The only thing which Mr. Wiggam omitted was the trifling circumstance
which shows that The Eugenics Society would, if it could, have
inadvertently prevented each and every one of these notables from
coming into being.
Yet he thinks that he has discovered a way of distinguishing between
the influences of heredity and of environment--when applied to families.
“Environment,” he says,[136] “is important in determining character,
but precisely how important I doubt very much if we have any means at
present for determining, when it comes to one individual, whether we
consider one particular act or the sum total of his character.... I
doubt if we shall ever be able to determine whether a particular act
by a particular individual, say whether he takes a drink of alcohol
... or whether he commits a crime, is due to his heredity or to his
environment. The causes are so hopelessly intertwined that no one so
far as I am aware has presented the slightest hope of measuring the
relative influence of the two forces _within the individual_.... For
all we know a man may commit a particular crime or take a particular
drink entirely from environment.... But when it comes to the question
as to which one of two individuals is the more likely to commit a crime
at some time in his life or take to excessive drink, we are in reality
dealing with a different set of scientific problems. And when we come
to the question as to which family is likely to have more members who,
in any one age of the world, will be unable to adjust themselves to
sound social behavior ... we are in a field where we can measure the
factors involved by fairly exact methods.”
That is to say, we can measure results--after they have happened. It
may even be granted that we can calculate roughly a family’s likelihood
of producing distinguished descendants, basing the calculation on past
performance. But obviously this in no way decides between the relative
importance of environment and heredity. The question as to whether the
family’s distinction came from its blood or from its traditions remains
precisely where it was. Mr. Wiggam’s reasoning is quite of a piece with
his reliability. He himself exclaims[137] about “the very, very few
people in the world who can think ... the enormous number of people
who cannot think, but who think they can think, and who mistake their
mystical half-knowledge for social wisdom and act upon it.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account