Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 11.djvu/865

 REVIEWS 849

moral sense. It is no more and no less true of religion than of art, or science, or government, or industry, that it is "rooted in egoism" (p. i). The sense in which it is true primarily of "all human con- duct," however, is not the sense that is ordinarily contrasted with altruism. It is rather the same sense in which we may say that "all human conduct is rooted in attention." Attention is a condition alike of love and hate, of loyalty and treachery, of generosity and greed. So far, attention is merely a psychological process. It is not a nvril attitude. When we attribute moral qualities to "attention," and call it "good" or "bad," it is something very much more complex than the psychological activity that is common to all conduct.

Precisely the same thing is true of "egoism." In the one sense we may say that "altruism" is rooted in "egoism." We cannot with equal truth say that all "egoism" is rooted in "altruism." "Altruism" presupposes one "egoism" ; it abhors the other "egoism."

In the present state of things the people who ought to read this book are not sufficiently outfitted with these distinctions to assume them and weigh the subsequent argument without distraction. That argument is, in substance, first, that the process through which Israel got its religious receptivity was simply an episode in the social process that goes on, earlier or later, wherever there are people. The argu- ment is specifically a thesis as to the precise reaction of interests which accounts for the history of Israel. Since the author does not present himself with the prestige of assured position among scholars, it will be easy for those who are not interested in critical research to ignore him. No one who is seriously working upon the history of Israel can afford to treat his thesis contemptuously. If he has not hit upon the ultimate hypothesis, he has made it sufficiently evi- dent that no one else has, and that the psycho-sociological interpre- tation of the material is still an open question.

We add a brief notice of the book from the view-point of the Old Testament scholar. A. W. SMALL.

The book is an effort to illustrate by means of the peculiarly adequate data of Old Testament history the author's thesis that egoism is at the basis of all human activity and thought. A some- what modified view of egoism is adopted, but of this the editor him- self will speak. From the present writer's point of view, the position seems to be that Old Testament history presents a field for the con- stant clash of human interests, and that the Bible tells of the survival