按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
the psychological sphere。 Imitation； for instance； is a principle which is probably more significant for the explanation of human development than natural selection。 Darwin himself was conscious that his principles had only a very restricted application in this sphere； as is evident from his cautious and tentative remarks in the 5th chapter of his 〃Descent of Man〃。 He applied natural selection to the growth of the intellectual faculties and of the fundamental social instincts； and also to the differentiation of the great races or 〃sub…species〃 （Caucasian； African； etc。） which differ in anthropological character。 （Darwinian formulae may be suggestive by way of analogy。 For instance； it is characteristic of social advance that a multitude of inventions； schemes and plans are framed which are never carried out； similar to； or designed for the same end as； an invention or plan which is actually adopted because it has chanced to suit better the particular conditions of the hour （just as the works accomplished by an individual statesman； artist or savant are usually only a residue of the numerous projects conceived by his brain）。 This process in which so much abortive production occurs is analogous to elimination by natural selection。）
16。 But if it is admitted that the governing factors which concern the student of social development are of the psychical order； the preliminary success of natural science in explaining organic evolution by general principles encouraged sociologists to hope that social evolution could be explained on general principles also。 The idea of Condorcet； Buckle； and others； that history could be assimilated to the natural sciences was powerfully reinforced； and the notion that the actual historical process； and every social movement involved in it； can be accounted for by sociological generalisations； so…called 〃laws；〃 is still entertained by many； in one form or another。 Dissentients from this view do not deny that the generalisations at which the sociologist arrives by the comparative method； by the analysis of social factors； and by psychological deduction may be an aid to the historian； but they deny that such uniformities are laws or contain an explanation of the phenomena。 They can point to the element of chance coincidence。 This element must have played a part in the events of organic evolution； but it has probably in a larger measure helped to determine events in social evolution。 The collision of two unconnected sequences may be fraught with great results。 The sudden death of a leader or a marriage without issue； to take simple cases； has again and again led to permanent political consequences。 More emphasis is laid on the decisive actions of individuals； which cannot be reduced under generalisations and which deflect the course of events。 If the significance of the individual will had been exaggerated to the neglect of the collective activity of the social aggregate before Condorcet； his doctrine tended to eliminate as unimportant the roles of prominent men； and by means of this elimination it was possible to found sociology。 But it may be urged that it is patent on the face of history that its course has constantly been shaped and modified by the wills of individuals （We can ignore here the metaphysical question of freewill and determinism。 For the character of the individual's brain depends in any case on ante…natal accidents and coincidences； and so it may be said that the role of individuals ultimately depends on chance；the accidental coincidence of independent sequences。）； which are by no means always the expression of the collective will； and that the appearance of such personalities at the given moments is not a necessary outcome of the conditions and cannot be deduced。 Nor is there any proof that； if such and such an individual had not been born； some one else would have arisen to do what he did。 In some cases there is no reason to think that what happened need ever have come to pass。 In other cases； it seems evident that the actual change was inevitable； but in default of the man who initiated and guided it； it might have been postponed； and； postponed or not； might have borne a different cachet。 I may illustrate by an instance which has just come under my notice。 Modern painting was founded by Giotto； and the Italian expedition of Charles VIII； near the close of the sixteenth century； introduced into France the fashion of imitating Italian painters。 But for Giotto and Charles VIII； French painting might have been very different。 It may be said that 〃if Giotto had not appeared； some other great initiator would have played a role analogous to his； and that without Charles VIII there would have been the commerce with Italy； which in the long run would have sufficed to place France in relation with Italian artists。 But the equivalent of Giotto might have been deferred for a century and probably would have been different； and commercial relations would have required ages to produce the rayonnement imitatif of Italian art in France； which the expedition of the royal adventurer provoked in a few years。〃 （I have taken this example from G。 Tarde's 〃La logique sociale〃 2 （page 403）； Paris； 1904； where it is used for quite a different purpose。） Instances furnished by political history are simply endless。 Can we conjecture how events would have moved if the son of Philip of Macedon had been an incompetent？ The aggressive action of Prussia which astonished Europe in 1740 determined the subsequent history of Germany； but that action was anything but inevitable； it depended entirely on the personality of Frederick the Great。
Hence it may be argued that the action of individual wills is a determining and disturbing factor； too significant and effective to allow history to be grasped by sociological formulae。 The types and general forms of development which the sociologist attempts to disengage can only assist the historian in understanding the actual course of events。 It is in the special domains of economic history and Culturgeschichte which have come to the front in modern times that generalisation is most fruitful； but even in these it may be contended that it furnishes only partial explanations。
17。 The truth is that Darwinism itself offers the best illustration of the insufficiency of general laws to account for historical development。 The part played by coincidence； and the part played by individualslimited by； and related to； general social conditionsrender it impossible to deduce the course of the past history of man or to predict the future。 But it is just the same with organic development。 Darwin （or any other zoologist） could not deduce the actual course of evolution from general principles。 Given an organism and its environment； he could not show that it must evolve into a more complex organism of a definite pre…determined type； knowing what it has evolved into； he could attempt to discover and assign the determining causes。 General principles do not account for a particular sequence； they embody necessary conditions； but there is a chapter of accidents too。 It is the same in the case of history。
18。 Among the evolutional attempts to subsume the