sents a gradation between narcissism and heterosexuality (an affectionate relationship which requires the cooperation of one of the opposite sex for full gratification)." Does Dr. Henry wish us to understand that homosexuality is NOT affectionate, is NOT cooperative? And what about all the heterosexual relationships which are uncooperative cat and dog fights through the years? Dr. Henry is here comparing an ideal heterosexuality with an unpleasant sort of homosexual reality. Elsewhere, while sketching a history of American morals, Dr. Henry writes of the Oneida Community founded by John H. Noyes in which polygamy was practiced. "During the period in which Noyes was striving to establish a religious cloak for polygamous sexual relations..." What makes Dr. Henry so sure of the insincerity of Noyes' religious convictions that he can dismiss them as merely a "cloak" for the polygamous society he advocated? As a matter of fact, Noyes' views on polygamy were quite frank and undisguised. Dr. Henry is writing as a psychiatrist., He is also an essentially orthodox Christian of some sort. He can impugn others' motives as a psychiatrist, while actually doing little more than echoing the biases of his own religion. He is, in fact, using psychiatry as a "cloak" for his group's morality. If he showed himself as skeptical to-

wards conventional morality as he is towards all deviation, if he were as critical of the authorities and the in'stitutions as he is of the individuals whom he dissects in his book, I would believe in him.

Dr. Henry concludes, "When the sex urge finds a socially approved outlet, it is the most constructive force in individual lives and a decisive factor in any cultural pattern." History teaches us that homosexuality as well as heterosexuality can be a constructive force in the lives of individuals and. societies, if it is provided a socially approved outlet. It seems to me that the task of the p future, for the sake of homesexual individuals and of society as well, is to discover those patterns and those channels of outlet which will prove beneficial both to individual deviants and to society. In spite of his apparent tolerance and "understanding, Dr. Henry wrote in his Introduction that "Each person should seek personal satisfaction in

manner acceptable to his social group." For the homosexual this is impossible. If he achieves sexual satisfaction he is inacceptable to his social group. If he is acceptable to his social group he must forego sexual satisfaction. The only compromise open to him is the double life, and I can think of nothing more morally corrosive than that.

mattachine REVIEW

the CONDITIONING FACTOR

in human behavior

MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN on

child development and human behavior. But seldom has evidence been included for the various theoretical schools. Rarer stiil has been the presentation of concrete examples for layman understanding, to show with glaring certainty the effects of environmental forces upon the behavioral development of the child. The story of India's wolf-children is such an example. It is one of those rare books that never ceases to be timely. (WOLF-CHILDREN AND FERAL MAN. By the Rev. J. A. L. Singh & Prof. Robert M. Zingg. New York and London: Harper & Brothers. 1939. 379 pp. $4.00) The cases described not only reiterate the crucial influence of parental conditioning in childhood, but also clarify the importance of conditioning which takes. place between the individual and his social group.

In the mid-1923's newspapers carried what appeared to be the revival of an ancient legend, news which later proved of vital significance in study of the human mind. Two girls, approximately eighteen months and eight years of age, had been captured in 1920 after having been adopted and reared in the wilderness by wolves. After the defending "foster mother" wolf was shot, the children were removed from the wolves' den by Reverend Singh, a missionary and Rector at the Orphanage of Midna-

By Carl B. Harding

pore in Bengal. It was here that an attempt was made at domestication. A diary, including photographs, was kept of the children's behavior and development. Careful investigations were made by recognized psychologists and an anthropologist, confirming the strange story as true.

The children's behavior was more wolf-like than human. At first they were ferocious and when approached would cower in fear and sometimes show their teeth. They made growling and howling sounds described as "neither human nor animal". The children walked and ran on all fours with their palms flat.and their pelvic and bone structure had become adapted to that mobile position. Their jaws had developed with abnormal strength for the eating of raw meat. The youngsters showed a keen sense of smell and would raise their noses to the air to sense the direction of meat. Milk was lapped from a dish as they lapped water from a stream. The children disliked light and were much more at home running about in the dark of night. And it was obvious they could see better by night than by day. In the dark their eyes had a peculiar blue glare like that of a cat or dog, an amazing adaptation for humans to the environment of the dark cave in which they were found and to the nocturnal habits of the wolf-"parents".