« PreviousContinue »
as gravitation holds together the solar system. Though without reason, the economic sociologists are not without excuse.
The social economy that is sequel to the universal pursuit of gain is beautifully law-abiding, and presents a well-defined field for the science of economics. But when economics comes to treat of the consumption of wealth, it becomes vague and quickly loses itself in sociology. The reason is very simple. It is after goods have been produced and distributed that the dissimilar interests that united to spur men to acquisitive effort reappear in all their separateness. The desire for wealth splits up into its components. Most wealth-seekers follow a line of action which is termed "economic." But as wealth-consumers they behave differently. One man spends his surplus for sensual gratifications, another uses it to found a family, a third turns it into objects of beauty, a fourth makes it a votive offering, a fifth employs it to win power, a sixth makes it procure him social consideration. Its actual destination depends upon the age, the race, the stage of culture; in a word, upon the state of society. Its salient features-social composition, matrimonial customs, class relations, political habits-must all be taken into account in order to understand the consumption of wealth.
The relation of the trunk of a tree to its branches is, I believe, a fit symbol of the relation of Sociology to the special social sciences. But the tree in question is a banyan tree. Each of the great branches from the main trunk throws down shoots which take root and give it independent support in human nature. In the case of a branch like politics these special stems are slight and decaying. In the case of a branch like economics the direct support they yield is more important than the connection with the main trunk. In every case an independent rootage in unsocialized desire is the fact that entitles a branch of social knowledge to be termed a science, and differentiates it from those branches which, having no source of life other than the main trunk, must be termed departments of special sociology. EDWARD ALSWORTH Ross.
THE UNIVERSITY OF Nebraska.
[To be continued.]
INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY. III.1
PART III. GENERAL STRUCTURE OF SOCIETIES.
CHAPTER IV. THE SOCIAL LIMITS.
SECTION V. BIOLOGICAL LIMITS.-Continued.
HOWEVER, protoplasm itself has a structure. There is an organism having the structure of an amoeba, without any membrane other than its geometrical limit, and without a nucleus, but it has the essential elements of a nucleus distributed throughout the protoplasm. After the central mass is separated from the periphery with which it is blended, the organism becomes a cell. Every organism is a cell or a combination of cells. The ensemble of the forms of the whole organism is then the product or general total of all the aggregated cells. Thus the forms of elementary organisms are: (1) forms without a membrane and without a nucleus; (2) forms with a nucleus and without a membrane; (3) forms with a nucleus and a membrane. With each step in the progress of organization, the equilibration to the environment becomes more perfect; that is to say, the organism maintains itself by adaptations to more numerous and more special conditions. But, as among plants, this structure, differentiated into a nucleus and a membrane, though it suffices for the unfolding of its life, and for resistance, especially in a passive way, to the environment, is not adequate for more complex, precise, and especially active adaptations. This unicellular state forms the basis of the multicellular; that is to say, for an association of simple homogeneous cells. In the multicellular organisms there is a differentiation into an external and an internal layer. In plants this external and protecting layer is the epidermis, the inner and assimilating layer being the parenchyma; in the animals, the external sensitive and protecting surface is the ectoderm, and the interior and assimilating membrane, or endoderm, forms the boundary of the digestive cavity, which does 'Translated by Eben Mumford.
not exist in plants. In the higher protozoa the pseudopods of the amoeba are represented by cilia, and the ectoderm of the lower invertebrates is generally ciliated in order to assist locomotion, as is the endoderm to promote the movement of food toward the digestive cavity. In the course of evolution the cilia of the ectoderm and of the endoderm have disappeared, and have been replaced by muscular movements.
What is it, then, from the point of view of limits, that distinguishes the superior from the inferior forms? The distinction consists in the increasing differentiation of functions and organs in the whole structure. The result is that the motility of animals augments with increasing complexity and co-ordination of structure. The superior animals move more rapidly and in more directions; they do not have absolutely fixed limits; they search for their prey and avoid their enemies. This difference in motor capacity is related to the difference in the development of their digestive, vascular, and respiratory organs, but principally to their contractile structure, that is to say, their muscular system.
From the point of view of general philosophy, every structural differentiation is the morphological aspect of a differentiation in the internal and external movement, which, constituting the life and equilibration of the structures may fall back to the most general laws of mechanics, although biology supposes special phenomena, which, like those of sociology, call for a particular interpretation and philosophy.
The muscular system is the fundamental structure making possible the expansions and contractions of organisms-in a word, the performance of the movements appropriate to the milieu. But without the nervous system the muscles themselves would remain passive; the real generator of motility then, is the nervous system; it transmits the excitations from within and from without, and co-ordinates the movements of more and more special adaptations; it maintains the general equilibrium in the midst of a more and more intense instability; it is the regulator par excellence of organic structures. It is, then, only in appearance that organic bodies seem indeterminate in their
structures and movements; the truth is that, as one ascends the hierarchy of organisms, the more considerable variations are limited as much within as without by the more special and energetic agents of equilibration. The organs of life always determine and limit the structure and life.
However, at the basis of all organic life, under the names of contractility, irritability, sensibility, etc., we will always find motion; and so again, from the point of view of general philosophy, life can be expressed in terms of motion and in the laws of mechanics, themselves capable of being expressed mathematically.
It is only in appearance that the inferior social aggregates seem to have more fixed limits. In reality their movements are few and simple; they are determined strictly by the simple general conditions of their external structure in relation to the most simple and general conditions of the environment, whether they are exclusively physical or both physical and social. A bad harvest, poor fishing, the disappearance of game, sometimes involve migrations, but more often still a partial or even total extinction of the horde, unless the aggregate is capable of undergoing the variations necessary to adapt itself to the new conditions or to modify them. In the latter case there will be formed a favorable variation in structure -an increase of activity or an extension of the agricultural, hunting, or fishing territory; or, indeed, certain classes of individuals will devote themselves to a new kind of work, while the others will continue to drag along in the old occupations. Often the increase will be, as in inorganic matter, by external growth, by addition; ordinarily, however, there will be an incorporation, an assimilation giving place to an elaboration and to an internal development.
It is equally necessary to note that at the origin the external membrane is not very distinct from the milieu; it has not become strong as in the more developed stages. But that which characterizes the superior animals is that the internal organization gets the upper hand, where, for example, the shell, as in the carapace of the fish ganoideus (sturgeon), gives place to an internal structure, frame, vertebral column, and organs. It is in the
interior of the body that the conditions of stability are formed. Each organ becomes more and more special; each one is limited by its neighbors, and all by the whole structure. The covering ceases to be a defensive barrier or an offensive weapon; it finally becomes one of the most delicate organs of sensibility and of relationship; it accommodates itself everywhere to movements and impressions.
An analogous development may be seen taking place in social structures. That which was a barrier is transformed into means of communication, such as rivers, seas, and oceans. The boundaries, at first apparently little fixed, but in reality very rigid, especially in a general way, become more and more elastic; openings are made; better communications are set up; a general level is established like that between communicating vessels; new relations increase; societies of societies are formed with a new internal structure in relation to a new environment, until in a future of which it is possible to catch a glimpse there may be formed one vast society including all the various particular societies in one supreme internal co-ordination-the largest structure and the most complex equilibration which it is possible for the imagination to conceive. Then the social world may find its equilibration and limits; not only in its internal organization, but also in the limits themselves of the earth and its environment.
This progress takes place in proportion to the development and the differentiation of social functions and of their progressive co-ordination in more developed regulating centers. The problem of boundaries and limits is, then, connected with the development, the differentiation, co-ordination, of economic, genetic, artistic, scientific, moral, and juridic institutions; the political structure, by which the collective will of society is directed through a more or less methodical organization, is the crowning of all the others. When the fundamental institutions are narrow, simple, and authoritative, the boundaries between societies are high, general, and inflexible. So religions are more exclusive than metaphysics, the latter than science and positive morality. Societies protect themselves by offensive and defensive