288 ADAPTATION AND PROGRESS 
James shows how impossible it is to find the causes of human 
variation either in heredity or in the environment, and holds that 
the deflecting cause which produces a genius instead of a dunce 
“must lie in a region so recondite and minute, must be such a 
ferment of a ferment, an infinitesimal of so high an order, that 
surmise itself may never succeed even in attempting to frame an 
image of it.”! ‘The causes of production of great men,’ he 
continues, “lie in a sphere wholly inaccessible to the social phi- 
losopher. He must simply accept geniuses as data, just as Darwin 
accepts his spontaneous variations.” For him, as for Darwin, 
the only problem is, these data being given, how does the environ- 
ment affect them, and how do they affect the environment ? 
“The mutations of societies . . . from generation to genera- 
tion,” he says, “ are in the main due directly or indirectly to the 
acts or the example of individuals whose genius was so adapted 
to the receptivities of the moment, or whose accidental position of 
authority was so critical that they became ferments, initiators of 
movement, setters of precedent or fashion, centers of corruption, 
or destroyers of other persons, whose gifts, had they had free 
play, would have led society in another direction.” 2 
From this quotation it is certain that James recognized the 
relativity of genius even as did Spencer, Fiske, Tarde, and Ward, 
but with this difference: with James, the work of the genius is 
relative to the receptivity of his group and age, with the others, 
the relativity of genius is due to the fact that he is the product of 
his group and age, though he may be so great a variation from the 
type as to warrant the appellation “ sociological sport.” 3 
every case for its subject-matter the growth, development, structure, and functions 
of the social aggregate, as brought about by the mutual actions of individuals, whose 
natures are parily like those of all men, partly like those of kindred races, partly dis- 
tinctive.” The fact remains, however, that the burden of Spencer’s teaching is 
contrary to that of James. Cf. quotation from Spencer, Will to Believe, p. 232. 
1 The Will to Believe, p. 225. 2 Ibid., p. 227. 
3 Cf. Ward, Pure Sociology, pp. 243 ff. Lombroso held that the genius and the 
insane were but a step removed from each other. Galton showed by a study of 
many families that the genius was sometimes of sound family stock, but again 
related to a defective strain. Nordau and Sumner have distinguished between the 
genius who is a true leader in the line of advance, and the genius who is a 
degenerate although confining their discussion for the most part to the latter. 
