strate processes and results in the societal field with the precision and under the authority of verification which are characteristic of the natural sciences; societal evolution is on a different plane, and the social sciences, in their different mode, have as yet no such equipment of evidence and method as have the natural sciences. "Aller Anfang ist schwer," says Goethe; and we might venture to modify, unrhythmically, the rest of his line: "vor allem der Anfang der Wissenschaft." But one of the difficulties of the social sciences is, as I said at the beginning, that they have no evolutionary orientation such as Darwin gave to the natural sciences. The question was: Cannot this orientation be given to them by extending the evolutionary theory to the field which they cover? This cannot be done, to any purpose, by "reasoning from analogy." I have come to believe that there is more here than analogy, and have tried to convey some of the reasons for that conviction. If what I have written helps any one else to arrive at the same conviction, I think he will find it useful in securing an orientation for the study of human society. NOTE Ir will perhaps occur to some close student of Sumner's work that Sumner himself has written on "Evolution and the Mores" (see "Folkways," preface, ad fin.). This is correct; and I feel that I must say something about that essay in this place. Some time before the publication of "Folkways," Professor Sumner read, before the Anthropology Club of Yale University, a paper entitled, “The Application of the Notions of Evolution and Progress on the Superorganic Domain," in which he set forth his conviction that there is no progressive evolution in the folkways. This paper summarized, to some extent, a much longer manuscript on "Sociology and Evolution," the last passages of which I have quoted at the beginning of Chapter VIII above. I think this was the projected chapter of "Folkways," mentioned in the preface to that book. At the club meeting which I have mentioned there were present representatives of several other departments — biology, geology, psychology, history-and there ensued upon Sumner's paper a prolonged discussion from the different points of view represented. Several men then undertook to set forth, at succeeding meetings, their views on the subject. Sumner was present on all these occasions and listened to the criticism with his usual care. He also fought back lustily, as was his wont; but as we returned one evening from the last of these discussions, he told me he had decided not to include the chapter on evolution and the mores in his forthcoming book. I judge from the unfinished character of the manuscript that he laid it aside at that time and did not return to it again. Other matters occupied his mind during the last few years of his life; in the course of many conversations I do not recall any further reference to the topic. This essay of his, as it seems to me, would be relevant and compelling if he could have completed it under the title "Progress and the Mores," or with the understanding that "evolution" connoted the process as Spencer saw it. Criticism of Sumner's utterance was confined chiefly to the position taken that evolution and progress are synonymous, or nearly so. Sumner admitted that he meant "progressive evolution" and endeavored to show that he was correct in that view. I expect sometime to utilize the bulk of this essay in connection with other unfinished manuscripts left by him. As a refutation of much foolish talk about progress, some of its trenchant paragraphs should be very effective. As for the systematic application to the folkways of the central idea of Darwinian evolution adaptation to environment, secured through the operation of variation, selection, and transmission —I do not believe that it occurred to Sumner to undertake it. Often in "Folkways," and even in much earlier writings, he uses some of the terms, as, for instance, variation and selection ("Folkways," §§ 88, 170, et al.); and frequently the operation of factors, as developed above, is implied; but that was as far as he went. What he wanted to make clear was the origin and nature of the folkways; and then he meant to hasten back to his "Science of Society," rewrite in the light of "Folkways" what he had already written, and complete the treatise. It is my belief that he would have been obliged to return to the topic of evolution in its relation to the folkways before he could have satisfied himself to go on with his "Science of Society." No one could be more in sympathy with his general way of looking at the science than I am; but I could not accept his views about evolution and the views which were somewhat unsettled, I thought, by the discussions I have mentioned; and I have been convinced that some understanding must be arrived at respecting societal evolution before it is possible to complete a general book on the science of society that shall rest upon the conception of the folkways. And so I have worked out that which precedes. mores This is what lies behind the statement in the preface that the present volume is an extension upon the idea of the folkways. Acculturation, 216 ff., 258, 263, Association, 68. 277, 313. Austerity, 255. Acquired Characteristics, 209- Australia, 297. 211. Adaptation, 9, 23, 41, 92, 129, 154, 160, 164, 187, 215, 216, 227, 234, 245-247 ff. See See Amalgama- Australians, 156. B Bagehot, W., 11. Mental and Social, 18 ff., 21 ff. Bergson, H., 48. Physical vs. Mental, 18. To Geographic Environment. Adat, 155. Advertising, 244. Biogenetic Law, 220, 225. Black Death, 280. Bland Silver Bill, 113. Amalgamation, 46, 75 ff., 80, Brain, 18, 19. Aged, 60. Aleatory Element, 74. 242-243, 319. Ambel anak, 155. Anachronism. See tation. 222, 327. Boers, 289. Borup, George, 271. Bricks, 49. Bride-price, 155–156. Bryce, J., 243. Maladap- C Campbell, H., 210. American Traditions, 79. Analogy, 4, 14-15, 46, 209, 220- Animism. See Religion. Annihilation, 64 ff., 72, 135. Cannibalism, 45. Capital, 146, 182, 286, 291-292, Capital Punishment, 65. Artificialized Environment, 67, Chance. See Luck. 306 ff. Artificialization, 71, 177 ff. Chapin, F. S., 11. Charity. See Humanitarianism. |