ACTIVE SOCIAL ADAPTATION 281 
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 alliances among border groups may be in harmony with 
social self-interest in some cases, but not in allat 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. 
