Part 20 (1/2)
Thirty-three and one-third per cent specifically stated that he must be ambitious; 66-2/3% did not state.
Eight per cent stated specifically that he must have high ideals.
Fifty-two per cent demanded that he be of the same religious conviction; 48% said nothing about religion.
Seventy-two per cent said nothing regarding money matters; 28% stated what his financial condition must be, but none named a specific amount. One-half of the 28% stated that he must be rich, and three-fourths of these were under twenty years of age; the other half of the 28% said that he must have a moderate income and two-thirds of these were under twenty years of age.
Forty-five per cent stated that the young man must be taller than they; 55% did not state.
Twenty per cent stated that the young man must be older, and from two to eight years older; 80% did not state.
Fifty per cent stated that he must have a good education; one-fourth of the 50% stated that he must have a college education; 95% of these were under twenty-one years of age; 50% did not state his intellectual attainments.
Ninety-one per cent of all the ideals handed in were written by persons under twenty years of age; the other 8-1/2% were over twenty years of age.
_Physical Culture_, on another occasion, invited its male readers to express their requirements of an ideal wife. The proportions of the various elements desired are given as follows:
Per cent
Health 23 ”Looks” 14 Housekeeping 12 Disposition 11 Maternity 11 Education 10 Management 7 Dress 7 Character 5 --- 100
One might feel some surprise at the low valuation placed on ”character,”
but it is really covered by other points. On the whole, one can not be dissatisfied with these specifications aside from its slight concern about mental ability.
Such wholesome ideals are probably rather widespread in the less sophisticated part of the population. In other strata, social and financial criteria of selection hold much importance. As a family ascends in economic position, its standards of s.e.xual selection are likely to change. And in large sections of the population, there is a fluctuation in the standards from generation to generation. There is reason to suspect that the standards of s.e.xual selection among educated young women in the United States to-day are higher than they were a quarter of a century, or even a decade, ago. They are demanding a higher degree of physical fitness and morality in their suitors. Men, in turn, are beginning to demand that the girls they marry shall be fitted for the duties of home-maker, wife and mother,--qualifications which were essential in the colonial period but little insisted on in the immediate past.
(b) It is evident, then, that the standards of s.e.xual selection do change; there is therefore reason to suppose that they can change still further. This is an important point, for it is often alleged as an objection to eugenics that human affections are capricious and can not be influenced by rational considerations. Such an objection will be seen, on reflection, to be ill-founded.
As to the extent of change possible, the psychologist must have the final word. The ingenious Mr. Diffloth,[97] who reduced love to a series of algebraical formulae and geometrical curves, and proposed that every young man should find a girl whose curve was congruent to his own, and at once lead her to the altar, is not likely to gain many adherents. But the psychologist declares without hesitation that it is possible to influence the course of love in its earlier, though rarely in its later, stages. Francis Galton pointed this out with his usual clearness, showing that in the past the ”incidence” of love, to borrow a technical term, had been frequently and sometimes narrowly limited by custom--by those unwritten laws which are sometimes as effective as the written ones. Monogamy, endogamy, exogamy, Australian marriages, tabu, prohibited degrees and sacerdotal celibacy all furnished him with historical arguments to show that society could bring about almost any restriction it chose; and a glance around at the present day will show that the barriers set up by religion, race and social position are frequently of almost prohibitive effect.
There is, therefore, from a psychological point of view, no reason why the ideals of eugenics should not become a part of the mores or unwritten laws of the race, and why the selection of life partners should not be unconsciously influenced to a very large extent by them.
As a necessary preliminary to such a condition, intelligent people must cultivate the att.i.tude of conscious selection, and get away from the crude, fatalistic viewpoint which is to-day so widespread, and which is exploited _ad nauseam_ on the stage and in fiction. It must be remembered that there are two well-marked stages preceding a betrothal: the first is that of mere attraction, when reason is still operative, and the second is that of actual love, when reason is relegated to the background. During the later stage, it is notorious that good counsel is of little avail, but during the preliminary period direction of the affections is still possible, not only by active interference of friends or relatives, but much more easily and usefully by the tremendous influence of the mores.
Eugenic mores will exist only when many intelligent people become so convinced of the ethical value of eugenics that that conviction sinks into their subconscious minds. The general eugenics campaign can be expected to bring that result about in due time. Care must be taken to prevent highly conscientious people from being too critical, and letting a trivial defect outweigh a large number of good qualities. Moreover, changes in the standards of s.e.xual selection should not be too rapid, as that results in the permanent celibacy of some excellent but hyper-critical individuals. The ideal is an advance of standards as rapidly as will yet keep all the superior persons married. This is accomplished if all superior individuals marry as well as possible, yet with advancing years gradually reduce the standard so that celibacy may not result.
Having decided that there is room for improvement in the standards of s.e.xual selection, and that such improvement is psychologically feasible, we come to point (c): in what particular ways is this improvement needed? Any discussion of this large subject must necessarily be only suggestive, not exhaustive.
If s.e.xual selection is to be taken seriously, it is imperative that there be some improvement in the general att.i.tude of public sentiment toward love itself. It is difficult for the student to acquire sound knowledge[98] of the normal manifestations of love: the psychology of s.e.x has been studied too largely from the abnormal and pathological side; while the popular idea is based too much on fiction and drama which emphasize the high lights and make love solely an affair of emotion. We are not arguing for a rationalization of love, for the terms are almost contradictory; but we believe that more common sense could profitably be used in considering the subject.
If a typical ”love affair” be examined, it is found that propinquity and a common basis for sympathy in some probably trivial matter lead to the development of the s.e.x instinct; the parental instinct begins to make itself felt, particularly among women; the instincts of curiosity, acquisitiveness, and various others play their part, and there then appears a well-developed case of ”love.” Such love may satisfy a purely biological definition, but it is incomplete. Love that is worthy of the name must be a function of the will as well as of the emotions. There must be a feeling on the part of each which finds strong satisfaction in service rendered to the other. If the existence of this const.i.tuent of love could be more widely recognized and watched for, it would probably prevent many a sensible young man or woman from being stampeded into a marriage of pa.s.sion, where the real community of interest is slight;[99]
and s.e.xual selection would be improved in a way that would count immensely for the future of the race. Moreover, there would be much more real love in the world. Eugenics, as Havelock Ellis has well pointed out,[100] is not plotting against love but against those influences that do violence to love, particularly: (1) reckless yielding to mere momentary desire; and (2) still more fatal influences of wealth and position and worldly convenience which give a fact.i.tious value to persons who would never appear attractive partners in life were love and eugenic ideals left to go hand in hand.
”The eugenic ideal,” Dr. Ellis foresees, ”will have to struggle with the criminal and still more resolutely with the rich; it will have few serious quarrels with normal and well-const.i.tuted lovers.”
The point is an important one. To ”rationalize” marriage, is out of the question. Marriage must be mainly a matter of the emotions; but it is important that the emotions be exerted in the right direction. The eugenist seeks to remove the obstacles that are now driving the emotions into wrong channels. If the emotions can only be headed in the right direction, then the more emotions the better, for they are the source of energy which are responsible for almost everything that is done in the world.
There is in the world plenty of that love which is a matter of mutual service and of emotions unswayed by any petty or sordid influences; but it ought not only to be common, it ought to be universal. It is not likely to be in the present century; but at least, thinking people can consciously adopt an att.i.tude of respect toward love, and consciously abandon as far as possible the att.i.tude of jocular cynicism with which they too often treat it,--an att.i.tude which is reflected so disgustingly in current vaudeville and musical comedy.
It is the custom to smile at the extravagantly romantic idea of love which the boarding-school girl holds; but unrealizable as it may be, hers is a n.o.bler conception than that which the majority of adults voice. Very properly, one does not care to make one's deepest feelings public; but if such subjects as love and motherhood can not be discussed naturally and without affectation, they ought to be left alone. If intelligent men and women will set the example, this att.i.tude of mind will spread, and cultured families at least will rid themselves of such deplorable habits as that of plaguing children, not yet out of the nursery, about their ”sweethearts.”
No sane man would deny the desirability of beauty in a wife, particularly when it is remembered that beauty, especially as determined by good complexion, good teeth and medium weight, is correlated with good health in some degree, and likewise with intelligence.