Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/157

 NOTES AND ABSTRACTS

143

scious, at least to some degree. When these beings are human beings, which is by far the most interesting case for us, whence comes that tie? It is found by a certain similarity, more or less narrow, (l) of habitat; (2) of race ; (3) of education and lan- guage ; (4) of occupations (by the division of labor, the tasks of the different members of a society are very various, but they co-operate for the accomplishment of a great collective work: there is a co-ordination rather than a similarity of occupations); (5) of domestic life; (6) of moral, religious, aesthetic, and technical conceptions and prac- tices; (7) of legal and political government.

All these likenesses cannot date from today; they must have had some duration ; they should mark by a certain impress the associating members; they should have established among them the tie of a common tradition. This indication suffices to point out that one should know not to speak, all the time at least, of a human society in general, of a societas humani generis. For humanity never recognizes itself and has not up to the present time felt itself one. The human species is then only an anthropological expression. Sociologically speaking, its cohesion does not exist.

One comes to see that in order to find society it is necessary to divide the human genus into nations. But does that suffice? Should the true social unity be something yet more limited than the nation?

To that question there is perhaps no general response to make. We are led to believe that in ordinary cases it should be answered in the negative. Some nations, like France, England, Italy, the United States, each form only one society. For in each of these the members are considered as fellow-citizens, as belonging to the same fundamental collectivity, and that is the criterion, subjective no doubt, but on the whole precise, which permits recognition of the existence of a society. The question becomes more doubtful for a country like Germany, where the particularistic spirit has remained very long-lived in certain states of the confederation. It is especially so for Austria, where differences of race, of language, of culture, are so apparent between the parts of the monarchy. We should not hesitate to say that Hungary con- stitutes one society distinct from that of Austria properly speaking.

The temptation to subdivide is so strong for some investigators that they will- ingly make societies out of the smallest human groupings. Without doubt there is a harmony more intimate between the members of small groups than between them and the remainder of their fellow-citizens. But it must not be forgotten that the tie which unites these groups has only a special object, while the tie which forms true society has a general object. Society is a collective unity of which the existence is necessary to the maintenance of individual lives. And that unity, at present, is a whole nation.

The limits of society should not in principle be more restricted than those of the corresponding state. But may they not be larger? Might it not be said that there are some societies which exceed the boundaries of states? It can be maintained, for example, that, notwithstanding the political partition of the ancient kingdom of Poland between Russia, Austria, and Prussia, there continues only one Polish society, extending on the territories of these three states and still holding together the dis- jointed members of that ancient nationality. Of the seven characteristics which we have before recognized as constituting the social tie, the first six exist between all the Poles. But we should be careful to note that the social unity maintains itself here because the remembrance of political unity has not perished and the expectation of its reconstitution has not disappeared. There exist some associations diffused throughout the Occident, and occasionally obedient to a rigorous discipline, the monastic orders, for example. Their unity of thought has not made them true socie- ties. For they know they are not sufficient of themselves.

From the discussions which precede it follows that society is constituted by a nation politically organized ; that it corresponds to a state. That is not to say, how- ever, that there is a synonymy between these terms. Four words are employed often enough the one for the other "people," "nation," "society," "state." The terms " people " and " nation " designate a group looked at in its structure. The terms " society " and " state " designate it when it is looked at in its functioning. It is the difference between the anatomical and physiological points of view.

The terms "people " and " society " are employed when the multiplicity of ele- ments which make up the group is thought of, or the multiplicity of phenomena that its life presents. A " nation " is an ordered people ; a " state " is a society disciplined