clergymen, unless it be the doctors. As the
latter have so often been made responsible, by cowardly or ignorant
parents, for a duty that does not belong to them, it is worth while
to inquire for a moment whether they are really qualified for such
a tremendous responsibility. I believe it will be clear that, merely
as doctors, they are not well equipped, either mentally or morally,
to take the lead in social hygiene.
Mentally, the profession is made up of men of rather mediocre




176


176      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


intelligence,-a fact strikingly brought out by the army mental
tests, and published by Robert M. Yerkes. Intellectually the
medical officers were at the bottom of the list, inferior to all others
in the army. Moreover, the education imposed on this native
equipment does not fit them for the task in hand. Few of them
have a really good grounding in biology, in a broad sense, much
less any special knowledge, accompanied by a suitable point of view,
on social hygiene. What has the profession as a whole done to
cut down the spread of venereal diseases, stop prostitution, or
eliminate abortions? In many cases, the greatest obstacle to
progress has been the stubborn and sometim es self-interested
opposition of the rank and file of the medical profession. In social
hygiene, most of its members are far behind the times. I do not
necessarily argue that they are inferior to the average of the population-only that they are not much, if any, above it.
Morally the situation is the same. Students in medical colleges
are not particularly noted for social outlook and high personal
standards, especially as concerns sex--not to mention the use of
tobacco, alcohol, narcotic drugs, and other unbiological forms of
activity. Professionally, they are as a class anti-social; they are
primarily individualistic in their outlook, and their accepted code
of ethics, which justifies flagrant lies told to patients in order to
shield the reputations of incompetent fellow-practitioners, is immoral, in any true sense of the word. The public knows (and
faddists, charlatans, and fighters for "medical freedom" make the
most of the fact) that the ranks of the quacks, of the narcotic
vendors, of the abortionists, and of the bootleggers contain many
a graduated and duly licensed M.D.; and that it is sometimes
difficult to get one physician to tell the truth about another, under
oath, even in matters of the most serious character.
All this is not to disparage the leaders, to deny that there are
many physicians well qualified for their work, or to lack hope for
the future improvement of the profession. But the idea that the
profession as such is a leader in social and educational matters is
largely a survival of the savage's veneration for the priestcraft
and the medicine men. An amusing sidelight on this point is the




EDUCATION


177


suggestion lately made, that certain books on sex education should
be sold only on a physician's prescription-as if they were cocaine
or Volsteadized whisky! The average physician has almost
everything to learn, about the conservation of the family; but the
necessity of making a living and keeping up with the progress of a
vast and active specialty, leaves him little time to go back to the
groundwork of evolution. Hence to depend on doctors, merely
because they are doctors, to teach social hygiene, is merely to
invite what actually happens in such a case-that a revolting mass
of information about venereal diseases, prostitution, and sexual
perversions is thrown at the heads of young people, and no effective
attempt made to inculcate a broad, sound, constructive point of
view in a matter that above all others requires such a point of view.
The congressman who in a recent speech declared his interest in
"maternity and other diseases of women" probably got his start
in a lecture by the school physician. Putting sex education in the
hands of the medical profession inevitably links it with the abnormal and pathological, in the minds of the young. For every
reason, physicians should have as little as possible to do with the
subject.
TEACHING FOR FAMILY LIFE
More is to be expected from teachers of biology, especially if
they are parents themselves, and not merely young women waiting
impatiently for an opportunity to become parents. A specialist
might well start with a broad foundation of biology from an evolutionary point of view, particularly emphasizing genetics; on this
a superstructure of physiology, psychology, sociology, and other
studies could be set. But the training of adolescents for family life
can not be left to any one specialist or any one course, and the
attempt to make this a separate subject is a fundamental mistake.
Every phase of education should be directed toward preparing the
pupil for life; and as family life is the ultimate development, it
should prepare above everything else for family life.
It would be difficult to lay out a curriculum less adapted to this
purpose than most of those now to be found in the United States.




178


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


Surprisingly little improvement has been made in the threequarters of a century, marked by so much progress in other fields of
science, since Herbert Spencer discussed this subject in his essays
on Education. A girl is not allowed to get past the eighth grade
without knowing how to extract cube roots, although it is as certain
as anything can be that not one in a thousand will use this knowledge at any time during the rest of her life; but a girl may graduate
from elementary school, high school, and college, and take a doctor's degree at a university, without ever learning why breastfeeding is better for infants than bottle-feeding, or without ever
being shown that the production of two infants, in a marriage, is
not enough to replace the father and mother and keep the race
from declining in numbers.
Why has it so far proved impossible to get the educational
system to prepare children for life? The answer is doubtless to be
sought in the inherent resistance to change, that all complex institutions possess, and the educational system above some others.
The latter is largely an outgrowth of monasticism and of the
Renaissance cult of classicism, and has not yet wholly outgrown
its medieval clothes.
In earlier days, all the available knowledge concerning family
life was acquired by the young (especially by girls) in their own
homes. The only purpose of a school was to supply knowledge
that could not be had in their own homes; particularly knowledge
of the extinct classical civilizations. Since the beginning of the
industrial revolution (usually dated about 1760), the home has
gradually lost the ability to train its young for family life. The
educational system should have noticed this fact, and altered its
own methods to make up for the change. It has done so, however,
only to a very small extent.
The whole modern curriculum appears to be shaped more or less
unconsciously toward teaching people to teach. It is time to
turn around and teach them to live. If they are going to teach
afterward, they will teach none the worse for knowing how to live.
The whole curriculum must be shaped much more consciously
and intelligently toward the conservation of the family, and not be




EDUCATION17


179


looked on as an end in itself or as a training ground for those who
seek the State Certificate.
This situation is illuminated by the results of an inquiry which
M. V. O'Shea addressed to 5,000 women college graduates. He
asked whether they were well enough satisfied with the courses
they took to want to take them over again, if they were to start
at the beginning once more; and if they would want their daughters
to take the same courses. "The teachers, taken as a whole, are
quite well satisfied with the education they received at high school
and college," Dr. O'Shea reports. "The home makers, mothers,
and social workers are, with very few exceptions, discontented
with their education. Only four of the home makers and mothers
would select the same course of study that they originally pursued,
if they had an opportunity to go over their high school and college
course again, because they failed to receive much help in solving
the particular problems with which they have had to deal every
day since they became home makers and mothers. The severest
condemnation of the educational program was made by those who
signed themselves mothers. Very few of them had an opportunity
to study subjects in either high school or college that pertained
to the nature or training of children, and now they have to care
for children and train them. They do not want their daughters
to go through the same regime that they were compelled to pursue.
They do not wish to have their daughters pursue studies that relate
only to the care and training of children or to home making, but
they would like to have them devote some time to these matters
while they are in high school and college.
"It is worthy of special mention that graduates of colleges for"
women complain more generally of the lack of opportunities to
pursue courses related to home making and motherhood than do
graduates of coeducational universities."
It is generally recognized in the theory of education that each
subject should contribute to all other subjects: that the student
of history or biology should learn English and logic from them as
well, and so on. This sound doctrine must be applied effectively
for the benefit of the home. Some subjects of course lend them



180


180      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


selves more to this purpose than do others, though an enthusiast
has declared that even grammar may be made the basis for sex
education, since it has to do with gender and number. Biology
and nature study, physiology and hygiene, physical training,
domestic science and art, medicine, genetics and eugenics, psychology, sociology, ethics, religion, and above all, literaturewhether English or foreign-are particularly capable of being made
the vehicles of direct or indirect instruction.
But a different attitude will be required from that now often
found. There is no need to try to prepare for family life by an
anemic course entitled "Sociology 4, Origin and Development of
the Family as an Institution (2 units)," taught in the same spirit
which, teaching literature, only succeeds in disgusting the student
with literature so that he never reads another good book during
the rest of his life.
For some reason, many persons have come to think of education
for family life as being "sex education," and further to think of it
as a distinct, narrow, and special field of education. No greater
mistake could be made than to attempt to prepare for family life
in any such spirit. Unless the family is regarded as the central
fact in human life, and all education is directed toward that fact,
it will not reach the fullest success. Above all it must be insisted,
in season and out of season, that merely to put certain knowledge
into the hands of the students is not the object of education for
family life. Such a conception is wholly inadequate and mischievously misleading. The object of such an education is the
formation of character with a view to the guidance of action
throughout life. Knowledge is necessary for this purpose, but
mere knowledge alone may be worse than nothing at all.
THE TRAINING OF GIRLS
As sex plays a somewhat larger part in the life of woman than
of man, it is logical that, if there is to be any difference in emphasis,
women should have more thorough preparation for family life than
do men. At present it can scarcely be said that this is the case.
As long as the official spokesmen of women are so often abnormal




EDUCATION


181


females whose avocation is to sympathize with themselves, it will
be difficult to get the education of young women turned in the
most desirable directions. No woman should be permitted to
hold a responsible position of leadership in the educational world,
such as president or dean of a college; or in a federal or state
bureau devoted to the welfare of children and the family; unless
she has successfully brought up children of her own.
The smug satisfaction of the eastern women's separate colleges
with their own obsolete point of view is particularly a stumbling
block, because so many young girls look to this group for leadership and inspiration. Bryn Mawr offers girls four courses in Sanskrit, but none in mothercraft. Wellesley offers six in geology,
but none in mothercraft. Mount Holyoke offers eight in astronomy, but none in mothercraft. Smith offers 17 in mathematics, but none in mothercraft. Vassar' offers 18 in Greek, with
three extra in Greek Archaeology, but none in mothercraft.
Defenders of the old order sometimes deny the necessity of
differentiating the education of the sexes. The general culture
is the same for both, they declare: both are to live in the same
world. So far as a triviality like cookery goes, it is merely the application of some elementary principles of physics, chemistry, and
bacteriology. If a girl gets these principles, she can apply them
easily enough when the time comes.
Such a plea does not meet the facts squarely. It is true that
higher education for the two sexes need not be very much differentiated; but it needs to be more differentiated than it now is. It
will hardly be denied that what the women's colleges have really
attempted to do is to assimilate man's culture as a whole. There
is no objection to this as far as it goes (though some might think
that man's culture represents a low enough ideal). But it stops
short. Modern research continually emphasizes the need of
differentiation of the environment of the two sexes to foster specialization of the particular functions connected with marriage and
parenthood. There is need for serious consideration of the desir11 I am informed that Vassar is now entering the field of education for family
life in a more effective way.




182


182      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


ability of greater specialization in such matters as (a) sports, (b)
teachers (including more men to teach the boys), (c) content of
special courses, and (d) emphasis in some general courses. The
last word has by no means been said on this subject, but emphatic
protest must be made against the assumption that there is nothing
at all to say.
Certainly the women who have completed the type of curriculum
represented by the women's colleges, and have founded families,
are far from satisfied with what was given them. And certainly
the principle mentioned in the paragraph before the last is not
accepted in any other kind of life work. If the engineering student
who applied for a job on an irrigation project confessed that he
had never run a level, but boasted that he had made a careful study
of the theory of trigonometry, he would be laughed out of camp.
Yet the notion that girls should study only abstract principles in
college, and then find out how to apply them in practice, after they
marry, is on the same footing.
just as the engineering student spends his Saturday mornings
running levels about the campus, or measuring the altitude of the
chapel tower, in preparation for his future career, so the woman
should have abundant laboratory work in such elementary f eats
as bathing an infant or attending him through minor ailments.
Anyone who has tried for the first time to bathe a new-born babe
knows that "maternal instinct" is far from sufficient to ensure a
workmanlike job. At present many girls do not get such experience in their own homes prior to marriage; consequently they grow
up ignorant and fearful, with a natural reluctance to undertake
duties with which they are unfamiliar, and on the proper discharge
of which a human life may depend. The graduate of a woman's
college is more likely to know the respective merits of the Italian
painters of the fifteenth century, than to know what to do when her
baby has convulsions.
EDUCATION FOR FATHERHOOD
Potential fathers as well as potential mothers need education.
'The surprising thing is 'not that the family functions so badly in




EDUCATION


183


modern civilized society, but that it functions even as well as it
does, considering the obstacles that it has to encounter.
T. W. Galloway has pointed out that the family is much more
successful than the grocery store-to cite a single other institution
by way of illustration. The percentage of families which survives
is six,times as great as the percentage of groceries which avoid
bankruptcy. The men who found families are presumably of
about the same average order of intelligence as the men who establish grocery stores. But in the latter case the grocer has at his
disposal all the agents of a highly organized wholesale business,
interested in putting their knowledge at his disposal and seeing him
succeed; he has on his table numerous trade papers, as well as
high grade periodicals dealing more broadly with every phase of
the theory and practice of retailing; he has access to numerous
expensive and well-organized business colleges and high schools,
and university departments (including extension and night courses)
which teach business administration.
The father, on the other hand, will look in vain for any school
to teach him the most elementary duties of fatherhood. He will
scan in vain the polychromatic displays of newsstands for a magazine devoted to the problems of fatherhood. He will receive no
visits from traveling men, anxious to aid him in making his work a
success. He will, on the contrary, meet at every turn handicaps,
detailed in the pages of this book and only too well known by
experience to most fathers, and will encounter on every side an
attitude of society which is seemingly intended to make it as hard
as possible for him to succeed as a father.
The Commonwealth professes an interest in seeing that every
boy and girl is developed into a good citizen. Should it not take
a greater and more active interest in seeing that they become good
parents, also? Is it not time that the production of a family be
looked on as at least as important to the nation as the distribution
of groceries, and that the father be provided with at least as much
help as is available to "Your Neighborhood Grocer?"
The object of sex education in the past has too often seemed to
be the production of chaste celibates. These are all right in their




184


184      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


place, but intelligent fathers and mothers are better, and the
object of all education should be to produce young people who will
be, among other things, intelligent fathers and mothers.
THOSE WHO ARE MISSED
The critical reader who agrees with this ideal will probably point
out two serious practical difficulties, of which I have not hitherto
taken much account in this discussion. In the first place, he will
say, it is all very well to demand that parents teach their children,
but most parents simply can not or will not do so: what is to be
done about this? In the second place, four-fifths of the young
people in the United States never get any farther than the eighth
grade, at most. They leave grammar school to go to work. How
are these to receive the necessary education?
The previous discussion dealt primarily with what I conceive
to be some of the fundamental principles of education as related
to the conservation of the family. The t~o grave difficulties just
mentioned, in the application of these principles, must now be
considered.
1. It will be admitted frankly by all interested in the subject,
that, (a) many parents now can not or will not teach their children,
but that, on the other hand, (b) there is now no agency to take
their place. It is not now feasible,-and it never will be,-to make
schools take the place of parents in this respect. Therefore, if
parents will not do their duty, the first thing to do is to educate
the parents,-more particularly, those who are soon to be parents.
It is of course not to be supposed that any changes necessary in
education for family life will be made at once and completely.
As far as that goes, they will never be made completely. There
will always be some parents too ignorant, irresponsible, mentally
diseased, or vicious, to do their duty by their children. Nothing
more can be expected than a determined attack all along the line,
to see to it that a smaller part of the body of parents in each
generation falls into any one of these classes.
Much can be done, and in some cases is being done, with existing
parents by men's and women's clubs, parent-teacher associations,




EDUCATION18


185


church or fraternal societies, extension departments of colleges,
night schools, and community organizations definitely formed for
this purpose. The biggest single undertaking is that of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, representing 900,000
members. But the task is so great, and the inertia to be overcome
is so tremendous, that all the energy available is needed.
2. Since the elementary schools can not deal adequately with
family education, yet 80 percent of the population never gets any
farther than these schools, what is to be done for this 80 percent,
most of whom will also not receive adequate training from their
parents? That is the main practical question involved in this
whole section, and one too easily slighted in theorizing.
The only solution lies in thorough and intelligent community
organization. If leaders are convinced that the job must be done,
it can be done. "Every agency and individual that has to do with
young life in any intimate way must be brought (a) to recognize
responsibility, (b) to prepare itself as sanely as possible to contribute its part in inspiring boys and girls with sex ideals and
attitudes that are true, appealing, and workable, and (c) to cooperate wisely with other instrumentalities in keeping its efforts
well within pedagogically safe bounds." Prominent among these
potentially valuable agencies are: clergymen and churches, church
schools, public and private schools, physicians and medical organizations, Christian Associations, all types of boys' and girls' organizations, lodges and clubs of men and women, physical and
play directors, and other social workers, Big Brothers and Big
Sisters, employers in business and industry, guilds, trade organizations, and unions and associations of every kind. If the people
in these various groups really want their boys and girls to grow
up to be successful mates and parents, a new social conscience and
an enlightened public opinion and wholesome atmosphere about
parenthood can be created in a few years in any community.
Of course this does not mean that the zealous missionary will
pounce on every child seen unattended in the street and inquire,
"Little boy, do you know wvhere babies come from?" It means
largely an indirect campaign, wvhich by taking account of the




186          THlE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY
fundamentals underlying wise mating, will create a community
in which children will unconsciously absorb the right ideals. A
vigorous public opinion to deal with the daily press, magazines,
motion pictures, drama, commercial amusements, elementary education, and broken homes, and all the things that go to make up
the indirect but powerful pressure that is exerted to mould the
child mind, will do the work.
Space is lacking here to describe any of the numerous excellent
attempts now under way to solve these problems. They will be
found in current social and mental hygiene and educational literature. Much is already being done, but it is perhaps only one
percent of what needs to be done, and what will have to be done
before education will fulfil its function of preparing young people
for life, in such a way as has been outlined by Herbert Spencer
and many other thinkers before and since.




II. PUBLIC OPINION


Most of the things that men and women think, say, and do are,
in part at least, the result of the complex action of powerful forces
that may be grouped together under the title of public opinion.
Without analyzing this, I shall in this section try to do no more than
to classify loosely a number of ideas that seem to have immediate,
practical importance, and to depend largely on public opinion,
under five heads, as they relate to (1) children, (2) young people,
(3) matrimony, (4) childbearing, and (5) some of the evils mentioned in Part II, that interfere with the normal course of family
life.
CHILDREN
1. In the previous section emphasis was laid on the education
of children, and particularly that important part of education
which comes from imitation of parents. Here it is worth while
to emphasize two points.
(a) Sex differentiation is biologically of fundamental importance, and the conservation and development of the great biological
differences between male and female should begin in earliest infancy. Girls should be brought up to be girls, and eventually
women and mothers; boys to be boys, men, and fathers.
It is necessary to insist on this because the extreme feminist
attitude, with its complex of sex-inferiority and its desire to acquire
the supposedly more honorific qualities of the opposite sex, is driving in the opposite direction. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, for
instance, urges that little girls should be forbidden to play with
dolls, lest they thereby become feminine. Many followers of this
perverted counsel have probably had the experience of Charlotte
V. Gulick who found, though her girl was given no dolls and
supposed not even to know what a doll was, that the child took
an old rag and endowed it with the imaginary attributes of
infancy-the mother instinct was not so easily to be balked.
187




188


1881THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


Part of the maladjustment in modern marriage is due to the lack
of normal sexual development, mentally more than physically,
in boys and girls. The latter are subjected to feminist theories,
while the former are brought up by their mothers and by women
teachers, and get little contact with men. It is high time to
change the emphasis, both in the home and in the school, and deliberately endeavor to bring out in each sex the high values and precious gifts which it alone has. In the country, boys beyond the
creeping age can spend much of the time out of doors with their
fathers, and as they grow older they remain more and more in
masculine companionship during the day. This is of especial
importance at the ages 8 to 12, when a boy profits most by his
father's influence. One of the most serious drawbacks of cit y life
results from the segregation of fathers by business, which makes
it impossible for their boys to be with them, and throws the latter
almost wholly on the hands of their mothers and female relatives,
or into the society of other children.
The lack of differentiation in education, especially in the later
years, and the endeavor of many girls to assimilate the ways of boys
as far as possible, has an indirect evil influence on family life, by
concealing from boys the real differences in the mental life of the
two sexes. Having been encouraged to look on girls as differing
little from themselves, they carry this attitude over into marriage,
and by sheer ignorance make many mistakes in their attitudes
toward their wives. It is not necessary to make a mystery of the
female sex, as was sometimes done during the middle ages; but a
franker recognition of some of the deep differences, mentally and
emotionally, between the sexes would encourage young men to
study this subject more carefully, and thereby make a greater
success of their married life.
As to models for boys, Sir Galahad is not the best hero. In a
minor way, plays like L'Aiglon, The Blue Bird, Peter Pan, and
several of Shakespeare's, in which girls habitually play the ro'le
of boys, have an, undesirable influence. Even worse is female
impersonation on the vaudeville stage by physically defective
males.




PUBLIC OPINION


189


Sex is a quantitative character, of course; all grades of it can be
found. The two sexes shade off into each other-thus some women
are more mannish than some men, and vice versa.
Apparently this is taken by one sect of feminists to justify education that will make all women mannish. But the only sound
inference to be drawn from the quantitative nature of sex is that
education should be directed toward bringing out the best and most
characteristic features of each sex, rather than reducing them
both to a common level of primitive, unspecialized animality. The
proof of this is to be found by an examination of both types. It will
be seen that individuals who are lacking in normal sexual development are, relatively, less efficient, less happy, and less useful
members of society. They tend to suffer from mental disturbances
and also, it appears, from physical disturbances. They seem to
be more liable to certain diseases than are their more normally
developed brothers or sisters.
To a large extent, it is true, an individual's degree of sexuality
is an inborn trait, fixed forever at the moment of conception.
But to a large extent, also, it is capable of modification by education and environment. Hence the importance of ordering a child's
life in such a way as to bring out the best qualities of his or her own
sex.
Apology is sometimes made for the low marriage rate of graduates
of women's separate colleges, by the plea that only girls who are
somewhat lacking in marriageability are sent there. If parents
know a daughter will marry, it is declared, they do not send her to
such an institution. If they think she may not, they enter her
there in order to prepare her for a career.
While this statement has a small element of truth, its implications are bad. Girls who are, through birth or faulty upbringing,
lacking in attractiveness to men or uninterested in marriage and
motherhood, are in many cases the very ones who should have the
benefit of the opposite course of treatment. They should rather
be sent to a small coeducational college where they would rub elbows daily with boys, and have an opportunity to develop their'
emotional natures along normal lines.




190


190      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


If a boy is a " sissy," his parents do not send him to an institution
where the other boys are of this type-they send him to a military
academy or some other school where they think the frills will be
knocked off and the masculinity appear. Conversely, unromantic
girls should be given every encouragement to develop normally,
and not be condemned to lifelong celibacy by being sent to institutions patterned on the model of convents.
(b) Avoidance of precocity in development of the mental characteristics of sex sometimes demands attention. The habit some
adults have, of trying to force children into their own erotic attitudes is thoroughly vicious. Infants not yet out of the nursery
are teased about their "sweethearts." Few amusements delight
the average group of women more than to get a little boy and little
girl in a room together and try to force them to caress each other.
Somewhat later, when the boy and girl begin normally to take a
keen interest in the opposite sex, they are plagued and tormented
endlessly by all their relatives. The sexual development of children will usually take excellent care of itself if it is left alone; there
is plenty of stimulus for it in every-day life, without the addition
of an artificial and vicious stimulus based on the desire of older
persons to get a vicarious satisfaction of their own over-stimulated
sexual interests at the expense of the young and unsophisticated.
YOUNG PEOPLE
2. Something has been said in the preceding section about the
formal education of young people for family life, but it is worth
while to consider more fully the education of the emotions-the
most important and yet most neglected field in education.
Why is "vice" so often more seductive than "virtue?" Largely
because, in the sense the words are popularly (though vaguely)
used, vice is an active thing: it is doing something. It therefore
satisfies, to some extent, the inherent craving of the living creature
for activity. Virtue, on the other hand, tends to be negativeit consists largely of "don't."
It is a legitimate challenge to those who take life seriously,
to make virtue more dynamic, more entertaining, more alluring




PUBLIC OPINION


191


than vice, instead of letting virtue consist merely in repressions
and inhibitions. It sometimes must seem to the young that the
white race has built up a civilization in which there is nothing
interesting except "sin." It must rebuild.
Under the present system of education, which (if it teaches anything) teaches the negative virtue of continence instead of the
positive, militant virtue of chastity, there has been a strong tendency to cramp the more docile young people into a condition of
sterilized repression from which they could never recover; while
the more resistant, vigorous, impulsive young people broke over
the barriers and found the activity they craved in ways that were
harmful both to themselves at the time and to society in general.
It ought not to be difficult to provide the young with a regime that
would give a normal outlet for the emotions and lead to a healthful,
well-rounded development instead of to excess on one side or
starvation on the other.
All sorts of open-air athletics, particularly those such as swimming and tennis in which both sexes take part, and all sorts of selfexpression through art, may be counted on to help. A great danger
of modern life is that people do not actively participate in their
amusements: they sit silently, in the dark, while watching a film;
applaud decorously once in a while at the theater; hear a symphony
concert with dignified attention; or if they"let loose"a little more
at a baseball game, yet fail to get one percent of the exercise that
the players are getting. William James long ago called attention
to the deep-seated evil of this condition, but it appears to be
getting worse rather than better each year. Dancing (classical,
folk, and social), amateur dramatics, and music afford means of
self-expression that should be much more highly developed.
The emotions in general are thus given an outlet. The emotions
concerned more particularly with marriage find their normal
development in activities that are well recognized but have no
satisfactory name. Flirtation is perhaps the best term available.
It is as natural to young people as is eating or drinking, and while
its manifestations sometimes distress the more esthetic or sophisticated minds of their elders, it is by no means to be repressed in



192


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


discriminately, for it represents the method of trial and error by
which boys and girls are acquiring and refining their ideals of
mating. A certain amount of development of the tender emotion
is necessary at this premarital period, and while it must be kept
within bounds, it is just as bad not to let it go far enough, as to let
it go too far.
Normally this age is outgrown within 10 years, as I have pointed
out in a previous section. The period when one is more or less
indiscriminately "boy crazy" or "girl crazy," as the case may be,
is succeeded by the period when one selects a particular member
of the opposite sex for life-long comradeship. The elderly philanderer.and male flirt is regarded with amused contempt by all women
past the grammar school age, as representing a stage of arrested
development.
The emotions concerned more particularly with childbearing
and child-rearing find their normal outlet in the play of childhood,
in care of younger brothers and sisters, and in help, as the child
grows older, with all the family problems. Under the conditions
of modern city life, opportunities for this sort of development are
restricted. Much could be done, by the development of mothercraft, to give older girls an opportunity of coming into contact with
little, children and learning to care for them. There would be a
wide field for remunerative employment, if places were available
where mothers could leave their children under skilled supervision,
for an occasional day or half-day, in order to free themselves for
other occupations or amusement. Such places should be not exactly kindergartens, day nurseries, or clinics, but a combination of
all three. I believe that most mothers of the well-to-do classes
would patronize them, with benefit to themselves and their children
as well as to the young women operating these institutions. Beyond this, the amount of charitable work of the same sort that could
be done profitably for the children of families too poor to pay, is
unlimited. Girls who now drift into teaching school, merely to
occupy their time until they marry,' would find in such work as this
1 Teachers sometimes ask of a woman unknown to them, whose name is
mentioned in conversation, "Is she married, single, or teaching?" Pedagogy
is universally recognized as representing what war-time draft boards called a
deferred classification.




PUBLIC OPINION13


193


a more interesting and socially useful form of employment, and
one that would give their own emotions a much more satisfactory
outlet. It should be understood clearly, however, that it was not
to furnish lifelong "careers" for women. (See the following section,
Community Organization.)
Ellen Key and others have proposed that all young women give
a year or more of compulsory service to the state, in the furtherance
of motherhood, just as young men in Europe do their compulsory
military service. Such a proposal would meet with little favor
in the United States, where the principle of compulsory military
service is not viewed with pleasure. There may be something
to be said for it in Europe.
MATRIMONY
3. A frank, wholesome attitude toward matrimony in general,
with fewer whispers and snickers, would be of great benefit. Particularly helpful, however, would be an active, though unofficious,
assistance of young people in finding mates. Those who grow up
in small communities find the way relatively easy: it is natural
for them to marry comrades whom they meet at church, school,
or club, or in the houses of friends, and whom they have known
for years before marriage. But a large part of the marriageable
population is now found in great cities, alone and friendless. These
people want to marry as much as anyone else does, but their difficulty in meeting any large number of eligibles is appalling.
Men are nearly always generous in helping boys to get a start
in business, but in the more important matter of starting a family
there is general indifference, timidity, or fear of being ridiculed, of
making a mistake, or of being considered a busybody. This does
not apply in such full force to women-indeed, the matchmaking
proclivities of mothers are proverbial. They are, however, too
often selfish and limited. lIt is right enough that a woman should
use every effort to marry off her own daughter, or some particular
protege~e, but what is needed is not so much the deliberate attempt
to make a match, as it is the deliberate attempt to give young
people a wider range of contacts with eligibles, so that they can




194


194      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


make matches for themselves under favorable conditions. There
need be nothing ostentatious or embarrassing about such efforts.
Most elderly people, if they were not too much wrapped up in their
own affairs, would find immense pleasure in having around them
a lot of superior young people, and in constantly seeking new ones
of the same quality to add to the circle. In this way, the young
man in a city, who now meets only the landlady's daughter and the
girls in his own office; and the young -woman in a city, who perhaps
does not meet any young men at all, would have a fair chance to
find mates, and not be driven into celibacy or, desperate, into
snatching at the first unmarried person of the opposite sex who
appeared on the horizon.
In another direction there is room for many changes in the concept of marriage, to satisfy the demands of those women who feel
that the institution of matrimony is at present a cramping and
confining one, in which the woman becomes a shackled dependent,
losing all opportunity for freedom, individuality, self-expression,
and creative work.
It is difficult to know how to meet, in every case, such demands
-when they are sincere: for in many cases they are the mere
defensive reaction or "~sour grapes" snarl of the spinster, the
divorcee, or the kept woman. The institution itself can scarcely
be held responsible; for, being merely a status resulting from
mutual contract, it is nothing more nor less than what the two
persons concerned make it. In many cases it has been made an
unlovely thing, through the ignorance or perversity of husband
or wife or both; but the remedy is manifestly to be applied to each
individual case, and not to the institution as an institution. So far
as women's legal rights go, they are now in most states better
secured than are those of men.
Beyond this, it is true that in nearly every modern marriage there
is room for (a) more romance, (b) more understanding, (c) more
freedom, (d) more courtesy, (e) more respect for personality, and
(f) more opportunity for really living. Marriage should be and
can be the greatest agent for promoting progress in all these directions. Nothing more is required, in most cases, than that the two




PUBLIC OPINION


195


partners give serious thought to it, and this involves the whole
subject of intelligent education for marriage, which has been
insisted on more than once in this volume. Such matters as the
necessity for a separate home (no house being large enough for
two families), the interferences of relatives, particularly mothersin-law, the desirability of a budget and fair division of the family
income,-these and many other important topics of the same sort
have been dealt with amply by other writers, and are thoroughly
understood by everyone who has attended to them. But in respect
of preparation, it should be remembered more commonly that love
is an art, and is not to be learned by study of the failures and
abnormalities that fill most sexual treatises, any more than painting
or sculpture is to be learnt by living amidst wretched exhibitions
of bad workmanship and never seeing a good statue or drawing.
In practice, moreover, one should not expect the impossible of
marriage-it is a human institution, subject to all the frailties of
human nature.
Men must realize that their married life needs and should have
at least as much attention as their business life. They must especially (a) allow more time for loving-it takes time; and (b)
be ready to devote more time to their children. The man who
thinks the greatest thing he can do for his family is to make a
million dollars, has a wrong set of values. Even more mistaken is
the man whose mind is set solely on attaining power or distinction.
History is full of the remarks of men who, at the close of a life
spent in the pursuit of fame, have described bitterly the futility and
disillusionment of it all, agreeing with The Preacher that "All is
vanity." But I do not remember ever reading of a father who,
after successfully bringing up a worthy family, expressed regret
over a misspent life.
On the other hand, women probably err quite as often as men,
in unwillingness to carry their share of the load. The merely decorative, parasite wife is a conspicuous feature of city life in this as in
previous civilizations. The woman who thinks her husband's
only occupation and duty are to entertain her and gratify her whims
is a frequent client of the divorce courts. The hetairae of ancient




196


196      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


Greece are reproduced in many professions and callings of presentday civilization by not a few attractive young women whose ambition it is to be "free," to charm men intellectually and emotionally;
but of course, "no babies!"
The ''woman problem"~ is a perennial one in human society.
Some feminists talk as if woman had hitherto always been subjugated (save in a mythical matriarchal period, to which they look
back with f ond regret, when man was merely the obsequious servant
of woman and tolerated only as a "biological necessity"). The fact
is that in every civilization the question of woman's position has
arisen in much the same acute way that it has during the last century. Details have varied with the form of civilization, but in
essence the situation has been the same. At a certain point
in any culture, the biological differentiation of the two sexes begins
to be hampered by social and economic factors. Then a certain
proportion of abnormal or ill-educated women begins to campaign
for individualism and emancipation.
No historian has yet appeared to do justice to this recurrent
phenomenon, but every high school student knows some of the
outstanding facts, particularly as they developed in Rome, where
conditions were in many ways strikingly parallel to those in
modern occidental. civilization. Feminism was one of the many
biological factors involved in the downfall of the empire. It might
be possible to defend the thesis that no civilization has ever been
able to survive after the natural biological differentiation of the
sexes was weakened.
Present-day civilization has in some respects a better chance of
survival than had past civilizations, because there is now available
a much larger body of data to establish the proper relationship
of the sexes. Any unprejudiced inquirer ought to be able to satisfy
himself that "emancipation" as understood by extreme feminists
means not emancipation but slavery; that freedom is to be found
only in a situation where the individual is not working in opposition
to his or her own inborn dispositions. Self-realization, for men
and women alike, can not be found in a celibate or pseudo- celibate,
money-making, notoriety-seeking career; but in the normal satis



PUBLIC OPINION


197


factions of family life to which men and women are adapted by
countless generations of organic evolution.
CHILDBEARING
4. Cornelia Stratton Parker tells of receiving a call, while with
her husband at Harvard, from some Boston woman who learned
that she had a child in arms and another on the way. "How
interesting!" exclaimed the visitor, in all seriousness. "Just like
the slums."
Speaking by and large, the attitude of the public toward childbirth may be said to embrace the following ideas:
(a) That for a child to be born within a year of the wedding day
is both funny and vulgar.
(b) That to have many children is both an evidence of bad
taste and an indication of carelessness.
(c) That the sight of a pregnant woman is a matter either for
ridicule or for pity, the public being about equally divided in this
respect.
These are points on which clear thinking and plain speaking
should be the care of responsible people. Theodore Roosevelt
did not hesitate publicly and vigorously to rebuke those who took
this attitude toward childbearing. Others may well follow his
example.
At one period in early Rome, the door of a pregnant woman was
always crowned with garlands; while in early Greece her home
was a sanctuary in which the accused could take inviolate refuge.
It is not necessary to bring back old customs: it ought to be
possible to invent some new ones. Jules Michelet desired that
every man who passed a pregnant woman on the street should
take off his hat to her; as to which Gaston Rageot justly remarks
that taken literally, the suggestion is bad manners; taken figuratively, it is far from enough.
On the other hand, discrimination is important. Childbearing,
of itself, is not necessarily praiseworthy; and the pregnant woman,
although to be treated with consideration in every case, is by no
means always to be admired. The only childbearing worthy of




198


198      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


commendation is the bearing of good children under proper circumstances. A mere sentimental attitude toward maternity encourages the multiplication of some highly undesirable types. Moreover, as soon as maternity is considered a merit in itself, without
any qualifications, the way is open to put irresponsible, unmarried
motherhood on the same level with motherhood in a family. While
one can not always draw a sharp line and say, this motherhood is
to be praised, that to be condemned, yet those who care for the
conservation of the family will bear in mind the supreme importance of quality.
INTERFERING CONDITIONS
5. Among the means of forming public opinion and guiding
action, art and literature stand high. A scrutiny of present tendencies in these fields in the United States is disquieting to any one
interested in the conservation of family life.
Almost all of current fiction, poetry, 2 drama, and motion-pictures is highly individualistic, and not in any way evolutionary.
Much of it is frankly erotism. or fantasy, poor food for the mind of
man or beast.
Standard published fiction is bad enough, much of it being written by "those modern beggars for fame, who," in Thomas Babington Macaulay's phrase, "extort a pittance from the compassion of
the inexperienced by exposing the nakedness and sores of their
minds." But modern magazines are perhaps worse. The level
of many of them has sunk markedly during the past decade, while
there have sprung into existence several new classes of periodical
of sinister import: the small, frankly pornographic and obscene
monthly, published in some obscure country town, shipped by
express to avoid postal censorship, and sold for 25 cents to any
passer-by; the more pretentious magazine which prints porno2 To cite a couple of instances at random, two of the most widely accepted
singers of love are Laurence Hope (Mrs. Malcolm H. Nicolson) and Sara
Teasdale (Mrs. Ernst B. Filsinger). The former's motif is the evanescence of
passion; the latter's refrain is the failure of reality to satisfy her as do her day
dreams. A sound mind can not be nourished long by such stuff.




PUBLIC OPINION


199


graphic material under the guise of bogus "confessions" and false
"true stories;" and the "Peppery Stories" type which specializes
in aphrodisiacal fiction.
Such magazines can nearly always be suppressed without much
trouble by the force of public opinion, with legal action where
necessary. No one is seriously interested in defending them, aside
from those who make a living by pandering to the lowest tastes of
mankind, save a few professional zealots for "personal liberty."
The latter are active and vociferous, but analysis usually shows
that their idea of personal liberty is liberty to get drunk, liberty to
enjoy lascivious literature, and liberty to commit fornication.
Such a program will hardly prevail with thoughtful people.
Objectionable dramas and films can be dealt with by the same
means as objectionable books and magazines. If people who are
coaxed by misrepresentation into a salacious entertainment would
get up and walk out, complaining at the box office and demanding
the return of their money, they might not get the money but they
would soon change the point of view of the box office.
Modern commercialism has at least one redeeming feature: it
offers a tender spot for attack in the case of anti-social productions.
The pandering showman or back-alley publisher whose musical
comedy or book is obscene usually protests frantically, when
cornered, that he has property rights in the production, which must
not be jeopardized. Any interference, he wails, will cause him to
lose good money he has invested. Such squeals should be sweet
music to those attempting to provide decent surroundings for their
families. Vigorous community action that will not only impair,
but will totally destroy, the investment is the surest preventive of
further insults. The solar plexus of these promoters is located in
the pocketbook and they will always succumb to a blow there.
The more of them that can be bankrupted, the fewer recruits will
appear to take their places.
While the great majority of showmen and the like are amenable
to public opinion, if it is adequately represented, a minority must
be dealt with by legal measures. A difficulty often arises in the
proposition that what is objectionable for one audience is useful




200


200      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


for another. A group of physicians may discuss or publish material that would only disturb a group of high school boys who lack
the background that the physicians have to connect up this material
with other knowledge. A nude woman may pose without offense
for a group of artists when she could not, in the present unregenerate state of public opinion, pose on a crowded street corner. The
law fully recognizes this common-sense distinction, and it would
give little trouble if it were not pushed too far by those who have
no legitimate excuse for using it. Everyone knows the type of
"artist" who has no interest in art that wears clothesY3 and the type
of "scientist" who is devoted to the study of "Sex," but knows
nothing of the normal phenomena that make up 99 percent of
sexual life. Neither art nor science is benefited by the activity of
these parasites, and the professions themselves should take steps
to purge their ranks of those who are merely using them as a cloak
for their own purposes.
3 A large proportion of creative artists notoriously does not conform to accepted standards of conduct, and it has sometimes been supposed that the
atmosphere in which they are educated is to blame. Such an explanation puts
the cart before the horse. The fact is that many, if not all, people have within
them some potentiality for creative art, but in most it fails of expression because of the repressions, suppressions, resistances, and inhibitions that form so
large (and within limits, so necessary) a part of the human mental equipment.
One can not become a creative artist unless one lacks these hindrances to a large
extent, but their lack is almost certain to be manifested in conduct as well as
in other forms of self-expression.
Beyond this, there are various special factors in particular cases. Actors, for
example, have from time immemorial been prone to deviate from the standards
of sexual conduct. Their frequent travels are unfavorable to family life; in
addition, the constant pretence of "making love" on the stage tends to form
action patterns in the mind that inevitably guide conduct off the stage.
All this is not to argue that artists should be regarded as in a class by themselves, living above all ordinary rules of conduct. But it does argue that there
is a price to be paid for creative work. Society decides whether the price is too
high for the work. Often it is; and then an Oscar Wilde or a Stanford White
dies in disgrace. Undue tolerance of the eccentricities of creative artists produces an infestation of posers and fakers, of hobohemians,, Greenwich Villagers,
and movie extras, whose only claim to be considered artists is the irregularity
of their matings.




PUBLIC OPINION


201


All this does not mean any objection to frankness and plain
speaking on any subject. Indeed, much plainer speaking than is
now customary would be beneficial. Was it Confucius who said
that if things were always called by their right names, most of the
evils in the world would disappear? It is the euphemy, the representation of evil things as attractive, that is harmful. If a prostitute were always called a prostitute, whether she be a penniless
street walker or a Madame de Pompadour, instead of being referred
to as a light o' love, fille dejoie, fair but frail charmer, or what not,
the effect on public opinion would be salutary. The same holds
true of all other evil conditions which interfere with the normal
functioning of the family.
No one objects to plain speaking so long as it is in the right place.
The desire of modern young people to get rid of cant, hypocrisy,
and outworn conventions is one of the most hopeful things in
civilization. But more pains must be taken to distinguish between
these things and fundamental biological requirements. It is a
pity that any one should be so ill-educated as to look at matters
rooted in the deepest biological facts, in the depths of woman's
nature or in the inevitable course of evolution, and pronounce them
mere conventions, tyrannies of man-made society, or fossil customs
of a priest-ridden civilization.
A crucial instance is furnished from time to time when some
prominent man goes off with a woman who is not his wife. The
Russian writer Maxim Gorki came to the United States some years
ago with a mistress who was, in accordance with the law, refused
admission at Ellis Island. Votaries of Personal Liberty promptly
grew raucous, but the response of almost every class of society,
from the President down, was equally prompt and decisive. Mr.
Gorki finally came into the country, leaving his mistress behind,
only to find himself generally ostracised, until he returned hastily
to his native land.
Another illustration is furnished now and then when some professional man, perhaps of international note, goes off with a soulmate, is dismissed from his position, and finds his professional
career blighted if not wholly ruined. Many well-meaning persons




202


202      THlE CONSERVATION OF TEE FAMILY


have deplored these incidents, arguing that these men could have
done much for the advancement of science and the progress of
civilization, and that to put an end to this possibility, by ostracism,
shows a strange blindness of society to its own best interests, or
such a lack of perspective as leads one to cut off one's nose to spite
one's face.
Such superficial comments wholly miss the real significance of
these incidents, which I have here recalled because it is highly
important that their significance be understood. In thrusting
out from its precints these men of great ability, society is not necessarily passing judgment on the motives that led to their actions.
Individually, they may have been wholly justified in their own
eyes, or in the eyes of those most familiar with the facts. But the
outstanding fact is that monogamy represents an adaptation of
societyv-that is, a condition necessary to promote growth and
harmony; an adaptation that has been developed during and has,
on the whole, stood the test of hundreds of thousands of years.
It is of incomparably greater importance to society that monogamy
be maintained than it is that any one man, no matter how great
his achievements, should continue to practice his profession.
The extrusion of deviates from its ranks is part of the price that
society pays for maintaining an institution of transcendent value,
and no one with an evolutionary point of view will suppose for a
moment that the price is too great. Evolution can not go on
without the sacrifice of some-indeed, of many-individuals.
The more primitive and bloody methods of evolution which prevailed in an earlier age, and which were accompanied by the sudden
death of deviates from the standard, have been largely set aside
in favor of more rational and less violent methods. Nowadays
the man who does not conform to the necessary standards is usually not killed (barring occasional enforcement of "the unwritten
law"-an enforcement which is in some ways salutary, even though
not approvable in principle); he is merely pushed aside, ostracised,
cast out of the social body. Disinterested persons, while regretting
that there should be deviations that must thus be dealt with, should
be glad that when they occur, they are so dealt with; while the




PUBLIC OPINION


203


individual at fault may well rejoice that he was not born in an
earlier age, when he and his consort might have been buried alive
together.
Scientifically, there is no room for a plea that the hostile attitude
of society toward those who break the most important mores
should be relaxed. If the mores are out of date, they should be
changed on the basis of research and adequate evidence; but so
long as they stand, it is too much to ask that any strong and
healthy society shall consent to commit suicide by tolerating
anarchy. There are already plenty of illustrations in history,
of the results that follow such a course; and while it is doubtless
true in detail that history never repeats itself, yet similar causes
will tend to produce similar effects. It is no coincidence that the
downfall of both Greece and Rome was preceded by a laxity of the
marriage mores, and a disregard for the interest of the family.
In this connection the responsibility of each individual is heavy:
(a) to arrive at sound standards of conduct, (b) to adhere to them
personally, and (c) to stand up for them publicly and make his
influence felt. The last-named obligation is the one on which I
wish particularly to insist in this section. Even trivial actions
have an importance, the extent of which can not be foreseen. The
man who tells, or approves the telling of, a joke which justifies
marital infidelity is doing just as much harm as is the woman who
allows her children to get their standards of home-life from the
so-called funny papers. Motion pictures too often bear out
H. L. Mencken's cynical contention that from them children can
learn only patriotism and adultery. Parents who tolerate such
things can not expect their children to do otherwise. Influential
people who tolerate them can not expect that the crowd will not
follow their example.
After reproduction and fighting and hunger, there are few
motives stronger in human life than the desire to think well of one's
self, and to be well thought of by others. It is to this motive that
appeal must be made, for the conservation of the family. Most
people are necessarily followers, not leaders; the few who by accident or merit are leaders therefore have a double obligation to




204           THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY
stand on the biological side of all issues which involve family life;
for their actions will be read about, watched, commented on, and
consciously or unconsciously imitated by thousands. The crowd
will speak respectfully of family life, if those after whom it patterns
speak respectfully of family life; on the other hand, it will think
prostitution necessary and adultery amusing if its models take that
attitude. For this, among other reasons, law enforcement and
social ostracism, as well as more constructive measures, should
begin at the top, not the bottom, of the social scale.




III. ECONOMIC REFORMS


In the establishment and maintenance of a family, dollars and
cents frequently cast the deciding vote. They have a voice in
man's or woman's decision to marry, in the first place. After that,
the family's resources, its standard of living, and its hope of providing for old age, largely govern the number of children born and
play a significant, though minor, part in determining the fate of the
children, once they have come into the world.'
Except among people who face actual starvation, it is true that
almost anyone can afford children if he wants to -it merely means
giving up something else. Most of the people who economize by
giving up progeny would not suffer from privation, if they had
offspring, nor would these children have to go without anything
necessary to their comfort. The statement of well-to-do people
that they can not afford children means simply that they are unwilling to deprive themselves of certain luxuries for the sake of
children, or that they could not continue to live in the same extravagant style as their neighbors or associates, if they had children.
Here is evidently one way in which a reform is possible. People
can cultivate simpler tastes.
But this is not enough. In many circles, a certain standard of
1 Within limits the care that a child gets is dependent on the ability of his
parents to pay for care. This item, which has been exaggerated grossly by
many writers, and in nearly all the investigations of the United States Children's
Bureau, must be interpreted in the light of two facts. First, the multiplication
of charitable agencies in large cities often ensures to the children of the poor
better care than those of the moderately well-to-do can receive. Secondly, the
income of the parents reflects to some extent their inherent capacity, intelligence, health, and the like; so that the greater infant mortality rate sometimes
found among families where the income is small reflects to a corresponding extent the ignorance, incompetence, and physical defects of the parents, rather
than the size of their bank balance. It is an error to suppose that by doubling
the wages of all tenement-house dwellers, one could cut down the infant mortality among them by a corresponding amount.
205




206


206      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


living is practically obligatory. A man can not hold his position
unless he and his wife conform with that standard. Moreover, in
every superior family it is desirable that the children have, not
merely a bare margin of subsistence, but every advantage possible.
There is, then, real need for measures that will aid families with
children.
As has been shown previously, the birth rate tends to diminish
as the family income increases. The more money a man has, the
fewer children. An ideal solution of the problem would be su ch
changes as would (a) make people's incomes represent accurately
their real value to the community, and (b) would make them hear
and rear a number of children proportional to their income. Such
an ideal solution will never be reached, but it is worth a moment's
consideration.
(a) Every movement in the direction of social justice tends to
favor the more accurate adjustment of income to real value. All
laws to prevent sharp and fraudulent practice in business, and
providing for truthful advertising, weighing, and measuring, for
instance, help in this direction. Heavy taxes on unapprovable
luxuries and on large inheritaftces act in the same direction. At
present a man of mediocre intellect and superior physique may,
as a result of a 40-minute prize fight, make enough money to pay
the salaries of an entire college faculty f or a year. A man with
intellect and physique both of mediocre quality, but endowed with
a certain amount of avarice, unscrupulousness, ferocity, and
tenacity, can gain an equal amount of money by performances' 'of
a different kind that are even less useful socially. Any measures
that tend to eliminate such discrepancies will benefit the family
indirectly. To go into further details under this head would,
however, be to write a treatise on economics.
(b) The birth rate can be made to correspond more nearly to the
income, by a decrease in the families of the poor and an increase
in the families of the well-to-do. Such a change could conceivably
be brought about by education, the pressure of public opinion,
and in general all the measures which have been discussed in this
volume.




ECONOMIC REFORMS


207


Within narrow limits, then, some approach may be made toward
the ideal solution mentioned above.
Most suggested solutions, however, have proceeded from the
opposite side and, assuming that the number of children produced
is one of the indications of a family's value to the community,
have attempted to devise means for making the income correspond
to the number of children, rather than, as was suggested above, to
make the number of children correspond to a readjusted income.
The premise, that children form one of the real evidences of a
family's value to the community, is sound within certain limits.
It is particularly unassailable when the comparison is made inside
of any given class. For the sake of illustration one might take all
postmasters, or all railway engineers, or all bankers: on the average
it would be safe to say that those with good-sized families are worth
more to the nation than those who are unmarried or who have inadequate families. Within a given class, therefore, any measure
which tends to redistribute income on the basis of size of family is,
up to a certain point, eugenic. But if the distribution is made
more broadly, on the basis of the entire population, the procedure
becomes questionable.
It must be admitted that many of the proposals for increasing
the birth-rate through economic measures show a pathetically
trustful faith in the omnipotence of the dollar. Just as wealth is
commonly supposed to open all doors to its possessor; just as the
successful pork packer or war profiteer feels no doubt of his ability
to purchase culture, social position, a noble (though somewhat
sketchy) pedigree relating him to William the Conqueror, and a
duke for a son-in-law; so, if the state desires an increased output
of children, it is told that it has only to go into the open market
and bid for them. Are more babies needed? Your esteemed inquiry received and contents noted, and in reply would say, make
the price right and said items will be delivered C.O.D., 280 days
after receipt of order.
Surely the population problem is not quite so simple as that!
It may be true that the state can secure quantity production
any time it is willing to outbid competitors. But quantity produc



208


208      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


tion of children is the last thing that is needed in modern civilization.
There is, however, another and more sympathetic side to the
picture. If parents want children, but are. hindered from having
them by the existence of artificial, economic barriers, the state may
well remove the barriers, if it is possible to do so, and if it appears
that eugenically superior parents will be benefited more than will
the inferior.
Broadly speaking, it may be said that proposals to readjust the
birth-rate by punishing the childless offer little hope of success.
Such measures were tried in imperial Rome, without avail, and they
are no more likely to succeed now.
Again, attempts to alter the birth-rate by bribing the childless
are likewise fallacious.
It is proper, as was noted above, to remove hindrances to childbearing, in certain cases. But in any case, it is likely that the most
valuable result of most economic reforms will be indirect, not direct.
Any financial relief that is given will be tangible; but the important
result would be, through such reforms, to make fathers and mothers
feel that they occupy an important place in the world; that they are
recognized by the state, and by their fellow-citizens, as having done
something worth while; that they are good citizens, and universally
acknowledged to be such. Economic measures of even minor
direct influence may be of real value, in this indirect way.
With these principles in mind, the following attempts to solve
the population problem in one way or another are particularly
worthy of thought.
THE MINIMUM WAGE
1. The concept of the Minimum Wage is a vague one, used in
various senses. In one sense it is purely an individual wage.
Some schemers for a reorganized society propose a "pauper's
wage," a pittance large enough to keep a man alive, if no more.
*Thus, even an individual who did not care to work would not have
to starve to death.
Put the doctrine which commonly goes under the simple title




ECONOMIC REFORMS20


209


of Minimum Wage is in reality a proposal to subsidize families.
It provides that every laborer shall receive income sufficient to
support not only himself but a wife and at least three children.
It is assumed that this is the average size of family, and it is urged
that society owes to every family at least enough money to keep
its members alive.
Such a theory will not stand analysis. In the first place, the
average worker does not have a family of this size to support.
Paul H. Douglas has calculated that such a wage would mean
supporting 47,000,000 fictitious dependents in the United States;
while if "equal pay for equal work" brings women the same wage,
it will mean supporting some 70,000,000 imaginary persons.
Obviously, neither industry nor eugenics can tolerate such a
fiction. To make pay apply to size of family, society must proceed
directly by counting heads, not indirectly by hypothesis.
But beyond this, is it desirable that society give every man the
means of supporting a wife and three children? Certainly not.
In many cases it is desirable that he be unable to support them,if it appears, for instance, that the children he would have would
be a detriment to the state, rather than a gain.
Whatever its purely economic merits may be, the idea of a minimum wage as commonly understood is directly opposed to every
aspect of a sound theory of population. Free competition may be
tempered to the extent of furnishing every man enough charity
to feed him, if he requires charity for that purpose, and to feed
his family, if he already has one. But charity which will subsidize
him to increase his family, if he is too inefficient to support it by his
own exertions, would be of little benefit to the family or the state.
THlE FAMILY WAGE
2. The Family Wage idea has spread rapidly in Europe since
the war. It exists in a great variety of forms, the essential theory
of all of which is that a father is rendering certain services to his
country, beyond his mere daily labor, and that in addition to fair
remuneration for his daily work he should be given extra remuneration for this other service, in proportion to the amount of service
rendered.




210


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


Among the countries in which this system has been put into
effect on a large or small scale are Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Czecho-Slovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, Norway,
Poland, and Switzerland. In some countries it is confined, or
nearly limited, to state employes.
The practice is more widespread in France than in any other
nation. There (1924) some 3,000,000 workers are covered by it,
in many different forms. The law of July 22, 1923, provides an
annual allowance of f.90 ($17.37 at par, but at that time actually
only $5 or $6) for each child under 13 years of age in excess of three
in the family. Beyond this, various groups of employers have
made special provision for payments, by forming pools in which
all in a given industry, or branch of an industry, contribute. These
are so arranged that the burden is equalized, and no employer is
tempted for his own advantage to discriminate against married
men, when taking on new hands. There is no uniform system of
payments in the employers' funds. Among the methods of distribution are:
(a) Increased allowance for second and subsequent children.
(b) Same allowance for each child.
(c) No allowance for first child, or first two children, but high
allowances for subsequent ones.
(d) Same (rather low) allowance for first two children, increased
allowance for subsequent ones.
(e) High allowance for first, or first two, and lower for subsequent children.
Allowances have ranged from f.10 to f.50 per month for the
first child, and from f.5 to f.100 for the fourth.
Inasmuch as all children, and all families, differ in quality, and
therefore in value to the state, it is clear that any system which
pays an equal sum for all children is merely a baby bounty, and
that it will tend on the whole to produce quantity at the expense
of quality. Such a system has no place in any program for the
conservation of the family.
Again, any system that differentiates between the first born
and the later born is apparently nothing but an attempt to favor




ECONOMIC REFORMS


211


mass production. It is likely to produce mass but not much else,
particularly as the bounties given are in most cases mere pittances,
which could be of real value only to families at the bottom of the
social scale.
On the other hand, any system which recognizes inherent differences by making the allowance depend both on the size of the
family and on the basal pay of the father is open to fewer objections. It is one of the fairest ways that can be devised for subsidizing the family. If, for example (to take purely arbitrary
figures), a man's pay were increased by 20 percent on marriage,
and by an additional 10 percent on the birth of each child, the
difference in the amount received by a $2 a day man and a $10 a
day man, each with a wife and four children, would be marked.
Unfortunately, the introduction of such differential treatment
is usually opposed by the inefficient who, being a great majority,
have the most voting power, and have to be placated by politicians
who would stay in office. It is, however, in effect among civil
service employes in Holland, and in a few other groups.
The payment of family wages by the state to all workers is
justified on the ground that families of the right kind are necessary
to the state, and that the superior man and wife who produce
four or five children have rendered a service to the state which is
as much worth compensation as any other contribution to public
welfare.
The payment by industrial employers to their own workmen is
justified not only by patriotism, but on the ground that the production of children means the production of suitable labor, and
that the family man is a more dependable, permanent man than
is the single worker. In France, says Mary T. Waggaman, "Without pretending to relieve the state from its duty toward large
families, heads of firms and corporations consider that the interest
they manifest in improving family life ought to promote industrial
prosperity. Just as they insure against fire and accidents they
also consider as part of their expenses a sum for the purpose of
establishing greater labor stability. In thus interesting themselves
in the workers' families and contributing to the physical and mental




212


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


development of the workers' children, these employers hope to
provide themselves a future superior labor reserve which will do
away with the supplementary foreign and colonial labor to which
they have had recourse these later years. Some of the fund members declare that these advantages permit them to compete favorably with districts which have not yet adopted the institution of
family allowances."
The weight to be attached to these arguments will be decided
differently by different people. I have seen no mention of the
argument that the family man produces future consumers, and
therefore might properly be subsidized by a corporation which
makes its profits from selling consumers goods.
BABY BOUNTIES
3. Baby bounties have been dealt with incidentally under the
preceding head. They are wrong in principle and should not be
countenanced in any form.
PREFERENTIAL EMPLOYMENT
4. Preferential employment of family men is a close correlative
of the family wage system. It might be possible to rule that in the
civil service, for example, a position will not be given to an unmarried man or woman, if there is available for the place a family
man equally qualified. This would be a legitimate and useful
procedure.
If such preferential treatment were not accompanied by a family
wage, there would be no reason why intelligent and public-spirited
private employers should not adopt the same measure. It would
cost them no more (save as industrial compensation for accidents
is greater for a family man). If family wages were also allowed,
a narrow-minded employer might prefer to give a vacant position
to a bachelor, because he could be had more cheaply.
MATERNITY BENEFITS
5. Maternity benefits, often advocated, have been applied in
some countries to a limited extent. When they amount to merely




ECONOMIC REFORMS


213


a lump sum, given every woman at childbirth, they are only another
name for a baby bounty. In the case of married women workers,
payment of at least part of the normal wage during the last month
before and the first month or two after confinement permits the
mother to take needed rest and to get the necessary care for herself
and her newborn child. This is helpful to the individual; whether
it is in the long run beneficial to the state depends partly on what
kind of children such mothers produce. On the whole, such a
system, if applied in a discriminating way, probably does more
good than harm.
If applied to wage-earners, administration of a system of maternity benefits is simple, because the earning capacity of the women is
known definitely. Many feminists, however, have proposed to
push this idea farther, by having the state recognize childbearing
as a service equal in value to any other and give a salary to all
women engaged in that occupation. This at once brings difficulties
of administration, for the great bulk of mothers, never having
worked outside the home, have no fixed earning capacity. Publicity has been given recently to an estimate that the average farmer's wife in the United States is worth approximately $4,000 a year
to her family, taking account of services actually rendered. While
few intelligent farmers would think this estimate high enough, an
attempt to remunerate the wives at this rate, when they were
bearing children, might cause at least a mild protest from the cavedwellers of the metropolis!
Under present conditions of public sentiment and politics, it
would certainly be impossible to get mothers graded and classified
on the basis of their real worth to the community, and paid accordingly. Any measure that could possibly be passed would undoubtedly provide only a lump sum for every mother, as is the case
elsewhere, and would therefore be highly objectionable.
The family wage, paid to the man of the house on the basis of a
percentage of his own established earning capacity, achieves the
same end, and is much more practicable. The most prevalent
arrangement in existing, normal households is that the husband
earns, the wife spends the family income. On the whole, this




214


214      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


system seems to work well, and it is difficult to see how any other
system can be compatible with woman's specialization for childbearing.
MOTHERS'I PENSIONS
6. Mothers' pensions, applying to those who have lost their
husbands by death or desertion, are now provided in most American
states. They furnish a sum of from $100 to $200 per child per
year, up to the time the children are from 14 to 18, depending
on the state. They are therefore not strictly eugenic, but may be
valuable in keeping children with their own mothers and out of
institutions.
FAMILY INSURANCE
7. Family insurance iin some form has been suggested by numerous writers, particularly in the United States- by Hilda H. Noyes.
It is argued that people insure to provide themselves with necessary
assistance in case of accident or ill health; why not in the same
way plan for help at time of childbirth, 'making small payments
over a series of years, and withdrawing a larger sum on the birth
of offspring?
The suggestion has interesting possibilities, although no actuary,
so far as I know, has yet pronounced on its practicability.
Dr. Noyes has suggested another form of insurance in the following words:
"In this country the graduates of our best universities delay
marriage for from seven to nine years af ter graduation, and average
less than two children each, although it is necessary for those who
become parents to have over three surviving children to keep the
stock from dying out. The postponement of marriage is due, in
the majority of cases, to insufficient income in the early years of
becoming established in a business or professional career. To
enable these picked individuals to marry earlier why not reverse
the ordinary plan of insurance, in which a small sum is paid into
the company for a long series of years and at death a large sum is
paid to relatives and friends, and in its stead let the company
advance the large sums first, in quarterly or monthly instalments




ECONOMIC REFORMS


215


for a short series of years, decreasing gradually to nothing as the
earning capacity of the applicant increased, then let him pay into
the company a small sum for a long series of years? The result
would be that the aggregate of the small payments coming in would
equal the aggregate of the large payments going out plus the necessary expense of management and allowance for failure of payment
in case of death of applicant. A necessary feature would be the
investigation of the mental, moral, and physical heredity and
status of the applicant to determine the quality of the risk. If the
plan could be made to work economically, its eugenic influence
would be great."
She has further suggested that part of the capital necessary for
such a scheme might be supplied by endowment from some philanthropist. Andrew Carnegie provided a fund to allow certain college professors to live comfortably in their old age. Some one
else might well provide another fund to allow them to bring up
children comfortably in their youth.
Some of the difficulties of working out such a policy as this are
obvious, but it is one of the most interesting suggestions that has
been made in connection with the economic side of family life, and
deserves thorough study.
It has also been proposed that a universal and compulsory
scheme of insurance for child-bearing be patterned on the plan of
compulsory old-age pensions in Germany and elsewhere, the state
providing part of the capital, the individual the rest. Any universal and compulsory scheme, however, seems likely to be indiscriminate in its operation, as it would necessarily be more or less
under political influence. Moreover, less efficient people would
be more likely to want to get their money back by producing
children. A plan of voluntary insurance, on the other hand,
would be patronized only by the prudent, thrifty, and far-sighted,
-exactly the classes whose reproduction is most desirable.
TAXATION
8. Taxation is now used to some extent in most countries for the
encouragement of the family. The exemptions of the federal




216


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


income tax in the United States are familiar to every reader who
has a wife and children.
As a more sweeping measure it has often been proposed to tax
heavily all bachelors. But it is not desirable that all bachelors
marry, still less that all have children; and any tax might have
the tendency to force into marriage, and probable parenthood,
those who should remain single for the good of all concerned.
It has also been proposed to tax all childless people, whether married or single, with the idea that they could thus be forced to have
children and, on the other hand, that funds from this source could
be applied to reducing the burden of families.
To test this measure, one should analyze childless marriages.
Leaving out of consideration those who are physiologically infertile,
it will be evident that most childless married couples fall into one
of the following three classes:
(a) Those who think that they should not have children because
of some inherited disability--for instance, the presence of insanity
in the ancestry.
(b) Those who can not, or think they can not, afford to have
children.
(c) Those who do not want children because frivolous, selfish,
ill-educated, or over-ambitious.
It is generally supposed that class (b) is the largest. Therefore
the tax would fall most heavily on this class, made up of people
who are childless merely because they think they have not the
money at the moment to take good care of children. While they
are enduring this situation, the tax collector arrives and informs
them that, not having enough money to have a child right away,
they must be mulcted of a part of the little they have-thereby
pushing their baby still farther into the future. A valuable
measure, indeed, for increasing the birth rate!
As to class (c), made up of those who are merely too selfish or
ambitious to want to be bothered with children, it is supposed that
they might by this pecuniary pressure be forced to produce children
as a means of reducing their tax assessments. The wealthy among




ECONOMIC REFORMS


217


them would certainly not be effectively influenced in this way;2
and as for the poor climbers, sacrificing parenthood to the desire
for a standard of living they can not afford, it is doubtful whether
the children that they might produce under pecuniary pressure
would be any great asset to the race. In so far as childlessness is
due to inborn lack of parental feeling or other selfish trait, it should
be encouraged, for the quicker such a trait is bred out of the race,
the better. The prevalent degree of race suicide has at least one
compensation, in that it is leading to the extinction of some family
stocks that are inherently abnormal, yet in an earlier age would
probably have left offspring to inherit their defect. On the other
hand, that part of childlessness (probably a much larger part) which
is found among people who are by nature normal and whose defects
are due solely to education, is not a racial benefit but a racial
disaster.
Finally, what effect would this taxation have on class (a), the
defectives? In so far as it worked at all, its inevitable effect would
be to tend to make these people have children, which is exactly
what society does not want them to do.
It must be evident to anyone who analyzes the question more
than superficially, that a tax on childlessness as a means for increasing the number of births of desirable children is a measure
that would defeat its own ends. Even now, with all the maladjustments that exist, it can scarcely be doubted that the married people
of the nation are, on the average, inherently superior in quality to
those who have not married; and that the married people with
children are, on the whole, superior in racial value to the childless
married. What is needed is a revision of popular standards of
value, and a change in public sentiment, so that the personal and
racial advantages of a family of superior children will be more
highly regarded.
2 J. Swinburne has made the paradoxical proposal that a heavy tax be placed
on children. Rich people would then have offspring as an evidence of their
solvency, while the poor would forego this luxury. The proposal at least has
more merit than a good many which have been made for the supposed benefit
of the family.




218


218      T11E CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


This is not to say that taxation has no place among measures
for the conservation of the family: it has an important place,
but it must be applied in more delicate and discriminating ways
than are proposed in the nalve plan of a general tax on the childless.
The ultimate object (which can be attained only to a limited degree)
must be to make income correspond more closely to the real eugenic
and social value of the individual than it does at present; then,
in a proper state of public opinion, people will tend to have, and
be able to afford, children in proportion to their income and therefore 'in proportion to their inherent eugenic worth.
Moderate exemptions from taxation are justifiable for all married
people-say $2,000 for a wife, and $2,000 for each child; and the
tax should be steeply graded for incomes above something like
$20,000, as large incomes tend to cut down childbearing by introducing a multiplicity of competing interests and cares. Heavy
inheritance taxes are desirable, but they should be proportioned
not only to the amount each beneficiary receives, but also to the
nearness of kin of the legatee (a plan already in effect in some
states); thus a man might leave $50,000 to each of his sons and
daughters without heavy taxation, but an old bachelor who left
$50,000 to an' adventuress or a spiritualist medium might expect
that this sum would be much diminished before it reached its
destination. This is the point at which society may most easily
and usefully take a financial contribution from the childless.
Severe taxes on unapprovable luxuries and harmful commodities
are also useful.
In some respects the recent trend of taxation in the United States
has been favorable to the eugenic point of view; in others it seems
now to be in the opposite direction. Thus the demand is growing
for a reduction in the surtaxes on large incomes, and for lower
inheritance taxes, on the ground that such decreases are necessary
to keep business good.
Taxation being an economic function, the biologist is not in a
position to do more than point out the possible results it may have
on biological features of society. Doubtless a compromise is
_p eýssary betwveen the ~conQmic and thQ biologic claims. If the




ECONOMIC REFORMS


219


reasoning in the foregoing discussion is sound, it appears that the
state might some day find it was keeping business going at the
expense of families. In that case, opinion (both public and expert)
would have to decide whether it preferred to sacrifice the home to
business, or business to the home; or whether a satisfactory adjustment of conflicting claims could be reached.
"BACK TO THE FARM"
9. Of all the economic measures, the "back to the farm" movement is in some ways the most important. It is the birth rate in
cities that offers the real menace to society. Country parents
mostly still feel able to indulge the normal human inclination for
several children. The growing industrialization of rural districts
must therefore be watched with a jealous eye.
The crowding of population into large cities complicates the
situation in ways that are familiar to all. In the first place, it is
difficult to find a satisfactory place to live, at a reasonable price,
if one has many children. In the second place, children are a
greater expense in the city than in the country because more is
desired for them. The cost of food, of clothing, of servants, of
amusements, of medical attention, all tend to be higher in the city,
largely because of the higher standards that are maintained. In
the third place, children can not contribute to the family as they
do on the farm, where the girls help with the housework and the
boys with the chores outside. The latter are non-existent and the
former almost negligible in an apartment. In the fourth place,
there is a greater number of competing interests in the city, all
of them attractive, all of them consuming time if not money and
therefore having to be balanced against children.
Every measure that tends to make rural, or at least suburban,
life more comfortable and accessible is indirectly a measure for the
conservation of the family.
In this particular, progress now seems to be fairly favorable, for
more and more families are moving to the suburbs for the sake of
their children, and many students foresee an era of urban decentral



220          THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY
ization, when the present anti-social aggregations of population
will be broken up or opened out, allowing a larger proportion of
people to live under the conditions of health, decency, and comfort
that are necessary for the welfare of the family.




IV. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION


Community organizations, either existing or to be created,
public or private, may profitably endeavor, among other things,
to (1) provide education fitting people for family life, (2) promote
marriage, (3) make the care of the home easier for women, (4)
increase the reproduction of superior parents, (5) decrease that of
inferior parents, (6) provide care for children, not only for their
own benefit but for that of their parents, (7) augment the facilities
for recreation for persons of all ages, and (8) repress or eradicate
conditions that hinder the normal functioning of the family,
particularly commercialized evils.
Most communities are now overorganized' in many respects,
and there are organizations which deal with most of the foregoing
topics, in one way or another. Many of these are so well established and known that I shall not refer to them, or at most give
them only passing mention.
EDUCATION FOR FAMILY LIFE
1. Education has been dealt with at some length in Section I
of this Part; here I will only emphasize the need of some direct
means of education for young people who are preparing to marry
and who have not previously had the kind of training they need.
Most persons about to wed, particularly young women, realize
all too keenly their lack of preparation; but there are no adequate
facilities for remedying this. In many large cities there are schools
of domestic science, but the hours and tuition do not always make
these available for girls who are earning their own living. Most
agricultural colleges give "Short Courses" in home economics,
and these are often patronized to good effect by girls preparing to
marry, but they again are available only to a limited number.
Girls living at home can do much without leaving it, and it is often
astonishing to see the zeal with which a girl who has hitherto
221




222


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


showed few domestic tastes will begin to assist her mother in the
housekeeping and cooking, after she is betrothed.
To supplement such means as these, it would seem to be entirely
feasible to use the high schools to a greater extent for adult classes
and night work in this field, pending the time when all girls will
receive proper instruction as a part of their early education, and
will not have to return, some years after leaving school, to make
up the deficiency. Home making should be taught in every phase;
but mothercraft,which is usually slighted, is vastly more important
than cookery, which is usually emphasized. It is not so serious
if a young wife feeds indigestible biscuits to her husband as if she
feeds the same biscuits to her baby.
While the old idea still exists, that beneficent Nature has planted
in the minds of her children instincts which will furnish all necessary
guidance for home-making, it is no longer held by rational people,
and there ought to be enough of these in the United States to make
a start in systematic education for family life outside of, or as an
expansion of, the present school system. Austria has recently
made provision whereby any woman who wishes to do so can get a
diploma as a housewife, by passing examinations set by the high
school. Apart from the usual home work and verbal and written
examinations, there is also a practical test which deals with the
care and education of children and includes the preparation of a
complete meal. It is easy to imagine the development of such an
idea along most practical and useful lines.'
The way in which some thoughtful women regard this subject
is illustrated by the results of a questionnaire circulated through
the American Home department of the California Federation of
Women's Clubs in 1925. In answer to the question "Are you satisfied with the present-day home?", 5 percent answered yes, 95
percent no.
"What, in your opinion, are the causes within the home which
1 Something analogous might be done for fathers. The latter should have at
least a working knowledge of household duties for use in emergency (e.g.,
childbirth, illness, holidays). Most of this can be acquired by helping mother,
in childhood.




COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION


223


are responsible for its present status?" was the next question asked.
To this the percentage of replies was:
Lack of discipline (77 percent)
Lack of religious training (66 percent)
Lack of ideals (55 percent)
Inadequate preparation for home-making (55 percent)
Influences for good, outside the home, were ranked in the following order:
1. School
2. Church
3. Athletics
4. Public entertainments
5. Street companions
6. Newspapers
7. Motor travel
The same influences were ranked as to their bad effect, in the
following order:
1. Street companions
2. Newspapers
3. Public entertainment
4. Motor travel
5. Athletics
"Do you consider that the entrance of women into industry has
lowered the standards of conduct in the home?" was answered
yes by 48 percent, no by 19 percent, while 33 percent failed to
answer.
"What, in your opinion, is the most potent single factor responsible for the shortcomings of the present-day American home?"
The answers were:
Lethargy-the "don't care" spirit (53 percent)
Untrained parenthood (50 percent)
Economic determinism (12 percent)
As to remedies, 71 percent of the women favored education of
children for parenthood and home making in the public schools,




224


224111E CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


while 42 percent also thought that special classes in child study
and parenthood for those already in the home would be of value.
While this inquiry brings to light only the opinions of a single
group, it demonstrates clearly that a body of women of superior
education and social status sees plainly that the unsatisfactory
position of the home is largely due to their own lack of preparation,
and that of their husbands, for the responsibilities of home life.
Even the most thorough curriculum of this sort would probably
have to omit some matters of fundamental importance, particularly
the more intimate and personal aspects of reproduction. Yet the
matters thus omitted are in some ways more important than any
others, and are at the bottom of most family tragedies, as I have
pointed out in the section on Broken Homes. Matters of this
sort should be handled by a clinic available for consultation (free,
pay, or part pay, according to the case, as with medical clinics),
which must be created for this purpose. Such a clinic should
contain a group of specialists capable of advising on questions of
(1) heredity and eugenics, (2) reproduction, and (3) mental hygiene.
Probably such a clinic could be made self-supporting, or nearly so;
but its service to the state would be so important that the state
could well afford to endow it heavily, if that were necessary. The
same clinic might well serve as a referee in cases of broken homes.
There is much to be said in favor of a proposal to oblige every
person intending to marry to present himself or herself at such a
clinic for examination and consultation; not necessarily with a view
to prohibiting marriage to certain classes, but with the idea that
people who are going to marry should not be allowed to marry in
ignorance.
The chief obstacle at present in the way of carrying out such a
proposal-apart from the apathy of public opinion-is that there
are not enough qualified experts in the country to staff many such
clinics. This is a lack that will be remedied in time,-the more so
if a public demand for such services should be expressed.
A modest start in the right direction has been made in a number
of European cities, as Vienna, Hamburg, Berlin, Milan, and Dresden. The experiment in the last-named city is directed by Ph.




COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION25


225


Kuhn, professor in the Hygienic Institute of the Trechnical High
School there, who has furnished me with information about his
Ekeberatungsstelle (Clinic for Advice Regarding Marriage). This
is open to all persons, for a small fee; in the case of those who
have health insurance, the fee is paid by the insurance bureau.
Necessary examinations are made of the individuals (usually
married couples) who apply, and their family history is investigated. Up to the present, Dr. Kuhn says that most of the applicants fall into two groups: couples whose conjugal happiness is
disturbed by difficulties such as mental maladjustment, homosexuality, venereal diseases, and the like; and a larger number who
want to know whether it is desirable for them to have children, in
view of certain conditions in the ancestry. He feels that some
further public education will be necessary before many Germans
realize the desirability of consulting the clinic as a preliminary to
marriage.
In connection with the eugenic side of marriage, there is need
for some registry of the facts of ancestry, as Francis Galton long
ago pointed out. J. H. Kellogg announced the creation of a Eugenics Registry at Battle Creek, Michigan in 1914 but the plans have
not been put into effect. William McDougall has recently called
attention to the need again. Details are not easy to work out,
but it appears feasible to make a start in this direction without
great expense. Something might be done through the patriotic
societies, which have on file thousands of pedigrees of living persons,
and something more might be done by taking advantage of the
physical examinations which are made by the hundred thousand
through insurance companies, Christian Associations, schools,
and colleges. If a few details of ancestry were added to such examinations, and these with some of the principal data, or certain
ratings, of the physical examinations, were placed in a public file,
it would be possible for a woman to find out something about a man
who was becoming attentive to her, and vice versa.
In any event, there should be a thorough, accurate registration
of births. In this respect the United States still stands near the
bottom of the list of civilized nations, not far from Turkey, China,




226


226      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


and Russia. Registration of finger-prints, or in the case of newborn babies the print of the sole of the foot, should be a part of the
record.
In a slightly different direction, there is urgent need of endowment for research on better methods of managing childbirth, and
on fertility and sterility. No branch of medical science has lagged
so far behind, during the last generation, as has obstetrics, yet it is
the branch in which more people are personally interested than
in any other. Every discovery which makes childbirth less painful
will be of real value to the family. It would seem reasonable to
ask that men and money be available for this purpose to at least
as great an extent as for cancer research-not to say the research
in methods of breeding plants and barnyard animals.
In particular, obstetrics and gynecology need to be developed
more fully on the preventive side. While this side is being stressed
in other fields of medicine, with extraordinarily successful results,
the specialties concerned with childbirth have tended to confine
themselves mainly to the treatment of ill effects after they have
arisen. The campaign for pre-natal care has for the most part
reached women in the lowest economic strata: unquestionably
they need it, but it is often no less needed by other women. Little
has been done to put into general effect the existing knowledge
regarding the proper hygiene of adolescent girls-on the contrary,
they have sometimes been encouraged to take up the same field
sports that occupy their brothers, although there is now a growing
reaction against this. There is room for much research and public
education as to biological preparation for parenthood in both sexes.
THE PROMOTION OF MARRIAGE
2. Organization to promote marriage will suggest to most people
the Matrimonial Agency with its Cupid's Guide, published weekly;
or the Lonesome Club which through want ads in the Sunday
papers invites all strangers to come out and have an old-fashioned
good time. Organizations which have started with the avowed
intention of acting as matchmakers have usually been short-lived,
due among other things to the inherent bashfulness and coyness




COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION


227


of the human male and female respectively, which make them
shrink from being introduced to each other as forlorn-hope candidates for conjugation.
But there is room for effective promotion of marriage on the part
of many media which by no means make this their ostensible object.
Young people's organizations in all churches, for example, are
renowned for match-making, and as I have pointed out previously,
marriages originating there are likely to turn out well. Every
association which brings together young people of both sexes, of
more or less similar tastes and backgrounds, is a potential promoter of marriage.
On the other hand, organizations which take in large numbers of
young people of a single sex, and herd them together in monastic
segregation, are dangerous. Neither the Young Men's Christian
Association nor the Young Women's Christian Association, as at
present conducted, is doing its full duty to the community. Each
tends to create, in large cities, a celibate community, escape from
which becomes increasingly difficult as a member becomes more
and more at home in the circle. Eventually these organizations
may realize the necessity of joining forces in some form, if they are
not to do their clients more harm than good.
THE ORGANIZATION OF HOME WORK
3. Every so often, every popular magazine carries an article
describing some new cooperative housekeeping scheme, which
will usher in the dawn of a better era by making it possible for
people to keep house without.having to do any work. All such
plans of which I have had any knowledge have been failures.
Usually they try to do too much, supplying to their patrons readycooked meals, for instance, which can be procured better at a
restaurant, and which in any case do not satisfy the ideals of home
life that are held by most people.
All such experiments are welcome, however, as paving the way
for more successful measures. There are some phases of housekeeping that appear to be suitable subjects for standardization
and cooperative effort, without in any way invading the individual



228


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


ity of the home. There are many others that are suitable subjects
for systematization, simplification, elimination of waste motion,
and the use of labor saving devices. Every improvement in this
direction is a gain.
Some writers, going beyond this, have asserted that housework,
which they assume to be mere unproductive drudgery, should be
done by the organized effort of those unable to do any higher grade
of work. Thus it is supposed that a band of able-bodied morons,
for instance, might have a route, taking a score of homes in a neighborhood and dealing with each of them in turn, during the day.
This score of wives would thereby be freed for other occupations.
Several difficulties appear in all such proposals.
1. They might be available to a limited class of city women,
but would hardly reach any country women. The latter, however,
are the ones who have the most work to do, whereas many city
women have little to do.
2. Such a scheme deprives the children of what is one of their
most valuable means of education, namely, helping their parents
with the housework. Of course, they might also help the moron,
but any parent will see objections to such a plan.
It seems probable that the actual result would be to separate
the children from this natural means of contact with the real work
of the world, and to turn them over to their mother, or some one
else, for artificial training and the instillation of "culture." Under
these conditions there would be danger of bringing up a large
class of children in a sort of vacuum, and the production of a new
group of maladjusted parasites, when society already has far too
many such.
One of the triumphs of the Montessori Method was a frame
holding two pieces of cloth. One piece had an edge dotted with
buttons. The edge opposite was embroidered with buttonholes.
The promising pupil was given this frame and allowed to insert
the buttons in the holes for that purpose made and provided,
thereby acquiring invaluable training in the co6rdination of eye
and hand, not to say initiative, freedom, concentration, joy in
creative work, muscular control, and education for the Larger




COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION


229


Problems of Life, and other articles too numerous to mention.
It seems never to have occurred to some of the users of this System
that the promising pupil might, under certain circumstances, have
been able to acquire these same characteristics in his own home by
putting on his own clothes and those of his younger brothers and
sisters. Similarly one might analyze many other educational
efforts, and find that they only attempt to do inefficiently and
expensively what the home does naturally and well.
3. It puts a new burden on the already overburdened husband,
making his home and children an additional drain on his earning
capacity, and thereby tending to discourage him in both respects.
The remedies usually proposed for this are (i) that the wife be
paid a salary by the state (endowment of motherhood), or (ii) that
she go out of the home and earn money by doing some "higher"
type of work.
The first of these proposed remedies would necessitate drastic
financial and economic readjustments of the state and it is doubtful
whether it could be put into effect at the present time, even if it
were desirable,-and, as pointed out in the preceding section, it is
undesirable in many ways.
The second involves consideration of the whole subject of
woman's work outside the home-a topic far too large to be covered
as an incidental here. Yet it is impossible to avoid at least suggesting some of the salient points, as a guide to thought.
A few enthusiasts have suggested that all women be "liberated"
to work outside their own homes, their families being cared for
by some one else. But as this policy, if widely applied, suggests
the conditions on that historic island where all the inhabitants lived
by taking in each other's washing, most advocates of women's
industrialization have held that women should be trained both for
home and for outside work, and should do the latter at periods
when they are not called upon to do the former. While it is admitted that woman's primary duty is the care of her own children,
it is held that the following classes of women could properly take
an active part, outside of their homes, in the routine work of the
world:




230


230      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


(a) The defective woman, who must not bear children.
(b) The genius, whose talents are so valuable to the world that
the loss of her children would not be as great as the loss of her
other creative work.
(c) The girl before marriage.
(d) The young wife, before the arrival of her first baby.
(e) The middle aged woman, whose children have grown up and
lef t home.
A brief analysis of each of these cases will serve to bring out the
realities.
(a) This is the simplest case of all. The woman with defective
heredity, or some other handicap which bars her from normal
family life, is unquestionably in a better position to have a career,
than is any other, and such work offers the best use of her energies,
in most cases.
(b) It can not be admitted, however, that the possession of
genius, or what a girl or her friends suppose to be genius, is a
justification for the abandonment of motherhood. I have discussed this point in dealing with celibacy (Part II, Section I),
and need not repeat here.
(c) Girls who have completed their education and are waiting to
marry make up the bulk of the women workers of America. It is
generally known that one woman in every four (11 or 12 millions
in all) is now gainfully employed outside the home. Most of these
are single women (probably not one wife in 15 is gainfully employed
outside her home), and four-fif ths or more will marry within a few
years. Girls at this age offer a problem to their parents in many
cases. The great bulk of the industrial processes carried on in the
average American home a century ago, or even half a century ago,
has gone, never to return. The mothers therefore have less to do
than formerly; the daughters, who formerly helped their mothers,
have little or nothing to do. They stop school early to seek occupation, and leave the home to go into factories, offices, laundries,
restaurants, department stores, and class rooms; expecting to
stay only a few years, at most.
It can hardly be said that the influence of this period is favorable




COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION


231


to future family life. Warren S. Thompson has emphasized this
point in some detail. The occupations which these girls follow
are, for the most part, largely mechanical; they take little interest
in them, regarding them as necessary evils to earn money for the
family or for luxuries; they intend to marry as soon as possible and
therefore have no incentive to develop responsibility or self-reliance. They never learn to regard work as the normal and proper
condition of life: rather it represents to them an evil from which
they must escape through the door of matrimony. "Such qualities
as patience, foresight, economy, good taste, and adaptability--
essentials to a happy life under all conditions-are not to be acquired with the taking of marriage vows; they must be developed
slowly through the years.....    The work of these girls not
only does little to help them develop such qualities, but often
actually aids in developing other traits of character which unfit
them for home life, e.g., carelessness, shirking, selfishness, irresponsibility, and vulgarity. The woman who looks upon her daily
life in the home as she looked upon her day's work in the factory
or store before she was married is certain to find little there which
will compensate her for raising a family. When this attitude
toward the home exists, when all the good things of life are thought
to lie outside the daily routine of home life, family limitation will
be practiced if the woman knows how," and the influence of this
particular home will not be favorable to any one concerned.
Encouragement of girls' work at this period can, therefore, not
be given. A further difficulty is that the most intelligent and
efficient girls are the ones most likely to get ahead in their work,
and therefore under the most temptation to remain in it permanently, abandoning marriage or motherhood. Yet these are the
ones whose motherhood is most desirable. In any event, therefore, girls working at this period of their lives should understand
that they are not taken on permanently; and business success is
for them not desirable, since it encourages celibacy. Business
success for young men, on the contrary, encourages marriage.
(d) The idea that the young wife, before the arrival of her first
baby, has a period of leisure when she can profitably work outside




232


232      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


the home, is largely false and harmful. At the beginning, most
girls have plenty to do, -adjusting themselves to a new status. Anly
worth-while opportunity for work can be got only through postponement of the first pregnancy, and such postponement for more
than a year is harmful, both mentally and physically.
(e) The middle-aged woman whose children have left the parental home is in a more favorable condition to make a contribution
outside. Indeed, of the five classes here mentioned, she is the
most favorably situated. She has in many cases leisure, experience, and a mature outlook on life that particularly fits her to be
useful; and, as suggested earlier, she might well take up a large
part of the elementary teaching which is now done by girls in
class (c).
If the foregoing considerations are generally well based, one must
conclude that there is less opportunity than is sometimes supposed,
for an extension of gainful work by women outside the home, if
the interests of the latter are to be conserved.
Finally, it must be said in candor that there is a certain amount
of mere cant in the plea that women are now slaves to household
drudgery. There are many such, but there are also many who have
a larger degree of leisure than has ever been possessed by any
women in the world, even those in an aristocratic society based on
slave labor. When it comes to housekeeping for a family of two
in a small apartment, any honest observer must admit that the
work is light enough at worst, and that no one except the hopelessly uneducated housewife can complain that she is so held down
by her domestic duties th~at she has no time for self-improvement.
And in fact, most of the complaint about domestic slavery, when
not the merest stereotyped broadcasting of paid (and unmarried)
propagandists, represents only the whine of the inadequate wife
who thinks she should have a servant to help her open the packages
she brings home from the delicatessen store twice a day.
Much of the complaint is based on conditions that have long
since been remedied and are now wholly imaginary. Knitting
socks for a husband, or rendering fat to make soap, might now be
considered wasteful occupations for most women (desirable as they




COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION


233


may have been in a primitive community); but what woman now
does them? But personal care of a home, not only to safeguard
the inmates' health, but still more to safeguard the spiritual
values-what substitute is available for this?
With due recognition of injustices that have occurred in the past,
which are now thoroughly exposed and mostly on the way to correction, is it not time to protest that a good deal of the cut-anddried agitation against woman's fate in a man-made world has
become obsolete and hardly in good taste? It is privately repudiated by a great majority of women, but they do not like to
speak out. If the truth must be told, the fact is that most men
have to work during nearly all of their lives, and the majority of
them work hard, to support a family. The ordinary man does not
spend much time bewailing this cross. If he does, he is properly
despised. He is not lionized for getting up at a men's club and
mourning over the hard lot of his brethren who have to slave all
day long at a menial task because baby needs shoes. In some
important respects, he has the worst of the bargain, for his work is
usually routine drudgery, whereas the work of caring for children,
if approached with proper preparation, is the most fascinating work
in the world. Although he is largely cut off from this, he recognizes that biological specialization gives him his own part to play.
The great majority of inarticulate, civilized women feel instinctively, I think, just as savage women do, that their mission is the
greater. Many of the rebels deserve psychoanalysis rather than
admiration.
Any improvements in civilization that give women more time
to devote to the improvement of themselves and of their husbands
and children will be desirable, if the time is used wisely for those
purposes. But until the education of women is much improved,
such changes should not be made too rapidly. If increased leisure
for the married woman merely means that much more time to be
killed by inane amusements and competitive extravagance, it will
be a great hindrance to the development of wholesome family life.
Many ill-educated wives would be better off, and the community
would be vastly better off, if they had more drudgery to do than




234


234      THE CONSE RVATION OF THE FAMILY


they now have. The plea of women that they be freed for other
occupations will receive more attention when they show their
willingness to employ their freedom to better advantage than many
of them do now.
The true direction of improvement is not so much along the line
of decreasing the mother's personal attention to the home, as of
increasing the father's personal attention to it.
Every effort should be made, however, to have homemaking and
motherhood put on a sounder basis in public estimation. Certainly the occupation of home maker should be recognized by the
Census as on a par with any, and in every other connection where
occupation is taken into account, great care should be exercised
to see that this one is treated with the dignity and honor to which
it is entitled.
FOR MORE CHILDREN
4. Organization to increase directly the reproductivity of
superior families might aid such families by rewarding them with
money or with honor.
Financial rewards have been discussed in the preceding section.
They might take the form of endowment, of state subsidy, of insurance, or several others.
Efforts have been made in France and elsewhere to give particular honors to the parents of large and worthy families. Obviously,
this sort of thing must be done subtly, or it may become ludicrous
and offensive.
Something might be accomplished to foster the ideals of family
life by awarding prizes for works of art-painting, sculpture, drama,,
and fiction-which were judged to be most successful in holding
up high ideals to this end. Any one who takes the trouble to search
for conspicuous examples of this sort will be surprised to find how
rare they are. If the drama or novel does not end with the betrothal, it commonly finds the misadventures of married life more
interesting than the happiness thereof; while pictorial art is still
so much under the sway of the Isis-Madonna tradition that fathers
get scant recognition.
Pride of ancestry is often a stimulus to reproduction, and the




COMIMUNITY ORGANIZATION


235


study of genealogy is valuable for this reason. The numerous
patriotic societies all serve a useful purpose, but the most desirable
form of pedigree-study is that which has a eugenic basis, and
concerns itself specifically with the inherited traits of the ancestors.
Edmund Burke remarked that "Those who do not look backward
to ancestry will never look forward to posterity." Family tradition has a great value. Permanence is essential to such tradition.
One of the strong arguments against broken homes, and against
temporary, free love matings, is that they destroy such tradition,
or prevent its growth, and thereby deprive the family of one of its
best supports. What sense of dignity and civic worth has a sterile
free-lover, as compared with the mother or father of a successful
family?
The frequent moves of American families into new houses or
new localities have also tended to destroy family continuity and
thereby hinder family conservation. This incessant moving,
which is one of the national characteristics, is due to (a) inherent
nomadism, evidenced in the first place by the fact that the ancestors
of all white Americans of the present generation left their own
homes to come to the New World; and (b) to the great new opportunities for gain, constantly opening up. As the latter diminish
with the appropriation of natural resources and the growth of
population, the nomadic impulse will get less opportunity for
expression.
At the behest of women seeking to get for their sex its full share
of control over the home, legislation has been adopted or proposed
in a number of countries, which attempts to apportion definitely
the family authority. In the patriarchal family the will of the
father was obeyed unquestioningly. The movement here discussed
proposes to recognize that father and mother have an equal right
to control family life, whether it be the discipline of children, the
place where the family shall live, or the scale of expenditure.
In principle, this is sound enough, and the principle is followed
in most homes, plans being discussed and decisions made jointly.
When the two parents differ, a compromise must be reached on
some basis, unless one of the two is willing to give in for the sake of
harmony.




236


236      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


While there are some families in which the father has undue
influence, and probably fully as many in which the mother has
undue influence, the system of discussion and compromise seems
to about as satisfactory as could well be expected. But it is not
satisfactory to the reformers, who ask for laws that will refer
parental differences of opinion to the courts, which will then act
as arbiter. Various proposals of similar intent wvill occur to the
reader who has followed the course of domestic legislation in
recent years. A bill introduced by women deputies in the Austrian
parliament (1925) provided that a child might, at the age of 14,
petition the court to study for a prof ession it preferred, if its wishes
did not coincide with the plans its parents had made for it.
While the effect of laws of this type can not be determined
definitely without experiment, there is every reason to regard
them all with distrust. One of the causes of the decline of the
birth-rate among superior families is the weakening of the family
as an institution, which has resulted from the invasion of its functions by the state. Nothing could be more mischievous in this
connection than an invasion of family discipline by the state.
Experience indicates that the strong, healthy, self-perpetuating
family is the family that has unity, that is an organic whole. The
attempt to disrupt it still further by encouraging a 14-year-old
boy to appeal to the court, if his parents' plans for his future do
not correspond with his own ambition to be a cowboy or a bigleague pitcher, will commend itself to few thoughtful students.
Self-respecting parents will not run to a justice of the peace and
ask him to decide their quarrels over family matters; others should
not be encouraged to do so. If parents can not agree privately
on what is for the benefit of their children, the interposition of a
court is likely to help them little; and it is certain to diminish what
little respect the ultra-modern child still retains for parental
authority.
FOR FEWER CHILDREN
5. To decrease the reproduction of inferior families, clinics which
could teach methods of contraception have been most widely advo



COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION


237


cated. Every possible use should be made of this means; some of
its limitations have been mentioned previously. Since many
parents can not be trusted, because of their lack of self-control
and foresight, to limit their families voluntarily, the most effective
means would be to sterilize one of them by a surgical operation.
Such an operation performed on the mother requires the opening
of the abdomen, and at once involves expense and danger. Sterilization by X-rays has sometimes been recommended, but has been
found so far to be unreliable and dangerous, resulting sometimes not
in infertility but in the birth of defective children. An operation
on the father would be relatively easy, inexpensive, and without
danger, and represents probably the only effective method of birth
control for this part of the community. Whether public opinion
is yet ready to sanction the widespread, voluntary application of
such a measure remains to be seen.
In any case it should be applied, for reasons mentioned in
Part II, Section XI, only to parents who are relatively responsible.
For the grossly defective and extremely inferior, farm colonies
with segregation of the sexes offer more hope of real and
immediate accomplishment. These colonies can be made selfsupporting or more, if properly planned and managed. They can
perform a great deal of useful work for the community and furnish
their members with a much happier life than they would ever find
if left free to compete with normal people. Some conspicuously
successful examples are to be found in New York, New Jersey, and
elsewhere.
CARE OF CHILDREN
6. Country children have plenty of room for play, plenty of
occupation of the kind that educates, and usually brothers and
sisters as associates. If the parents want to go somewhere, the
children are left at home safely in the charge of the oldest girl, or
else are bundled into the automobile and taken along.
The city child has almost none of these advantages. His playground is the fire escape, the alley, or a little strip of sidewalk;
he has nothing to do; usually not enough brothers and sisters to




238


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


play with; and he is a constant source of anxiety to his parents.
One of the serious drawbacks to this life is that the city child, surrounded by thousands of other children, is in real danger of being
brought up without enough normal contacts with suitable children
of his own age.
An extension of the system of day nurseries, playgrounds, and
kindergartens, is the remedy most often proposed. This, it is said,
would give these children the necessary companionship, and would
also free their mothers' time to some extent for other occupations,
of which every city offers such a tempting array.
Such a solution is probably the only one feasible in certain parts
of the city population, but it has serious drawbacks. Reasons have
already been given against removing the child too long from its
home environment and turning it over to "the whole colorless and
indifferent crowd of total strangers and mechanical mercenaries."
From a broader point of view, the extension of such facilities must
be watched with care, lest it end in being merely another burden
on the superior part of the population. If these institutions could
be made merely a training school where young women might serve
an apprenticeship while preparing for marriage, many of the evils
attending them would be eliminated. What more often happens
is the establishment of a system that is less admirable. In order
that women may leave their children, and go out to work in sweated
industries at insufficient wages, there is introduced a complicated
system of motherhood endowment, day nurseries, milk depots,
creches, widow's pensions, visiting nurses and social workers,
physicians, nurses, and attendants at clinics and in free maternity
wards, playground instructors, and the like, each one of whom
insensibly comes to have a vested interest in perpetuating the
system and, with it, his job. A large part of the employes of this
system are superior unmarried women, who find in their employment little stimulus to marriage and little opportunity for marriage. The wage-earning mother whose children actually benefit
by these facilities is quite unable to pay her share of the upkeep
of all these costly substitutes for her own services, so the burden




COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION


239


too often falls on the much-burdened middle class, already forced
to cut down the number of its own children by too many burdens
of this sort. Thus, as Mr. and Mrs. Whetham point out, "one
of the most vicious circles in modern civilization is formed, and
once formed, is regarded as inevitable and desirable, superior girls
being at once encouraged to prepare themselves to occupy such
positions as a life work, rather than to become mothers."
To break such a vicious circle is not easy, and it can not be done
at all without a prolonged effort. Industries which succeed only
by the labor of tenement-house mothers will have to find some
other source of recruitment. Fewer children among these families,
and better education of the mothers in the duties of their proper
occupations, will help. Back of everything else is the necessity of
a more active and intelligent interest in the conservation of the
family from a eugenic point of view.
Housing difficulties are so well recognized as to need nothing
more than mention. Parents often have trouble in finding homes
where children will be permitted; they have still more in finding
homes where children will be well provided for. Although the
man putting up a new house often asserts that he is doing so
primarily for the benefit of his children, the latter are the last ones
who get any real consideration from the architect. There is room
here for some radical reforms.
MORE RECREATION
7. Increase in facilities for wholesome, inexpensive recreation,
preferably out of doors, for persons of all ages, is an important
part of the conservation of the family. For children, playgrounds,
school grounds, parks, swimming pools, and properly supervised
commercial amusements are needed in greater abundance. For
adults, there are such possibilities as community centers, gymnasia,
swimming pools, commercial entertainments, public lectures,
concerts, motion pictures, dances, and so on in innumerable array.
This is such a specialized and highly developed field that further
discussion here would be out of place.




240


240      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


ELIMINATION OF EVILS
8. Almost every form of social organization ought to contribute
either directly or indirectly to the conservation of the family,
both constructively, and by aiding to eliminate the many perils
which the family has to face. Churches, and men's and women's
clubs, have a particularly important part to play, but they rarely
live up to their responsibilities.
Beyond this it has been found, in any city where conditions
become flagrant, that the formation of a small group to stimulate
law enforcement has been extremely helpful. I have described
the operation of such a committee somewhat fully in an earlier
publication (1919).
Attention should be centered on preventive and protective
work, particularly to stop the exploitation of the young by commercial agencies of a vicious sort. Policewomen and women
protective workers have been found valuable in many communities.
But throughout it must be remembered that the constructive work
is the most effective; that no child is ever so safe as when he is in
the right kind of a home; and that most juvenile delinquents come
from broken homes.
The failure of parents of this generation to exercise an adequate.
supervision over their children, or to develop a feeling of comradeship in the home, has been pointed out so often that it is painfully
trite: but it is none the less important.
Commercial dance balls are difficult of regulation, and likely
to be trouble-breeders. Many attempts have been made to find
a successful formula for dealing with them, but results have rarely
if ever been wholly satisfactory, so far as I am aware.
Censorship of motion pictures, the stage, and fiction is a much
discussed theme, into the details of which it is impossible here to
enter. That some sort of censorship is fully justified was pointed
out in the introduction to this part. Official censorship of motion
pictures seems to have done more good than harm, except to the
sensibilities of a few Personal Liberty crusaders, and to the pocketbooks of a few pandering exhibitors. A jury of 12 representative




COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION


241


men and women has been tried in New York City to deal with the
legitimate stage (often falsely so called), while a committee, organized in Massachusetts to rule on printed matter, has given satisfaction. On general principles, much is to be said for the plea that
censorship in each field of art should be left to the action of the
best men and women in that particular field; but they must have
power to enforce their decisions.
Under any effective system of censorship it is inevitable that
some good work will be stopped, but this will be more than compensated for by the bad work eliminated. The fact is that much
of the flood of fiction and drama would be well spared. It is not
the function of art to solve sociological problems. Obviously,
most artists are wholly unequipped for such a task. One of the
worst features of modern civilization (due largely to an educational
system based on authority instead of on open mind) is the excessive
respect it shows for printed matter-outdoing even the Chinese
veneration for anything that gets put in ink on paper. Any wornout old roue or hysterical young girl can project his or her libido
-as Dr. Freud would say-over 300 pages of manuscript, get the
result bound between covers, and at once it becomes Art with
capital A. If it be obscure, incoherent, unintelligible, so much the
better: it is then Deep (cf. the skatophilous babble of James Joyce).
It is high time that some of the flood of modern literature were
diverted into an outfall sewer, and if official censorship is the only
method to bring this about, then official censorship will have to
come.
Few fathers would deliberately give their own children pornographic literature to read. Much of the adult population of the
United States consists of those who are mentally children butworse still-with the physical feelings of a grown-up. Bad literature does them more harm that it would a grammar-school child;
yet any attempt to stop the stream rouses the frenzied opposition
of the self-appointed Guardians of Art.
Art should confine its attentions to its proper function. Whatever that may be, it is certainly not the reconstruction of the mores.
It should leave to science the task of studying and modifying where




242


242      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


necessary the social structure of society. If artists are to undertake
the latter task, they must inevitably be judged on the basis of their
own personalities, as well as on the basis of their artistry-a
proposition that is peculiarly infuriating to devotees of Art for Art's
Sake. Most professional critics of art and literature would then
have to have a wholly different background from that which they
now possess. The excitement aroused among the literati not long
ago when Margaret Deland gave utterance to the truism that
fiction must be based on truth, is amusing evidence, if any were
needed, of the extent to which this truism is ignored, both in the
theory and in the practice of many modern writers.
Legislation, and its enforcement, are needed in connection with
many phases of the conservation of the family; but as the laws in
question have been discussed at appropriate places in the body of
this book, they will not be reviewed here. Laws offer no panacea,
no short cut to reform, and it is more important just now that public opinion be formed intelligently on all problems concerning the
family, than it is to pass many new laws. A better society will
come not so much from new legislation as from better peoplebetter by birth, or better by education, or (more usually) both.




PART IV
CONCLUSION








THE CHANGING FAMILY
The monogamous family is an institution which has evolved
along with the human race, and has been one of the things that
has raised mankind above the ape. It is based on the most fundamental instincts and biological necessities, and because of these
facts there is no reason to suppose that it will be outgrown within
any period that can now be foreseen.
During the last century or two, however, it has been going
through a transition period. The old system of guidance by
religion and custom has to a large extent broken down, without the
development as yet of a rational guidance to take its place.' Many
men and women are therefore drifting helplessly, swept this way
and that by contradictory feelings and dispositions and habits.
This condition has been worsened by many others that are
matters of common knowledge. The average level of intelligence
in the United States has probably decreased, through birth limitation of the older stocks and immigration of millions of foreigners.
The latter have brought their own customs and institutions, which
did not always harmonize with those of America. Great material
prosperity has prevailed, and has inevitably tended to make its
benefits overvalued, so that to many persons the pleasures to be
had in a home have seemed small when contrasted with those
open "down town" to the possessor of a pocket full of spending
money. The crowding of people into large cities has crippled
normal home life, and made it non-existent for many; this city life
has also thrown on the schools a burden which they are unable to
bear. The great multiplication of interests outside the home has
tended still further to draw young and old away from the traditional
fireside; and the perfection of means of transportation, particularly
the automobile, has contributed immensely to this end. The low
tone of literature and the drama; the effects of the World War;
1 I have discussed this point more fully in a separate publication (1922).
245




246


246      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


the general dependence on immature girls as school teachers; the
increasing absorption of women in affairs outside the home and the
participation by many of them in business and industryv-all these
and a score of other causes familiar to every reader have changed
completely, in a large proportion of cases, the inner character of the
family.
While many of these changes were unavoidable, and many of
them in other respects desirable, they should have been recognized
as altering the character of the family, and education for family
life should have been brought up to date'so that, as each new
problem arose, young people would be trained to meet it.
This, however, was not done. On the contrary, as the problems
confronting husband and wife increased in complexity, the education available to help them meet these poroblems seemed to become
less and less adequate. The result is that there is now a much
greater gap than there was a hundred years ago, between the duties
of parents and their capacity to discharge these duties.
A century ago, for instance, the selection of a mate was a simple
matter,-young people grew up togrether in the same village, 'went
to school, church, and parties together, knew each other thoroughly, fell in love, and settled down to home making in the same
community, with a common background and among friends and
relatives to help them. The family physician advised them regarding matrimony. The neighbors gave them "showers" and sometimes even helped to build them a house. There were abundant
sisters, mothers, aunts, and grandmothers, to assist a young girl
with her babies. The standard of living was simple in most communities; the girls did not expect silk stockings any more than the
boys expected automobiles. In life on a farm or in a village,
children could give enough help to their parents, after a. few
years, to be an aid rather than a burden and-much more important-by giving this help they prepared themselves to become
successful parents and citizens in later years.
Now, boys and girls are often set adrift in a large city, without
any facilities for meeting possible mates. If they do meet, it is an




THE CHANGING FAMILY


247


accident, and matings are likely to be between persons who know
nothing of each other's pasts, and whose backgrounds are in many
ways dissimilar. They settle down among strangers, in an unfriendly environment where not a hand is reached out to guide
and steady them, while all around are difficulties, distractions, and
seductions which make it as easy as possible for the home to be
wrecked. Bearing and bringing up children involves another
group of difficulties, equally appalling to a friendless couple, fighting for existence in a hostile city with no training to solve much
easier problems than those they actually have to face.
Present-day civilization is the first one on record to place the
entire responsibility for success in managing a family, on two
persons only. In the past, even in America, the burden has been
more divided, as outlined above, while in other civilizations, of
which the Chinese is an outstanding illustration, the load has been
so widely distributed that the welfare of an individual is a matter
of concern, and even of active interference, to every one of his
kinsmen.
For many reasons, it appears that some form of distribution of
the burden is the more rational procedure. It will be interesting
to see how the American family develops, in this respect, during
the next few generations. The recent tendency has been to take
responsibility from relatives and transfer it to the state. This is
not working well, and probably, in the nature of things, never will
work well. It seems likely that there will be a swing back in the
other direction, to emphasize once more the solidarity and continuity of family life.
In addition to the obstacles that have been mentioned, one
might enumerate many abnormalities, some of which have been
exploited by highly commercialized methods. With all these
handicaps, it is remarkable that the wreckage of families is as small
as it is.
It is bad enough, however, to make many superficial observers
think it is worse and give it up as hopeless. This is the type of
reformer who sets the house on fire to get rid of the rats. Un



248


248      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


fortunately his name is still Legion-or, more frequently, her
name is Legion, for the multiplication of reckless bachelor girls,
parasite wives, cynical divorcees, and vindictive old maids has
created a large class of malcontents who would justify their own
inadequacy by blaming everything-except themselves. Added
to these are similar classes of men, together with many earnest,
well-meaning, but ignorant persons of both sexes who seek only the
betterment of mankind, but are groping for it in complete mental
darkness.
As all these classes enjoy nothing more than to preach their views
and thereby exalt themselves; and as the people who are happily
married are too busy enjoying each other and their children to
descend into the arena and contend with these sociological gladiators, the prophets of calamity have had things too much their
own way. The result of half a century or more of this is that even
the innocent spectator is beginning to think that the family is a
lost cause, and that the wisest course might be that which rats
are popularly supposed to adopt on a sinking ship,-to desert it
and seek safety elsewhere.
Here, it seems to me, is the greatest danger in the present situation. Confused by the propaganda I have mentioned, people who
ought to know better are likely to jump to the conclusion that,
because the family is out of joint, this disjointed condition must be
dealt with as a final reality, and all social measures shaped to suit
the supposed reality. In other words, it is the old story of not
seeing beyond the symptoms, and puttering around with these
when one should be going to the root of the evil and eradicating it.
This is precisely what has once happened with prostitution. It
existed, therefore it was supposed to be a "necessary evil," and
well-meaning people consented to perpetuate and worsen it by
establishing segregated districts, with state license, regulation,
and supervision. There always had been prostitution, it was
argued; man's nature seemed to demand it; therefore, though it
might have some unpleasant aspects, realists could do nothing
except face the reality and make the best of it; which they supposed
they were doing, while W. IE. H. Lecky, like a film hero, shed the




THE CHANGING FAMILY


249


official glycerine tears2 over the sad fate of this "eternal priestess of
humanity," and the pimps, panders, procurers, madames, and
crooked politicians chortled with glee while they counted up their
profits and swelled the chorus of assurance that human nature
was unchangeable and that this was the only way to protect the
homes of decent people.
This particular folly has been largely annihilated. At present
it would be difficult to find in the United States an informed person
who does not recognize that this was an entirely false line of procedure, and that the only scientific course is to refuse all compromise
with this wholly unnecessary evil, and to attack it root and branch
-especially root.
But society is now starting on the same erroneous course in
connection with other unnecessary evils. Sexual promiscuity
exists; it seems to meet a demand of man's nature; the freedom
of the personality requires that people be as promiscuous as they
please; therefore educators in high positions seriously argue that
this evil should be legalized and regulated, as prostitution was in
the old days of the Red Light District. It seems never to occur
to these myopic invalids that the cure lies in prevention, rather
than in a patent-medicine cure-all.
I have dealt with this particular proposal elsewhere (1925);
but the same argument crops up at every turn. Abortion exists,
it is now discovered; it seems to meet a demand of woman's nature;
therefore, though it may have some unpleasant aspects, the only
thing for realists to do is to look it in the face, legalize it, and readjust society to it.
2 The notorious description of the prostitute in his History of European Morals
deserves frequent repetition as an example of how not to approach a biological
problem. Every sentence in it is as mischievously inaccurate as it could be:
"The supreme type of vice, she is ultimately the most efficient guardian of
virtue. But for her, the unchallenged purity of countless happy homes would
be polluted, and not a few who, in the pride of their untempted chastity, think
of her with an indignant shudder, would have known the agony of remorse and
despair. On that one degraded and ignoble form are concentrated the passions
that might have filled the world with shame. She remains, while creeds and
civilizations rise and fall, the eternal priestess of humanity, blasted for the sins of
the people."




250


250      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


Mdismating and broken homes exist; they seem to correspond to
a demand of men's and women's natures; therefore the only thing
for practical people to do is to accept them as part of "God's will,"
to bring them under legal supervision, and to make them easier
by regulation.
Each of these propositions is defended, not in so many words,
but in a great many more words to the same effect, by innumerable
recent writers, who have entirely lost their perspective. It is
significant that among them one -finds few biologists. From
Charles Darwin down, most of the members of this profession have
had an evolutionary outlook which has kept them from falling
into the errors made by intellectual Don Quixotes.
The fundamental evil, in connection with the family, is mismating; but for every proposal to improve the mating system there
are twenty proposals having to do with its consequences and attempting to patch up the results 'of mismating without even looking
at the causes. It seems self-evident that reform should begin
by the exhaustion of every endeavor to increase the proportion of
successful matings. This would mean (1) better choice in marriage
selection, (2) more deliberate and carefully considered marriages,
(3) education of parents for their duties, (4) education of both
sexes in the art of love, (5) making it possible for people to have
children (an essential of a happy marriage for normal people) by
removing any obstacles that now hinder this.
Most of the dissatisfaction with existing marriage is expressed
either by women, or by men who have accepted the woman's
point of view of the case. This point of view is that marriage as
it is supposed to exist at present is not favorable to the full development of woman's personality; that it makes of her "the most important domesticated animal" but not a person living every phase
of life to the fullest and developing every potentiality of inheritance
to the utmost; not a citizen taking an active and constructive part
in the affairs of business and government. All these things, it is
argued, are her natural right, and she must not be asked to give
them up and spend her life bearing and rearing children for the
benefit of a society which not only does not esteem such a sacrifice




THE CHANGING FAMILY


251


enough to reward it, but rather sneers at anyone who is weak or
stupid enough to be caught in the snare.
Such an indictment can not be answered adequately in a sentence, for it is compounded of truth, half-truth, and falsehood,
tangled into such a snarl that one scarcely knows where to begin
to unravel it. That there are faults in modern marriage is manifest; that they are to be charged against both sexes will be admitted
by all fair-minded people; that they are to be removed mainly by
education seems clear enough. Every effort should be made to
conform to every legitimate desire of women in this respect, if the
long domination of man over marriage laws has resulted in injustice; but so far as laws are concerned, everyone knows that the
inequalities have been removed with a vengeance, until now the
man rather than the woman has a right to complain of mistreatment-a right, it may be noted, which he seems not to value highly,
for he rarely avails himself of it. Much of the remaining discontent among women is based on wholly false ideas of the differentiation of the two sexes, and a colossal ignorance of the consequences of the specialization which both have undergone for
millions of years. Only a sound biological education will show the
way around these quicksands of dissatisfaction.
While the times occasionally look dark, to one who desires
the conservation of the family, it must yet be borne in mind that
monogamy has weathered many worse storms than this in the past.
Like everything else, it has had its advances and its reverses, but
this pendular movement seems to bring it steadily, even though
slowly, forward.
Lax as are the manners of some parts of society at present, they
are not so lax as those that prevailed at one time or another in
almost every European nation, including those of antiquity. In
Greece and Rome, it is true, the state failed to survive, but went
down to ruin when its foundation, the family, decayed. But
France and England, Italy and Gemany, to name only a few
examples, have all passed through much worse crises in family life
than they are now undergoing.
It is encouraging to count up the gains, or partial gains.




252


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


Woman has been effectively "emancipated." It is too much to
expect that she would always use her freedom wisely. Yet it is
freedom, and may be made into a gain for all concerned.
A democratic relationship in the family has been reached in
theory, and often in practice. Certainly under the worst tyranny
to which feminists today can point, there is nothing comparable
with the patriarchal power which the father of the family possessed
in early Rome.
There is a general, sometimes an excessive, recognition of the
rights of the child; but in any case it means progress in the right
direction.
A new conception of fatherhood is gaining ground. While this
is not perhaps superior to one that has been held by many earlier
peoples, it is yet a great improvement on anything that has been
generally accepted during the last few centuries in western civilization.
The importance of heredity and eugenics is coming to be recognized as rarely before, and great progress is to be expected in this
direction.
The whole subject of reproduction has been pried loose from the
tabus under which it lay festering for centuries. This change has
been accompanied by temporary excesses, but they can scarcely
be said to outweigh the great gain of bringing reproduction into
the open and recognizing it as a normal, reputable thing which can
even be mentioned aloud among respectable people.
Voluntary parenthood has been accepted in principle, and largely
in practice, in almost every part of the civilized world. While this
change has, on the whole, proved highly detrimental in operation,
the principle is yet an indispensable one to racial progress. It is in
line with evolution, which consists, among other things, in a progressive increase of independence, of control exerted by organisms
over their environment. With proper emphasis voluntary parenthood can yet become to the race what it already is to the individual-a benefit more than a detriment. Unfortunately, it is
not yet clear whether the necessary change in emphasis can be
made before irreparable damage is done. This problem of a wise




THE CHANGING FAMILY


253


distribution of birth limitation is the most serious one that society
now has to face.
Commercialized and state regulated vice have seen their day.
Churches no longer establish segregated districts; bishops no longer
figure as owners of bawdy houses; municipalities no longer think
they are honoring a guest of the city by presenting him with the
freedom of their brothels. Where law enforcement has been
tried intelligently, it has succeeded. There has probably never
been in history a large city so free from open prostitution as is
New York City today-to mention only one conspicuous instance.
The double standard of morality, which accorded license to men
while maintaining the " virtue" of women with fanatical jealousy,
has lost what little pseudo-scientific support it ever had, and is no
longer defended among intelligent people.
Finally, the family has become the subject of rational and active
inquiry. While this inquiry has too often ignored the biological
premises, and has therefore gone disastrously astray, it is yet an
advantage to have any inquiry, for only through free and careful
investigation can the complexities of modern life be so adjusted as
to safeguard the home.
There is evidence on all sides that a new interest in family conservation is arising. The Family Wage idea, which has spread so
extraordinarily in Europe, is an eloquent testimonial to the recognition of the value of the home. More and more, thoughtful people
are realizing that it is not necessary to wait for the creation of a
Utopia-that a good family life can be maintained here and now,
if the available knowledge is put to use.
The marriage of the future-if a slight glance ahead is permissible-will naturally be an improvement on that of the present
or past. This evolution, however, will not involve any radical
new departures of a legal or economic nature, much less an era of
kaleidoscopic "free love." It seems certain that monogamy will
be more firmly established than ever before, and that such changes
as occur will be largely changes in spirit and attitude. The family
of the future will, I think, be marked by (1) much better mate
selection, (2) much greater understanding, making for permanence




254


254      THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


of love, (3) more intelligent consideration of children, (4) greater
concern for individual development, particularly of women, (5)
more democracy, (6) fuller biological differentiation of function.
In the past, men and women, as complementary and mutually
dependent sexes, cobperated in production. The tendency since
the beginning of the industrial revolution has been to break up this
cooperation in production, and to substitute for it competition in
distribution. A better appreciation of the biological foundations
of society, with which economics like all other sciences must ultimately be squared, will bring about a return to codOperation between
the sexes, not alone for individual gain but even more for the
benefit of their children.
In short, the improvement that one may hope to see in monogramy will not be so much an improvement in the forms and conventions (which, after all, are superficial matters), as an improvement in the quality of the people practicing monogamy. Finer
and deeper natures form more lasting and helpful bonds with
each other than do the frivolous and infantile. Evolution can not
continue without producing a better race of men; and a better race
of men can not fail to make better marriages.
Progress of mankind as a whole appears to be inevitable if the
species survives at all. Progress of any given group is by no
means inevitable. History is largely made up of a record of those
groups that, through their own ignorance and folly, have been
pushed out of the procession. But mankind today has it more
nearly in its power than ever before, to make sure of its continued
progress. It possesses knowledge that was not available to any
nation of the past.
America can go ahead, if it has the will. Wisdom, patience,
determination-these with the development of the biological
sciences and the coo-rdination of other sciences with them, can not
fail to succeed in rendering justice to the individual man and
woman, to their children, and to the greater world outside their
home. A real effort is necessary, but a real effort will not be in
vain.




REFERENCES
ACHILLES, PAUL S.-The Efectiveness of Certain Social Hygiene Literature;
New York, 1923.
BALL, JAU DON and HAYWARD G. THOMAS-"A Sociological, Neurological,
Serological, and Psychiatrical Study of a Group of Prostitutes";
American Journal of Insanity, April, 1918.
BIGELOW, M. A.-Sex Education; New York, 1916.
BOSANQUET, HELEN-The Family; London and New York, 1906.
BOWLEY, A. L.-"Births and Population in Great Britain"; Economic Journal,
June, 1924.
CATTELL, J. McKEEN-American Men of Science; New York, 1921.
CHILDREN'S BUREAU-Standards of Legal Protection for Children Born out of
Wedlock; Pub. No. 77, Washington, 1921.
COOPER, JOHN M.-"Human Welfare and the Monogamous Ideal;" Social
Hygiene, October, 1920.
CRun, FREDERICK S.-"The Decadence of the Native American Stock;"
Quarterly Publications of the American Statistical Association, September, 1914.
DAVENPORT, CHARLES B.-"Influence of the Male on the Production of Twins";
American Naturalist LIV (1920), 122-129.
DAVIS, KATHERINE BEMENNT-"A Study of the Sex Life of the Normal Married
Woman"; Journal of Social Hygiene, April, 1922, January, 1923,
March, 1923.
DICKINSON, ROBERT L.-"Contraception: a Medical Review of the Situation";
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, November, 1924.
DOUGLAS, PAUL H.-"Is the Family of Five Typical?"; Journal of the American
Statistical Association, September, 1924.
ESTABROOK, A. H.-The Jukes in 1915; Washington, 1916. 1
FOERSTER, FR. W.-Marriage and the Sex Problem; New York (1913?); (a
translation of his Sexualethik und Sexualpdidagogik, by Meyrick Booth.)
FRANKENTHAL, KATE-"Zur Frage der Straflosigkeit der Abtreibung"; Zeitschriftfiir Sexualwissenschaft, April, 1921.
FREUND, ERNST-Illegitimacy Laws of the United States-Analysis and Index;
U. S. Children's Bureau Publication No. 42, Washington, 1919.
GALLOWAY, THOMAS W.-Love and Marriage; New York, 1924.
GALTON, FRANCIS-[Proposal of a Eugenics Registry]; Fraser's Magazine,
January, 1873.
GOODSELL, WILLYSTINE-The Family as a Social and Educational Institution;
New York, 1915.
255




256            THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY
HADFIELD, J. A.-Psychology and Morals; New York, 1924.
HALL, FRED S. and MARY E. RICHMOND.-Child Marriages in the United States;
New York (Russell Sage Foundation), 1925.
"HALVERSON, J. JEANNETTE-"The Profligacy of Dependent Families";
American Journal of Sociology, November, 1923.
HARRIs, JOHN W.-"Pregnancy and Labor in Young Primiparae"; Bulletin of
Johns Hopkins Hospital, January, 1922.
HARRISON, PAUL W.-The Arab at Home; New York, 1924.
HILL, JOSEPH A.-"Comparative Fecundity of Women of Native and Foreign
Parentage"; Quarterly Publications of the American Statistical Association XIII, 583-604.
HILL, LEONARD-in The Control of Parenthood (edited by James Marchant);
New York and London, 1920.
HOLMES, S. J.-"The Size of College Families"; Journal of Heredity, October,
1924.
S HOLMES, S. J. and C. M. DouD--"The Approaching Extinction of the Mayflower Descendants"; Journal of Heredity IX (1918), 296-300.
HOUSSAY, FREDERIC-"Eugenique et Regimes Alimentaires", in Eugenique et
Salection; Paris, 1922.
HOWARD, GEORGE ELLIOTT-History of Matrimonial Institutions; Chicago, 1904.
JOHNSON, BASCOM-"Law Enforcement in Social Hygiene", in Sex and Social
Health; American Social Hygiene Association, New York, 1924.
JOHNSON, ROSWELL HILL-"Eugenic Aspect of Sexual Immorality"; Journal of
Heredity, March, 1917.
--     and PAUL POPENOE-Applied Eugenics; New York, 1918.
"   "The Determination of Disputed Parentage as a Factor in Reducing
Infant Mortality"; Journal of Heredity, March, 1919.
-      "The Distribution of Wealth as a Eugenist Sees It"; Social Hygiene,
July, 1921.
KELLOGG, JOHN HARVEY-"A Eugenics Registry"; in Proceedings of The First
National Conference on Race Betterment, Battle Creek, 1914.
KOEGEL, OTTO E.-"Common Law Marriage and its Development in the United
States"; in Eugenics in Race and State, Baltimore, 1923.
LEA, HENRY C.-An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian
Church; Boston, 1884.
LECKY, W. E. H.-History of European Morals; New York, 1877.
LENROOT, KATHARINE F.-"Social Responsibility for the Protection of Children
Handicapped by Illegitimate Birth"; Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, November, 1921.
LENZ, FRITz-Menschliche Auslese und Rassenhygiene (Vol. II of Grundriss der
menschlichen Erblichkeitslehre, by E. Baur, E. Fischer, and F. Lenz);
Munich, 1923.
LETOURNEAU, CH.-The Evolution of Marriage and the Family; London, 1908.




REFERENCES


257


LUNDBERG, EMMA 0. and KATHARINE F. LENROOT-Illegitimacy as a ChildWelfare Problem, Part II; U. S. Children's Bureau Publication No. 75,
Washington, 1921.
MAYNARD, G. D.-"A Study in Human Fertility"; Biometrika, March, 1923.
MCDOUGALL, WILLIAM-Is America Safe for Democracy?; New York, 1921.
MEYER, A. W.-"Some Aspects of Abortion"; Contributions to Embryology
(Carnegie Institute of Washington, Publication No. 275), Washington,
1921.
MILL, JOHN STUART---On Liberty; London, 1859.
MUDGETT, MILDRED D.-"Where Courts Interlock"; The Family, May, 1923.
NOYES, HILDA H.-"Insurance and Eugenics"; Eugenical News, August, 19191
---    "The Development of Useful Citizenship"; Journal of Heredity, Febru-,
ary, 1920.
O'SHEA, M. V.-"Changing Courses of Study", in The Child, His Nature and
Needs (M. V. O'Shea, ed); Valparaiso, Ind., 1924.
PARKER, CORNELIA STRATTON-An American Idyl; Boston, 1919.
PARKES, A. S.-"Studies on the Sex-Ratio and Related Phenomena: 6, The
Effect of Polygyny"; Annals of Applied Biology, May, 1925.
PECK, M. W. and F. L. WELLS-"On the Psycho-Sexuality of College Graduate
Men"; Mental Hygiene, October, 1923.
----   "Further Studies in the Psycho-Sexuality of College Graduate Men";
ibid., July, 1925.
PHILBY, H. ST. J. B.-The Heart of Arabia; New York, 1923.
POPENOE, PAUL-"Eugenics and College Education"; School and Society,
October 13, 1917.
-      "Will Morality Disappear?"; Journal of Heredity, October, 1918.
---- and ROSwELL HILL JOHNsoN-Applied Eugenics; New York, 1918.
-      "Law Enforcement: a Plan for Organized Action"; Social Hygiene, July,
1919. (Also reprinted as Publication No. 182 of the American Social
Hygiene Association.).---   "Eugenics and Human Morality "; Journal of Heredity, February, 1922.
--- "Eugenics and Islam," in Eugenics in Race and State, Baltimore, 1923.
---    "Family or Companionate?"; Journal of Social Hygiene, March, 1925.
RAGEOT, GASTON-La Natalit--ses Lois Economiques et Psychologiques;
Paris, 1918.
REUTER, E. B.-Population Problems; Philadelphia, 1923.
ROBINSON, WILLIAM J.-"Abortion Historically and Ethnologically Considered"; American Journal of Urology and Sexology, 1919.
SoRoxKN, PITnRI-"American Millionaires and Multimillionaires: a Comparative Statistical Study"; Journal of Social Forces, III, 627-641.
SPENCER, ANNA GARUN-"The Social Education of Women"; Publications of
the American Sociological Society XIII (1918).
SPENCER, HERBERT-Education; London, 1861.




258


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY


SPINNER, J. R.-" Vber die Methodik in der Betrachtung des Abortusproblems"; Archivfiir Frauenkunde, October, 1920.
STATE CHARITIES AID ASSOCIATION (NEW YORK)-How Foster Children Turn
Out; Publication No. 165, New York, 1924.
SWINBURNE, J.-Population and the Social Problem; New York, 1924.
THOMPSON, WARREN S.-"Race Suicide in the United States"; American Journal of Physical Anthropology, III (1920), 97-146.
TISSIER, L.-[Report on Abortion]; Journal de Medecine et de Chirurgie Pratiques, Sept. 25, 1917.
TREADWAY, WALTER L., L. 0. WELDON and ALICE M. HILL-"Psychiatric
Studies of Delinquent Women"; Public Health Reports, May, June, and
July, 1920.
TRIDON, ANDR#-"Birth Control and Psychoanalysis"; in Birth Control: What
It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do (Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference); pub. by Birth Control Review, New
York, n.d.
WAGGAMAN, MARY T.-"Some Developments in the Movement for 'Family
Wages"'; Monthly Labor Review, October, 1921.
WELLS, H. G.-First and Last Things; New York (1908?).
WESTERMARCK, EDWARD-A History of Human Marriage, 5th ed.; New York,
1923.
WHETHAM, W. C. D. and C. D.-Heredity and Society; London, 1912.
YERKES, ROBERT M.-Psychological Examining in the U. S. Army; Memoirs
of the National Academy of Science XV, Washington, 1921.
----    Intellectual and Educational Status of the Medical Profession as Represented
in the U. S. Army; Bulletin No. 8, National Research Council; Washington, 1921.




INDEX


A
Abortion and free love, 14, 15
attitude of society toward, 249
discussion of, 113
in Birth Control propaganda, 119
Abrams, Electronic Reactions of, 145
Achilles, Paul S., 60, 255
Age at marriage a cause of unhappiness, 69
at marriage in United States, 68
in childbirth, 25
in marriage, 23, 28
relation to sexual activity, 77
restrictions on, 28
Alcoholism as ground for divorce, 82
American Social Hygiene Association,
vii, 88
Ancestry, importance of good, 27
pride in, 235
Anthropoid   apes, type of family
among, 9
Arabian Nights, love in, 75
Arabs, polygamy among, 17
Art and family ideals, 234
function of, 241
relation to morality, 200
Ascetic ideal, discussion of, 48
Asylums, orphan, 42
Athletes, asceticism among, 50
Authority, family, 235
in educational system, 241
Auto-erotism in marriage, 78
B
Baby bounties, 210, 212
Bacon, Francis, 161
Baker, O. E., 137


Ball, Jau Don, 85, 255
Banns, publication of, 33
Barbary Coast, 84, 85
Barrenness due to gonorrhea, 93, 96
general causes of, 95
Bastard, 106
Bastardy, 100
Beauharnais, Josephine, 97
Belief, influence of, 159
Bigelow, M. A., vii, 169, 255
Birds, life-long monogamy among, 10
Birth Control and abortion, 119
discussion of, 139, 252
Birth-rate, 21
among the inferior, 137
among the superior, 127
and income, 206
Births, registration of, 225
Blue Bird, ThZ, 188
Bonaparte, Napoleon, 97, 106
Bosanquet, Helen, 43, 255
Bowley, A. L., 143, 255
Breach of promise, 62, 100
Bureau of Census, 129
Burke, Edmund, 235
C
Carnegie, Andrew, 215
Carnivora, mating among, 10
Cattell, J. McKeen, 131, 255
Celibacy and genius, 230
discussion of, 48
of college graduates, 131
religious, 49
Celibates, mental attitude of, 54, 170
Censorship, desirability of, 160
place of, 240


259




260


260I-NDEX


Census Bureau, United States, statistics of, 73
Chicago Vice Commission, 84
Childbearing, attitude toward, 197
Childbirth, danger in, due to age, 69
need for research on, 226
Childless family, 35, 95
Children, care of, 237
number of, in family, 6, 35
quality of, 37
resulting from free love matings, 15
rights of, 252
supervision of, 240
training in sex for, 166
Children's Bureau, 105, 106, 205, 255
Chinese form of family, 247
Christianity and abortion, 113
celibacy, 50
Child murder, 121
Civilization, influence of, on monogamy, 10
relationship to race, 53
Clark, Mary A., vii
Clinics for broken homes, 81
contraception, 147
family problems, 81, 224
treatment of impotence, 83
Club women's attitude toward home,
222
Coitus, children's knowledge of, 171
place of, in life, 66
teaching of fact of, 170
Coleridge, S. T., 77
College graduates, fecundity of, 129
Colleges, influence of women's, 16
neglect of education for family
life by, 178
Common law marriage, 33
Compatibility and broken homes, 80
and sexual selection, 23
physical, in marriage, 14
Complex, parental, among children,
42


Confucius, 201
Consanguinity in marriage, 29
Continence, amount of, among men,
60
amount of, among women, 61
Contraceptives, efficacy of, 131
Cooper, John M., vii, 10, 255
Court of Domestic Relations, 82, 109
Cousin marriages, 29
among Muslims, 19
Cruelty as ground for divorce, 82
Crum, Frederick S., 95, 255
D
Dance halls, regulation of, 240
Dancing, 191
Darwin, Charles, 250
Davenport, C. B., 97, 255
Davis, Katherine Bement, 61, 115,
131, 255
Deer, mating among, 10
Defectives, fecundity of, 137
segregation of, 138, 237
sterilization of, 139, 237
taxation of, 217
Defects, mental, in marriage, 30
Deland) Margaret, 242
Delayed marriage, 130
effect on birth rate, 130
evils of, 63, 68
Development (physical, mental, reproductive), completion of, 24
Dickinson, Robert L., 151, 255
Differentiation, sex, 187, 254
Diseases, infectious,  as  bar  to
marriage, 31
venereal, 91
Divorce, discussion of, 72
in relation to second marriage, 14
Domestic relations court, 82, 109
Double standard of morality, 61, 253
Doud, C. M., 143, 256




INDEX


261


Douglas, Paul H., 209, 255
Dowry, custom of, 70
Dublin, Louis I., vii
Dumas, Alexander, Jr., 77
E
Early marriage, advantages of, 25
Education and sexual selection, 23
for family life, 221
relation of birth-rate to, 135
Egypt, polygamy in, 19
Employment, preferential, 212
Emotional attitudes of children, 41,
167
of parents, 44
Emotions, development of, 191
education of the, 192
evolution of the, 77
Endowment of motherhood, 213
England, fecundity of young wives
in, 24
population problem in, 142
Epilepsy as bar to marriage, 31
Essenes, tenets of, 49
Estabrook, A. H., 137, 255
Esthetic causes of prostitution, 86
Eugenic   considerations  in  sexual
selection, 26
phases of incontinence, 58
results of venereal diseases, 93
status of illegitimacy, 104
Europe, incontinence in, 60
Everett, Ray H., vii
Exner, M. J., vii
Experience,  necessity  of,  before
marriage, 14
results of, before marriage, 57,
59, 63
F
Family as foundation of society, 8
changing status of, 245


definition of normal, 6
education shaped toward, 180
evolutionary view of, 4
influence of, on children, 41
influence of, on fathers, 39
influence of, on mothers, 40
origin of, 35
wage, 209, 253
Farm, family on, 219
Farms, increase of population on,
143
Fatherhood, education for, 182
new conception of, 252
Fear as means of social control, 117
Fecundity of city population, 126, 132
eugenically superior, 127
farm population, 127
rich and poor, 133
young wives, 24
in United States, 143
Feeblemindedness and illegitimacy,
102
marriage, 30
reproduction, 137
Feminism and endowment of motherhood, 213
attitude toward the home, 232, 248,
250
in history, 196
training of children, 187
Fertility, need for research on, 226
related to age of marriage, 24
statistics of, 95
Finger-prints, registration of, 226
Filsinger, Mrs. Ernst B., 198
First-born child, defects of, 37
predominance of boys among, 153
Flirtation, necessity of, 191
Foerster, F. W., 19, 110, 255
Foster children, 42
France, population problem in, 139,
143, 211
Frankenthal, Kate, 116, 255




262


INDEX


Freedom in marriage, 16
of action, 158
of opinion, 159
of women in home, 233
of women in marriage, 194
restrictions on individual, 157
Free love, examination of, 11
lack of dignity in, 235
unlikelihood of, 253
Freud, Sigmund, 64, 65, 241
Freund, Ernst, 107, 111, 255
G
Galahad, Sir, 188
Galloway, Thomas W., vii, 183
Galton, Francis, 99, 225,)255
Genealogy, influence of, 235
Genius and reproduction, 53, 230
Germ-plasm, continuity of, 53
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, 187
Gonorrhea as bar to marriage, 31
frequency of, 91
result of incontinence, 56
Goodsell, Willystine, 6, 255
Gorki, Maxim, 201
Greece, customs of ancient, 50, 197,
203, 251
Gulick, Charlotte V., 187
Gynecology, need for research in, 226
place of, in Birth Control, 147
H
Hadfield, J. A., 64, 256
Haines, Thomas H., vii
Hall, Fred S., 29, 256
Halverson, H. J., 137, 256
Happiness, individual, in marriage,
16, 74, 194, 254
Hardy, Thomas, 110
Harris, John W., 24, 256
Harrison, Paul W., 18, 256
Hebrews, celibacy among, 49


Heredity as basis of sex education, 168
importance of, in education, 43
importance recognized, 252
of illegitimate children, 104
Hetairae, modern, 195
Hill, J. A., 95, 256
Hill, Leonard, 95, 256
Hippopotami, mating among, 10
Holland, source of Birth    Control
canards, 145
Holmes, S. J., 131, 143, 256
Homes, influence of, 41
reasons for breakage of, 72
types of broken, 72
Hope, Laurence, 198
Housing difficulties, 239
Houssay, Frederic, 95, 256
Howard, G. E., 6, 256
I
Ibn Sa'ud, Sultan of Najd, 18
Illegitimacy, discussion of, 100
Immigrants, fecundity of, in United
States, 95, 143
influence of, on family, 245
Impotence as ground for divorce, 82
Income and birth rate, 206
tax, 216, 218
Incontinence, cause of disappointment
in marriage, 77
discussion of, 56
Individualism, an obsolete doctrine,
159
in art, 198
Infant mortality, 205
Infertility, discussion of, 95
ground for divorce, 82
Insanity as bar to marriage, 30
as ground for divorce, 82
resulting from syphilis, 92
Insurance, family, 214
Irresponsibility in free love matings, 15
Isis-Madonna tradition, 234




INDEX


263


J
James, William, 191
Jesus, attitude of, toward marriage, 49
Johnson, Bascom, 84,256
Johnson, Roswell H., vii, 26, 56, 58,
68, 107, 135, 148, 149, 256, 257
Joyce, James, 241
Jukes, fecundity of, 137
K
Kellogg, John Harvey, 225, 256
Key, Ellen, 193
Kin, marriage of, 29
Kneeland, George J., 84
Koegel, Otto E., 34, 256
Kuhn, Philaletes, 225
L
L'Aiglon, 188
Latin America, incontinence in, 60, 63
Law Enforcement against prostitution, 90
in broken homes, 81
to combat abortion, 124
voluntary organization for, 240
Lea, H. C., 50, 256
Lecky, W. E. H., 248, 256
Lenroot, K. F., 101, 102, 103, 256
Lenz, Fritz, 82, 256
Lethal factors in human matings, 97
Letourneau, Ch., 5, 256
Love as a necessity in marriage, 74, 79
free, examination of, 11
oriental definitions of, 75
teaching of art of, 195
Luce, G. R., vii
Lundberg, Emma 0., 102, 257
M
Macaulay, Thomas Babington, 198


Maladjustment, sexual, in marriage,
79
Malthus, Thomas R., 144
Marchant, James, 256
Maria Luisa of Austria, 97
Marriage, common law, 33
forced, 110
of the future, 253
necessary changes in, 194
promotion of, 226
rate in United States, 131
restrictions on, 28
trial, 13
Masud7, discussion of love in, 75
Matchmaking, 193
Maternity benefits, 212
Mating, types of, 9
Maturity, physical, 24
Mayflower descendants, 143
Maynard, G. D., 24, 257
McDougall, William, 225, 257
Medical profession, attitude toward
marriage laws, 32
and sex education, 175
Mencken, H. L., 203
Menopause, sexual interest during,
77
Menstruation, 173
Mental defects in marriage, 30
Mental deficiency among prostitutes,
85
deficiency and illegitimacy, 102
development, completion of, 24
Meyer, A. W., 113, 257
Michelet, Jules, 197
Mill, John Stuart, 158, 257
Millionaires, families of, 134
Minimum Wage, 208
Miscarriages and abortions, 113
due to syphilis, 93
Mismating, fundamental     evil in
family life, 250
Monkeys, mating among, 10




264


264               INDEX


-Monogamy, adaptation of mankind
to, 4
discussion of, 19
future of, 253
ideal of, 3
Montessori Method, 228
Morality, double standard of, 61,
253
"Morality, The New," 11
Mortality, infant, 205
Mothercraft in women's colleges, 181
teaching of, 174
Motherhood, endowment of, 213
Mothers' pensions, 214
Motion pictures, 199, 203, 240
Mudgett, Mildred D., 80, 257
Music as career for women, 26
Muslims, marriage among, 18
N
Napoleon 1, 97, 106
Nature study in schools, 170
Negro mothers, young, 24
prostitutes, 85
Negroes, decline of fecundity among,
99
early marriage of, 68
fecundity of, 95
illegitimacy among, 100
ravages of gonorrhea among, 98
Neuroses due to delayed marriage,
69
New Zealand, fecundity in, 24
Nicolson, Mrs. Malcolm H., 198
Nomadism, 235
Noyes, Hilda H., 214, 257
Nuns, celibacy of, 54
0
Obstet'rics, need for research in, 226
Orphans in asylums, 42, 103
O'Shea, M. V., 179, 257


P
Parenthood, quality of, in monogamy,
21
training for, 178, 221
voluntary, 151, 252
Parker, Cornelia Stratton, 197, 257
Parker, Valeria H., vii
Parkes, A. S., 17, 257
Paul as champion of asceticism, 49, 51
Peck, M. W.) 60, 64, 257
Pensions, mothers', 214
Peter Pan, 188
Philby, H. St. J. B., 18, 257
Physical defects as bar to marriage, 31
Pinkham, Lydia E., 141
Pinney, J. B., vii
Politics a factor in prostitution, 88
Polyandry, discussion of, 17
Polygamy, examination of, 17
Polygyny, discussion of, 17
Pompadour, Madame de, 201
Popenoe, Paul, 17, 129, 137, 256, 257
Population, movement of, in United
States, 143
problem, 141
Pornography, 198
Posture, adaptation to upright, 4
Precocity of sex development, 190
Pregnancy, benefit of, to woman, 36
effect of, on free love, 12
popular attitude toward, 197
Priests, celibacy of, 49
Promiscuity and Birth Control, 141, 152
attitude toward, 249
examination of, 9, 21
Prostitution and euphemy, 201
as source of venereal diseases, 92
children's knowledge of, 171
discussion of, 84
expense of, 57
passing of legalized, 248, 253
relation to delayed marriage, 68
responsible for incontinence, 62




INDEX                  2


265


Pseudo-celibacy, 51
Puberty, change in child at, 172
hygiene of, 226
Publicity of divorce proceedings, 81
R
Race as a factor in divorce, 80
Rageot, Gaston, 197, 257
Recreation, need for, 239
Red Light Districts, 89, 161, 248
Reformation, relationship to celibacy,
52
Registration of births, 225
of eugenic families, 225
of finger-prints, 226
of illegitimate births, 105
Reproductive system, maturity of, 24
Restrictions on marriage, 28
Reuter, E. B., 114, 257
Richmond, Mary E., 29, 256
Robinson, W. J., 113, 257
Rodents, mating among, 10
Roman Catholic attitude on Birth
Control, 148
celibacy, 51
Romantic love, 20, 75
Rome, causes leading to downfall of,
196, 203, 208, 251
customs of ancient, 113, 197, 252
Roosevelt, Theodore, 197
Ross, E. A., 131
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 42
S
San Francisco, prostitution in, 84
Sanger, Margaret, 142, 149
Savages, mating among, 9
practice of abortion among, 114,122
romantic love among, 20
School as a source of sex education,
170
influence of teachers in, 169


Scotland, fecundity of young wives in,
24
Seals, mating among, 10
Segregation of defectives, 139, 237
Selection, sexual, 23, 250
and incontinence, 57
Sex differentiation, 181, 187, 251
education, 165
quantitative nature of, 189
Sexual selection, 23, 250
selection and incontinence, 57
maladjustment in marriage, 79
Slee, Mrs. J. Noah H. (Margaret
Sanger), 142, 149
Sorokin, P., 134, 257
Spencer, Anna Garlin, 19, 257
Spencer, Herbert, 178, 186, 257
Spinner, J. R., 114, 258
Squirrels, mating among, 10
Sterility and delayed marriage, 69
due to gonorrhea, 15, 93, 96
due to syphilis, 93
general causes of, 95
need for research on, 226
Sterilization, eugenic, 138, 237
Stopes, Marie C., 122
Sumner, Francis B., 149
Superior families, definition of, 125
Swinburne, J., 217, 258
Syphilis and incontinence, 56
as bar to marriage, 31
frequency of, 91
T
Taxation, bearing on family, 135, 215
Teachers, influence on children of,
169, 170
Teasdale, Sara, 198
Thomas, Hayward G., 85
Thompson, Warren S., 231, 258
Tissier, L., 113, 258
Treadway, Walter L., 85, 258




266


INDEX


Trial marriage, 13, 79
Tridon, Andre, 119, 258
Tuberculosis as bar to marriage, 31
Turkey, polygamy in, 19
V
Venereal diseases and delayed marriage, 69
and incontinence, 56
as bar to marriage, 31
children's knowledge of, 171
discussion of, 91
effect of, on free love, 12
Viability of fetus, age of, 120
Vice and virtue, 190
Vitamins as cause of barrenness, 98
Voluntary parenthood, 151, 252
W
Wage, family, 209, 253
minimum, 208
Waggaman, Mary T., 211, 258
Weldon, L. 0., 86, 257


Wells, F. L., 60, 64, 257
Wells, H. G., 15, 258
Westermarck, Edward, 5
Whales, mating among, 10
Whetham, W. C. D., 170, 239, 258
White, Stanford, 200
Wilde, Oscar, 200
Women, sexual nature of, 59
workers, 230
Women's colleges, deficiencies of,
179, 181
Work of women outside of home,
228.
organization of, in home, 227
Worthington, George E., vii
X
X-rays as cause of sterility, 96
Y
Yerkes, Robert M., 176, 258
Young Men's Christian Association,
227
Women's Christian Association, 227




~p~V 1~
i~h1Ji)
Q~~Lvao~?




Sans Tache
N THE "elder days of art" each artist or craftsman enjoyed
the privilege of independent creation. He carried through
a process of manufacture from beginning to end. The scribe
of the days before the printing press was such a craftsman. So
was the printer in the days before the machine process. He stood
or fell, as a craftsman, by the merit or demerit of his finished
product.
Modern machine production has added much to the worker's
productivity and to his material welfare; but it has deprived him
of the old creative distinctiveness. His work is merged in the
work of the team, and lost sight of as something representing him
and his personality.
Many hands and minds contribute to the manufacture of a book,
in this day of specialization. There are seven distinct major processes in the making of a book: The type must first be set; by the
monotype method, there are two processes, the "keyboarding" of
the MS and the casting of the type from the perforated paper rolls
thus produced. Formulas and other intricate work must be handset; then the whole brought together ("composed") in its true
order, made into pages and forms. The results must be checked
by proof reading at each stage. Then comes the "make-ready"
and press-run and finally the binding into volumes.
All of these processes, except that of binding into cloth or leather
covers, are carried on under our roof.
The motto of the Waverly Press is Sans Tache. Our ideal is to
manufacture books "without blemish"-worthy books, worthily




printed, with worthy typography-books to which we shall be
proud to attach our imprint, made by craftsmen who are willing
to accept open responsibility for their work, and who are entitled
to credit for creditable performance.
The printing craftsman of today is quite as much a craftsman as
his predecessor. There is quite as much discrimination between
poor work and good. We are of the opinion that the individuality
of the worker should not be wholly lost. The members of our staff
who have contributed their skill of hand and brain to this volume
are:
Composing Room: Nathan Miller, Ray Kauffman, Austin Uhland, Andrew
Rassa, James Jackson, William  Sanders, Edgar Simmons, Arthur Baker,
Howard Fogle, Herbert Leitch, John Krantz, Charles Wyatt, Edward Rice,
George Moss, Walter Phillips, Richard King, Henry Shea, Theodore Nilson.
Keyboard: Minnie Foard, Harry Susemihl, Helen Twardowicz.
Casters: Kenneth Brown, Ernest Wann, Mahlon Robinson, Charles Aher,
George Smith, Frank Malanowsky, Martin Griffen, Henry Lee, Frederick Wall.
Cutter: H. S. Brown.
Folder: Laurence Krug, John Watson.
Proof Room: Sarah Katzin, Alier-Reuter, Mary Reed, Ruth Treischman,
Lucille Bull, Ethel Strasinger, Dorothy Strasinger, Audrey Tanner, Angeline
Eifert, Lillian Gilland, Geraldine Browne, George Southworth, Ida Zimmerman.
Press: August Hildebrandt, Hugh Gardner, Henry Eckert, Andrew Becker.




Books on Social Science and
Eugenics
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY-Dunlap............. $4.00
ESSENTIALS OF PSYCHIATRY-Henry....... 2.75
PUBLIC HEALTH LAw-Tobey............. 4.50
EUGENICS, GENETICS AND THE FAMILY, I.
EUGENICS IN RACE AND STATE, II-Davenport and  others.......................  11.00
EXHIBITS BOOK OF THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF EUGENICS-Laughlin  and  others........................  3.00
AN APPROACH TO SOCIAL MEDICINE-Dunham.................................  4.00
INTELLIGENCE AND IMMIGRATION - Kirkpatrick..............................  4.00
MONGREL VIRGINIANS-Estabrook and McD ougle..............................  3.00
THE INHERITANCE OF MENTAL DISEASESM yerson............................  5.00
Send for a complete catalogue
THE WILLIAMS & WILKINS COMPANY
Publishers of Scientific Books and Periodicals
BALTIMORE, U. S. A.