1130 The American Naturalist. [December, 
by individuals, but their function is two-fold. At first glance it appears 
to be the preservation of the individual, but a closer examination shows 
that they can subserve that end only in so far as it conduces to the 
preservation of the race. Thus phenomena may be found which con- 
-duce to the preservation of the race, or which are absolutely in harmony 
-with it, while endangering that of the individual. The words “ morbid” 
and “ pathological ” primarily denote that which tends to the destruc- 
tion of the individual ; secondarily, they are used of that which tends 
to the destruction of the race. They are not antithetical to “normal ” 
in its first sense of “typical,” but in its second sense only. Their 
proper antithesis is “ healthful.” 
A similar ambiguity lurks in the word cerime. Prof. Durkheim 
would define it as an act which is repressed by the sense of the com- 
munity. This is not itscommon meaning. As ordinarily used, it de- 
notes an act which is not condemned, but econdemnable; the latter word 
involves reference to a standard, and that standard may be defined in 
‘various ways. The standard which is more or less explicitly recog- 
‘nized by most of us who are accustomed to the biological way of think- 
‘ing, is “ conduciveness to preservation,” and this is implicitly acknowl- 
edged by Prof. Durkheim himself. 
If we follow his reasonings with these distinctions in mind, the 
paradoxical character of the conclusions vanishes. Let us quote his 
-words and bring to view in italics the ambiguity of the thought: 
“To class crime among the phenomena of normal sociology, as we 
are justified in doing because it is found in every society (1st sense of 
“normal”’), is equivalent, since that which is normal is also conducive 
to preservation (2d sense of “ normal”), to affirming that it is a factor 
of public health, an integral part of every sound society,” P. 591. 
Evidently this depends upon a confusion between the first and second 
uses of “ normal.” 
The second argument would prove that crime is necessary and there- 
fore useful. The paradox depends upon the double sense of “ crime.” 
If we remember that Prof. Durkheim means no more than individnal 
transgression of the majority’s will, the paradox vanishes. We may 
also admit that such transgression is occasionally useful. The question as 
to its necessity is more difficult. Prof. Durkheim conceives of progress 
as the resultant of two opposing factors, the tendency to innovation on 
the part of individuals, and the tendency of society to suppress innova- 
tions, hence those innovations only survive which are found to be 
advantageous. He tacitly assumes that the innovations of individuals 
must be as much disadvantageous as advantageous, and infers that any 
