Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 10.djvu/686

 670 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

dominance in it of the purely psychical elements. In the same way we are justified in speaking of any inter-individual process in which psychical elements dominate as a psychical process. In this sense, then, there are inter-individual psychical processes.

Dr. Adams himself implies the essentially psychical nature of the social process when he compares the unity of society with that of a plant. He says, " the social unity is similar to that of the plant," in that both are objectively organic unities. Still, he says, they differ. " If by analysis we break up the biological process [of a plant] into parts, and then still further break these up, we shall get . . . ., finally, processes that can be described only in physical and chemical terms." 7 But if we similarly analyze the social process, we get, finally, not merely physical processes, but both physical and psychical processes ; and these latter are the significant elements in the whole process analyzed. It is unfortunate, therefore, to liken society to a plant, as they are not both objectively organic unities in the same sense or degree. In the social process, indeed, the dualism between the subjective and the objective (which Dr. Adams insists upon so strenuously throughout his paper) disappears.

In one other respect must I criticise Dr. Adams's paper, and that is in regard to his classification of " unities." He seems to classify unities into mechanical, biological, psychic, arid social. This, of course, he does not propose as an exhaustive classification ; but he strongly implies that social unities are a class co-ordinate with the other three classes mentioned. This I deny. It is difficult to discover what the basis of the above classification is, what the principle of division in it is. Social is not co-ordinate with psychic or biological, nor is psychic co-ordinate with mechanical or biological. If a classi- fication is to be logical, it must proceed upon a single principle of division, so that the several classes shall be co-ordinate with each other and mutually exclusive. Thus we may divide unities into physical and psychical, and then subdivide each genus into several species. If we do this, social unities would be unquestionably a species of psychical unity. Again, we might make three genera physical, psycho-physical, and psychical for here again the terms are co-ordinate. In this case, social unities would be a species of psycho-physical unity. Either classification is correct. I simply pre- fer the former, as being more convenient and better suited to bring out my thought.

T Loc. dt., p. 217.