« 이전계속 »
edge widens in all directions, as society becomes more complex, and as the points of contact between man and his inorganic environment multiply, the amount of general education which each individual must receive before he is in a position to hold his own, and to guide himself rationally in all the emergencies of life, and to enjoy his share of the benefits which our intellectual advancement has placed within his reach, increases in a geometrical progression, and the amount of time demanded for general liberal education increases in the same ratio. Meanwhile the amount of special preliminary training which must be undergone in order to fit a person for new and original work in any department of knowledge or art increases at the same rate, and makes greater and greater inroads upon the time which is needed for general education. At present the most important, delicate, and complicated of educational problems, the problem which each individual mnst meet and decide upon, and the problem which engrosses most of the thought of educational bodies, is where to draw the line between general culture and practical or technical training.
Culture in its widest sense is, I take it, thorough acquaintance with all the old and new results of intellectual activity in all departments of knowledge, so far as they conduce to welfare, to correct living, and to rational conduct; that is, culture is to the intellectual man what heredity has been to the physical man. Culture is concerned only with results, not with demonstrations, and it does not look to new advances; while technical training is concerned with methods and proofs; and it values the results of the methods and investigations of the past only as they contribute to new advances. Technical training looks to progress in some one definite line, one radius of the growing circle of the domain of human intelligence, and ignores the rest of the circumference. It is to the intellectual man what variation is to the physical man. By culture we hold our own, and by technical training we advance to higher levels. Both are equally important to human welfare, and the great problem of the future is how to secure each to the greatest degree without sacrificing the other. The analogy of the rest of the organic world would seem to indicate that this is to be accomplished by "division of labor." If the female mind has gained during its evolution an especial aptness for acquiring and applying the results of past progress, by an empirical method and without the necessity for studying proofs and reasons, it would seem especially fitted for culture, as distinct from training, while the male mind is best fitted for education by that process of inductive training by demonstration and experiment which leads to new advances. The methods employed in the general instruction of young men and young women should not therefore be identical. With the one the field may be very wide and the methods empirical, and with the other the range more narrow and the methods more strictly logical. In this way each type of mind will be developed in the manner for which it has an especial fitness; and we have the strongest grounds for the belief that this method would also gradually result in the extension of that congenital acquaintance with nature which is the common stock of the race, and would thus leave more time for the special training of those minds which are by nature best fitted to receive it. It is unavoidable that a bald outline of a view which has such wide implications should afford many openings for serious criticism; but the present article does not admit of the expansion of the idea, even if its detailed examination could be fairly included in the province of biology. Having traced the origin and significance of sex from its lowest manifestations to a point where it becomes purely intellectual, the biologist may fairly leave the subject in the hands of the psychologist.
When this chapter was printed, several years ago, I was told by several teachers of great experience in the education of both boys and girls that their observations showed no constant difference in the intellectual powers of the two sexes. They therefore disputed the accuracy of my view.
Taking the chapter alone, this is, no doubt, a fair criticism; but I believe that any reader who will examine the subject in connection with the other chapters of this book, as a part of the whole, and not as an isolated essay, will perceive that we should not expect the intellectual differences between men and women to be so well marked and conspicuous during childhood as they become after maturity is reached.
The subject is such a fruitful source of controversy that I can hardly hope to escape adverse criticism, and I can only say that I have not approached it in a spirit of controversy, and shall gladly welcome any discussion which leads to the discovery of truth.
The acceptance of my view should put an end to all discussion as to the relative intellectual rank of men and women; for if the two sexes contribute in different ways to the welfare of the race, and fill equally important but dissimilar places, there can be no question as to relative superiority or inferiority.
THE THEORY OF HEREDITY CONSIDERED AS SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE THEORY OE NATURAL SELECTION.
Darwin believes that variations are purely fortuitous—Natural selection cannot give rise to permanent race modifications unless many individuals vary in nearly the same way, at about the same time—The chances against this are very great if variations are fortuitous—Argument from North British Review—Darwin acknowledges the great weight of this objection —It is removed by the theory of heredity—The co-ordinated modification of complicated organs—The time demanded by Darwin practically infinite—Murphy's argument from the complexity of the eye—Herbert Spencer's illustration—Our theory removes this difficulty—Mr. Conn's objection—Saltatory evolution—Evidence that it occurs—Spike horn buck— Ancon and Mauchamp sheep—Black-shouldered peacock— The theory of heredity accounts for saltatory evolution— Parallel variation—Evidence of its occurrence—Evolution of the medusse—General and special Homologies.
According to Darwin's view, variations, though determined by definite causes (for the most part unknown), are, so far as their usefulness to the organism goes, fortuitous, and he makes use of the following illustration to explain his conception:
"I have spoken of selection as the paramount power, yet its action absolutely depends upon what we in our ignorance call spontaneous or accidental variability. Let an architect be compelled to build an edifice with uncut stones, fallen from a precipice. The shape of each fragment may be called accidental, yet the shape of each has been determined by the force of gravity, the nature of the rock, and the slope of the precipice— events and circumstances all of which depend on natural laws; but there is no relation between these laws and the purpose for which each fragment is used by the builder. In the same manner the variations of each creature are determined by fixed and immutable laws; but these bear no relation to the living structure which is slowly built up by the power of selection, whether this be natural or artificial selection."
"If our architect succeeded in rearing a noble edifice, using the rough wedge-shaped fragments for the arches, the longer stones for the lintels, and so forth, we should admire his skill even in a higher degree than if he had used stones shaped for the purpose. So it is with selection, whether applied by man or by nature; for though variability is indisputably necessary, yet when we look at some highly complex and excellently adapted organism, variability sinks to a quite subordinate position in comparison with selection, in the same manner as the shape of each fragment used by our supposed architect is unimportant in comparison with his skill" (Variation, xxi. p. 301).
It is quite possible that Darwin may be right in attributing the modification and adaptation of organisms almost entirely to the influence of natural selection, and, at the same time, wrong in his belief that the variations are fortuitous. Several critics have pointed out that if it is true that variations have no relation whatever to the needs of the organism, there are grave difficulties in the way of natural selection; but the theory rests upon too firm a basis to be easily set aside, and these objections have hardly received the attention which they fairly deserve, for those authors who have pointed them out have, at the same time, attacked the general theory in a hostile spirit without proposing any