384 HEREDITy AND SELECTION IN SOCIOLOGY 



a reserve, so to speak ; and the sense of social responsibility must have its 

 origin in a surplus of social force which is put aside for the benefit of 

 future generations. Here, again, we come to recognise the urgent necessity 

 of reorganising society on the basis of principles capable of ensuring 

 adequate social integration. 



It is especially in France that an anti-Malthusian crusade has been 

 preached in recent years. But the sociologist can have no sympathy with 

 a crusade which endeavours to reconcile two contradicting principles : 

 for, on the one hand, it is proposed to remedy existing evils ; and, on the 

 other hand, the proposed remedy does but aggravate the present state of 

 affairs. The sociologist, looking deeper into the causes that produce 

 the degeneracy of the lower classes, has the right to say to the anti-Mal- 

 thusian apostle : " In advocating increased multiplication of the masses, 

 you are aiming unconsciously at the increase of misery under aU its aspects 

 — physiological misery, moral misery, and economic misery. You are 

 encouraging lack of foresight and heedlessness of ultimate consequences. 

 Your apostleship, if successful, must result in overcrowding still further 

 districts already scandalously overcrowded ; it must deprive those already 

 in existence of the insufficient space and fresh air which is already their 

 lot, and it must condemn future generations to stiU more terrible exiguity ; 

 its results must thus inevitably be to sap what little remains of hope and 

 vigour among the classes which you propose to benefit." Such a crusade 

 will not achieve social regeneration ; it will but hasten social degeneracy. 



Par from advocating increased multiplication of the classes on the 

 margin of society, we should courageously advocate abstinence. But it 

 is entirely useless to expect this saorifiice of immediate individual happiness 

 to ultimate social welfare until the masses are convinced of the moral 

 necessity of such a sacrifice — ^until social sohdarity has become something 

 more of a reality, something more than a mere theoretical fiction. Under- 

 lying every great social problem we find a moral problem ; and at every 

 step we are brought face to face with the imperative necessity of a supra- 

 rational principle capable of co-ordinating all the activities of the hetero- 

 geneous elements composing society, and guiding them towards the 

 realisation of a common aim. In a society dominated by the philosophy 

 of materiaUsm solidarity can never be reaUsed ; even as the individual is 

 an aim unto himself, so must the interest of each class appear paramoimt, 

 and the interest of society as a whole merely secondary. The masses who 

 toil will never interest themselves in the welfare of society so long as the 

 economic contradictions of our time are not rendered less flagrantly 

 unjust ; in order to obtain from them a sacrifice on behalf of society, 

 it is essential that they should be conscious of the fact that they are, in 

 fact as well as in name, shareholders in that society; and this wiU never 

 be the case so long as they see unbridled extravagance and thriftlessness 

 alongside of such physiological and moral misery as we see to-day. Volun- 



