CHAPTER V

THE THREE PROCESSES OF SOCIAL PROGRESS

1

Organic and Social Evolution. In the preceding chapter the term adaptation was used comprehensively to designate the general method by which evolution is accomplished. If we now examine the method of evolution in greater detail we shall find that it takes place by means of three great steps or processes. These processes of social evolution are so similar to those of organic evolution that a comparison of the two will make their meaning clearer.

Romanes? gives the three processes of organic evolution as heredity, variation, and isolation. Heredity means the transmission of traits from parents to offspring. Variation refers to the innumerable characters which appear in individuals to differentiate them from the type, indicating that the transmission of characters from generation to generation is not invariable. Isolation means the prevention of intercrossing of individuals with others of the same species. It is a broader term than selection, because the mere elimination of the unfit is only one of several means for the prevention of intercrossing.

The corresponding processes in social evolution may perhaps best be described by the terms integration, variation, and selection. Integration here refers to the process of socialization and means the creation of sufficient resemblance among individuals so that they may act together as a social group. Variation has the same meaning in social evolution as it has in organic evolution. It refers to new ideas, or methods of action, appearing in society as departures from the type, their appearance showing that here again integrations are not absolute. Selection refers to the utilization of one or another of the variations which arise in a society. In the social sphere, contrary to the process in

a

the organic world, selection comes to be a term of broader application than isolation, for here evolution is no longer blind. The selection of any one among several variations may be made by conscious choice, hence isolation appears as one of several methods of selection.

The more detailed processes of social evolution take place therefore as follows. Social evolution in its broadest aspect is brought about by progressive adaptation to a continually changing environment. And this adaptation is accomplished by a continual repetition of the three great processes, - integration, variation, and selection. Consider, for example, a social group with its individual units sufficiently alike to permit normal social life. A new variation appears, perhaps in the form of a mechanical invention, or possibly as a new experiment in government, or as a new ideal in manners or in morality. Such a variation is presented to the members of a group and is subjected to all the influences favoring or opposing change. Finally it is, let us say, accepted and put into operation. At first this variation is not desired by all; but eventually all must conform to it sufficiently to bring about united action, and the group then shows a new integration or unity which includes the variation. This completes the process of a social adaptation to a slightly different environment. If the variation proves useful, society has taken a step in advance; if it proves undesirable, it is given up and a new variation is tried.

Integration. Integration, as a step in social progress, is basic and absolutely essential. Without it no group action could take place, and individuals would have to develop as isolated rather than as social beings. Reformers, who are concentrated on change, are likely to belittle the importance of integrations, while others tend to take them for granted without special analysis. Starting with physical similarity in individuals as a basis, that is, with racial likeness, the forces of integration are so strong that social unity is almost sure to follow. Social integration is the normal outgrowth of physical similarity in individual units; and where marked dissimilarity exists, integration is necessarily imperfect and difficult to maintain. Any attempt to force it upon dissimilar elements is contrary to the natural process and of doubtful value. Although in modern society the forces of integration are strong, in the early stages of civilization they were weak. Bagehot has ably demonstrated the difficulty, as well as the necessity, of forming a “cake of custom” in primitive societies.

Two Laws of Integration. Before discussing the methods of integration it will be well to point out two of its characteristics, or laws. First, integrations tend to form in ever widening circles, including within their scope larger territories and larger populations. This fact may be illustrated in almost all aspects of social life. The political unit, for instance, tends to become larger and larger. States widen their boundaries and governments extend their sovereignties over more and more people. Similarly economic life can no longer be confined to a limited area, but has expanded even beyond the boundaries of states, and business interests include practically the whole civilized world. Intellectual interests, in the same way, and manners and customs, are also continually expanding, showing the growth of intellectual as well as physical integrations. It is true that epochs do occur when the law of dispersion, a tendency seemingly reverse, appears to be dominant. Large groups break up into small ones and people scatter to new territories. States subdivide, and social life in general appears to narrow rather than to widen. Such dispersions should, however, be regarded as temporary reactions in the social process rather than broad tendencies comparable to the law of increasing social integrations. Enlargement of the circle of integration may be carried too far and include peoples too dissimilar to one another, or physical boundaries may become too wide, to be conducive to a unified society. Then societies fall apart only perhaps to reunite later under more favorable conditions.

The second law of integrations is that, as their area becomes enlarged, their intensity lessens. This follows from the fact that large numbers cannot be so homogeneous as small numbers if only because of the diversities which inevitably appear in the larger environment. This law of lessening intensity should not be interpreted to mean that all large societies are less homogeneous than all small societies. Small societies may of course be made up of very diverse elements. It means rather that, as the same society enlarges, a greater and greater number of diversities appear and therefore integration is less absolute, though it may still be sufficient for the particular purpose for which the society was organized. The integration of the British Empire as a whole is less strong than the integration of the people of England. The economic unity of the commercial world is not so complete as the unity of economic organization in any one country.

Forms of Integration. The numerous forces which cause integration may be divided roughly into coercive and voluntary. While these terms indicate the fundamental differences in the types of integration, the two types do tend to merge into each other and are not always distinguishable.

Coercive Integration. Coercion, as a unifying force, may be of various kinds and degrees of intensity. It may mean the direct use of physical force, or it may mean a resort to public sentiment with physical compulsion in the background to be employed as a last resort if other influences fail. Coercion in its extreme form is used by conquerors on a conquered people. The conquerors may incorporate the conquered into society as a slave class, in which case physical violence is always the immediate coercive force; or they may merely assimilate a subject people, and then coercion lies in restrictions as to language, occupations, or dwelling places, physical violence being resorted to only in cases of extreme revolt. Attempts at assimilation by coercion alone are seldom successful. They bring about the external appearance of similarity without the spirit of unity. In fact the greater the external coercion the stronger becomes that spirit of antagonism which inevitably weakens the social structure. Assimilation usually becomes more and more successful with succeeding generations reared from the start under the new conditions, yet this is largely because the force of coercion gradually relaxes.

Another kind of coercive integration is taking place in economic life through the forces of competition. These forces may cause weaker competitors to change their methods of production or even abandon a field to stronger rivals, thus bringing about

greater uniformity in the economic structure. If such changes are necessitated merely by new external conditions, without personal compulsion, the readjustment is for the advantage of all and a new integration may be produced in spirit as well as in form. If the change comes from personal compulsion, as sometimes happens in what is known as unfair competition, antagonisms are aroused which may weaken the unity of the whole structure.

Attempts to force integration in intellectual lines have been common, particularly in the case of religious beliefs. Religious organizations have gone on the supposition that united action was impossible without similarity of belief. And almost all religious organizations have tried to force this similarity by threats not merely of immediate but also of eternal expulsion from their organization, as a penalty for the introduction of any variation from the established belief. Sometimes indeed coercion has gone far beyond the mere threat of exclusion, and physical violence has been resorted to to preserve unity of belief. From the nature of the case such methods must fail to bring about desired results. Integration to be strong must have unity of sentiment as well as of form. Physical force produces physical results, social influences are needed to bring about social uniformity; intellectual forces alone can produce intellectual unity.

Education is another influence for integration which is coercive in its nature but which is devoid of the character of physical compulsion so prominent in other forms of coercion. Education in the home and in the school is the chief instrument of conformity between the new generation and the old. Education has a twofold purpose. It is used partly as a means of discipline, and partly as a means of imparting information. In the latter function, education as an integrating force has this peculiar characteristic, that the young, ordinarily having no preconceived ideas or prejudices to be overcome, accept the teaching of their elders; and unity of knowledge is brought about with little opposition. Education to promote discipline, however, encounters the resist ce of un ained instincts nd emotions. Conformity in manners therefore is accomplished with difficulty and