WHAT IS EUGENICS?

By C. P. BLACKER
oadcast afer tansltion into Spanish to the Latin American cotrie on March l9th/20th, 1947, and
published by kind permision of the B.B.C.

when picking out the best specimens of his

class. It would include health, energy,
ability, manliness and courteous disposition." . . . "Let us for a moment suppose," wrote Galton again, " that the practice
of Eugenics should hereafter raise the average
quality of our nation to that of its better
moiety at the present day and consider the
gain. The general tone of domestic, social
and political life would be higher. The race
as a whole would be less foolish, frivolous,
less excitable and politically more provident
than now. Its demagogues who " played to
the gallery" would play to a more sensible
gallery than at present. . . . Men of an
order of ability which is now very rare,
would become more frequent, because the
level out of which they rose would itself
have risen."
These words of Galton are as true to-day
as when they were written, despite the many
changes we have witnessed since his death.
Galton thought of eugenics as having three
aspects-as science, as a component of,
religion, and as social practice. These three
aspects, at first sight incompatible, are
harmonized if we think of them as Sherrington analyzed the simple reflex and as
McDougall, following Sherrington, described
the simple instinct. The simple reflex has
an afferent, a central and an efferrent
component; and we may regard the simple
instinct as having cognitive, affective or
central, and conative elements corresponding
to those of the simple reflex. A similar
classification can be made of sociology.
Social science investigates and measures,
thus corresponding to the afferent component
of the reflex and the cognitive phase of the
instinct; social action leading to change
corresponds to the efferent component of the
reflex and the conative phase of the instinct.
What in the sphere of sociology corresponds
to the central component of the reflex and

W HAT is Eugenics ?
Eugenics was described by Sir
Francis Galton, the founder of the
subject and the inventor of the word,
as " the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities
of a race; also with those that develop them
to the utmost advantage."
Galton, a half first-cousin of Charles
Darwin, was born in i822 and died, aged 89,
in I9II. He lived through a prosperous and
expanding epoch of European history, and
died shortly before that continent's " Time
of Troubles " began. His writings and views
reflected his period.
The Evolution theory, as formulated by
Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species
(published in i859 when Galton was thirtyseven), profoundly influenced the development of his mind. Man, together with all
other living things, he saw to be the product
of natural laws. But Man was not doomed
to be their victim; he might- apply his
unique heritage to making himself their
master. " Nature, red in tooth and claw,"
need not be imitated by men in their
dealings with one another; it might be

superseded.
Let us for a moment consider what Galton
taught. " Man," he wrote at the end of his
long life, " is gifted with pity and other
kindly feelings; he has the power of preventing many kinds of suffering. I conceive
it to fall well within his province to replace
Natural Selection by other processes that
are more merciful and not less effective.
This is precisely the aim of Eugenics."
" The aim of eugenics," he wrote in another
context, " is to represent each class or sect
by its best specimens; that done to leave
them to work out their common civilization
in their own way. . . . A considerable list
of qualities can be easily compiled that
nearly everyone would take into account
56

WHAT IS EUGENICS ?
to the affective phase of the instinct ? The
answer, clearly, is the movement of public
opinion which, if sound, must on the one
hand be guided by knowledge,-and on the
other must demand and support such social
changes as are to be permanent. Now the
bearing of public opinion on the processes
of birth, marriage and death is closely interwoven with religion, which consecrates these
events with solemn rite and ceremony.
Hence Galton felt that eugenics, concerned
as it is with marriage and birth, should form
part of religion. Men revere their ancestors
with religious fervour; why should not
similar feelings, once our powers and responsibilities are understood, extend to
posterity whose number and quality we can
-determine ?
Since Galton's death in I9II, many
things have happened which would have
influenced his views. Europe has been convulsed by two major wars; the principles of
eugenics have been distorted to serve cruel
racial doctrines which would have been
abhorrent to Galton; and many countries
of the world are swarming with vast populations while others have suffered declines in
their birth-rates which threaten them with
slow depopulation.
Eugenics is concerned with the qualities
of human beings rather than with their
numbers; values therefore enter its province
as well as facts and science. What are the
values which should guide the eugenist ?
Galton suggested health, ability, energy,
manliness and a courteous disposition. But
only one of these qualities can be accurately
measured-ability or intelligence. Health,
energy, courage, courtesy, honesty, kindness,
loyalty, integrity, philoprogenitiveness can
be assessed, sometimes with some accuracy;
but they cannot be measured, and, like
intelligence, expressed as a quotient.
Is there, then a simple social index of the
joint occurrence of eugenically valuable
traits which would make them easily recognizable to us ? I believe there is. The
essentially valuable qualities which we would
like to see prevailing among our country's
future citizens have, as their confluent and
resultant expression, the couple who, in a

57

community which provides good prospects

for the future welfare of children, which
encourages family life and inculcates a
sense of its responsibilities, produces by
intention and design three or more children
and rears them in a happy and healthy
home. Let us for a moment consider the
qualities necessary for this achievement.
To plan the births of a well-spaced family
demands intelligence, foresight and restraint. To produce by design enough or
more than enough children for replacement,
implies a love of children, a sense of duty
towards the community and an optimistic
or positive attitude to life. To provide a
good home calls for the power to make a
success of marriage and of life outside the
home. All these are valuable qualities, and
the emphasis is on the moral ones. But the
choice here freely exercised of bringing into
the world a large family should be made in
the full light of medical and genetic circumstances. When these are seriously adverse,
children will not be wanted by morally
responsible parents; and when the desired
qualities are seriously lacking, the birth of
children should be discouraged by precept
and public opinion but never by compulsion.
The standard above suggested places a
high value upon the love of children-upon
what Dr. Spencer Paterson of Scotland calls
genophilia-as a factor in the improvement
of the race. Over wide spaces of the world
man is now consciously regulating his own
multiplication: his parental instincts are
thus being dissociated from their sexual precursors which no longer solely determine the
course of his reproduction, as they mostly
did among his ancestors. If a couple do not
want children, it is now possible for them to
satisfy their sexual inclinations without
biological sequel. A new emphasis is thus
laid upon the parental or genophilic instincts as determinants of reproduction.
But the fonder they are of children, the less
will responsible parents want to bring them
into the world if, through genetic or economic
handicaps, they are confronted with thwarted
and stunted lives. Hence all social reforms
such as will benefit the family and improve
the prospects of children are likely to have

58

THE EUGENICS REVIEW

valuable eugenic effects. I am not here

arguing that acquired characteristics are
inherited. I am saying that social changes
that benefit the family will facilitate and
encourage parenthood among just those
couples whom we would wish to contribute
a maximum share to the next generation.
There is a natural confluence of goods
from actions which are themselves good.
The eugenic good which will follow from
encouraging innate genophilic impulses links
with the good nurture enjoyed by the
wanted and welcomed child. Or to put the
argument the other way round, we can say
that Lord Beveridge's five " giants " of
Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, Idleness and
Want, sterilize parenthood among just those
elements of the population which are
eugenically best fitted to be parents; and
that they promote it among those which
are least fitted. We can also say that the
unwanted child reared in a home where the
five " giants " -hold sway too often grows up
with its finest possibilities thwarted. The
child favoured by " Nurture " may well have
been first smiled upon by " Nature."
Essential features, then, of a community
wherein eugenic values prevail are that the
family be valued, that the economic handicaps of parenthood be minimized, that the
mother be honoured, and that social justice
prevail. But there is another feature.
Parents should have the knowledge and the
power of regulating the births of their

children; and they should know when

genetic factors are adverse. . They should
have enlightenment-another" good." Here
we meet a~difficulty. Certain means of
regulating births are condemned by religion.
But it is no part of eugenics to prescribe
such means. If there is agreement, as I
believe there is, between all Christian religions about Ends, it is for each to determine those Means which accord with its
teachings.
According to the view here suggested, the
conflict disappears between the eugenist and
the social reformer, between those who seek
to improve human nature and human
nurture. The principles of eugenics become
all the more acceptable. This standpoint
was somewhat overlooked in the past but
is gaining ground in England to-day.
I will end as I began with Galton. He
was nurtured in the Evolution theory and
gave much thought to the principle of
Natural Selection. In an equitable environment which favoured parenthood and liberated the family from economic impediments,
he would have discerned a favourable
instrument of selection. But unlike the
agencies of Nature, the instrument would
here be man-made. It would favour the
perpetuation of those qualities which we
value not only in individuals but also in
races and in nations, and which we would
like to see prevail among our country's
future citizens.

MARRIAGE

HYGIENE - QUARTERLY

(SfECOE)

The International Journal of Sex and Sex Problems

CHIEF EDITORIAL AND PUBLISHING OFFICEWHITEAWAY BUILDING, BOMBAY 1, INDIA.
London Agents: H. K. Lewis & Co. Ltd., 136 Gower Street, W.C.I.

AUGUST
CCONTENTS
Frigidity in the Female-Facts and Misconceptions
Huhner Test in the Investigation of Sterility
The Martyrdom of Man in Sex
Premarital Sex Relations of Adolescents Sanctioned in Tribal India
Modern Insight Into Incest
Lives of Great Men (Series)-Havelock Ellis

1947
EDMUND BERGLER
MAX HUHNER
ANTHONY M. LuDovIcI
VERRIER ELWIN
MARC LANVAL
NORMAN HAIRE

Notes and Comments-World News-Book Reviews-Abstracts, current and from First Series of Marriage Hygiene.
Subscription: 2h. a year.
Owing to severe paper restrictions, a limited number of copies are printed. Subscriptions must therefore be booked well in advance.

Eugenis Reviews VOL mX , No. 2