Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 11.djvu/295

 NOTES AND ABSTRACTS 279

certain that there are two permanent polar tendencies in human nature : first, against union within the same home, and, secondly, against too pro- miscuous marriage.

In questions like this I think it is most important to avoid confusing sexual with matrimonial concerns. It seems to me, on the evidence of history and anthropology, that polygamy is the result of such a confusion. For efficiency and individuality monogamy is the best foundation of the family. Dr. Galton has not, I think, shown any cause for concluding that the prohibi- tion of polygamy is due to social considerations. Schopenhauer indeed sug- gested the adoption of polygamy as a solution of the problem created by the preponderance of females, and as likely to do away with what he thought to be a false position, that of the lady a position due to Christian and chival- rous sentimentalism. His suggestion, by the way, shows the same confusion between sexual and domestic matters, but it certainly would solve many social difficulties. The sexual impulse in men seems to have several normal outlets. In spite of defects, the ancient Greeks in their best period seem to show the results of an unconscious eugenic tradition ; and I believe the same is true of the Japanese.

Dr. Galton's suggestions as to the part religion may play in these matters seem to me to be excellent. Religion can have no higher duty than to insist upon the sacredness of marriage, but, just as the meaning and content of that sacredness were the result of primitive science, so modern science must advise as to what this sacredness involves for us in our vastly changed conditions, complicated needs, and increased responsibilities.

DR. ALICE DRYSDALE VICKERY said that there appeared to her to be three essentials to success in any attempt to improve the standard of health and development of the human race. These were (i) the economic independence of women, so as to render possible the exercise of selection, on the lines of natural attraction, founded on mental, moral, social, physical, and artistic sympathies, both on the feminine and masculine side; (2) the education of the rising generation, both girls and boys, so as to impress them with a sense of their future responsibilities as citizens of the world, as co-partners in the regulation of its institutions, and as progenitors of the future race ; (3) an intelligent restriction of the birth-rate so that children should be born only in due proportion to the requirements of the community, and under conditions which afforded a reasonable prospect of the efficient development of the future citizens.

The present economic dependence of women upon men was detrimental to the physical, intellectual, and moral growth of woman, as an individual. It falsified and distorted her views of life, and, as a consequence, her sense of duty. It was above all prejudicial to the interests of the coming genera- tion, for it tended to diminish the free play and adequate development of those maternal instincts on which the rearing and education of children mainly depended. The economic independence of women was desirable in the inter- ests of a true monogamic marriage, for, without this economic independence, the individuality of woman could not exercise that natural selective power in the choice of a mate which was probably a main factor in the spiritual evolution of the race. Where the sympathetic attraction between those con- cerned was only superficial, instead of being deeply interwoven in all their mutual interests and tastes, the apparent monogamic relation only too fre- quently masked an unavowed polygamy, or polyandry, or perhaps both. There- fore it would forward truly monogamic marriage if greater facilities should be afforded for the coming together of those who were spontaneously and pre- eminently attracted to each other.

In respect of limitations of offspring, we had to consider both organic and social criteria. For the determination of these, physiologist must com- bine with sociologist. From the individual and family point of view, we wanted guidance in determining the size of family adapted to given conditions, and from the social point of view we wanted guidance in determining the