Part 25 (1/2)
Figures were obtained from some other colleges, which are incomplete and should be taken with reservation. Their incompleteness probably led the number of children to be considerably underestimated. At Amherst, 1872-1879, it was found that 44 of the 440 graduates of the period remained unmarried. The average number of children per married man was 1.72. At Wesleyan it was found that 20 of the 208 graduates, from 1863 to 1870, remained single; the average number of children per married man was 2.31.
The only satisfactory study of the birth-rate of graduates of men's colleges is that recently made by John C. Phillips from the cla.s.s lists of Harvard and Yale, 1850-1890, summarized in the accompanying graph (Fig. 37). In discussing his findings, Dr. Phillips writes:
”Roughly, the number of children born per capita per married graduate has fallen from about 3.25 in the first decade to 2.50 in the last decade. The per cent of graduates marrying has remained about the same for forty years, and is a trifle higher for Yale; but the low figure, 68% for the first decade of Harvard, is probably due to faulty records, and must not be taken as significant.
”The next most interesting figure is the 'Children Surviving per Capita per Graduate.' This has fallen from over 2.50 to about 1.9. The per cent of childless marriages increased very markedly during the first two decades and held nearly level for the last two decades. For the last decade at Yale it has even dropped slightly, an encouraging sign. It is worthy of note that the number of children born to Yale graduates is almost constantly a trifle higher than that for Harvard, while the number of childless marriages is slightly less.” This is probably owing to the larger proportion of Harvard students living in a large city.
If the birth-rate of graduates both of separate men's colleges and of separate women's colleges is alarmingly low, that of graduates of coeducational inst.i.tutions is not always satisfactory, either. To some extent the low birth-rate is a characteristic of educated people, without regard to the precise nature of their education. In a study of the graduates of Syracuse University, one of the oldest coeducational colleges of the eastern United States, H. J. Banker found[123] that the number of children declined with each decade. Thus married women graduates prior to the Civil War had 2 surviving children each; in the last decade of the nineteenth century they had only one. For married men graduates, the number of surviving children had fallen in the same length of time from 2.62 to 1.38. When all graduates, married or not, are counted in the decade 1892-1901, it is found that the men of Syracuse have contributed to the next generation one surviving child each, the women only half a child apiece.
Dr. Cattell's investigation of the families of 1,000 contemporary American men of science all of which were probably not complete however, shows that they leave, on the average, less than two surviving children.
Only one family in 75 is larger than six, and 22% of them are childless.
Obviously, as far as those families are concerned, there will be fewer men of inherent scientific eminence in the next generation than in this.
The decline in the birth-rate is sometimes attributed to the fact that people as a whole are marrying later than they used to; we have already shown that this idea is, on the whole, false. The idea that people as a whole are marrying less than they used to is also, as we have shown, mistaken. The decline in the general birth-rate can be attributed to only one fact, and that is that married people are having fewer children.
The percentage of childless wives in the American stock is steadily increasing. Dr. Crum's figures show the following percentage of childless wives, in the New England genealogies with which he worked:
1750-1799 1.88 1800-1849 4.07 1850-1869 5.91 1870-1879 8.10
J. A. Hill[124] found, from the 1910 census figures, that one in eight of the native-born wives is childless, as compared with one in five among the Negroes, one in nineteen among the foreign born. Childlessness of American wives is therefore a considerable, although not a preponderant factor, in this decline of the birth rate.
Dr. Hill further found that from 10 marriages, in various stocks, the following numbers of children could be expected:
Native-born women 27 Negro-born women 31 English-born women 34 Russian-born women 54 French Canada-born women 56 Polish-born women 62
The women of the old American stock are on the whole more sterile or, if not sterile, less fecund, than other women in the United States. Why?
In answer, various physiological causes are often alleged. It is said that the dissemination of venereal diseases has caused an increase of sterility; that luxurious living lowers fecundity, and so on. It is impossible to take the time to a.n.a.lyze the many explanations of this sort which have been offered, and which are familiar to the reader; we must content ourselves with saying that evidence of a great many kinds, largely statistical and, in our opinion, reliable, indicates that physiological causes play a minor part in the decrease of the birth-rate.[125]
Or, plainly, women no longer bear as many children, because they don't want to.
This accords with Dr. Cattel's inquiry of 461 American men of science; in 285 cases it was stated that the family was voluntarily limited, the cause being given as health in 133 cases, expense in 98 cases, and various in 54 cases. Sidney Webb's investigation among ”intellectuals”
in London showed an even greater proportion of voluntary limitation. The exhaustive investigation of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics leaves little room for doubt that in England the decline in the birth-rate began about 1876-78, when the trial of Charles Bradlaugh and the Theosophist leader, Mrs. Annie Besant, on the charge of circulating ”neo-Malthusian” literature, focused public attention on the possibility of birth control, and gradually brought a knowledge of the means of contraception within reach of many. In the United States statistics are lacking, but medical men and others in a position to form opinions generally agree that the limitation of births has been steadily increasing for the last few decades; and with the propaganda at present going on, it is pretty sure to increase much more rapidly during the next decade or two.
Some instructive results can be drawn, in this connection, from a study of the families of Methodist clergymen in the United States.[126]
Although 98 out of every hundred of them marry, and they marry early, the birth-rate is not high. Its distribution is presented in the accompanying graph (Fig. 38). It is evident that they have tended to standardize the two-child family which is so much in evidence among college professors and educated cla.s.ses generally, all over the world.
The presence of a considerable number of large families raises the average number of surviving children of prominent Methodists to 3.12.
And in so explaining the cause of the declining birth-rate among native-born Americans, we have also found the princ.i.p.al reason for the _differential_ nature of the decline in the nation at large, which is the feature that alarms the eugenist. The more intelligent and well-to-do part of the population has been able to get and use the needed information, and limit its birth-rate; the poor and ignorant has been less able to do so, and their rate of increase has therefore been more natural in a large percentage of cases.
It is not surprising, therefore, that many eugenists should have advocated wider dissemination of the knowledge of means of limiting births, with the idea that if this practice were extended to the lower cla.s.ses, their birth-rate would decrease just the same as has that of the upper cla.s.ses, and the alarming differential rate would therefore be abolished.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FAMILIES OF PROMINENT METHODISTS
FIG. 38.--The heavy line shows the distribution of families of prominent Methodists (mostly clergymen) who married only once. Eleven percent had no surviving children and nearly half of the families consisted of two children or less. The dotted line shows the families of those who were twice married. It would naturally be expected that two women would bear considerably more children than one woman, but as an average fact it appears that a second wife means the addition of only half a child to the minister's family. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the birth-rate in these families is determined more by the desire of the parents (based on economic grounds) than on the natural fecundity of the women. In other words, the number of children is limited to the number whom the minister can afford to bring up on his inadequate salary.]
Against this it might be argued that the desired result will never be wholly attained, because the most effective means of birth control involve some expense, and because their effective use presupposes a certain amount of foresight and self-control which is not always found among the lower strata of society.
Despite certain dangers accompanying a widespread dissemination of the knowledge of how to limit births, it seems to be the opinion of most eugenists that if free access to such information be not permitted that at least such knowledge ought to be given in many families, where it would be to the advantage of society that fewer children be produced.
Such a step, of course, must be taken on the individual responsibility of a doctor, nurse or other social worker. A propaganda has arisen during recent years, in the United States, for the repeal of all laws which prohibit giving knowledge about and selling contraceptives.