292 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
day. For it would render people so much more conscious of the dissonance between the hopeless monotony of their toil and the lack of recreation, poorness of comfort, narrowness of prospects, under which they are even now suffering severely, notwithstanding the dulness of the great multitude.
3. The rise of intellectual qualities also involves, under given conditions, a danger of further decay of moral feeling, nay, of sympathetic affections generally. Town life already produces a race of cunning rascals. Temptations are very strong indeed, to outrun competitors by reckless astuteness and remorseless tricks. Intelligence promotes egotism and pleasure-seeking, very much in contradiction to the interests of the race.
4. A strong physique seems to be correlate with some portions of our moral nature, but not with all. Refinement of moral feeling and tact are more of an intellectual nature, and again combine more easily with a weak frame and less bodily power.
5. I indorse what Mr. Galton shows, that marriage selection is very largely conditioned by motives based on religious and social connection ; and I accept, as a grand principle, the conclusion that the same class of motives may, in time to come, direct mankind to disfavor unsuitable marriages, so as to make at least some kinds of them impossible or highly improbable ; and this would mean an enormous benefit to all concerned, and to the race in general. But I very much doubt if a sufficient unanimity may be produced upon the question : Which mar- riages are unsuitable?
6. Of course, this unanimity may be promoted by a sufficient study of the effects of heredity. This is the proper and most prominent task of eugenics, as Mr. Galton luminously points out by his six topics to be taken in hand under the Research Fellowship. Highly though I appreciate the importance of this kind of investigations, to which my own attention has been directed at a very early date, I am apt to believe, however, that the practical outcome of them will not be con- siderable. Our present knowledge, scanty and incoherent as it is, still suffices already to make certain marriages, which are especially favored by social conven- tion, by religion, and by custom, appear to sober-thinking men highly unsuitable. Science is not likely to gain an influence equivalent to, or even outweighing, those influences that further or restrain particular classes of marriage. On the other hand, the voice of reason, notably with respect to hygienic as well as moral con- siderations, is often represented by parents in contradiction to inclinations or even passions of their offspring (especially daughters), and the prevailing individualistic tendencies of the present age, greatly in favor of individual choice and of the natural right of love, mostly, or at least very often, dumb that voice of reason and render it more and more powerless. Eugenics has to contend against the two fronts : against the mariage de convenance on the one side, and the mariage de passion on the other.
7. But this applies chiefly to the upper strata of society, where a certain influence of scientific results may be presumed on principle with greater likelihood than among the multitude. Mr. Galton wishes the national importance of eugenics to be introduced into the national conscience like a new religion. I do not believe that this will be possible, unless the conditions of everyday existence were entirely revolutionized beforehand. The function of religion has always been to give immediate relief to pressing discomforts, and to connect it with hopeful prospects of an individual life to come. The life of the race is a subject entirely foreign to popular feelings, and will continue to be so, unless the mass should be exempt from daily toil and care, to a degree which we are unable to realize at present.
8. However, the first and main point is to secure the general intellectual acceptance of eugenics as a hopeful and most important study. I willingly and respectfully give my fullest sympathy and approval to this claim.
I have tried to express my sentiments here as evoked by the two most inter- esting papers. I have been obliged to do so in great haste, and consequently, as I am aware, in very bad English, for which I must apologize.
