Page images
PDF
EPUB

for permanently backward children, and how to distinguish between temporary and permanent retardation; the organization of public-school education for the subnormal; social and industrial policies toward the subnormal; legal codes dealing with subnormality; and the hygiene of eugenic generation. This review will attempt to state briefly the stand taken by the author on each of these topics.

The chapter on the history of the movement, entitled "Changing Attitudes," is one of the most interesting in the book. It treats very briefly of the cruelty of the ancient world toward the feeble-minded and the various superstitious and religious prejudices with regard to them. The modern attitude toward the feeble-minded had its source in the attempts made in the eighteenth century to develop methods of teaching the deaf and the blind. The first case of a systematic attempt to teach a feeble-minded child was that of the famous boy over whom Itard labored from 1800 to 1804. Seguin, a pupil of Itard, established the first successful school for the feeble-minded in Paris in 1837. Since it was Seguin himself who, after coming to the United States during the revolution of 1848, established our first schools for the feeble-minded and led the movement here until his death in 1880, the very brief historical period during which these unfortunates have had the benefit of scientific interest is strikingly brought home to us. The latter part of the chapter discusses the present status of institutional care for the feeble-minded in this country and the provision for them in special classes in the public school.

The chapter on "Who Is Feeble-minded" is a very long one, containing an analysis of the basis on which children have been admitted to various institutions and the proportion of feeble-minded found by various investigators among groups of delinquents. The author's point is that the wide variation in results shows that as yet there is very little uniformity in the standards of measuring feeble-mindedness used by various investigators. He is himself in favor of setting a mental age of ten years as the upper limit of feeble-mindedness. The author presents convincing evidence that this standard is a better one than the twelve-year limit which has been so widely used. Those of us who have had extensive experience in testing adults of limited education engaged in unskilled work and who know how many of them would fall in the group of the feeble-minded (about 40 per cent) if twelve years were regarded as the upper limit are sure that Mr. Wallin's ten-year standard is the more reasonable one to use while awaiting the establishment of a really scientific basis of decision.

As yet no uniform standard for excluding children from school on the ground of feeble-mindedness has been adopted. No public schools accept idiots. Some of them accept imbeciles, and all of them accept morons. In St. Louis no child with a mental age below five years is accepted. Since this means that a child with an intelligence quotient of 60 could not be received in school until he was eight years of age, the standard seems a little severe. A standard of admission based upon an intelligence quotient is more reasonable. Such a standard is in use in Cincinnati, where no child of ten years or less can be received in school if his intelligence quotient falls below 50.

The author lays a great deal of stress on the necessity for fixing with great accuracy the dividing line between the feeble-minded and the merely backward. To do so, he argues, requires great skill and very thorough training. He considers it a serious injustice in the educational world to place a child who is merely backward in a class with feebleminded children. He lays so much stress on this phase of the task of the clinical psychologist that one would suppose that he regarded feeblemindedness as a distinct entity which differed definitely in quality from normality. However, such is not the case. He assures us that his conception of feeble-mindedness is that it is merely the lower portion of our unbroken series of mental abilities. It is hard to understand, if this is so, why the exact classification of individuals in the border-line region becomes so supremely important a matter. That the group of children who should be regarded as merely backward and should be placed in ungraded or industrial classes is much larger than those who can definitely be called feeble-minded and who should be placed in classes for the feeble-minded is doubtless true. As Mr. Wallin points out, the ultimate criterion of normality must be the stock of mental ability which makes it possible for an individual to earn a living and be fairly safe at large. What the minimum amount for this purpose is we can tell only approximately at present. We need much more careful studies of the social careers of adults whose mental status is accurately known. Such studies are now being made in various parts of the country, but scarcely enough time has elapsed since scientific records of mental status have been kept to make them convincing. Meanwhile the exact decision about border-line cases which Mr. Wallin seems to expect of the skilled clinical psychologist remains a very illusory goal.

The chief addition to our present educational provision for the feebleminded which Mr. Wallin recommends is the establishment of homes as part of the public-school system of large cities. None of our present

state institutions has a capacity which makes it possible to receive the cases which are at present assigned. If laws were passed to enforce the segregation of all those who in the interests of the welfare of society should be segregated, the provision would be still more inadequate. Every large city has enough cases to fill a home. Voluntary commitments would probably be larger if the institutions were close at hand. It is the school which should ultimately pass upon cases for segregation, and if the home were part of the school organization commitments could be made more easily.

For the higher grade of feeble-minded and the very backward what is needed is classes in which the stress of instruction falls on manual processes. The chief criticism of many of the present classes for these children is that they are still too much engrossed with the hopeless task of teaching academic subjects.

It is certain that the higher grade of feeble-minded and the very backward can be trained to be industrially useful. Those who are of a grade low enough to be regarded as feeble-minded are those who cannot make good at large under conditions of competition. Many of them could, however, be very useful under institutional conditions. Mr. Wallin's idea is that they should be trained in industrial classes in the public school and at the age of puberty be assigned to the homes for the feeble-minded, where they could help in the work of the institution. Those who are of somewhat higher grade will be able to maintain themselves as unskilled workers in the industries. Part of the duty of those who have charge of training retarded children is to make a survey of the openings for them in the industries of the local community and to secure the co-operation of employers in placing them. The formation of aftercare committees, similar to those of England, whose duty it would be to keep in touch with children of this type who have entered industry and to help and protect them, is also suggested.

The type of legislation which Mr. Wallin urges is that of New Jersey and Illinois. It provides for compulsory and permanent segregation of the feeble-minded who are either dependent or delinquent. It also provides for a joint board of physicians and psychologists to pass upon feeble-mindedness.

In the chapter on "Epilepsy" Mr. Wallin points out that while feeble-mindedness is a state of arrested development which is, so far as we know, hopeless and final, epilepsy is a disease entity. While, therefore, the treatment of the feeble-minded is a social and educational problem only, that of the epileptic is primarily a medical problem.

However, the disease is as yet the subject of wide divergence of medical opinion, and success in treating it is very limited. Since epilepsy is often complicated by feeble-mindedness and seems to involve mental deterioration in so large a percentage of cases, the problem of dealing educationally and socially with the epileptic has much in common with that of the feeble-minded. The epileptic is often the more difficult problem because he so frequently suffers from a villainously bad disposition.

The chapter on "The Hygiene of Eugenic Generation" deals with the necessity of preventing procreation on the part of individuals bearing the hereditary taint of feeble-mindedness or insanity and of the syphilitic and alcoholic. The diagnosis of strains which are socially dangerous is a difficult problem and should be in the hands of experts in field investigation and in mental diagnosis. There are many border-line types in which the evidence is not decisive, and those should be given the benefit of the doubt. His recommendations on the positive side of the eugenic program are based upon birth control. Since it has been shown that the years during which the most superior children are produced are those between twenty-five and thirty-five, he thinks that parents should be urged to plan for children during those years. It would not be wise, however, to forbid marriage under twenty-five years, because marriage so frequently proves to be the best protection against vice. A knowledge of methods of birth control would solve the difficulty. Since too frequent pregnancies reduce the vigor of children and too large families increase the poverty of the poor and all its attendant evils, he believes that a knowledge of methods of birth control should be permitted. It would do away with the frequent abortions and infanticides, which are so brutalizing, and would extend to the poor the means of voluntarily limiting the size of the family, which is now the possession of the rich.

Mr. Wallin's book has the virtue of representing the best scientific opinion of the present day in most of the topics he discusses. It has the vice of being poorly organized and unnecessarily long. The various chapters overlap unduly, and many of the discussions are far longer than is necessary in making his points. Two chapters are addresses reprinted without modification. In short, the form of the book is far inferior to its matter.

CINCINNATI, OHIO

HELEN T. WOOLLEY

RECENT LITERATURE

NOTES AND ABSTRACTS

What Is Sociology?-Some claim that sociology is the great synthetic social science. This evokes the criticism that "sociology is a little bit of everything and nothing at all." The graduate student makes it definite as that body of principles which governs the evolution of society from primitive forms to its highly complex modern life. To the social worker sociology may mean the very definite body of scientific knowledge involved in successful social legislation or case work. The academic worker is scientifically working to discover, formulate, and define those principles which govern the origin, growth, and evolution of our modern social customs, standards, and institutions. The practical group of workers is seeking to restore normal standards, to encourage helpful traditions, and to preserve and upbuild normal social institutions. Thus they co-operate-pure sociology traces and defines normal human tendencies and standards; applied sociology endeavors to preserve and reestablish them. We may therefore define sociology as the science of the origin, growth, and evolution of social customs, standards, and institutions. It analyzes and defines them and studies the causes that tend to force people below normal standards, thus showing us how to prevent recurrent lapses from these norms as well as to relieve abnormal conditions.-F. Stuart Chapin, Scientific Monthly, September, 1918.

C. W. C.

The Psychology of Social Reconstruction.-An immense number of books and articles have been issued from the English and the American press on the subject of social reconstruction after the war. In these writings we hear little about our boasted "modern" civilization. We hear now of a new social order, of a new social mind. The method by which this picture of the new social state has been gained is the simplest in the world. It consists merely in enumerating the "evils" and then outlining a plan in which these evils will be absent; the abolition of those evils is considered a kind of ultimate goal. We should bear in mind that rapid social and economic changes have taken place in man's environment, while the physical and mental constitution of man has changed but little. Man therefore would not be content in a standardized world. under scientific management and the rule of efficiency. The standardized world will offer us safety and work, but it lacks the element of zest. It is life that people want, not recreation and self-development. The social Utopias provide for existence but not for life. The society for the future, planned by the reconstructionists, makes little provision for the utilization of the two most powerful forces in the human mind, loyalty and devotion.

It is a misconception of life that places the emphasis of the future upon peace and plenty, economic expansion, equality, comforts, luxuries, and wealth, no matter how equitably the wealth is distributed. We must emphasize eugenics and education in our efforts of social reconstruction rather than economic, political, and social questions. -George T. W. Patrick, Scientific Monthly, June, 1918. C. N.

Democracy and Social Conditions in the United States. By democracy we mean a social spirit rather than a mere form of government or society, and a social control where the opinion and will of every member of the group enters into the determination of group behavior. The success of democracy depends upon the freedom of thought, judgment, and intercommunication among individuals, and upon their good-will or fraternalism. All men must be treated as of potentially equal social worth and be given opportunity to demonstrate their social worth. The tendency of the American democracy previous to the war was in the direction of laissez faire individualism. Then

« PreviousContinue »