232 ADAPTATION AND PROGRESS 
to the principle of natural selection, but rather to that of “ spon- 
taneous variation ” issuing in a “sport.” The aesthetic faculty 
is not considered to be primarily of adaptive value, but to minister 
to the satisfaction of individual feelings. Thus art in its mani- 
fold forms is not to be explained or justified according to the 
principle of adaptation but on that of egoistic satisfaction. 
Religion, though originally connected with the group sentiment 
of safety and so of adaptive value to the race, yet has differen- 
tiated into many forms, most of which are now probably some- 
what disadvantageous.! 
Finally, in his persistent emphasis on the potency of ‘‘ nurture ” 
as over against “ nature,” and on the necessity of social activity 
to preserve the “ social germ plasm” by universal education, our 
author has contributed still further to this division of our subject. 
His Applied Sociology is a monument of painstaking work along 
this line and his general conclusions have been verified recently, 
to a considerable extent, as we have noted in previous chapters. 
In scope, ripeness of scholarship, thoroughness of analysis and 
originality, Professor Ward’s achievements in sociology remind 
us more than those of any other English writer in this field, of the 
characteristics attributed for the most part only to German 
scholars. These very qualities, however, have made his system 
almost inaccessible to the public, and difficult of reading even for 
students of the subject as their approach to social philosophy has. 
not been through the natural sciences so much as through psy- 
chology, history; the social sciences and philosophy, — especially 
through economics and social psychology. Moreover his reason- 
ing is largely deductive and analogical rather than inductive. 
He describes in terms of physics, chemistry, and biology rather 
than analyzes in terms of economics and psychology and this 
tends to prejudice the modern student. 
The very comprehensiveness of his work together with the fact. 
that much of it was done in times of sociological pioneering, has 
laid it open to criticism at many points: 
1. His Lamarckian bias has made his biological interpretations 
unacceptable to those who, with the leading biologists of the 
1 Pure Sociology, ch. XVIII. 
