I7H 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XI. No. 271 



any gift of prophecy, nor pretend that the judgment I shall offer 

 upon any of the cases is to be considered infallible ; for so complex 

 or obscure are most of these problems, that it is of the utmost im- 

 portance to recognize not only that much that seems to be truth is 

 mere analogy, but that a large part of what seems to be false is 

 merely paradoxical. 



I shall speak chiefly of certain propositions of modern econom.ic 

 writers which are so much at variance with the current doctrines 

 of political economy, that, if true, they are certainly paradoxic ; but 

 before coming to them, and as a sort of preparation for them, I will 

 mention a few others of a much broader character, which, assum- 

 ing their truth, may properly be called social, or sociologic, para- 

 doxes. I have preferred to treat these propositions as paradoxes in 

 analogy to the paradoxes of physical nature to which I have re- 

 ferred, rather than to treat the better-known and generally accepted 

 dicta which are contradictory to them as popular errors or fallacies, 

 because I deem it less important to lay stress on the error contained 

 in the latter than upon the truth contained in the former, and also 

 because this method of treatment possesses a certain novelty which 

 may lend some interest to a subject which at its best will be re- 

 garded as dry, even if it be less ' dismal ' than the orthodox politi- 

 cal economy has acquired the name of being. 



Perhaps the broadest of the paradoxes which can be claimed as 

 sociologic, and which certainly applies to the next lower stage of 

 biologic law, and still more obviously to physical phenomena, is 

 embodied in the theorem that the artificial is superior to the nat- 

 ural. Certainly this proposition does not seem true, and, on the 

 contrary, seems to contravene all our common instincts and in- 

 tuitions ; but when subjected to careful study or candid thought, its 

 truth is invincible, at least in those more simple periods of action. 

 For even a well-shaped club is superior to the fists, not to speak of 

 bows and arrows and Springfield rifles. So are houses better than 

 caves ; and clothing, however coarse, better than nakedness. The 

 same is true for nearly every material thing to which any value is 

 assigned. And in the organic world the vegetable and animal prod- 

 ucts vi'hich have most value are those which have been perfected 

 by human culture, and are, in so far, artificial. 



It is therefore only in the higher stage of sociologic phenomena 

 that this proposition admits of being disputed by the candid stu- 

 dent. Here some of the highest authorities stoutly maintain that 

 nature is not to be interfered with, with impunity. But the curious 

 part of their case is, that they base it upon the general negation of 

 our original proposition ; viz., upon the ground that the natural is 

 superior to the artificial, — the proposition which in physics and 

 biology is clearly false. It is therefore a. petitio principii. 



The sociologic paradox may, then, be put in this form : the 

 arbitrary cofttrot of the social forces is economical. Or the con- 

 verse : the 7iormal action of the social forces is wasteful. The 

 orthodox economists maintain that the normal action of laws that 

 govern the social and industrial world are not only economical, but 

 are the very best possible, and cannot be interfered with without 

 injury to the interests of society. And the philosophers of the in- 

 dividualist school take the same view of it. They even deny the 

 expediency of sanitary regulation in cities, and maintain that mor- 

 tality due to bad drainage is a sufficient inducement to individuals 

 who own the property to combine and perfect the drainage. I cite 

 this merely as an example of the absurd lengths to which this 

 favorite theory leads such writers. In the light of the sanitary prog- 

 ress of the nineteenth century, due entirely to organized social 

 effort, such statements can scarcely be supposed to emanate from 

 the sane mind. 



Starting from such extremes, it would not be difficult to show 

 that the general doctrine of laissez faire is unsound when contem- 

 plated as a universal principle of sociology ; and so much has lat- 

 terly been said upon this point, that all the best writers, even in 

 England, who still desire to hold on to the doctrine, are giving up 

 its universal applicability, and only contending for it on the ground 

 of expediency. Nothing more could be asked, since no fair-minded 

 person will deny that it is often better to allow the most absolute 

 free play to the natural agencies, not merely of society, but of 

 physical nature as well. But that even free trade may sometimes 

 be a very costly policy is as clear as that manufacturers should be 

 authoritatively forbidden to adulterate drugs and articles of food. 



But not to dwell upon such broad principles Knd generalizations, 

 and coming nearer to the domain of economics and modern ques- 

 tions of social reform, I will, at the risk of some abruptness, state 

 another paradox in the following words : reforms are chiefly ad- 

 vocated and brought about by those who have no personal interest 

 in thetn. 



I do not claim that this is universal, and there usually comes a 

 time in the history of every reform when the victims of the evil to 

 be reformed join in the work, and help to secure its consummation. 

 But in some cases, like the abolition of slavery, even this does not 

 take place. And any one who will take the trouble to inquire into 

 the constitution of those assemblies and associations that meet and 

 organize for various charitable, benevolent, and reformatory objects, 

 will find that they are composed almost exclusively of persons who 

 are actuated by purely altruistic motives, and have nothing to gain 

 beyond the approbation of their fellow-creatures. Even great 

 political reforms are usually instigated and chiefly prosecuted by 

 persons not at all interested in their success, except from some 

 high moral point of view. So much is this the case that working- 

 men's parties are usually officered by lawyers, professors in col- 

 leges, clergymen, or writers on social topics. I do not deny that 

 these men may often have selfish designs, but I am not misan- 

 thropic enough to doubt that their motives are primarily pure and 

 disinterested. Certainly they are not usually men who would be 

 pecuniarily affected by the success or failure of the reform. 



But I have introduced this chiefly m order to lay more special 

 stress upon one of its corollaries ; viz., discontent increases with 

 improvement of the social condition. 



No one will deny to this proposition the character of a true 

 social paradox. Certainly the normal mind would naturally reason, 

 that, as the causes for complaint were removed, the discontent 

 would diminish. But the most careful study of the history of civiliza- 

 tion has shown that this is not the case. The reason for this, like 

 the reason for all natural truths which are paradoxes when first 

 stated, is clear when the explanation is given. We saw that in the 

 case of slavery the reform must originate with a different class 

 from the victims of the evil. We even hear of slaves who do not 

 want their freedom. But, however much they may want it, they 

 are in no position to advocate emancipation. And it is largely so 

 with the industrial classes who are not slaves in the literal sense of 

 the term. Virtually they are, up to a certain point, either incapable 

 of realizing the need of reform, or powerless to act in the direction 

 of improving their condition. Discontent is proportional to the 

 degree in which the oppressed class realizes its condition, and in- 

 creases as the hope grows that an improvement can be brought 

 about by complaint or by concerted action. But this stage is not 

 reached until external influences have already wrought an impor- 

 tant change for the better : hence the paradox that discontent in- 

 creases with improvement. It presupposes, however, that real 

 hardship exists, and would not be true where entire justice was 

 done. 



The special importance of this law arises from the fact that one 

 of the leading arguments against all attempts at industrial reforms 

 has been that the condition of the laboring-classes is really improv- 

 ing. Mr. Henry George has greatly injured his case in denying 

 this, such denial being implied in the title of his book, ' Prog- 

 ress and Poverty,' and repeatedly enforced throughout the work. 

 Though bad for Mr. George, this course has proved useful in star- 

 tling both classes, and spurring them on to investigate the facts. 

 Both have now learned the truth, that the condition of the work- 

 ing-classes has improved, and greatly improved, in nearly all 

 civilized countries. The opponents of further labor-reform point to 

 these facts, and declare that there is no ground for complaint, and 

 imagine they have closed the argument. But the wiser among the 

 reformers perceive that it is just this improvement which has ren- 

 dered discontent possible, and they rightly regard this as demon- 

 strating that the reform is not yet complete, and propose to con- 

 tinue to agitate until the triumph of justice shall in a natural way 

 put an end to all discussion. 



I shall consider only one more of these broader sociologic para- 

 doxes. This is embodied in the proposition that the means of sub- 

 sistence increases more rapidly than population. 



This, as you all observe, is the exact opposite of the Malthusian 



