From the very beginning there has been no such thing as unmitigated individual struggle among animals. Nowhere in nature does pure individualism exist in the sense that the individual animal struggles alone, except perhaps in a few solitary species which are apparently on the way to extinction. The a.s.sumption of such a primitive individual struggle has been at the bottom of many erroneous views of human society. The primary conflict is between species. A secondary conflict, however, is always found between the members of the same species.
Usually this conflict within the species is a compet.i.tion between groups. The human species exactly ill.u.s.trates these statements.
Primitively its great conflict was with other species of animals. The supremacy of man over the rest of the animal world was won only after an age-long conflict between man and his animal rivals. While this conflict went on there was apparently but little struggle within the species itself. The lowest groups of which we have knowledge, while continually struggling against nature, are rarely at war with one another. But after man had won his supremacy and the population of groups came to increase so as to encroach seriously upon food supply, and even on territorial limits of s.p.a.ce, then a conflict between human groups, which we call war, broke out and became almost second nature to man. It needs to be emphasized, however, that the most primitive groups are not warlike, but only those that have achieved their supremacy over nature and attained considerable size. In other words, the struggle between groups which we call war was occasioned very largely by numbers and food supply. To this extent at least war primitively arose from economic conditions, and it is remarkable how economic conditions have been instrumental in bringing about all the great wars of recorded human history.
The conflict among human groups, which we call war, has had an immense effect upon human social evolution. Five chief effects must be noted.
(1) Intergroup struggle gave rise to higher forms of social organization, because only those groups could succeed in compet.i.tion with other groups that were well organized, and especially only those that had competent leadership.
(2) Government, as we understand the word, was very largely an outcome of the necessities of this intergroup struggle, or war. As we have already seen, the groups that were best organized, that had the most competent leadership, would stand the best chance of surviving.
Consequently the war leader or chief soon came, through habit, to be looked upon as the head of the group in all matters. Moreover, the exigencies and stresses of war frequently necessitated giving the war chief supreme authority in times of danger, and from this, without doubt, arose despotism in all of its forms. The most primitive tribes are republican or democratic in their form of government, but it has been found that despotic forms of government rapidly take the place of the primitive democratic type, where a people are continually at war with other peoples.
(3) A third result of war in primitive times was the creation of social cla.s.ses. After a certain stage was reached groups tried not so much to exterminate one another as to conquer and absorb one another. This was, of course, after agriculture had been developed and slave labor had reached a considerable value. Under such circ.u.mstances a conquered group would be incorporated by the conquerors as a slave or subject cla.s.s.
Later, this enslaved cla.s.s may have become partially free as compared with some more recently subjugated or enslaved cla.s.ses, and several cla.s.ses in this way could emerge in a group through war or conquest.
Moreover, the presence of these alien and subject elements in a group necessitated a stronger and more centralized government to keep them in control, and this was again one way in which war favored a development of despotic governments. Later, of course, economic conditions gave rise to cla.s.ses, and to certain struggles between the cla.s.ses composing a people.
(4) Not only was social and political organization and the evolution of cla.s.ses favored by intergroup struggle, but also the evolution of morality. The group that could be most efficiently organized would be, other things being equal, the group which had the most loyal and most self-sacrificing membership. The group that lacked a group spirit, that is, strong sentiments of solidarity and harmonious relations between its members, would be the group that would be apt to lose in conflict with other groups, and so its type would tend to be eliminated. Consequently in all human groups we find recognition of certain standards of conduct which are binding as between members of the same group. For example, while a savage might incur no odium through killing a member of another group, he was almost always certain to incur either death or exile through killing a member of his own group. Hence arose a group code of ethics founded very largely upon the conceptions of kinship or blood relationship, which bound all members of a primitive group to one another.
(5) A final consequence of war among human groups has been the absorption of weaker groups and the growth of larger and larger political groups, until in modern times a few great nations dominate the population of the whole world. That this was not the primitive condition, we know from human history and from other facts which indicate the disappearance of a vast number of human groups in the past.
The earth is a burial ground of tribes and natrons as well as of individuals. In the compet.i.tion between human groups, only a few that have had efficient organization and government, loyal membership and high standards of conduct within the group, have survived. The number of peoples that have perished in the past is impossible to estimate. But we can get some inkling of the number by the fact that philologists estimate that for every living language there are twenty dead languages.
When we remember that a language not infrequently stands for several groups with related cultures, we can guess the immense number of human societies that have perished in the past in this intergroup compet.i.tion.
Even though war pa.s.ses away entirely, nations can never escape this compet.i.tion with one another. While the compet.i.tion may not be upon the low and brutal plane of war, it will certainly go on upon the higher plane of commerce and industry, and will probably be on this higher plane quite as decisive in the life of peoples in future as war was in the past.
While the primary struggle within the human species has been in the historic period between nations and races, this is not saying, of course, that struggle and compet.i.tion have not gone on within these larger groups. On the contrary, as has already been implied, a continual struggle has gone on between cla.s.ses, first perhaps of racial origin, and later of economic origin. Also there is within the nation a struggle between parties and sects, and sometimes between "sections" and communities. Usually, however, the struggle within the nation is a peaceful one and does not come to bloodshed.
Again, within each of these minor groups that we have mentioned struggle and compet.i.tion in some modified form goes on between its members. Thus within a party or cla.s.s there is apt to be a struggle or compet.i.tion between factions. There is, indeed, no human group that is free from struggle or compet.i.tion between its members, unless it be the family.
The family seems to be so const.i.tuted that normally there is no compet.i.tion between its members,--at least, there is good ground tor believing that compet.i.tion between the members of a family is to be considered exceptional, or even abnormal.
From what has been said it is evident that compet.i.tion and cooperation are twin principles in the evolution of social groups. While compet.i.tion characterizes in the main the relation between groups, especially independent political groups, and while cooperation characterizes in the main the relation of the members of a given group to one another, still compet.i.tion and cooperation are correlatives in practically every phase of the social life. Some degree of compet.i.tion, for example, has to be maintained by every group between its members if it is going to maintain high standards of efficiency or of loyalty. If there were no compet.i.tion with respect to the matters that concern the inner life of groups, it is evident that the groups would soon lose efficiency in leadership and in membership and would sooner or later be eliminated. Consequently society, from certain points of view, presents itself to the student at the present time as a vast compet.i.tion, while from other standpoints it presents itself as a vast cooperation.
It follows from this that compet.i.tion and cooperation are both equally important in the life of society. It has been a favorite idea that compet.i.tion among human beings should be done away with, and that cooperation should be subst.i.tuted to take its place entirely. It is evident, however, that this idea is impossible of realization. If a social group were to check all compet.i.tion between its members, it would stop thereby the process of natural selection or of the elimination of the unfit, and, as a consequence, would soon cease to progress. If some scheme of artificial selection were subst.i.tuted to take the place of natural selection, it is evident that compet.i.tion would still have to be retained to determine who were the fittest. A society that would give positions of trust and responsibility to individuals without imposing some compet.i.tive test upon them would be like a ship built partially of good and partially of rotten wood,--it would soon go to pieces.
This leads us to emphasize the continued necessity of selection in society. No doubt natural selection is often a brutal and wasteful means of eliminating the weak in human societies, and no doubt human reason might devise superior means of bringing about the selection of individuals which society must maintain. To some extent it has done this through systems of education and the like, which are, in the main, selective processes for picking out the most competent individuals to perform certain social functions. But the natural compet.i.tion, or struggle between individuals, has not been done away with, especially in economic matters, and it is evidently impossible to do away with it until some vast scheme of artificial selection can take its place. Such a scheme is so far in the future that it is hardly worth talking about.
The best that society can apparently do at the present time is to regulate the natural compet.i.tion between individuals, and this it is doing increasingly.
What people rightfully object to is, not compet.i.tion, but unregulated or unfair compet.i.tion. In the interest of solidarity, that is, in the interest of the life of the group as a whole, all forms of compet.i.tion in human society should be so regulated that the rules governing the compet.i.tion may be known and the compet.i.tion itself public. It is evident that in politics and in business we are very far from this ideal as yet, although society is unquestionably moving toward it.
A word in conclusion about the nature of moral codes and standards from the social point of view. It is evident that moral codes from the social point of view are simply formulations of standards of conduct which groups find it convenient or necessary to impose upon their members.
Even morality, in an idealistic sense, seems from a sociological standpoint to be those forms of conduct which conduce to social harmony, to social efficiency, and so to the survival of the group. Groups, however, as we have already pointed out, cannot do as they please. They are always hard-pressed in compet.i.tion by other groups and have to meet the standards of efficiency which nature imposes. Morality, therefore, is not anything arbitrarily designed by the group, but is a standard of conduct which necessities of social survival require. In other words, the right, from the point of view of natural science, is that which ultimately conduces to survival, not of the individual, but of the group or of the species. This is looking at morality, of course, from the sociological point of view, and in no way denies the religious and metaphysical view of morality, which may be equally valid from a different standpoint.
Finally, we need to note that natural selection does not necessitate in any mechanical sense certain conduct on the part of individuals or groups. Rather, natural selection marks the limits of variation which nature permits, and within those limits of variation there is a large amount of freedom of choice, both to individuals and to groups. Human societies, therefore, may be conceivably free to take one of several paths of development at any particular point. But in the long run they must conform to the ultimate conditions of survival; and this probably means that the goal of their evolution is largely fixed for them. Human groups are free only in the sense that they may go either backward or forward on the path which the conditions of survival mark out for them.
They are free to progress or to perish. But social evolution in any case, in the sense of social change either toward higher or toward lower social adaptation, is a necessity that cannot be escaped. Sociology and all social science is, therefore, a study not of what human groups would like to do, but of what they must do in order to survive, that is, how they can control their environment by utilizing the laws which govern universal evolution.
From this brief and most elementary consideration of the bearings of evolutionary theory upon social problems it is evident that evolution, in the sense of what we know about the development of life and society in the past, must be the guidepost of the sociologist. Human social evolution, we repeat, rests upon and is conditioned by biological evolution at every point. There is, therefore, scarcely any sanity in sociology without the biological point of view.
SELECT REFERENCES
_For brief reading:_
FAIRBANKS, _Introduction to Sociology,_ Chaps. XIV.-XV.
JORDAN, _Foot-Notes to Evolution,_ Chaps. I.-III.
ELY, _Evolution of Industrial Society._ Part II, Chaps. I.-III.
_For more extended reading:_
DARWIN, _Descent of Man._ FISKE, _Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy._ WALLACE, _Darwinism._
_On the religious aspects of evolution:_
DRUMMOND, _Ascent of Man._ FISKE, _The Destiny of Man._ FISKE, _Through Nature to G.o.d._
CHAPTER III
THE FUNCTION OF THE FAMILY IN SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
Instead of continuing the study of social evolution in general it will be best now, before we take up some of the problems of modern society, to study the evolution of some important social inst.i.tution, because in so doing we can see more clearly the working of the biological and psychological forces which have brought about the evolution of human inst.i.tutions. An inst.i.tution, as has already been said, is a sanctioned grouping or relation in society. Now, there can be scarcely any doubt that the two most important inst.i.tutions of human society are the family and property. In Western civilization these take the form of the monogamic family and of private property. It is upon these two inst.i.tutions that our civilization rests. The state is a third very important inst.i.tution in society, but it exists largely for the sake of protecting the family and property.
Of the two inst.i.tutions, the family and property, the family is without doubt prior in time and more fundamental,--more important in human a.s.sociation. We shall, therefore, study very briefly the origin and development of the family as a human inst.i.tution in order to ill.u.s.trate some of the principles of social evolution in general. But before we can take up the question of the origin of the family it will be well for us to see just what the function of this inst.i.tution is in the human society of the present, in order to justify the a.s.sertion just made that it is the most important and fundamental inst.i.tution of humanity.
The Family the Primary Social Inst.i.tution.--Let us note first of all that in society, as it exists at present, the family is the simplest group capable of maintaining itself. It is, therefore, we may say, the primary social structure. Because it contains both s.e.xes and all ages it is capable of reproducing itself, and so of reproducing society. For the same reason it contains practically all social relations in miniature.
It has therefore often been called, and rightly, "the social microcosm".
The relations of superiority, subordination, and equality, which enter so largely into the structure of all social inst.i.tutions, are especially clearly ill.u.s.trated in the family in the relations of parents to children, of children to parents, of parents to each other, and of children to one another. Comte, for this reason, claimed that the family was the unit of social organization, not the individual. However this may be, it is evident that families do enter, as units, very largely into our social and industrial life. While the tendency may be to make the individual the unit of modern society, it is nevertheless true that the family remains the simplest social structure in society, and from it, in some sense, all other social relations whatsoever are evolved.
_The Family Differs from All Other Social Inst.i.tutions_, however, in two respects: First, its members have their places fixed in the family group by their organic natures, that is, the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, rest upon biological differences and relations, so that one may say that the family is almost as much a biological structure as it is a social structure. This is not, to any extent, true of other inst.i.tutions. Secondly, the family is not a product, so far as we can see, of other forms of a.s.sociation, but rather it itself produces these other forms of a.s.sociation. The family, in other words, is not a result of social organization in general, but seems rather to antedate both historically and logically the forms of social life. It is not a product of society, but it itself produces society.
THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THE FAMILY is continuing the life of the species; that is, the primary function of the family is reproduction in the sense of the birth and rearing of children. While other functions of the family have been delegated in a large measure to other social inst.i.tutions, it is manifest that this function cannot be so delegated.
At least we know of no human society in which the birth and rearing of children has not been the essential function of the family. From a sociological point of view the childless family is a failure. While the childless family may be of social utility to the individuals that form it, nevertheless from the point of view of society such a family has failed to perform its most important function and must be considered, therefore, socially a failure.
The Function of the Family in Conserving the Social Order.--The family is still the chief inst.i.tution in society for transmitting from one generation to another social possessions of all sorts. Property in the form of land or houses or personal property, society permits the family to pa.s.s along from generation to generation. Thus, also, the material equipment for industry, that is capital, is so transmitted. While it is obvious that the material goods of society are thus transmitted by the family from one generation to another, it is perhaps not quite so obvious, but equally true, that the spiritual possessions of the race are also thus transmitted. For example, language is very largely transmitted in the family, and students tell us that each family has its own peculiar dialect. Literature, ideas, beliefs on government, law, religion, moral standards, artistic tastes and appreciation--all of these are still largely transmitted in society from one generation to another through the family. While public inst.i.tutions, such as libraries, art galleries, universities, scientific museums, and the like, are often adopted to conserve and transmit these spiritual possessions of the race, yet it is safe to say that if it were possible for society to depend upon these inst.i.tutions to transmit knowledge, artistic standards, and moral ideals, there would be great discontinuity in social life. The family has been in the past, and is still, the great conserving agency in human society, preserving and transmitting from generation to generation both the material and spiritual possessions of the race.
The Function of the Family in Social Progress.--While the conservative function of the family is very obvious, its function in furthering social progress is perhaps not so obvious. Nevertheless, this is one of the greatest functions of the family life, because the family is the chief or almost sole generator of altruism in human society, and it is upon altruism that society depends for every upward advance in cooperation. It is in the family that children learn to love and obey, to be of service, and to respect one another"s rights. The amount of altruism in a given group has a very close relation to the quality of its family life. If the family fails to teach the spirit of service and self-sacrifice to its members, it is hardly probable that they will get very much of that spirit from society at large. The ideal of a human brotherhood has no meaning unless family affection gives it meaning. If the family is the chief generator of altruism in human society and if society depends upon altruism for each forward step in moral progress, then the family is the chief source of social progress.
What we have said is a brief presentation of the claims of the family in modern society to count not only as the primary but also as the most important human inst.i.tution. The family, it is evident, is charged by society with the most important task, not only of producing the new individuals in society, but of training each individual as he comes on the stage of life, adjusting him to society in all of its aspects, such as industry, government, and religion. If the family fails to perform these important functions the chances are that unsocialized individuals will take important places in society, and this means ultimately social anarchy.
_The Family Life may be regarded as a School for Socializing the Individual._ We need not trace in detail how the family does this for the child. It is evident that the rudiments of morality, of government, of religion, and even of industry and knowledge, must be learned by the child in the family group. If the child fails, for example, to learn morality, to get moral standards and ideals from his family life, he stands but poor chance of getting them later in society. Again, if the child fails to learn what law is and to get proper ideals of the relation of the citizen to the state in his family life, there are good prospects of his being numbered among the lawless elements of society later. In the family, we repeat, the child first experiences all the essential relations of society, learns the meaning of authority, obedience, loyalty, and all the human virtues. Moreover, the family life furnishes the moral and religious concepts which human society has set before it as its goal. The ideal of human brotherhood, for example, is manifestly derived from the family life; so also the religious idea of the Divine Fatherhood. If a nation"s family life fails to ill.u.s.trate these concepts, it is safe to say that they will not have great influence in society generally. The nation whose family life decays, therefore, rots at the core, dries up the springs of all social and civic virtues.
The Family and Industry.--From what has been said in general terms it is evident that the family has a very important relation to the industrial activities of society, and industry a very important bearing upon the family. Primitively all industry centered in the family. Modern industry, as has been well said, is but an enormous expansion of primitive housekeeping; that is, the preparation of food and clothing and shelter by the primitive family group for its own existence is the germ out of which all modern industry has developed. The very word _economics_ means the science or the art of the household.
In primitive communities and in newly settled districts the family often carries on all essential industrial activities. It produces all the raw material, manufactures the finished products, and consumes the same. But with the growth of complex societies there has come a great industrial division of labor, and the family has delegated industrial activity after activity to some other inst.i.tution until at the present time the modern family performs scarcely any industrial activities, except the preparation of food for immediate consumption. Even this, however, in modern cities seems about to be delegated to some other inst.i.tution.