The foundation upon which atavism is built is ancient; that criminals are born not made. For most of human history, causes for criminal behavior were rooted in religion and its ideas of good and evil. This was superseded by science in the 1800s. Both genuine and misguided science.

According to the Oxford Canadian Dictionary, atavism is a “reversion to an earlier type.” Simple, yet it evolved (pun sort of intended) into something with greater meaning and social consequences. It was part of a phenomenon whereby scientists tried to explain people and society, just as they were trying to explain everything else. It was part of the belief that everything had a scientific explanation.

Scientists, both genuine and quacks, were aware that certain traits were inherited. Hair and eye color, for example. But what was inherited, and what wasn’t? Social scientists took this notion of inherited traits to an extreme. For our purposes, among those items they considered “in the blood” was criminality. From this, emerged a body of assumptions that eventually formed the core of eugenics (the science of improving the (esp. human) population by controlled breeding for desirable inherited characteristics; source OCD).

There are a number of theories at play with atavism and crime (along with a touch of religion). Each influenced, and was influenced by, the others. Key among them were social Darwinism and the “scientific” search for the cause of crime; why did some people engage in crime, while others didn’t? It was not until the close of the nineteenth-century century that social and economic circumstances were considered relevant to the explanation.

Wrap all of this up in the concept that morality was determined by social rank and profession (i.e. that the upper classes were naturally moral; lower classes were naturally immoral) and you have the quagmire from which “social” atavism was created.

Theories of evolution preceded Charles Darwin and his On the Origin of Species. His grandfather Erasmus Darwin, and French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamark were making arguments for evolution decades prior to Charles’ work. Evolution supported the belief that humans were moving from a primitive origin toward a state of physical and intellectual perfection and that each generation was superior to the previous one. Tied up with the theory of evolution, was the belief that the lower/working classes were believed to be moving backward, toward a more primitive state. This was known as atavism.

Various theories were put forward to explain atavism in the lower classes. Industrialization and working in factories were believed to be accelerating the degeneration. The railway, telegrams, big business, a craving for instant gratification, and urbanization were also identified as contributors to atavism.

Crime was viewed as an unnatural act, as the antithesis of civility. It was also very undesirable to those of social standing as the vast majority of crime was theft or damage of property. If scientists could discover the cause of criminal behavior, or identify those prone to criminal activity, they could eliminate it. (Such was the theory behind transportation of criminals; if you send all the criminals away, there’s no one left to commit a criminal act.) The great minds of the Victorian age determined that criminal behavior was hereditary and they used evolution to explain it. Since crime was the act of barbarians, the lower/working classes must be evolving backward, and it was obvious they were evolving backward because they engaged in crime.

This put the blame entirely on the individual. It ruled out the possibility of reform and put the emphasis on punishment. It resulted in harsher treatment and longer prison sentences for people of the lower social ranks. They were vermin, and a lesser form of human not deserving of kindness or mercy. It meant they could not be trusted, even the law-abiding ones. Social and economic factors were considered irrelevant. It was believed that even if the poor received assistance to improve their station in life, their very nature would cause them to continue engaging in crime.

Not everyone was a disciple of atavism. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, dissenters with radical theories about the causes of crime make their appearances. They argued that factors such as poverty and a lack of access to education rather than evolutionary regression were the true causes of crime. Individuals such as Jacob Riis (this newsletter is named is named after his photo).

When thirteen-year-old Robert Allen Coombes murdered his mother in 1895, atavism played a part in his sentencing. He was sentenced to live in Broadmoor insane asylum (he was released prior as a young adult). Making his a life sentence ensured he would not reproduce and pass on his evil character to his offspring. Concern was expressed by newspapers, including the Sunday Review, about Nattie, his twelve-year-old brother and accomplice. Though found not guilty, it was feared that he would propagate, creating a slew of degenerates who would, inevitably, commit similar violence upon society.

Atavism found its way into fiction, perhaps most prominently in H. G. Wells’ The Time Machine. In Wells’ novella, published in 1895, the protagonist, identified only as the Time Traveller, visits the year 802,701. There he encounters two separate species: the Morlocks and the Eloi. These represented the working and the upper class respectively. The Morlocks exist underground, are savage, pale, and ape-like (simian-like); a portrayal in line with the belief the working classes were evolving backward. In addition, they were the laborers, the ones who toiled at machines to make the goods which supported the sedentary life of the Eloi.

Atavism even finds its way into Sherlock Holmes. In “The Boscombe Valley Mystery,” first published in 1891, John Turner adamantly objects to his daughter’s suitor whose father was amoral. Turner explained, “I would not have his cursed stock mixed with mine; not that I had any dislike to the lad, but his [father’s] blood was in him, and that was enough.” Even if an offspring did not exhibit unwanted characteristics, they could pass them on to the next generation. This is one reason why the reputation of a suitor’s family, or the young lady’s family, was so important in the eighteen hundreds. It was part of the human “breeding” process; matching up individuals who possessed desirable characteristics.

For more historical crime tidbits, check me out on my LinkTree.