CHAPTER XVII

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY TENDENCIES--THE REPRESSION OF LOVE

[Sidenote: Causes of Incest Repression]

Supposing the tendency to incest to have been called into 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.

[Sidenote: Explanations of primitive peoples]

(1) The reasons which are given by primitive peoples for their obedience to the rule of exogamy are various; sometimes 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.

[Sidenote: Durkheim's Theory of the sanctity of blood]

(2) Thus, Durkheim[246] suggests that exogamy arose as a 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].

[Sidenote: Westermarck's theory of an innate aversion to incest]

(3) Westermarck[248] would explain exogamy and the avoidance 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].

[Sidenote: resulting from the injurious effects of inbreeding]

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 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.

[Sidenote: These effects by no means certain]

In estimating the correctness of this theory, it is well to 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.

[Sidenote: and can scarcely account for the intensity of the incest prohibition]

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 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].

[Sidenote: Influence of non-sexual factors]

(4) According to one type of explanation (_e. g._ that 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.

[Sidenote: Such factors cannot fully explain exogamy]

Now all these factors--and others too perhaps--may very 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].

[Sidenote: The psychological nature of the incest prohibition shows the insufficiency of these influences]

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 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.

[Sidenote: The biological absurdity of parent-child incest]

(5) Turning to factors that have in general received less 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].

[Sidenote: Fear of the consequences of parental jealousy]

(6) A potent set of influences calculated to inhibit tendencies 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.

[Sidenote: Strong family ties conflict with social development]

(7) There can be little doubt that there exists a certain 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.

[Sidenote: They conflict also with individual development]

(8) There exists a very similar antagonism between a high 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.

[Sidenote: Both greater integration and greater differentiation of society is thus secured]

Under the last heading (7) we saw that the repression 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.

[Sidenote: Among those who live together sexual reactions are inhibited by non-sexual]

Westermarck would regard the objection to intercourse 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.

[Sidenote: and especially by hostile tendencies]

A further factor which may reinforce the foregoing is 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].

[Sidenote: The incest tendencies are also affected by the general sexual inhibitions]

(10) The incestuous tendencies with which we are here 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].

[Sidenote: Thus the circumstances of human life are responsible for the mental conflicts that centre round the incest tendencies]

We have now studied some of the principal factors which, 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.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 246: "La Prohibition de l'inceste et ses origines," _L'Année Sociologique_, I, 1890, 55 ff.]

[Footnote 247: _Cp_. Frazer, "Totemism and Exogamy", IV, 100 ff.]

[Footnote 248: "History of Human Marriage," 320 ff.]

[Footnote 249: A difficulty in connection with Westermarck's theory is concerned with the question as to how an aversion to sexual intercourse between those who have lived from infancy together changed to a similar aversion between blood relatives. How is it, if the original aversion was of the former kind, that it has left but little trace of its existence, while the aversion to marriage between blood relatives, which is supposed to have been derived from it, is grown so strong? It would seem as if the theory would perhaps have to be modified so as to postulate the existence of an original aversion to the marriage of blood relatives, as such; though of course this only opens up the fresh difficulty of accounting for the manner in which such an aversion could arise. We are here faced with the same problem that we have already encountered in the case of the positive aspects of the love impulse between relatives (p. 198 footnote).]

[Footnote 250: If this were not the case, we might well ask with other critics why a natural instinct to avoid incestuous relations should need the reinforcement of legal penalties and prohibitions.]

[Footnote 251: For a discussion of the question of inbreeding in the present connection, see Frazer, "Totemism and Exogamy", IV. 160 ff.]

[Footnote 252: "Inbreeding and Outbreeding", Monographs on Experimental Biology, 1919.]

[Footnote 253: Supposing that natural selection does exercise some influence of the kind indicated, such influence does not of course, here any more than elsewhere, necessarily imply any appreciation of the nature of the causes at work. On the contrary, as some authorities have pointed out, it is scarcely possible to ascribe to primitive man any conscious realisation of the ill effects of inbreeding (if these exist). These ill effects manifest themselves much too slowly to be observed by the savage with his relatively short memory and his lack of interest in remote events, especially when, as has often been the case, there has been uncertainty as to the nature of paternity. Even if the savage were able to realise the nature of this hereditary influence, it is pretty clear that his actions and feelings would be but little affected thereby, for it is one of the most general characteristics of the primitive mind that it takes but small account of distant consequences, whereas Eugenics involves the appreciation of such consequences in a high degree.]

[Footnote 254: "Elements of Folk Psychology", 151.]

[Footnote 255: "Studies in Ancient History" (2nd. ed.) 160.]

[Footnote 256: "Principles of Sociology", I, 619.]

[Footnote 257: "The Origin of Civilisation", 135 ff.]

[Footnote 258: "Indisches Ehe- und Familienrecht", _Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft_, III, 1882, 361.]

[Footnote 259: Atkinson and Andrew Lang, "The Primal Law."]

[Footnote 260: A full discussion of these theories will be found in Westermarck's "History of Human Marriage" and Frazer's "Totemism and Exogamy".]

[Footnote 261: Whatever real truth there may be in this argument, we must not fail to bear in mind that it is admirably adapted for use as a "rationalisation", _i. e._ the fear of evil consequences (dysgenic or other) from marriages between young and old may well be a conscious (and, in a sense, artificial) substitute for the unconscious aversion to such marriages on the ground of their being an indirect expression of incestuous desires. We must therefore be on our guard against the tendency to overemphasise this argument in the absence of adequate objective evidence.]

[Footnote 262: It is round this point of course, as we have above shown, that the differences of opinion between Freud and Jung have largely centred.]

[Footnote 263: That some such factors as these are probably really operative in addition to the more specific sexual inhibitions that compose the incest barrier proper, is shown by a consideration of cases in which no such specific inhibition exists, _e. g._ that of husband and wife. In spite of the fact that sexual relations between husband and wife are not only permitted but enjoined and that mutual sexual attractiveness has usually played some considerable part in bringing about the union, there can be little doubt that in very many cases a husband and wife, after a certain period of married life, tend to find--superficially at any rate--greater sexual attractiveness in strangers than in one another. The reasons for this (in the absence of any other adequate cause) are often fairly clearly of the kind described--first, the fact that their associations with one another are largely connected with the "humdrum" activities of everyday life in which non-sexual instincts are principally concerned (whereas with strangers the sexual feelings may constitute the predominant, or perhaps the only, bond); secondly the fact that through the very intimacy of their connection there are (as in the case of blood relatives) a number of matters as regards which the husband and wife are competitors or have conflicting interests, thus leading to a certain degree of (usually more or less repressed) hostility on either side.]

[Footnote 264: The reasons for the existence of a general sexual repression, over and above the incest inhibition, and the psychological mechanisms by which this repression is brought about, form a vast and highly important theme on which there exists at present but little general agreement and which, being only indirectly connected with our subject, need fortunately not be entered into here. It is perhaps worth while to point out however in passing, that some of the factors which are responsible for the more general sexual repression are, in all probability, similar to those which we have considered in connection with the production of incest inhibition. Thus there would seem to exist an antagonism between a highly developed and intensive sexuality and those wider social bonds in virtue of which alone the larger human communities are possible. It is on the basis of the manifestations of this antagonism that some writers--as already mentioned--hold that the chief motive forces which are active in sexual repression are to be found in the instincts of the herd. Still more marked perhaps is the antagonism between sex and individuation. It has long been recognised, and modern psychological researches have pretty definitely proved, that many of the more complex desires and activities of the individual--desires and activities upon which human culture ultimately depends--are built up upon sublimations of the sexual tendencies. All these sublimations involve a deflection of sexual energy from its original and primitive direction--a deflection which occurs for the most part or entirely as the result of conflict with the sexual tendencies when thus primitively directed.

As regards the motive forces engaged in this conflict, there is again at present much uncertainty, but they probably to some extent differ from one case to another. The conflict would seem to be waged, sometimes between two aspects of the sexual impulse, _e. g._ between Narcissism and object-love or between physical desire and tender affection (when these elements have been dissociated in the ways we have already studied). In other cases the gregarious instincts are probably engaged in the manner suggested by Trotter and others; while, in still other instances, there may be an antagonism between the sexual impulses and the tendencies of self-assertion, self-respect or self-preservation, as emphasised especially by Freud. For a more general discussion of the factors concerned in sexual inhibition, see E. Bleuler, "Der Sexualwiderstand", _Jahrbuch für psychoanalytische und psychopathologische Forschungen_, 1913, V, 442, and J. C. Flügel, "On the Biological Basis of Sexual Repression and its Sociological Significance", _British Journal of Psychology_ (_Medical Section_), 1921, I, 225.]