Poverty and hereditary genius : a criticism of Mr. Francis Galton's theory of hereditary genius

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

INTRODUCTION - - - vii

I. HEREDITARY GENIUS - - - - 17

Chapter I Hereditary Genius

WHAT Mr. Francis Galton sets out to prove is shown in the following excerpts :

P. i. “I purpose to show in this book that a man’s natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world.” P. 148. “I argue that the more able the man, the more numerous ought his able kinsmen to be.” These two general propositions, however, he qualifies and restricts, for, on p. 64, he states : “ Because one or both of a child’s parents are able, it does not in the least follow as a matter of necessity, but only as one of moderately unfavourable odds, that the child will be able also. He inherits an extraordinary mixture of qualities, displayed in his grandparents, great-grandparents, and more remote ancestors, as well as from those of his father and mother. The most illustrious and so-called ‘ well-bred ’ families of the human race are utter mongrels as regards their natural gifts of intellect and disposition.

“ What I profess to prove is this : that if two children are taken, of whom one has a parent exceptionally gifted in a high degree — say, as i in 4,000, or as I in 1,000,000 — and the other has not, the formerchild has an enormously greater chance of turning out to be gifted in a high degree than the other.” The reader will at once see that what Mr. Galton “ professes to prove ” touches but a particular detail of the two general propositions referred to above. He, however, does deal incidentally with those two general propositions.

I shall herein try to worry out from Mr. Galton’ s facts and arguments what it is he has really proved. I shall then try to show that the resulting conclusions are not those which he himself arrives at.

Again, Mr. Galton continues the excerpt given above from p. x with the following allegation :

“ Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding these limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several generations.”

I shall try to prove that, by Mr. Galton’s own showing, it would not be possible, in the present state of human knowledge and experience, to produce any such highly -gif ted race of men in the way he suggests. If by the word “ race ” Mr. Galton means “ class,” I still allege that no such highly-gifted class could be evolved by “ domestic ” selection. Even if such a class came into existence, it could not be the subject of stable inheritance.

HEREDITARY GENIUS

But while Mr. Galton does not lay great stress on the advisability of breeding a separate highly-gifted class of individuals, he does lay great stress on the general failure of human intellect to perform adequately the demands made on it by modern civilization. And he holds that for the benefit of the race it is advisable to raise the average level of human intellect.

I shall try to show that we have no direct means to our hands to raise the average level of human intellect, and I shall try to show that the present level of human intellect is not only high enough to discharge all incumbent duties, but that it is capable of discharging still heavier duties, the present failure in discharge resulting solely from the restrictions of environment. I shall offer proof that at all periods of man’s evolution there is invariably a reserve of capacity or force in human natural ability, environment being always restrictive on the full action — achievement — of natural ability. In other words, the present environments of humanity are of such a nature that at all periods a great part — probably by far the greater part — of man’s natural ability is unused.

If this be so, then — as I shall try to show — it is change of environment that is required for the amelioration of the present state of the race. Only in change of environment can there be any hope for raising the level of the average ability of the race. Illustrious, even eminent men cannot be bred, because we know practically nothing of the laws governing their production.

2 — 2

Chapter II Reputation As A Test Of Natural Ability

FROM what has been written already it will be understood that Mr. Galton, for proof of his theory, does not deal with men at large. He deals only with the small class of eminent men and the still smaller class of illustrious men, taking them as what may perhaps be termed central points for the radiations of arguments.

He defines his use of the terms “ eminent ” and “ illustrious.”

On p. io he defines an “ eminent ” man as one “ who has achieved a position that is attained by only 250 persons in each million of men, or by 1 person in 4,000.” He defines an “ illustrious ” man as “ one in a million, and not a few as one of many millions.”

He then makes a most important admission. He acknowledges that he can find no practical measure of natural ability itself.

On p. 37 he states :

“ Is reputation a fair test of natural ability ? It is the only one I can employ. Am I justified in using it ? How much of a man’s success is due to

REPUTATION AS A TEST OF ABILITY 21 his opportunities, how much to his natural power of intellect ?”

In using the word “ reputation ” as a measure of natural ability, I think that he had in his mind rather the word “ achievement,” not the word “ reputation.” Throughout his work (with a few exceptions which may be neglected) he uses the word as meaning achievement. I think I am correct in stating that all the men he classifies for exemplification of his theory are men who have achieved. Indeed, with literary men he walks very warily, for, as he himself says, their reputation at any time may be no true measure of their achievement — only time can justify their achievement.

And I think that by reputation he means, not achievement in the abstract, but achievement which has been successful — that is, achievement which has received public acknowledgment and some measure of public reward. All the men he classifies are men who have been born to, or have attained, wealth, rank, or some public recognition.

Necessarily, therefore, he neglects those men unknown to the public — and there are thousands on thousands of them existing at all periods — who, gifted with exceptional ability, and yet free from personal ambition, expend all their energy in amassing knowledge or in labouring for others. They are ignored by him. Not having achieved marked personal success, they do not come within the category he uses of men gifted with exceptional natural ability. He neglects, also, all question of the inheritance of latent ability.

It is important to remember that our records of achievement are records of success. We erect no monuments even to the giants on whose heads Newton stood. They have possibly reputation for what they did, but their achievements were not generally of such a nature as to bring them within Mr. Galton’s category of men who have achieved.

I do not deny that achievement may be some measure of natural ability. And I should here point out that Mr. Galton himself qualifies his own use of the term “ natural ability,” for on p. 37 he states :

“ By natural ability I mean those qualities of intellect and disposition which urge and qualify a man to perform acts that lead to reputation.” And, further on, he states clearly that by natural ability he means capacity, zeal, and power of laborious work. I think we shall find later on that he uses “ zeal ” and “ power of laborious work ” in a restricted sense.

This qualification but weakens his argument when we consider general questions of inheritance — ability which chances on success is but a small (and not distinct) part of all inherited ability.

All we have, so far, to bear in mind is that throughout he uses successful achievement as approximately his one and sole measure of natural ability.

This somewhat long explanation has not been entered on with any object of belittling Mr. Galton’s admirable work. It is, however, necessary as preliminary to my argument that the present environments of our race bar the overwhelming majority of our people from taking equal part in competition for reputation or achievement. It is only the very few who are wholly free to compete.

Chapter III The Swamping Effect Of Poverty On Achievement

BEAR in mind that Mr. Galton determines the number of “ eminent ” and “ illustrious ” men, in relation to the number of the population, not by any measure of natural ability itself, but by reputation or successful achievement taken as a measure of natural ability.

We have to consider two factors as to “ eminent ” men. How did Mr. Galton arrive at the number 1,000,000 ? How at the number 250 ?

It will appear hereafter that I contend both factors are incorrect.

He states (p. 7) :

“ Let us see how the world classifies people, after examining each in her patient, persistent manner, during the years of their manhood. How many men of ‘ eminence ’ are there, and what proportion do they bear to the whole community ?”

And, again, referring to a handbook called “ Men of the Times,” he says (p. 7) :

“ Its intention, which is very fairly and honestly carried out, is to include none but those whom the world honours for their ability.”

Hereby we see that he arrives at his 250 men of ‘ eminence ’ by the above classification, and by the measure of how the world honours them for their ability. Besides giving the authority of “ Men of the Times,” he gives that of the obituary of the Times for January 1, 1869, and that of other obituaries.

How does he arrive at his 1,000,000 ?

He states (p. 8) :

“ Now, there are about 2,000,000 of adult males in the British Isles above fifty years of age ; consequently, the total number of ‘ the men of the times ’ are as 425 to 1,000,000, and the more select part of them as 250 to 1,000,000.”

Why does he confine himself to males above fifty ?

He states (p. 8) :

“ It takes time for an able man, born in the humbler ranks of life, to emerge from them, and to take his natural position. It would not, therefore, be just to compare the numbers of Englishmen in the book “ Men of the Times” with that of the whole adult male population of the British Isles ; but it is necessary to confine our examination to those of the celebrities who are past fifty years of age, and to compare their number with that of the whole male population who are also above fifty years.”

What does this statement amount to ? It contains an implicit admission that it takes longer for a man born in the humbler ranks of life than it takes for one born in the higher ranks to attain reputation (to achieve). It assumes that the man of exceptional natural ability born in humble rank

THE SWAMPING EFFECT OF POVERTY 25 will always attain reputation. It assumes, also, that, by taking tor comparison only men who are over fifty, the handicap of time is removed from those of humble rank, so that their natural abilities may be equally compared with those of higher rank by the measure of achievement.

In this way, and in this way only, Mr. Galton recognises the swamping effect of the environments of poverty.

We must consider at some length this swamping effect of the environments of poverty on achievement, and incidentally on the development for action of natural abilities.

In the first place, Mr. Galton’ s method is mathematically incorrect. The period of man’s life is practically a fixed period ; certainly natural abilities cannot achieve material success after eighty years. It is clear, then, that by taking comparison between men over fifty he still leaves those born in the humble ranks under a handicap, for time is unquestionably a factor in achievement, and by admission men of humble rank can only attain late in life that reputation which others may have obtained in earlier life. The life experienced before fifty is always an important “ time,” environment affecting success after fifty.

This is directly seen in the examples used by Mr. Galton.

He takes examples of Judges, statesmen, English peerages, commanders, literary men, men of science, poets, musicians, painters, divines, oarsmen, and wrestlers.

Some of the classes dealt with are, on their face, practically closed to any competition at all from men born in the humbler ranks. But the point now made is that for every class except the last two, poverty is a swamping environment against success, qua time. The man born in humble rank has not the same time for success, and time is a factor in success.

But how, generally, does Mr. Galton deal with the swamping effect of poverty on achievement ?

In the first place, we must clearly understand what definition he uses for natural ability, though this involves some repetition. He states (p. 37) :

“ By natural ability I mean the qualities of intellect and disposition which urge and qualify a man to perform acts that lead to reputation. I do not mean capacity without zeal, nor zeal without capacity, nor even a combination of both of them, without an adequate power of doing a great deal of very laborious work. But I mean a nature which, when left to itself, will, urged by an inherent stimulus, climb the path to eminence, and has strength to reach the summit — one which, if hindered or thwarted, will fret and strive until the hindrance is overcome, and it is again free to follow its labour-loving instinct.”

It is clear from this definition that he does not use the words “ natural ability ” in any general sense : his definition is a restrictive definition. So he does not deal with natural ability at large. And, too, the definition itself requires dissection.

By zeal, I think Mr. Galton most clearly does not mean zeal : he means personal ambition,

which is but a restricted form of zeal. Or, if I

THE SWAMPING EFFECT OF POVERTY 27

be wrong in this, I still think that most of the instances of illustrious and eminent men which he relies on show but zeal in the restricted direction of personal ambition.

By labour-loving instinct I think he does not mean sheer love of labour ; he means love of labour for self-advancement. In all classes of life we find our Lord Actons and Howards — men of exceptional natural abilities, with zeal for knowledge or zeal for the welfare of others, but no zeal for personal material achievement : — and Mr. Galton certainly refers in no way to the labour-loving instinct implanted in the majority of our labourers.

Mr. Galton deals with a very restricted class of men of natural ability. We shall find, too, that this restricted class is taken almost wholly from men who possess some property. This in itself shows a serious neglect of the swamping effect of poverty on achievement.

I think, too, though zeal or personal ambition may result from inherited disposition, it is largely a question of environment. And in this Mr. Galton would appear partly to agree, for he says (p. 46), referring to statesmen :

“ Again, we have seen that a union of three separate qualities — intellect, zeal, and power of work — are necessary to raise men from the ranks. Only two of these qualities — namely, intellect and power of work — are required by a man who is pushed into public life, because, when he is once there, the interest is so absorbing, and the competition so keen, as to supply the necessary stimulus to an ordinary mind.”

And is not “ power of work ” very greatly a question of education, of environment ? Surely the home environments of a Darwin are more likely to develop power of intellectual work in those subject to them than the home environments of an Essex labourer ? In the former case zeal and the labour-loving instinct are directed and educated to mental achievement, in the latter they are directed and educated to manual labour. The personal equation undoubtedly comes in, but environment must have no little effect on the results not only of ’zeal or personal ambition, but of the labour-loving instinct. I hold very strongly that zeal (not personal ambition) and love of labour are instinctive in the great majority of our race. The wonder is that this great majority should labour at all when only mean, soulless labour is open to its members.

Mr. Galton (p. 196) himself states :

“ It therefore appears to be very important to success in science that a man should have an able mother. I believe the reason to be that a child so circumstanced has the good fortune to be delivered from the ordinary narrowing partisan influence of home education. . . .” P. 197 : “ It is, I believe, owing to the favourable conditions of their early training that an unusually large proportion of the sons of the most gifted men of science become distinguished in the same career.”

Herein, and quite rightly, Mr. Galton makes achievement the result not of natural ability, but of natural ability developed under favourable environments. Apply this argument, not to men of science alone, but to all men generally, and we see

THE SWAMPING EFFECT OF POVERTY 29

. clearly that achievement is not the result of natural ability alone ; it is the result of some natural ability coupled with favourable environments.

The environments of poverty are most unfavourable to achievement, and by introducing his “ time ” limit Mr. Galton does not get rid of this handicap of environment. I think it will appear hereafter very clearly that he has not fully considered the swamping effect of poverty on achievement. If so, both his factors — 250 and 1,000,000 — are incorrect.

Note. — Following Mr. Galton as closely as may be in the order of his argument, I now deal with the various classes of men set out and relied on by him for exemplification of his theory. I quarrel very little with his facts ; but, though acknowledging the great value of his work, I demur to the conclusions he has arrived at, and to the theory he propounds.

I criticise now but in detail. These details concern the general questions of (1) reputation (achievement) as a test of natural ability ; (2) the swamping effect of poverty on achievement — even on reputation. So, necessarily, they have important bearing on the question of genius being hereditary or not hereditary, and on the question of what the remedy should be for the present preposterous economic state of our race.

Chapter IV

MR. GALTON (p. 38) first takes in hand men of the pen and artists. His reason for this is clear : achievement in literature or art is comparatively free from nepotic, social, or monetary influence. I write “ comparatively 55 free because, even in literature and art, environment has great effect on achievement ; and it must always be borne in mind that Mr. Galton throughout measures natural ability by achievement, and achievement alone. But, though environment has effect, successful achievement in literature and art generally infers natural ability. At the same time, it must be remembered that certain men of literature and art who would now be termed eminent will, fifty years hence, be forgotten, while certain other men now not even eminent may in the future be judged illustrious.

But success in literature or art by no means depends solely on intellect, zeal (personal ambition), and power of work. It depends largely, as I have written, on environment. The education and social surroundings of the man of humble rank do not give him the same environments tending to the evolution in him of zeal and power of work in the intellectual as do those of the man more fortunately bom. However naturally gifted the son of a labourer may be, education till thirteen at a boardschool and then work at the plough do not tend to evolve in him zeal and power of intellectual work as does a higher form of education with more invigorating social surroundings. Herein we see the swamping effect of poverty.

But it is also true that in literature and art we find a larger percentage of eminent men rising from humble rank than in any other path of achievement, unless, possibly, in science. With this I think Mr. Galton agrees (see p. 46). Why is this ?

Partly because in literature and art men of humble rank are not handicapped so greatly as in other directions of achievement by want of nepotic, social, or monetary influence. But, beyond this, the environments of poverty assist achievement in literature and art. Thus I admit that the environments of poverty are, in some degree, favourable for achievement ; but, still, the question is one of environment, not of natural ability. For success therein there must doubtless be natural ability to see nature itself, even if the microscope or a magnifying glass be used. At the same time, however, the question of environment comes in. The man of natural ability who is closely associated with nature is so enabled to understand it better than the man at a distance, and, too, the man so closely associated with nature has more material for his natural ability to work with. Besides this, the man so environed that he can regard nature (including humanity) from an unprejudiced point of view is best placed to record nature as in truth it exists.

Now, the man environed by wealth or social rank is far removed from nature. With his restricted class of associates, his materialized surroundings of luxurious civilization, he has acquaintance with but a “ crossgartered ” part of nature, and, from the prejudices of social standing, he cannot see and cannot record nature as in truth it exists. The man bom in humble rank is free from these limits. If he be affected by a prejudiced outlook it is a prejudice in favour of humanity at large as against materially-favoured classes.

In this we see how the environments of humble rank assist achievement in literature and art.

Thus we should expect to find achievement of genius in literature and art exemplified exceptionally in men born in humble rank ; for, though there may be no measure of genius itself to our hands, we can argue that for achievement by genius there must be exceptional natural ability coupled with those environments which best give opportunity for genius in action.

And we undoubtedly find that this is so in fact.

Shakspere found the material for his genius to work on from his general acquaintance with all forms of humanity ; he wrote of the highest and lowest truthfully because of his unprejudiced human standpoint. A duke, a millionaire, even a Lord Bacon, though gifted with abnormal natural ability, could never have held up a mirror to nature, or, had he done so, it could never have reflected the hovel as truthfully as the palace, the peasant as truthfully as the peer. No one would suggest that Moliere, born in rank a courtier of Louis Quatorze, could have achieved as Moliere the barber’s son achieved. Even Goethe owed much to the stain in his blood of which he was possibly no little ashamed.

Were not the achievements of Dickens and Thackeray — to take a modern instance — largely conditioned by their environments ?

The question is one of environment. It is true that throughout history there has not been one single man born to high social rank and wealth who has given us achievement of the highest genius in literature and art. But 1 do not think this proves mental weakness in the class. Huxley was right, I would suggest, in holding that the probability of natural ability is the same for all, rich and poor, highly born or humbly born. It is simply that the environments of social rank and wealth swamp the possibility of the highest achievement in literature and art. But while poverty in itself constitutes favourable environment for the free exercise of natural ability in art and literature, it must not be forgotten that it is most unfavourable for reputation ; for poverty infers enforced mean labour which absorbs much time, and so leads to want of social influence, and want of intellectual education. This is why, as Mr. Galton shows, only the most highly gifted of those humbly born attain reputation in art or literature.

It will be noticed that I have above referred only to men of genius in literature and art. But how about men of eminence ?

Here I can put Mr. Galton to a very clear test.

He makes a distinction between men as born in the humbler and higher ranks. The distinction, I submit, is indeterminate ; it is far too elastic for scientific use. There is no common agreement as to what humble rank and high rank mean.

If we want to determine the effects of economic environments on the achievements of natural ability, we must have some satisfactory economic distinction or, rather, we must have the nearest economic distinction which is to our hands.

I submit the most satisfactory economic distinction is in property. Then what have we ?

We have in England an overwhelmingly large class with no property ; we have a very small class with property.

Even this distinction, I admit, is not absolute, for men of no property gradually merge into men of property. There is no great gulf fixed between them. But the distinction is certainly more definite than that between men of humble and high rank.

The distinction is this : those without property work at the will of those with property ; they can only obtain the labour necessary for their livelihood at the will of others. Those with property can always obtain the labour necessary tor existence at their own will. This makes an economic distinction between the two classes almost as wide as the past distinction between masters and slaves. But it marks also a very important sentimental distinction. The man of average ability with intense self-reliance is far more likely to achieve than the man of great natural ability who is wanting in self-reliance. And the environments of no property, the consciousness that labour for existence depends on the will of others, tend to weaken that self-reliance which the consciousness of possessing property tends to strengthen.

Now, does Mr. Galton hold that this economic distinction between property and no property — mark the fact that it is a material distinction of environment — constitutes a sharp distinction for natural ability ? That the overwhelming majority without property have a low level of, or no, natural ability, and those with property have relatively high natural ability ? I think not, for he states (p. 38) :

“ I believe, and shall do my best to show, that, if the ‘ eminent ’ men of any period had been changelings when babies ” (my italics), “ a very fair proportion of those who survived and retained their health up to fifty years of age would, notwithstanding their altered circumstances, have equally risen to eminence.”

This does not state, but appears to infer, that Mr. Galton does not believe the offspring of the great no-propertied class are less intellectually gifted, on the average, than the offspring of the small propertied class.

But his position is made clear by his treatment of the examples he gives. When dealing with the eminent relations of Judges, he states (p. 60) :

“ Another fact to be observed is the nearness of the relationships in my list. . . . Also, though a man has twice as many grandfathers as fathers, and probably more than twice as many grandsons as sons, yet the Judges are found more frequently to have eminent fathers than grandfathers, and eminent sons than grandsons. In the third degree of relationship the eminent kinsmen are yet more rare, although the number of individuals in those degrees is increased in a duplicate proportion.”

Now, bear in mind that the swamping effect of ill-advised marriages is not in question. Mr. Galton deals with heredity as it in fact exists.

Then what necessary deduction is to be made from his statement ?

That at any given period any living eminent man is not a present representative of a family which always has been and probably always will be eminent. He represents but a passing phase of eminence. There is probability that his father and grandfather yvere eminent, probability that his son and grandson may be eminent ; but there is little or no probability of his earlier ancestors or later descendants being eminent. He is but the summit of a passing wave oh eminence in a family of general smoothness of average ability.

Again, from this the deduction follows that, if the living eminent men at successive periods of three, or more, generations be considered, we shall find that the eminent men of any three generations are not related by heredity to the eminent men of any other three generations.