EVOLUTION 241 



and individual liberty, they refuse to follow that postulate 

 into the details of theory and practical life. 



But it is time that we should look at this matter a little 

 more closely, in order to see how it comes that the concrete 

 ideal is so uniformly set aside in our day in favour of these 

 conflicting abstractions. When we translate this view of 

 "the concomitance of social and_individual evolution" 

 into common words, it seems to mean that, as civilization 

 advances, the functions of society as a unity and the 

 functions of individuals within that society are simul- 

 taneously enlarged. For evolution means just this increase 

 of function, this capacity of responding in new ways to 

 the demand of the environment of doing more things 

 and doing them better. And it may well be asked, How 

 is it possible that society can do more and more for its 

 members and at the same time allow, and even enable, 

 them to do more and more for themselves ? Is it not true, 

 rather, that each of them has its own proper and peculiar 

 province, that neither of these provinces can be enlarged 

 without mischievous encroachment upon the other, and that 

 the discovery of the true limiting line is the most impera- 

 tive need of our times ? We want the intellectual insight 

 of the social and political theorist to indicate the direction 

 in which the line of division between them runs, and the 

 prudence and strength of the man of affairs to maintain 

 the observance of that line at all costs. All parties practi- 

 cally agree in thinking that the recent development of 

 social functions has carried with it restriction upon the 

 members of society and a certain limitation of their powers. 

 They differ only in that the Socialist welcomes this en- 

 croachment upon the individual's province because it con- 

 fines his power for social mischief, while the Individualist 



Q 



