The sexual question

CHAPTER XVToC

SEXUAL MORALITY

Law and Morality.—The limits of morality and law are difficult to fix. With the old conception of law and the expiation of crime it was otherwise. Yet it is precisely the old law, based on dogma and religious metaphysics, which has most usurped the domain of morality, by considering as crimes all kinds of acts which, without hurting men in the least degree, were opposed to the ruling ideas and prejudices concerning religion and morality.

Human and Religious Morality.—What then constitutes ethics or true human morality? A dogmatic system, of ethics has been built on a collection of commandments supposed to be inspired by God. Religions have established different duties toward God, and these duties or commandments are in part very inhuman. This has often resulted in direct contradictions between ethics attributed to divine revelation, and pure human ethics. Moreover, the divine commandments vary in different religions.

The god of certain Malays commands them to eat the heart of their enemies; Jehovah was vindictive and jealous, ordering Abraham to sacrifice his own son to prove his faith, causing whole tribes to be annihilated, even drowning the whole of humanity by the flood, while the God of the Christians is milder and more conciliating; Allah rules as a fatalist and orders the massacre of the Christians and abstinence from alcohol, while Jesus Christ tells men to love their enemies and allows wine; the god of the Hindus orders the widow to follow her husband to the grave; a number of other gods exact human sacrifice; Buddha taught oblivion in the future, others a more or less eternal paradise, hell and purgatory, according to the conduct of men.

It will be agreed that it is difficult to obtain anything logical or coherent from the total of different religious moralities. As regards the sexual question, so-called divine commandments, such as those of monogamy and polygamy, directly contradict each other.

For this reason, we will leave the so-called revealed morality to the priests of diverse religions who pretend to have received them directly from God, and will confine ourselves to the study of purely human morality. This should never be based on any dogmatic formula, like the above on their religious dogmas; it must be evolved from the natural conditions of human life.

Morality and Hygiene.—Morality is intimately connected with hygiene, and wherever there appears to be a contradiction between hygiene and ethics this is due to the fact that individual hygiene has only been considered, and not public or social hygiene—that is the hygiene of the race. It is the duty of the medical profession to place social above individual hygiene, to subordinate the hygienic welfare of the individual to that of society. A contradiction may exist between individual morality and hygiene, never between social morality and hygiene.

Definition of Morality.—How can we define morality or ethics? Liberated as far as possible from all hypothesis, ethics is theoretically the study of what is good or bad in human actions, and practically, as regards morality, the duty of doing good and avoiding evil. But this is hardly explicit, for what do we understand by good and evil? Not only do some consider good what others consider evil, but the words which Goethe puts into the mouth of the devil (in "Faust")—that while wishing evil he often did good—will always be true. This gives a faithful representation of the deplorable want of adaptation which exists between the good and evil effects of our actions on the one hand, and the goodness or wickedness of our motives on the other hand. The inverse is also true, for good intentions often have evil results. We must, therefore, carefully distinguish between the ethical motives of the good and bad effects of an action.

If we continue our analysis we shall discover that the same action may be good for one and bad for another. When a wolf devours a lamb, it is good for the wolf but bad for the lamb. We cannot live without destroying other lives, animal or vegetable. The money we earn comes out of the pockets of others without their always obtaining a corresponding profit, and so on. Morality is thus relative, and we have not the faculty of discovering anything which is absolutely good or absolutely bad in itself.

All that men can expect by mutual exchange of their wisdom and good will is to do as little evil and as much good as possible, that is to say, to diminish the amount of their physical and psychic ills by improving their mutual conditions of existence, and thus increasing the amount of good. Even this is only possible by limiting the ideas of good and evil almost exclusively to humanity, trampling on the conditions of existence and the development of other beings, or at least concerning ourselves with them only as far as they are useful to us.

Further, we have seen that it is very difficult to extend the conception of social welfare to all the living races of humanity, for some of them are at the same time so fecund and so inferior in quality, that if they were allowed to multiply around us without any precaution they would soon starve and supplant us. Then the barbarity of their lower instincts (vide weight of brain in different races at end of Chapter VI) would soon take the upper hand and become general, as the negroes of Hayti have shown us by a lesson which is worthy of our attention.

Therefore, an exaggeration of moral sentiments, resting on a false basis, would have the positive result of striking a fatal blow at our social morality, slowly built up during hundreds or thousands of years.

Lastly, the same action may first of all do evil and afterwards good, for example, a painful lesson; or vice versa, as in the satisfaction of a gluttonous appetite.

Morality can only be Relative.—It follows from these considerations that our moral duties can only be relative, and cannot bind us in the same way nor in the same degree to all living beings, not even to all men, if we would avoid sacrificing what is lofty to what is vile. In theory, the definition of human morality will consist in a just and scientific definition of social welfare and the exigencies which it imposes on individuals, in order that the latter do not do evil in attempting to do good. In practice, it will be the general effort made to develop successfully this social welfare by the aid of individual will. This presupposes in the first place education of the will, the dispositions to useful work, and the altruistic sentiments of each individual. It is neither theoretical dogma nor preaching, but action and example which make for the education of man.

The noblest task of moral action is to strive for the welfare of future generations.

Altruism and Egoism.—Properly understood, altruism and egoism do not form an antinomy, or only quite a relative antinomy. It is absolutely wrong to found social order by letting loose all our egoistic appetites without restriction. But it is quite as wrong to oppose them with an exaggerated and unnatural asceticism, which reflects in our eyes an erroneous ideal of altruism.

When a bee or an ant disgorges the honey from its stomach for the benefit of its companions, it enjoys it. By sacrificing its life for the hive or the nest, it satisfies an altruistic or social instinct. Cannot man also be more happy in giving than receiving? How can we explain the great sacrifices, the martyrs who suffer and die for their country, for their family, for science, for an idea, if enthusiasm—an expanded sentiment of pleasure—did not lead man to disinterested sacrifice, or if an inner obsession did not find its satisfaction in the welfare of humanity?

Let us seek all measures which by social adaptation can ennoble our human egoism, reduce it to its indispensable and just measure, and maintain it in proper equilibrium, by the aid of an active altruism; that is to say, by social habits of self-sacrifice for the benefit of the community. We shall then obtain a paradise on earth, no doubt very relative, but far preferable to our present anarchy based on the strife of personal interests.

The chief thing wanting is a good hereditary quality among human individuals, a quality which is still entirely left to chance, by the most deplorable selection; the second requisite is the education of character and will in our children. Our religion and our schools have shown themselves incapable of raising the bulk of the people above barbarism, that is to say from apathy, vulgarity of sentiment, routine, ignorance and prejudice. No doubt intellectual culture and religious ethics have accomplished a certain amount of moral progress, but the methods employed in our churches and schools have not advanced with science. They are in no sense adapted to our present moral wants and still less to the exigencies of the future.

It is on the basis of a natural human morality, such as we have just described, that we must found sexual morality or ethics, and it is not difficult to form clear ideas on this subject, if we take the trouble to examine the facts explained in the first fourteen chapters of this book.

From the social and moral point of view we may consider an action as positive or useful, neutral or indifferent, and negative or harmful. But the same action may be at the same time positive, negative or indifferent, relatively to one or more groups of individuals. But in ethics it is not only a question of the action in itself, but especially the inner motives which lead to it; for, to leave the good and ill of society to chance and ignorance, is to deny the possibility of progress. It is difficult for a man to accomplish positive social actions, when the moral sentiments of conscience and duty are wanting. On the other hand, a narrow-minded individual, with false judgment, will accomplish negative social actions through moral motives, while in certain cases an individual may accomplish positive social acts fortuitously through perverse motives. Through vengeance, a generous legacy may be left which injures an individual, while profiting the public. Without being perverse, motives may be simply egoistic and lead to good by calculated egoism.

By altruist, we understand a man animated by powerful moral sentiments which preside over social humanitarian volitions. By the term pure egoist, we designate one in whom self forms the exclusive object of sentiments of sympathy. In himself, the egoist is indifferent from the moral point of view, so long as he injures no one, and the altruist himself cannot live without a certain amount of egoism. The ideal of social sentiment therefore consists in the combined action of egoistic and altruistic sentiments, adapted to the wants of society and its members. As among certain ants, there should exist a complete compensatory regulation between the egoistic sentiments and appetites on the other hand. The antagonist of altruism is not the egoist, but the perverse individual whose acts are by instinct almost constantly negative from the moral point of view. Egoism urges a man in such an irresistible way to abuse and harm others in order to satisfy himself, that a pure egoist can rarely remain indifferent from the moral point of view. These considerations suffice to show the impossibility of basing social order on pure egoism, as so many people desire.

Sexual Morality.—Sexual morality depends upon what we have just said. By itself, the sexual appetite is indifferent from the moral point of view. A great confusion of ideas, based on religious misunderstanding, has led to the term morality being more and more identified with that of moral conduct in the sexual domain. In short, ethics has been more or less confounded with sexuality. From this point of view, a sexually anæsthetic individual is regarded as extremely "moral," while he is perhaps in other respects a knave. In reality his sexual indifference has not the least moral value. For the same reason an invert is not virtuous because he does not seduce girls.

From the Protestant point of view it is immoral to burden one's wife with continual pregnancies, while from the Catholic point of view it is immoral to interfere with these pregnancies by preventive measures.

Nevertheless, the sexual appetite gives rise to much conflict with human morality, for the simple reason that it looks upon human beings as objects of pleasure. Fetichism, in which the sexual appetite is directed toward inanimate objects, and sodomy, directed to animals, are by themselves almost incapable of entering into conflict with morality as we understand it.

The opinion of many people who consider the employment of anticonceptional measures as immoral, while defending prostitution, shows how much ideas vary on the subject of sexual ethics. Preachers of morality, and even priests, sometimes blame a young man who wishes to marry his mistress, and urge him to get rid of her and the child by paying a sum of money. The inconsistency of men in the way they introduce their so-called moral ideas into sexual questions is simply incredible. Their heads are full of a jumble of hypocrisy, mysticism, prejudice, pecuniary interests, veneration for old traditional customs called good manners, a jumble which absolutely confuses all ideas of a healthy sexual morality. Look at the indignation of parents when their children become betrothed to persons whom they consider to be beneath them in social position, or who possess too little money! And all these people are unconscious of their immorality, which sails under the flag of morality!

What standpoint are we to take in the sexual domain, which is free from prejudice, with regard to true human morality? This is the question which an honest and truly moral man has to put to himself.

The first principle is the old medical adage: Above all things do no harm; the second is: Be as useful as possible, both individually and socially.

The commandment of sexual morality will thus be: Thou shalt do no harm willingly to any person, nor to humanity, by thy sexual appetite or acts, and thou shalt do thy utmost to promote the happiness of thy neighbor and the welfare of society.

Endowed with sexual appetite and the faculty of love, the social man will utilize both for the benefit of the community as well as his own. If he acts honorably his task will not be easy, but he will experience all the more satisfaction, for his good deeds will bring their own reward. He should bear in mind the following examples:

(1). A man of bad disposition, excited by momentary sexual passion, seduces a girl, makes her pregnant, and then disappears. He injures his victim and himself without deriving any advantage. His action is therefore negative, and is to be condemned both from the ethical and the egoistic point of view.

(2). Through motives of religious morality, a virtuous girl marries a depraved drunkard in order to save him. This rarely succeeds, and if it does it is generally incomplete. From the egoistic point of view this experiment is exclusively negative. From the altruistic point of view the motives are, it is true, very positive, but the social effects are still more negative. If all goes well, our virtuous and exalted girl will succeed in improving the drunkard, but if she procreates children, she will have unconsciously sinned against them, and her good action will result in the sins of the father being visited on the children.

(3). A man with marked hereditary taints, impulsive, psychopathic and possessed of a strong sexual appetite, marries an honest girl of good family, and has several children by her. Such an action is positive from the egoistic point of view, for the individual in question benefits himself. From the ethical point of view, it is negative, for it makes an honest woman unhappy, and probably leads to the procreation of children of bad quality.

(4). A man, healthy in body and mind, capable, hardworking and full of ideals, finds a suitable companion. Instead of leading an easy life, they both undertake as much work as possible, especially social duties, and procreate at sufficient intervals as many children as they can without injury to the health of the wife. This is an ideal combination of positive altruism with positive egoism.

It is not every one who has the good fortune to fulfill the conditions necessary for this combination. A positive sexual morality is, however, by no means excluded in less favorable conditions. Certain psychopathic or feeble individuals may contract sterile marriages in the manner previously indicated, and may recompense themselves for the absence of children by devoting themselves all the more to social duties, or to the education of abandoned orphans.

When a union is concluded between a person who is capable in all respects, and another who is not, the latter should give the other permission to procreate children by a third party, more adapted to give rise to healthy offspring. Although this is immoral according to current conventional opinion, it seems to me that such a proceeding could become reconciled with positive morality in the future.

In short, whoever understands the true nature of sexual ethics will always find a means of accomplishing good actions and avoiding bad ones, at the same time satisfying his normal appetites, provided these injure no one.

The truly moral man will never become the accomplice of such a social iniquity as proxenetism with prostitution and all its satellites, but will oppose them with all his power. He will always avoid doing wrong to any one by his sexual appetite; and if his passion drives him to a thoughtless act, he will do his utmost to redress the bad effects which may result from it.

The psychological action produced by conjugal infidelity merits special attention. It depends on the more or less egoistic or altruistic qualities of the one who becomes enamored of a third person. I have observed the two chief varieties of cases. If the guilty husband has naturally moral and social sentiments, his extra-nuptial love renders him still more affectionate toward his legitimate wife. He eases his conscience by becoming more indulgent to his wife. When his amorous intoxication is over, he will try to avoid everything which may damage the reputation of the other woman, and will provide for her future. If there are children by this adultery, he will provide for them.

It is the same with a married woman who is in love with another man. In this case the whole personality is more powerfully involved than in man. But on the other hand, the natural energy of the woman will lead her to try and arrange a marriage between her lover and some other good woman, and to resist coitus with him.

If the matter goes as far as complete infidelity, and even without it, various reactions may be observed. When her sentiments are monogamous, as is the case with most women, the love of a woman for her husband disappears and is replaced by pity. She easily becomes peevish in her resignation. She often seeks divorce, even when adultery has not taken place. When she is polyandrous, as is the case with many hysterical women, she is quite capable of lavishing her caresses on her husband as well as her lover, a thing which is impossible for normal women.

What induces want of respect for his wife in the unfaithful egoist, is not so much the monogamous sentiment, which is somewhat exceptional in man, but intoxication of his senses by another woman. He then becomes miserly and disagreeable toward his wife, finding fault with her in every way, but the innocent and deceived victim finally discovers the true cause of this change of manner. Some women who are ill-treated in this way, preserve their love for their husbands, while others never pardon the slightest infidelity, not even an innocent platonic affection, in their husbands.

The brutality of a husband toward his wife, when he is in love with another, often knows no limits. From bad temper, chicanery, contempt and hatred, he often goes on to blows and even murder, as the annals of criminology prove too well. Egoistic women who have a lover, also treat their husbands badly. Owing to their legal subordination and comparative physical weakness, they reveal their sentiments in a less brutal form, but malice and bad temper are not wanting. In such cases, the woman's principal weapon is cunning, which may go as far as poisoning the husband. More commonly she simply abandons him, to force him to divorce.

There are many transitions and varieties, but the reactions we have mentioned are the most common. It is quite natural, when one of the conjoints falls in love with a third person, for the sexual appetite to become cold toward the conjoint, and for this frigidity to make her appear less desirable and show up her defects.

Sexual morality is twice mentioned in the ten commandments of Moses:

Seventh commandment: Thou shall not commit adultery.

Tenth commandment: Thy shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

In the eleventh commandment of Jesus Christ the words: Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself, represent approximately the point of view of modern ethics. Nevertheless contemporary social progress requires more and better. It is not so exalted as to say "Love those who persecute you," but it demands a more rational and better formulated ethics, somewhat as follows: Thou shall love humanity more than thyself, and thou shalt seek thy happiness in the welfare of its future. Such a formula expresses the commandment of sexual ethics as we have defined it.

In the commandments of Moses the wife is regarded as property, and the desire for the wife of one's neighbor is threatened with divine punishment inasmuch as it covets the property of one's neighbor. When woman is treated as a free subject and as the equal and companion of man, it is evident that a fundamental revision of such ideas is requisite. Certain forms of adultery with voluntary consent on both sides may even become positive from the moral point of view.

In spite of this, one of the principal tasks of man's sexual morality will always be to restrain his erotic polygamous desires, for the simple reason that they are especially apt to injure the rights and the welfare of others. We must make exception for certain special cases in which no one is injured. (Vide Couvreur's "La Graine," and de Maupassant's "Mouche.")

The novelist loves to treat of tragic situations, often giving them a fatal ending to excite the feelings of his readers. We must avoid basing sexual ethics on such ideas. The average man, or even one whose nature is a little above the average, is rarely as passionate as the heroes in novels. He does not commit suicide for rejected love, but finds compensation in time. He can even overcome jealousy.

It is thus an exaggeration, depending partly on the suggestion and auto-suggestion of amorous intoxication, to require in the ethics of love the absolute fusion of the personality of two human beings, a mutual fusion of sentiments and ideas destined to last till death. This kind of morality reverts to dual egoism, and in no way represents the ideal of human happiness. However beautiful conjugal fidelity, its exaggeration is deplorable, when it only results in the idolatrous worship of a single being, living or dead, and regards the rest of the world with indifference, if not with hostility.

We have already shown that the altruistic sentiments of man are the direct or indirect[10] derivatives of the sexual appetite, and especially of sexual love. The true secret of sexual ethics consists, therefore, in a cult of altruism in the sexual domain. This cult should not waste itself in moral phrases, but show its strength by social deeds.

A sad proof of human weakness is given daily by certain forms of modern ethics which waste themselves in public conferences or in declamations in the press. This kind of morality is in accordance with pure egoism. Without social work, it is not true morality, whether this work be public or modestly hidden.

The struggle for existence was formerly carried on by man against nature, against animals, and especially against other men. Nature and animals (excepting the cosmic forces and microbes) are nowadays conquered by the human brain, and wars are seldom waged except between great empires, a fact which will sooner or later reduce them to absurdity. For this reason the morality of the god of war and of patriotic chauvinism has had his day and loses more and more his reason for existence. Modern ethics has already become a social and international human ethics, and will become more so in the future.

As in olden times a true hero knew how to combine love of his wife with love for his country, to obtain in his conjugal union the strength to fight for his ideal, so our modern love will serve to stimulate us in the pursuit of an ideal, in our fight for social welfare. Man and woman must fight side by side, as this struggle requires from both an intense and lifelong effort. But it is precisely in this effort, in this work, that they will obtain their highest enjoyment. This effort supports and strengthens not only the muscles, but especially the mind, the cerebral energy.

The struggle for social welfare prepares for us the highest and most ideal joy. It teaches man to master himself, to overcome his natural idleness, his desire for pleasure, his dependence on all kinds of futile habits and base appetites. It educates his will, curbs his weak and egoistic sentiments, while exercising his faculty for creating good and useful works. Thanks to this incessant strife, a brain of even mediocre quality may become a useful social instrument.

I ask in all sincerity if, living in the way we have just described, a man will find the time and inclination to indulge in the love stories which the novels of our libraries offer to readers of both sexes for their daily consumption? I reply: if the man is normal, no. It is only pathological natures, with their exaggerated sentiment and morbid passions, which remain incapable of mastering their passionate emotionalism and reducing it to silence. Other individuals, normal or semi-normal, are artificially urged to exaggerated exaltation in the sexual domain by idleness, by reading pernicious novels which excite their sexual appetite and their sentimentality, also by the artificial life and feverish activity of life in cities.

Work in itself is not sufficient, and every one ought to add social work to his ordinary occupation. In fact, the monotony of any special occupation, and even the exclusive work of a scientific speciality, ends by giving the cerebral energy itself an exclusive character. The moral sentiments become atrophied. Exclusiveness in a speciality, practiced without any complement, easily leads to exclusiveness in love (not in the sexual appetite!). We often see two egoists, or several in a family, working together to exploit the rest of society. As long as they keep in good health and their business prospers, as long as the egoistic plans of a third party do not upset their calculations, they may remain faithful to each other and live in comparative happiness. But what else?

Whoever, on the contrary, has known how to combine with his conjugal love, a lively interest in humanity, will always find in the latter a consoling compensation for the greatest misfortunes and the most cruel losses. He will not fall into a state of despair, but will survive his trouble, and will become reconciled to men and society without expecting anything from them, for he will have been accustomed all his life to work in an impersonal manner.

If I am accused of being enthusiastic over an ideal which is impossible to attain, I protest strongly. Good habits may always be acquired, and true altruists are found among the most modest of men, among simple workingmen or peasants who comprehend and realize the ideal I have just depicted.

In Chapter XVII we shall see in what way the dispositions of the child can be and ought to be developed in the direction indicated. It is needless to say that pure egoists and perverse individuals, who are negative from the moral point of view, in other words natures which are evil and harmful by heredity, can never be educated so as to become altruists. But these perverse natures do not form the majority. The great majority of men, although idle and indifferent, may still become habituated to social work by suitable education, as soon as the external forces which urge them to evil, such as drink and the greed for money, have been removed and replaced by beneficial forces.

Lastly, the whole attention of humanity should be directed toward its proper selection, so as to increase the number of useful individuals, and diminish or gradually eliminate the bad and incapable. But this is the work of many centuries of enlightenment and education, a work which we can only begin at present. We find ourselves here in face of one of the weakest points in human nature, a weakness which consists in only becoming enthusiastic over progress which will enable self to attain its object, and not help others. When self does not quickly obtain a palpable result, it is paralyzed and discouraged, and turns its back on reform under the most futile pretexts. I will give an example:

A young bachelor became enthusiastic over the social reform of abstinence from alcohol. For some years he worked with zeal, took part in numerous public demonstrations, and became an apostle of total abstinence. One day, after some failure, he turned his back on abstinence, declaring that the movement had no future. Nevertheless, the social movement of abstinence progressed without him. After some years, he was asked the reason why he had abandoned the movement. After having first of all repeated his pretext, he confessed that he did not wish to appear eccentric. He admitted that he had never felt so well as when he was an abstainer, appeared somewhat astonished to learn that the movement had made so much progress without him, was finally convinced of his error, and promised to return to the camp of the faithful.

In common daily events of this kind lies the secret of the slow progress of every social reform. Men who are momentarily enthusiastic nearly always expect everything to progress according to their imagination, and when they see that it will be some time before any obvious result is attained, they become discouraged, because they have neither the personal courage nor the perseverance to remain in a minority and wait. The same want of perseverance, courage and judgment is found in the education of children, and it will take a long time to enlighten people on this subject.

It would seem that we have lost sight of our subject in occupying ourselves with the irradiation of love, which forms the object of social sentiments or ethics (vide Chapter V). But it is by exactly understanding and realizing this irradiation of love that we shall gradually suppress the unhealthy social aberrations of the sexual appetite, and prevent them doing harm, by guiding them in the path of a healthy morality. It is not the severe external constraint of so-called moral laws, it is not by the threats or punishments of hell, nor the promise of paradise, nor the moral preachings of the priests, parents or pedagogues, nor an exalted asceticism, which can ever construct a healthy, just and lasting sexual ethics. It is not by words that we recognize the value of moral precepts, but by their results. It is quite certain that the sexual life of man can never rise above its present state without being freed from the bonds of mysticism and religious dogma, and based on a loyal and unequivocal human morality which will recognize the normal wants of humanity, always having as its principal object the welfare of posterity.

Marriage should be considered as a means of satisfying the sexual appetite, and at the same time a moral and social school of life; not as a refuge for egoism. Division of duties, absolute equality of rights and social work in common, will solidify more and more the sexual bonds of two conjoints. By the aid of a better understanding of the wants of human society, the conjoints will learn how to overcome their egoistic sentiments, their polygamous inclinations, and their jealousy, etc.

In striving for happiness, and especially for the sexual happiness of others, such conjoints will learn better how to excuse and pardon the sexual failings of other men. They will cease to despise the poor man's household, the girl-mother, the divorced wife, the concubine, even the poor invert, and other failings in their fellow beings. On the contrary, they will do their utmost to make their lot a happier one, by helping all those for whom help may be efficacious. They will find their greatest pleasure in this work, and if one of them becomes himself the victim of some sexual failing, he will be pardoned all the more easily, and will master it all the more quickly.

There will then be no time to make life bitter by bad temper, slander, acrimony, sulking and other conjugal disputes. The husband will no longer behave with the despotism of a lord and master, and the wife will no longer think it her duty to humble herself. Religious dogmas will no longer separate man from woman. Priests will no longer be required in marriage. Lastly, there will be no more fear of death; this will be regarded as a welcome rest after the long labor and duty fulfilled of a well-spent life.

I cannot help taxing with narrow-mindedness, and even unintelligence, persons who consider such an ideal of life as a fantasy impossible to realize, or as the product of exalted dreamers who do not know the world. No doubt this ideal cannot be attained by ill-constructed, unnatural beings, tainted by a morbid heredity, or depraved by idleness, vice and passion for pleasure, who have lost their elasticity and plasticity of brain or have never possessed them. It has, however, been often realized already by men and women of better quality. It is, therefore, necessary to act on the children, both by education and selection, in order to obtain a youth of superior quality.

Let us not abandon the future of our race to the fatalism of Allah; let us create it ourselves!

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER XVIToC

THE SEXUAL QUESTION IN POLITICS AND IN POLITICAL ECONOMY

Power and money have always been the principal aims of politics. Political economy is a science which deals with the great family of nations and their conditions of existence. Based on history, statistics and observation, it seeks for the laws which govern the production, consumption and division of goods, labor and its products, the social organization of nations, their health, the increase or decrease of the population, the death-rate, birth-rate, etc.

I cannot here enter into the details of the domestic economy of the nation, as this is beyond my province. I may, however, point out that this science has too much neglected the natural sciences, owing to its traditional connection with politics.

In 1881 Cognetti de Martiis[11] had already attempted to apply the ideas of evolution to political economy. Recently, Prof. Eugene Schwiedland of Vienna treated the same subject in an interesting study of the ideas of want and desire in human psychology.[12] So far, it is only the quantity and not the quality of men which has been taken into account, originating from the false idea that man made in God's image can only come into the world in a perfect state. If he was often malformed in body and mind, this was the fault of his sins. Even hereditary degeneration to the third and fourth generation was considered as divine punishment for the sins of the fathers on the children.

War.—The despots of olden times, like those of to-day, have always regarded men as instruments of their ambition or even as food for cannon. When Napoleon I established a bounty for large families, he was no doubt thinking of the number of soldiers he could make for the use of his son. He had good reason to provide for the replenishment of the ranks of his army. The mental quality of the individuals mattered little to him. Wars are a harmful factor in human selection, for they destroy or mutilate the fittest in the prime of life, while leaving the unfit and the aged.

Moreover, we have already seen to what an extent the quality and even the quantity of soldiers suffer from venereal disease and alcohol. After certain long wars the male population has been decimated to such a point that polygamy had to be resorted to to reconstitute the nation. It is, therefore, obvious that wars have a bad influence on the sexual relations of men, and hence on the quantity, or what is still worse, the quality of a nation.

Statistics.—Political economy is still more important. I do not doubt the correctness of the figures which tell us that under this or that economic system the population increases, while under another system it diminishes, etc. But these are only summary data whose true causes remain in the dark. It is necessary to carefully study the factors which produce these figures. Emigration and immigration with their causes, the intimate habits of individuals and families, their willingness and aptitude for work, etc. One fact which follows another is not always the direct consequence of it and if we examine things more closely, we arrive at curious results.

Alcohol.—Things being otherwise equal, it is found that nations who abstain from alcohol and those who are moderate consumers are more prolific than nations who are addicted to drink. In Russia, for instance, the abstainers, although of the same race and living under the same conditions, are more prolific than their neighbors who drink.

As we have already pointed out, alcohol greatly deteriorates the quality of man by blastophthoria, and we must agree with men such as Darwin, Gladstone, Cobden, Comte, etc., that alcohol (even in so-called moderation) does more harm to a nation than war, plague and famine together.

We find here an economic factor of the first order, to which the majority of economists (with the exception of Cobden) are blind. It is a very short-sighted policy to regard the alcohol industry as a source of wealth and welfare for nations. What an amount of labor, human power and valuable land is employed to produce this mischievous substance which, although useful in pharmacy and other industries, neither nourishes nor strengthens, but deteriorates the organism and leads to degeneration of the race! If it were not so sad, it would be ridiculous to observe the serious way in which high officials, or even scientists, calculate the product of taxes on distilled and fermented liquors, the laws for their import and export, the monopoly of their manufacture, etc. It is remarkable how the budget is balanced by the aid of the alcoholic intoxication of the people, and how people are made to believe that a masterpiece of political economy is thereby achieved. In reality, the health and strength of the nation are sacrificed. This kind of political economy can only be qualified as false and deceitful. We cannot too often nor too strongly stigmatize its destructive influence on sexual matters and on the hereditary energies of humanity.

Density of Population.—As regards the most desirable figures for population, opinions are diametrically opposed. Some authors look for the happiness of humanity in prolific reproduction, and imagine that by utilizing all parts of the globe an unlimited number of people could be supported by its produce.

We cannot regard with favor this singular Chinese-like ideal, which would tend to transform the whole world into a huge cornfield for the raising of men like rabbits. Moreover, it is greatly to be feared that the real Chinese, when they have become sufficiently armed and re-civilized, will transform the surface of the earth into a human stable, if we do not take sufficient precautions.

Neo-malthusianism.—On the other hand, a certain group of idealists, the neo-malthusianists, have declared a war of extermination against all increase of the population. I have myself been accused by one of them of committing a crime by procreating more than four children! Neo-malthusianists of this kind only deal with quantity and do not concern themselves with quality.

They recommend, as we do, the employment of anticonceptional measures, but they do so without any discrimination. They address themselves to the altruistic and intelligent portion of the public, and induce the most useful members of society to procreate as little as possible, without recognizing that with their system, not only the Chinese and negroes, but, among European races, the most incapable and amoral classes of the population are those who trouble the least about their maximum number of children. Hence, the result they obtain is exactly the opposite of what they intend.

Among the North Americans and New Zealanders, with whom neo-malthusianism is very prevalent, the number of births among the intelligent classes is diminishing to an alarming extent, while the Chinese and negroes multiply exceedingly. In France, the practice of neo-malthusianism is chiefly due to reasons of economy.

Rational Selection.—These two extremes, which are equally absurd, should be replaced by rational selection. Neo-malthusianism should be confined to the unfit of all kinds, and to the lower races. On the contrary, the fit should be urged to multiply as much as possible. By this means we obtain an indirect factor of the first order for a rational political economy; I even maintain that it is the most important of all. No doubt its action is extremely slow, and it would take centuries to obtain a definite result. But if the principle of proper human selection ever prevails, we may confidently hope for a good future for our descendants.

A time will come when the human population of the earth will become more or less stationary. If, in the meantime, human nature has succeeded in appreciably improving its quality, and in gradually suppressing the physical and mental proletariat with its poverty, hunger and brutality, which now infests the world—then only will the dogmas of our modern neo-malthusianists acquire a certain object for the whole world.

If humanity does not soon begin to degenerate by brutish accumulation, but finds in time the means to gradually elevate its quality, our future descendants will take care not to abandon rational selection. A capable and active man gives to society much more than he receives, and thus forms an economic asset. A person who is unfit in body or mind, receives more than he gives, and thus constitutes an economic deficit.

Contrary Selection.—We have seen in Chapter VI how certain customs of essentially human origin ended by becoming part of religion. Unfortunately for humanity, religion and politics have at all times generally combined to do wrong. The celibacy of priests (to say nothing of the Inquisition, religious wars, and the fatalism of Islam) which is based on a kind of religious politics, has largely resulted in sterilizing the more intelligent among Catholic races.

The prohibition of inquiry into paternity is another abominable custom of the same kind introduced by Napoleon. Laws of this nature lead to artificial abortion and encourage promiscuous intercourse. The safety of families and sexual intercourse lies in the duties of parents toward their children.

The principal task of a political economy which has the true happiness of men at heart, should be to encourage the procreation of happy, useful, healthy and hard-working individuals. To build an ever-increasing number of hospitals, asylums for lunatics, idiots and incurables, reformatories, etc.; to provide them with every comfort, and manage them scientifically, is no doubt a very fine thing, and speaks well of the progress and development of human sympathy. But, what is forgotten, is that by concerning ourselves almost exclusively with human ruins, the results of our social abuses, we gradually weaken the forces of the healthy portion of the population.

By attacking the roots of the evil and limiting the procreation of the unfit, we shall be performing a work which is much more humanitarian, if less striking in its effect.

Formerly, our economists and politicians hardly ever considered this question, and even now very few are interested in it, because it brings neither honors nor money, as we do not ourselves see the fruits of such efforts. Any one who aims at serious reforms and puts his hand to the work is looked upon as eccentric, or even mad. This is why we are contented with the kind of humanitarianism which makes a show and panders to the sentimentality of the masses, by holding out a charitable hand to the visible and audible evils which make women weep. In short, we amuse ourselves with repairing the ruins, but are afraid of attacking what makes these ruins!

The Laws of Lycurgus.—There was once in Sparta a great legislator named Lycurgus, who attempted to introduce a kind of human selection into the laws. He wished to make the Spartans a strong nation, because at that time bodily strength was almost the only ideal of the people. He understood the value of hardness but not that of work. The importance of selective elimination of the diseased and weak was apparent to his pre-Darwinian intuition, but in his time natural laws were not understood. However, in spite of their failings, the laws of Lycurgus succeeded up to a certain point in making the Spartans a strong nation.

According to the laws of Lycurgus, the Spartan inherited no property, and was forbidden all luxury. He had to eat his simple black broth with his fellows, and to exercise himself continually in trials of strength and skill. Every Spartan had to marry, and the bonds of matrimony were strictly observed. Every weak child was eliminated. But there were two fundamental errors in the Spartan organization.

First of all, the Spartan was a warrior, but not a worker, and although hardened, was an aristocrat. He left all labor to his slaves, and in this way strengthened his slaves and enfeebled himself in many respects. The value of work in strengthening and developing the brain and the whole body was not then understood.

In the second place, all the efforts of the Spartans were directed toward muscular strength, bodily skill, courage, and simple wants, but not at all toward a life of higher intelligence or ideal sentiments. The exclusiveness with which they only promoted man's bodily development, while neglecting his intellect, their negligence of the laws of organic evolution due to ignorance of natural science, would sooner or later have led to the decay of the Spartans.

However, it was not the laws of Lycurgus in themselves, but their abandonment, which was the direct cause of the decadence of Sparta. The Spartans only sought for power, and this led to envy and jealousy, a deplorable although indirect result of the exclusiveness of their laws. These laws, however, will always constitute a unique historical document, a remarkable attempt at human selection.

We are at the present day incomparably better armed intellectually than Lycurgus to deal with the question of selection. What is chiefly wanting is initiative on the part of the men who are charged with the government of their fellows. They are so deeply absorbed in economic interests and rival influences, that all desire of aspiring to a higher social ideal is paralyzed and etiolated in them. We require a powerful social shaking if we are to make steady progress.

Politics and the Sexual Question.—"Cherchez la femme" is the common expression when anything unusual occurs in society. It would be more correct to say "Look for the sexual motive!" The actions of men are determined much more by their passions and sentiments than by purely intellectual reflection, i.e., by reason and logic.

But no sentiment is stronger than the direct sexual sentiment, or its derivatives—love, jealousy and hatred. From this results a fact which social systems have too much neglected, namely: that in all the domains of human social activity, the sexual passions and their psychic irradiations often interact directly or indirectly in a mischievous way. Mistresses and courtesans have always played a considerable part in political intrigue.

It is not necessary to have such a tragic scandal as that which caused the assassination of the king and queen of Servia. Everyday influences, even the smallest and most dissimulated, are often the most efficacious. Sexual intrigues have at all times influenced and directed the fate of nations. History relates a number of cases of this kind, but there are many more which have never been revealed to the public. It is sufficient to mention this fact. Every one who reflects will find an illustration of it, in the history of the past as well as in the politics of the present, in the courts of monarchs and in small democracies, in the local history of provinces, in his own parish, and lastly among his own relatives, friends and acquaintances.

Sexual Life in Social Action.—The socialist who said that the social question was exclusively a question of stomach mistook its scope as well as human psychology. However admirably the economic relations of men and their work may be regulated, the introduction of sexual passions into social life will never be eliminated. All that can be done is to give both sexes an education which will elevate their social conscience and attenuate the evil influences exercised by personal sexual sentiments on social actions.

The sexual question, therefore, intervenes in politics and in the whole of social life. Moreover, if the deplorable social influence of money and the attraction it exerts could be eliminated, antisocial acts, which only depend indirectly on the sexual passions, would lose much of their danger and infamy.

The Rôle of Women.—Here again, much may be expected from the free emancipation of woman, and from her work in social questions in conjunction with man. This work in common will make them more clearly understand the high importance of their social task. Then sexual life will encourage social development instead of hindering it; it will cease to be considered as an egoistic pleasure but as a means of procreation, and will become the acme of an existence founded on the joy of work.

We can already see, in countries where women have a vote, that they know very well how to benefit by social progress. If it is objected that woman is more conservative and more routine than man, I reply that this inconvenience is compensated by the fact that she is on the whole more inclined to enthusiasm, and to be led by noble masculine natures, who have the sense of the ideal, than by others (vide Chapter V). Her great perseverance and courage are also inestimable qualities for social work which aims at true progress.

Necessity and Desire.—In the work which I have already quoted, Schwiedland points out the need for distinguishing between necessity and desire, in political economy. In practice it is no doubt difficult to always make an exact distinction between necessity and luxury. What our ancestors considered as luxuries we now regard as necessities. Man knows no limits in his desires; he is insatiable in his passion for pleasure and change. Certain socialists, especially anarchists, make a great mistake in proclaiming the right of man to satisfy all his desires. This is a proclamation of corruption and degeneration. As it is just to exact the right to satisfaction of the natural wants of each, so is it unjust to sanction every desire and every appetite.

It is a question of distinguishing between good and useful wants and evil desires. All wants which promote a healthy life, all instincts which lead to social work, are good. All desires, which damage the health and life of the individual or injure the rights and welfare of society, are bad, and are the procreators of luxury, excessive concupiscence, and often corruption. Between these two extremes there are desires which are more or less indifferent, for example, that of possessing objects of beauty.

Certain objects of human desire are harmful in themselves, such as the use of alcoholic liquor and narcotics. Others are only harmful when pushed to excess, such as good living, sexual pleasures, personal adornment, etc. Among the things desired by man, sexual pleasure plays a great part. Thus, when a pasha or a sultan provides himself with a large number of women, this excess is harmful from the social point of view, as it injures the rights of others. I have sufficiently dwelt on this fact elsewhere. I wish only to indicate here, with Schwiedland, how necessary it is to fix the limits between necessities and desires from the point of view of political economy, however relative and subjective these limits may be.