December 10, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



837 



SCIENTIFIC BOOKS 

 Feeble-mindedness: Its Causes and Conse- 

 quences. By H. H. GoDDARD. New York, 

 Macmillan Company, 1914. Pp. xii + 599. 

 Like all of Goddard's writings, this is full of 

 interest for the large number of those who, in 

 these days of prolonged peace at home, have 

 the privilege of considering social problems. 

 If we, too, were at war, with us, also, " social 

 problems " would sink into utter insignificance 

 beside that of national existence. 



Goddard's book may be divided into four 

 parts, (1) the definition and scope of feeble- 

 mindedness, (2) family histories of the feeble- 

 minded, (3) " causes of feeble-mindedness " — 

 with special reference to heredity and (4) some 

 practical applications — eugenical and other. 



1. The definition of feeble-mindedness ac- 

 cepted by Goddard is " a state of mental defect 

 existing from birth or from an early age and 

 due to incomplete or abnormal development in 

 consequence of which the person affected is 

 incapable of performing his duties as a mem- 

 ber of society in the position of life to which 

 he was born." This is a good definition. It 

 follows, at once, as a corollary that feeble- 

 mindedness is not a biological, but a social 

 term; that many a person whom we regard as 

 mentally unfit might not be feeble-minded in 

 his native country of Central Africa or even 

 the Adirondack Mountains, for he might be 

 capable of performing the simple duties of the 

 chase and fighting or rough agriculture de- 

 manded " in the position of life to which he 

 was born." If we consider separately the 

 higher grades of the feeble-minded, the morons, 

 the non-biological nature of feeble-mindedness 

 is still more obvious ; " one . . . incapable from 

 mental defect existing from birth . . . (a) of 

 competing on equal terms with his normal fel- 

 lows or (h) of managing himself and his 

 affairs with ordinary prudence." Accepting 

 this British definition, Goddard discusses the 

 kinds of people to be included in the moron 

 group of feeble-minded and the anti-social acts 

 they perform. Thus, he considers criminality, 

 alcoholism, prostitution, pauperism and tru- 

 ancy and finds that of criminals at least 50 per 

 cent, are " defective " ; at the root of much 



intemperance " feeble-mindedness " lies ; " 50 

 per cent, of prostitutes are feeble-minded " ; 

 " 50 per cent, of the inmates of our almshouses 

 are feeble-minded," and of truants 80 per cent, 

 are feeble-minded. These are truly striking 

 figures. But as the reviewer has considered 

 this discussion he has felt as if groping in a 

 fog. If feeble-mindedness is a social and rela- 

 tive term how can we seek to find a definite 

 percentage of it in any class by some absolute 

 standard, like the Binet test? Also what is 

 the " mind " ; shall we define it as including 

 " intelligence " only, which seems to be the 

 thing measured by the Binet scale, or shall it 

 include " emotional control " which is clearly 

 not measured by the Binet scale? Tet, is it 

 not lack of emotional control that is at the 

 bottom of much so-called crime, alcoholism, 

 sex offense and truancy? And is it not also 

 true that the question of the degree of corre- 

 lation between " intelligence " and " emotional 

 control " remains largely an academic one ? 



It seems to the reviewer more significant to 

 inquire more deeply into the causes of any 

 anti-social act than to classify the offender 

 as feeble-minded or not feeble-minded by the 

 Binet or other scale. It seems to the reviewer 

 that anti-social behavior (i. e., offense against 

 the mores) may have the following bases : 



(1) Ignorance of the mores, merely through 

 lack of opportunity to learn the mores (the 

 merely improperly taught offender) . 



(2) Ignorance of the mores through lack of 

 capacity to understand what society expects 

 (the feeble-minded offender, sensu strictu). 



(3) Knowledge of the mores, accompanied 

 with a social blindness — an inability to have 

 the action controlled by a knowledge of what 

 society expects of one — because of a lack of 

 the gregarious, social or altruistic instinct. 

 Here belong the extreme individualists, in- 

 cluding the anarchists, and the others who say : 

 Why should I govern my actions to meet the 

 expectations of society; what right has society 

 over me, anyway? 



(4) Knowledge of the mores, with presence 

 of the social instincts, but with inability to meet 

 the expectations of society through insuflicient 

 inhibition or self-control. This insufficiency 



