CHAPTER II

THE ATTEMPT TO MERGE THE GREAT MAN IN THE AGGREGATE

Whatever may be done by some men, or classes of men, sociologists are at present accustomed to attribute to _man_ • 17

Mr. Kidd’s _Social Evolution_, for instance, is based entirely on this procedure • 17

He quotes with approval two other writers who have been guilty of it; • 18

who both attribute to _man_ what is done by only a few men; • 19

and the consequences of their reasoning are ludicrous • 20

Mr. Kidd’s reasoning itself is not less ludicrous. The first half of his argument is that religion prompts the few to surrender advantages to the many, which, if they chose to do so, they could keep • 21

The second half is that the many could have taken these advantages from the few, and that religion alone prevented them from doing so • 21

This contradiction is entirely due to the fact that, having first divided the social aggregate into two classes, he then obliterates his division, and thinks of them both as “_man_” • 22

Mr. Kidd’s confusion is the result of no accidental error. It is the inevitable result of a radically fallacious method; • 24

and of this method the chief exponent is Mr. Herbert Spencer, • 24

as a short summary of his arguments will show • 25

Mr. Spencer starts with saying that the chief impediment to social science is the great-man theory; • 25

for, if the appearance of the great man is incalculable, progress, if it depends on him, must be incalculable also; • 26

but if the great man is not a miraculous apparition, he owes his greatness to causes outside himself; • 27

and it is these causes which really produce the effects of which he is the proximate initiator • 27

These effects, therefore, are to be explained by reference not to the great man, but to the causes that are behind the great man • 28

The true causes, says Mr. Spencer, of all social phenomena are physical environment and men’s natural character • 29

The first physical cause of progress was an exceptionally fertile soil • 29

and an exceptionally bracing climate • 29

All the conquering races came from fertile and bracing regions • 30

There were other regions more fertile, but these were enervating; and hence the inhabitants of the former enslaved the weaker inhabitants of the latter • 30

Again, division of labour, on which industrial progress depends, was caused by difference in the products of different localities, • 31

which led to the localisation of industries • 32

The localisation of industries in its turn led to road-making; • 33

and roads made possible the centralisation of authority and interchange of ideas • 33

Next, as to men’s natural character, which is the other cause of progress, • 33

their primitive character did not fit them to progress, • 34

till it was gradually improved by the evolution of marriage and the family—especially of monogamy • 34

Monogamy represents the survival of the fittest kind of sexual union • 35

It developed the affections and the practice of efficient co-operation • 35

The family being established, the nation gradually rose from it • 36

One family increased, and gave rise to many families, which were obliged, in order to get food, to separate into different groups; • 36

and the recompounding of these groups, for purposes of defence or aggression, formed the nation; • 37

all government being in its origin military • 37

But as the arts of life progress, industry emancipates itself from governmental control, and becomes its own master, and also forms the basis of political democracy • 37

Now, if we consider all these conclusions of Mr. Spencer’s, • 39

we shall find them to be all conclusions about aggregates as wholes, not about parts of aggregates • 39

The only differences recognised by him between men are differences between one homogeneous aggregate and another, • 40

and differences between similar men who happen to be occupied differently • 41

But, as has already been said, the social problems of to-day arise out of a conflict between different parts of the same aggregate; therefore the phenomena of the aggregate as a whole do not help us • 42

The conflict between the parts of the aggregate arises from inequalities of position • 43

of which Mr. Spencer’s sociology takes no account • 44

Social problems arise out of the desire of those whose positions are inferior to have their positions changed; • 45

and the practical question is, is the change they desire possible? • 45

To answer this question we must examine into the causes why such and such individuals are in inferior, and others in superior positions • 46

Are inequalities in position due to alterable and accidental circumstances? • 47

Or are they due to congenital inequalities which no one can ever do away with? • 47

Social inequalities are partly due to circumstances; • 48

but most people will admit that congenital inequalities in talent have much to do with them • 48

Why then insist on this fact? • 49

Because this fact is precisely what our contemporary sociologists ignore, • 49

as Mr. Spencer shows us by his distinct admissions and assertions, as well as by the character of his conclusions • 50

His condemnation of the great-man theory is a removal of all congenital inequalities from his field of study; • 51

and he actually defines an aggregate as being composed of _approximately equal units_ • 52

His failure and that of others, as practical sociologists, arises from their building on this false hypothesis • 53