University of Virginia Library

FEEBLE-MINDEDNESS, ITS CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES. By H. H. Goddard. The Macmillan Co., N. Y., 1914. 599 pp., illustrated.

Two comprehensive attempts have been made in recent years to study the inheritance of mental abnormality, one in England at the Eugenics Laboratory of the University of London, the other in this country under the leadership, more or less immediate, of the Eugenics Record Office. Both the English and the American school of workers agree that different grades of mental ability, mental defect and insanity are strongly inherited. But the two schools have reached very different conclusions as to the manner of inheritance of mental traits and mental defects. Each school entertains profound disrespect for the scientific methods and conclusions of the other and with the frankness and honesty which devotion to truth demand has freely criticised the other. By this criticism, at the bottom friendly though sometimes caustic, science has undoubtedly profited. The later work of each school begins to show the chastening influence of adverse criticism.

The English school has leaned backward in its devotion to the inductive method of accumulating inheritance data, ostensibly without prejudice for or against any particular theory but in reality with an ill-concealed bias against anything savoring of "Mendelism." The American school recognizing in Mendelism a great advance and an important instrument for the discovery of new truth, has ignored the possibility that other undiscovered laws of heredity may exist and has cast aside as superfluous the valuable biometric tools wrought with much patient toil by Galton and Pearson. It will be the part of wisdom for students of genetics to imitate the hostile attitude of neither school, but to utilize the positive results of both. This is what Dr. Goddard has done in the work under review.

He apparently began studying the inheritance of feeble-mindedness without theoretical prejudice, but with a practical end in view, to discover, if possible, the causes of feeble-mindedness so as to deal intelligently with the inmates of the Vineland (N. J.) institution with which he is connected. Goddard received inspiration

and suggestion from the Mendelian principles which dominate the work of the Eugenics Record Office, but has published his observations in detail so that the reader may test by them any theory he likes. This method can not be too highly commended for it gives permanent value to the publication, however much prevailing theories may change. The book contains a detailed study of 327 "cases," each being the family history of a different inmate of the Vineland institution, as made out by trained investigators who visited the homes of the inmates and held interviews with their parents, relatives, friends and neighbors. English criticism of American work of this sort had prepared the reader to expect carelessness of method and inaccuracy in the accumulation of data, but Dr. Goddard is evidently on his guard against this. He goes very fully into the method of obtaining and verifying the data, and in doing so gives a very strong impression that the data are "reliable." His treatment of the data is also cautious but thorough, so that when he works his way to a conclusion it stands firmly established. The conclusions reached are numerous and important, but the one of greatest theoretical interest is this, that feeble-mindedness is inherited as a simple recessive Mendelian unit-character. This conclusion, so far as earlier publications were concerned, might be regarded as insufficiently established, but the evidence presented in this work renders it, I think, beyond question. Goddard was himself apparently considerably surprised at the conclusion reached. He had expected to find different kinds or grades of mental defect independently inherited as units and confesses to leanings toward views of the physiological independence of different mental functions, but his "cases" give him no evidence of such inheritance. He finds only that feeble minds are minds of arrested development in regard to all functions, and that different grades of feeble-mindedness correspond with different stages of normal mental development completely arrested. How different grades may occur in one and the same Mendelian unit is apparently a puzzle to Goddard, who does not attempt its explanation. It is indeed an absurdity to the "pure line" Mendelian, but not to one who appreciates the fact that Mendelian units are subject to quantitative variation sometimes continuous, sometimes discontinuous. An example of the former is found in the hooded pattern of rats,[1] of the latter in albinism and other Mendelizing characters which assume multiple allelomorphic conditions.[2] Pearson has steadfastly refused to admit that albinism in man is a Mendelizing character, because it may assume various forms ranging from colorless to quite heavily pigmented conditions (blondes). We now find that albinism in guinea-pigs shows an even greater range of variation,[3] yet there can be no doubt of its fundamental unity as a Mendelian character, each grade of which is allelomorphic to every other grade and to normal pigmentation.

Goddard's findings as regards feeble-mindedness fit in perfectly with this scheme. That Goddard was unaware of it when his conclusions were reached is all the more evidence of their soundness because it shows that they were reached independently. Among albinos every higher grade of pigmentation dominates all the lower grades in inheritance, and so apparently it is with mental development; the higher grades dominate the lower. At every point there appears to be agreement in method of inheritance between albinism and feeble-mindedness. Each is a unit character but showing graded allelomorphic conditions which correspond probably with different stages of arrested development of pigmentation or mentality respectively.

The fact noted by Goddard that the feeble-minded resemble savages, that is backward races of low mentality, has much interest to the student of evolution. It indicates that the evolution of intelligence has occurred by a gradual progressive advancement, stages in which reappear as the higher grades of feeble-mindedness. Of course it is not certain that the ontogenetic stages, at which mental development may be arrested, correspond accurately with earlier phylogenetic stages, but the idea receives considerable support from the observed resemblance between the mentality of morons and that of savage peoples, if the observation may be accepted as accurate. I do not understand however that Goddard makes any claim to first-hand familiarity with the mental life of savages, so that no great emphasis should be laid on the point. But the mere fact that retrogressive variation in mentality is graded favors the view that its progressive evolution has been gradual, rather than the view that it has arisen by mutation or sudden loss of inhibitors. (Bateson, Davenport).

Goddard points out that a high grade moron may be a useful

and self-supporting member of society in some environments (usually rural) whereas he would be quite helpless in the keen competition of urban life. This suggestion leads the reader to wonder whether many peasant and peon populations of the old and new world represent survivals of an older and lower grade of mental evolution than has been attained in the more advanced nations, or whether it is merely lack of opportunity that makes these populations backward. The fact that in every generation great men come from the lower social levels shows that the lower classes are not entirely devoid of capacity; nevertheless it seems probable that a low grade of intelligence would stand a better chance of escaping elimination in the struggle for existence when placed in a simple environment than when placed in a complex one. Consequently, under modern conditions, we might expect a peasant or peon population to average lower in mental capacity than a community more advanced in civilization. Whether the peasant population would equal in average intelligence a band of North American Indians or a tribe of native New Zealanders is very doubtful, for in such peoples natural selection for intelligence was undoubtedly severe because of their intense struggle with nature and with other tribes, unaided by the accumulated knowledge and tools of civilized communities. Among such peoples greater demands were probably made on inborn intelligence than among modern industrial populations.

As regards the causes of feeble-mindedness Goddard's findings are wholly negative, but not less valuable on that account. His case histories statistically studied indicate no causal relation to a number of reputed agencies in the creation of feeble-mindedness, such as alcoholism (which he regards as oftener a symptom than a cause), tuberculosis, sexual immorality, insanity, syphilis, accident and consanguinity. He recognizes heredity as its principal source, i. e. he recognizes feeble-mindedness as a stage of mentality already existing and transmissible by the ordinary mechanism of heredity, but does not attempt further to account for it, either as a survival or as an atavism.

That humanitarian governments by shielding and supporting the moron without putting a limit on his naturally high reproduction will speedily increase this class at the expense of the more intelligent classes of the community is self-evident, if it is admitted that feeble-mindedness is hereditary, as all who have investigated

the matter carefully now declare. Goddard shows further that a large percentage (probably more than half) of the alcoholism, pauperism, prostitution, and crime, of the United States are directly traceable to hereditary feeble-mindedness, another strong reason for taking measures to reduce it.

How is this to be done? Goddard has no cure-all to offer but urges first of all that the mental grade of each individual be accurately determined and education and occupation be provided suited to his capacity. This will tend to make the moron a useful and contented member of the community, not a menace to it. Segregation is recommended so far as practicable, but in view of the large number (estimated at 300,000 to 400,000 in the U. S.) Goddard considers segregation of all impracticable. Nevertheless he urges further and energetic efforts in this direction, that as many as possible may be segregated as a safeguard against their reproduction. In individual cases "sterilization wisely and carefully practiced" must be employed to insure non-reproduction.

In this volume there is a pleasing absence of the rant which pervades some eugenic literature. The author has something of importance to contribute to science and he presents his contribution in a sober, dignified manner in keeping with the important character of his contribution.

W. E. CASTLE.