it easiest to grow his crops and protect himself against his enemies. So far as we can now see there is no inherent reason why he may not ultimately build up great civilizations in the tropics, provided he can guard against the endemic diseases. Nature then may be said to guide the development of a people. She does not directly cause it, for even where she furnishes the most goods in return for the least effort man may nullify the situation by the calm acceptance of a policy of the least possible work for the longest time possible. On the other hand it is hard for her to check it if once man has gotten a glimpse of his own power to modify conditions to his liking.

Because man's progress is conditioned on his intellectual growth it by no means follows that his chief occupation is thinking. Far from it. There is nothing the average society dislikes more. Man's effort to satisfy his emotional desire for an easy and comfortable existence results in the astounding paradox that he opposes the only method through which better adaptation might come. He may be indifferent to studies which have, or seem to have, no practical importance, or may even welcome them and support them as badges of distinction or as an opportunity to display his own generosity. Thus he digs up the bones of the ancients or collects the clothing and utensils of existing savages. He may even openly support any attempt to discover ways and means of bettering industrial processes providing they promise larger returns. He welcomes new ways of spending surplus revenue. Let any one suggest that his philosophy of life rests on unsound bases, that social institutions need radical overhauling, that present programs are not conducive to human welfare, that other races are surpassing his in the struggle, and he is on the defensive at once, ready to use any brick or cudgel on

the offender, or even daub him with mud. The last thing it occurs to him to do is to admit that the criticism may be honest and investigate it to see what merit it contains. This attitude is to be found in all races and in all stages of society and adds much to the joy of life to him who has a sense of humor but adds much to the needless burdens of life as well.

The great contrast in the intellectual life of civilized men as compared to savages lies in the superiority of the tools with which the former work. For long ages the keenest and wisest men have been working in the different fields of knowledge and have accumulated a mass of information. This has been examined and criticized from all angles until that which remains is in large measure capable of definite proof. It is this which is taught the oncoming generation as truth and which is accepted by them and used as the basis of their studies. It follows then that we all embody in our explanations the theories which we have learned. We cannot take the time to

furnish all the evidence for every claim. "We are only too apt, however, to forget entirely the general, and for most of us purely traditional, theoretical basis which is the foundation of our reasoning, and to assume that the result of our reasoning is absolute truth. In this we commit the same error that is committed by all the less civilized peoples. . . . There is an undoubted tendency in the advance of civilization to eliminate traditional elements, and to get a clearer and clearer insight into the hypothetical basis of our reasoning. It is therefore not surprising, that, with the advance of civilization, reasoning becomes more and more logical, not because each individual carries out his thought in a more logical manner, not because the traditional ma

terial which is handed down to each individual has been thought out and worked out more thoroughly and more carefully."

1

In the above paragraph Professor Boas calls attention to two great truths, both of which are often ignored. Our own thought rests on certain concepts such as the doctrines of the sun-centered universe, or the doctrine of physical evolution. We simply assume these as the common basis of discussion among educated men. We do not stop to prove them; indeed many who lightly take them for granted would find extreme difficulty in offering acceptable evidence. To most of us then they are traditional, as truly as the earth-centered, special creation concepts were to men of the older time. The advantage most of us have over the men of the older time lies in the criticism to which the older views have been subjected and to the fact that a clearer perception of the truth has resulted from the criticism. Our traditions are better, hence our views are more accurate. Had we lived in the older time we should have accepted the then current tradition with as little question as we now show to present tradition.

If knowledge has been the key to the changes, why has there not been a constant, even if irregular, ascent of the race? The answer lies close at hand. Knowledge is not always equally appreciated or evenly distributed, nor is it always wisely used. Every change in the possibilities of a group requires a corresponding change in its programs and ideals, else there is trouble rather than advance. Because of the emotional hold of old beliefs and customs knowledge often appears as a disturbing element and does not get a proper hearing. Inasmuch as the average man considers existence as most fundamental, 1 BOAS, F. The Mind of Primitive Man, pp. 205-206.

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

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;