Page:American Anthropologist NS vol. 1.djvu/342

] First of all, his assertion that sociology must be based on anthropology, though at first sight plausible, is, like so many other a priori propositions, directly at variance with the truth. In fact, whoever looks at the development of social phenomena must notice that history is only in appearance the work of man, in reality it is the work of things; it is not made by the producers, but by the products, and arises by an inexorable necessity from the process of the distribution of products. Recognizing this we at once understand that the point of departure of the sociologist cannot be the study of man, but the study of wealth; in other words, the mother science of sociology is not anthropology but political economy.

In the next place, when the author observes that the very social and altruistic qualities of man are merely the product of the instinct of defense, since this instinct cannot be satisfied except through association, we are led to ask whether one can really speak of an instinct of defense congenital to man? Evidently defense presupposes offense; hence the need of defense cannot be felt by man except subsequently to an offense suffered; hence, also, the instinct of defense, far from being congenital to man, is a subsequent and derivative fact. The author would have been far more logical had he attributed to man a congenital instinct of offense; though in any case he would have found it difficult to explain the reason for this instinct, which does not bear any necessary relation to the undeniable and potent instinct of self-preservation. The fact is, it would seem, that the instinct of self-preservation does not of itself give rise to any instinct of defense or offense, and hence cannot, by means of such instinct, call forth association among men, which on the contrary springs spontaneously from the immanent necessity of production, from the struggle with the resistance of matter, owing to the impotence of isolated labor to overcome it.

The interpretation which the author gives to the biologic theories from which he draws his motives, often shows that he