NEO-DARWINIAN SOCIOLOGISTS 9 1 



for group strength thus affording a wholesome antidote to 

 Nietzsche; (2) the value he places on religion as a factor in group 

 survival; (3) his criticism of the over-emphasis on the intellectual 

 element in social progress as in the writings of Buckle, though here 

 he is weak in failing to appreciate the value of the intellect in 

 active social adaptation; and (4) his doctrine of projected effi- 

 ciency which, though untenable as formulated by him, is most 

 suggestive especially as a principle of social control. As such it 

 means merely that the group that would be immortal must use 

 forethought and see to it that those qualities and conditions are 

 developed which make for group strength not only in the present 

 but in the distant future and that those which weaken the group 

 are eliminated, — but this is entirely foreign to the thought of 

 our author. 



The most serious objections to Eadd's social philosophy are 

 (i) his use of the deductive and analogical method almost ex- 

 clusively, rather than the inductive; (2) his loose, inconsistent 

 use of biological formulae as applied to social progress; (3) his 

 hyper-acute imagination which reads into biological theories 

 what was never intended by the author; (4) his dogmatic setting 

 forth of mere hypotheses as assured laws; (5) his use of the term 

 organism to include the future, for there can be no organism apart 

 from organization; and (6) his conception of reason as diametri- 

 cally opposed to faith on the one hand and to everything that 

 does not favor narrow self-interest on the other. This is due to 

 his failure to recognize the function of the self -regarding sentiment 

 as it expands to include ever wider circles of individuals with 

 whom self-interest is identified. Just as reason leads us to deny 

 ourselves a present for a future enjoyment, and one that is sensual 

 for one that is intellectual, so it may lead us to deny an egoistic 

 satisfaction for one that comes as a result of success to our family, 

 club, church or state.* Moreover Kidd fails utterly to note the 

 function of reason in mitigating social misery. He pictures the 

 awful condition of the poor in industrial centers and cites this as 

 an example of the sacrifice required on the part of the toiling 

 masses that the group may succeed and that social progress may 



* For the development of this thought, see infra, chs. VII, XV, and Conclusion. 



