268 ADAPTATION AND PROGRESS 
struggles,” Carlyle’s Great Man theory, James’ teaching concern- 
ing “ Energies of Men,” and Ross’ Social Control. This will pre- 
pare the way for a discussion of idealization and religion or 
“ active spiritual adaptation ” in the narrower use of the term. 
Jacques Novicow (1849- _+) 
Social Progress by Cultural Attraction and Expansion 
Although Novicow is given scant recognition by American 
sociologists, his writings, especially Les Luttes are deserving of a 
prominent place in this book for two reasons: (1) He antedated 
by many years the four-fold analysis of adaptation worked out 
independently by Professor Carver which has formed the basis of 
this present discussion, and (2) his analysis of the European 
situation with its inter-group rivalry for territorial and commer- 
cial expansion is especially worthy of recall now that this rivalry 
has resulted as he feared and as he tried to prevent by turning 
the thoughts of cultured men and leaders in social progress to that 
highest form of conflict, struggle for excellence. His suggestion 
of a federation of nations is not far removed from that advocated 
at present by such American exponents of peace as ex-President 
Taft and Senator Lodge, but he stands almost alone in his 
emphasis on growth of nations by cultural attraction and expan- 
sion rather than by territorial or even commercial. This last 
point is particularly noteworthy in our present discussion and 
warrants his consideration in this division of our subject rather 
than earlier where the date of his writing and his biological and 
psychological postulates would otherwise cause him to be placed. 
Novicow begins his study of “ conflicts” by showing that 
struggle and alliance are twin phenomena in all cosmic evolution, 
— that “ the universe is a totality of systems being continually 
formed and broken up.” He holds, moreover, that “ the group- 
ings which we consider as irreducible units, the molecule, cell, 
individual, state, for example, are pure subjective categories of 
the mind ” ! as are also the divisions between the sciences.? 
Passing from the domain of the inanimate to that of the ani- 
mate, he shows that there are struggles not only between associa- 
1 Les Luttes, p. 5. 2 Thid., pp. 7 f. 
