Part 6
In a large population which is as little stable in its habits as that of modern Europe and modern America, the number of ancestors of a single person increases very rapidly, the number of parents being two; of grandparents, four; of great-grandparents, eight; the theoretical number of ancestors twenty generations back would be over a million, or, more accurately, 1,048,576. Twenty generations represent, according to the rate of increase of modern times, about seven hundred years; according to the rate of increase of older times, about four hundred years as a minimum. These figures would apply to the series of generations represented by first-born males; for first-born females the respective numbers would be about five hundred years and three hundred and fifty years. If we consider, however, the actual descent of families, including individuals later born, we might perhaps assume that twenty generations in Europe would represent from eight hundred to nine hundred years, and among primitive peoples perhaps only little less, since in former times the differences between the rapidity of successive generations in Europe and among primitive peoples was not very great. This makes it obvious that it is entirely impossible that as great a number of ancestors as the theory requires can have contributed to the development of the individuals of the present generation. The reason for this is plain. Owing to intermarriages between the same families, large numbers of ancestors will be duplicated in different paternal and maternal lines; and in this way the real ancestry of each individual appears to be much more complex than the purely arithmetical treatment would suggest. The calculation for the ancestor table of the German Emperor, for instance, is instructive. According to O. Lorenz, the numbers of his ancestors in successive generations were as follows:—
═════════════════════╤═══════════╤═══════════ GENERATION │THEORETICAL│ ACTUAL │ NUMBER │ NUMBER ─────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────── I │ 2│ 2 II │ 4│ 4 III │ 8│ 8 IV │ 16│ 14 V │ 32│ 24 VI │ 64│ 44 VII │ 128│ 74 VIII │ 256│ 116[2] IX │ 512│ 177[2] X │ 1024│ 256[2] XI │ 2048│ 342[2] XII │ 4096│ 533[2] ═════════════════════╧═══════════╧═══════════
A series of forty royal families gives the following averages:—
═══════════════════════════════╤══════════ GENERATION │ AVERAGE │ NUMBER ───────────────────────────────┼────────── I │ 2.00 II │ 4.00 III │ 7.75 IV │ 13.88 V │ 23.70 VI │ 40.53 ═══════════════════════════════╧══════════
When we compare these conditions in the thickly populated parts of modern Europe and of America, with their unstable population, with the conditions among primitive tribes, it becomes at once apparent that the total number of ancestors of each type in small communities must be much less than the number of ancestors in the modern states just referred to. A characteristic example is presented by the Eskimo of Smith Sound in North Greenland. From all we know, it seems extremely unlikely that this community ever consisted of more than a few hundred individuals. From what we know about the history of Eskimo communities, we might much rather assume that originally it consisted of a very few families only. The community has been cut off from the outer world for very long periods; and while there may have been accessions of new individuals from outside once each century, on the whole it has remained completely isolated. It is therefore obvious that the ancestry of this group cannot contain anything like the million of people required by the theory, but that all the individuals must be interrelated through their remote ancestry.
Considering, now, the laws of inheritance as outlined before, it would appear that in a community of this type, the members of which number little more than two hundred individuals, the ancestor of every single individual from the eighth generation back must have been the same, because the eighth generation would require theoretically two hundred and fifty-six individuals,—a greater number than are actually found in the community; and the occurrence of any individuals who have not a good many near and remote ancestors in common with the whole rest of the community is highly improbable, if not impossible.
It follows from this at once that the variability of the whole series around its typical average must be rather small, because all the members of the group will have a certain amount of family resemblance. This uniformity of type will, of course, be the greater, the more uniform the ancestral group.
On the other hand, these conditions bring about another peculiar characteristic of the isolated group. Owing to the constant recurrence of the same ancestral types among the whole group, the type of the whole people becomes very similar to the characteristic traits of the small ancestral group; and the smaller this group, the stronger will be the probability of the type of the local group being quite distinct from the type of the whole people to which they belong.
It seems to my mind that these conditions explain to a considerable extent the occurrence of distinct local types in primitive races. When we find, for instance, that in North America a very marked type belongs to the Arctic coast of the continent, that a quite distinct type is found in the Mackenzie basin, still others in well-defined localities on the Pacific coast, again others in the Mississippi basin, one in the southeast, and one along the Rio Grande and in Mexico,—it seems plausible to ascribe their origin to the increase of small isolated groups, which, as we have seen, must necessarily lead to differentiation of type.
This view of the origin of local races is quite in accord with the remarkable results obtained by Johannsen in his studies of heredity. He repeated artificially the conditions which prevail in a small community, and exaggerated them by selecting types of equal form, and by propagating them by self-fertilization. He raised in this way bean-plants from beans of equal weight, and was able to restrict variation of the type, so that practically any kind of bean of particular weight and particular form could be bred true to the type of its ancestor, and without perpetuating the accidental variations of the ancestors. In cases where the ancestry goes back to a limited number of individuals, as among our isolated tribes, the variation will, of course, not be restricted to the same extent; but the characteristic development of a stable type is quite analogous to the experiment made by Johannsen.
Another phenomenon may be pointed out here which is still little investigated, but which deserves careful attention. We have seen that in stable communities in sparsely settled countries the relationship between members of a tribe will be quite close, and that this relationship will necessarily affect the type and its variability. In course of time two areas whose population has thus developed may be thrown into contact, and numerous intermarriages may occur. It will be seen at once, that, although the differences between the two types may be apparently only slight, a complete disturbance in the forms of heredity will result, because a great number of individuals of distinct ancestry are thrown together. To give an example. The South Italians and the Spaniards represent two types not very distinct in physical features, but separated for centuries. The small village communities of Italy, as well as those of Spain, have all the characteristics of communities in which endogamic marriages have been continued for a long period. In the Argentine Republic these two types come into contact and intermarry frequently. We have no observations on the result of this mixture upon physical characteristics, but it has been noted that the distribution of male and female births is quite different from that prevailing in families in which both parents are either Spanish or Italian (Pearl). It is also conceivable that this may be one of the elements bringing about the change of type of urban populations when compared to rural populations in Europe, and that it may have been active in the change of type observed among the descendants of European immigrants in America; for, although the observations have been made on pure types, in America cases of intermarriages of natives of different villages are much more common than in Europe.
After we have thus considered the influences of heredity and environment, so far as they determine the characteristics of distinct types of man, it remains to add a few words on the individuals constituting each type, and on the different distribution of individuals in distinct types.
I have had to refer repeatedly to the phenomena of variation in the races of man; and I have pointed out before, that, so far as individual features are concerned, we find that the range of variations in each human type is so great, that overlapping of the range of variation in different types is of constant occurrence. We have seen, for instance, that the medium brains of the Europeans occur with considerable frequency among negroes, and that only the excessively small negro brains have no parallel forms among the Europeans; and correspondingly that the excessively large European brains have no parallel forms among the brains of the negroes. The amount of variability in regard to various physical traits differs very considerably in different races. Most of the European types, for instance, are remarkable for their high variability. The same is true of the Polynesians and of some negro tribes. On the other hand, people like the European Hebrews, and, even more so, the North American Indians, are characterized by, comparatively speaking, much greater uniformity. The amount of variability differs considerably with regard to different physical features. It is, for instance, obvious that the hair-color and hair-form of North Europeans is much more variable than the hair-color and hair-form of the Chinese. In Europe the colors vary from flaxen to black, with a considerable number of individuals with red hair, and the form varies from straight to high degrees of waviness. Among the Chinese, on the other hand, we do not find equal variations in the darkness of color, since blondes and curly-haired individuals are absent. Similar observations may be made in regard to stature, head-form, or any other feature of the body that can be expressed by measurements.
The reason for the differences in variability is partly given in our previous remarks. We have seen, when a people is descended from a small uniform group, that then its variability will decrease; while on the other hand, when a group has a much-varied origin, or when the ancestors belong to entirely distinct types, the variability may be considerably increased. In all cases which have been investigated, even in those in which the variability is small, there still remain considerable differences in bodily appearance among the individuals constituting a tribal or national or other social unit; and what is true of the physical traits is obviously no less true of the mental traits, but it is difficult to express mental characteristics in numerical terms of variability. An acquaintance with tribes which are apparently on the simplest level socially, however, shows the existence of certain individuals of most diverse types of disposition and intellect; and as might be expected, if we consider mental condition as dependent upon bodily form, the great variability, even in the most uniform group, of the structure of the body, particularly of the brain, makes it plausible that very large differences in individual disposition may be expected.
What we have said before in regard to the overlapping of variations among different races and types, and the great range of variability in each type, may also be expressed by saying that the differences between different types of man are, on the whole, small as compared to the range of variation in each type.
The importance of these observations in the domain of mental development will be the subject of our future discussions.
Footnote 2:
These generations are not completely known. The values here given are the maximum values which would be found provided the unknown individuals had had no “loss of ancestors.”
IV. THE MENTAL TRAITS OF PRIMITIVE MAN AND OF CIVILIZED MAN
IN the preceding chapters we have discussed the biological conditions of various races and of different social groups, in so far as they form the basis of mental activity. We must now turn our attention to the psychological characteristics of mankind under the varying conditions of race and environment.
When we consider our problem from a purely psychological point of view, we have to follow out the same lines of thought which we pursued in our discussion of the anatomical problem. We must try to enumerate clearly the typical differences between the human mind and the animal mind, which must serve as the background of our discussions. In the treatment of the psychic differences between civilized man and primitive man, we must distinguish the two problems of differences in cultural state of members of the same race, and differences in characteristics of different races; in other words, the problems of environmental influences and of influences of heredity.
For the purposes of our investigation, we do not need to enter deeply into a discussion of the first-named problem, the differences between the minds of the animal and of man. The differences are so striking that little or no diversity of opinion exists. The two outer traits in which the distinction between the minds of animal and of man finds expression are the existence of organized articulate language in man, and the use of utensils of varied application. Both of these are common to the whole of mankind. No tribe has ever been found that does not possess a well-organized language; no community that does not know the use of instruments for breaking, cutting, or drilling, the use of fire and of weapons with which to defend themselves and to obtain the means of living. Although means of communication by sound exist in animals, and although even lower animals seem to have means of bringing about co-operation between different individuals, we do not know of any case of true articulate language from which the student can extract abstract principles of classification of ideas. It may also be that higher apes employ now and then limbs of trees or stones for defence, but the use of complex utensils is not found in any representative of the animal series. Only in the case of habitations do we find an approach to more complex activities, which, however, remain absolutely stable in each species,—as we say, instinctive,—and bear no evidence of any individual freedom of use, which constitutes the primary character of human inventions. The origin of the instinctive activities of animals which lead to the construction of complex mechanical devices is still a hidden secret; but the relation of the individual of the species to these activities differs from that of man to his inventions in the complete lack of freedom of control.
We are accustomed to say that the essential characteristic of the mental processes of man is the power of reasoning. While animals as well as man may perform actions suited to an end, based on memory of the results of previous actions, and suitable selection of actions fitting a certain purpose, we have no evidence whatever that would show that the abstract concepts accompanying the action can be isolated by animals, while all groups of man, from the most primitive to the most highly developed, possess this faculty.
These few remarks on the common mental traits of man will suffice. When we turn to a consideration of the racial and social characteristics of the human mind, we find ourselves confronted by a peculiar difficulty. In all our thoughts we think in terms of our own social environment. But the activities of the human mind exhibit an infinite variety of form among the peoples of the world. In order to understand these clearly, the student must endeavor to divest himself entirely of opinions and emotions based upon the peculiar social environment into which he is born. He must adapt his own mind, so far as feasible, to that of the people whom he is studying. The more successful he is in freeing himself from the bias based on the group of ideas that constitute the civilization in which he lives, the more successful he will be in interpreting the beliefs and actions of man. He must follow lines of thought that are new to him. He must participate in new emotions, and understand how, under unwonted conditions, both lead to actions. Beliefs, customs, and the response of the individual to the events of daily life, give us ample opportunity to observe the manifestations of the mind of man under varying conditions.
Apparently the thoughts and actions of civilized man, and those found in more primitive forms of society, prove, that, in various groups of mankind, the mind responds quite differently when exposed to the same conditions. Lack of logical connection in its conclusions, lack of control of will, are apparently two of its fundamental characteristics in primitive society. In the formation of opinions, belief takes the place of logical demonstration. The emotional value of opinions is great, and consequently they quickly lead to action. The will appears unbalanced, there being a readiness to yield to strong emotions and a stubborn resistance in trifling matters.
Unfortunately the descriptions of the state of mind of primitive people, such as are given by most travellers, are too superficial to be used for psychological investigation. Very few travellers understand the language of the people they visit; and how is it possible to judge a tribe solely by the descriptions of interpreters, or by observations of disconnected actions the incentive of which remains unknown? But even when the language of the people is known to the visitor, he is generally an unappreciative listener to their tales. The missionary has his strong bias against the religious ideas and customs of primitive people, and the trader has no interest in their beliefs and in their barbarous arts. The observers who seriously tried to enter into the inner life of a people, the Cushings, Callaways, and Greys, are few in number, and may be counted on one’s fingers. Nevertheless the bulk of the argument is always based on the statements of hasty and superficial observers.
Numerous attempts have been made to describe the peculiar psychological characteristics of primitive man. Among these I would mention those of Klemm, Carus, De Gobineau, Nott and Gliddon, Waitz, Spencer, and Tylor. Their investigations are of merit as descriptions of the characteristics of primitive people, but we cannot claim for any of them that they describe the psychological characters of races independent of their social surroundings. Klemm and Wuttke designate the civilized races as active, all others as passive, and assume that all elements and beginnings of civilization found among primitive people—in America or on the islands of the Pacific Ocean—were due to an early contact with civilization. Carus divides mankind into “peoples of the day, night and dawn.” De Gobineau calls the yellow race the male element, the black race the female element, and calls only the whites the noble and gifted race. Nott and Gliddon ascribe animal instincts only to the lower races, while they declare that the white race has a higher instinct which incites and directs its development.
The belief in the higher hereditary powers of the white race has gained a new life with the modern doctrine of the prerogatives of the master-mind, which have found their boldest expression in Nietzsche’s writings.
All such views are generalizations which either do not sufficiently take into account the social conditions of races, and thus confound cause and effect, or were dictated by scientific or humanitarian bias, by the desire to justify the institution of slavery, or to give the greatest freedom to the most highly gifted.
Tylor and Spencer, who give an ingenious analysis of the mental life of primitive man, do not assume that these are racial characteristics, although the evolutionary standpoint of Spencer’s work often seems to convey this impression.
Quite distinct from these is Waitz’s point of view. He says, “According to the current opinion the stage of culture of a people or of an individual is largely or exclusively a product of his faculty. We maintain that the reverse is at least just as true. The faculty of man does not designate anything but how much and what he is able to achieve in the immediate future and depends upon the stages of culture through which he has passed and the one he has reached.”
The views of these investigators show that in the domain of psychology a confusion prevails still greater than in anatomy, as to the characteristics of primitive races, and that no clear distinction is drawn between the racial and the social problem. In other words, the evidence is based partly on the supposed mental characteristics of races, no matter what their stage of culture; partly on those of tribes and peoples on different levels of civilization, no matter whether they belong to the same race or to distinct races. Still these two problems are entirely distinct. The former is a problem of heredity; the latter, a problem of environment.
Thus we recognize that there are two possible explanations of the different manifestations of the mind of man. It may be that the minds of different races show differences of organization; that is to say, the laws of mental activity may not be the same for all minds. But it may also be that the organization of mind is practically identical among all races of man; that mental activity follows the same laws everywhere, but that its manifestations depend upon the character of individual experience that is subjected to the action of these laws.
It is quite evident that the activities of the human mind depend upon these two elements. The organization of the mind may be defined as the group of laws which determine the modes of thought and of action, irrespective of the subject-matter of mental activity. Subject to such laws are the manner of discrimination between perceptions, the manner in which perceptions associate themselves with previous perceptions, the manner in which a stimulus leads to action, and the emotions produced by stimuli. These laws determine to a great extent the manifestations of the mind. In these we recognize hereditary causes.