Frazer supposes that exogamy in its beginning arose originally as a restriction upon complete promiscuity, though he admits that such promiscuity need not have been characteristic of absolutely primitive man[236]. As a matter of fact the most primitive races that we know seem to be usually Really primitive races mostly monogamous and endogamous monogamous and endogamous. This is for instance to a greater or less extent the case with the Veddahs[237], the Andamanese[238], the lowest forest tribes of Brazil[239], the inhabitants of the interior of Borneo[240], the Semangs and Senoi of the Malay Peninsula[241], and the Negritos of the Philippines[242] and Central Africa[243].
In these primitive peoples and in those who, as we must The family is therefore their principal social unit suppose, formerly resembled them, the family would appear to be a more closely knit and socially a more important unit than in the later age of totemism and exogamy; there being in this respect a resemblance between the primitive condition and that of the post-totemic patriarchal period. There is reason to believe however that in the case of really primitive man (in distinction from the later patriarchal period) the family is often the only permanent and stable unit; such approximation to tribal organisation as exists being mostly of a temporary or Incest a natural consequence of such conditions fluctuating character. With such peoples the low state of culture will often necessitate a relatively scattered population, and in these circumstances endogamy and incest may be a natural—indeed possibly sometimes an inevitable—consequence; for where families live in relative isolation for long periods together, opportunities for marriage outside the family may be few, and abstention from sexual activities during these periods would imply a greater power of continence than would seem as a rule to be possessed by primitive peoples. Incest would naturally follow too under these conditions from the early ripening of the sexual instinct which is generally found in primitive man[244]. The very early cohabitation of the sexes which results therefrom would, in relatively isolated families, almost necessarily occur in an incestuous form.
If these influences have made incest a common practice How do past incestuous practices produce present tendencies to incest? at one period of man's history, in what ways has this practice contributed to the tendency to incest found at a later date and at the present day? In view of the widespread (we are probably justified in saying universal) occurrence of this tendency, of the relative uniformity of its ultimate nature in spite of manifold differences of culture, training, and environment, of the great strength which it possesses even after ages of repression, there is not unnaturally a temptation to regard it as an innate factor in man's mental constitution, i. e., to assert that there is in man an hereditary tendency to direct his love and sexual The influence of heredity and of tradition inclination to those who are of his own blood or at any rate to those with whom he has been brought up and has been familiar since his infancy[245]. Possibly in the long ages in which man or his pre-human ancestors lived in relatively isolated families, this tendency was of advantage in the struggle for existence, in so much as it may have contributed both to more rapid multiplication and to the greater consolidation, and therefore greater safety and stability, of the family, as the most important social unit. The tendency to incest may thus be due ultimately to the action of natural selection; the long period during which incest was regularly practised may have established and ingrained it as a normal feature of the race and its persistence to-day may be due to the continuance of the hereditary disposition thus formed and thus consolidated.
Apart from the direct influence of this hereditary factor however, a long period during which incest was habitual may have affected the tendency to incest at a later time through custom, law and tradition. These change but slowly in a primitive society, and, through their inertia, would tend to reinforce or maintain the hereditary factor, even when, owing to the action of other causes, incest may have been abandoned in the main in favour of exogamy. These influences may have kept alive the remembrance of, and desire for, incest, which would otherwise possibly have succumbed to the forces working to bring about its suppression.
Supposing the tendency to incest to have been called into Causes of Incest Repression being and maintained by some such causes, or combination of causes, as we have considered in the last chapter, what are the influences that have brought about the inhibition and repression of this tendency—influences which, as we have already remarked, must be strong in proportion to the strength of the tendency itself? We find here, as was not the case with our discussion of the positive aspects of the tendency, that certain explanations have already been advanced, though these are for the most part obviously unsatisfactory, or at best incomplete.
(1) The reasons which are given by primitive peoples for their obedience to the rule of exogamy are various; sometimes Explanations of primitive peoples it is considered that harm would come to the pair who are guilty of the forbidden union, this perhaps being usually of the nature of some disease, or else very frequently, impotence or barrenness; sometimes it is the offspring of the guilty pair who will incur the penalty; quite often, however, the evil results of such a union are supposed to affect the whole community to which they belong and consist not uncommonly in general infertility of women, animals and plants. These reasons, though they no doubt exercise a powerful influence among those who hold them, are for the most part too obviously of the nature of superstitions, inventions or rationalisations to be taken at their face value; though the study of them on psycho-analytic principles would no doubt bring interesting and suggestive results.
Hardly much more satisfactory, if regarded as attempts at affording complete and ultimate explanations, are some of hypotheses that have been put forward by modern students of exogamy.
(2) Thus, Durkheim[246] suggests that exogamy arose as a Durkheim's Theory of the sanctity of blood result of the religious respect for blood, particularly menstruous blood; the divine totemic being is supposed to be resident in blood, hence blood is sacred, especially to those of the totem clan, and no man of this clan may trespass on the very spot where the sacred blood periodically manifests itself. Even if this theory should afford a satisfactory proximate explanation of exogamy, it is obviously very far from revealing the true ultimate biological and psychological factors that have led to the practice. Even apart from this, however, it gives rise to certain difficulties and objections (more especially connected with the lack of the close correspondence between exogamous classes and totemic clans which we should expect upon this theory) and has almost certainly at best but a very limited field of application[247].
(3) Westermarck[248] would explain exogamy and the avoidance Westermarck's theory of an innate aversion to incest of incest generally as due to the fact that there is an innate aversion to sexual intercourse between persons living together from early youth, and that, as such persons are in most cases related by blood, this feeling would naturally display itself in custom and law as a horror of intercourse between near kin[249].
As to the general existence of this horror there can be no doubt, and to assign to it an important part in framing human opinions and institutions with regard to incest is perfectly justifiable so long as we do not lose sight of the fact that this horror is only one side of the total human attitude towards the matter and that alongside of the horror there exists an attraction towards incest which corresponds in intensity to that of the horror itself[250]. An explanation in terms of this incest horror is not, however, that which we are seeking; it is, on the contrary, the very existence of this horror for which we are trying to account. We have to ask, what are the conditions in human life and mind that have brought about the widespread aversion resulting from the injurious effects of inbreeding to incest that is so generally manifested. According to Westermarck, these conditions are to be found in the process of natural selection; marriages between near kin are, he maintains, on the whole injurious to the species and, therefore, through survival of the fittest, the existing races of men show a marked aversion to such marriages.
In estimating the correctness of this theory, it is well to These effects by no means certain remember that the supposed ill effects of inbreeding in men and animals are by no means as yet universally admitted by those who have studied the subject, and that, even so far as their existence is admitted, they are not yet fully understood or accurately measured. It is indeed often a matter of considerable difficulty to discover any ill effects that may be due to this cause, especially in the case of slow breeding animals, such as Man, and the conclusions that have been arrived at with regard to the human race have to a great extent been derived by analogy from observations made upon lower animals. It would seem to be fairly generally agreed that such ill effects as may exist arise for the most part from the reinforcement or accentuation of hereditary weaknesses and defects that is liable to occur in inbreeding and that members of a perfectly healthy family might continue to mate with one another for several (perhaps for many) generations without evil consequences, though possibly a loss of vigour, strength or fertility might ultimately occur. In the case of the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Incas of Peru inbreeding of this kind has (as we have already observed in another connection) actually been practised and does not seem to have produced any conspicuously bad results. There is some evidence, too, that seems to point to the fact that the supposed ill effects of inbreeding are due to the results of continuously similar environment and conditions of life rather than to the physiological resemblance of the parents, or at any rate that any evil effects of the latter cause may be counterbalanced by a change of abode or of the mode of living[251].
East and Jones in their recent valuable survey of our present knowledge on the subject[252] conclude quite definitely that inbreeding is not in itself productive of ill effects, the results of inbreeding in any particular case depending entirely upon the hereditary qualities transmitted; so that, although in bad stock the intensification of undesirable qualities through inbreeding might soon bring about deterioration, in good stock inbreeding is the surest method of making the desirable qualities a stable and permanent characteristic of the race. Nevertheless there are, in the opinion of these writers, certain advantages of a general nature to be derived from outbreeding connected principally: (1) with the occurrence of heterosis or hybrid vigour as a result of outbreeding, (2) with the fact that outbreeding leads to greater variability between individuals than does inbreeding, thus giving greater scope for the action of selective agencies and therefore endowing the race with greater power of adaptation to a changing environment—a factor which is probably of very considerable importance and which indeed seems to have been overlooked in a number of previous discussions of the subject, especially by nonbiological writers.
It thus appears that stress should be laid upon the advantages of outbreeding rather than upon the supposed ill effects of inbreeding. Nevertheless we must admit that there exist biological factors of such a kind as to be capable of influencing the psychological attitude towards incest in the way that Westermarck's theory requires. But although the theory that incest prohibition is due to natural selection working on the relative disadvantages of inbreeding may be correct so far as it goes, this does not absolve us from the duty of looking elsewhere for other factors which may have worked in the same direction. For it appears very doubtful whether the factors we have just been considering can be regarded as an adequate explanation of incest prohibition as we know it. If it is the advantages of outbreeding rather than the disadvantages and can scarcely account for the intensity of the incest prohibition of inbreeding that are potent; if the evil effects of inbreeding are so relatively slight as to leave room for doubt as to their nature and even the fact of their existence; if they are of such kind as to leave healthy stocks but little if at all affected and to become serious only after long continuance without admixture of fresh blood from outside (a state of affairs that can but rarely have occurred); and if they are liable to be counteracted by a change of locality or of life's conditions (which must sometimes have occurred, especially among nomadic peoples): then it is not easy to understand how such a widespread and powerful human characteristic as the aversion to incest can have arisen solely as the result of natural selection, working through the bad effects of incest or the superior advantages of outbreeding. The largeness of the result would be manifestly out of proportion to the cause, and it would seem that although we may allow some considerable influence to this factor, we have to admit that it must be supplemented by some other cause or causes of appreciable magnitude[253].
(4) According to one type of explanation (e. g. that Influence of non-sexual factors held by Wundt[254]) the horror of incest is not the cause of exogamy, but the consequence of it—the origin of exogamy itself being due to some other influences only indirectly connected with the sex life. Of such theories of the origin of exogamy a number have been put forward by eminent authorities.
Thus McLennan[255], the discoverer of both Totemism and Exogamy, held the view that exogamy was a consequence of the wide prevalence of marriage by capture; this latter being itself a result of the preponderance of the male sex over the female in primitive communities and of the general condition of hostility existing between neighbouring tribes. Herbert Spencer[256] similarly thought that exogamy arose from marriage by capture, men belonging to successful tribes nearly always acquiring their brides in this way, so that it eventually became a disgrace to marry within the tribe. Lord Avebury[257], believing that group marriage or promiscuity was the rule in primitive society, suggests that women taken in war belonged to their individual captor, marriage in a narrow sense being thus exogamous from the start. Kohler[258] believes on the contrary, that exogamy arose as a means of bringing about inter-tribal friendships or alliances. Andrew Lang[259] has suggested that exogamy is due to the fact that the younger brothers of a family were frequently driven out by the stronger and older ones in order to ward off any want that might arise from the living together of a large number of brothers and sisters—the younger brothers being then obliged to marry outside the family group.
Now all these factors—and others too perhaps—may very Such factors cannot fully explain exogamy well have had their influence in bringing about the practice of exogamy: in particular, it would seem that the difficulty of supporting a large family living together under really primitive conditions would be very likely to have had the effect of driving the younger members of the family away from the immediate circle of their parents. Nevertheless there appears to be a pretty general agreement that none of these theories affords a complete and sufficient account of the origin of exogamy. The conditions postulated by McLennan's theory (shortage of women and frequent wars between neighbouring groups) are by no means universally found among primitive peoples, and even if there exists the required preponderance of men over women, it is by no means obvious why the men should refuse to avail themselves of such fellow-tribeswomen as they could find. On Spencer's view, it is difficult or impossible to account for the existence of exogamy among all the tribes of a given area, since in constant warfare there must be some which are vanquished, and among these endogamy rather than exogamy should be the rule. Lord Avebury's theory rests on the assumption that communal marriage was the original condition of mankind—an assumption that is now abandoned by many of the best authorities. Kohler's view can scarcely explain how the objection to sexual unions within the tribe should have come to apply not only to marriage but (equally strongly) to less regular or purely temporary connections. Andrew Lang's theory similarly fails to explain why the rule of exogamy is made to apply to the elder members of the family with the same force as to the younger[260].
Moreover, even supposing that the existence of such an institution as exogamy could be in itself satisfactorily accounted for on some such grounds as those advanced by theories of this kind, it is at once evident that we have here no adequate explanation of the strictness with which the system is enforced, The psychological nature of the incest prohibition shows the insufficiency of these influences the severe penalties that are exacted for infringement of its rules (which is very often punishable by death), the intense nature of the incest horror generally, and the fact that this horror persists even where, as in civilised countries, there is no organised system of exogamy in the technical sense. The psychological researches of Freud and his followers would seem to have shown conclusively that this intense aversion to incest (like all repugnances and taboos of a similar kind) is the negative expression of a correspondingly intense desire for the forbidden thing, and therefore no explanation which neglects to take into consideration this desire can be regarded as even approximately satisfactory. If the aversion to incest had arisen merely as a consequence of the age-long practice of exogamy—which itself is due to other causes—there would be no reason why this aversion should be intimately connected with the positive tendency to incest or of sufficient strength to overcome this tendency, with the powerfulness of which we are now well acquainted. In view of the existence of this strong tendency to incest (which was not appreciated before the work of Freud), it seems no longer possible to maintain, either that exogamy can have arisen independently of the counter-impulse to repress this tendency, or that this counter-impulse, which finds its psychic expression in that incest horror so generally observable both in primitive and cultured man, can be satisfactorily explained as the result of any institution or custom itself unconnected with the tendency to incest.
(5) Turning to factors that have in general received less The biological absurdity of parent-child incest explicit recognition at the hands of the authorities who have written on the subject, we may note first that as regards the most fundamental type of incest as revealed by psycho-analytic study—that of parent and child—there is involved a sort of biological absurdity, which may well have been to some extent instrumental, through the agency of natural selection, of bringing about that inhibition of the incestuous tendencies for which we have to account. Parents and children necessarily differ considerably in age, though less so in most primitive communities than in the civilised societies of to-day, where marriage is so often postponed till relatively late in life. Even among primitive peoples however the difference is very appreciable, especially in view of the fact (which must be borne in mind in this connection) that with such peoples, owing to the harder conditions of existence, life is often shorter than in civilised communities, while the enfeeblement that accompanies advancing age comes on proportionately sooner. If men were to follow blindly the impulses manifested in the primitive and fundamental forms of incest tendency, sons would cohabit with their mothers, daughters with their fathers. In such unions one of the partners would be relatively aged, and the offspring would in consequence very probably be lacking in that degree of vitality or health normally possessed by the children of parents of more equal age; they would moreover fail, in the majority of cases, to enjoy that degree of provision and protection which could be afforded where both parents are still youthful. Even if such unions were to occur, they could not (in the case of one sex at any rate) be continued in the following generation; for if a son were to cohabit with his mother and if a male child resulted from their union, this child could not in turn fruitfully unite with his mother (who would also be his grandmother), as she would be now definitely past the reproductive age. Further, such unions would come into opposition with the almost universal tendency to find sexual attractiveness in youthful rather than in aged persons—a tendency which, like the appreciation of beauty in the opposite sex in general, we may suppose has been shaped largely, if not wholly, by the operation of natural selection, which has ensured that men and women should in the main be attracted to those who are most likely to produce strong and healthy children.
Thus it can easily be understood that any races which tended to indulge to any large extent the impulses which prompt to incestuous unions between parents and children would be at a disadvantage as compared with those races in which these unions did not occur or occurred less frequently; the latter races tending therefore to supplant the former. Given then the existence of a strong impulse towards parent-children unions, we can see how biological factors may very well have favoured the growth of strong counteracting factors, such as manifest themselves in the repression of the tendencies towards this form of incest.
These considerations would of course apply not only to relations between parents and children but to all other unions in which the age difference between the partners is considerable. They would not however apply to unions between brother and sister or between cousins who are of approximately equal age. The influences which lead to the aversions to these latter unions must be sought elsewhere[261].
(6) A potent set of influences calculated to inhibit tendencies Fear of the consequences of parental jealousy to incest are those connected with sexual jealousy. A boy's love towards his mother, as we have seen, almost necessarily brings him to some extent into conflict with his father, while a girl's affection to her father is similarly calculated to bring about the jealousy of her mother. This arousal of jealousy on the part of the parents may produce repression of the incest tendency in the child in a variety of ways; of which perhaps the most frequent and important are:—
a. fear of punishment at the hands of the jealous parent, and
b. unwillingness to cause injury or sorrow to this parent because of genuine affection being felt towards him (or her)—affection which of course may quite well co-exist with very considerable jealousy and rivalry. Both these motives appear prominently in psycho-analytic investigations of the conditions underlying the repression of the Œdipus complex in normal and neurotic persons of the present day, and both have been operative for long ages in the past wherever the family has existed in a monogamous form in which the parents lived together for a considerable period after the birth of their children. Very similar motives may also co-operate in the repression of incest tendencies as between brothers and sisters, the jealousies in this case being for the most part those between brothers or between sisters respectively.
(7) There can be little doubt that there exists a certain Strong family ties conflict with social development degree of antagonism between the development of strong and permanent ties within the family and the development of those sentiments and feelings which bind the individual to the larger social groups, such as the tribe or nation, or those which make him a prominent, useful and agreeable member of society—in that family affections conflict in some degree with gregariousness. This antagonism can be observed in society to-day in such cases as those in which dependence on, and attachment to, the family will prevent an individual from easily adapting himself to the wider environment of school, college or club life, or from becoming "at home" in the circle of his business, sporting or professional acquaintances. Similarly, undue concentration of interest or affection on the family will very frequently prevent the formation of those wider sublimations, some of which we studied in Chapter XIII, sublimations upon which the successful working of a large community may often depend. The individual who finds the satisfaction of all his emotions and desires within the circle of his family is unlikely to develop to the full those wider interests in his fellow men and in the social conditions of his age and place, without which all higher political progress and development become impossible.
At an earlier stage of human society the conflict was very possibly much more acute. Man, as we have seen, was probably in origin a family, rather than a social, animal; nevertheless it is the gregariousness of man which is responsible for the most characteristic features of the progress in culture which has led to civilisation. Gregariousness has therefore proved itself a very precious biological possession and natural selection would be likely to ensure its retention and development in the human mind, thus affording a strong influence in favour of the repression of those family affections which might threaten it. It is to some extent in this way perhaps that there came about that great revulsion against the monogamic family which is manifested in the totemic age—an age in which the ties connecting the individual with other members of a larger social group were developed at the expense of those which attached him to his family, and an age which elaborated the most complex, far-reaching and intense barriers against the incest tendencies which are shown in the various systems of exogamy.
At a later stage of human development, when the foundations of society were more securely settled, circumstances seem to have permitted something in the nature of a relaxation of the restrictions on family ties and family affections, the exogamic rules becoming less strict or less far-reaching and the family becoming more firmly knit together; this change being perhaps made possible by the fact that the larger and more complex social groups of a more developed society no longer came into such direct conflict with the family as an alternative social unit—the larger group being now of sufficient size and strength to tolerate the co-existence of the smaller (or, more strictly speaking, to include the smaller within itself) without fear of competition or disruption.
Thus, though the urgency of the pressure may very well have varied in different times and places, it would seem probable that the claims of social life have constantly exercised some influence in restricting the interests and affections which centre round the family and have therefore probably constituted one of the forces which have helped to bring about that inhibition of the incest tendencies for which we are here trying to account.
(8) There exists a very similar antagonism between a high They conflict also with individual development degree of family attachment and the claims of individual development. We have seen in the earlier chapters the way in which the full unfolding of the individual's capacities—his ability to maintain himself by his own efforts, his power of self reliance, of initiative and of independent thought and action—demand a relaxation of the ties that bind him to his family. It is true that the relations of an individual to his family which are here in question are not primarily the erotic ones; still they are everywhere in contact with these erotic aspects of the family relationship and would seem to be highly correlated with them—so much so that it is often a matter of great difficulty to decide where the erotic elements end and the purely dependence relationships begin[262]. In virtue of this correlation it would seem that the incest tendencies, when developed or retained in a high degree, must be inimical to the free growth of individual capacity; in other words, that those communities in which the incest tendencies have flourished would, other things equal, consist of less energetic, self-reliant, and efficient individuals than those in which these tendencies had been kept within more moderate bounds. Natural selection would therefore, we might expect, ensure the continuation of those communities in which the incest tendencies were more repressed. Similarly, as regards the individuals themselves, it would seem likely that, in virtue of their greater efficiency, those would survive and prosper who were able to control and to sublimate their incest tendencies rather than those in whom these tendencies had free and unrestricted play.
Under the last heading (7) we saw that the repression Both greater integration and greater differentiation of society is thus secured of incest would on the whole lead to the greater integration of human society through a more developed gregariousness and the establishment of firmer ties of interest and affection between the individual and the community. Under the present heading we have seen that the repression of the incest tendencies would also lead to greater differentiation through a more thorough development of individual characters, abilities and differences. If, with Herbert Spencer, we agree that the progress of society (like evolution generally) involves both integration and differentiation, it is easy to see how the inhibition of the tendencies to incest may have thus contributed in two distinct but complementary ways to the advance of human civilisation.
(9) Westermarck, as we saw above (3), in endeavouring to account for the origin of incest horror, drew attention to the aversion to sexual intercourse between those who had lived together from early youth (a class of persons which usually, of course, includes the closer blood relatives). While we must disagree with Westermarck in his implicit denial of the underlying attraction between these persons—an attraction which makes the aversion in question to a large extent nothing more than a reaction against the desire for intercourse between them—it is nevertheless possible that the study of this wider aversion may throw a few rays of fresh light upon the narrower incest aversion with which we are concerned.
Westermarck would regard the objection to intercourse Among those who live together sexual reactions are inhibited by non-sexual between those living together from youth as due to the biological causes discussed above (3). Without denying the truth of this view, we may venture to suggest that there perhaps exist psychological causes, which tend to bring about the same result. Those who live much together must necessarily react in and to each other's presence in a great variety of ways, involving a very considerable number of instinctive and habitual mechanisms, the majority of which are not—or at most are only quite indirectly—sexual in nature, being concerned for the most part with life preserving activities (e. g. obtaining and preparing food, eating, washing, dressing, acquiring or practising various branches of skill or knowledge, the carrying on of professional activities, etc.). During the greater part of their time together, the sexual instincts of the persons concerned are therefore held in check in order that the other mental trends involved in these various necessary functions may enjoy full play; in fact the reaction to each other's presence along the lines of these other trends becomes much more habitual than does reaction along the lines of sexual feeling. The very constant inhibition of this latter feeling occasioned by the almost continual preoccupation with everyday affairs, in which those who live together are equally concerned, is apt to make it difficult for the inhibition to be entirely removed and for the sexual trends to have free play, even when opportunity offers; and is therefore calculated to make a union between those whose lives have long been intimately connected appear unsuitable or unattractive, quite apart from the operation of any definite taboo or prohibition; whereas with strangers inhibitions of the kind just described are far less operative and the sexual impulses can therefore work without impediment.
A further factor which may reinforce the foregoing is and especially by hostile tendencies connected with the actual hostility (conscious or repressed) that so frequently exists between those whose lives and interests are connected. As we have already had occasion to see, the competition that exists between members of the same family is almost bound to engender some degree of hostility; and this hostility (even if in later life it be quite indiscernible to consciousness) will add its weight to any force which tends to inhibit love of the person towards whom hostility is felt.
Here then we have two factors, which, though not peculiar to incestuous relationships, nevertheless very probably contribute a certain share of influence to the sum total of the forces productive of the aversion to incest[263].
(10) The incestuous tendencies with which we are here The incest tendencies are also affected by the general sexual inhibitions concerned are, as we have amply seen, among the earliest manifestations of sexuality (in the wide sense of this term commonly employed by psycho-analysts) and, like most other manifestations of this aspect of human nature, suffer from the general repression to which sexuality in all its more direct expressions is habitually subject. It is no doubt true that the incestuous direction of the youthful sexual impulse itself contributes in very appreciable measure to the conditions which bring about this general repression, and that this repression is therefore to some extent an effect rather than a cause of the incest inhibition. Nevertheless it would seem at least equally certain that incest inhibition is far from being responsible for the whole of sexual repression and that the latter does react powerfully in certain respects upon the former, so that the existence of a general tendency to the repression of all manifestations of the sexual instinct may be regarded as constituting an additional factor in the inhibition of incestuous affection for which we have been trying to account[264].
We have now studied some of the principal factors which, Thus the circumstances of human life are responsible for the mental conflicts that centre round the incest tendencies it seems, may have had some influence in producing the tremendous conflicts in the human mind which centre round the family. In so far as we have been correct in our analysis of these factors, it would appear that there are strong influences, both in the individual and in the race, which work both positively and negatively in regard to those aspects of love and hate which constitute the Œdipus complex. The existence of the mental struggles which this complex inevitably brings in its train may therefore, on a wider view, appear less startling than on a first approach. Both the human individual and the human race are subject to conditions, some of which favour one mode of response, some of which are best reacted to by a contrary or at least an antagonistic type of behaviour. Owing to the inherent limitations of the human mind at the unconscious and primitive levels—its difficulty in overcoming habits that have once been formed, its tendency to give expression simultaneously to incompatible impulses, its relatively small power of creating distinctions and differentiations—it is inevitable that the different tendencies which are thus created and aroused should frequently come into conflict. It would seem to be more especially the function of consciousness however to produce a clear distinction between different situations and thus to facilitate nicer adaptations of conduct than would otherwise be possible. By understanding his own impulses and the true nature of the situations which have called them forth and to which they are adapted, man becomes to some extent master of his own fate and can rise above the blind level of instinctive behaviour, inasmuch as his own motives become co-ordinated and integrated and subject to the best that is in him; while his conduct becomes more delicately adapted to his environment and more nearly productive of the ends that he desires. It is as contributions, be they ever so slight, towards this wider understanding and control of man's nature, that, from the practical and ethical point of view, studies like the present acquire such value as they may possess.
Having now completed our theoretical survey, it may be Practical conclusions well to undertake, as a final instalment of our task, some brief consideration of the main practical conclusions that emerge from our psychological study of the family relationships. The general nature of these practical conclusions has indeed already emerged with some degree of clearness at various points in our review; but a recapitulation or reconsideration of the chief points as regards which the psychological processes and principles with which we have been concerned would seem to admit of, and to demand, practical application, may perhaps prove of some value, now that we have reached the end of the descriptive and theoretical portions of our task.
It is probable that the chief practical gain that may result They have to a large extent already emerged from the study of the psychology of the family will ensue more or less directly from the mere increase in understanding of the nature of, and interactions between, the mental processes that are involved in the family relationships. As in most matters in which the Unconscious plays a leading part, knowledge is here perhaps more than usually akin to virtue. A fuller grasp of the essential character of the unconscious tendencies that are aroused within the family circle makes possible, and naturally leads up to, an important and far-reaching readjustment of our views and our behaviour, and a readjustment of such a kind as could scarcely be brought about by any other means. When we have brought to consciousness the hidden motives that lurk in the buried strata of our mind, our practical judgment and our reason have a grasp of the psychic situation of such a kind as was before impossible; and very often the true course to be steered appears with unmistakable clearness before our vision as the as usual in psycho-analytic investigations result of our increased self-knowledge. This is only an instance of what so frequently—one might say generally—occurs as the result of psycho-analysis; not only in the case of psycho-analytic research into the processes of the individual mind, but also to some extent in the case of the general treatment of a problem or a situation upon psycho-analytic lines. That too is the reason why, in the present case, the practical conclusions to be drawn from our considerations have to a very large extent emerged of themselves in the course of these considerations and have in the main become evident to us without any further procedure being necessary to elicit them.
Thus it will by now have become amply clear, what, in The two chief processes demanding ethical consideration the main, are the pitfalls to avoid in the course of family life, and what are the chief ends which it is desirable to seek. The weaning of the child from the incestuous love which binds it to the family (together with the secondary hatred which this love may entail) and the gradual loosening of the psychological, moral and economic dependence of the individual on the family have revealed themselves as the two chief aspects of the task with which the ethical treatment of our subject has to deal. The considerations brought forward in the last three chapters have shown that human beings are subject to two opposing tendencies in these respects—one of these tendencies uniting the individual closely to the family, the other separating him sharply from it; both tendencies being conditioned by psychological and biological factors of fundamental significance. It is the duty of a sane and reasonable ethics of the family to indicate the most satisfactory solution of the conflict which these opposing tendencies engender, giving such scope to either tendency as may be necessary for it to fulfil its essential function in the life of the individual and the race.
Our treatment of the subject during the greater part of The tendencies towards the family more primitive than those away from the family this book, following as it does the actual findings of those who have been brought face to face with these tendencies in the course of their endeavours to understand and cure the disorders of mental growth and personality, has no doubt conveyed to some extent the impression that it is the first mentioned tendency—that which draws the individual towards the family—which is most often found in excess, and has therefore most frequently to be restrained, while it is the tendency away from the family which is most often deficient in strength or in development, and which therefore most frequently requires The latter more often require artificial aid artificial stimulation and encouragement. This impression is indeed one that is inevitably conveyed by a careful study of the knowledge that we at present possess upon the subject. In whichever direction we look, Man's chief handicap, as regards those aspects of his mind which here concern us, would appear to consist in an undue strength, or at any rate an undue persistence, of an infantile attitude towards the family. This would seem to indicate that the tendency towards the family is probably both ontogenetically and phylogenetically the older and more fundamental of the two, and that the tendency away from the family is not yet sufficiently deeply rooted or assimilated in the human mental constitution to be able to assert itself with sufficient force in the manner and direction that successful biological adjustment would require.
Nevertheless, if this is so, the mere fact that the tendency But the former are biologically deeper and more essential towards the family is thus in some respects prior to, and more fundamental than, its antagonist, would indicate that it is based upon biological and psychological conditions and requirements that are correspondingly more primitive and therefore more essential. We have seen in effect that the causes which have led to the strong attachment of the individual to the family are probably connected with certain necessary conditions of human growth and development—the long period of helplessness and immaturity, the dependence upon others (and especially the parents) for the very necessaries of life, the need to learn from others, the need for an early arousal and outward direction of the love impulse, etc. The causes which underlie the tendency away from the family—such as the need of casting off the dependence on the family in order to attain a full measure of individuality, the antagonism between the family attachments and the wider social bonds, the value of sexual sublimation for the advance of culture, the possible dysgenic effects of inbreeding—these are in the main connected with less pressing and immediate conditions of existence; conditions which are no doubt of great importance for the ultimate fate of the individual and the race, but which are not essential for the immediate preservation and growth of the individual in his early life, and which frequently involve a diminution rather than an increase in immediate benefit or pleasure; representing, as they do, biological values of a higher and more complex order, which come into operation only when those of a more primitive kind have been attained.
If this is so, it would seem fairly clear that our practical The family attachments must be outgrown rather than destroyed efforts must on the whole be directed to aid the process of weaning the individual from his family attachments rather than to any attempt at preventing or destroying these attachments themselves. The tendencies that bind the individual to the family are probably too deeply rooted in Man's nature to yield to any such direct attack; and in any case, in spite of a character in some respects archaic, it is almost certain that they still perform a necessary and beneficial part in the process of psychical development—a part for which no adequate substitute could easily be found; so that it would be undesirable to eliminate the operation of these tendencies, even if such elimination were within the bounds of possibility. Thus it would seem that all schemes and attempts that have been made, from Plato onwards (and probably long before him), with a view to preventing the development of the feelings that centre in and are aroused through connection with the family, are doomed to failure:—practical failure, because these feelings are too strong, too intimate and essential a part of human nature to be successfully and permanently inhibited by any alteration of environment[265]; moral failure, because the development of certain of the most important aspects of human character are, in their origin and first appearance, bound up with these feelings and would probably fail to ripen if these feelings were abolished.
It would then be a hasty and disastrous conclusion if we were to infer from the widespread occurrence of insufficient emancipation from the family ties that it is our duty to Family love in early years is necessary for individual development and happiness endeavour to prevent the formation of these ties or to deal harshly and destructively with them as soon as they make their appearance. It would be as useless, as it would be cruel and unwise, were we to attempt to abolish the relationship of love and dependence that binds together parents and children, brothers and sisters: such a course, if it ever attained a reasonable measure of success, would almost certainly create evils greater than those which it was intended to avert. The love of the parents towards the child is assuredly one of the most essential and desirable features of a child's environment, if the child's moral and emotional development is to proceed harmoniously, spontaneously and easily. The lack of such love during the early years may give rise to a lasting sense of injury, a permanent feeling of a void or loss in some essential aspect of the emotional life, leading in its turn to an insatiable craving for the affection that was not forthcoming during that period of growth in which it was so urgently required; or again, it may cause a lifelong bitterness or hostility towards the parents (and through them towards mankind in general) for having withheld the love, appreciation and encouragement which the young child so much desires and needs; or once again, it may lead to a turning inward of the child's affections, when these meet with no response, so that the individual becomes self-centred and narcissistic, bestowing solely on himself the interest and affection which under happier circumstances would have been available for the pleasure and profit of those with whom he comes in contact; or finally it may lead to serious delinquency or be responsible for a whole career of crime.
Far therefore from attempting to inhibit or destroy the love of parent and child, it becomes necessary on the contrary to emphasise the need, and indeed the moral right, of every child to develop its affections in this manner, and to urge again the plea now being put forward by the more thoughtful class of social reformers, that every child should be born in such conditions as to make it possible and likely that he will receive such measure of care and affection as he stands in need of. The unwanted child—the child who for social, psychological or economic reasons, is not welcomed by his parents,—starts life under a disadvantage in this respect, a disadvantage that may sometimes lead to the most serious consequences both to himself and to society[266].
The same considerations make it evident that especial care should be paid to those children who, for one reason or another, are unable to enjoy the advantages of normal family life—care to ensure that they should have available suitable substitutes for the parents of whom they are deprived and that they should receive the due quantity of love which their moral and psychological development demands.
Although it is necessary thus to urge both the inevitability and the desirability of the love relationship between parent Family hatreds however are undesirable, when intense and prolonged and child, our attitude towards the hate relationship, which so frequently accompanies the child's early love, need not in all respects be similar. The early arousal of love in connection with the parents or their substitutes is, we have maintained, essential for the proper unfolding of the emotional and moral characteristics, and is therefore to be desired, even apart from the immediately pleasurable and beneficial aspects of this love both to parent and to child. The corresponding hatreds are certainly not in themselves either pleasurable or beneficial, and their undesirable consequences are often, as we have seen, all too clearly obvious.
Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that certain though to some extent inevitable and necessary tendencies and affects (useful and necessary under certain conditions—such as anger or those feelings that are aroused by rivalry and competition) receive in this manner a stimulation which is not without its beneficial aspects. The tendency to revolt, in particular, is one of the most valuable aids to progress and the earliest manifestations of this tendency must necessarily have reference to the home. A child who never disobeyed his parents and who never felt their authority as irksome would in all likelihood be sadly deficient in individuality and initiative in later life. For this reason the arousal of a desire to rebel against the parents (with the accompanying feelings of hostility) is not in every case to be condemned. Indeed, as we have already shown, the incompatibility between the desires and points of view of children and of adults makes such a tendency to rebellion and hostility to some extent inevitable. It is only when this hostility is frequently and violently aroused that the benefits are not commensurate with the disadvantages. In every case moreover it would seem desirable that the tendencies to rebellion and hostility should not be concentrated on the family circle but should, as soon as may be, seek an outlet in some other direction, where they will be less liable to constant stimulation (a state of affairs that is obviously undesirable) and less likely to give rise to unprofitable and dangerous mental conflicts.
A great part of the hostility which a child feels towards the parent of his own sex is, as we have seen, due to jealousy. This jealousy is, in all probability, to some extent an inevitable accompaniment of the love the child feels towards the parent of opposite sex and—like the more sensual aspects of that love itself—is destined to disappear from consciousness in the course of normal development. Here it would seem that the aim of our endeavour should be to prevent the excessive arousal of this jealousy, which if too strong would bring about a serious tendency to fixation at the stage of primitive parent-hatred. How they can be minimised To achieve this end much can be done by the maintenance within due bounds of the love relationship between the child and his parent of the opposite sex; if the love of the child towards one of his parents is developed in excess, the hostility towards the other parent is apt to be correspondingly developed. Again, the early arousal of affection between the child and his parent of the same sex will act as the strongest and most natural preventive of hatred. General harmony within the family, and particularly between the two parents, is also an advantage, since under these conditions the child is less likely to look upon the parent of his own sex as a tyrant or an intruder, to whom the other parent unwillingly submits. For this reason the divorce or separation of parents, whose marriage is unhappy, may often be of very considerable benefit to the child and is by no means, as is sometimes urged, an unmitigated evil.
Apart from these general measures any conduct which needlessly stimulates the jealousy or envy of the child should be avoided. Thus, parents should not unnecessarily and excessively demonstrate their affection for one another in the presence of their children, particularly in such a way as to make the latter appear neglected or left out in the cold. The more directly sexual relationships between the parents are almost inevitably painful or embarrassing to the children; and should not be too openly manifested in their presence or within their hearing[267].
On the other hand the maintenance of strict and unnecessary Sexual enlightenment secrecy as regards these relationships, or as regards sexual matters in general, is also very undesirable. The child's curiosity and envy are, by any such procedure, artificially stimulated, and a child will sometimes bear a lasting grudge against the parent who has refused information on this subject or who has resorted to deception. On the contrary, the advantages of perfect frankness and openness on sex matters (especially as regards enquiries made by the child) are often abundantly apparent, and are increasingly recognised by all those who have devoted their attention to the subject[268].
A matter of no less importance is that parents should Parental jealousy beware lest any feelings of jealousy which they themselves may harbour with regard to the children, should be allowed to exercise an undue influence over their own conduct. There is less excuse for the existence of such feelings in the parent than there is in the child, inasmuch as the former possesses, or should possess, greater integration and maturity of mind and a more thorough understanding of the nature of his acts and of their consequences; and in addition there is less real cause for jealousy, since the parent is himself responsible for the child's existence, and since, with the superior capacities of the adult, he has less need—at any rate within a happy marriage—to fear the child as a serious rival for the affections of his partner.
In spite of all such precautions however, it is probable By suitable measures the friction between parents and children can be greatly reduced, though never entirely abolished that it will always prove an impossibility to prevent altogether the arousal of some degree of hostility on the part of the child towards the parent of his own sex. The nature of the antagonism between the two individuals in question is too deeply rooted in human motives and human institutions to be without some consequences even under the most favourable circumstances. All that can reasonably be hoped for is that such degree of jealousy as may be unavoidable may throughout be held in check by feelings of affection, and that it may eventually pass away, with the gradual weaning of the child from the exclusive direction of its love towards the other parent.
Still less perhaps can parents expect to avoid altogether the arousal of hatred due to causes other than jealousy. The only method of doing so would be to refrain from all appreciable interference with the child's tendencies and impulses, while fulfilling all its wants. This, however, is an obvious psychological, social and ethical impossibility. The desires of the child conflict too much with the comfort of the parents and with the established usages of society to be allowed free play, and even if the granting of free play were possible, it would not be in all respects desirable, since the proper education of the child undoubtedly requires some degree of extraneous interference. Nevertheless we are beginning to realise that such interference need often be less irksome than was previously supposed. The old idea that education, to be profitable, must be unpleasant, is now probably abandoned by all thoughtful students of education, even in its application to early childhood—a period in which the extreme immaturity of the mind and the remoteness of its aspirations from those of the culture the rudiments of which it is starting to acquire would seem to make the process of training almost necessarily difficult and disagreeable. Dr. Montessori and others are showing how the education of the young child can be brought about both more effectually and more pleasantly by the substitution of guidance for restriction, and by linking on the activities which have to be learnt to those in which the child naturally and spontaneously indulges; while the possibilities of education on similar principles in the case of older children have been very successfully demonstrated in the case of the George Junior Republic and the Little Commonwealth. In so far as the more general control and instruction exercised by parents can be conducted on the same lines, the friction between parents and children that arises as a consequence of this necessary control will tend to diminish, though the total avoidance of such friction will scarcely ever be attained.
All that we have here been saying as regards the desirable The ties between parents and children must be loosened as the children grow up relationship between parents and children has primarily reference only to the early years of childhood. As the child grows up, considerable modifications of attitude and conduct will of course be necessary. Particularly is this the case as regards the nature of the love between parents and children. It would seem necessary indeed, as we have just pointed out, that the stage of incestuous object-love should be passed through by the child; it is both useless and undesirable to throw unnecessary obstacles in its way. But, as we have also seen, when this necessary stage has been successfully attained, there remains the far more difficult task of proceeding to the further stages of object-love which involve a weaning of the child from the original incestuous object and a corresponding readjustment of emotional attitude on die part of the parent. A wise parent will thus do all that is possible to avoid a too enduring concentration and fixation of the child's affections on himself (the parent). He will see that suitable opportunities occur for the due arousal of love and interest in other directions and will not himself encourage the fixation of his child's love at the incestuous stage by a too ardent reciprocation of tenderness or affection.
It is here perhaps more than at any other point that our standards of conduct require revision in the light of psychoanalytic experience. Elsewhere the lessons of psycho-analysis The necessity for this has been very insufficiently recognised for the most part merely reinforce educational aims and aspirations of which we had already and independently become aware; but as regards the necessity for the gradual weaning of affection between child and parent, our responsibilities had been anything but clear, and there can be little doubt that many well meaning parents have in the past all unwittingly jeopardised their children's future by an unwillingness to loosen the close ties of affection and dependence which were appropriate in infancy, but which are prejudicial to the full development of personality in later life.
It may indeed from certain points of view appear touching or even admirable, when, for instance, a mother and a son or a father and a daughter have remained strongly and intimately attached to one another long after the son or daughter has reached adolescence or maturity. In what direction, it might be asked, could the child be more appropriately drawn by ties of deep and permanent affection than to one to whom it owes its very existence, to whom it is indebted for the care, nourishment, and protection that were necessary to it in its early years and who is responsible for the first awakening and the first reciprocation of its love? We now know, however, that the maintenance of such a tie when the biological causes that bind child to parent have ceased to act, is liable to be achieved at the cost of some grave failure of development. The "good" son or daughter frequently becomes a bad husband or wife, an inferior individual and an unsatisfactory member of society. The conduct of the child who thus sacrifices the unfolding of his own personality to a primitive affection which should have been outgrown, should indeed arouse pity or contempt rather than admiration, while the corresponding conduct of the parent, who thus hinders the development of the child he loves, can be regarded scarcely otherwise than as ignorantly and pathetically selfish.
In order to avoid such conduct it will be necessary for The loosening of the filio-parental tie requires a readjustment of the parent's life parents to keep a close watch, not only on the development of their children's emotional life, but on the course and direction of their own affections. Only by the gradual replacement in the parent's mind of that love and interest which centred round the child by a corresponding absorption in some other direction (whether in other children, in the sexual partner or in some totally different matter) can the necessary readjustment of the filio-parental relations be successfully and painlessly accomplished. This is a duty which, difficult as it may sometimes appear, the requirements of the true mental development of their children would seem inevitably to impose on parents. For this reason it is obviously unwise for parents ever to immerse themselves to such an extent in their children and their children's affairs, that these absorb the whole of their emotional and intellectual capacities. If they should do so, it will be additionally difficult for them to pick up the threads of their previous interests and activities when the growth of the children renders such a readjustment necessary[269].
Supposing that fixation of the love impulse upon the Displacement of the parent-regarding tendencies actual person of the parent has been successfully avoided, there remains the possibility of fixation upon the numerous parent substitutes that we considered in Chapter X. These fixations really imply, as we have seen, an incomplete detachment of the erotic impulses from the parental images as they exist in the Unconscious, and should not occur in cases where real freedom from the secret domination of these images has been achieved. Nevertheless we must remember that such freedom is at best only relative; the associative connections that bind the earliest to all subsequent objects of love (either directly or through a series of intermediate links) would seem Complete emancipation from incest tendencies is never achieved never to be really broken; in all probability they continue throughout life to exercise a certain measure of influence upon the direction of the affections. All that we can reasonably demand under these circumstances is that these unconscious forces shall not so blind the individual as to cause him to bestow his love upon an object which is intrinsically unsuitable. So long as this is avoided there is little to complain of, and it would seem very probable that a deeper psychological and ethical insight into the nature of the processes concerned will, on the whole, produce a relaxation rather than a further restriction of the liberty that is now permitted in these matters. This at any rate would appear to be the direction in which moral sentiment is moving as culture increases; the maximum of restriction is reached in those communities where, as in parts of Australia, a highly complex system of exogamy allows only a very limited range of choice for the selection of husband or wife; from this point upwards in the scale of development there is a marked tendency for the number of forbidden relationships to become smaller as culture advances, and there These tendencies become less repressed and more influenced by reason, as development proceeds is every reason to suppose that in the main this tendency is still at work. Indeed we have only recently witnessed an example of its action in this country in the removal of the ban upon the marriage with a deceased wife's sister.
The same result emerges if we consider the matter, not from the point of view of sociology, but from that of an enlightened system of morality. The evidence available shows, for instance, that little if any harm is likely to ensue from the marriage of first cousins, so long as the stock is a healthy one: much the same is probably true as regards the marriage of half brother and half sister or even full brother and sister. Our condemnation of such unions is due to influences emanating from the repression of the incest tendencies, and not to any sound appreciation or experience of their ill effects; and in so far as the taboos consequent upon repression give way to more balanced moral judgments based on a real understanding of the issues involved (and this is the general tendency of ethical development), the disapproval of these unions between near kin will be continued only in so far as real dangers are to be apprehended from them. Among such real dangers there may be found the biological one of the possibility of inferior offspring, especially in the case of families with marked hereditary defects, and the psychological one of too little emancipation from the family influences, with all the consequences that this may involve. As regards this latter, however, it will have to be recognised that complete emancipation may often be beyond the bounds of possibility and that it is often advisable to permit some degree of indulgence to overstrong unconscious tendencies, so long as this indulgence is not too persistent or too definitely pathological.