ACTIVE SOCIAL ADAPTATION 28 1 



the inorganic world they will realize their solidarity. The differences which 

 divide them are merely the toys of a child in the face of terrible dangers which 

 come from nature who like a cruel foster-mother condemns millions of 

 human creatures to misery and famine. Incapable of seeing what is their 

 true enemy, — thanks to their dulness of mind, — men, divided, succumb 

 by millions to the onslaughts of nature. 1 



The real worth of Novicow's contribution to social theory has 

 been obscured by the many fallacies in his reasoning due chiefly 

 to false postulates in biology and psychology. The self-interest 

 that leads to co-operation is not merely the empirical self but the 

 conjunct self,- — to use the phrase of Professor Palmer, 2 — -and this 

 conjunct self, in turn, is the product of co-operation. The phe- 

 nomena to be interpreted are individuals and groups struggling for 

 existence. This struggle leads to co-operation and co-operation 

 to an extension of self-consciousness and the self-regarding senti- 

 ment. At times the empirical self stands out over against some 

 social group but again it is merged in the group. Now govern- 

 ment, ideally, is nothing more or less than the corporate activity 

 of the members of a group to secure their greatest individual well- 

 being and the survival and expansion of the group. Any activity, 

 therefore, is proper for the government which promises this 

 result. 



But again, Novicow's dual interest in emphasizing struggle on 

 the intellectual plane, and individualism linked with laissez faire 

 doctrine, has led him to confuse theoretical and practical measures, 

 forgetting that as societies are now below the plane of struggle for 

 excellency they cannot at present use merely those methods which 

 belong to the latest phase of social evolution. Free trade, un- 

 restricted immigration and absolute liberty in making and 

 breaking affiances among border groups may be in harmony with 

 social self-interest in some cases, but not in all at present. Nor is 

 the endeavor to secure national homogeneity always consistent 

 with unrestricted immigration. Our author shows lamentable 

 ignorance of the practical phenomena of large scale immigration, 

 segregation and race prejudice as a menace to homogeneity in 

 some sections of the United States. 



1 Les Luttes, p. 572. 2 The Nature of Goodness, pp. 170 f. 



