FORMULAE OF SOCIAL PROGRESS 201 
andlove. Hiswritings are inspiring, —as religious writings always 
should be, — and tend to make the religionist more respectful 
in his attitude toward nature and natural law, and the scientist, 
if not repelled by Drummond’s interpretations, more inclined to 
appreciate the values of life as well as life’s processes; but such a 
method has this disadvantage: bias prejudices the mind to see not 
what is but what is desired: Some of his “ natural laws in the 
spiritual world ” are examples of this defect. 
The chief contributions of Drummond are: (1) his explanation 
of sympathy and love as due to the result of biological evolution 
interpreted in terms of adaptation, and (2) his explanation of 
social organization as the outgrowth, by an analogous process, 
of the instincts of nutrition and reproduction. 
FRANKLIN H. Gropincs (1855- _—s=—), 
Consciousness of Kind 
Turning from the doctrine of imitation as developed from Smith 
through Bagehot, Tarde and Baldwin, with a suggestion of most 
recent lines of criticism of this doctrine by McDougall, Cooley 
and Thorndike, we find in F. H. Giddings not only a psycho- 
logical analysis of imitation but especially, in his doctrine of 
Consciousness of Kind, the culmination of the analysis of the 
function of sympathy as made by A. Smith, Fiske, Drummond, 
et al. 
‘In the social philosophy of Giddings we have a selective syn- 
thesis of the contributions of the writers we have considered, and 
an original contribution in his analysis of and emphasis on con- 
sciousness of kind as the fundamental social fact.1 With Comte he 
accepts a positivistic and organic view of society; ? with Spencer 
he makes use of general laws of cosmic evolution to explain social 
progress. He accepts Durkheim’s theory of constraint ‘* with 
some recognition of his emphasis on consciousness of difference as 
1 “Tt is about the consciousness of kind, as a determining principle, that all 
other motives organize themselves in the evolution of social choice, social volition 
or social policy.” — Principles, p. 19. 
2 Ibid., p. 6. 
3 Elements, ch. XXV, especially pp. 335 f. 4 Principles, p. 15. 
