had gradually climbed the heights; but that owing to free will he was able to select either the good or evil with full preknowledge of the results of his acts, and that therefore the evil of the world was of his own creation, even though some still stressed the influence of Satan. The measure of truth in these attitudes does not concern us here, but it is evident that they ignore a larger truth which is becoming ever clearer. The problems of vice, crime and sin have increased with civilization rather than diminished; not because of man's deliberate wickedness, but because of his blindness. In his search for wealth he has ignored the fact that wealth produces problems as well as poverty. Until he sees that the social results of changes in his life require rapid readjustment of his programs and ideals, this paradox will continue. To make this viewpoint clear, let us consider some of the great changes which modern inventions have produced, whether good or bad.

Not long ago the overwhelming mass of people of Europe and America were farmers, living a relatively isolated life in scattered and largely independent households. Each household was a unit producing the bulk of the raw commodities it needed and changing these by a process of manufacture into the clothes or other necessities. The little imported from the outside came largely by trade or barter. The child grew up with the parents sharing their life, learning the processes of industry, seeing and appreciating the meaning of the different processes. The life was simple and self-contained, the groups permanent, blood relationship dominant. Then came the great series of inventions which resulted in machine-facture rather than manufacture. The result of this greatly enhanced power increased the products of labor many fold. In

theory then man might now work shorter hours and have larger returns than before. In part this has proven true but other and disturbing factors have appeared.

Power machinery by centralizing industry compelled a re-location of population and produced the modern city. This forced a specialization in occupation and drew the people away from the land until, as in Belgium the most densely populated country in Europe (659 per square mile), only one-fourth of the people are classed as agricultural and they produce less than one-half of the cereals they consume. By this specialization and the change from a barter basis to cash sale the returns of industry flow into the treasury of the company and the difficulties of a proper and satisfactory distribution among the workers are enormously enhanced. Whereas formerly owner, manager and worker were largely synonymous terms, now three distinct and often unacquainted if not antagonistic groups appear. By specialization, the worker performing only some one or two minute parts of work loses the emotional reaction which comes to the creator of a finished product and comes to think of himself in terms of a machine. Confirmation of this is afforded by an incident which occurred recently in a school for feeble-minded children. Thinking to interest the children and secure some useful products some looms for the making of rag carpets were introduced. The children were given the task of making long strips of carpet. At first all went well, then all interest was lost and no one wanted to work. Inquiry finally brought from a boy the comment, "Oh, you don't never get nothing done." The answer was appreciated - the long strips forgotten. Now only short rugs are made, which one pupil can finish in a few periods, and the looms rattle merrily all day long. Over against the evident and de

sirable increase in productivity must be set certain great problems which we here list without attempt at solution.

Physical effects: diseases peculiar to occupations such as lead poisoning; accidents due to fatigue; indoor life with the increased liability to germ diseases helped along by lack of sunlight and by dust.

Social effects: congestion in cities; changed conditions of home and family life; problems of labor and capital; problems of industrial organization; problems of vice and crime due in part to breakdown of old associations and institutions; breakdown of old emotional reactions; changed problems of education.

Not one of these great questions of modern life is due primarily to any deliberate selfish attempt to exploit fellow men. They grow out of the changed conditions which no man could foresee, and lacking foresight could not prevent. Yet they must be solved if society is to flourish.

"Progress," says Giddings, "is a form of motion and, like other forms of motion, starts reactions against itself." There are two ways of committing suicide. One may take his life by use of knife or revolver, by a dose of prussic acid and the end comes quickly; or he may gradually poison the system by opium or lead until slow death is produced. It is equally possible for a given society to introduce programs which must ultimately lead to decay even though the separate steps produce no perceptible result. The point is that we must realize what progress costs and stand ready to pay the bills whenever they are presented or else witness the downfall of our culture. There is nothing inherent within us which leads always to right choices or wise programs, whether of the individual or the group. This fact is often ignored.

At all times we find in the community two types of

men, though they may exist in a given man as regards different things, which we may term the conservative and the radical. A comparison of the two is instructive.

The conservative usually comes from a group that has been successful under the old régime. He sees that the old program has worked well for his friends and assumes that it must serve others equally well, or that it is their own fault if it does not. These "others" he seldom knows personally. He does not meet them in his parlors, his clubs or his church. Knowing the value of the old and realizing that new conditions may cause trouble he opposes change, sincerely, though perhaps mistakenly. He believes in his people and his country and is often willing to sacrifice time, money, even life itself if need be. If of extreme type, we call him the reactionary for he would go back to still older standards.

The radical, by contrast, is likely to come from a new and relatively unknown group. He has nothing to lose by change and so welcomes it. He sees that the higher positions are in other hands and believes that this is true because he and his friends have no chance to show what they can do. Lacking power and the restraining influences thereof he advocates change for the sake of change. He may be equally high-minded and patriotic and may see more clearly than his adversary the advantages of the new order. He is less likely however to appreciate the advantages of the present order, and his desire to get a hearing easily leads him to foolish and unwarranted statements.

Where does the truth lie as between these men? It must be confessed that it lies wholly in neither. There have been merits in the present order else it could not have endured. There are social values which must be pre

served. Nevertheless improvement can only come through change, and therefore the change must come even though it brings troubles in its train.

Man is likely to boast that he is governed by his intellect and that his decisions are based on a careful consideration of the merits of a question. This is seldom true. The dominant forces are emotional not intellectual in the average man at all times and often in the exceptional man. He is a foolish leader of the public who deals with his followers on an intellectual basis solely. He tells them that he will convince their minds but what he really does is to rub their backs the right way. As illustration, the proposed new constitution for the state of New York, so overwhelmingly defeated in 1915, was a vast improvement over the old, regardless of possible weaknesses. It was defeated by the votes of thousands, most of whom it is safe to say had never read it.

It follows then that the solution of social questions lies in the readjustment of institutions that they may more adequately meet present needs. We can neither return to the alleged ideal conditions of the past, nor yet hope for a solution through some panacea which is the forerunner of Utopia.

SUGGESTIONS FOR READING

COOLEY, C. H. Human Nature and the Social Order. 1902. HOBHOUSE, L. T. Morals in Evolution. (3rd Edit.) 1915. KELLER, A. G. Societal Evolution. 1915.

KIDD, B. Social Evolution. 1894.

Ross, E. A. Social Psychology. 1901.

SUMNER, W. G. Folkways. 1907.

WARD, L. F. Pure Sociology. 1903.

WESTERMARCK, E. Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas. 1906.