THE ORGANIC CONCEPT OF SOCIETY 1 37 



representing the elite that really characterizes the group.* The 

 mass are mere imitators. This unity thinks as one, feels as one, 

 wills as one. Such unity and homogeneity, he holds, is essential 

 to greatness, hence is imperilled by large scale immigration.^ 



Le Bon is open to criticism chiefly in that no group or race is in 

 fact such a psychical unity as he portrays, and containing as each 

 group does individuals representing all stages of culture, a possible 

 opening is afforded for foreign influences of all sorts. Tarde has 

 been his most successful critic in this particular expressing him- 

 self thus: — 



We must, from now on, no doubt, abandon such artificial differences as the 

 phUosophy of history established between successive peoples. ... It is no 

 longer allowable to interpret these much abused expressions " the genius of a 

 people or race," " the genius of a language," or " the genius of a religion," in 

 the way that some of our predecessors, including even Renan and Taine, 

 imderstood them. These embodiments of collective character . . . were 

 endowed with a fictitious personal identity, which was, however, rather in- 

 definite. Certain predispositions, supposed to be invincible, for some partic- 

 ular grammatical types, religious conceptions, or governmental forms, were 

 freely attributed to them. On the other hand, they were supposed to have 

 an insuperable repugnance to borrowing conceptions or institutions from 

 certain of their rivals. . . . Sooner or later, one must . . . recognize that 

 the genius of a people or race, instead of being a factor superior to and domi- 

 nating the characters of the individuals ... is simply a convenient label, or 

 impersonal synthesis, of these individual characteristics; the latter alone are 

 real, effective, and ever in activity. . . . The impersonal, collective char- 

 acter is thus the product rather than the producer of the infinitely numerous 

 individual characters.' 



We must grant to Le Bon, however, credit for his exposition of 

 an important truth needed at the time to offset the over-emphasis 

 being laid on the concept of society as a biological organism 

 carried so far especially by Schaffle and Lilienfeld. There is a 

 " togetherness " in every social group. There is a certain com- 

 munity of thought and Ufe. Working for ages this communal 

 life has no doubt registered its effects on the physical organism 

 including brain and nervous system. To him credit is due, also, 

 for placing in strong light the truth that every individual is born 

 as a part of this " soul '^ and that he must harmonize his life with 



* Psychology of Peoples, p. 43. * Ihid., p. 13. 



' Social Laws (Warren), pp. 49 ff. 



