knowing how important a factor in the evolution of species is the economic relation, and finding in the human species an economic relation so peculiar, we may naturally look to find effects peculiar to our race. we may expect to find phenomena in the sex-relation and in the economic relation of humanity of a unique character,—phenomena not traceable to human superiority, but singularly derogatory to that superiority; phenomena so marked, so morbid, as to give rise to much speculation as to their cause. are these natural inferences fulfilled? are these peculiarities in the sex-relation and in the economic relation manifested in human life? indisputably these are,—so plain, so prominent, so imperiously demanding attention, that human thought has been occupied from its first consciousness in trying some way to account for them. to explain and relate these phenomena, separating what is due to normal race-development from what is due to this abnormal sexuo-economic relation, is the purpose of the line of study here suggested.
as the racial distinction of humanity lies in its social relation, so we find the distinctive gains and losses of humanity to lie also in its social relation. we are more affected by our 24relation to each other than by our physical environment.
disadvantages of climate, deficiencies in food supply, competition from other species,—all these conditions society, in its organic strength, is easily able to overcome or to adjust. but in our inter-human relations we are not so successful. the serious dangers and troubles of human life arise from difficulties of adjustment with our social environment, and not with our physical environment. these difficulties, so far, have acted as a continual check to social progress. the more absolutely a nation has triumphed over physical conditions, the more successful it has become in its conquest of physical enemies and obstacles, the more it has given rein to the action of social forces which have ultimately destroyed the nation, and left the long ascent to be begun again by others.
there is the moral of all human tales:
’tis but the same rehearsal of the past,—
first freedom, and then glory; when that fails,
wealth, vice, corruption,—barbarism at last.
and history, with all her volumes vast,
hath but one page.[1]
1. childe harold’s pilgrimage, canto iv., cviii.
the path of history is strewn with fossils and faint relics of extinct races,—races which 25died of what the sociologist would call internal diseases rather than natural causes. this, too, has been clear to the observer in all ages. it has been easily seen that there was something in our own behavior which did us more harm than any external difficulty; but what we have not seen is the natural cause of our unnatural conduct, and how most easily to alter it.
rudely classifying the principal fields of human difficulty, we find one large proportion lies in the sex-relation, and another in the economic relation, between the individual constituents of society. to speak broadly, the troubles of life as we find them are mainly traceable to the heart or the purse. the other horror of our lives—disease—comes back often to these causes,—to something wrong either in economic relation or in sex-relation. to be ill-fed or ill-bred, or both, is largely what makes us the sickly race we are. in this wrong breeding, this maladjustment of the sex-relation in humanity, what are the principal features? we see in social evolution two main lines of action in this department of life. one is a gradual orderly development of monogamous marriage, as the form of sex-union best calculated to advance the interests of the individual and of society. it should be clearly understood that this is a natural development, inevitable in the course of 26social progress; not an artificial condition, enforced by laws of our making. monogamy is found among birds and mammals: it is just as natural a condition as polygamy or promiscuity or any other form of sex-union; and its permanence and integrity are introduced and increased by the needs of the young and the advantage to the race, just as any other form of reproduction was introduced. our moral concepts rest primarily on facts. the moral quality of monogamous marriage depends on its true advantage to the individual and to society. if it were not the best form of marriage for our racial good, it would not be right. all the way up, from the promiscuous horde of savages, with their miscellaneous matings, to the lifelong devotion of romantic love, social life has been evolving a type of sex-union best suited to develope and improve the individual and the race. this is an orderly process, and a pleasant one, involving only such comparative pain and difficulty as always attend the assumption of new processes and the extinction of the old; but accompanied by far more joy than pain.
but with the natural process of social advancement has gone an unnatural process,—an erratic and morbid action, making the sex-relation of humanity a frightful source of evil. so prominent have been these morbid actions and 27evil results that hasty thinkers of all ages have assumed that the whole thing was wrong, and that celibacy was the highest virtue. without the power of complete analysis, without knowledge of the sociological data essential to such analysis, we have sweepingly condemned as a whole what we could easily see was so allied with pain and loss. but, like all natural phenomena, the phenomena of sex may be studied, both the normal and the abnormal, the physiological and the pathological; and we are quite capable of understanding why we are in such evil case, and how we may attain more healthful conditions.
so far, the study of this subject has rested on the assumption that man must be just as we find him, that man behaves just as he chooses, and that, if he does not choose to behave as he does, he can stop. therefore, when we discovered that human behavior in the sex-relation was productive of evil, we exhorted the human creature to stop so behaving, and have continued so to exhort for many centuries. by law and religion, by education and custom, we have sought to enforce upon the human individual the kind of behavior which our social sense so clearly showed was right.
but always there has remained the morbid action. whatever the external form of sex-union 28to which we have given social sanction, however bible and koran and vedas have offered instruction, some hidden cause has operated continuously against the true course of social evolution, to pervert the natural trend toward a higher and more advantageous sex-relation; and to maintain lower forms, and erratic phases, of a most disadvantageous character.
every other animal works out the kind of sex-union best adapted to the reproduction of his species, and peacefully practises it. we have worked out the kind that is best for us,—best for the individuals concerned, for the young resultant, and for society as a whole; but we do not peacefully practise it. so palpable is this fact that we have commonly accepted it, and taken it for granted that this relation must be a continuous source of trouble to humanity. “marriage is a lottery,” is a common saying among us. “the course of true love never did run smooth.” and we quote with unction punch’s advice to those about to marry,—“don’t!” that peculiar sub-relation which has dragged along with us all the time that monogamous marriage has been growing to be the accepted form of sex-union—prostitution—we have accepted, and called a “social necessity.” we also call it “the social evil.” we have tacitly admitted that this relation in the 29human race must be more or less uncomfortable and wrong, that it is part of our nature to have it so.
now let us examine the case fairly and calmly, and see whether it is as inscrutable and immutable as hitherto believed. what are the conditions? what are the natural and what the unnatural features of the case? to distinguish these involves a little study of the evolution of the processes of reproduction.
very early in the development of species it was ascertained by nature’s slow but sure experiments that the establishment of two sexes in separate organisms, and their differentiation, was to the advantage of the species. therefore, out of the mere protoplasmic masses, the floating cells, the amorphous early forms of life, grew into use the distinction of the sexes,—the gradual development of masculine and feminine organs and functions in two distinct organisms. developed and increased by use, the distinction of sex increased in the evolution of species. as the distinction increased, the attraction increased, until we have in all the higher races two markedly different sexes, strongly drawn together by the attraction of sex, and fulfilling their use in the reproduction of species. these are the natural features of sex-distinction and sex-union, and they are found in the human 30species as in others. the unnatural feature by which our race holds an unenviable distinction consists mainly in this,—a morbid excess in the exercise of this function.
it is this excess, whether in marriage or out, which makes the health and happiness of humanity in this relation so precarious. it is this excess, always easily seen, which law and religion have mainly striven to check. excessive sex-indulgence is the distinctive feature of humanity in this relation.
to define “excess” in this connection is not difficult. all natural functions that require our conscious co-operation for their fulfilment are urged upon our notice by an imperative desire. we do not have to desire to breathe or to digest or to circulate the blood, because that is done without our volition; but we do have to desire to eat and drink, because the stomach cannot obtain its supplies without in some way spurring the whole organism to secure them. so hunger is given us as an essential factor in our process of nutrition. in the same manner sex-attraction is an essential factor in the fulfilment of our processes of reproduction. in a normal condition the amount of hunger we feel is exactly proportioned to the amount of food we need. it tells us when to eat and when to stop. in some diseased conditions “an unnatural 31appetite” sets in; and we are impelled to eat far beyond the capacity of the stomach to digest, of the body to assimilate. this is an excessive hunger.
we, as a race, manifest an excessive sex-attraction, followed by its excessive indulgence, and the inevitable evil consequence. it urges us to a degree of indulgence which bears no relation to the original needs of the organism, and which is even so absurdly exaggerated as to react unfavorably on the incidental gratification involved; an excess which tends to pervert and exhaust desire as well as to injure reproduction.
the human animal manifests an excess in sex-attraction which not only injures the race through its morbid action on the natural processes of reproduction, but which injures the happiness of the individual through its morbid reaction on his own desires.
what is the cause of this excessive sex-attraction in the human species? the immediately acting cause of sex-attraction is sex-distinction. the more widely the sexes are differentiated, the more forcibly they are attracted to each other. the more highly developed becomes the distinction of sex in either organism, the more intense is its attraction for the other. in the human species we find sex-distinction carried to 32an excessive degree. sex-distinction in humanity is so marked as to retard and confuse race-distinction, to check individual distinction, seriously to injure the race. accustomed as we are simply to accept the facts of life as we find them, to consider people as permanent types instead of seeing them and the whole race in continual change according to the action of many forces, it seems strange at first to differentiate between familiar manifestations of sex-distinction, and to say: “this is normal, and should not be disturbed. this is abnormal, and should be removed.” but that is precisely what must be done.
normal sex-distinction manifests itself in all species in what are called primary and secondary sex-characteristics. the primary are those organs and functions essential to reproduction; the secondary, those modifications of structure and function which subserve the uses of reproduction ultimately, but are not directly essential,—such as the horns of the stag, of use in sex-combat; the plumage of the peacock, of use in sex-competition. all the minor characteristics of beard or mane, comb, wattles, spurs, gorgeous color or superior size, which distinguish the male from the female,—these are distinctions of sex. these distinctions are of use to the species through reproduction only, the processes of race-preservation. 33they are not of use in self-preservation. the creature is not profited personally by his mane or crest or tail-feathers: they do not help him get his dinner or kill his enemies.
on the contrary, they react unfavorably upon his personal gains, if, through too great development, they interfere with his activity or render him a conspicuous mark for enemies. such development would constitute excessive sex-distinction, and this is precisely the condition of the human race. our distinctions of sex are carried to such a degree as to be disadvantageous to our progress as individuals and as a race. the sexes in our species are differentiated not only enough to perform their primal functions; not only enough to manifest all sufficient secondary sexual characteristics and fulfil their use in giving rise to sufficient sex-attraction; but so much as seriously to interfere with the processes of self-preservation on the one hand; and, more conspicuous still, so much as to react unfavorably upon the very processes of race-preservation which they are meant to serve. our excessive sex-distinction, manifesting the characteristics of sex to an abnormal degree, has given rise to a degree of attraction which demands a degree of indulgence that directly injures motherhood and fatherhood. we are not better as parents, nor better as people, for our existing degree 34of sex-distinction, but visibly worse. to what conditions are we to look for the developing cause of these phenomena?
let us first examine the balance of forces by which these two great processes, self-preservation and race-preservation, are conducted in the world. self-preservation involves the expenditure of energy in those acts, and their ensuing modifications of structure and function, which tend to the maintenance of the individual life. race-preservation involves the expenditure of energy in those acts, and their ensuing modifications of structure and function, which tend to the maintenance of the racial life, even to the complete sacrifice of the individual. this primal distinction should be clearly held in mind. self-preservation and race-preservation are in no way identical processes, and are often directly opposed. in the line of self-preservation, natural selection, acting on the individual, developes those characteristics which enable it to succeed in “the struggle for existence,” increasing by use those organs and functions by which it directly profits. in the line of race-preservation, sexual selection, acting on the individual, developes those characteristics which enable it to succeed in what drummond has called “the struggle for the existence of others,” increasing by use those organs and functions 35by which its young are to profit, directly or indirectly. the individual has been not only modified to its environment, under natural selection, but modified to its mate, under sexual selection, each sex developing the qualities desired by the other by the simple process of choice, those best sexed being first chosen, and transmitting their sex-development as well as their racial development.
the order mammalia is the resultant of a primary sex-distinction developed by natural selection; but the gorgeous plumage of the peacock’s tail is a secondary sex-distinction developed by sexual selection. if the peacock’s tail were to increase in size and splendor till it shone like the sun and covered an acre,—if it tended so to increase, we will say,—such excessive sex-distinction would be so inimical to the personal prosperity of that peacock that he would die, and his tail-tendency would perish with him. if the pea-hen, conversely, whose sex-distinction attracts in the opposite direction, not by being large and splendid, but small and dull,—if she should grow so small and dull as to fail to keep herself and her young fed and defended, then she would die; and there would be another check to excessive sex-distinction. in herds of deer and cattle the male is larger and stronger, the female smaller and weaker; 36but, unless the latter is large and strong enough to keep up with the male in the search for food or the flight from foes, one is taken and the other left, and there is no more of that kind of animal. differ as they may in sex, they must remain alike in species, equal in race-development, else destruction overtakes them. the force of natural selection, demanding and producing identical race-qualities, acts as a check on sexual selection, with its production of different sex-qualities. as sexes, they perform different functions, and therefore tend to develope differently. as species, they perform the same functions, and therefore tend to develope equally.
and as sex-functions are only used occasionally, and race-functions are used all the time,—as they mate but yearly or tri-monthly, but eat daily and hourly,—the processes of obtaining food or of opposing constant enemies act more steadily than the processes of reproduction, and produce greater effect.
we find the order mammalia accordingly producing and suckling its young in the same manner through a wide variety of species which obtain their living in a different manner. the calf and colt and cub and kitten are produced by the same process; but the cow and horse, the bear and cat, are produced by different 37processes. and, though cow and bull, mare and stallion, differ as to sex, they are alike in species; and the likeness in species is greater than the difference in sex. cow, mare, and cat are all females of the order mammalia, and so far alike; but how much more different they are than similar!
natural selection develops race. sexual selection develops sex. sex-development is one throughout its varied forms, tending only to reproduce what is. but race-development rises ever in higher and higher manifestation of energy. as sexes, we share our distinction with the animal kingdom almost to the beginning of life, and with the vegetable world as well. as races, we differ in ascending degree; and the human race stands highest in the scale of life so far.
when, then, it can be shown that sex-distinction in the human race is so excessive as not only to affect injuriously its own purposes, but to check and pervert the progress of the race, it becomes a matter for most serious consideration. nothing could be more inevitable, however, under our sexuo-economic relation. by the economic dependence of the human female upon the male, the balance of forces is altered. natural selection no longer checks the action of sexual selection, but co-operates with it. where 38both sexes obtain their food through the same exertions, from the same sources, under the same conditions, both sexes are acted upon alike, and developed alike by their environment. where the two sexes obtain their food under different conditions, and where that difference consists in one of them being fed by the other, then the feeding sex becomes the environment of the fed. man, in supporting woman, has become her economic environment. under natural selection, every creature is modified to its environment, developing perforce the qualities needed to obtain its livelihood under that environment. man, as the feeder of woman, becomes the strongest modifying force in her economic condition. under sexual selection the human creature is of course modified to its mate, as with all creatures. when the mate becomes also the master, when economic necessity is added to sex-attraction, we have the two great evolutionary forces acting together to the same end; namely, to develope sex-distinction in the human female. for, in her position of economic dependence in the sex-relation, sex-distinction is with her not only a means of attracting a mate, as with all creatures, but a means of getting her livelihood, as is the case with no other creature under heaven. because of the economic dependence of the human female on her 39mate, she is modified to sex to an excessive degree. this excessive modification she transmits to her children; and so is steadily implanted in the human constitution the morbid tendency to excess in this relation, which has acted so universally upon us in all ages, in spite of our best efforts to restrain it. it is not the normal sex-tendency, common to all creatures, but an abnormal sex-tendency, produced and maintained by the abnormal economic relation which makes one sex get its living from the other by the exercise of sex-functions. this is the immediate effect upon individuals of the peculiar sexuo-economic relation which obtains among us.
