Part 14 (1/2)
=Eugenics.=--When Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin and one of the first to apply to human beings the ideas of ”selection for better breeds,” published in 1873 his article on ”Hereditary Improvement,” he used the word ”Stirpiculture” as indicating the application of evolution to the method of improving mankind by the selection of the superior in the process of reproduction. He later changed the designation to ”Eugenics,” which is now held as the term best applying in this connection. In 1891 Dr. Lester Ward himself said, ”Artificial selection has given to man the most that he enjoys in the organic products of earth. May not men and women be selected as well as sheep and horses? From the great stirp of humanity with all its multiplied ancestral plasms--some very poor, some mediocre, some merely indifferent, a goodly number ranging from middling to fair, only a comparatively few very good, with an occasional crystal of the first water--why may we not learn to select on some broad and comprehensive plan with a view to a general building up and rounding out of the race of human beings?” So keen an observer and philosophic thinker as Doctor Ward, however, could not long accept the first allurement of this idea. He soon began to show with his convincing power that ”the control of heredity is possible only to a master creature. Man is the master creature of the animal world. Society is the master of its defectives. But normal people are their own masters. Any attempt on the part of society to control the choice of partners in the marital relation would be tyranny.” Recognizing the need for ”negative eugenics” fully, and declaring in its name that ”mental and physical defectives of society should be kept from perpetuating their defects through propagation,” he insisted that ”eugenists must recognize and admit the enormous force of personal preference” in marriage.
Doctor Ward gives a figure--as above--which might be used to indicate the conclusions of Galton, in his _Hereditary Genius_, and of Ribot and others. Doctor Galton himself gave in his volume on the _Social Order_ a chart somewhat more discriminating. In any case, however, the eugenists must depend upon the ma.s.s of the mediocre for a supply of geniuses and those of exceptional talent and depend upon the process of reproduction for securing that supply. Doctor Ward, on the contrary, looks to education, controlled and improved environment, and the stimulus for all people to be gained from more scientific knowledge more widely distributed. In his famous article, ent.i.tled ”Eugenics, Euthenics, and Eudemics,”[12] Doctor Ward says that ”eugenists tend to emphasize unduly the intellectual qualities” and ”manifest more or less contempt for the affective faculties.”
”Nature,” he thinks, ”is far wiser and seeks to prevent all extremes.”
He also reminds us that ”much that is called genius is pathologic and linked to the abnormal and the insane.” Perhaps few would agree with Doctor Ward that ”genius is scattered somewhat uniformly through the whole ma.s.s of the population and needs only favoring circ.u.mstances to bring it to conscious expression.” But that thought challenges attention. He would improve mankind, first, by getting rid of error through the full use of demonstrated scientific knowledge and, second, by a ”nurture” in accord with the laws of progress.
=Euthenics and Eudemics.=--The pioneer treatment of ”Euthenics,” or ”The Science of Controllable Environment,” with its ”Plea for Better Living Conditions as a First Step Toward Higher Human Efficiency,”
was given by Ellen H. Richards in 1910. Doctor Ward, in alluding to this, reminds us that ”there is a tendency for the avenues of progress to become choked and normal upward movements checked” and that ”we must at all times take vigorous action and in the direction of the betterment of the human race.” In respect to ”Eudemics,” or the doctrine of the welfare of the ma.s.ses of the people-at-large, Doctor Ward uses the term first suggested to Doctor Dealey, of Brown University, by Doctor Koopman, Librarian of that University, with approval, and gives it a meaning of the greatest social helpfulness.
In his view it is not a misfortune that society is being to so great an extent recruited from the so-called ”lower cla.s.ses.” If there are signs of decadence anywhere, he thinks, they are not in the ”proletariat;” they are among the ”pampered rich,” not the ”hampered poor.”
=New Types of Genius.=--Again, his plea is for universal education in real knowledge and true inference from facts of life and a universal sharing of the really best things to secure a just quota of genius and talent from all cla.s.ses. It seems clear that we are not obliged to limit our hopes for ”flowers of the family” to the few at the top of the social pyramid. For the testimony of history agrees rather with Doctor Ward than with the extreme eugenists, and we have often had arising from the common life splendid examples of human capacity and achievement. When the eugenists list their double columns of those whom humanity takes pride in and those of whom humanity is ashamed it is most often from the degenerative or defective members of society that the second list is taken. From the great common life of average condition, neither too rich nor too poor, too cultured nor too ignorant, for ”human nature's daily food,” one rises now and then to leave a mark high up on the list of great ones of the earth. Hence, humble fathers and mothers can build magnificent hopes on the newborn baby of their love. It is to be considered also that there is difference of opinion as to what const.i.tutes genius and what may be called exceptional talent. One sociologist thinks that there are but three really important cla.s.ses of men, namely, ”Mechanical Inventors, Scientific Discoverers, and Philosophic Thinkers.” Another type of judgment may consider that genius shows itself almost exclusively in those creative minds that give us great music, great pictures, great sculptures, great temples, and great books of poetry, drama, and the novel. Another type of mind, now growing fast among us in this machine-dominated industrial era, may find genius the most appropriate name for the master engineer or business-builder who rules a wide realm of successfully administered economic order. There is, also, although it is not often bold enough to claim loud voice, a small section of those who look for supreme excellence in religious or ethical attainment, a line of genius in mastery of the Way of Life.
Certainly serviceable goodness, that which does big things for others'
safety or help, may be given some place among the specially talented.
For example, the little French girl of nine years of age who, bereft of her mother by the accidents of war, has brought up almost unaided five little brothers and sisters, the youngest only seven months old when her task began, and for two years, it is said, washed, cooked, and dressed her charges, and ”saw to it that those old enough went to school where she went herself and took prizes for her scholars.h.i.+p,”
might well be called one of the ”unusual.” The prize of 500 francs awarded this ”little mother” after two years of such able family engineering and personal care of those dependent upon her shows that some people at least rank those with ability to do social services and the high purpose to achieve the best possible for others' welfare as having a place In the company of the specially talented.
In an inconspicuous book called _The New Party_, edited by Andrew Reid and containing selections from many ”labor” leaders, these words occur: ”We have had politics for politics' sake, religion for religion's sake, science for science's sake, literature for literature's sake, art for art's sake: we want politics for justice, religion for right, science for happiness, literature for love of humanity, and art for the social pleasure of all.” Those who can thus translate the separate achievements of mankind which taken at the top have won the t.i.tle of works of genius are beginning to be seen above the human horizon as among the great of earth.
It is still, however, as of old, the man or woman who has a special gift of voice or pen or brush or sculptor's tool or command of instrument or ability to compose music or to write literature fit to live forever, or build temples that command wonder and admiration, or who in some form of creative activity makes his mark upon history, who is most often spoken of as a genius. It is now only a little while since we began to add to this list the scientific, the commercial and the political genius. The military genius has held a place for ages, but his specialty is losing standing as a social a.s.set, and we can foresee a time when he must learn constructive rather than destructive methods of action in order to qualify for the ”Hall of Fame.”[13]
=Only Men in Lists of Geniuses.=--Genius along any line has for its topmost reaches the names of men only. Few women have even attained the secondary place of the talented. When we remember that higher education for women is a child of less than a hundred years' growth, and that all the higher walks of achievement in the intellectual, the political, the scientific, and the industrial field have been masculine monopolies in custom and even in law for ages after men had opportunity of specialized development and work, this is not a sure proof of the intellectual and vocational inferiority of women. Until women have had several centuries of equal education and freedom of activity with men no one can tell what they can do in any special line. It is therefore idle at this date for any one to argue either for or against the possibilities of a more balanced list of the s.e.xes in those at the top of human achievement.
What we are now beginning to be sure of is that all talent is precious, all special power a social a.s.set, all leaders.h.i.+p to be conserved, and all real genius a priceless treasure--hence, that all children who are gifted, whether boys or girls, shall be developed to the height of social power. This means that although every gifted child is born in a private family, society must see to it that its chance for right nurture and fitting education is not limited to the resources of any private family, especially to those of the poorer in economic power.
Galton estimates two hundred and fifty in a million as in the ”distinguished cla.s.s,” If, as Doctor Ward and others think, many more might be able to qualify for that position if favorably situated, then society, which is the loser by every undeveloped person, must learn to know the possibilities of children as indicated by scientific study and lessen the present waste of potential talent. Dr. Carl Kelsey says ”Heredity determines what a man may become, but environment determines what he does become.” This is not entirely true, perhaps, since many n.o.ble and wise have risen from untoward surroundings, but it is largely true.
=Social Need to Learn What Children Are.=--If society is to really set about the business of getting from the ma.s.s of mankind all the intellectual and moral power and all the real leaders.h.i.+p that may be available for social uses, then surely we must learn first to know more about all the children in every family. How can this be done? In many cases children are slow in development and may have powers quite unsuspected until the time for most skilful cultivation has pa.s.sed. In many cases parents are so partial that ”all their geese are swans.” In other cases the nervous excitability may be such that precocity leads to overstimulation and later there is arrest of development, and the promising bud does not develop into the flower of the family. In any case, the parents alone can not, as a rule, attain full comparison and due balance of judgment even between their own children and certainly not as between their own and the children of other parents.
=”Charting Parents.”=--There is, to be sure, a new plan of ”Charting Parents” to find out what they are able to do and what they are actually doing in the moral training and physical care of their children. ”The Parents' Score Card,” prepared by Dr. Caroline Hedger, of the Elizabeth McCormick Memorial Fund, and published in the _Woman's Home Companion_ of March, 1922, aims to enable fathers and mothers ”to size themselves up as parents.” The points to be noted and on which parents have a rating as good, bad, or indifferent, comprise those concerning ”physical defects attended to,” ”adequate supervision of athletics and recreation,” ”regulations concerning the below-weight or nervous child,” on ”team-work in parents” (whether they pull together or apart in the discipline of the child), and some very drastic examination points on ”fault-finding,” ”lying to child,”
”punis.h.i.+ng when angry.” The chart deals, in general, with the character influence of the parent. It is said that only one child in three hundred had a perfect ”score card” in an investigation of a large number of children, and hence only a small proportion of parents could be supposed to measure up to all the requirements of the parent's outline of duties.
This new device of putting parents to the test is being adopted in many differing ways by health boards, by school boards, by children's courts, by church committees of investigation, and by the superintendents of charitable agencies. This all means that a standard of child-life is being attained, a measure of the normal, divergence from which is an indication of the abnormal, either in capacity or condition. This is a wholesome movement, although sometimes carried out in unwise and unsympathetic ways. This should enable parents to find out if they have average children and what to do with defects that are remediable. This is also one of the ways by which we measure the social need to help parents who are themselves handicapped in any way to do their duty by their children.
What we need, however, is more than this--we need some definite knowledge of what sort of children we have in one generation with which to build the next generation. We need to be able to take account of our social stock as we go along. To do this the home must be supplemented specifically and adequately by the school. In the school we have opportunity of wide study of varying types, of comparison of differing rates of progress, of getting at actual knowledge of actual quality and capacity in a child as related to the like in other children. This investigative function of the school has been used for the most part to ascertain what children were defective. This is useful. We need, also, to use it with far more ingenuity to ascertain what children are most promising and most likely to dower the race with special gifts.
=New Observation Records for Children.=--A very important ”Observation Record for the Selection of Gifted Children in the Elementary Schools”
has been drawn up by Julie A. Badanes, which has been published with an introduction by Dr. Saul Badanes. In this introduction it is well said that ”the idea of establis.h.i.+ng a norm for every school year” is a new one. The measurement of intelligence by Binet dates only back to 1905. In the treatment of the ”Intelligence of Pupils,” Meumann declares ”that the problem of measuring the intelligence of school children is the basic problem in education.” Recently William Stern has dealt at length with ”The Selection of Gifted Children in Public Schools” and with related elements of investigation of the intelligence of children. William H. Allen, in his book, _Universal Training for American Citizens.h.i.+p_, has, as Doctor Badanes notes, given a chapter to the ”Training of the Specially Gifted.” We are all concerned with growing earnestness in the problem of getting in democracy the leaders.h.i.+p which all social organization requires. It is, therefore, of the most intense interest to all thoughtful people how the flower of the family is nurtured and in what manner it is made to bloom.
This ”Psychological-pedagogical Observation Record,” which has been devised as an aid in finding out if a child is specially gifted, and if so in what way its gifts should be developed and how it should find its way to achievement, is very suggestive. Any parent might well study its itemized outlines for help in effort to understand the child that is unlike the average. The ”Record” requires attention to the ”general condition of the senses and nerves,” to ”memory and power of learning,” to qualities of ”imagination,” to strength and expression of ”emotions,” to facility in ”language,” to ”manner of work,” to ”relation to home and community life,” and in respect to ”adaptation to new demands.” These things are vital not only to know about and understand as respects one personality but to compare on the same basis a number of personalities in order to get a ranking that is just and useful for guidance in education. Suppose a father and mother feel sure that a child of theirs is one of the exceptional, the gifted, perhaps of great talent, even possibly a genius in the making. They may get much help in arriving at sober judgment by many books and treatises now available. But far clearer would be their own approach to the matter in hand if they could study some such chart as is here alluded to and get a clear direction as to what to look for and how to measure what they find. If such parents, however, would be really a.s.sured in their first appreciation of their child they need the cooperative observation and fuller opportunity of comparison which a teacher of a school, who is herself or himself a good psychologist, can place at their service. All of us can see our own children at their best; few can justly estimate what the power of that best may be in a compet.i.tive world.
=What to Do with the Specially Gifted Child.=--The child may be one of the few elected to leaders.h.i.+p in some field. All who watch and study and understand may agree that it is the gift of its birthright. Then what is there to do? The question often arises, Shall the other children in the family be given less opportunity in order that this gifted one may have the larger chance which genius and great talent really demand for fulfilment of promise? There was no doubt of the answer to this question in the minds of those who believed that a special gift carried with it special privilege provided the special gift discovered were of a sort understood by all. For many generations a boy feeling a ”call” to the ministry of religion as rabbi, priest, or preacher would be sure to have, if necessary, all the resources of his family at his command and all possible aid of friends even at the sacrifice of the elementary education of his brothers and sisters. In the same way in a more limited circle the child who could do any creative work of imagination in art would be considered ent.i.tled to any self-sacrificing devotion of other members of the family which might be needed to carry forward his work. In a larger way many have looked upon all higher education as solely for those who have shown a power of potential leaders.h.i.+p. Not long ago the old saying was revived: ”Colleges are for the exceptional individuals who may become the world's intellectual elite.” On the other hand, the growth of State Universities and of many forms of adult education, and the offering of college courses in the evening to those employed in earning-work during the day, show that the opportunities of culture are more and more made free to all and that the conviction is growing that it is not alone leaders who should be educated but that the common life must be raised in mental and moral power in order for true leaders.h.i.+p to work effectively for the advance of social well-being.
In the family the genius or near-genius is likely to get all that should be its privilege and often more. And this not only from pride in his talent and from desire to give that talent its proper chance of expression but because genius and near-genius have often a self-protecting and self-acquiring quality that make sure of much unselfish care from others. If, as has been said, ”The genius is composed of a man, a woman, and a child,” and there is much in life to give color to that idea, then it is easy to see why the flower of the family so often gets the larger share of every family advantage and when the family resource fails is sure to find friends and helpers on every side to help on his development. This is not unjust provided the talented member can serve well in this specialty. The great trouble is that many think themselves geniuses and find others, in youth at least, to confirm their judgment of themselves, who are only a trifle above the commonplace. This leads too often to selfish claims upon others that tire even the family affection. It would be well on this account, if no other, if every child could be wisely and adequately diagnosed in respect to mental power so that fewer mistakes would be made in confounding greatness with showiness or creative power with mere discriminating taste.
If the family really cuts off the education and vocational opportunities of the less gifted below the point required for average success in life, in order to give greater advantages to the gifted one, it is an injustice. The mediocre have their innings now, and it is one of the great demands of democracy, both within and without the family, that the commonplace shall not miss its chance for learning how to serve and enjoy the best it can. The family life must be for all, the one place in which no life is wholly sacrificed to another life.