266 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



COKRESPONDENCE. 



"THE SAVAGERY OF BOYHOOD." 



Editor Popular Science ifonthUj : 



SIR: Under the above title an article 

 appeared in your October number, 

 against the conclusions of which I beg to 

 enter ray most emphatic protest. I regard 

 this article as the more dangerous in its 

 practical effects (for it is likely to be much 

 quoted), because, with what is not true to 

 fact, there is intermingled much with which 

 every biologist will agree. Says the writer: 

 " My own conviction is, that healthy boys 

 under fifteen feel very little compassion for 

 any suffering but that of their near relatives, 

 their close friends, and occasionally their 

 pet animals. Cruelty seems to be a funda- 

 mental fact in the nature of children. In 

 view of the law of our development, which 

 carries us along the path our ancestors have 

 trod, how can we expect our boys to be any- 

 thing else but cruel ? " It is my conviction 

 that these utterances are libels on child- 

 nature, and as such deserve to be promptly 

 repudiated. When the doctrine of evolu- 

 tion is made responsible for such views as 

 these, I do not wonder that it becomes dis- 

 tasteful to persons of sensibility, who may 

 not, however, have the requisite knowledge 

 to enable them to see through the fallacies. 

 Doubtless there is a certain proportion of 

 boys of whom the statements of the writer 

 in question may be true, but they do not 

 constitute the majority even as things are 

 now. Incidents like those cited by the 

 writer do show how faulty and imperfect is 

 our treatment of the mental and moral na- 

 ture of children, and not that such conduct 

 is natural to the healthy and normally de- 

 veloped youth. After having been a pretty 

 close observer of children of both sexes for 

 many years, I have been led to adopt views 

 totally opposed to those advanced by the 

 writer of " The Savagery of Boyhood." The 

 child born in civilization, when neglected or 

 ill-taught, may certainly be somewhat of a 

 savage ; and such he would remain, but for 

 the e<lucation forced upon him by his sur- 

 roundings in later life. With the great ma- 

 jority of children of both sexes there is, 

 however, the natural tendency to regard the 

 lower creation with interest, and a sympa- 

 thy sometimes even ludicrous. The secret 

 of the development of these feelings hes in 

 explaining to a child, when still quite young, 

 the nature of animals great and small, in a 

 way it can understand, so as to bring out 

 the fact that they are li^e ourselves — very 

 like ourselves. To illustrate imperfectly by 

 an example : A child of five years that had 



always been taught thus to regard the ani- 

 mal creation was amusing itself by watching 

 a cockroach confined for the time under a 

 tumbler. Presently several children of its 

 own age came in to play. The cockroach es- 

 caped, and one of these " savages " promptly 

 crushed it — precisely as it had always been 

 taught by example to do. The first child 

 burst into a flood of tears, and declared it 

 wanted no more of such playmates. Inas- 

 much as I have known this child intimately 

 for most of its lifetime, I think I should 

 have been able to detect physical disease 

 (which is the kind our writer refers to), but 

 this child is neither specially precocious nor 

 in any way diseased so far as can be discov- 

 ered — and I am not without experience in 

 making such discriminations. No, the " sav- 

 agery" is the result of our own neglect or 

 educational bungling. I regard the views 

 of the writer of the article in question as 

 especially pernicious, because they will tend 

 to encourage parents and educators to put 

 the blame upon Nature that should be laid 

 at their own doors — or rather, perhaps, to 

 acquiesce in a state of things that calls loud- 

 ly for correction. Until adults realize that 

 the lower animals are fellow-creatures in a 

 fuller sense than at present, the teaching 

 children get, with regard to their relations 

 to them, must be very ineffectual. Fortu- 

 nately, there is some literature that can be 

 put into the hands of young children that 

 will do good in this direction. I do not 

 think most boys could read such works as 

 those from the pen of Dr. Charles C. Ab- 

 bott (e. g., " A Naturalist's Rambles about 

 Home "), without losing — if they ever had it 

 — what ilr. Johnson is pleased to call their 

 " savagery " of nature ; especially if perused 

 under the guidance of an intelligent parent 

 who himself really had any sympathy with 

 our " poor relations." The doctrines of " The 

 Savagery of Boyhood " remind me of certain 

 others almost equally unfounded in nature, 

 thotigh less harmful, in regard to allowing 

 children to carry on all their social life and 

 amusements after their own crude notions. 

 Do those holding such views consider that 

 it can be shown, almost to a biological dem- 

 on.stration, that what each one of us is to- 

 day is the resultant of all that has gone 

 before in our own history and that of our 

 ancestors ? IIow shall we have well-bal- 

 anced and order-loving men if we encourage 

 children in disorder ? The mischief of later 

 years is largely the outcome of ill-directed 

 activities in childhood. Would that we really 

 believed that whatsoever an individual sows, 



