1 98 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



But a further consideration will show that war is not really a method 

 of social progress, except in a figurative sense. For method, as De 

 Greef properly observes, is the highest manifestation of knowledge and 

 consciousness; 3 or, as Spencer remarks, the highest self-conscious mani- 

 festation of the rational faculty. It implies always and everywhere the 

 perception of an end to he reached, and the conscious selection and 

 employment of the means of reaching it. Before war can properly be 

 regarded as a method of social progress, then, social progress must be 

 conceived as the end to be realized, and war must be entered upon with 

 the conscious intent of thereby promoting social advancement. It is 

 hardly probable, however, that any nation has ever deliberately declared 

 war with the conscious aim of promoting social progress, and it is not 

 likely that any nation ever will do so. Unless and until this is done 

 war, while it may be employed from time to time as a method of attain- 

 ing governmental, class, or dynastic ends, can not properly be classified 

 as a method of social progress. 



We have seen then that war is neither a "factor" of progress, nor, 

 properly speaking, a "method" of social advancement. It follows that 

 it is not a "means" of social progress. For a means, strictly speak- 

 ing, is something chosen for use in the achievement of an end. It im- 

 plies method. It is that which mediates between the existing condition 

 and the purpose to be achieved. Until some government, nation or 

 society sets up social progress as an aim, and selects war as the agency 

 for bringing it about, it is just as improper to speak of war as a means 

 to social progress as it is to speak of it as a method or a factor of social 

 progress. 



So much for what war is not. It is sufficient perhaps to show that 

 what is asserted of war as " an essential factor of progress," an " indis- 

 pensable method of social advancement," etc., is incorrect, and that the 

 widely prevalent conception of the necessity of war in the promotion 

 of " kultur " and civilization is not well founded — is in fact mere 

 unsinnige Reden. 



But if war is none of the things already described, what is it? 

 Plainly it can not be argued out of existence. In addition to being a 

 frequent occurrence in the past, it is just now a very conspicuous and 

 stubborn fact. What, then, is its real nature as a social phenomenon? 

 and what is its true relation to progress ? 



From the social standpoint war is manifestly a form of group inter- 

 action. The nations involved have collided while in pursuit of what is 

 regarded as their own individual well-being. ' War, then, is always 

 entered upon, not with the large and generous object of promoting 

 social progress, but in order to realize one or the other of the narrower 

 and conflicting purposes of social groups. Social progress is not the 

 conscious end, although any of the nations engaged will be ready to 

 identify its own " cause " with progress, and with all that is precious in 



3 See Introduction, "A la Sociologie," p. 441. 



