Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 8.djvu/592

 572 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL CF SOCIOLOGY

fold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdom, for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food and no prudential restraints upon marriages." We have here Darwin's tacit recognition of the fact that, while this theory fits in so well with biological phenomena, it may be largely offset, so far as human society is concerned, by the intelligent volitions of mankind. And yet, not a few economists have continued to insist upon the theory of "the survival of the fittest " as a good and sufficient explanation of all social progress ; and this despite its signal failure to explain the more complex phenomena of a modern society.

As a matter of fact, progress depends as much upon pressure from below as upon pressure from above. Instead, for example, of the upper industrial classes crowding the lower down and out, it quite as frequently happens that the lower crowd the upper up. Mr. Darwin's theory of evolution does not attempt to account for such a com- plex social situation, while Lamarck's theory of a more or less conscious adjustment of the organism to the environment finds its fullest application in such a society. The historical school is convicted of assuming universal validity for the Darwinian theory, which is only true in any complete sense for the earlier stages of social evolution.

Social progress must take place, if at all, under the law of decreasing returns, under the law of increasing returns, or under the law of constant returns. In a society progressing under the law of diminishing returns, population presses hard upon sub- sistence, and those below are apt to be pressed down and out by those above. Such progress as takes place in such a society is probably due to " the survival of the fittest." In a society progressing under the law of increasing returns, the struggle for existence is not so severe, population no longer presses so hard upon subsistence, and the lower classes here crowd the others up. The explanation of progress is no longer found in Darwin's theory, but in Larmarck's conscious adjustment of the indi- vidual to his environment. In a society progressing under the law of constant returns every increase in the productive power of society results in a corre- sponding advance in the standard of life of the whole society. Production and con- sumption here tend to keep pace with each other. There is a tendency to uniform improvements in method and technique throughout the entire field of industry ; this tends to eliminate monopoly advantage and to effect a more equitable distribution. This brings about a progressing equilibrium between production and consumption, and so substitutes a constant rate of increase for the alternating periods of boom and depression. Under the " law of decreasing returns " the welfare of others is com- pletely ignored ; under the law of increasing returns a pseudo-altruism is forced upon the entrepreneur; while under the law of constant returns further progress is made toward altruism. The welfare of society becomes a condition precedent to the suc- cess of those who would exploit that society.

Society seems to have progressed from the domination of a landed aristocracy to the domination of the bourgeoisie, and the further evolution of society will probably see the fourth estate coming into its own. These forms correspond quite closely with societies progressing under the laws of decreasing, increasing, and constant returns, respectively. While a modern society may be dominated by any one of the three laws of progress, according to the stage of its development, it is not probable that it will ever be entirely free from the action of the other two laws. This means that in any modern society all three forms of evolution are in operation at one and the same time, and it is this that must always render the study of social evolution such a difficult prob- lem. A recognition of these three forms of progress and their mutual interaction will be found necessary to any hopeful investigation in the field of social evolution. CHARLES W. MACFARLANE, in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, September, 1902.

T. J. R.

The Prophylaxis and Treatment of the Recidivist Criminal. At the last two congresses of criminal anthropology, two distinguished jurists gave opinions that criminal recidivists should be excluded from society for an indefinite term, accord- ing to the nature and repetition of the crime, or according to the psychic disturbance or degeneracy which necessitates their sequestration. Psychiaters upheld the validity of these opinions. The question of the delinquent recidivist will in the future fall entirely into the hands of the alienist.