Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 11.djvu/294

 278

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

mem of the stock can in my opinion be brought about in two ways: (i) by segregation, to some extent carried on at present, which in some measure checks the reproduction of the unfit; and (2) by encouraging the reproduction of the fit. Checking the reproduction of the unfit is quite as important as encouraging the reproduction of the fit. This, in my opinion, could be effected, to some extent, by taking the defective children and keeping them under con- trol, at least a certain number that are at present allowed to have social privileges. It would be for their own welfare and the welfare of the com- munity ; and they would suffer no hardship, if taken when quite young. This is included in the question of eugenics which Dr. Galton has brought forward, and has shown his practical sympathy with, by establishing a fellowship, which will, no doubt, do great good in placing the subject on a firm basis, and also in getting a wide intellectual acceptance of the principle. It seems to me the first thing required is that it should become generally known that it is to the advantage of the individual and of the race to have a healthy heritage. Whether any practical steps could be taken to forward this principle, when it has a widespread acceptance, is a question ; and I consider that any state interference would be harmful at first, but it would be proper for the state to encourage setting up registry offices where not only a form would be given, with particulars as to marriage, but also a form that would give a bill of health to the contracting parties ; and that bill of health should be of some value, not only to the possessors, but to their children. If children had a good heritage, there is no doubt it would have actuarial value, in the matter, for instance, of obtaining life-insurance policies at a more reasonable rate ; also in obtaining municipal and government employment, because the chances of paying pensions to people who have a good heritage is very much less. It seems to me that the subject is one of national importance, and this society, by spreading the views of Dr. Galton, will do a very great work, not only for individuals, but for the race as a whole.

MR. A. E. CRAWLEY * said : Dr. Galton's remarkable and suggestive paper shows how anthropological studies can be made fruitful in practical politics. Sociology should be founding its science of eugenics upon anthropology, psy- chology, and physiology. I hope that it will avoid socialistic dreams and that, while chiefly considering the normal individual, it will not forget the special claims of those abnormal persons whom we call geniuses. In a well-ordered state they should be considered before the degenerate and the diseased.

With regard to one or two minor matters : I should like to ask the author if he has examined the evidence for McLennan's examples of marriage by capture. It is not, perhaps, a very important point, but anthropological theories are often houses of cards, and I doubt the existence of a single real case of capture as an institution. As to exogamy, it is important to under- stand that in the great majority of cases it is really endogamous, that is to say, the favorite marriage in exogamy is between first cousins, and the only constant prohibition is that against the marriage of brothers and sisters. Exogamy, in fact, as Dr. Howitt, Dr. Frazer, and mysell agree, reduces to this one principle. McLennan, the inventor of exogamy, never understood the facts, and the term is meaningless. If, as I have suggested in Nature, the normal type of primitive marriage was the bisectional exogamy seen in Australia, which amounts to cross-cousin marriage, two families, A and B, intermarrying for generation after generation we have found a theory of the origin of the tribe, an enlarged dual family, and we have also worked out a factor which may have done much to fix racial types. Lewis Morgan suggested something of the latter notion as a result of his consanguine family.

I am still persuaded that one or two forms of union are mere " sports ;" group-marriage, for instance, which is as rare as the marriage of brother and sister. Neither of these can be regarded as the primal type of union, though anthropologists have actually so regarded them. I think we may take it as

4 Author of The Mystic Rose; one of the ablest of the younger anthro- pologists.