PROBLEMS OF CHILD INTRODUCTION In modern social work the emphasis has been shifted from the parent to the child. The fact that this is so is due largely to belief in the principle " an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Not relief but prevention is the slogan of modern social work; not palliatives but fundamental social reforms are demanded to-day. It is well then to begin with the child, for he presages the coming man. He is the plastic material that can be molded ill or well; he is gigantic in possibilities, but dwarfed if without opportunity. We are beginning to realize that the more time and energy that are spent on the child, the more lasting and profitable is the investment. To educate and train the child is worth infinitely more than to labor with the deficiencies of the man with his crystallized habits and morals. Again, child welfare involves adequate physical, mental, and moral development. If proper attention is not given to this, it is not possible to cope successfully with the varied problems of daily life. Childhood is the time of preparation; afterward little can be accomplished. Let society concentrate more of its energies on the child, instead of scattering them as it does today, and then with an equal expenditure of effort it will accomplish more good than can be realized in any other way. 1. The Child and Heredity. At once the twin forces of heredity and environment confront society and complicate the problems which are to be solved. Of the two, heredity has probably been the subject of the more serious study. Biologists and psychologists are continually adding to our knowledge of the power and influence of heredity, and of its capability of benefiting or injuring the race. The term heredity has no uniform use in popular language. It will, therefore, for the sake of clearness, be limited in meaning in this book to the transmission by the parent to the offspring of those physical and mental characteristics which are potentially present in the germ-plasm of the parent. These characteristics in turn may be inherited or may be the result of toxins that injure the germ-plasm. Usually they are present at birth; often, however, they do not appear until later in life; for example, many cases of insanity appearing in middle life are truly inherited. On the other hand, certain defects present at birth are not necessarily innate. Instead of being inherited, they are due to peculiar prenatal conditions of the mother. These defects are classified as acquired," and the offspring will not bequeath them to subsequent progeny. Certain facts have been so definitely established by students of heredity that the sociologist can use them as corner stones on which to build a system of preventive work. In many cases the child is doomed before birth, and no later training can prepare him for a normal social life. Thus defective heredity is responsible for a large proportion of the children who are condemned to such lifelong abnormalities as idiocy, imbecility, backwardness, deaf-mutism, criminality, and certain forms of constitutional disease. As a result, these defects may be expected to reappear in the offspring of each subsequent generation. It is further an unfortunate fact that some of these defective groups are much more prolific than the normal classes. A recent English Royal Commission states that the birth rate among the feeble-minded is double that of the general population. It is apparent from this that there is danger of a gradual dilution of the quality of the race unless preventive measures are adopted. Within the last decade the application of the principles of heredity for the purpose of raising the physical and mental standards of the race has been much discussed, and a plan of practical eugenics is being gradually formulated. Strictly speaking, eugenics is the art of improving the race by selecting for survival the superior qualities inherent in men and rejecting those which are inferior. It means race development, and is concerned with improvements of a permanent nature. Socalled practical eugenics is often made to apply wrongly to methods of promoting individual strength and capacity. The eugenist is correct in emphasizing the principle that every child be well born, that he be innately endowed with the capacity for development into a normal adult. The difficulty, however, lies in the carrying out of a program of attainment. For this reason two phases of the subject have been developed; "negative" and "positive " eugenics. Negative eugenics deals exclusively with the unfit classes. Among them reproduction is to be prevented, so that they may be gradually eliminated. The marriage of a feeble-minded person must not only be prohibited, but such steps must be taken as will insure his practical sterilization. By segregating idiots, imbeciles, instinctive criminals, and other groups in institutions this can be accomplished. But custodial care must be permanent to make this plan successful. So large a proportion of these classes are eventually released that one group of social workers favors sterilization as the best preventive measure. Eight states have already passed laws providing for a limited amount of sterilization in institutions. With one exception, however, these laws have so far generally remained inoperative. Without doubt the most serious cases of defect can be handled either through sterilization or custodial care. From the eugenic point of view, in fact, these offer fewer difficulties than do the thousands who suffer from slighter defects. Most of the latter are capable of partial self-support, and are not regarded as subjects for institutional care. Besides, the cost seems almost prohibitive. But these people will not refrain from intermarrying with others who are similarly defective, while sterilization cannot even be mentioned. No generally accepted program of action to solve this question has as yet been developed. However, sentiment is growing in favor of the gradual segregation of these groups. Laws prohibiting intermarriage between first cousins and other near relatives may be considered a form of negative eugenics. The large proportion of defectiveness among Jews, Mennonites, and other consanguineous groups shows how important such prohibitions are. The consanguineous marriages per se are not blameworthy, and it may safely be said that if the intermarrying stocks are vigorous, no harm will result. There are probably no perfect families, however, and strains of weakness are present in all. If two persons affected with the same weakness, as is likely in the case of relatives, marry each other, this weakness will probably be intensified in their children. For this reason such marriages should be prohibited. The recent agitation in favor of a certificate of health prior to marriage is also based on the desire to prevent the birth of unhealthy children. Turning to the field of positive eugenics, we find that this has been cultivated but sparsely. The elementary principles have not even been established. The first step to be taken is the creation of a standard of superiority or perfection. This has not been done, nor can it be done with our present limitations of knowledge. We do not know how much bulk and how many parts each organ of the body must contribute to the whole to form the man, perfect in body, in mind, and soul. When standards are established, how will they be applied? How can people be persuaded to apply them? According to a recent English investigation, defectives are found in larger proportion among the first and second born than among the younger children. Further investigation may show that environment is a factor in determining this condition; if not, then large families will give us a smaller proportion of feeble-mindedness. But does any eugenist believe that we can or will return to an era of large families? Suppose the eugenist has worked out the proper correlation between physical organ and mental quality; suppose the innate tendencies of parents are known and we can predicate absolutely the characteristics of their children; then the most difficult problem of all remains, — that of mating individuals properly adapted to each other. To-day marriages depend on love, financial condition, the coercion of custom, and other factors. Is it possible for the course of love to be deflected by eugenic |