BIOLOGY OF MAN 1159 



in Central Asia; and the descent of Hominids from the trees was 

 probably critical in separating off tentative men from their collaterals 

 who remained elsewhere arboreal and relatively unprogressive ; it 

 was facing the difficulties of life on terra firma that was crucial in 

 the emergence of Man. Let us suppose the emergence to have 

 occurred and turn to the problem of Societies. 



THE BEGINNINGS OF SOCIETY 



There is an old saying, "The proper study of mankind is man", 

 but it would be just as true to say: "The proper study of man is 

 mankind", if we mean by mankind all the human societies. For 

 the highest outcome of mundane evolution as yet reached is a 

 human society, imperfect as all of them are. How did human societies 



arise 



p 



To begin with, let us return for a little to animal societies, such as 

 are illustrated by ant-hills and bee-hives, beaver-villages and packs 

 of wolves. An assemblage of many animals of the same kind does 

 not make a society, for a rabbit warren does not deserve that name, 

 nor the multitude of mites in the huge cavern of an old cheese. The 

 distinctive feature of a society, as we saw, is that the individuals 

 can act together as a unity, combining their efforts in defence, or 

 in attack, or in work, or in some common enterprise. A society 

 implies some degree of corporate life, when the members act coher- 

 ently and harmoniously as a unit, — when the whole is more than 

 the sum of its parts! Thus the Amazon ants may combine in a 

 slave-raid, or the beavers may combine to dig a canal through a 

 large island in the middle of a river. We saw that there are many 

 different grades of animal sociality; thus the rooks are much more 

 socialised than the parrots, gregarious as these often are. There is 

 much more concerted action in a pack of wolves than in a herd of 

 wild horses. But whether the social note is loud or faint, if it is there 

 at all it implies some self-subordination to the interests of the 

 community. The contrast is with the solitary, self-contained, inde- 

 pendent, each-for-himself type of animal, which may be admirably 

 suited for certain modes of life, and also most admirable in parental 

 care and in monogamy. The contrast between a communal or social 

 regime and an individualist or solitary mode of life is not primarily 

 a contrast in morals ; it is a contrast in ways of getting a living and 

 in keeping a firm foothold in the struggle for existence. 



Another general feature of the social mode of life, when it gets 

 beyond mere gregariousness, is some alleviation of the individual 

 struggle for existence. In diverse degrees the society serves as a 

 shield to the individual. This means that certain types of individual 

 that could not survive alone, may survive under the society's shield., 



