i68 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



" The second form in which the characteristic error of sociological clas- 

 sifications appears is that of the overworked biological analogy. Mr. 

 Spencer's essay on ' The Social Organism ' made a lasting impression. At 

 present the greater part of sociological literature is written in terms of a 

 biological nomenclature. . . . Sociology will have to discard this classifi- 

 cation and nomenclature. ... In certain fundamental things social organi- 

 zation is like vital organization, but in all that justifies Mr. Spencer's own 

 phrase of ' super-organic evolution ' it is peculiar, and not to be classed with 

 organisms. Were this not true, sociology would be a mere division of 

 biology." (Pp. 62-63.) 



Most readers will, I think, carry away from these sentences 

 the impression that I am supposed to have dwelt too much on 

 this analogy in my sociological interpretations. But any one 

 who reads through The Principles of Sociology, or even reads the 

 titles of its chapters, will see that this analogy plays but a rela- 

 tively inconspicuous part. I must be excused if, to make clear 

 the way in which I conceive and use the analogy, I go back to 

 the origin of it. In a chapter of Social Statics entitled " General 

 Considerations" (pp. 451-3 in the edition of 1850) occur the fol- 

 lowing passages : 



" Hence we are warranted in considering the body as a commonwealth 

 of nomads, each of which has independent powers of life, growth, and re- 

 production; each of which vmites with a number of others to perform some 

 function needful for supporting itself and all the rest ; and each of which 

 absorbs its share of nutriment from the blood. And when thus regarded, 

 the analogy between an individual being and a human society, in which 

 each man, while helping to subserve some public, want absorbs a portion 

 of the circulating stock of commodities brought to his door, is palpable 

 enough. 



"A still more remarkable fulfillment of this analogy is to be found in 

 the fact, that the different kinds of organization which society takes on, in 

 progressing from its lowest to its highest phase of development, are essen- 

 tially similar to the different kinds of animal organization. Creatures of 

 inferior type are little more than aggregations of numerous like parts are 

 molded on what Prof. Owen terms the principle of vegetative repetition ; 

 and in tracing the forms assumed by successive grades above these, we find 

 a gradual diminution in the nvimber of like parts, and a multiplication of 

 unlike ones. In the one extreme there are but few functions, and many 

 similar agents to each function : in the other, there are many functions, and 

 few similar agents to each function. . . . 



" Now just this same coalescence of like parts, and separation of unlike 

 ones just this same increasing subdivision of functions takes place in the 

 development of society. The earliest social organisms consist almost wholly 

 of repetitions of one element. Every man is a warrior, hunter, fisherman, 

 builder, agriculturist, toolmaker. Each portion of the community per. 

 forms the same duties with every other portion ; much as each portion of 

 the polyp's body is alike stomach, skin, and lungs. Even the chiefs, in 

 whom a tendency toward separateness of function first appears, still retain 

 theii" similarity to the rest in economic respects. The next stage is distin- 



