* Evolution of Societij. 221 



and the societary organism must fundamentally aifect our 

 idea of the ends to be secured by social life. He admits, 

 however, that men, as units of society, differ to an appreci- 

 able extent in capacity for sensation and emotion, as do the 

 units of individual organisms ; and it would not be difficult 

 to show that in other respects there are corresponding dif- 

 ferences. In the one, many of the cells or units act auto- 

 matically, and, in the other, probably the larger part of the 

 individual units a«t without the incentive of individual 

 thought and volition, to a large extent. 



Before the days of Evolution, the prevailing view was 

 that society was the result of a process, proceeding, or 

 combination of processes or proceedings, in the nature of 

 institution. And many of the observed phenomena accom- 

 panying the formation of different societies do suggest a 

 method analogous to instituting or building rather than de- 

 veloping or growing. But it is to be noted that while build- 

 ing is noisy work, and therefore attracts attention, growth 

 is noiseless in its methods, and for that reason some of its 

 greatest results have had less attention than they deserve. 

 Therefore it is that so much of the history of the world 

 must be rewritten. 



On looking more clearly into society, it is seen that en- 

 largement is always accompanied by changes that follow 

 and resemble those of growth in individual organisms, as 

 stated in terms of the evolution philosophy and fact. And 

 when evolutionary growth has done its work, examination 

 discloses organic characteristics in social organs, structures 

 and functions, to all of which Mr. Spencer applies the term 

 or title of Super-organic, to distinguish it from the lower 

 or individual organic form. 



Being an organism, society is not only capable of growth, 

 but of decrease of vitality as well as increase, of disease 

 as well as of health, and Unally of death and decay as well 

 as of life and growth. Certainly all Avill admit that, like the 

 woman of the bible, society has sutt'ered much from many 

 physicians, and seems destined to continue to be afflicted 

 in that way — in fact, never more than at the present time. 



The experience of Mr. Si)encer teaches that a word of 

 (jaution is required in treating society as an organism. The 

 analogy must not be carried too far or applied too closely. 

 Its values lie in "the mutual dependence of ])arts whicli 

 they (tlie body politico and a living body) display in com- 



