VIII

THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT FROM THE

STANDPOINT OF SOCIOLOGY

CHARLES A. ELLWOOD

ON May 16, 1904, Sir Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, delivered a lecture before the newly formed Sociological Society of London, on "Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope and Aims." Defining eugenics as "the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race," he set forth the desirability of a eugenics programme in human society. The time proved ripe for such an idea. A Eugenics Education Society was soon organised in London and similar movements were started in various parts of the world. Thus was born the eugenics movement, the growth and vitality of which were evidenced last summer (1912) when the First International Eugenics Congress met in London with representatives from nearly all civilised countries.

The idea, of course, was not new. Sir Francis Galton himself had frequently set forth the idea of eugenics in his earlier writings, first using the word in his "Inquiries Into Human Faculty," published in 1883. Indeed, as far back as we can go in the history of man's thought concerning his social life, we find similar ideas. Thus we find a quite fully developed eugenics programme set forth in Plato's "Republic." As to modern movements in a similar direction it should not

be forgotten that in the United States, for a generation or more, many social and philanthropic workers have advocated the permanent segregation of the hopelessly defective classes, which is of course a negative eugenics programme.

The sociologist sees much to commend in this eugenics movement, even though like all new movements it may have its cranks and extremists. From a sociological standpoint, the eugenics movement is to be commended, in the first place, because it calls attention to the great importance of the factor of heredity in human social life. Heredity is a factor which has too often been overlooked in the past by social thinkers and leaders. The advance of modern science, however, makes it more and more evident that the biological factors in man's social life must not be overlooked; and among these factors heredity, or the genetic relation between generations, is of paramount importance.

Again, the eugenics movement is to be commended sociologically because it tends to call attention to the fact that the character of the mass is more or less derived from the character of the individual unit. Some recent sociological thinkers have tended to neglect and even to deny this old truth, asserting that human society can be adequately understood by paying attention simply to its general traits and mass movements. It is safe to say, however, that there is nothing in human society which does not derive ultimately from the biological and psychological nature of the individual. In other words, individual character is the ultimate problem in human society, and this eugenics emphasises

by calling attention to the part which inborn traits play in the formation of the character of the individual.

Finally, the eugenics movement is to be welcomed, from a sociological standpoint, because it throws emphasis upon the importance of marriage and the family as institutions in human society. It teaches that these institutions are central in determining individual character, and so also in determining the general character of our social life. It is the quality of the mating, or the marriage, in other words, which determines the heredity of the child; and so the institution of marriage becomes central in the whole problem of eugenics.

Here it may be remarked that the problem of eugenics is essentially a sociological problem. This Sir Francis Galton himself recognised by his final definition of eugenics as "the study of agencies under social control which may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, either physically or mentally.' From this definition it is evident that Galton conceived of eugenics as an applied or practical science, resting on biology on the one hand, and on sociology on the other. At any rate, it is evident that as long as the institution of marriage remains in human society the stream of life must flow through this institution. Practically, therefore, the eugenics movement aims at the control of this institution in the interest of improving the racial qualities of future generations. That is, the problem of eugenics in our present social order is simply the problem of securing wise marriages in society,wise, that is, from the biological standpoint. In order to solve the problems of eugenics, therefore, there

must be a thorough understanding of biology on the one side, and of sociology on the other.

While the sociologist sees much to commend in the eugenics movement, he also sees many dangers and difficulties connected with the movement. The chief danger is perhaps to be found in the over-emphasis of the importance of heredity, and of the biological element generally, in human society. If it has been a mistake of some social thinkers in the past to fail to see the importance of this element, it may easily happen that in the future as great a mistake may be made in the over-emphasis of heredity. Human society is not strictly a biological affair, nor is social evolution the same thing as organic evolution. On the contrary, human society is primarily a psychological matter, and social or cultural evolution is only based on and conditioned by organic evolution. We are not justified, therefore, in taking a strictly biological view of human society. In so far as some of the eugenics literature of the present seems to imply a purely physical view of our social life, it may be discarded as worthless. There is no excuse for the eugenist overlooking the spiritual factors in our social life. Beside the hereditary or inborn traits of individuals, there are, of course, also acquired traits, or habits. In civilised human society these latter are much more numerous, and, from a moral standpoint, much more important than the inborn or hereditary traits. So far as we know, the inborn traits do not adjust the individual to civilisation or produce high moral character. Civilisation and the more specialised features of individual character, in other words, are acquired traits. Thus both scientific

psychology and sociology show the vast part played in individual and social life by acquired habits; and as yet we have no scientific evidence to show that heredity determines in any hard and fast way what acquired habits the individual shall take on. While inborn qualities or capacities must furnish the basis for the acquired character or habits of the individual, apparently in the normal human individual habits of many varied sorts may be built upon the basis of the inborn

traits.

The danger of eugenics, then, is in overlooking the importance of the environment in civilised human society. Yet this danger does not necessarily inhere in the eugenics movement. While eugenics emphasises the inadequacy of all attempts at social reform through paying attention merely to the environment, yet a sanely developed eugenics movement will undoubtedly recognise the inadequacy, from a social standpoint, of paying attention to the factor of heredity alone. In other words, recognition of the importance of heredity is perfectly compatible with recognition of the importance of nurture or environment. The stream of life can be polluted in two ways, either at its source, or along its course. While the pollution of life at its source may be more serious than any later pollution, yet the eugenist, just because of his interest in keeping the spring of life uncorrupted, may well have a more vital interest in the forces in the environment which affect life and character than others. For if such things as alcoholism and disease are to undo his work, what is the profit of attempting it at all? There is nothing, therefore, in rational eugenics which forbids the widest and