social organizations which are but little developed or differentiated. And while these indefinite relations have few positive merits to commend them, they are not inconsistent with other phases of primitive group life. As a general rule sex relations are so lax that paternity is uncertain, parental affection is but little developed, and no strong or lasting attachment is likely to be formed between the sexes.

The proprietary family in its various forms represents higher individual development and more advanced social organization and indicates progress in the direction of restricting the sex relations. In polyandry, parentage is at least limited to a recognized family group, though the Nair is the least definite of all forms. In Thibetan polyandry and in group marriage the family group is restricted to the same degree as ownership and inheritance of property. Individualism in sex rights and in property ownership seem to accompany each other. Under the system of polyandry, as well as under the indefinite system, the sexes are on terms of comparative equality.

Polygyny represents a higher though a less equal development of individuality than the previous systems, the male being in an economic position stimulating to development, while the female fails to share in the advancement. In the patriarchal polygynous family, women and children as well as property are owned and controlled by the male head. Its social advantages are that parentage is certain; and children, especially sons, are highly prized; and there is also a possibility that a strong attachment may be formed between the husband and one of the wives, who may come to hold a superior position as favorite. It is also true that the polygynous family did offer a refuge and protection for women at a period when, having no participation in economic life, an independent existence for them was impossible. Some of the criticisms levelled at polygamy would be more relevant if directed against the general social conditions under which the system flourished. The polygynous system was an outgrowth of the economic and social structure and was not altogether unadapted to it. While it does not favor the development of woman, it can hardly be held responsible for her inferior position. That must be attributed to much broader and more

а

fundamental conditions, of which the polygynous family itself was an expression. And finally, among other favorable effects, it may be said that in societies where the male death rate was high, either from warfare or from hazardous occupations, the polygynous system permitted a higher rate of population increase than would otherwise have been possible, and this was often a real advantage.

The defects of the polygynous system are most apparent when it is viewed with reference to the welfare of women and children. Under a family system permitting a plurality of wives, if one wife is made the favorite the others are correspondingly neglected. And, on the other hand, if no strong attachment exists between the husband and any one of the wives, then marriage is imperfect for both sexes. From the point of view of the best interests of children the polygynous family fails to provide an ideal environment. Children are likely to suffer from lack of paternal care, and a bountiful supply of mothers does not remedy the defect. In those cases where an atmosphere of jealousy and rivalry exists among the wives home influences are further demoralized. From the standpoint of sexual selection polygyny is inferior to monogamy for, inasmuch as practically all the women marry, they are not subjected to the selective process at all. On the other hand the action of selection is cumulative in the case of the male for his qualities are transmitted to offspring by several wives. This might be an advantage provided men with superior personal qualities always had the largest number of wives; but even this seeming advantage might be neutralized if the superior qualities of the male were transmitted through inferior wives.

The monogamic system, in its possibilities of adaptation to social progress, is far ahead of any other; and in its average achievements it is superior, especially in highly developed social organizations. Voluntary monogamy, as has been shown, coincided with the improvement in the position of woman, and it favors also continued improvement in her position. In it both sexes are subject equally to the action of sexual selection, and this should promote equality between those who marry, and make possible more rapid improvement in racial qualities. Moreover, if a man is to have but one wife, and the union is presumably to be for life, marital companionship will be more intimate and of much greater consequence than it would be if he had several wives. He will therefore be more careful in his choice, selecting the mental as well as the physical traits most likely to give him enduring gratification. Under monogamy then woman will feel a greater incentive to mental development in order that she may raise her standard to equality with that of man. In fact the monogamic system tends to favor the selection of mental traits for companionship, while the polygynous system favors the selection of physical traits for sensual gratification.

In estimating the merits of a particular marriage system, the factor of chief moment is its effect upon the children; and in this regard the monogamic system is superior to every other. Monogamic marriage, wherever the numbers of the sexes are comparatively equal, gives the highest birth rate, and the superior relationship of the parents ensures the best care of and provision for the offspring.

In weighing the comparative values of the different forms of marriage, not the failures they have shown, but the possibilities they offer of adaptation to social needs should be made the basis of judgment.

Present Tendencies. This review of the early forms of the family has for its object, like all kinds of historical study, the elucidation of present day problems. Modern changes in the family, like past transformations, may be traced primarily to growth of personality and to economic conditions. More specifically they have resulted from the increasing economic independence of woman and her improved social status.

Definite manifestations of the new tendencies are numerous, but they may be reduced to two kinds of demands or aspirations. The first is the demand for greater freedom from the restraints of marriage; and the second, in apparent contrast to the first, is an increasing demand for the privileges of married life. The demand for greater freedom seems sometimes to be so strong as to threaten the permanency of the family union, yet it is not without its favorable aspects, for it shows that women, being no longer limited to marriage for a career, refuse to submit to unions which may have become repressive or repugnant.

The danger of this growing independence is that divorce may be carried beyond reasonable limits and employed as a means of license. Divorce may be desirable when employed to liberate the oppressed, but dangerous when used to satisfy the desire for change and variety. The elimination of the element of compulsion in the marriage relation is a belated step in the course of development from the proprietary to the voluntary form of monogamy; but too great a relaxation in the marriage tie might cause retrogression from monogamy to more indefinite forms of the sex relations.

This modern desire for freedom manifests itself also on the part of woman, in a demand for greater equality within the family. It is apparent in her increasing desire for self-expression, exhibited in such ways as a demand for a career without interference from the marriage relation, or for complete freedom from any form of dependence financial or personal, or for emancipation from excessive household cares and responsibilities, or for the right to voluntary parentage through birth control.

The second set of tendencies, revealed in the growing demand for the privileges of married life, is also expressed in several specific ways: first, in the desire to make normal marriage more generally possible: and, secondly, in the attitude of a small circle, that failure to marry should not necessarily mean deprivation of the rights of parenthood; and, thirdly, in the assertions that women should not be required to undergo continual sex repression, or at least that sex standards should be identical for both sexes. This declaration of rights is not, as might appear at first glance, inconsistent with the demand for greater freedom, both representing the struggle for more complete self-expression. Where self-expression seems to be hampered by the marriage relation, a greater measure of freedom within that relation is demanded; but when it is felt that self-realization is to be found only in family life and parentage, these are in turn demanded.

Modifications in the form of the family relations along the lines indicated by these varied demands would no doubt often be wholesome; but, if carried to extremes, they might easily become menaces to the integrity of the institution. No detailed discussion of these various tendencies can be undertaken; but some assistance to the elucidation of present-day marriage problems may be gained by considering what improvements would be desirable in the present relation. Any new departures in the form of the family must be judged by their ultimate effects upon the institution itself, and by the probable efficacy of the modified institution to perform its social functions.

The permanent monogamic family seems so superior to other forms in its effects both upon the character of the union and upon the welfare of offspring, that this form should be retained as the basic principle of marriage; but the relationship itself might be improved by removing all traces of compulsion from it, and making it, so far as possible, the expression of voluntary action resulting from mutual attraction of the sexes. All irrelevant considerations, whether arising from the desire for financial or social advantage or from pressure of other persons or conditions, would seem to be extraneous to the purpose of the marriage relation and inconsistent with the fulfilment of its functions. Furthermore, the freeing of women from many of the restraints connected with household cares would be advantageous in that it would give them leisure and opportunity for the better performance of unavoidable duties.

On the other hand, desire for freedom may be carried to excess. In the general movement for release from unnecessary restrictions, the view is easily gained that every condition which represses natural instincts or seems to interfere with full and free individual development is objectionable and should be removed; but such an idea is narrow and individualistic. Life is full of necessary restrictions and repressions. To promote the welfare of society the individual must be sacrificed in minor ways; but these restrictions are not ultimate losses, since the individual attains his highest development through the perfection of the social organization. The desire for parentage is a desire for self-expression; and it fulfils the needs of society, provided the conditions are favorable for the welfare of the child. The child