The Biological Theory of History 3 1 7 



areas. . . . Rivalry is at bottom the struggle for existence, 

 which is still moulding the growth of nations ; but history, 

 as it is now written, conceals, under the formal cloak of 

 dynasties, wars, and foreign policies, those physical and 

 physiological principles by which science will ultimately 

 resume the development of man. Primitive history must 

 be based upon a scientific investigation into the growth 

 and relationship of the early forms of ownership and of 

 marriage. It is only by such an investigation that we are 

 able to show that the two great factors of evolution - - the 

 struggle for food and the instinct of sex - - will suffice to 

 resume the stages of social development. When we have 

 leafned to describe the sequences of primitive history in 

 terms of physical and biological formulae, then we shall 

 hesitate less to dig deep down into our modern civilization 

 and find its roots in the same appetites and instincts ' 



(pp. 358-361 ; 362-363). 



Such a view, if considered as an exhaustive account of 

 history, rides rough-shod, I venture to think, over certain 

 evident and vital distinctions. So much so that I place 

 the objections in order, not, of course, taking space here 

 for the repetition of the considerations on which they are 

 based. 



(i) Professor Pearson overlooks the distinction between 

 what is intrinsic to a particular sort of organization, and 

 that which merely conditions it, or is ' nomic ' to it. In 

 this case, it amounts to a failure to distinguish between 

 the struggle for existence between groups and the inner 

 organization of the group as a social whole. The former, 

 ' group-selection,' is certainly a case of struggle for exist- 

 ence, but the main problem of the science of history and 

 of sociology as such, is that of the forms and modes of 



