CHAPTER XVART AND SEXUAL SELECTION
The explanation which we have given in the preceding chapter of the pairing dresses of the birds can of course be equally well applied to the secondary sexual characters of man. And it holds good also, we believe, with regard to the most primitivevoluntaryalterations in the appearance of either sex. It is true, indeed, that artificial embellishments or deformations, the work of the individual himself, never can appeal so strongly to the instincts of the other sex as those alterations which are physiologically connected with sexual development. But when, as is the case with most primitive tribes, the so-called means of attraction have remained almost unchanged during innumerable successive generations, one may safely conclude that the instincts of either sex will gradually grow prompt to react with eminent force upon impressions received from such individuals as exhibit these conventional signs of their sex and tribe. Whether the acquired qualities are considered as hereditary, or whether the consistency in the predilections of all the members of the same tribe be explained—in the Weissmannian or the neo-Darwinian way—as a result of selection, there will always be found in either sex a sort of constitutional liking forcertain fixed qualities in the appearance of the opposite sex. An appearance and a behaviour which, in the ancestors of an individual, male or female, have stirred the instinctive life of the opposite sex through generations past by, must needs improve his or her chances in courtship. The more a suitor approaches the ideal which unconsciously, and one may say physiologically, is embodied in the inherited impulses of every female, the more helplessly is she exposed to the fascination of his charms. And when, at a certain higher state of development, the males begin to practise a selection between rival females, they will undoubtedly be influenced in their choice by the same sort of inherited predilections. And there is no reason why these predilections should be restricted to anatomical qualities—why artificial adornments, perhaps even detached gems, which have only been traditional during some generations, should not influence sexual preferences in the same direct way—that is, without any intervention of an æsthetic judgment, as secondary sexual characters proper influence them. This circumstance justifies us in treating the outward physical appearance and the conventional means of embellishing it in conjunction with each other. An outward sign, whether natural or artificial, which has often enough been connected with the impression of the other sex will necessarily tend to awaken sexual feelings.
For such an effect it is of course not indispensable that these signs should have originated in an endeavour to charm the sex. As in the foregoing chapter, we have to keep the question of influence upon the other sex apart from the question of the positive causes—that is, conscious or unconscious motives, which have called forth the various secondary sexual characters and activities. For convenience of exposition it is advantageous to begin with the first-mentioned phase of the problem.
Without as yet pronouncing any definite views as to the aims the pursuit of which has led to the different systems of adornment, we may safely maintain that any conspicuous garments, independently of their ornamental qualities, which have served to distinguish the adult and marriageable individuals from other members of the tribe, have been of importance as means of attraction. According to the ingenious explanation of Dr. Westermarck, even clothing was originally invented not to conceal nudity, but to set it off.[301]There is room, as will be shown later on, for objecting to any definite statement with regard to a question such as this, the answer to which is to be sought for in several directions at once. But there can be no doubt about the fact that the simplest dresses, and especially those which have been interpreted as indicating a sense of modesty, practically accentuate the things they technically conceal. At a stage of development where nudity is the normal state, veiling must necessarily suggest the same emotions as unveiling in a civilised society. As Dr. Westermarck has been able to show, dresses are adopted by a majority of tribes on the attainment of puberty and on the occasions of great feasts; it is therefore natural that they should act as powerful sexual incitements.[302]And this view receives additional support from the arguments of its opponents. The large collection of facts that Dr. Schurtz has quoted in proof of his assertion that clothing originally aimed at “the concealment of sexual differences” may of course be interpreted with equal and, we believe, with greaterprobability in the inverse sense.[303]One has only to look, for example, at some of the richly-embroidered cinctures of the Guiana natives in order to understand that these coverings, whatever may have been their original purpose, can never have acted as an effective means of diverting the attention.
The differences between the sexes will, however, be emphasised not only by the special garments for which Dr. Schurtz proposes the above-mentioned explanation, but also by every article of dress or ornament. For the intellectualistically prejudiced observer it is undoubtedly most natural to consider the various kinds of fixed or detached ornament, such as paintings and tattooings, ribbons, laces, collars, and so on, as means of influencing an æsthetic sense in the spectator. But it is evidently more in accordance with the principles of comparative psychology to assume that all these garnitures originally had their main significance not as beautifying things or as things of beauty themselves, but as marks by which the personality of the decorated man or woman was distinguished. To illustrate this argument it is not necessary to go back to the primitive stages. Even among civilised men, gems and jewels, when seen on a member of the opposite sex, have chiefly a symbolic value. In the string of pearls which encircles a woman’s neck, or in the gay feather of a man’s hat, the charm and fascination of a whole human being are concentrated to a single focus. To the lover’s attention everything that has some connection with the beloved shines with a borrowed light. We all know that handkerchiefs and shoes can be adored with an almost fetichistic devotion. All the more must a gem which is conspicuouslycarried on the body be able to imbibe and exhale the charms of its wearer. The lyrical poetry of all ages is there to prove the emotional value which can thus be attached to lifeless things. And the psychology of the emotions in its turn gives a simple explanation of the fact that loving imagination always dwells with predilection upon some single part of the attire of the beloved. A small and conspicuous object which can easily be embraced by the senses affords a vehicle which can carry into the mind the whole complex of feelings and impulses that are attached to the notion of the beloved. Well knowing this law of emotional mechanics, an intelligent woman who is anxious to please does not cover herself with jewels and ornaments. She prefers some single brilliant gem, which does not so much call for admiration itself, as draw attention to her charms and heighten the impression which they produce.
It may seem very far-fetched to explain the primitive means of attraction by reference to the art of pleasing among modern men. But however much the forms of courtship may have been changed by higher development, their psychological basis is still the same at all stages of culture. There is no need, as far as purely erotic purposes are concerned, to embellish the appearance; what is wanted is only to enable the appearance itself to produce its most effectual impression. When this point is kept in mind, it is easily understood that ornaments such as a simple piece of glass in the hair or a band of shells twisted around the neck can be as charming in the eyes of primitive man as any of the gems that are used among civilised nations. And there is no reason to doubt that the savage beaux and belles really have increased theirchances by putting wooden slabs in their lips and ears, or pins of bone through their nose.
In the last-mentioned cases the effect has, moreover, been strengthened by the appearance of strangeness that is given to the face by deforming adornments. Eyes that might pass by with indifference an accustomed impression, are unavoidably arrested by any extraordinary character. As amongst the birds and mammals, horns, accrescences, and gorgeous plumage, independently of their possible æsthetic qualities, assist the males in courting the females, so also amongst men any means of correcting the normal appearance, be it through flattening the head, filling, extracting, or blackening the teeth, elongating the ears or compressing the waist, will, in virtue only of its singularity, act as an effectual instrument of charming.[304]For the marriageable individual it has evidently been advantageous to be distinguished by these extravagant transformations, which, as is well known, are usually inflicted at the very time of puberty. And, on the other hand, among individuals so distinguished, those who extort an interest for their person by the most singular qualities ought to have an increased chance of charming the opposite sex. In the discussion of sexual preferences there has been much talk of a supposed constitutional predilection for novelty and variation. But it is undoubtedly more in accordance with the strictly psychological position to doubt whether, in the primitive stages, novelty really has been appreciated for its own sake, or whether it is only by facilitating the attention, and thereby intensifying the impression, that it hasgained the favour of the opposite sex for one particular male or female.
Whichever formula may be preferred in the interpretation, it remains as an indisputable fact that even in some of the higher animals an exceptional appearance gives an advantage in courtship. It is needless to point out to how great an extent in civilised communities man is influenced in sexual preference by a bias for a peculiar appearance which distinguishes the chosen one from any other man or woman. This predilection, however, is always neutralised by a repugnance for everything that deviates too much from the common characteristics of the group. The two principles which have regulated the development of secondary sexual characters—to wit, the necessity of marks for accentuating sex-distinction and that of tribal signs—are thus brought into conflict with each other. This conflict is particularly conspicuous in the lower stages of development. Owing to the peculiar conditions of life which prevail here, the second principle will generally be of especial importance among the savage tribes of mankind.
The observation has often been made that too great uniformity of work impedes the development of individual characters in physical appearance. In savage communities, where the division of labour is almost unknown, all men must necessarily be more or less like one another.[305]Especially if the home of the tribe be some closely defined area of uniform climatic conditions, there will be within the tribe almost no material for selection. Where endogamic marriage prevails, the conception “lover,” which is transmitted from mother to daughter, and which, by “objective heredity,” becomesimprinted on the mind of every girl that grows up in this narrowmilieu, must therefore be one with a very restricted content. Alongside of this increasing predilection for a fixed and narrowly circumscribed type of the opposite sex there will, as its complementary feeling, develop a strong antipathy to every feature that diverges from this type. For the evolution of national ideals this negative influence has been of perhaps even greater importance than the positive preferences.
It is evident that strictly endogamous marriage customs could never be upheld in tribes which have any intercourse with their neighbours if the social institution were not supported by a real psychological aversion to outsiders. It has therefore been congruous with the advantages of society to promote in the youth the feeling that any man or woman outside the tribe is a being with whom no emotional exchange is to be thought of. To make this feeling possible, on the other hand, it is necessary that everything which is connected with the foreigner should be held up to contempt. Their dress, their language, their manners, and so on, have thus been considered as something to be kept at a distance. It is needless to point out that marriage systems are not alone responsible for the development of this feeling. Religious differences, so important in primitive communities, have undoubtedly often given rise to the common notion that people outside one’s own tribe do not, properly speaking, belong to the human species. Continual war induces a feeling of contempt, which in the stronger tribe is mingled with pride and in the weaker with bitterness, and which in both cases extends to the smallest details of physical appearance and behaviour. And apart from all regard to these socialcauses, the primitive man, in civilised as well as in savage nations, is always apt to look upon everything unusual with a feeling of scornful disdain. No doubt such a disdain can even be coincident with exogamous marriage customs. But it seems evident that it must everywhere have strongly influenced sexual selection during those unknown endogamic periods in which the racial and tribal differences were developed and fixed.[306]And it may even now be observed among living tribes of man to how great a degree antipathy to every detail in the outward appearance of foreigners precludes union between members of different tribes. The national and parochial dresses of modern peasants no doubt exercise a great influence on the love-life of the respective boys and girls. The most telling example that could be quoted in this connection is the case of Savakot and Äyrämäiset in Eastern Finland. When examining a Savakko youth as to the reason why none of his tribe had ever chosen a wife from among their neighbours, Ahlqvist[307]received the characteristic answer: “Se kuin on heillä Äyrämäisillä niin hirveä vaatteen manieri niin siihen ei meidän pojat uskalla puuttua”—that is, As these Äyrämä girls have such horrid dresses, our boys do not dare to approach them.
This instance, although it is one of modern times and refers to relatively civilised individuals, can no doubt be considered as illustrative with regard to the distinguishing marks and dresses of primitive men. The outward signs of the tribe not only exercise a strong attraction upon all its members; they are also for outsiders associated with a repugnance which is perhaps equally strong. In the same way as it has beenadvantageous for the young of both sexes to have an appearance which appeals as powerfully as possible to the instinctive predilections of the opposite sex, it has been necessary for them not to exhibit qualities which could be confounded with those of the alien. The individual who endeavours to attract attention for his person by a conspicuous and extravagant appearance is, therefore, narrowly restricted within the boundaries prescribed by tribal sympathies and antipathies. The safest expedient by which to distinguish himself from others without outraging the national idea is, therefore, that of exaggerating the common characteristics of the tribe.
These theoretical reasonings can be amply corroborated by ethnological facts. As early as 1814 Humboldt observed and commented upon the fact that the deformations which appear most arbitrary generally only tend to carry into excess some natural peculiarity of the tribe.[308]And since his time, numerous instances have been adduced in the ethnological literature, all pointing in the same direction. In the case of people who blacken their teeth it has been remarked that the dental enamel is naturally darker than usual; where heads are artificially deformed, it is found that there exists a general disposition to develop pointed or flat crania; where the hair-growth is scanty, baldness is artificially produced; and so forth.[309]By exaggerating and accentuating in their own appearance the common qualities of the tribe, the individual males or females have thus created a more and more differentiated tribal type. And the inherited predilections andaversions of the opposite sex have, on the other hand, by continuously influencing positive and negative choice, contributed to the fixing of these types as tribal ideals, not of beauty, but of sexual attractiveness.