482 The u Woman's Rights' ” Question [Odlober. 
structure of man, or of any other mammalian species, that 
the functions now exercised by two distinct organs — such as, 
e.g., the eye and the ear, or the nerves of motion and of 
sensation — should he “ lumped ” together, committed to one 
only set of organs ; would such a change, if we for the 
moment suppose it practicable, be an advance or a retreat ? 
Would it raise or lower the species in the scale of existence ? 
It might seem a convenience if, instead of seeing with our 
eyes alone, we could also see and hear with our ears ; but 
would either the seeing or the hearing be done as well as 
now, when each is the sole function of an express organ ? 
On the principles of the old Natural History, as well as of 
the New, we may safely reply in the negative. The change 
we have supposed is fortunately incapable of being effected, 
otherwise the attempt would doubtless be made in the name 
of “progress.” 
But we may follow the principle of Differentiation, and 
trace its workings over the boundaries of Biology into those 
of Sociology, if such a science can be said to exist. Where 
differences of structure can no longer be traced we still find 
differences of function. In man we find no variation in the 
number and position of bodily organs ; yet identical organs 
in different individuals are trained to special tasks which to 
other men would be impossible, and which might seem to 
necessitate a structural difference. We come, that is to say, 
upon the division of labour, which is one of the most cha- 
racteristic and essential features of civilisation. We have 
seen that in the lowest forms of animal life the entire body 
seemed to subserve every vital process ; just so in the lowest 
stages of human society, every individual is at once warrior, 
hunter, builder, maker of arms and other utensils, and — in as 
far as agriculture is practised at all — tiller of the soil. 
Every man is perforce, in the words of the adage, “Jack of 
all trades,” with the inevitable consequence that he is 
“ master of none.” In a civilised nation, just as in the 
higher animals, all this is reversed. Every function has its 
special organ, or, in other words, every task is committed to 
a separate man or body of men. In all this we can trace 
out nothing that speaks of arbitrary interference or com- 
pulsion. In the animal or human body each function is 
committed to organs fitted for that function. The stomach 
does not protest because it is not the seat of respiration, nor 
does the heart crave to undertake the task of digestion, 
either instead of or along with its own duties. In human 
society — complain as we may about “ square pegs ” being 
placed in “ round holes ” — the different tasks are in the main 
