Library Collections: Document: Full Text

IT is now some more than thirty years since, in this place, I began my work in behalf of idiots. That I started with some erroneous ideas of the nature of idiocy, and of the means to be taken to ameliorate the condition of idiots, will not seem strange to those who now listen to me.

At that time the popular notions relating to the class were very crude, and, as a rule, based upon observations of the more peculiar members of the class. This observation took cognizance not only of the more marked features of the class, but not infrequently of the mere habits that were the result of their neglected condition rather than intrinsic characteristics.

The literature of the subject was very scanty, and to a certain extent misleading. The writers not only mistook effects for prime conditions, but did not always recognize the distinction between idiocy and dementia, or an impairment or loss of the mental faculties from insanity or otherwise.

The first cases submitted to my care were rather typical cases, covering a wide range of abnormal manifestation. In physical condition, in mental endowment, and in the character of their habits they widely differed, and yet all had some common characteristics that brought them to my guardianship.

As far as I was concerned the problem of their training and development was to be worked out, in the main, by what I could learn of their infirmity by my daily life in the midst of them, and by continuous efforts, judicious or mistaken, to remedy their defects. Under the circumstances it is not amiss to say that for a time my education progressed more rapidly than that of my pupils.

That my prior ideas upon the subject had not been peculiar to myself I conclude from the class of questions constantly asked me both by visitors and correspondents. That I have been led to revise or abandon some of these opinions, as I have said before, will not seem surprising.

In regard to some of these, thus modified, I had proposed on this occasion to submit them to your associated judgment. In other words, I had a desire to learn whether in the matters referred to your observation had corresponded with my own.

On reflection I decided to take a single theory or opinion, a part of my mental outfit at that time, derived from competent authority as I then supposed, but which I have been led to abandon, and now bring to the test of your united experience. I was led to thus limit myself, because the subject is worthy of a somewhat extended discussion from its intrinsic interest, the reappearance of the dogma in recent works of a scientific character, and especially because of its varied correlations.

This opinion, as I recall it, had its first definite statement in Carpenter's Physiology many years ago, in the following paragraph:

"Those unfortunate beings (idiots), in whom the cerebrum is but little developed, are guided almost solely by their instinctive tendencies, which frequently manifest themselves with a degree of strength that would not have been supposed to exist, and occasionally new instincts present themselves of which the human being is ordinarily regarded as destitute."

In a note Dr. Carpenter gives what he calls a remarkable instance of this manifested instinct, the foundation upon which his theory is erected:

"A perfectly idiotic girl, in Paris, having been seduced by some miscreant, was delivered of a child without assistance; and it was found that she had gnawed the umbilical cord in two in the same manner as is practised by the lower animals. It is scarcely to be supposed that she had any idea of the object of the separation."

That I do not misrepresent this author is seen by the fact that in the index of his work this paragraph is referred to under the heading, "Predominance of Instinct in Idiots."

Within a recent period Dr. Maudsley cites this same case in connection with what he calls "a curious and interesting fact, which has by no means yet received that consideration which it deserves, -- that with the appearance of this animal type of brain in idiocy there do sometimes appear or reappear remarkable animal traits and instincts."

He also mentions a somewhat similar case, reported by Dr. Crichton Browne, of the West Riding Asylum, namely, that of a young woman, not an idiot, but who had gone completely demented after insanity. This woman was delivered of a pair of twins, and as the story goes, on this occasion, "reverting to a primitive instinct, gnawed through the umbilical cord. The twins were alive when found two days after birth, but the mother was in a very exhausted state, having had no food or covering since delivery."

Esquirol was confessedly one of the most acute observers of the features of insanity and mental unsoundness. He related an incident, which is also quoted by Dr. Maudsley as confirming the theory in question. It is that of an imbecile woman in whom the sexual instinct was strong, but who ceased to manifest it when once conception had taken place. The woman, however, was not an idiot of low grade. She worked for her living and had some idea of the value of money. Any manifestation of instinct, therefore, to supplement a want of intelligence, is not needed to explain the supposed fact. But the real failure in the illustration, to prove the point for which it is adduced, lies in the fact that it is not proven that the same is not true of some females who are not imbecile.

That Esquirol did not himself regard instinct as prominent in idiots is seen in the following passage from his chapter on the subject. He is speaking of the varieties of idiocy, and adds: "Who could point out and describe every shade in the descent from the man who thinks to the idiot, who is destitute even of the instincts of our nature?''

It is thus advanced as a scientific truth that idiots, in default of intelligence to guide them, are supplied with instinctive tendencies not common to human beings; or, as others express it, "revert to the use of instincts shared with the lower animals."

According to this theory, or as a corollary from this theory, the lower the grade of the idiocy the more marked should be the manifestation of the instincts. For, observe, the need of the instinct or the occasion for its exercise lies in the failure of the intelligence to meet the needs of the individual. The greater the failure of the one the greater the need of the other, its assumed substitute.

It may be mentioned in passing that the motive of the theory -- for some theories spring from motives, conscious or unconscious, in the minds of the theorizers -- differs with different authorities. In the case of Dr. Carpenter, it was to show a wise provision of the Creator in supplying instinct to meet the need of those deficient in intelligence. With Dr. Maudsley and his followers, it is to show "that some very strong facts and arguments in support of Mr. Darwin's views might be drawn from the field of morbid psychology;" in other words, its supposed harmony with the development theory.

There is no exception in this case to a common rule, that a theory grows more inclusive as it passes from one speculative hand to another. Thus, in a recent lecture before a class in one of our metropolitan medical schools I find the learned professor using the following language in regard to idiots: "The bodies, as a rule, are ill developed. Some have club-feet, some hunchback, and so on. Here is a negro whose feet look as if they were formed to clutch the limb of a tree, and it does not require a great stretch of the imagination to picture his ancestors in no very remote generation jumping or swinging from limb to limb of some African forest. And with this return, if we may call it so, towards the appearance and form of other animals, there is an equally perceptible return in habit and action. The place of intellect seems to be supplied by instinct, and by it the behavior is apparently often governed. . . . Commonly there is a consistent imitation of the habits of some one animal, and its posture and movements will be assumed and its habits copied even to the extent of showing a preference for whatever forms its natural food."

It is difficult to properly characterize these statements from a so-called clinical lecture upon the subject of idiocy. They are not the utterances of a scientist, but rather resemble the flowing language of our great American showman.

The members of this Association have had an experience in the protracted observation of idiocy that in the aggregate is very large. And I venture to say in this presence that a more unnatural description of the features of idiocy could hardly be given than that just quoted. Scarcely one per cent. of our cases are humpbacked. Club-feet are almost equally rare among our pupils. And as for prehensile feet, I have never seen a case. Nor has it fallen to my experience to witness any consistent imitation of the habits of any animal, nor an assumption of the posture or movements of animals, in the case of any idiots. (1)

Science is a compound of fact and inference. Its principles can only be established when the facts are correctly observed in all their immediate relations, when there are enough of them to generalize from safely, and when the inferences are unavoidable, or, at all events, when the balance of probabilities is on the side of the proposed principle.

Let us submit the cases cited by Dr. Carpenter and others, and the doctrine based upon them, to such tests.

Take the first instance. "A perfectly idiotic girl" is a somewhat vague description of the degree of intelligence the case possessed, in the absence of other particulars. "Delivered without assistance, it was found that she had gnawed off the umbilical cord, as is practised by the lower animals. It is scarcely to be supposed that she had any idea of the object of this separation."

It may be remarked here that this act was not necessary for the welfare or preservation of the offspring. The circulation in the cord is in the wrong direction to meet that view. It was, therefore, a purposeless act. There is no occasion to summon instinct in the matter. We can, however, suppose, in the absence of any real knowledge of the cases, that in both this case and the one cited by Dr. Browne, the placentas might have been retained. In which case the gnawing of the cord on the part of the mothers might have been within the scope of their intelligence to free themselves from this unexpected entanglement

But the real objection to the explanation given by the authorities cited lies in the fact that the lower animals do not practise this procedure. It is certainly not a general practice of the lower animals, as any one can learn by inquiring of those familiar with the habits of domestic or other animals. If it were true of any, it is a pretty bold assumption that there was in these instances a reversion to a particular instinct that was not needed, that was purposeless.

Furthermore, the direction which a true maternal instinct would have taken in these cases would have been effort at fondling the children and nursing them. Thus, if in a sufficient number of cases of idiocy it were proven that without ever having seen the act of nursing in others these mothers had put their children to the breast, had made the attempt to nurse their offspring, the inference might be fairly drawn that it was in obedience to a natural instinct.

It will be seen, I think, that there is absolutely nothing in these cases to warrant the deduction of Dr. Carpenter, and which has been adopted by the later authorities. (2)

We may now approach the subject fearlessly from another direction.

At the outset I desire to limit the term idiocy to its true meaning. It is a default of mental power, either congenital or arising from causes operating at such an early period of life as to precede the customary development of childish intelligence. The underlying physical cause may be primary, as an arrest of development of nervous structure, imperfection in quantity or quality, or again, from failure in functional activity of the same.

It may be secondary where the defect of structure and default of function are the result of infantile diseases.

This is a very different condition from that of dementia. In this last, mental faculties once possessed are impaired or lost through disease.

The two conditions of idiocy and dementia are often confounded, but they are very unlike in important particulars.

Next as to instinct. "An instinct," says Whately, "is a blind tendency to some mode of action independent of any consideration on the part of the agent of the end to which the action leads."

There are two classes of actions which in the inferior animals have been referred to instinct as their spring; 1st. Those which have reference to the preservation of individuals, as the seeking and discerning the food which is convenient for them, and the using their natural organs of locomotion, and their natural means of defence and attack; the avoidance of danger. 2d. Those which have reference to the continuation of the species, as the bringing forth and bringing up of their young; the gratification of the sexual instinct.

It embraces certain impulses the aim of which or result of which is hidden from the animals exercising them. It includes knowledge without instruction or experience. It covers skill without instruction or practice.

There is intelligent purpose in every manifestation of it, and it acts through rational methods, but the individuals using it have no intelligent appreciation of the purpose or the methods.

I have chosen this old definition of instinct because it is the one substantially held by Dr. Carpenter when he stated his theory in regard to its prevailing power with idiots. Thus, he makes the animal "a creature of necessity, performing its instrumental part in the economy of nature from no design or will of its own, but in accordance with the plan originally devised by its Creator." He ascribes to instinct "a perfection of adaptation which is beyond human intelligence or reason," and "acts without experience." And he thus accounts for the perfection of its action:

"It lies in the original construction of their nervous system, which causes particular movements to be executed in direct, respondence to certain impressions and sensations."

It will thus be observed that regarding only that portion of the nervous system which is employed in instinctive acts, it would need a more perfect machinery of execution if the machine is to act automatically, in direct respondence to impressions and sensations, than if guided by intelligence and will. So, too, perfection of nervous structure is not only needed for the exercise of instinct, but a healthy action of nerve-tissue.

There is a modern theory of instinct which makes it a "lapsed intelligence," that is, an acquirement through intelligence and experience in one generation becomes a hereditary instinct in the next. But that would not help the matter, for that supposes a differentiation of the nervous tissue only the more complicated and perfect in its operations, and acting automatically, which could not be predicated in the case of idiots.

But no matter what the theory of the nature of instinct, its seat, like the intelligence, is in the nervous system, and for proper exercise demands a healthy condition of the nervous organization. I do not say that perfection of cerebral organization is necessary to some of the lower forms of animal instinct, though the experiments of some observers would seem to indicate this, but active sensation, the seat of which is in the cerebrum, must be present to secure the manifestation of the higher manifestations of animal instinct.

But let us leave these speculations and turn to the facts within our own observation.

The idiot is not a nondescript animal, midway or somewhere in point of development between some lower order of beings and the human race. He has a human origin. He is a human being, -- abnormal, defective, incapable, to a greater or less degree, depending upon the imperfection of the nervous system or its failure in functional activity. But so intimately correlated is the brain with all the other parts of the nervous system, even of that presiding over the functions of organic life, that it has been well said by Dr. Seguin that in idiocy we have a mind "obstructed by disordered functions."

We know also that where the central nervous masses are in tolerably healthy condition, imperfection or failure in activity of the nerves of relation prevents or impedes cerebral development and the exercise of the higher mental faculties.

In the further discussion of the topic it must be constantly borne in mind that there is a great diversity in what is generically known as idiocy. That the characteristics of idiocy, physical or mental, are of greater or less degree, more or less removed from the normal type of humanity.

To estimate the degree of his idiocy, this creature of negations, and to study his real nature, we must compare him with the normal type of the race. To do this we must recognize the compound nature of man. He has an animal nature. He is an intellectual being. He is a moral agent. These are correlated most intimately, nevertheless they have distinct manifestations, distinct, but analogous, modes of nurture and growth.

In the normal human child there is an order of development from lower attributes to higher. As time progresses the higher predominate over the lower. As an illustration take the senses. There is, first, feeling, or the passive form of touch, then smell; then taste, sight, hearing, and the active sense of touch; then, according to the ancient category of "seven senses," understanding and speech. The new-born infant cries with the sense of cold, or evinces satisfaction with its warm surroundings.

Guided by the sense of smell it seeks the source of nourishment. Taste is developed, then sight and hearing.

Instinct plays but a small part in the role of human life.

What there is is usually seen at the very outset. To the infantile stage of idiot life our own observation scarcely reaches. But if we take the testimony of intelligent parents, the first instinctive acts of infancy, in the case of idiots of low grade, -- just where, according to the theory of Dr. Carpenter, the animal instincts should come to the front, -- these first instinctive acts are feebly performed. There is a want of general sensibility. They do not grope for the maternal breast; they do not even take the nipple well. The complicated movements connected with nursing are ill-performed. In some cases even the reflex movements in deglutition are at fault.

Sensation is necessary to the exercise of instinct, but sensation is dull in the case of young idiots. So, too, activity of the senses -- what may be called animal curiosity -- is wanting in such cases. The child is torpid or absorbed in the exercise of a single sense, and that of a lower order. There is no outreach towards the little world of its surroundings.

In the lower grades of idiocy there is little idea of danger; in some cases no fear of falling. They do not wink even when the eyeball is touched.

Locomotion is one of the instinctive acts of animals. In the case of human beings the power is acquired by experience. Idiots of low grade are late in learning to walk, if they do at all. Failing in intelligence to guide in its acquirement, there is no appearance of instinct to supply this want. The gait is clumsy and stumbling.

Dexterity and skill without instruction is one of the features of instinct. But in idiocy the "fingers are all thumbs." The simplest co-ordinated muscular movements are acquired only by the most patient training.

When they reach a school-attending age and are submitted to our care, we observe a continuation of the same features.

The question has doubtless often been asked you, as it has been in my own case, "In the absence of normal intelligence are not the appetites and passions stronger than with ordinary individuals of the same age?" To this I now give a negative answer. I should base this upon the statement that in my observation I had not found it so. I should add that the range of appetite and the strength of appetite are more limited in the case of idiots than others. In its lowest range appetite may be said to be only the satisfaction of a natural function. The form of expression of this in the absence of intelligence and instinct is simply uneasiness. The gratification of this is only limited in the case of idiots, and the original appetite grows only with gratification.

What is true of the appetite is true also of the passions.

This, which is unquestionably true in general terms, should be modified, however, in some degree by another fact. As in the case of young children, the manifestation of appetite and passion are relatively more marled by the absence of self-control which in adults prevents the outbreak.

At this point it may be mentioned that the age of puberty is later in making its appearance in the case of idiots than with ordinary human beings. In fact, with some that change from childhood to youth does not take place at all; the whole life is a prolonged childhood. As a consequence, the sexual instinct manifests itself at a late date, and very feebly, if manifested at all. I am aware that this is contrary to the popular belief, but the popular belief is based upon a narrow observation of certain imbeciles whose sexual instincts were not balanced by any proper self-control, or even a sense of decency.

The social instinct of the class is also feeble.

Again, it is true that in the absence of the exercise of the higher human attributes the lower are more conspicuous; or, so far as these are developed and strengthened by exercise, the lower may gain by their greater relative employment in the case of idiots. The same is true of savage races. What they lack in the use of the higher faculties is made up in part by the acute exercise of the senses. All their energies in both cases are spent in the lower range of human faculties. It is a part of our common experience to meet with unnatural activity of some of the senses in the case of idiots. We have seen those who have tested everything by the nose or tongue or touch. We have seen idiots whose sight was very active, or whose hearing was very acute. But it was not an instinctive use of these, but an acquired acuteness from a constant or vicarious exercise of a single sense, or a few senses, to the exclusion of others.

There is a form of memory sometimes manifested by imbeciles that is quite astonishing. In fact, the memory of ordinary children, an intuitive power in the human race, would be marvellous if it were not so common. It is one of the necessities of human development. For, without such adhesiveness of memory, in the absence of any known relation between the perceptions and ideas that come flowing in upon the childish mind, each successive wave of impressions or thoughts would efface the effects of the preceding one.

But, by means of this intuitive faculty, they are sometimes stored up as the food for future mental operations. At a later stage this peculiar faculty is weakened, and gives place to the memory which is founded upon the laws of association of ideas, which we can, in a measure, understand.

This childish or adhesive memory is not only prolonged in the case of some imbeciles, but exhibited in a degree unparalleled in persons of normal endowment. Still, there is nothing instinctive about this. In conclusion,

I think it may be affirmed, --

1st. That the instances cited by Dr. Carpenter and other scientists do not warrant their inference, that "idiots are guided almost solely by their instinctive tendencies, or that new instincts present themselves to take the place of intelligence," or again, to put it in another form, that there is in the case of idiots any reversion to primitive instincts, as manifested by the lower animals.

2d. That the very nature of the underlying conditions of the nervous centres and nervous system, associated with the failure of mental development that constitutes idiocy, operates to narrow the scope of the instinctive powers or weakens their force.

And, 3d. That experience and observation show that even the ordinary human instincts are feeble and inoperative, especially in the case of idiots of low degree, just where, according to the theory under discussion, they should be the strongest.

In fact, that a part of our work as specialists is to impart a healthy tone to the nervous centres, and to bring out by training the very acts and impulses that, in the case of ordinary children, are manifested instinctively or intuitively.

That we meet with anomalous traits among idiots is true, but, prevailingly, the order of development of their faculties is like that of all other human beings. That some of them have very few of the attributes of humanity is also true, but the same may be said of all young infants. In the one case the period has not arrived when normal development takes place. In the other development comes slowly or not at all, because of defect in quantity or quality or arrangement of nerve-structure or functional inactivity of nerve-tissue.