226 ADAPTATION AND PROGRESS 



social evolution. That principle is not the same as natural selection, but it 

 serves the same purpose. It also resembles the latter in growing out of the 

 life-struggle and in being a consequence of it ; but, instead of consisting in the 

 hereditary selection of the successful elements of that struggle, it consists in 

 the ultimate union of the opposing elements and their combination and assim- 

 ilation. Successively higher and higher social structures are thus created 

 by a process of natural synthesis, and society evolves from stage to stage. 

 The struggling groups infuse into each other the most vigorous qualities of 

 each, cross all the hereditary strains, double their social efficiency at each 

 cross, and place each new product on a higher plane of existence. It is the 

 cross-fertilization of cultures.^ 



This theory, developed more at length by Gumplowicz and 

 Ratzenhofer, is especially valuable as an antidote to the over- 

 worked natural selection theory of the biological sociologists 

 though the materialistic postulates on which it rests are ques- 

 tionable. 



A further quotation from Ward is necessary to appreciate his 

 doctrine of synergy: — 



The true nature of the universal principle of synergy pervading all nature 

 and creating all the different kinds of structure that we observe to exist . . . 

 is a process of equilibration, i. e., the several forces are first brought into a state 

 of partial equilibrium. It begins in collision, conflict, antagonism, and oppo- 

 sition, but as no motion can be lost it is transformed, and we have the milder 

 phases of antithesis, competition and interaction, passing next into the modus 

 Vivendi, or compromise, and ending in collaboration and co-operation. . . . 

 Sjmergy is the principle that explains all organization and creates all struc- 

 tures.2 , . . 



Upon the perfection of these structures and the consequent success with 

 which they perform their functions depends the degree of social efficiency. 

 In the organic world the struggle has the appearance of a struggle for exist- 

 ence. The weaker species go to the wall and the stronger persist. There is 

 a constant elimination of the defective and survival of the fittest. On the 

 social plane it is the same, and weak races succumb in the struggle while 

 strong races persist. But in both cases it is the best structures that survive. 

 The struggle is therefore raised above the question of individuals or even of 

 species, races and societies and becomes a question of the fittest structures. 

 We may therefore qualify Darwin's severe formula of the struggle for exist- 

 ence and look upon the whole panorama rather as a struggle for structure? 



Another name for social structures is human institutions y^ and 

 the function of these is the control and utilization of social 



1 American Journal of Sociology, xii, p. 585; cf. Pure Sociology, pp. 171 f- 



2 Pure Sociology, p. 175. It is by no means certain that mechanical principles 

 work in social processes as indicated in this quotation. 



' Ihid., p. 184. * Ihid., pp. 185 f. 



