236 ADAPTATION AND PROGRESS 
group of some sort as the sociological analogue, — especially 
the state; with the present teaching, also, which distinguishes the 
mere “ sport ” from the mutation that has adaptive value for the 
species, the real genius in human society and his products, in so 
far as they foster idealism, lead to group unity, and stimulate to 
productive endeavor, are of the very greatest utility to the group. 
Finally, in his failure to give due consideration to social psy- 
chology with its concepts of group consciousness and the expand- 
ing self-regarding sentiment, he has left untouched one of the 
most potent dynamics in social cohesion and social telesis. 
The social philosophy under review, however, with emphasis 
on material achievement, on the power of intelligent volition and 
on the value of that education which makes for control over the 
forces of nature, has been so well adapted to the “‘ age-spirit ” of 
all western nations during the past fifty years that it has exerted 
a profound and lasting influence on sociological thought through- 
out the world. More recent advance in biology, inductive social 
science and especially psychology, tend to discredit some of 
Ward’s conclusions, yet he will ever rank as one of the foremost 
of American sociologists and as one who has contributed most of 
any, perhaps in the world, to the development of the doctrine 
of active material adaptation. 
Smon N. Patten (1852- _—+) 
Pain-Pleasure-Creative Economy 
In the writings of Professor Patten we have a forceful example 
of the statement made in the Introduction that the historical 
tendency in social philosophy from Comte and Spencer to the 
present has been in the line of increasing emphasis on active as 
against passive adaptation. In Professor Patten’s earlier writ- 
ings, even in his Theory of Social Forces, the latter point of view is 
dominant, whereas in his latest, The Reconstruction of Economic 
Theory, his former position is criticized and corrected in the light 
of changes that he admits have come into his own views in the 
line of greater emphasis on creative activity.! 
1 Cf. Seager’s criticism, “ Professor Patten’s Theory of Prosperity,” Annals, 
American Academy Social and Political Science, March, 1902. 
