has been found useful to living creatures and hence perpetuated and developed by natural selection. It is not so important, from a strictly scientific point of view, to decide the old metaphysical debate as to whether purposeful activity is a form of mechanical reaction or not, as it is to see that such activities are peculiar to living creatures and have been developed because of their survival value.

The mental, the purposeful, the teleological becomes increasingly important as we ascend in the scale of life. These are facts . . . of the utmost significance for the social life of man. Human society is no theater of the play of blind, mechanical forces. Society is . . . from the start, a more or less purposeful activity. It becomes increasingly so, until, when we reach the level of the present most highly civilized human society, we may properly say that it is dominantly so. And, indeed, the purpose of the social sciences is nothing less than to replace the action of blind, mechanical force in human social life by the action of intelligent purposes.

29. Organic Evolution and Mental Evolution [ELLWOOD, Charles A., The Psychology of Human Society, pp. 70-74. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1925.]

Mental evolution is not something apart from organic evolution. If we take a strictly biological point of view, mentality may be regarded as a variation in the life-process. It is the most significant mutation which life has brought forth; for when mind or consciousness appeared in organic evolution, the whole balance of the world of life was changed. Thereafter, the determining factors in the life-process became more and more the inner and psychic, not the outer and physical. Among animals those that had this inner control over behavior would stand the best chance of survival; for by means of it they could adapt themselves quickly to their environment. The animal that could sense approaching danger and develop conscious control over its behavior could escape; again, if it could sense food, it could survive better than a form of life without consciousness. Mentality, it is evident, has had a survival value from the start far in excess of almost any other organic trait.

Since all organisms do not show signs of mental life, we must seek to locate mind, if possible, in the scheme of organic development. The lowest organisms do not possess nervous systems; hence, in their case, it would seem idle to raise the ques

tion whether they have neural processes which are accompanied by consciousness. In such forms of life, which include the lower animal types and the whole plant world, adaptation to environment is probably secured by purely physical or mechanical means. The plant is sessile and its movements are of the simplest kind; therefore, its life-processes do not need conscious guidance. But as we ascend in the animal scale, the katabolic tendencies of the organism-that is, the tendencies to expend energy rather than to store it up increase, and hence bodily movements become greater, more varied, and more complex. Now the mind, with its consciousness, seems to have been developed as a control over the complex and varied movements which we find in the higher types of animal behavior.1 Even in the highest animals, however, there are many bodily activities which are not accompanied by consciousness. The need of conscious control apparently exists only at those points where new adjustments are required, where changes in relatively complex activities occur. We may conclude, therefore, that consciousness is associated in living creatures with the process of adaptation, especially when the process is rapid and complex. The mind is evidently an organ of adaptation, whose function is to furnish a superior method of control over the adaptive processes of life. The neural processes involved in consciousness, therefore, constitute the master device produced by organic evolution to perfect the control of the organism over its environment.

According to this view, which is that of modern psychology, mind is not something apart from life, but is a functioning element in the life-process. Like all other elements in life, it is subject to the laws of organic evolution. The fundamental attributes of our mental life must, therefore, be regarded as produced by variation, transmitted by heredity, and fixed by selection. They are as much determined by variation, heredity, and selection as the general characteristics of our bodies. Our capacities for sensation, for perception, for thought, our natural impulses, our emotions, and even our power of abstraction and reasoning, as we have seen, have been produced by organic evo

1 Some of the chief texts in psychology which have set forth the functional view of mind are: James, Principles of Psychology (New York, Henry Holt & Co., 1890); Angell, Psychology; Thorndike, Elements of Psychology (New York, A. G. Seiler, 1907); McDougall, Outline of Psychology (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1923); Hobhouse, Mind in Evolution.

lution. All of these things can only be understood as functioning elements within the life-process to which they bear an intimate connection. This does not mean, of course, that they may not function at times in imperfect and very disadvantageous ways, for the mind, as an organ of adaptation, is, even in man, still incompletely developed. It does indicate, however, that the mind and all of its processes must be regarded as a "control" over the adaptive operations of life.

2

Now if the function of the mind is to bring about rapid, shortcut adaptations of the organism to its environment, then, manifestly, it must select among the countless stimuli which surround the organism those which need attention for the maintenance and development of life. Hence, intelligence is selective. From the first, therefore, mental activity is more or less purposeful, which means that the mind is concerned not merely with the passive adaptation of the organism to its environment, but with bending and shaping the environment to meet the needs of the organism. In the higher reaches of mental life the mind seems especially concerned with the active adaptation of the environment to the organism, that is, with the transformation of the environment. Most of the activities of man, which we call cultural, are of this sort; that is, they are purposeful. Whether purposeful activity is a form of mechanical reaction or not, as the materialists claim, it is a fact, and one which is of peculiar importance for understanding human society.

Purposeful activity, then, is a result of the selective method of mind as an organ of adaptation. As we have indicated, the mind selects the stimulus to which it responds. Moreover, in the higher creatures the stimuli to which responses are made are more and more actively sought. This shows that the purposeful becomes increasingly important as we ascend in the scale of life and mind, and so, also, in the scale of social evolution. Human society, for instance, has become increasingly an expression of purposeful activity until, at the level of our present civilization, we may properly say that it is dominantly so. This purposive activity is particularly revealed in the social sciences, which aim to replace the action of blind forces and

2 Compare McDougall's statement: "Purposiveness seems to be the essence of mental activity" (Outline of Psychology, p. 49). See also McDougall's paper, "Purposive Striving as a Fundamental Category of Psychology" in The Scientific Monthly for September, 1924. Compare also the statements of Woodworth (Psychology, pp. 70-72) in which he defines purpose in effect "an internal state that lasts for a time and directs action."

circumstances in human social life by the action of intelligently formed purposes.

30. Relation of Educational Sociology to Educational

Psychology

[PAYNE, E. George, "The Relation of Educational Sociology to Educational Psychology," School and Society, June 7, 1924, Vol. 19, No. 493, pp. 653-657.] (Abridged.)

The development of psychology and sociology as sciences has been so recent that we may well expect that there should be much confusion as to what each science includes and where lies the line of demarcation between the two. The writers upon the subject have generally pointed out that psychology is concerned with the individual and sociology with the group or association of individuals. Professor Smith notes the fundamental distinction between them which he regards as clear enough for educational sociology, as follows: "Sociology is properly concerned with man only in his social aspects, psychology in his individual aspects. The primary interest is in the study of social relations, while the primary interest of psychology is in the study of individual mental life. The unit of a study of sociology is therefore the social group, that of psychology the individual man." (Smith, Introduction to Educational Sociology, p. 21). . . .

The difficulty in distinguishing between sociology and psychology, or educational sociology and educational psychology, lies in the fact that both sciences deal with consciousness and its operations. Association is as much a conscious experience as visual sensation or perception arising out of observation of color or material objects. The fact of group life, of association, is psychological, and therefore the data of sociology are psychological data. I am perfectly aware here of the fact that all science deals with conscious facts, but the facts of psychology and sociology are alike in that the subject-matter of both relates to the mental life itself as opposed to the physical sciences whose facts must be referred to the external world. Association itself is psychological, and society exists only in the minds of individuals. It is the feeling or consciousness of one's relation to others, his dependence upon them and his obligation and duties toward them that is the essential feature of the science. . .

There is, however, a definite distinction between these two

sciences, as well as a very obvious relationship. Psychology, for instance, clearly seeks to find the laws which will help to explain the conduct of human beings. Psychology seeks to discover and explain the functions of the organ of sense, the muscles, the glands, the nervous system and in fact all other bodily organs in the determination of behavior. It seeks to classify and describe all kinds of behavior of which the normal individual is capable. Not merely this, but it attempts to ascertain what bodily organs are involved in the process of walking, of fear, of anger, and in speaking, acting or thinking. It proposes to explain in what way the bodily organs are concerned in these activities.

Psychology also concerns itself with individual differences, with capacities to learn, with temperamental differences, with moral traits and with special abilities of every kind. Furthermore, it concerns itself with the problems of how the special characteristics and capacities operate in learning to speak, to read, to solve problems in algebra, to develop an appreciation of music. And, finally, it attempts to discover what forms of behavior are present without learning-such as crying, vocalization-and what are the relations of these forms of activity to those which are to be learned by the individual.

So far we have included in this enumeration of the facts with which psychology is concerned no mention of the stimulus or situation which calls forth behavior in the individual. Is not the situation to be included? If so, may not the situation be social? May not the individual's behavior be determined by the sort of social groups with which he is connected? Obviously, psychology does include a consideration of both the situation and response as they are involved in any behavior act. The individual may have a tendency to coöperate which is called forth only through association, and in this case the examination of the tendency, and the behavior growing out of the tendency is a matter for psychological consideration, while the fact of association itself is a sociological fact. Psychology is concerned with the individual aspect of the stimulus-response situation, while sociology is concerned with the group aspect; both are psychological.

Sociology, therefore, has to do with behavior. It concerns itself with the laws which explain human association, and human associations are always a matter of behavior. It states the laws and principles underlying human relations and provides the basis for the interpretation of group life. The implication in