II THE EUGENIC POINT OF VIEW

“The destiny of organised nature is amelioration, and who can tell its limits?”—Emerson.

Eugenics is the Science of producing offspring of as perfect a type as possible, which must eventually result in the general betterment of the human race. So closely allied is moral welfare to physical that when the one is directly improved, the other, too, is proportionately benefited. “Ideals are the very soul of life,” and when they are high, the trend is towards progress. Unfortunately, between the theoretical and the practical side of all things there is a huge gap. The essence of practical eugenics lies in the application of rules, already in use for the benefit of domestic animals, which, when applied to man, will bring about a higher physical standard than has hitherto been reached.

According to Professor Punnett “permanent progress is a matter of gametes, not of training—the man is not made, but born.”⁠[3] Nature must therefore be helped in the creation of a finer and stronger human specimen by the selection of the fittest to fulfil the work of procreation. The diseased, the weak-minded, the consumptive and the crippled of the Universe would be prevented from producing offspring, and the race thus purged of necessarily inferior strains. The flotsam and jetsam of weakly humanity would die off after two or three generations, and but for sin and vice, which, like the poor, are ever with us, an utopian state of things would soon obtain. In other words, it only needs that human nature should be instructed and directed for all to be well with us, and eugenics, working on the principle that progress is a question of breeding rather than of pedagogics, would accomplish what has up to now defied us as impossible.

Unfortunately eugenists are all too apt to forget how great is the abyss separating the moral from the animal being in man. Much can be done to improve the physique of a whole nation, but it must be remembered that “the character of a generation is moulded by personality.” Until the end of time the morale of a people will be the cause rather than the effect, and here alone lies the divine spark that animates our whole physical being.

A happy antithesis to Eugenics is to be found—the science of psychotherapy, the essence of which has been summed up in the words, “It is fatal to trust in the squirrel-work of the industrious brain, instead of the piercing vision of the desirous heart.” Here the moral being of Man is placed far above his physical or even mental being, which are in more or less complete subordination to his soul, according to the degree of his spiritual development. Heredity is disregarded as a negligible quantity. It is environment, suggestion, willpower, faith, that wholly influence, compass, and direct the well-being of man.

With eugenics, on the other hand, heredity is the most potent factor, and this is perhaps why the key-note of materialism runs through the whole gamut of this idealistic striving towards a more flawless humanity.

Heredity allows for little freedom; so it must be curtailed. Human nature must either be completely held in check, or transformed beyond recognition. A check is provided by the simple method of isolating those human beings who, as a result of disease, are unfit to bear or beget children. Thus in time the birth of mentally deficient creatures, who are prolific out of all proportion, would come to an end, and other forms of inferiority might in time be enormously reduced, and finally eradicated.

So far, so good, but there are other whisperings in eugenist circles, and particularly in their outer fringes, which deal with subjects so intimately human and personal that one is inclined to question the wisdom of attempting to rush in where angels have feared to tread. It is, for instance, not unusual to speak of the perfect mating of two physically superior beings who should produce perfect offspring. But so conspicuously inconsistent is human nature that often a healthy man will fall hopelessly in love with an inferior or even physically degenerate woman, and vice versa.

Then polygamy is hinted at; the strong man, as in Eastern countries, may remain mated to his love, but should wed another wife who will produce fine human stock. So, after a war, the strong man who survives will have two or even three wives to ensure the future welfare of the world. Such proposals have latterly been mooted by more than one writer, with so-called eugenists foremost among them. The decisive answer to all such schemes has been given in advance by Montesquieu, in his great work L’esprit des Lois. Very minutely and conclusively he has proved that polygamy never did, and never will, accomplish the desired end, and that it is invariably accompanied by race degeneracy and both mental and moral deterioration. It has appealed to some of the oldest civilisations all the world over, and, after devastating wars, plagues and famines, has been solemnly tried and encouraged. But from the national point of view, polygamy does not answer.

Family life, with all that it implies, is primarily responsible for the healthy moral and physical upbringing of normal human beings, and true family life can only exist in a state of unimpeachable monogamy. One father and one mother, welded together in a common desire to work for the good of their children, can alone produce a truly healthy and superior race.

In polygamy wifehood becomes a farce, and motherhood a mere animal function, generally limited to a single attempt, and followed usually by a state of lymphatic inertia and gross self-indulgence. The parental instinct here is blunted on both sides, and all that can reasonably be looked for in an institution so closely resembling the farmyard is a purely physical relationship between man and woman, mother and child. Marvellous results have been achieved in animal breeding by the coupling of superior males and females singled out for the sole purpose of providing superior progeny. As regards humanity this can never become a feasible condition and polygamy remains a form of barbarism or gross degeneracy. Turkey gives us a fair example of civilised polygamy. In her essay on the harem, Lady Cook describes the Turkish woman as being “the most depraved in the world.”⁠[4] My personal experience of Turkish society, which is not slight, has led me to a similar opinion; indeed, the results of polygamy on the race where it is practised to-day are too obvious to require further comment.

Shortly before he died, Mr. Montague Crackanthorpe, the eminent Eugenist, in a discussion on this subject, remarked, “There is no doubt that animal life, in its natural state, is essentially monogamous. How much more is man then by nature, let alone by civilisation, intended to generate after the highest form of monogamy.”

It has been proved too often to admit of doubt that the moral influence of the mother on her unborn infant is omnipotent. Prenatal sensations may well account for the whole trend of the child’s life. In the words of Dr. E. Sloan Chesser: “Socially, the mother is the basis of racial progress: ethically, enlightened motherhood is the strongest force in the world. Intelligent mother-love can alone bring about the inculcation of higher ideals of citizenship and social obligations.” The need of the hour is the training of mothers in the deeper questions of life, so that the new generation of men and women may have a sane and strong sense of human responsibility and a better understanding of international morality and friendship and the unity of the human race.

Much can and should be done by encouraging those who are fit and healthy to have larger families. The Malthusian theory has proved itself a dangerous menace to civilisation. It is threatening the safety of depopulated France, and in Great Britain it should be discouraged in every possible way as an insidious and treacherous enemy to the laws of God and man.