Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/742

 718 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

sought it for decades. Messrs. Hirose and Ikeno are equally dis- tinguished in botany. In general, the Japanese have learned modern sciences with an astonishing rapidity and thoroughness, not excluding the naval and military arts, as now evident.

Perhaps the most interesting case of all, however, is where the author shows that this ability to change is itself attributable, not to any intrinsic heredity, but to the social order, inasmuch as Japanese have been learners from their earliest times, and thus have pervasive among them "a spirit of imitation;" besides which national tutelage, the individual Japanese has been taught imitation by the need for it under feudalism.

But all this judicious observation is concurrently subordinated to an analysis of causes for these traits and for their recent transforma- tion ; and this aspect rightly gives title to the book, Evolution of the Japanese. The general conclusion is well stated by the author on p. 425:

How have these characteristics arisen ? has been our ever-recurring ques- tion. The answer has invariably tried to show their relation to the social

order We have seen that not one of the characteristics examined is

inherent, that is, due to brain structure, to biological heredity. We have concluded, therefore, that the psychical characteristics which differentiate races are all but wholly social.

An extremer conclusion on p. 441 runs that "such inherent differ- ences, if they exist, are so vague and intangible as practically to defy dicovery and clear statement, and may be practically ignored; " but another parallel passage on p. 438 takes the more moderate and safe position " that the evolution of the psychic characteristics of all races is due to social more than to biological evolution." 1 There is a wide latitude here that would justify rejection of one degree, but acceptance of either of the others. The inclination of the author is clearly toward disallowing inheritance of traits, in any degree, as appears from his treatment of the data passim, and in such phrases as "the Anglo-Saxon is what he is because of his social heredity" (p. 21). However, so far as this lack of precision concerns inheritance of acquired traits, it may only reflect the uncertainty of the conclusions for and against Weismann, with a strong tendency toward his denial of such inheritance. But in respect to congenital variation, the author's denial is wholly in conflict with prevalent biological and sociological opinion, as he admits, pp. 20 and 21, a strong tendency 1 The italics of these three quotations are mine.