THE TRANSITION OF INSTITUTIONS. 141 



units, and that (external disturbances apart) the society cannot be 

 substantially and permanently changed, it becomes easy to see that 

 great alterations cannot suddenly be made to much purpose. And 

 when both the party of progress and the party of resistance perceive 

 that the institutions which at any time exist are more deeply rooted 

 than they supposed — when the one party perceives that these institu- 

 tions, imperfect as they are, have a temporary fitness, while the other 

 party perceives that the maintenance of them, in so far as it is desira- 

 ble, is in great measure guaranteed by the human nature they have 

 grown out of — there must come a diminishing violence of attack on 

 one side, and a diminishing perversity of defense on the other. Evi- 

 dently, so far as a doctrine can influence general conduct (which it 

 can do, however, in but a comparatively small degree), the doctrine 

 of evolution, in its social applications, is calculated to produce a steady- 

 ing effect, alike on thought and action. 



If, as seems likely, some should propose to draw the seemingly 

 awkward corollary that, it matters not what we believe or what we 

 teach, since the process of social evolution will take its own course in 

 spite of us, I reply that, while this corollary is in one sense true, it is 

 in another sense untrue. Doubtless, from all that has been said, it fol- 

 lows that, supposing surrounding conditions continue the same, the 

 evolution of a society cannot be in any essential way diverted from its 

 general course ; though it also follows (and here the corollary is at 

 fault) that the thoughts and actions of individuals, being natural fac- 

 tors that arise in the course of the evolution itself, and aid in further 

 advancing it, cannot be dispensed with, but must be severally valued 

 as increments of the aggregate force producing change. But, while 

 the corollary is even here partially misleading, it is, in another direc- 

 tion, far more seriously misleading. For, though the process of social 

 evolution is, in its general character, so far predetermined that its suc- 

 cessive stages cannot be antedated, and that hence no teaching or 

 policy can advance it beyond a certain normal rate, which is limited 

 by the rate of organic modification in human beings, yet it is quite 

 possible to perturb, to retard, or to disorder the process. The analogy 

 of individual development again serves us. The unfolding of an or- 

 ganism, after its special type, has its approximately uniform course, 

 taking its tolerably definite time ; and no treatment that may be de- 

 vised will fundamentally change or greatly accelerate these : the best 

 that can be done is to maintain the required favorable conditions. But 

 it is quite easy to adopt a treatment which shall dwarf, or deform, or 

 otherwise injure: the processes of growth and development maybe, 

 and very often are, hindered or deranged, though they cannot be ar- 

 tificially bettered. Similarly with the social organism. Though by 

 maintaining favorable conditions there cannot be more good done than 

 that of letting social progress go on unhindered, yet an immensity of 

 mischief may be done in the way of disturbing and distorting and re- 



