The Physical Basis of Society

one manifested towards the social sciences, especially sociology. If human actions, group actions as well as individual, are governed by law, if like causes under like conditions produce like effects, there will ultimately arise a science of sociology. It is amusing to see many men' denying the possibility of such a science and then turning around and telling just what courses society should follow, what standards it should adopt. With the details of the struggle to develop such a science we are not now concerned but certain of the views suggested are pertinent to the discussion.

The acceptance of the doctrine of physical evolution was accompanied and paralleled by the application of a similar idea to things social. Not only was the body of man made subject to the laws of the organic world, but the development and decay of his institutions, such as church and state, was explained in organic terms. This hardly expresses the full truth for it was taught that social organs were organisms, and there thus arose the "organic theory of society" whose leading champions were Schaeffle, Spencer and Lilienfeld. It is not suggested that these men thought of themselves as biologists nor that they really meant to do more than take advantage of existing interests to suggest that society was analogous to an organism and to trace this analogy as far as possible. Much foolishness has resulted from a too literal interpretation of their writings. It must be admitted that the writers mentioned have sometimes laid themselves open to such misinterpretation.

Spencer was primarily interested in tracing the structure of society and his central idea, as Small well puts it, is: "The members of society, from the very earliest stages, arrange themselves in somewhat permanent forms;

new knowledge is probably more welcomed in the field of industry than anywhere else.

In no small measure due to the industrial development which increasing knowledge has made possible, there has been an enormous enlargement of the groups which function as units. In early stages there is a small circle of parents and children more or less fused with, more or less distinct from, the larger clan or tribe. In fact, or in belief, they are all related by descent. At this stage all virtues and vices are personal, individualistic. Personal might rules in all conflicts, determines all vexed questions, is the basis of social standards. Yet even here the necessity of caring for children is beginning the development of other ideas. As the groups grow in size group virtues emerge. Duties are owed to fellows of the group which are not owed to outsiders. The group becomes the nation and the group virtues are summed up in the word "patriotism." Now a certain geographical area is the outer fringe of the field of many virtues both positive and negative, or the country is symbolized by a flag and extends wherever the flag flies. But the world through commerce and easy communication, through books and the knowledge of common languages, tends to become a unit; and feeble germs of international law arise as if spontaneously; but alas! lacking father and mother to fight for them, they quickly perish in a world still mainly interested in home affairs. The ground gained, however, is never wholly lost and age after age the essential unity of the race is seen.

Just a century ago the great Cuvier said that to speak of a science of geology was to invite ridicule. The average man of today thinks that it is as old as the hills. In our own days the attitude of Cuvier is the common

The acceptance of the doctrine of physical evolution was accompanied and paralleled by the application of a similar idea to things social. Not only was the body of man made subject to the laws of the organic world, but the development and decay of his institutions, such as church and state, was explained in organic terms. This hardly expresses the full truth for it was taught that social organs were organisms, and there thus arose the organic theory of society' " whose leading champions were Schaeffle, Spencer and Lilienfeld. It is not suggested that these men thought of themselves as biologists nor that they really meant to do more than take advantage of existing interests to suggest that society was analogous to an organism and to trace this analogy as far as possible. Much foolishness has resulted from a too literal interpretation of their writings. It must be admitted that the writers mentioned have sometimes laid themselves open to such misinterpretation.

Spencer was primarily interested in tracing the structure of society and his central idea, as Small well puts it, is: The members of society, from the very earliest stages, arrange themselves in somewhat permanent forms;

these forms rearranged in adaptation to varying needs; the forms are related, both as to cause and effect, to the individuals who make up the society; they are thus factors that may never be left out of account in attempts to understand real life.2

Society is like an organism in that it grows; and as it grows the parts become unlike and their functions change. Hence there comes to be mutual interdependence of parts. Some great disaster may wipe the society out of existence, but barring this it lives longer than the individuals composing it. Societies begin in small units which grow. Growth is accompanied by increasing complexity of structure. The growth may be through the multiplication of groups or the increase by union of groups. As mass increases structure becomes more compound and with mutual dependence the parts become unlike. Like organisms, society must have a sustaining system which consists of the productive industries; a distributing system which embraces communication and commerce and a regulating system, i.e., government. Spencer thought that earlier society had been primarily military, that is, had been mainly concerned with the protection of the group or the acquisition of territory. He said there was a gradual change to an industrial society which necessitated larger coöperation and a consequent modification of the sustaining, regulating and distributing systems. This also meant a steady move from the simple to the complex in accord with his conception of evolution.

The man who broke away from the dominant influence of Spencer was a trained scientist, Lester F. Ward, who published in 1883 his "Dynamic Sociology." In this 2 SMALL, A. W. General Sociology, p. 153.

he undertook to make a sharp distinction between the evolution of the world of nature and the world of society. The latter is due to the great development of mind so that man in a sense becomes master of the universe and shapes it as he will through his power of achievement. While achievement through man's intellectual development is the key-note of Ward's philosophy, other men have not failed to bring out other of the psychic elements now so largely emphasized. Giddings has made "consciousness of kind" the basis of his system; Tarde has compelled recognition of the rôle played by "imitation," while Ross has emphasized the necessity of "social control."

Sumner and his successor Keller have broken away from the cruder comparisons of the older writers who emphasized the biological factors. They recognize that man is fundamentally an animal, that he is under natural laws, and that his attributes, emotions, passions are likely to remain what they are regardless of his social evolution. Thus Keller writes: "I shall be charged, doubtless, with 'reasoning from analogy,' but I do not feel that the charge is deserved. I find a something in the social field which is variation, whether or not it may be like what is called variation in the organic field; similarly social selection is selection and not merely like it. In the social field, also, there is a means of transmission having the essential attributes of heredity in nature; and adaptation occurs in one range of phenomena as in the other." 3

We see that man possesses in the brain a sort of specialized adapting organ which relieves the rest of the body from the necessity of structural adaptation; that 3 KELLER, A. G. Societal Evolution, p. 15.

« السابقة متابعة »

كتب