[Footnote A: NOTE: Weiniger thought he could pick, merely by observing physical type, people who would be sexually attracted to each other. There is much ground for scepticism about this. To begin with, the biological experiments indicate that intersexes are peculiarly likely to appear where two or more races are mixed. So far, there is no exact knowledge about the amount or kind of sex difference in each race. As Bateson remarks (Biol. Fact & the Struct. of Society, p.13), one unversed in the breeds even of poultry would experience great difficulty and make many mistakes in sorting a miscellaneous group of cocks and hens into pairs according to breed. If this is true in dealing with pure breeds, "in man, as individuals pure-bred in any respect are very rare, the operation would be far more difficult." In the human species sexual attraction also obviously depends upon many factors which are not purely biological; it is rather a complicated sentiment than an instinct.]

George's statement that "there are no men and ... no women; there are only sexual majorities"[p.61, op. cit.] has been widely quoted. The feminists, he adds, "base themselves on Weininger's theory, according to which the male principle may be found in woman, and the female principle in man." Unfortunately, George does not make clear what he means by "principle," so his theory, if he has one, is impossible to appraise in biological terms. From the embryonic idea expressed above, he deduces a very positive social philosophy of sex. The feminists, he says, "recognize no masculine or feminine 'spheres' and ... propose to identify absolutely the conditions of the sexes." So, while George seems to think much more highly of women than does Weininger, their philosophies come together, for quite different reasons, on the practical procedure of disregarding reproduction and letting the race go hang[10, p.345]. Weininger seems to recognize the dual basis for sex; George evidently does not quite follow him. Both entirely misconceived the real issues involved, as well as the kind of evidence required to settle them, as we shall see later in discussing adaptation and specialization.

Dr Blair Bell[14,15] has collected a mass of evidence on intersexes in the human species. This includes his own surgical and other cases, as well as many treated by his colleagues, and a very considerable review of the medical literature. He not only believes in degrees of femininity in women, but has worked out classifications which he claims to have found of great practical value in surgery.[14, pp.166-7] As noted above, Riddle discovered that his more feminine female pigeons were often killed by a dose of testicular extract which was practically harmless to a partially masculinized female. Sex in the human species being a matter of all the glands organized into a complex, the quantitative "strength" of that complex would be useful to know before removing any one secretion from it. Dr Bell states that the ooephorectomy operation (removal of ovaries) may be performed upon a masculine type of woman with "little disturbance of the metabolism..." But he thinks that the degree of masculinity should always be carefully observed before undertaking such operations, which in some cases have most undesirable effects.

At one end of the scale, this surgeon places the typically feminine woman in all her characteristics—with well-formed breasts, menstruating freely and feminine in instincts—he says "mind." The intermediate grades consist, he says, of women whose metabolism leans toward the masculine type. Some have sexual desires but no maternal impulse. Others desire maternity but take no interest in sex activity, or positively shun it. The physical manifestations of masculine glandular activity take the form of pitch of voice, skin texture, shape and weight of bones, etc. Some of the inter-grades are a little hard to define—the human species is such an inextricable mixture of races, etc.; but Dr Bell does not hesitate to describe the characteristically masculine woman of the extreme type, who "shuns both sexual relations and maternity...(She) is on the fringe of femininity. These women are usually flat-breasted and plain. Even though they menstruate, their metabolism is often for the most part masculine in character: indications of this are seen in the bones which are heavy, in the skin which is coarse, and in the aggressive character of the mind...If a woman have well-developed genitalia, and secondary characteristics, she usually is normal in her instincts. A feebly menstruating woman with flat breasts and coarse skin cannot be expected to have strong reproductive instincts, since she is largely masculine in type..."

The glandular and quantitative explanation of sex, instead of being abstruse and complicated, brings the subject in line with the known facts about inheritance generally. The dual basis for femaleness and maleness in each individual simply means that both factors are present, but that only one expresses itself fully. The presence of such a dual basis is proved by the fact that in castration and transplantation experiments both are exhibited by the same individual in a single lifetime. In the case of the Free-Martin cattle, even the female sex-glands are modified toward the male type to such an extent that they were long mistaken for testes. The same applies to some glands found in human "hermaphrodites," as Dr Bell's plates show.

The peculiar complication of the chemical complex determining sex in these mammalian forms, involving all the glands and hence the entire body, makes it problematical whether a complete (functional) reversal is possible, at least after any development whatever of the embryo has taken place. On the other hand, the fact that such complete transformations have not so far been observed by no means proves their non-existence. Their being functional, and hence to all external appearances normal, would cause such animals to escape observation.

Latent traits of the opposite sex of course immediately suggest recessive or unexpressed characters in the well-known Mendelian inheritance phenomena. In the bird-castration cases, we saw that to remove the inhibiting sex glands caused previously latent characters to act like dominant or expressed ones. The case of horns in sheep, investigated by Professor Wood[16], is so similar that it seems worth summarizing, by way of illustration.

Both sexes in Dorset sheep have well-developed horns; in the Suffolk breed both sexes are hornless. If the breeds are crossed, all the rams in the first (hybrid) generation have horns and all the ewes are hornless. If these hybrids are mated, the resulting male offspring averages three horned to one hornless; but the females are the reverse of this ratio—one horned to three hornless. This is an example of Mendel's principle of segregation—factors may be mixed in breeding, but they do not lose their identity, and hence tend to be sorted out or segregated again in succeeding generations.

In the horned Dorsets, we must suppose that both males and females carry a dual factor for horns—technically, are homozygous for horns. The hornless Suffolks, on the contrary, are homozygous for absence of horns. Thus the dual factor in the zygotes or fertilized eggs at the basis of the first filial (hybrid) generation consists of a single factor for horns and a single factor for their absence. If we represent horns by H and absence of horns by A, Dorsets have a factor HH, Suffolks AA and the hybrids HA.

All the males in this generation have horns, which means that a single "dose" of the factor H will produce horns in a male, or that they are dominant in males. But a single dose will not produce horns in a female—that is, horns are recessive in females—the factor is present but unexpressed.

Mating two HA hybrids, the H and A of course split apart in the formation of the gametes, as the HH and AA did in the previous generation; so that we get an equal number of single H and A factors. In reuniting in fertilized eggs, the chance is just half and half that an H will unite with another H or with an A—that an A will unite with an H or another A. Thus we have two chances of getting HA to each chance of getting either AA or HH. Half the zygotes will be HA, one-fourth HH and one-fourth AA.

If we consider four average males, one will have two A's (absence of the factor for horns) and will thus be hornless. One will have two H's, or the double factor for horns, and hence will exhibit horns—as will also the two HA's since a single dose of horns expresses them in a male. So we have the three-to-one Mendelian ratio.

But four females with exactly the same factors will express them as follows: The one HH (double factor for horns) proves sufficient to express horns, even in a female. The AA, lacking the factor entirely, cannot have horns. Nor will the two HA females have horns, a single dose being insufficient to express them in a female. Again we get our three-to-one Mendelian ratio, but this time it is three hornless to one horned.

Especially Goldschmidt's carefully graded experiments point to a similar difference in the strength of the dose or doses of the sex factors. Instead of the two doses of horns required to express them in the presence of the female secretory balance in Professor Wood's sheep, Goldschmidt found it took six doses of maleness to completely express it on a female basis in his moths. But even with three doses, the female was incapable of reproduction. A single dose in excess of the ordinary combination to produce normal females modified the type of body, also reducing the number of eggs.

In the case of the horns, only two types were possible, absence or presence of the character. Likewise there are only two types of primary sex, i.e., of sex glands proper. But seven different types or grades of body for each sex were found to exhibit themselves in the moths. In more complicated bodies, we should of course expect many more, and where many races (instead of two) are mixed, as in man, a classification merely on the basis of physical characteristics would be much more complicated. Indeed, we may well be sceptical as to the possibilities of cataloguing differences of the sort between men and women by body type alone.

In society, however, we are much more interested in the mental than the purely physical qualities of the two types of bodies, especially since the use of machines has so largely replaced brute strength with skill. Most employments do not even require a muscular skill beyond that possessed by ordinary individuals of both sexes.

Even this ignores the primary consideration in the sex problem in society, the first of the following two parts into which the whole problem may be divided: (1) How to guarantee the survival of the group through reproduction of a sufficient number of capable individuals; and (2) How to make the most economical use of the remaining energies, first in winning nutrition and protection from the environment, second in pursuing the distinctly human values over and above survival. The sex problem as a whole is concerned with adjusting two different general types of individuals, male and female, to the complicated business of such group life or society. The differences between these two sex-types being fundamentally functional, the best way to get at them is to trace the respective and unlike life cycles.

We have already shown in rude outline how a difference (apparently chemical) between two fertilized eggs starts them along two different lines of development in the embryonic stage. One develops the characteristic male primary and secondary sex characters, the other the female. Throughout the embryonic or intra-maternal stage this differentiation goes on, becoming more and more fixed as it expresses itself in physical structures. Childhood is only a continuation of this development—physically separate from the mother after the period of lactation. Until puberty, when sex ceases to be merely potential and becomes functional (about 12-14 in girls and 14-16 boys), the differences in metabolism are not very marked. Neither are they in old age, after sex has ceased to be functional. It is during the period when sex is functional (about 35 years in women and considerably longer in men) that the gross physiological differences manifest themselves.

Before puberty in both sexes, calcium or lime salts are retained in the tissues and go to build up the bony skeleton. (A mere sketch of calcium metabolism is all that can be given here—for details consult such works as 15 and 17 in bibliography; summary in 14; pp. 34f. & 161f.) Note that puberty comes earlier in girls than in boys, and that the skeleton therefore remains lighter. During the reproductive period in women these salts are heavily drawn upon for the use of the reproductive system. The male reproductive system draws upon them as well, though the drain is very slight as compared to that in women. In old age these salts produce senility through deposit in the tissues, especially in the arteries.

At the pubertal age in girls begins the phenomenon known as menstruation, in which there is a large excretion of calcium salts. In pregnancy these are needed for building the skeleton of the foetus, and at delivery go to the breasts to assist in lactation. Bell states that there is a noticeable connection between early menstruation and short stature, and vice versa. What is commonly known as menstruation lasts only a few days, and is merely the critical period in a monthly cycle or periodicity which goes with the female sex specialization. This period involves the gradual preparation of the uterus or womb for a guest, together with the maturing of the ova. Then the Graafian follicles containing the ova break and these latter enter the uterus for fertilization.

If fertilization takes place, the fertilized egg buries itself in the wall and development of the embryo proceeds. Menstruation stops, the calcium salts being required for the growing embryo. There is likely to be no menstruation for a considerable time after delivery if the child is nursed, as is normal. This gives the uterus time for devolution to the normal, before a surplus of calcium salts sets the periodicity going again. If the egg which passes from the ovary to the uterus is not fertilized, it is excreted, the uterus goes through another monthly cycle of preparation for the period of intra-maternal environment, and so on indefinitely until the climacteric.

This climacteric or decay of sexuality is a rather critical time, especially in women. It marks the period at which the metabolism can no longer support the strain of reproduction. A surplus of calcium brings on senility, as noted above. Withdrawal of the interests which centre in sex, together with the marked accompanying physical changes, involves a shift of mental attitude which is also frequently serious. A British coroner stated in the British Medical Journal in 1900 (Vol. 2, p.792) that a majority of 200 cases of female suicide occurred at this period, while in the case of younger women suicide is peculiarly likely to occur during menstruation. Krugelstein and Lombroso, respectively, remark the same tendencies.[18]

It is a matter of almost everyday observation that men and women in the neighbourhood of fifty suddenly find themselves disoriented in the world. Tolstoi, for example, who had written passionately of passion in his earlier years, suddenly awoke, according to his "Confessions," from what seemed to him afterward to have been a bad dream. In this case, the result was a new version of religion as a new anchorage for the man's life. It may be pacifism, prohibition, philanthropy, or any one of a very large number of different interests—but there must usually be something to furnish zest to a life which has ceased to be a sufficient excuse for itself.

If freed from worry about economic realities, it is not infrequently possible for the first time for these people to "balance" their lives—to find in abstraction a rounded perfection for which earlier in life we seek in vain as strugglers in a world of change. Thus old people are often highly conservative, i.e., impatient of change in their social environment, involving re-orientation; they wish the rules of the game let alone, so they can pursue the new realities they have created for themselves.

Socially, the old are of course a very important factor since a changed metabolism sets them somewhat outside the passionate interests which drive people forward, often in wrong directions, in the prime of life. Hence in a sense the old can judge calmly, as outsiders. Like youth before it has yet come in contact with complicated reality, they often see men and women as "each chasing his separate phantom."

While such conservatism, in so far as it is judicial, is of value to society, looking at it from the viewpoint of biology we see also some bad features. Senex, the old man, often says to younger people, "These things you pursue are valueless—I too have sought them, later abandoned the search and now see my folly;" not realizing that if his blood were to resume its former chemical character he would return to the quest.

Elderly people, then, biological neuters, come especially within the problem of the economical use of the social as distinguished from the biological capacities of the race. They affect the sex problem proper, which applies to a younger age-class, only through their opinions. Some of these opinions are hangovers from the time in their own lives when they had stronger sexual interests, and some are peculiar to people of their readjusted glandular activity. Their reproductive contribution to society has been made.

Pre-pubertal childhood and youth, on the contrary, has its biological contributions to society still before it. The glandular activity of boys and girls is perhaps not so unlike as to justify society in giving them a different kind of education and preparation for group life. The excuse for two sorts of training is that the two sexes will not do the same work after puberty. Hence the question of youthful training is sociological almost entirely—not biological—or rather, it rests upon the biology, not of childhood but of the reproductive period, which society anticipates.

Instead of scattering attention over the whole history of the universe, then, or even over the general field of biology, in dealing with sex as a social problem, the emphasis must be upon the human life cycle during the functional-reproductive period. Other biological data than that which concerns this period is merely introductory or explanatory. The extent to which the sociological problem involved is linked up with general biological considerations like natural selection, adaptation and specialization will be summarized in a separate chapter.

Earlier female maturity and puberty, as well as lighter structure, have already been accounted for by the metabolism, especially of the calcium salts. These have also been shown to be the key fact in the monthly periodicity of the mammalian female. Nearly all of the anatomical and physiological sex differences catalogued by such pioneer workers as Ellis, Ploss, Thomas and Bucura are simply what we should expect from the less active and in some ways peculiar metabolism of woman.

Among such differences are the size and shape of bones and other body structures, the more plentiful haemoglobin in male blood during the reproductive period, and such blood peculiarities as the production of more carbonic acid or the higher specific gravity in the male. The greater percentage of fat as compared with muscle in women[19], if it is generally true, is what we should expect from a lower metabolism and a tendency to store materials. The long list of diseases which are more or less sex-limited [20; 14, pp.160f.; 18] are largely endocrine. Even those which do not primarily concern the internal secretory system would be expected to work somewhat differently in the presence of unlike blood streams. As to the greater average weight of the male brain, this is true of the whole body. Brain weight, either absolute or relative to body weight, is not positively known to be in any way correlated (in normal people) with mental capacity.

A library might be stocked with the vast literature devoted to summarizing and cataloguing sex differences; and most of it would be useless from the standpoint of sociology. Unaccompanied by the criticisms a biologist would have to make on the method of their ascertainment and validity, not to mention their significance, such lists can easily do—and probably have done—more harm than good. One simple and reasonable criterion would reduce this catalogue to fairly modest proportions, so far as social science is concerned: Which ones have an obvious or even probable social significance? Over and above that, while such contrasts may be of speculative interest, they lead imaginative people to argue from them by analogy and thus cloud the real issues.

What are the outstandingly significant sex differences which application of the above criterion leaves? (1) A less active and more uneven metabolism of woman; (2) Associated with this, less physical strength on the average—hence an inferior adaptability to some kinds of work, resulting in a narrower range of choice of occupation, disadvantageous in competitive society; (3) But the one fundamental difference, to which all the others are as nothing, is the specialization of the mammalian female body and metabolism to furnish the intra-maternal environment (approximately nine months in the human species) for the early development of the young and lactation for some months afterward.

This last may be said to include the former two, which were arbitrarily placed first because they are always in evidence, whether reproduction is undertaken or not. This takes us out of cell and endocrine biology and into the general problem in group adjustment to environment which that specialization entails.

BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CHAPTER III

1. Goldschmidt, R. Experimental Intersexuality and the Sex Problem. Amer. Naturalist, 1916. Vol. 50, pp. 705f.

2. Goldschmidt, R. Preliminary Report on Further Experiments in Inheritance and Determination of Sex. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc, 1916. Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 53f.

3. Goldschmidt, R. A Case of Facultative Parthenogenesis. Biol. Bulletin, 1917. Vol. XXXII, No. 1, p. 38.

4. Goldschmidt, R. Intersexuality and the Endocrine Aspect of Sex. Endocrinology, Vol. I, p. 434. 1917. Fine summary of the work done on moths, birds and various forms by many biologists.

5. Riddle, Dr Oscar. Quantitative Basis of Sex as indicated by the Sex-Behaviour of Doves from a Sex-Controlled Series. Science, n.s., Vol. 39, p. 440, 1914.

6. Riddle, Dr Oscar. Sex Control and Known Correlations in Pegeons. Amer. Nat. Vol. L, pp. 385-410.

7. Benedict, F.G. & Emmes, L.E. A Comparison of the Basal Metabolism of Men and Women. Jour. Biol. Chem. Vol. 20. No. 3. 1914.

8. Schaefer, Sir E.A. Endocrine Glands and Internal Secretions. Stanford University, 1914, p. 91.

9. Paton, D. Noel. Regulators of Metabolism. London, 1913, p. 146.

10. Weininger, Otto. Sex and Character. London & N.Y., 1906. Eng. trans. of Geschlecht u. Charakter, Vienna & Leipzig, 1901 & 1903.

11. Leland, C.G. The Alternate Sex. London, 1904.

12. Carpenter, Edw. Love's Coming of Age. London, 1906.

13. George, W.L. The Intelligence of Woman, Boston, 1916.

14. Bell, Dr Blair. The Sex Complex, London, 1916.

15. Bell, Dr. Blair. Gynaecology. London, 1919.

16. Bateson, W. Mendel's Principles of Heredity. 1909, pp. 169-70.

17. Marshall, F.H. A Physiology of Reproduction. London, 1910.

18. Ellis, Havelock. Man and Woman. 1904 ed., pp. 284f

19. Thomas, W.I. Sex and Society. 1907, p. 19.

20. Schaefer, Sir Edw. An Introduction to the Study of Internal Secretions. London, 1916, pp. 106f.



CHAPTER IV

SEX SPECIALIZATION AND GROUP SURVIVAL

Adaptation and specialization; Reproduction a group not an individual problem; Conflict between specialization and adaptation; Intelligence makes for economy in adjustment to environment; Reproduction, not production, the chief factor in the sex problem.

From the facts briefly stated in the preceding chapters it is quite evident that the general superiority of man over woman or vice versa cannot be proven by biology. Such an idea arises from a careless and unscientific use of language. Superiority is a term which, when used to express the rather exact ideas of biology, is employed in a carefully limited and specific, not in a general, sense. That is, superiority, even if an apparently general idea like survival value is referred to, always implies a given, understood environment where such is not specifically mentioned. Wolves, for example, might be found to possess superior chances for survival over foxes, beaver or partridges in a given environment. A biologist would probably use more exact and less ambiguous terms to express such a fact, and say that wolves were the best adapted to the given surroundings. If all these animals continued to live side by side in the given environment, they could be compared only as to specific details—size, strength, cunning, fleetness in running, swimming or flying, concealment from enemies, etc. Then the biologist would probably make his meaning perfectly clear by stating that one is specialized in one direction or another.

Especially is general superiority a vague idea when the things compared are different but mutually necessary or complementary. If their functions overlap to some extent (i.e., if certain acts can be performed by either), we may say that one is better adapted to a certain activity than the other. Thus it may be that women are generally better adapted to caring for young children than are men, or that men are on the whole better adapted to riveting boiler plates, erecting skyscrapers, or sailing ships. Where their activities do not overlap at all, even the word adaptation hardly applies. For example, women are not better "adapted" to furnishing the intra-maternal environment for the young, since men are not adapted to it at all. It is a case of female specialization.

Men being neither specialized nor adapted, to any extent whatever, to this particular activity, any attempt at comparison is obviously fruitless, since one term is always zero. This specialization, absolutely necessary to the survival of human groups, is either present or it is absent in a given individual. Any attempt to formulate a general proposition about superiority either attaches purely arbitrary values to different kinds of activity or is absurd from the standpoint of the most elementary logic.

From the standpoint of biology, reproduction is not an individual but a group problem, however many problems of detail it may give rise to in individual lives. Sex involves the division of the reproductive process, without the exercise of which any human group would perish very shortly, into two complementary, mutually necessary but unequal parts. (This statement applies only to the reproductive process, as obviously the male and female gametes contribute equally to the formation of the new individual). Neither part (the male or the female) of this process is more necessary than the other, both being absolutely necessary. But the female specialization for furnishing the intra-maternal environment makes her share more burdensome.

Biologically considered, not even two individuals (male and female), together with their offspring, can be more than an arbitrary "unit" as concerns sex, since inbreeding eventually impoverishes the stock. Hence outcrosses are necessary. To intelligibly consider the sex problem in the human species, then, we must always predicate a considerable group of people, with such organization and division of activities as to guarantee that all the processes necessary to survival will be carried on. Sex is a group problem. Considering the mutual interdependence and the diversity of activities in human society, to make the generalization that one sex is superior to the other is on a par with saying that roots and branches are superior to trunks and leaves. It is sheer foolishness. Yet oceans of ink have flowed in attempts to establish one or the other of two equally absurd propositions.

Since the specialization to furnish the intra-maternal environment for the young makes the female part of the reproductive process essentially and unavoidably more burdensome than the male, it results that an economical division of the extra-reproductive activities of any group must throw an unequal share upon the males. This specialization to carry the young during the embryonic period is thus at the base of the division of labour between the sexes. It is the chief factor involved in the problems of sex, and gives rise, directly or indirectly, to most of the others.

But the sex problem as a whole is one of adaptation as well as of specialization. An incident of the female specialization is a type of body on the average smaller, weaker and less well adapted to some other activities than is the male body, even when reproduction is not undertaken. A great complication is added by the fact that some women, and also some men, are better adapted than others to nonreproductive activities. This is another way of saying that the type of body associated with either type of sex glands varies a good deal, for reasons and in respects already pointed out.

The most important fact about this reproductive specialization is that beyond fertilization it is exclusive in the female. Since the males cannot furnish the intra-parental environment for the young, the entire burden must fall on half the group. If this aggregation is to even hold its own numerically, its women must have, on an average, two children each, plus about one more for unavoidable waste—death in infancy or childhood, sterility, obvious unfitness for reproduction, etc., i.e., three in all. If one woman has less than her three children, then another must have more than three, or the group number will decrease. Group survival is the fundamental postulate in a problem of this kind.

The above figure is for civilized society. In primitive groups, the terrific wastage makes a much higher birth-rate necessary, several times as high in many cases. If we suppose such a group, where child mortality, lack of sanitation, etc., necessitates an average of eight children per woman (instead of three), the biological origin of the division of labour between the sexes is much more clearly seen than it is in civilized societies.

If men are better hunters or fighters than women, the latter could nevertheless hunt and fight—it is a question of superior or inferior adaptation to particular activities. But it is more than that. Only the women are biologically specialized to the chief reproductive burden (intra-parental environment and lactation). If half the women should withdraw from child-bearing, the remainder would be obliged to average sixteen apiece. But even this is not all. Unfortunately, the half of the women who would be found best adapted to hunting and fighting would be the more vigorous half. The new generation would thus be born from the leftovers, and would be poor quality. Such a division of labour within a group would be fatally foolish and entirely uncalled for—since there are plenty of men adapted to hunting and fighting, but entirely unspecialized to child-bearing and nursing.

Group survival being the fundamental thing, the group is obliged to develop a division of labour which directs the activities of the individuals composing it to providing for its necessities, regardless of any interference with their own desires. That is, if group survival requires that woman use her specialization to child-bearing instead of any adaptation she may possess in other directions, one of two things inevitably result: (1) Either the group finds or evolves some social control machinery which meets the necessity, or (2) it must give way to some other group which can do so. In either case, the result is a division of labour, which we see more clearly in primitive peoples. The less efficient group is not necessarily exterminated, but if it loses out in the competition until some other group is able to conquer it and impose its division of labour the result is of course the extinction of the conquered group as an integral part of society. This is simply natural selection working on groups. Natural selection works chiefly in this manner on the human species, because that species lives in groups. Such group control of the component individuals as has been described has led to a division of labour between the sexes in every primitive society. All this means is that the group adopting such a division has greater survival value, and hence is more likely to be represented in later ages.

It must not be supposed that such systems of control were always logically thought out or deliberately planned. Even animals which live in herds or colonies have divisions of labour.

Through an infinite slaughter of the least fit, such groups arrive at some kind of instinctive adjustment to produce and protect the young. The crudest human intelligence must have eliminated much of the waste involved, by comprehending obvious cause-and-effect relations which animals have to arrive at through trial and error methods.

For example, an intelligence capable of employing artificial weapons is also able to see that the wielder of these for group defence cannot be encumbered with baggage or children when the group is in movement. Hence women became the burden bearers, and took care of the children, even after the nursing period. War parties could not generally be mixed, for the obvious reasons that such women as did not have young children would be pregnant a good deal of the time, or likely to become so. Moreover, a hunter and fighter must not have his courage, ferocity and physical initiative undermined by unsuitable employments and associations.

In a semi-settled group, the hunter and warrior cannot be relied upon to keep hearth-fires burning or tend crops, even though he may occasionally have time for such activities. These duties are therefore relegated to the women, whose child-bearing functions impose upon them a more sedentary existence. Women must reproduce practically up to their full capacity to fill up the gaps made by war, accident and disease as well as death from old age. To this biological service which they alone can perform are added those which lie nearest it and interfere least with carrying it out.

We must therefore keep in view all the activities of any group in which the sex problem is being studied. There is a certain tendency to disregard the female specialization to child-bearing, and to regard the sex question as one merely of adaptation to extra-biological services. In every group which has survived, some machinery—a "crust of custom," reinforced by more arbitrary laws or regulations—has sought to guarantee reproduction by keeping women out of lines of endeavour which might endanger that fundamental group necessity. Primitive societies which got stabilized within a given territory and found their birth-rate dangerously high could always keep it down by exposing or destroying some of the unfit children, or a certain per cent of the female children, or both.

In primitive groups, the individual was practically nil. But modern civilized society is able to survive without the rigid control of individual activities which the old economy entailed. Man comes to choose more and more for himself individually instead of for the group, uniformity weakens and individualism becomes more pronounced. As control of environment becomes more complete and easy, natural selection grows harder to detect. We turn our interests and activities toward the search for what we want and take survival largely for granted—something the savage cannot do. Natural selection becomes unreal to us, because the things we do to survive are so intricately mixed up with those we do for other reasons. Natural selection in gregarious animals operates upon groups rather than upon individuals. Arrangement of these groups is often very intricate. Some have territorial boundaries and some have not. Often they overlap, identical individuals belonging to several. Hence it is not strange that natural selection phenomena often escape attention.

But this must not lead us to suppose that natural selection is wholly inoperative in civilized society. We see some nations outbreeding others, or dominating them through superior organization. Within nations, some racial and religious groups outbreed others and thus gradually supplant them—for the future is to those who furnish its populations.



CHAPTER V

RACIAL DEGENERATION AND THE NECESSITY FOR RATIONALIZATION OF THE MORES

Racial decay in modern society; Purely "moral" control dysgenic in civilized society; New machinery for social control; Mistaken notion that reproduction is an individual problem; Economic and other factors in the group problem of reproduction.

From the discussion in the preceding chapter, it becomes apparent that for the half of the female element in a savage society possessing the most vigor and initiative to turn away from reproduction would in the long run be fatal to the group. Yet this is what occurs in large measure in modern civilized society. Reproduction is a biological function. It is non-competitive, as far as the individual is concerned, and offers no material rewards. The breakdown of the group's control over the detailed conduct and behaviour of its members is accompanied by an increasing stress upon material rewards to individuals. So with growing individualism, in the half of the race which can both bear children and compete in the social activities offering rewards, i.e., the women who are specialized to the former and adapted to the latter, there is a growing tendency among the most successful, individualized strains, to choose the social and eschew the biological functions.

Racial degeneration is the result. Recorded history is one succession of barbarous races, under strong, primitive breeding conditions, swamping their more civilized, individualized neighbours, adopting the dysgenic ways of civilization and then being swamped in their turn by barbarians. This is especially pronounced in our own times because popularized biological and medical knowledge makes it possible for a tremendous class of the most successful and enlightened to avoid reproduction without foregoing sex activity.

In primitive groups, a "moral" control which kept all women at reproduction was neither eugenic nor dysgenic unless accompanied by systematic destruction of the least fit children. By "moral" control is meant the use of taboo, prejudice, religious abhorrence for certain acts and the like. The carefully nurtured moral ideas about sex and reproduction simply represent the system of coercion which groups have found most effective in enforcing the division of reproductive and other activities among the individual members. When this social machinery grew up, to regulate sexual activity was in general to regulate reproduction. The natural sex desire proved sufficiently powerful and general to still seek its object, even with the group handicaps and regulations imposed to meet the reproductive necessity. But contraceptive knowledge, etc., has now become so general that to regulate sex activity is no longer to regulate reproduction. The taboo or "moral" method of regulation has become peculiarly degenerating to race quality, because the most intelligent, rationalized individuals are least affected by it.

There is no turning back to control by ignorance. Even theoretically, the only way to stop such a disastrous selection of the unfit would be to rationalize reproduction—so that nobody shall reproduce the species through sheer ignorance of how to evade or avoid it. This done, some type of social control must be found which will enable civilized societies to breed from their best instead of their worst stock. Under the old scheme, already half broken down, natural selection favours primitive rather than civilized societies through decreased birth-rates and survival of the unfit in the latter. Even this is true only where the savage groups are not interfered with by the civilized, a condition rapidly disappearing through modern occidental imperialism and the inoculation of primitive peoples with "civilized" diseases such as syphilis, rum-drinking and rampant individualism.

To continually encourage the racially most desirable women to disregard their sexual specialization and exploit their social-competitive adaptation must, obviously destroy the group which pursues such a policy. The only way to make such a course democratic is to carefully instruct all women, rich and poor, wise and ignorant, in the methods of avoiding reproduction and to inject the virus of individualism in all alike. Then the group can get its population supply only by a new system of control. To remove any economic handicaps to child-bearing is certainly not out of harmony with our ideas of justice.

In removing the economic handicaps at present connected with the reproductive function in women, care must also be taken that the very measures which insure this do not themselves become dysgenic influences. Such schemes as maternity insurance, pensions for mothers, and most of the propositions along this line, may offer an inducement to women of the poorer classes to assume the burdens connected with their specialization for child-bearing. But their more fortunate sisters, who find themselves so well adapted to modern conditions that they are even moderately successful in the competition for material rewards, will hardly find recompense thus for turning from their social to their biological functions. To these highly individualized modern women must be presented more cogent reasons for taking upon themselves the burden of reproducing the group.

It is obvious that from just this energetic female stock we should obtain a large part of the next generation if we are at all concerned over the welfare of the group and its chances of survival. One suggestion is that we may be able to turn their very individualism to account and use it as a potent factor in the social control of their reproductive activities. If we can demonstrate on the basis of sound biological data that the bearing of children is necessary for the full and complete development of the individual woman, physically and mentally, we shall have gone a long way toward securing voluntary motherhood. Only such argument will induce the highly individualized, who may also be the most vital, woman to turn of her own accord from competitive social activities to the performance of the biological function for which she is specialized. This is especially true, as has been intimated above, since contraceptive knowledge now permits the exercise of sexual functions without the natural consequences, and the avoidance of motherhood no longer involves the denial of expression to the sexual urge.

Even if we are able to utilize this method of control, it will not obtain the requisite number of offspring to maintain the eugenic quality of the group, since the bearing of one or two children would be all that individual development would require. If the group must have on the average three children from each of its women in order to replace itself, the larger part of the reproductive activities will still be confined to the more ignorant, or if they also make use of contraceptive knowledge, the group will simply die out from the effects of its own democratic enlightenment. Thus it becomes apparent that we must find some more potent force than this narrow form of self-interest to accomplish the social purposes of reproduction. When reproduction is generally understood to be as thoroughly a matter of group survival as for example the defensive side in a war of extermination, the same sentiment of group loyalty which now takes such forms as patriotism can be appealed to. If the human race is unsocial it will perish anyway. If it has not become unsocial—and it does not display any such tendency, but only the use of such impulses in mistaken directions—then a group necessity like reproduction can be met. Whatever is required of the individual will become "moral" and "patriotic"—i.e., it will be wreathed in the imperishable sentiments which group themselves around socially necessary and hence socially approved acts everywhere and always.

In whatever races finally survive, the women of good stock as well as poor—perhaps eventually the good even more than the poor—will reproduce themselves. Because of our ideals of individual liberty, this may not be achieved by taboo, ignorance or conscription for motherhood. But when it is found to be the personal interest to bear children, both as a means of complete physical and mental development and as a way of winning social approval and esteem, it will become as imperative for woman to fulfil the biological function to which she is specialized as it was under the old system of moral and taboo control. The increasing emphasis on the necessity of motherhood for the maintenance of a normal, health personality, and the growing tendency to look upon this function as the greatest service which woman can render to society, are manifest signs that this time is approaching. There is little doubt that woman will be as amenable to these newer and more rationalized mores as human nature has always been to the irrationally formed customs and traditions of the past.

To ignore the female specialization involved in furnishing the intramaternal environment for three children, on an average, to the group, is simply foolish. If undertaken at maturity—say from twenty-two to twenty-five years of age—and a two-year interval left between the three in the interest of both mother and children, it puts woman in an entirely different relation toward extra-reproductive activities than man. It does imply a division of labour.

In general, it would seem socially expedient to encourage each woman to have her own three children, instead of shifting the burden upon the shoulders of some other. If such activities of nursing and caring for the very young can be pooled, so much the better. Doubtless some women who find them distasteful would be much more useful to society at other work. But let us not disregard fundamentals. It is obviously advantageous for children of normal, able parents to be cared for in the home environment. In a biologically healthy society the presumption must be that the average woman has some three children of her own. Since this obviously includes nurses and governesses, we see at once the futility of the oft-proposed class solution of hiring single women to care for the children of the fortunate. If such a servant is undesirable, she is not hired; if normal, in a biologically healthy society she would have her own children.

The female handicap incident to reproduction may be illustrated by the case of Hambletonian 10 mentioned in Chapter II. We saw that a female could not have borne the hundredth part of his colts. This simply means that the effort or individual cost of impressing his characters upon the new generation is less than one one-hundredth that required of a female.

Among domestic animals this is made use of to multiply the better males to the exclusion of the others, a valuable biological expedient which we are denied in human groups because it would upset all our social institutions. So we do the next best thing and make the males do more than half in the extra-biological activities of society, since they are by their structure prevented from having an equal share in the reproductive burden. This is an absolutely necessary equation, and there will always be some sort of division of labour on the basis of it.

Since reproduction is a group, not an individual, necessity, whatever economic burden it entails must eventually be assumed by society and divided up among the individuals, like the cost of war or any other group activity. Ideally, then, from the standpoint of democracy, every individual, male or female, should bear his share as a matter of course. This attitude toward reproduction, as an individual duty but a group economic burden, would lead to the solution of most of the problems involved. Negative eugenics should be an immediate assumption—if the state must pay for offspring, the quality will immediately begin to be considered. A poor race-contribution, not worth paying for, would certainly be prevented as far as possible.

Some well-meaning radical writers mistakenly suppose that the emancipation of women means the withdrawal by the group of any interest in, or any attempt to regulate, such things as the hours and conditions of female labour. That would simply imply that the group takes no interest in reproduction—in its own survival. For if the group does not make some equation for the greater burden of reproduction upon women, the inevitable result will be that that particular service will not be rendered by those most desirable to be preserved.

Given the fundamental assumption that the group is to survive—to be perpetuated by the one possible means—if it withdraws all solicitude about the handicap this entails to women as a whole, introducing a spirit of laissez-faire competition between men and women, the women with sense enough to see the point will not encumber themselves with children. For each one of these who has no children, some other woman must have six instead of three. And some people encourage this in the name of democracy!

The most involved problems must inevitably centre around the women who, to quote Mrs. Hollingworth, "vary from the mode," but are yet functional for sex. Some have no sex desires at all, some no craving for or attachment to children, some neither of these. It is a question still to be solved whether some of them ought, in the interest of the race, to be encouraged to reproduce themselves. In less individualized primitive society, seclusion, taboo and ignorance coerced them into reproduction. Any type of control involving the inculcation of "moral" ideas is open to the objection that it may work on those who should not reproduce themselves as well as those who should.

In a sense, this problem will tend to solve itself. With the substitution of the more rationalized standards of self-interest and group loyalty for the irrational taboo control of reproductive activities, there will be as much freedom for women to choose whether they will accept maternity as there is now, in the period of transition from the old standards to the new. The chief difference will be that many of the artificial forces which are acting as barriers to motherhood at the present time—as for example the economic handicap involved—will be removed, and woman's choice will therefore be more entirely in harmony with her native instinctive tendencies. Thus those women endowed with the most impelling desire for children will, as a rule, have the largest number. In all probability their offspring will inherit the same strong parental instinct. The stocks more poorly endowed with this impulse will tend to die out by the very lack of any tendency to self-perpetuation. It is only logical to conclude, therefore, that as we set up the new forces of social control outlined in this chapter, we are at the same time providing more scope for natural selection, and that the problem of aberrant types consequently becomes only a transitory one.



PART II

THE INSTITUTIONALIZED SEX TABOO

BY

IVA LOWTHER PETERS, PH.D.



CHAPTER I

THE PRIMITIVE ATTITUDE TOWARD SEX AND WOMANHOOD

Primitive social control; Its rigidity; Its necessity; Universality of this control in the form of taboos; Connection between the universal attitude of primitive peoples towards woman as shown in the Institutionalized Sex Taboo and the magic-religious belief in Mana; Relation of Mana to Taboo; Discussion of Sympathetic Magic and the associated idea of danger from contact; Difficulties in the way of an inclusive definition of Taboo; Its dual nature; Comparison of concepts of Crawley, Frazer, Marett and others; Conclusion that Taboo is Negative Mana; Contribution of modern psychology to the study of Taboo; Freud's analogy between the dualistic attitude toward the tabooed object and the ambivalence of the emotions; The understanding of this dualism together with the primitive belief in Mana and Sympathetic Magic explains much in the attitude of man toward woman; The vast amount of evidence in the taboos of many peoples of dualism in the attitude toward woman. Possible physiological explanation of this dualistic attitude of man toward woman found in a period before self-control had in some measure replaced social control, in the reaction of weakness and disgust following sex festivals.

A study of the elaborate, standardized, and authoritative systems of social control found among all primitive peoples gives a vivid impression of the difficulty of the task of compelling man to die to himself, that is, to become a socius. The rigors and rituals of initiation ceremonies at adolescence impressed the duties of sociality at that impressionable period. The individual who refused to bow his head to the social yoke became a vagabond, an outcast, an excommunicate. In view of the fierceness of the struggle for food and the attitude toward the stranger among all primitives, the outcast's life chances were unenviable. It was preferable to adapt one's self to the social order. "Bad" traits were the more easily suppressed in return for the re-enforcement of power which was the striking feature of group life; power over enemies, power over nature, and a re-enforcement of the emotional life of the individual which became the basis on which were built up the magico-religious ceremonies of institutionalized religion.

It is the purpose of this study to consider a phase of social life in which there can be traced a persistence into modern times of a primitive form of control which in a pre-rational stage of group life made possible the comparatively harmonious interplay of antagonistic forces. This form of control is called Taboo. A student of the phenomenon, a recognized authority on its ethnological interpretation, says of it: "To illustrate the continuity of culture and the identity of the elementary human ideas in all ages, it is sufficient to point to the ease with which the Polynesian word tabu has passed into modern language."[1, p.16]

We shall attempt to show that at least one form of taboo, the Institutionalized Sex Taboo, is co-extensive with human social experience, and exists to-day at the base of family life, the socialized form of sex relationship. The family as a social institution has been scarcely touched until a very recent historical period by the rationalizing process that has affected religious and political institutions. Economic changes resultant upon the introduction of an industrial era which showed the importance of women in diverse social relations were causes of this new effort at adaptation to changing conditions. It became apparent that taboos in the form of customs, ceremonials, beliefs, and conventions, all electrically charged with emotional content, have guarded the life of woman from change, and with her the functions peculiar to family life. There has doubtless been present in some of these taboos "a good hard common-sense element." But there are also irrational elements whose persistence has resulted in hardship, blind cruelty, and over-standardization.

In order to comprehend the attitude of early man toward sex and womanhood, and to understand the system of taboo control which grew out of this attitude, it is only reasonable to suppose that the prehistoric races, like the uncivilized peoples of the present time, were inclined to explain all phenomena as the result of the action of spiritistic forces partaking of both a magical and religious nature. This supernatural principle which the primitive mind conceived as an all-pervading, universal essence, is most widely known as mana, although it has been discussed under other names.[A]

Certain persons, animals and objects[B] are often held to be imbued to an unusual degree with this mana, and hence are to be regarded as holy and held in awe. Inasmuch as man may wish to use this power for his own purposes, a ceremonial cult would naturally grow up by which this would become possible. Otherwise, to come in contact with these objects directly or indirectly, besides profaning their sanctity would be exceedingly dangerous for the transgressor, because of this same power of transmission of a dread and little understood force. Therefore, all such persons, animals or objects are taboo and must be avoided. Under these circumstances it can be seen that taboos are unanalyzed, unrationalized "Don'ts," connected with the use and wont which have crystallized around the wish of man to manipulate the mysterious and often desirable features of his environment, notably those connected with possession, food, and sex.

[Footnote A: The Australians call it Arunkulta, the Iroquis Indians Orenda and other North American tribes Wakonda, the Melanesians Mana.]

[Footnote B: Dr F.B. Jevons[2] says: "These things ... are alike taboo: the dead body; the new-born child; blood and the shedder of blood; the divine being as well as the criminal; the sick, outcasts, and foreigners; animals as well as men; women especially, the married woman as well as the sacred virgin; food, clothes, vessels, property, house, bed, canoes, the threshing floor, the winnowing fan, a name, a word, a day; all are or may be taboo because dangerous. This short list does not contain one-hundredth part of the things which are supposed to be dangerous; but even if it were filled out and made tolerably complete, it would, by itself, fail to give any idea of the actual extent and importance of the institution of taboo."]

The idea of the transmission of mana through contact is concomitant with the notion of sympathetic magic, defined as the belief that the qualities of one thing can be mysteriously transferred to another. The most familiar illustration is that of the hunter who will not eat the heart of the deer he has killed lest he become timid like that animal, while to eat the heart of a lion would be to gain all the fierce courage of that beast.[A] This belief becomes so elaborated that the qualities of one object are finally thought to be transferred to another which has never come into direct contact with the first, the transition being accomplished through the agency of a third object which has been in contact with both the others and thus acts as the conducting medium through which the qualities of one pass into the other.

[Footnote A: E.B. Tylor[3] has called attention to the belief that the qualities of the eaten pass into the eater as an explanation of the food taboos and prejudices of savage peoples.]

Just as the holy thing, which is to be feared as the seat of a mystic, supernatural force, is to be avoided lest harm befall from contact with it, or lest it be denied by human touch and its divine essence be affected, so the unclean thing is also made taboo lest it infect man with its own evil nature. Even as the savage will not have his idol polluted by contact with his own personality, however indirect, so he would himself avoid pollution in similar fashion by shunning that which is unclean. Here also the avoidance of the tabooed person or thing is based on the principle of sympathetic magic understood as a method of transference of qualities, and on belief in the possibility of infection by contact.

The dual nature of taboo as the avoidance of both the sacred and the unclean is noted by authorities on the subject who differ in other respects as to the definition of taboo, such as in the relation of taboo to the magical ceremonies by which man undertook to mould his environment to his wishes. Whether the tabooed object be regarded in one light or the other, the breaking of taboo is associated with dread of the unknown—besides the fear of infection with the qualities of the tabooed object according to the laws of sympathetic magic. There is also the fear of the mysterious and supernatural, whether conceived as the mana force or as a principle of "bad magic."

Dr. J.G. Frazer has collected into the many volumes of "The Golden Bough" a mass of evidence concerning the taboos of primitive society. On the basis of his definition of magic as "a misapplication of the ideas of association by similarity and contiguity," Dr. Frazer divided magic into "positive magic," or charms, and "negative magic," or taboo. "Positive magic says, 'Do this in order that so and so may happen.' Negative magic or taboo says 'Do not do this lest so and so should happen.'"[4, p.111, v.I.]

But Dr. Frazer's conclusion, which he himself considered only tentative, was not long left unassailed. Prof. R.R. Marett in his essay "Is Taboo a Negative Magic?"[5] called attention to the very evident fact that Dr. Frazer's definition would not cover the characteristics of some of the best known taboos, the food taboos of Prof. Tylor to which we have previously alluded in this study, as a consequence of which "the flesh of timid animals is avoided by warriors, but they love the meat of tigers, boars, and stags, for their courage and speed."[3, p.131.] Are not these food taboos rather, Dr. Marett asks, a "misapplication of the ideas of association by similarity and contiguity" amounting to the sympathetic taboos so carefully described by such writers on Magic as MM. Hubert and Mauss of L'Annee Sociologique? Still another kind of taboos mentioned by Dr. Frazer but amplified by Mr. Crawley in "The Mystic Rose," the taboos on knots at childbirth, marriage, and death, are much better described by the term "sympathetic taboo." Moreover, if taboo were a form of magic as defined by Dr. Frazer, it would be a somewhat definite and measurable quantity; whereas the distinguishing characteristic of taboo everywhere is the "infinite plus of awfulness" always accompanying its violation. As Dr. Marett observes, there may be certain definite results, such as prescribed punishment for violations against which a legal code is in process of growth. There may be also social "growlings," showing the opposition of public opinion to which the savage is at least as keenly sensitive as the modern. But it is the "infinite plus" always attached to the violation of taboo that puts it into the realm of the mystical, the magical. It would seem that Dr. Frazer's definition does not include enough.

It is when we turn to the subject of this study that we see most clearly the deficiencies in these explanations—to the "classic well-nigh universal major taboo" of the woman shunned. Dr. Marett uses her as his most telling argument against the inclusiveness of the concepts of Dr. Frazer and of MM. Hubert and Mauss. He says: "It is difficult to conceive of sympathy, and sympathy only, as the continuous, or even the originally efficient cause of the avoidance." Mr Crawley had called attention to the fact that savages fear womanly characteristics, that is, effeminacy, which is identified with weakness. While noting with great psychological insight the presence of other factors, such as the dislike of the different, he had gone so far as to express the opinion that the fear of effeminacy was probably the chief factor in the Sex Taboo. This is probably the weakest point in Mr. Crawley's study, for he shows so clearly the presence of other elements, notably mystery, the element that made woman the potential witch against whom suspicion concentrated in so tragical a fashion up to a late historical period.

Because of the element of mystery present in taboo we are led to conclude that taboo is more than negative magic if we accept so definite a concept as "a false association of ideas." The presence of power in the tabooed object turns our attention to mana as giving us a better understanding of why man must be wary. Mana must however be liberally interpreted if we are to see to the bottom of the mystery. It must be thought of as including good as well as evil power, as more than the "black magic" of the witch-haunted England of the 17th century, as is shown by the social position of the magicians who deal with the Mana of the Pacific and with the Orenda of the Iroquois. It implies "wonder-working," and may be shown in sheer luck, in individual cunning and power, or in such a form as the "uncanny" psychic qualities ascribed to women from the dawn of history. With this interpretation of mana in mind, taboo may be conceived as negative mana; and to break taboo is to set in motion against oneself mystic wonder-working power.

Our study thus far has made it clear that there are mystic dangers to be guarded against from human as well as extra-human sources. There is weakness to be feared as well as power, as shown by the food and sex taboos. And once again there is mystery in the different, the unusual, the unlike, that causes avoidance and creates taboos. Man's dislike of change from the old well-trodden way, no matter how irrational, accounts for the persistence of many ancient folkways[6] whose origins are lost in mystery.[A] Many of these old and persistent avoidances have been expanded in the development of social relationships until we agree with Mr. Crawley that taboo shows that "man seems to feel that he is treading in slippery places." Might it not be within the range of possibility that in the study of taboo we are groping with man through the first blind processes of social control?[B]

[Footnote A: Prof. Franz Boas explains this tendency: "The more frequently an action is repeated, the more firmly it will become established ... so that customary actions which are of frequent repetition become entirely unconscious. Hand in hand with this decrease of consciousness goes an increase in the emotional value of the omission of these activities, and still more of the performance of acts contrary to custom."[7]]

[Footnote B: No study of the tabu-mana theory, however delimited its field, can disregard the studies of religion and magic made by the contributors to L'Annee Sociologique, notably MM. Durkheim and Levy-Bruhl, and in England by such writers as Sir Gilbert Murray, Miss Harrison, Mr A.B. Cook, Mr F.M. Cornford, and others. In their studies of "collective representations" these writers give us an account of the development of the social obligation back of religion, law, and social institutions. They posit the sacred as forbidden and carry origins back to a pre-logical stage, giving as the origin of the collective emotion that started the representations to working the re-enforcement of power or emotion resulting from gregarious living. This study is concerned, however, with a "social" rather than a "religious" taboo,—if such a distinction can somewhat tentatively be made, with the admission that the social scruple very easily takes on a religious colouring.]

It is worthy of note that the most modern school of analytical psychology has recently turned attention to the problem of taboo. Prof. Sigmund Freud, protagonist psychoanalysis, in an essay, Totem und Tabu, called attention to the analogy between the dualistic attitude toward the tabooed object as both sacred and unclean and the ambivalent attitude of the neurotic toward the salient objects in his environment. We must agree that in addition to the dread of the tabooed person or object there is often a feeling of fascination. This is of course particularly prominent in the case of the woman tabooed because of the strength of the sex instinct. As Freud has very justly said, the tabooed object is very often in itself the object of supreme desire. This is very obvious in the case of the food and sex taboos, which attempt to inhibit two of the most powerful impulses of human nature. The two conflicting streams of consciousness called ambivalence by the psychologist may be observed in the attitude of the savage toward many of his taboos. As the Austrian alienist cannily remarks, unless the thing were desired there would be no necessity to impose taboo restrictions concerning it.

It is by a knowledge of the mana concept and the belief in sympathetic magic, clarified by recognition of the ambivalent element in the emotional reaction to the thing tabooed, that we can hope to understand the almost universal custom of the "woman shunned" and the sex taboos of primitive peoples. This dualism appears most strongly in the attitude toward woman; for while she was the natural object of the powerful sexual instinct she was quite as much the source of fear because she was generally supposed to be endowed with spiritistic forces and in league with supernatural powers. During the long period when the fact of paternity was unrecognized, the power of reproduction which was thus ascribed to woman alone made of her a mysterious being. Her fertility could be explained only on the basis of her possession of an unusually large amount of mana or creative force, or by the theory of impregnation by demonic powers. As a matter of fact, both explanations were accepted by primitive peoples, so that woman was regarded not only as imbued with mana but also as being in direct contact with spirits. Many of the devices for closing the reproductive organs which abounded among savage tribes were imposed as a protection against spirits rather than against the males of the human species. The tradition of impregnation by gods or demons was not confined to savage tribes, but was wide-spread in the days of Greece and Rome and lasted into biblical times, when we read of the sons of heaven having intercourse with the daughters of men.

In addition to this fear of the woman as in possession of and in league with supernatural powers, there was an additional motive to avoidance in the fear of transmission of her weakness through contact, a fear based on a belief in sympathetic magic, and believed with all the "intensely realized, living, and operative assurance" of which the untutored mind is capable. Crawley masses an overwhelming amount of data on this point, and both he and Frazer show the strength of these beliefs. Indeed, in many cases violation proved to be "sure death," not by the hand of man, but from sheer fright. As a result, just as woman was considered to have both the tendency and power to impart her characteristics through contact, so the sexual act, the acme of contact, became the most potent influence for the emasculation of the male.

If we wish for proof that the primitive attitude toward women was essentially that which we have outlined, we have only to glance at the typical taboos concerning woman found among ancient peoples and among savage races of our own day. Nothing could be more indicative of the belief that the power to bring forth children was a manifestation of the possession of mana than the common avoidance of the pregnant woman. Her mystic power is well illustrated by such beliefs as those described by the traveller Im Thurn, who says that the Indians of Guiana believe that if a pregnant woman eat of game caught by hounds, they will never be able to hunt again. Similarly, Alfred Russell Wallace wrote of the aborigines of the Amazon: "They believe that if a woman during her pregnancy eats of any meat, any other animal partaking of it will suffer; if a domestic animal or tame bird, it will die; if a dog, it will be for the future incapable of hunting; and even a man will be unable to shoot that particular kind of game for the future."[8] In Fiji a pregnant wife may not wait upon her husband.[9] In the Caroline Islands men may not eat with their wives when pregnant, but small boys are allowed to do so.[10]

The avoidance of the menstruous woman is an even more widespread custom than the shunning of pregnancy, probably because this function was interpreted as a symptom of demonic possession. Primitive man had no reason to know that the phenomenon of menstruation was in any way connected with reproduction. The typical explanation was probably very much like that of the Zoroastrians, who believed that the menses were caused by the evil god Ahriman. A woman during the period was unclean and possessed by that demon. She must be kept confined and apart from the faithful, whom her touch would defile, and from the fire, which her very look would injure. To this day there is in the house of the Parsee a room for the monthly seclusion of the women, bare of all comforts, and from it neither sun, moon, stars, fire, water, nor any human being can be seen.[11]

All the ancient civilizations had such taboos upon the menstruous woman. According to Pliny, the Romans held that nothing had such marvellous efficacy as, or more deadly qualities than, the menstrual flow. The Arabs thought that a great variety of natural powers attached themselves to a woman during the menstrual period.[12, p.448] Rabbinic laws demand that "a woman during all the days of her separation shall be as if under a ban." The epithet Niddah, applied to a woman at that time, means "to lay under a ban." The reconstruction of the ancient Assyrian texts shows that the law of the unclean taboo on the woman in her courses holds for them. Up to the present time the Semitic woman is carefully segregated from the rest of the tribe, often for a long time, and becomes taboo again on each successive occasion.[13] Peoples in the eastern Mediterranean region will not permit a woman in her courses to salt or pickle; whatever she might prepare would not keep. This belief survives among the folk to-day in America, and was evidently brought early in the history of the country, for it is common among pioneer stock.

There are very similar taboos among the savage races. Among the Tshi peoples of West Africa women are not allowed to remain even in the town but retire at the period to huts erected for the purpose in the neighbouring bush, because they are supposed to be offensive to the tribal deities at that time.[14] The Karoks of California have a superstition like that of the Israelites. Every month the woman is banished without the village to live in a booth by herself. She is not permitted to partake of any meat, including fish. If a woman at this time touches or even approaches any medicine which is about to be given to a sick man, it will cause his death.[15] Amongst other Indian tribes of North America women at menstruation are forbidden to touch men's utensils, which would be so defiled by their touch that their subsequent use would be attended by certain misfortune. The Canadian Denes believe that the very sight of a woman in this condition is dangerous to society, so that she wears a special skin bonnet to hide her from the public gaze.[16] In western Victoria a menstruous woman may not take anyone's food or drink, and no one will touch food that has been touched by her.[17] Amongst the Maoris, if a man ate food cooked by a menstrous woman, he would be "tapu an inch thick."[18] Frazer quotes the case of an Australian blackfellow who discovered that his wife had lain on his blanket at her menstrual period, and who killed her and died of terror himself within a fortnight.[19] Australian women at this time are forbidden on pain of death to touch anything that men use or even to walk on a path that men frequent.[20] Among the Baganda tribes a menstruous woman is not permitted to come near her husband, cook his food, touch any of his weapons, or sit on his mats, bed, or seat.[21]

By some twist in the primitive way of thinking, some "false association by similarity and contiguity," the function of childbirth, unlike that of pregnancy, where the emphasis seems to have been placed in most cases on the mana principle, was held to be unclean and contaminating, and was followed by elaborate rites of purification. It may be that the pains of delivery were ascribed to the machinations of demonic powers, or possession by evil spirits,—we know that this has sometimes been the case. The use of charms and amulets, and the chanting of sacred formulae at this dangerous time all point to such beliefs. At any rate, although the birth of the child would seem in every respect except in the presence of blood to be more closely connected with the phenomena of pregnancy than with that of menstruation, as a matter of fact the taboos on the woman in child-bed were intimately associated with those on menstruous women.

Among the ancients, the Zoroastrians considered the woman unclean at childbirth as at menstruation.[22] In the Old Testament, ritual uncleanness results from contact with a woman at childbirth.[23]

Likewise among savage tribes the same customs concerning childbirth prevail. Among the Australian aborigines women are secluded at childbirth as at menstruation, and all vessels used by them during this seclusion are burned.[20] The Ewe-speaking people think a mother and babe unclean for forty days after childbirth.[24] At menstruation and childbirth a Chippeway wife may not eat with her husband; she must cook her food at a separate fire, since any one using her fire would fall ill.[10, v. ii, p.457] The Alaskan explorer Dall found that among the Kaniagmuts a woman was considered unclean for several days both after delivery and menstruation; in either case no one may touch her and she is fed with food at the end of a stick.[25] Amongst the tribes of the Hindu Kush the mother is considered unclean for seven days after the birth of her child, and no one will eat from her hand nor will she suckle her infant during that period. In the Oxus valley north of the Hindu Kush the period is extended to forty days.[26]

This attitude which primitive man takes toward woman at the time of her sexual crises—menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth—are but an intensification of the feeling which he has toward her at all times. Conflicting with his natural erotic inclinations are the emotions of awe and fear which she inspires in him as the potential source of contagion, for there is always some doubt as to her freedom from bad magic, and it is much safer to regard her as unclean.[27] Thus the every-day life of savage tribes is hedged in by all manner of restrictions concerning the females of their group. The men have their own dwelling in many instances, where no woman may enter. So, too, she may be barred out from the temples and excluded from the religious ceremonies when men worship their deity. There are people who will not permit the women of their nation to touch the weapons, clothing, or any other possessions of the men, or to cook their food, lest even this indirect contact result in emasculation. The same idea of sympathetic magic is at the root of taboos which forbid the wife to speak her husband's name, or even to use the same dialect. With social intercourse debarred, and often no common table even in family life, it is veritably true that men and women belong to two castes.

Of the primitive institution known as the "men's house," Hutton Webster says: "Sexual separation is further secured and perpetuated by the institution known as the men's house, of which examples are to be found among primitive peoples throughout the world. It is usually the largest building in a tribal settlement ... Here the most precious belongings of the community, such as trophies and religious emblems, are preserved. Within its precincts ... women and children ... seldom or never enter ... Family huts serve as little more than resorts for the women and children."[28]

Many examples among uncivilized peoples bear out this description of the institution of the men's house. Amongst the Indians of California and in some Redskin tribes the men's clubhouse may never be entered by a squaw under penalty of death. The Shastika Indians have a town lodge for women, and another for men which the women may not enter.[15] Among the Fijis women are not allowed to enter a bure or club house, which is used as a lounge by the chiefs. In the Solomon Islands women may not enter the men's tambu house, and on some of the islands are not even permitted to cross the beach in front of it.[29] In the Marquesas Islands the ti where the men congregate and spend most of their time is taboo to women, and protected by the penalty of death from the pollution of a woman's presence.[30]

Not only is woman barred from the men's club house, but she is also often prohibited from association and social intercourse with the opposite sex by many other regulations and customs. Thus no woman may enter the house of a Maori chief,[31] while among the Zulus, even if a man and wife are going to the same place they never walk together.[32] Among the Baganda wives are kept apart from the men's quarters.[21] The Ojibway Indian Peter Jones says of his people: "When travelling the men always walk on before. It would be considered a great presumption for the wife to walk by the side of her husband."[33] In many islands of the South Seas the houses of important men are not accessible to their wives, who live in separate huts. Among the Bedouins a wife may not sit in any part of the tent except her own corner, while it is disgraceful for a man to sit under the shadow of the women's roffe (tent covering).[34] Among the Hindus, no female may enter the men's apartments. In the Society and Sandwich Islands the females were humiliated by taboo, and in their domestic life the women lived almost entirely by themselves. The wife could not eat the same food, could not eat in the same place, could not cook by the same fire. It was said that woman would pollute the food.[35] In Korea a large bell is tolled at about 8 p.m. and 3 a.m. daily, and between these hours only are women supposed to appear in the streets.[36] In the New Hebrides there is a curious segregation of the sexes, with a dread among the men of eating anything female.[37]

Among many tribes this segregation of the women and the separation of the sexes begin at an early age, most often at the approach of puberty, which is earlier in primitive peoples than in our own race.[38] The boys usually go about with the father, while the girls remain with the mother. This is true in Patagonia, where the boys begin to go with the father at ten, the daughters with the mother at nine.[39] In Korea boys and girls are separated at seven. From that time the Korean girl is absolutely secluded in the inner court of her father's home. Mrs Bishop says: "Girl children are so successfully hidden away that ... I never saw one girl who looked above the age of six ... except in the women's rooms."[36] Among the northern Indian girls are from the age of eight or nine prohibited from joining in the most innocent amusements with children of the opposite sex, and are watched and guarded with such an unremitting attention as cannot be exceeded by the most rigid discipline of an English boarding-school.[40] Similar arrangements are reported among the Hill Dyaks,[41] certain Victorian tribes,[17] and many others. As already instanced, the separation of the sexes extends even to brothers and sisters and other close relatives. Thus in Fiji brothers and sisters are forbidden by national and religious custom to speak to each other.[9] In Melanesia, according to Codrington, the boy begins to avoid his mother when he puts on clothing, and his sister as soon as she is tattooed.[42] In the exclusive Nanburi caste of Travancore brothers and sisters are separated at an early age.

Women are more often than not excluded also from religious worship on account of the idea of their uncleanness. The Arabs in many cases will not allow women religious instruction. The Ansayrees consider woman to be an inferior being without a soul, and therefore exclude her from religious services.[34] In the Sandwich Islands women were not allowed to share in worship or festivals.[35] The Australians are very jealous lest women should look into their sacred mysteries. It is death for a woman to look into a Bora.[20] In Fiji women are kept away from worship and excluded from all the temples.[9] The women of some of the Indian hill-tribes may not sacrifice nor appear at shrines, nor take part in religious festivals. In New Ireland women are not allowed to approach the temples.[43] In the Marquesas Islands the Hoolah-hoolah ground, where festivals are held, is taboo to women, who are killed if they enter or even touch with their feet the shadow of the trees.[30] Women are also excluded from the sacred festivals of the Ahts.[44] In the Amazon region, the women are not even permitted to see the objects used in important ceremonies. If any woman of the Uaupes tribe happens to see the masks used in the tribal ceremony she is put to death.[45]

Crawley has explained the taboos on the sexes eating together and on the cooking of food by women for men as due to the superstitious belief that food which has come in contact with or under the influence of the female is capable of transmitting her properties. Some southern Arabs would die rather than accept food from a woman.[12] Among the old Semites it was not the custom for a man to eat with his wife and children. Among the Motu of New Guinea when a man is helega, he may not eat food that his wife has cooked.[46] South Australian boys during initiation are forbidden to eat with the women, lest they "grow ugly or become grey."

It was probably some fear of the charm-weaving power of woman which lay at the root of the rules which forbade her to speak her husband's name, the implication being that she might use it in some incantation against him. For instance, a Zulu woman was forbidden to speak her husband's name; if she did so, she would be suspected of witchcraft.[47] Herodotus tells us that no Ionian woman would ever mention the name of her husband, nor may a Hindu woman do so.[48]

Frazer says that the custom of the Kaffir woman of South Africa not to speak the name of her own or husband's relations has given rise to an almost entirely different language from that of the men through the substitution of new words for the words thus banned. Once this "women's speech" had arisen, it would of course not be used by the men because of the universal contempt for woman and all that pertained to her. This may have been the origin of the use of different dialects in some tribes, such as the Japanese, the Arawaks, some Brazilian tribes, and others.[49]

Although the division of labour between the sexes had a natural biological basis, and indeed had its beginning in the animal world long before man as such came into existence, the idea of the uncleanness of woman was carried over to her work, which became beneath the dignity of man. As a result, there grew up a series of taboos which absolutely fixed the sphere of woman's labour, and prohibited her from encroaching on the pursuits of man lest they be degraded by her use, quite as much as they barred man from her specific activities. In Nicaragua, for example, it is a rule that the marketing shall be done by women. In Samoa, where the manufacture of cloth is allotted to the women, it is taboo for a man to engage in any part of the process.[30] Among the Andamanese the performance of most of the domestic duties falls to the lot of the women and children. Only in cases of stern necessity will the husband procure wood or water.[50] An Eskimo even thinks it an indignity to row in an umiak, the large boat used by women.

They also distinguish very definitely between the offices of husband and wife. For example, when a man has brought a seal to land, it would be a stigma on his character to draw it out of the water, since that is the duty of the female.[51] In the Marquesas Islands, the use of canoes in all parts of the islands is rigorously prohibited to women, for whom it is death even to be seen entering one when hauled on shore; while Tapa-making, which belongs exclusively to women, is taboo to men.[30] Among the Betchuanas of South Africa the men will not let women touch the cattle.[52] The Baganda think that if a woman steps over a man's weapons they will not aim straight or kill until they have been purified.[21] Among many South African tribes, if a wife steps over her husband's assegais, they are considered useless from that time and are given to the boys to play with. This superstition rings many changes and is current among the natives of all countries.

The taboos which have thus been exemplified and reviewed are based on the feeling that woman is possessed of a demonic power, or perhaps of a mana principle which may work injury; or else upon the fear that she may contaminate man with her weakness. It is very probable that many of these taboos originated even as far back as the stage of society in which the line of descent was traced through the mother. There seems little doubt that the framework of ancient society rested on the basis of kinship, and that the structure of the ancient gens brought the mother and child into the same gens. Under these circumstances the gens of the mother would have some ascendancy in the ancient household. On such an established fact rests the assumption of a matriarchate, or period of Mutterrecht. The German scholar Bachofen in his monumental work "Das Mutterrecht" discussed the traces of female "authority" among the Lycians, Cretans, Athenians, Lemnians, Lesbians, and Asiatic peoples. But it is now almost unanimously agreed that the matriarchal period was not a time when women were in possession of political or economic power, but was a method of tracing descent and heritage. It is fairly well established that, in the transition from metronymic to patronymic forms, authority did not pass from women to men, but from the brothers and maternal uncles of the women of the group to the husbands and sons. Such a method of tracing descent, while it doubtless had its advantages in keeping the woman with her child with her blood kindred, would not prevent her from occupying a degraded position through the force of the taboos which we have described.[53]