CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Date Due I ^ ff"10" " W5|I BS MAY ^jmri's n ia!!!SSIs?l ir i^r^Ua^yp^ Fgp>6--gB/^a ^mv-^ij-^'^^^ 3 <**.-. n 4--^ J- ,.„!.,, ,c.^B:T<^g#*<«» ^ K-.;. J.^1>. -^"y'lglfcfr'j^jj^ Cornell University Library HM 22 .R9H44 Russian sociology 3 1924 024 924 536 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924024924536 1 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY A Contribution to tbe History of Sociological Tliought and Theory STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Volume LXVII] [Number 1 Whole Number 161 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY A CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTORY OF SOCIOLOGICAL THOUGHT AND THEORY BY JULIUS F. HECKER, Ph.D. THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., AGENTS London : P. S. King & Son, Ltd. 191S X 923G73 Copyright, iqis BY JULIUS F. HECKER ELIZABETH JUNKER HECKER THIS WORK IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED BY HER HUSBAND PREFACE This study has been made in the hope that it would fill a gap which exists in the history of sociological thought and theory. A history which as yet has not appeared in Eng- lish, Dr. Paul Earth's "Die Geschichte der Philosophic als Soziologie ", is perhaps the best work on the subject in German. A more recent work on the subject is by Faustus Squillace, " La classification des doctrines sociologiques ". Neither of these writers, however, does more than merely mention Russian sociology nor says anything of the place it holds in the social-political history of Russia. To keep this study of Russian Sociology within certain fixed limitations it became necessary to exclude the Russian belletristic literature which contains a good deal of socio- logical thought, as for example, the novels of Turgeniev, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and others. It also seemed expedient not to present the work of authors who only re-inter- pret the theories of others and who have had no influence in directing the general trend of Russian Sociology. Such authors are, for example, Smolikovsky, whO' expounded Comte's system tO' the Russians, and Stronin, who wrote on sociological analogies. Of the three parts in this study the first may be regarded as introductory to the latter two. Part II is an analysis of the principal Russian sociological schools, and Part III con- tains the miscellaneous theories which have entered intO' the province of Russian sociology. There is no uniform system of spelling Russian names in English. An attempt was made to transliterate all Russian 7] 7 8 PREFACE 8 words based upon the English pronunciation of the alpha- bet. The Russianized name of the Russian capital " Petro- grad " has been used (instead of St. Petersburg) through- out with the exception of quotations. In conclusion, it is a pleasure to state that I owe my in- terest in sociology to the inspiring teaching of Professor Franklin Henry Giddings, who also spent much of his val- uable time in the correction of the manuscript. J. F. H. New York, May^ 1915. CONTENTS PART I The Beginnings of Russian Sociology CHAPTER I PAGE The Social-Political Background of Russian Sociology How Russian sociology may be understood. ... 19 The conflict of the developing forces of autocracy and democracy . 21 The role of Peter I . 23 Catherine II, her social theories and practical policies 23 The Decembrist movement, its representative leaders and theorizers. 26 Speransky on the signs of the time 27 Nicholas I and his policies 28 The nationalistic trend, Slavophils and Russophils 29 The Westernizing trend and its principal theorizers 34 The great reform period and its consequences 36 The populist movement, its leaders and organizations 37 The reaction of the eighties 43 The rise of industrial classes and spread of Marxism 43 The revolution of 1905-6 and its consequences 44 CHAPTER II The Sociological Theories of the Slavophils and the Russophils I . The Slavophilism of Danilevsky : His theory of historical types of culture 46 His opposition to Darwinism 47 His cosmological and biological analogy 48 His idea of progress 49 His five generalizations or laws of evolution 50 His conclusion as to the Slavic type of culture 52 Critique of his theories 52 9] 9 lO CONTENTS [lO PAGE 2. TAe Russophilism of Leontiev : His relation to Panslavism S3 His Theocratic ideal and hatred of democracy S3 His synthetic theory of social evolution and its application to the -Russian state .... S4 Critique of Leontiev's theories S6 3. Neo-Slavophilism of Vladimir Soloviev : His relation to the older Slavophils S7 His ethical approach to sociological problems 57 The individual versus society 58 The three fundamental psychic characteristics of the human species ... . .... ... 58 His idea of progress 60 Conclusion ... . . 61 CHAPTER III The Sociological Theories of the Westernists 1 . Chaadaev representative of western theocratic thought : His critique of Russian civilization . . . . 63 His appreciation of the Roman hierarchy 64 2. Belinsky representative of the humanitarian trend: His transitional role. . . . 65 The problem of the individual versus society 65 His organic view of society ... 66 His later departures. 67 3. Herzen the precursot of Russian populism : His disappointment with Western Europe 68 His hope for a special social-economic evolution of Russia . . 69 His practical program 71 His relation to the Slavophils 72 Conclusion 73 4. Bakunin's theory of anarchy : His organic view of society 74 Life as the dynamics of progress . . 74 Liberty the goal of evolution 75 The state and other institutions of control in their relation to " natural patriotism " 76 His propaganda by deeds 77 Conclusion 77 5. Granovsky' s historism : His theory of the disintegration of masses by thought. . . 78 The statistical method in social sciences 78 1 1 ] CONTENTS 1 1 PAGE 6. Chertiishevsky' s populist theories : His philosophical presuppositions 79 His mechanistic conception of society 80 The role of institutions in society . . 82 His view of the peasant land-commune 83 Conclusion 84 PART II The Subjectivist School CHAPTER I The Sociological Theories of Lavrov His philosophical and methodological presuppositions : His subjective method ... 88 What is sociology and what are its problems 91 His theory of social solidarity or social control : How solidarity arises 95 Transition of animal solidarity into human society 97 Dynamic factors of solidarity ..... 100 Summary 102 His theory of individuation : The genesis of the individual 104 The individual a product of the group. ■ . . ... 106 The historical functionings of the individual 107 The individual and social forms ... . . . 109 Summary ... . ... no His theory of social progress : Its principal queries in In what coK^rf progress consist 112 In what rfirf progress consist 114 In what does social progress possible for our time consist. . . 116 His definition of social progress 117 Conclusion and estimate of Lavrov n8 CHAPTER II The Sociological System of Mikhalovsky His philosophical and methodological presuppositions : His idealistic positivism 120 His subjective method 122 The province of sociology and its relation to the sciences. ... 123 12 CONTENTS [I2 PAGE Ifts theory of the struggle for individuality : 1. The relation of the Spencerian and Darwinian theories of evo- lution to the theory of the struggle for individuality. ... 125 2. The biological aspect of the theory of the struggle for individ- uality 131 3. The psychological aspect of the theory of the struggle for individuality 135 a. The individuating process and the functions of the hero and of the mob 136 b. The individuating process and the function of love . . 140 c. The individuating process and the function of religion. . 142 d. The individuating process and the functions of libertinism and asceticism - . - . 144 4. The economic aspect of the theory of the struggle for indi- viduality . . .... .... . 14s a. The individuating process and the functioning of division of labor 146 b. The individuating process and the functioning of Russian economic institutions 148 5. The historical aspect of the theory of the struggle for indi- viduality 150 Conclusion and estimate of Mikhalovsky IS3 CHAPTER III The Sociological Contributions of Youzhakov His criticism of the subjectivist method 156 His outline of a suppositious sociological system 157 His contribution analyzed : 1. The sources of his philosophical and sociological views . . . 158 2. What is sociology and what are its principal problems .... 160 3. What is society and what are the ultimate and proximate causes of socialization . . 161 4. The organic and physical aspects of sociology 163 5. The ethical aspect of sociology ... . 167 6. The economic aspect of sociology 169 7. Resume and conclusion 172 CHAPTER IV The Sociological Contributions of ICareyev I. His philosophical and methodological presuppositions : His idealistic positivism 174 The classification of the sciences 176 13] CONTENTS 13 PAGE The subjective method 179 2. What is society in its various aspects : The organic, mechanistic, psychical, and anthropological aspects of society 180 3. TAe nature of the historic process and the role of the individual in history : The pragmatic and cultural aspects of history 185 The hero and the mob 186 Individual differences 187 Individual activity and cultural evolution 188 Summary 190 4. The sociological problem of progress : Elements of a sociological theory of progress 191 What is progress and a progressive process 193 The general law of progress 198 5. Conclusion : Kareyev and the subjectivist school of Russian sociology . . . 201 PART III Miscellaneous Schools and Trends of Russian Sociology CHAPTER I The Objectivist School of Sociological Criticism ( The Orthodox Marxists : Plekhanov and Lvov) I. Plekhanov' s Marxist sociology : 1. His critique of the non-Marxian subjectivist sociologists and Russian Populists : The "special" non-capitalistic evolu- tion of Russia 206 The subjectivist method 207 The role of the exceptional individual in history 209 2. His own philosophical and methodological presuppositions : His materialism 210 His dialectic method 211 3. His theory of history or of social evolution : Economic determinism 212 Environment changes the individual 213 The tool-making animal 214 The function of the productive forces . . . . . . 215 14 CONTENTS [14 PAGE The class struggle 216 Conclusion, and estimate of Plekhanov 218 II. Lvov's Marxist sociology : Follows Plekhanov 219 Considers collective labor the basis of social evolution . . ■ 219 CHAPTER II The Neo-Marxists : Struve and Tugan-Baronovsky 1. The Neo-Marxist theories of Struve : His orthodox Marxian period • • • • 220 Critique of the subjectivist school ... . • • 221 The socializing function of capitalism 222 His revisionist period . , . 222 Marxism criticised • 223 The experience of the revolution and his new liberalism. . . . 224 2. The Neo-Marxist theories of Tugan-Baronovsky : His psychological presuppositions . ■ .... 225 Man's needs as the dynamic force in social evolution . 226 Economics and the social life ■ 230 The social classes and the class struggle 232 Conclusion . ■ .... 234 CHAPTER III Russian Anarchist and Revolutionist Sociology (The Theories of Kropotkin and Chernov) 1. Peter Kropotkin' s anarchial sociology : His philosophical presuppositions ■ • 236 Anarchism the goal of social evolution ... 237 What is society 238 How does it originate. . . ... ... 239 The role of mutual aid. . . 240 The development of the communistic ideal. ... . . 241 The role of the exceptional individual . . " . 246 Conclusion and critique . . . 246 2. Victor Chernov's revolutionary sociology : His philosophical and methodological presuppositions . 249 His theory of the social process 252 Conclusion 256 15] CONTENTS je CHAPTER IV ^""^ The Juristic and the Historical-Genetic Schools of Russian Sociology {TAe contributions of Korkunov and Kovalevsky) 1 . The juristic school of Russian sociology : The precursors, Sergeyevitch and Muromtzev 257 Korkunov's theories 258 The nature of society 258 The character of law considered as the social order . . . 262 The conception of the state .... 263 Conclusion • . . . . < 264 2. The historical-genetic sociology of Kovalevsky : The methodological aspect of Kovalevsky's sociology 265 The historical-genetic aspect of Kovalevsky's sociology. . . . 267 Conclusion . 269 CHAPTER V The Franco-Russian Sociologists (Novicov and De Roberty) 1 . The sociological theories of De Roberty : His Comtism ... . . . 271 From positivism to hyperpositivism . . 273 Summary of his most recent ideas . . 274 Conclusion .... 277 2. The sociological theories of Novicov : His philosophical presuppositions 278 His analyses and classification of struggle .... . . 278 His biological analogy of society 279 His theory of justice .... ...... 279 The development of the state . ... ... . . 282 Conclusion and critique • . 283 CHAPTER VI Retrospect and Future of Russian Sociology The social and scientific achievements of Russian sociology. 285 Analytical table of Russian sociology . 287 The future of Russian sociology . ..... 287 APPENDIX I The Teaching of Sociology in Russia . . 289 1 6 CONTENTS [l6 PACK APPENDIX II Sociological Literature in Russia 290 Bibliography 292 Index 297 Vita 3" PART I THE BEGINNINGS OF RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY CHAPTER I The Social-political Background of Russian Sociology Russian sociology is truly Russian since most of it has been called into existence by the problems confronting the social-political life of that nation. To understand Russian sociology and to appreciate it, one must necessarily study it in the light of the history of Russia's social and political movements. Russia has been called the land of extremes. Here a des- potic and autocratic bureaucracy has been continually op- posed by groups which championed the cause of the com- mon people, but in their demands were just as uncompro- mising and rigid as the dominant autocracy they opposed. Is autocracy inevitable to Russia? Or is it an outgrown institution which maintains itself artificially by the use of brute force ? These questions have been variously answered. The bulk of opinion, however, is quite unanimous that Rus- sian autocracy has established itself under peculiar historical conditions and that it will pass away when these conditions shall have changed. There are others who consider Rus- sian autocracy the resultant of ethnic composition, and of the psychology of the Slav as well as a product of geograph- ical location and topographical peculiarities. There are some sixty-five different racial and linguistic groups within the boundaries of the Russian Empire. Forty- six of these ethnic groups are found within European Rus- sia and the Caucasus alone. Some of these peoples are still in the savage state and most of them are just emerging out of barbarism. In spite of this apparent ethnic hetero- 19] 19 20 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [20 geneity the bulk of the population is Slavic/ and of these the Great Russians are the most numerous, representing in themselves, a highly homogeneous mass, about two-thirds of the whole population of Russia. The Russian Slav who inhabits the great plains of European Russia reflects in his psychology the geographic and climatic environment in which he lives. A certain apathy, plasticity and pacific quality are the characteristics of his nature. He is long suffering and forgiving, much rather bearing wrong than inflicting it. Being mystically inclined, he is non-political and sentimentally communistic.^ * The principal Slavic peoples of Russia besides the Great Russians are the Little Russians of the South, the White Russians of the West and the Poles. The Little Russians and White Russians, although speaking separate dialects are in religion and sympathy one with the Great Russians. ' Briickner in his Geschichte der Russischen Literatur, p. i, calls the Russian Slav a born anarchist. Masaryk, in his Sociologische Skizzen, thinks that the Russians are not more anarchistic than other races but that their democracy is negative and preferably non-political. Our own observation favors in general Masaryk's view, with the difference that we believe that the passive non-political man may be aroused and become extremely active and dangerous. The occasional Jewish per- secutions (pogroms), the vandalisms of the Russian revolution, and the deeds of the nihilists and terrorists may be cited as examples of this direct action. The sentimental communism of the Russian, what- ever its cause, shows itself everywhere. The peasant has a tenacious hold upon the institution called the land commune or community ownership which, although by law (1906) now allowed to be broken up, nevertheless survives in a large degree. Recent statistics show that after the enactment of the law permitting withdrawal of land from the commune, out of 90,099,000 communal members 17,874,000, or only about 19 per cent, withdrew by May i, 1906. The area of land held by the communes was, in 1906, 997,242,000 desyatines; by 1913, of this land was withdrawn 127,698,000 desyatines, or only about 11 per cent. These figures show that the communes which have little land are compelled to break up, whereas those which have more land prefer the communal way of life. This communal interest shows itself also among the many religious sects as the Dukhobors in Canada, the Tolstovsy and many others. 21 J THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 2I Russian autocracy is not a direct product of the Russian people; rather it is a foreign importation which developed, being favored not only by the psychological characteristics of the Slavs but invited by the geographic location of Rus- sia, and consummated under unfortunate historical condi- tions. The great open plain which constitutes most of European Russia is unprotected by any great mountain barriers and is easily accessible from the northwest and from the south- east. Through these open and by nature unprotected doors entered those elements which were to make up Russian autocracy. From the northwest came the Varyags or Norsemen, who established themselves as the first dynasties of the Russian Slavs; from the south came the Byzantine Missionary, who introduced the Greek-orthodox religion; and from the east came the Asiatic Conquerors, who crushed every institution of liberty,^ and established their despotic rule, which, when adopted by the Muscovite princes, pre- sented in itself a peculiar synthesis of Teuton militancy, Tartar despot ism, and Byzantine sanctim on iousne ss. These three elements, whether organically united or not) were the dominant forces of Russian autocracy, maintaining them- selves and predominating to the present day, although modi- fied by Western culture, and at the present day represented by rulers of dominantly Germanic blood. 1 When in the ninth century the Norsemen invaded the territory of the Russian Slavic tribes these had institutions of tribal democracy and city republics which governed themselves by the Vecha, an institu- tion similar to the Roman assembly and by a kind of senate consisting of the wealthier classes, who were on their way to become the feudal aristocrats and plutocrats of the free city-states. The crushing of the free institutions of the Russian Slavs went on gradually. Thus the city republic Novgorod was finally destroyed by Ivan the Great, who also cast off the Mongolian yoke but maintained its despotic policies of centralization and autocratic control. Another city republic, Pskov, lingered till 1509 and was the last one to lose its independence. 22 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [22 Russian autocracy has had but two principal policies throughout its history, an internal policy of political, eccle- siastical and partly economic control and centralization, and an external policy of expansion towards the four seas : from the Baltic to the Pacific and from the Arctic to the Mediter- ranean. This policy if momentarily changed has been so under strong outside pressure. All attempts to better the lot of the common people and to give them greater liberties were carried out in times of national trouble and under threat of revolution.^ Although long-sufifering and slow to wrath, the people of Russia have risen from time to time, demanding the rights and possessions of which they had been robbed by the preda- tory interests which always, directly or indirectly, have associated themselves with Russian autocracy. In these struggles certain classes of the population have furnished the leaders and have given initiative to movements which have had for their purpose the abolition of autocratic con- trol and the betterment of social and economic conditions for the common people. The leaders of these movements have sought to develop their programs of action and give to them rational justification by the aid of philosophy and of the social sciences.^ 1 For example, the emancipation of the serfs and other great reforms of the sixties were made possible after the disasters of the Crimean war. Fifty years later the government had to yield to the demand for a representative parliament when again disastrously humiliated during the Russo-Japanese war and the revolution which followed it. The present war (1914) freed Russia from the vodka curse and thus it goes throughout Russian history. The cost of its progress has been borne vicariously. ' This is true of all liberal movements from the days of Catherine II. Before this the leaders of the opposition were the Cossacks. iStenka Rahzin was one of the principal leaders of the popular up- risings in the seventeenth century, and Yemilyan Pugatchev in the eighteenth century. The philosophy of these early uprisings is cen- 23] THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 23 This tendency has been directly responsible for the rise and development of most of Russian sociology. We will briefly indicate the nature of these movements and intro- duce their scholarly representatives before entering upon an analysis of the sociological systems of thought held by these men. Peter the Great, says a Russian poet/ cut a window through into Europe. But Peter did not permit any liberal and philosophic currents to pass this window into Russia from the European atmosphere. His interests were through- out practical. The schools which he established had no use for philosophy nor for theology. They limited instruction to the practical arts and sciences. Catherine II of Russia widened this window and permitted French and English liberal thought to reach the newly-developing intellectual class. She loved to pose as an enlightened despot and imported Diderot in person to instruct her in the liberalism of the French encyclopedists. Montesquieu was her favorite philosopher.'' Her Nakazy {Instructions), a little book containing an outline of principles by which she intended to reform and tered around the conception of the Messianic mission of the czars, who are sent hy God to liberate the common people from the exploitation of the nobility and bureaucracy. Thus Pugatchev, although well known as the son of a Cossack, was believed to be the reincarnation of Peter III, aspiring to the throne, usurped by the wife of Peter III, Catherine II. This myth of something similar to a Messianic function of the czars has been believed by the common people for generations, and it explains the loyalty of the people to the crown in spite of their common hatred of the bureaucracy and of the nobility. We need not add that the Russian autocrats have done their utmost to perpetuate this belief among the masses and to persecute everything which tended to undermine the credulity of the people in this regard. • Alexander Pushkin in his poem on Peter the Great. 2 Speaking of him in a letter to D'Alembert (176s), she says: "Son livre est mon breviaire." Sbornik of the Russian Imperial Historical Society, vol. x, p. 31. 24 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [24 govern Russia, reflects the Spirit of the Laws of Montes- quieu/ Following the example of their sovereign, the yoang Rus- sian intellectuals absorbed like sponges the ideas brought to them from the west. Voltaire, Adam Smith and the French Encyclopaedists were beginning to mould the plastic minds of many young Russians eager for knowledge. Beside French and English liberal thought another current of mystic German idealism found a ready soil among the Russian nobility. It expressed itself in the early Russian Masonic movement. In Moscow, Nicolai Novicov was leader of the Masons. He developed the first popular liter- ature in Russia and organized schools to teach the illiterate masses, also aiding them through his philanthropic agen- cies. This period gave rise to journalistic activities which soon expressed more definite and opposing views, and which were really the beginning of public opinion in Russia. This golden age of intellectual activity in which Catherine II took intense interest, came to an abrupt and tragic close, occasioned by the rumors of the French revolution and by popular uprisings in Russia under the leadership of Pugatchev.^ Catherine adopted a rigid censorship, sup- pressing many periodical publications and books, putting even her own " Nakazy " under the ban of the censor. She went further and persecuted the leaders who sided with the people. Novicov was thrown into prison, and the Masons and other voluntary societies had to disband. Ra- dischev, who had taken seriously the liberal ideas which were permitted to be disseminated by Catherine, wrote a 1 The " Nakazy " is a curious little book. It has been translated into English under the title The Grand Instructions, by Michael Tatischeff, who was a contemporary of Catherine II, and praises her as the wisest and most liberal of all sovereigns. ■ 2 Cf. supra, footnote, pp. 22-23. 25] THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 25 book entitled, A Journey from Petersburg to Moscow,^ in which he depicted the misery and oppression suffered by the common people, and rebuked their oppressors and ex- ploiters. He was arrested, tried and banished to Siberia, thus becoming the first Russian martyr for the offense of attempting to shape public opinion. Catherine tried to justify her reaction to arbitrary des- potism by theorizing over the psychic characteristics of the Russian people, who, under the influence of Rus- sia's peculiar geographic and climatic environment she claimed were unfit for self-government and can only prosper under an absolute autocracy. Already in her Nakazy we read this, her fundamental rule : " That the government which most resembles that of nature is that whose particu- lar disposition answers best to the disposition of the people for which it is instituted".' And in the case of Russia, she adds in the opening of the Nakazy that it is autocracy. This theory, strange as it may seem, is still the principal philo- sophical justification of the apologists of Russian autocracy. It is curious, however, that these thinkers do not realize that the genius of the Russian people, whether attributable to geographic environment or to something else, continually produces personages and groups that think the opposite of that which is advocated by the minority in power, and that there are many historic facts tO' show that the Slavs once lived in the same environment under democratic or- ganizations.^ 1 This book, suppressed by Catherine (in 1790), was not permitted to be published in Russia till after the revolution in 1905. ^ Catherine II, The Grand Instructions, etc., translated by Michael Tatischeff, section 262. ' Catherine II was not ignorant of these facts. In a letter to a cer- tain Count Sch., dated August iS, 1784, she says: "Quand vous vien- drez chez moi, je vous dirai bien d'autres choses encore comme par example que les lois des Saxons ou Slavons etaient remplies de I'esprit 26 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [26 The next movement in the struggle with Russian autoc- racy which stimulated sociological and political think- ing is known as the Decembrist movement, named after the military insurrection which took place in Petrograd during December, 1825, at the time of the death of Emperor Alex- ander I, and the accession of Nicholas I. With the failure of the insurrection the movement was crushed, its leaders were executed or banished, and throughout the reign of Nicholas, autocracy, more severe perhaps than before in Russia, continued its iron rule. The adherents of the Decembrists were of the military class, mostly army officers. Many of these became ac- quainted with French liberal ideas during the Napoleonic wars, and on their return home organized societies for the study of the political and social sciences. In the south. Colonel Pestel was the intellectual leader. He devised a constitution for Russia after the model of the French con- stitution of 1793. In the north, Colonel Muraviev wrote on the subject, favoring the constitutions of the United States and of Spain. Their theory of society in accord- ance with the time was the contractual, reflecting the Eng- lish and French individualistic social philosophies. The greatest intellect of the Decembrists was Nicolai Turgeniev. During his long years of exile he wrote his great three- volume work, " La Russie et les Russes "} de liberte, que cette liberie, se voit partout dans la seconde epoque de notre histoire." Sbornik of the Russian Imperial Historical Society, vol. XV, p. 615. ' " Russia and the Russians," says the author, " consist of three rather different parts: the first part acquaints the reader with my public life; these are my personal reminiscences : the second represents the moral, political and social life of Russia; but in the third part I expound my views of the future of this Empire and also of the institutions and reforms which are necessary." Russia and the Russians, vol. i, p. 14, Russian ed., Moscow, 1907. 27] THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 27 His views of society and social organizations were strongly influenced by the ideas of Montesquieu and of Adam Smith. He, however, was not a doctrinaire ; his politi- cal program was evolutionary and practical. His insight into the future social and political development of Russia was prophetic. It followed almost literally the stages he predicted. First, he claimed, it was necessary to abolish serfdom; he advocated the reform of the institutions of justice, education, and representative local government, and finally a national constitution. He was a champion of private property and emphasized individual rights and free- dom of conscience. The Decembrists created no independent system of their own. They stimulated the intellectual class to study the social sciences as a means towards intelligent understanding of the existing social order. The liberalism advocated by the Decembrists was not confined within the secret socie- ties of the Russian military caste. It seems to have per- meated even before their time all the intellectual classes, and the masses, although understanding nothing about con- stitutional government, were nevertheless conscious of the heavy hand of the oppressors and were willing to join any movement which promised relief. Speransky, one of the more farsighted of Russian statesmen, who' was able to read the " signs of the time ", already in 1809, foresaw the ris- ing storm which discharged itself in the Decembrists' in- surrection. In the introduction to his draft of the " Con- stitution " which he hoped Alexander I would adopt, he says: The Russian state is now passing through the second stage of the feudal system, namely, the epoch of autocracy. Undoubt- edly, it is tending directly towards freedom. In part this tendency is even more straightforward in Russia than in other countries. The unfailing signs of it are: (i) That 28 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [28 people lose all esteem for the former objects of their vener- ation, e. g., for rank and honor. (2) The action of power is so weakened that no measure of government can be put into operation which calls only for moral, and not also for physical constraint. The true reason of this is that at present public opinion is in entire contradiction to the form of govern- ment. (3) No partial reform is possible, because no law can exist, if it may any day be overthrown by a gust of arbitrary power. (4) A general discontent is observed, such as can only be explained by a complete change of ideas, and by a repressed but strong desire for a new order of things. For all these reasons we may surely conclude that the actual form of government does not correspond to the state of popular feeling, and that the time has come to change this form and to found a new order of things.^ Alexander I's plans for giving Russia a constitutional government failed of realization and were entirely abandoned after the Napoleonic wars and the reactionary " Holy Alli- ance ", which aroused the Decembrists to plan the forceful overthrow of the autocracy. Nicholas I, who crushed the insurrection, was determined to- eradicate liberalism from the Russian Empire. He established a rigid press censor- ship,^ and a brutal iron discipline in the army, which was also extended to all the ranks of bureaucracy, and even im- posed upon scholars of the Universities. The intellectual class, forced out of the political life and hence from practical thinking, took either tO' literature or to abstract thinking and the spinning of schemes for the liberation and regeneration of the Russian nation. The ' Quoted by Paul Milyoukov in Russia and Its Crisis, Chicago, 1906, p. I7S- 2 This censorship crippled the press to such an extent that during the last ten years of Nicholas I's reign (1845-1854) only six newspapers and nineteen (for the most part special) monthlies were permitted to appear in the whole empire. 29] THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 29 center of this new intellectual activity became the University of Moscow. In its academic atinosphere the study of Ger- man romantic philosophy was diligently pursued and at- tempts were made to apply it to Russia's national problems. Since Peter the Great, the Russian autocrats had not suspected that the Russian people had an individuality of their own. There was seemingly no national conscious- ness, no literature, no philosophy, to reflect the mind of the people. Russian authors wrote in imitation of the West. It was thought bad taste to find subject-matter in the life and work of their own people. This tendency changed after the Napoleonic wars. The emotions aroused by bitter conflict which finally was crowned by success, stimu- lated and strengthened the national consciousness. Poets and novelists were now proud to be Russians and turned their face from the west, which they had aped so long. Moscow became the center of the newly-born nationalism, to which its university sought to give an adequate philosophy. This new Moscovite philosophy became known as Slavophilism, and although emanating from German romanticism, it strove to become ex- clusive of everything foreign and to develop only strictly national ideas. This exclusiveness against Western culture was, however, not shared by all the Moscovite philosophers, and gradually another trend of thought appeared which wanted to enrich Russian culture by the achievements of Western Europe. It was called Westernism. Like Slavo- philism it was at first non-political but in time it became influential in the affairs of the nation, rivaling the Slavophil Nationalists. The Slavophils were close students of German idealism, especially of Shelling and of the Hegelian philosophy of his- tory. They accepted Hegel's dialectic method, and his a priori concept of an Absolute Reason, which it was believed 30 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [30 incarnated itself in the life of nations. They naturally could not follow Hegel in his conclusion that the " Welt- geist " by way of Greece and Rome had made its final ap- pearance in the Germanic race and with it is completing the cycle of the mystical metempsychosis of the absolute. For this meant that the numerous Slavic races were left out of the historical process with no other mission than slav- ishly to imitalte their fortunate German neighbors and in- tellectual masters. We may readily understand that the Moscovite philosophers, who gloried in the consciousness that their race had freed Western Europe from the Napo- leonic yoke, were not willing that the Slav should play no role in the future development of the races. They, there- fore, asserted that the people of the west are in a state of decay, and that the Weltgeist has to make another step to complete the cycle of evolution. They also asserted that the Slavic, preeminently the Russian people, are predestined to be the final bearers of the torch of enlightenment for the human race. One of the Slavophils writes : Western Europe presents a strange, saddening spectacle. Opinion struggles against opinion, power against power, throne against throne. Science, art and religion, the three motors of social life, have lost their force. We venture to make the assertion which to many at present may seem strange, but which will be in a few years only too evident : Western Europe is on the high road to ruin! We Russians, on the contrary, are young and fresh and have taken no part in the crimes of Europe. We have a great mission to fulfill. Our name is already inscribed on the tablets of victory; the victories of science, art and faith await us on the ruins of tottering Europe ! ^ ' Prince Odoevsky. Quoted by Wallace, Russia, new ed., New York, ipi2, p. 410. 3iJ THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 31 The Slavophils searched diligently for something pecu- liarly Russian upon which they could establish the new type of civilization which was to redeem humanity. They claimed to have found this in the Russian Greek Orthodox Church, the Autocratic Government, and the Parish Land- Commune of the Russian peasantry. The Greek Church, they maintained, is a living organism of life and truth. It consists not in the number of believers, nor in the visible congregation, but in the spiritual tie which binds them together. Roman Catholicism curtails individual liberty for the sake of unity. Protestantism takes the alternative and loses its unity in its individualism. Greek orthodoxy assumes to be the only religion which re- mains true to the spirit of primitive Christianity, having harmoniously wedded unity and liberty by the principal of Christian love. Autocracy, as its second peculiar institution, is not a product of conflict and brutal force, to which present par- liamentary rule is but a natural reaction, as are the govern- ments of the West. Russian autocracy was created by the free will of its citizens. The legend of the call of Rurik, the first dynast of Russia may not be true historically but it certainly is true tempermentally, reflecting the mind of the people. Thus autocracy is the " Holy Ark " of the Rus- sian nation. The sovereign wishes but the good of the peo- ple and this makes parHamentary rule superfluous. The Parish Land-Commune was called the corner- stone of all Russian institutions and was highly prized as a realization of the Utopian dreams of Western socialists, who hoped to attain to it by way of capitalism and a prole- tariat. The socialist ideal of communal ownership of land and of the tools of production, it was said, needed not to be attained in Russia by force. There it is a natural product having grown from the very heart of the people. 32 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [32 The creation of a proletariat is hence unnecessary and im- possible in Russia. The spirit of Christian resignation and self-sacrifice has achieved there, what selfish Western Europe is trying to get by a bitter class-struggle. This: shows, they concluded, that Russian society is based upon the principle of justice and voluntary self-abasement — im- measurably higher than the struggle principle of the "Rotten West ".^ The Slavophils were voluminous writers and were often brilliant. They contributed not a little to the autocratic idea, although their theories have helped to stimulate Rus- sia's national consciousness and have aided in eman- cipating the Russian serf by a peaceful method. Besides this they have gathered much valuable historical and ethno- graphic material, which, apart from interpretation, is some of the best that exists. They have shown what are the peculiarities of Russian Orthodoxy in comparison with other Christian Confessions.^ Better than any other authors they have pointed out the peculiar characteristics of the Russian people.' They also have shown what there is in common among the various Slavic peoples.* Finally they ' It is hardly necessary to say that these " fundamentals " of the Slavophils are based upon imaginary premises which do not stand historical scrutiny. Autocracy in Russia has been severely shaken and will have to yield to the will of the people. The much eulogized parish-commune is in a state of decay and has since (1906) been abolished by law. In the nineties of the last century Russia entered her industrial era of capitalistic production on a large scale and her proletariat is growing daily. ^Especially A. S. Kliomyakov, Works, vol. v-vii (Russian). * The best author in this field is K. S. Aksakov, Works, vol. i-iii (Russian). * On this subject, see Valuev, Almanack for Historical and Statistical Information about Russia and Peoples Akin to Her in Faith and Race (184s) (Russian). 33] THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 33 attempted to state the differences which exist between the Romano-Germanic and the Graeco-Slavic world/ The Slavophils of the period covered by the reign of Nicholas I were metaphysical in their presuppositions and their premises were untenable after the decline of the Hegelian school. The newer Slavophils realized this and sought to re-establish their principles by the aid of sociol- ogy and of the natural sciences. Daniilevsky is the most im- portant writer of this group. Even more exclusive than the Slavophils were the ex- treme Nationalists or Russophils who saw danger for Rus- sian Autocracy in a mingling with other Slavs already influenced by Western liberalism. The creed of the Russo- phils was expressed by Nicholas I's faithful servant, Cotmt Uvarov, who held the portfolio of the ministry of educa- tion from 1833 to 1849. Uvarov, when entering upon his position, outlined his program to all Russian educators in these words : " Our general task consists in establishing such an education for the nation as will unify in itself the spirit of Orthodoxy, of Autocracy and of Nationalism." This formulation has since remained the Holy Trinity of Russian Autocracy; it is its alpha and its omega. Katkov, a former liberal Slavophil, advanced it through the press (in "The Moscow Vyedomosty " and other periodicals), and Leontiev attempted to give it a philosophical and socio- logical justification. The most famous of Russian reaction- aries, however, was Pobyedonoszev (182 7- 1907). Under two czars he dictated the policies of the government. He was the teacher and advisor of Alexander III and he wrote ' This subject has been exhaustively studied by V. I. Lamansky, see his doctor's dissertation, The Historical Study of the Graeco-Slavic World in Europe (1870). There are also some two hundred printed books, articles, etc., dealing with the Slavic world, all by the same author (Russian). 34 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [34 the reactionary manifesto of Nicholas II upon his accession to the throne.^ His social and political views are the exact antithesis of Russian Progressive Westernism. He hated Western phil- osophy, science and civilization and dogmatically postulated Uvarov's theocratic Trinity: Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationalism as the only institutions which can preserve Rus- sia in continuous safety and happiness. He fought for the preservation of ignorance among the common people, being convinced that the peasant would gain nothing from learn- ing to read, except the consciousness of his own poverty. The nationalistic trend had fortunately also' other intel- lectual representatives besides the extremists Katkov, Leon- tiev and Pobyedonoszev. Vladimir Soloviev, although not an Orthodox Slavophil nor Russophil, is still akin tO' them and tries to make Russian nationalism more inclusive and synthetic.^ The oppressive policies of the rule of Nicholas I had eradicated every remnant of the Decembr'ist movement. However, new protests were ripening from among the in- tellectual classes. These protests were variously expressed in the writings of a group of thinkers who, when discrimi- nated from the Slavophils were generally called Western- ists. Chaadaev * was among the first to raise a voice against the sterile, deadening Russian Theocracy, ad- ' This document, which was pronounced personally by the czar before the representatives of the nobility, the military classes and the Zem- stvos (local governments), censures the latters' ambition to participate in matters of internal government as " senseless dreams " and con- cludes with the significant words, " Let all know that, in devoting all my strength to the welfare of the people, I intend to protect the prin- ciple of autocracy as firmly and as unswervingly as did my late and never-to-be-forgotten father." • For an analysis of his theories, see infra, pt. i, ch. ii. ' Cf. infra, pt. i, ch. iii. 35] THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 3c vocating as a remedy a yielding to the Roman Theocracy of the West. Chaadaev himself never became a Roman Catholic. The culture of the French people he seemed to have admired more than their religion, but he did not dis- tinguish between the two, rather regarding French culture as a product of their religion. A different interpretation was given to Western thought by Belinsky.^ This thinker rapidly passed through the in- termediate stages from a metaphysical interpretation of civilization to a positivist view of society. He first began to gather around himself what is known in Russia as the " in- telligenzia ". By the " intelligenzia ", or intellectual class must be understood that progressive and radical wing of Russia's educated people which holds the emancipation of the cominon people from their misery and ignorance to be its principal task and which opposes the existing institu- tions of political and social control. Belinsky was followed as a leader by Herzen and Bakunin who, each in his own way, stirred the intellectuals to action. The lifeless despotism of Nicholas broke down under its own weight. The occasion was the Crimean war. The reaction to the disaster was volcanic. The old regime was doomed to pass with the defeat of Russia's most un- compromising autocrat, Nicholas I. Alexander II, who suc- ceeded him, promised radical reforms, and the great op- portunity for the progressive elements of the Russian na- tion had come. Emancipation was the cry of the day. Emancipation of the peasant from serfdom, of the citizens from the state, of the woman from patriarchal tyranny, of the thinker from authorities and tradition. There must be struggle to the end against every institution that was irrational or oppres- ' Cf. infra, pt. i, ch. iii. 36 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [36 sive, whether political, economic, religious or social. The new order must not only improve existing conditions, it must revolutionize society from its foundations. It must be built upon positive scientific principles. This effort to re- caste society scientifically called forth whole schools of sociology of which the subjectivist school is the most sig- nificant. Its theoretic aspect had its counterpart in politi- cal organizations which advocated reforms, ranging all the way from moderate liberalism to radical Utopian socialism. The tremendous pressure of awakened public opinion ^ compelled the government to act. On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the famous Act of Emancipation whereby fifty-two million serfs were freed. This act called forth unprecendented enthusiasm among all classes. Her- zen addressed the Czar in his periodical " The Bell " with the words, "Thou hast conquered, O Nazarene!" and urged him to continue the reforms by other equally revo- lutionary measures. When, however, the conditions of the emancipation be- came known, a heavy gloom was cast over all the friends of the common people. At its best the act was but a com- promise favoring greatly the great landowners,^ who were allowed to exact an abnormally high price for the land they ceded to the peasants.* ^ The extent of the awakening may be seen in the large increase in the periodical press. When Nicholas I passed away there were but six newspapers and nineteen monthlies to announce the event to a popu- lation of about ninety millions. During the first decade of the reign of Alexander II the number of newspapers increased to sixty-six and the monthlies to one hundred and fifty. ' Before the Emancipation Act only 1.7 per cent of all lands were in the hands of small landowners, the bulk of 64.6 per cent was claimed by the government, and the rest by the gentry and by syndicates. ' The government lands were to be given over at the same rate in order not to discriminate. The rate of interest (6 per cent) on the in- 37] THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 37 Thus from the very start the peasant was condemned to perpetual poverty. Strong oppositon to these and other equally inadequate measures of the reform acts was, of course, to be expected. Bakunin and Herzen thundered from abroad against the reaction, the former preaching an immediate revolution by the rise of the peasantry. At home Chernishevsky was the recognized leader of the intellectual class.^ It was hoped that the peasantry would not accept the conditions of the eimancipation when it should become enacted (1863). Bakunin, Cher- niskevsky and almost all of the leaders had great faith in the revolutionary abilities of the peasant. They pointed back to the rebellions of Rahzin and Pugachev, which were ably supported by the peasants. The intellectual class was to prepare and to lead the revolution which was to take place in the summer of 1863. For this purpose the secret organization, the " Great Russian " was founded. It con- sisted mostly of university students of both sexes who began their propaganda among workingmen, soldiers and peasants. Out of the " Great Russian " movement arose the more radical secret organization of the "Land and Lib- erty ", which aimed at an immediate rising concurring with the Polish rebellion (1863). The region of the Volga, where Pugachev's rebellion had taken place, was chosen. A pseudo-manifesto in the name of the czar was circulated which proclaimed liberty to all classes, and granted full prop- erty rights tO' the peasants without payment. The soldiers debtedness was also unusually high, and almost ruined the peasants economically. The area of land allotted to the peasants was also not large enough. After more than forty years of appropriation (1906) the peasantry owns only 24.1 per cent, or 3.5 acres per individual allot- ment of all privately-owned lands. The nobility's share is 52.3 per cent. ' Cf. pt. i, ch. iii. 38 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [38 were also to be freed from service and compensated by land grants. There was to be no conscription and no percapita tax, and all government officers were to be elected by the people. The manifesto stated that should the local authori- ties resist the enactment of the manifesto, the population was authorized to rise in rebellion. This daring feat failed at the outset and a number of the instigators were executed. This initial failure did not stop the activities of the secret societies, but it divided them into two classes. One fac- tion favored an educational propaganda of gradual prepar- ation of the masses for the revolution, the Other faction did not believe that education was necessary since the masses were always revolutionary (Bakunin's doctrine). The peaceful propagandists formed their "organization" of 1865, which adopted for its leading principle the propagation among the peasants of the idea of nationalization of land by stirring them up against proprietors, against the nobility and the authorities in general. This was to be accomplished through teaching in day and Sunday schools, the estab- lishment of free libraries, and the organization of societies and workshops on the communal principle, etc. The fac- tion of the " direct action " was inspired from abroad by Bakunin and led at home by the student Nechaev,^ a reck- less, despotic fellow. The government was aroused and began a merciless persecution, especially after the Student Karakozov made an attempt to assassinate the Czar (April 16, 1866). A number of the societies were discovered,! their members were tried and most of them were exiled to Siberia. During these troublesome years also' Chernishevsky, al- though not approving Jacobinism, fell a victim to the gov- ' Nechaev is known as the author of the " catechism of the revolu- tion ", which teaches methods of " direct action " and justifies any crime, including murder, if it serves the end. 39] THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 39 ernment's policy of persecution.^ Chernishevsky's suc- cessor in the intellectual leadership of young Russia was the young, talented Pissarev. He is usually called the philosopher of the Russian Nihil- ist Movement. Denying aesthetics and every other ideal principle, he advocated an extreme realism, individualism and utilitarianism.^ He did not live long enough to de- velop his many ingenious ideas. His influence was that of a propagandist philosopher who inspired his readers by his bold and passionate utterances. With the passing of Pissarev and his contemporary Dobrolubov,* Lavrov became the acknowledged leader of the populist movement. Through his sociological theory of the " role of the critically-intellectual individual ",* he ' Cf. infra, pt. i, ch. iii. 2 By individualism he understands the struggle for the emancipa- tion of personality. He boldly casts off all traditions, believing that in order to create a new mankind all old institutions must be destroyed without exception. Strength is to be the criterion in the selective struggle. He is Materialistic-Determinist and sees in the great man but a product of the historic process. Marx greatly impressed him, but he did not become an orthodox Marxist, being carried away by his individualistic interests. As a thorough-going Nihilist he saw all evil in ignorance and the only salvation was to be found in science, espec- ially natural science. Turgeniev's Basarov he recognized and acknowl- edged as the true type of the new Russia. Summing up the criticism of " Fathers and Sons ", he says : " At present young people are carried away and fall into extremes, hut in these various passions show them- selves to be the fresh forces, and this mind without any outside means or influences will lead the young people on the right road and assist them in life". Works, St. Petersburg, igoi, vol. ii, p. 427. ' Dobrolubov (1836-1861) belongs to this group of leaders of the pro- pressive intellectual class. A pupil of Chernishevsky, he contributed as literary critic to Chernishevsky's periodical, the " Savryeminik '' (contemporary), which was the principle medium of spreading their progressive ideas. Dobrolubov's early death was much lamented in Russia. * Cf. infra, pt. ii, ch. i. 40 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [40 inspired the revolutionary youths. He also prepared a party platform which recognizes two principles of struggle: one the struggle against the theological-metaphysical or religious concept of life by means of science, the other the struggle of the toiler against the idle-consumer, which is also a struggle for equality of opportunity against mo- nopoly of any kind. Lavrov, who fought the conserva- tives and pseudo-liberals, turned also against Nechaev, Ba- kunin and others of the left wing who wanted a revolution without a preparatory education of the people. In his writings he stood for the principle that no means should be used that might defeat the end itself. No revolution can be realized artificially; it will be successful only when' the people are ready and when other conditions are equally favorable. Revolutionary failures are regrettable, although, he conceded, they have educational value. Like most other populists' platforms, that of Lavrov accepted the peasant commune as the basic economic institution of Russia, but recommended that it be made more efficient by the educa- tion of the peasantry. When Lavrov was forced to leave his native country, Mikhalovsky became the intellectual leader of his genera- tion, fighting valiantly for the interests of the individual, as he expressed it in his sociological theory of the "struggle for individuality 'V and for the preservation of the peasant commune, which he believed was best fitted to give the in- dividual the opportunity for a many-sided and rounded de- velopment. Parallel to this educational revolultionary movement was developing the more radical movement which advocated revolutionary or direct action, and which culminated in the assassination of Alexander II (March 13, 1881). ' Cf. infra, pt. ii, ch. ii. 41 ] THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 41 After his failure to start a revolution in 1863, Nech- ayev was preparing to launch another in the spring of 1870. He severed himself from all factions which wanted to begin the social revolution by propaganda and urged direct action. Organization and education, he taught, will be the task of coming generations, whereas " our own task is a terrible, thorough, ubiquitous and piti- less destruction. . . . Let us unite with the world of robbers, the only true revolutionaries in Russia ". Necha- yev's organization was known as the " Narodnaya Ras- prava". (The judgment of the people.) He demanded unreserved submission from his followers, and when one of them, the student Ivanov, refused to subject himself to his iron will, he was murdered by order of Nechayev. The arrests and trials which followed this crime put an end to the leadership of Nechcayev, and with it also terminated the revolutionary plot of 1870. With the passing of Nechayev, Russian Jacobinism did not cease. Its new leader became Tkachev, one of Nechayev's followers. He opposed Lav- rov's propaganda of local revolts and incited to a political revolution, if a general social revolution was impossible. He was a Bakunist and, accordingly, wanted to use revo- lutionary organizations as a means of disorganization and the destruction of the existing political order. The years of 1873-74 were the period in which the revo- lutionary enthusiasm reached its zenith. The circle of the " Chaikovstsy " in Petrograd, to which Kropotkin, Stepnyak and other revolutionary celebrities adhered, de- veloped a titanic activity. It culminated with the general movement of the " going among the people " which lasted throughout the summer of 1874. This movement, which has no equal in Russian history, resembled a great religious revival. The bulk of the educated class, not only youthful students but many teachers, judges, physicians, officers and 42 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [42 officials joined the ranks. Denying themselves comforts and undergoing many hardships, they went to preach the new liberty to the people. The result of this crusade has been variously estimated. In its proximate results it was a failure; the peasant did not respond concurrently, he often turned against his enlighteners and delivered them to the authorities. Perhaps the greatest gain was to the propa- gandists themselves ; while they went to the people as meta- physical, Utopian dreamers, many of them came back as sober positivists. The failure of the itinerant propagandists was to be rem- edied by a more enduring activity which a new organiza- tion, the " Land and Liberty " society took for its ob- jective. It was to organize permanent settlements among the villagers and among the working classes of the towns. The propaganda of the " Land and Liberty " found more ready response among the proletariat of the cities than among the peasantry. The workingmen, however, went farther; they were more radical and direct in action of self-defense against the persecutions of the government. In 1879, the " Northern Alliance of Workingmen " was or- ganized by some of the adherents of Tkachov. These did not refrain from terrorism as an effective means in the political struggle. But true populists could not uphold the terrorist policy, and the " Northern Alliance " split off from the " Land and Liberty " party. Another party dissenting from the old " Land and Liberty " was the "People's Will" party, organized in the South (1879). It was terroristic and advocated a propaganda by deeds. It had its Executive Committee which conducted all deeds of terror and under its auspices the regicide of March 13, 1881, was accom- plished. The " Land and Liberty " party split once more in 1879, giving birth to the " Cherny peredel " (Black Land Parti- 43] THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 43 tion) party, which along with the advocacy of the nation- alization of land, attempted to synthetize the interests of the city proletariat with those of the agrarian population. Plekhanov ^ was one of the organizers of the " Black Land Partition ", and attempted to adjust its principles to those of Marx, although many of the older anarchistic ideas were retained. The persecution of revolutionists and the reaction to revolutionary propaganda in general, which marked the ac- cession of Alexander III, made actual propaganda almost impossible. The great revolutionary waves of the sixties and seventies had spent their force, and with the exception of occasional ripples there was for more than' a decade gen- eral quiet on the surface of Russia's political sea- Most of the leaders who survived the persecution fled abroad and took to study and engrossed themselves in liter- ary activities. In the quiet of retreat, Plekhanov elimi- nated from his mind all anarchistic and populistic ideas and declared himself a consistent Marxist. He began the organization of the Russian Social Democracy, directing his attention primarily to the working proletariat of the cities. During the eighties Plekhanov wrote his books, which were to differentiate Marxian Socialism from the older populist socialism. Socialism and Political Struggle (1883), Ow Variances (1885). Later he began his polemic against the subjectivist sociology and his attempt to establish a Marx- ist sociology.^ Socialism was taken up by the city prole- tariat during the nineties. There were great strikes in mills and factories everywhere, and for the first time Russia wit- nessed a real solidarity of the working masses. The intel- lectuals soon recognized in this movement the Marxian '■ Cf. infra, pt. iii, ch. i. ' Cf. infra, pt. iii, ch. i. 44 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [44 process of social evolution, and only feared that it might lose its revolutionary character and drift into trade-union- ism, and political opportunistai. These fears, however, proved baseless. The government which persecuted labor organizations kept their revolutionary spirit alive, and Ger- man revisionism, although influencing some leaders,^ had not much affect upon the workingmen themselves. In 1903, the Social Democratic party of Russia was consolidated, with the exception oi a few racial groups, of which the Jewish Bund was the most important. New dangers arose, however, from the left wing of the party. Remnants of the old " People's Will " party, who' were absorbed by the tri- umphant Marxism, felt their differences keenly. They in- terpreted the "masses" as not limited to the city proletariat but as embracing as well the peasantry and the intellec- tuals. They also wanted to use more militant tactics than the peaceful strike, and to revive the terror to which soon the ministers Sippyagin, Plehve and others fell victims. In its reorganized form this militant wing of Russian socialsm calls itself the " Social Revolutionaries ". A rural branch organized by them was called the " Agrarian League ". Their principal intellectual leader, Victor Cher- nov, has given the movement its philosophical bearing.^ The agitations of these socialist groups culminated in the revolution of 1905-06, after the disasters of the Russo- Japanese war. The freedom attained by this uprising and the formation of the Duma gave opportunity to the revolu- tionary leaders to show their executive abilities. In this they fell short, and a general reaction followed. Many Marxists having become more moderate Liberals, are now associated with the party of the Cadets or the Constitutional ' As, for example, P. Struve. Cf. infra, pt. iii, ch. ii. ' Cf. infra, pt. iii, ch. iii. 45] THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL BACKGROUND 45 Democrats. This party is nationalistic and aspires to im- prove conditions by constructive reforms. Paul Milyov- kov and Peter Struve are its principal intellectual leaders.'^ This in brief is the general social-political background of Russian sociology. Its theories appear to be re- lated to the various movements we have described, and they reflect the idealogies of both the social-political groups in power and those of the opposition. Sociology in Russia was at its zenith during the great reform movement of the sixties and seventies and in a lesser degree during the period of Russia's industrial development in the nineties and dur- ing the revolution at the close of the Russo-Japanese war. In following chapters we will analyze the various schools and trends of Russian sociology, both in their chronological order and their historical setting. ^ Cf. infra, pt. iii, ch. ii. CHAPTER II The Sociological Theories of the Slavophils and the RussoPHiLs (Danilevsky, Leontiev, and Soloviev) THE slavophilism OF DANILEVSKY The Slavophil vi^ws of Russian society were synthetized and to some extent purged of their metaphysical presupposi- tions by Danilevsky/ His approach is bio-sociological. He claims to have ar- rived at the conclusion, both from historical study and from biological analogy, that the Russians are a distinct and a peculiar people. He does not believe that Russia has for its mission the enlightenment of all mankind, as was claimed by the older Slavophils; according to Danilevsky, there are no forms of civilization which could be advan- tageously adopted by all peoples; there are but historical types of culture and the Slavic people represents one of them, which, in comparison with other civilizations, should be wider in its scope and more complete. Danilevsky's theory of historical types of culture. is based upon the biological proposition that there is more than a relative distinction between genera and species} He holds that the genus man or mankind is but an abstraction; real ^Nikolai Yakovlevitch Danilevsky (1822-1885) was an all-round scholar. He specialized in natural sciences, was a statistician, trans- lator, and wrote on psychological, economic and political subjects. His book, Russia and Europe, is regarded as classic within the wide range of Slavophil writings. ' Cf. Russia and Europe (Russian), 2d ed., pp. 125 ff. 46 [46 47] SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES 47 are only the species of man which in history can be recog- nized readily by their historical types of culture. His bio- logical presuppositions bring him into conflict with Darwin's theories of the origin of species and Danilevsky tries to defend his theory against the great Englishman.^ By his biological analogies Danilevsky attempts to bolster up and to corroborate his rather tractarian study of history, hoping thus to give it the appearance of something natural and inevitable. We give here an outline of the sociological aspect of his theory: There is nO' cast-iron rule for dividing history into var- ious periods. The division will depend, in part, upon the views of the historian, and in part upon the character of the development itself which may be modified more or less by local changes.^ Only within the one type at a time is it possible to distinguish those periods of historical movement which are designated by the words: ancient, medieval and modern history. This division is but sec- ondary; the primary classification consists in discrimin- ating the distinct historical types of culture from each other.* These are the independent, original planes, religious, social, and other of historical development.* We can determine the stages of development of a particular type of society whose cycle belongs to the past. We can say : ■" In a large work, Darwinism, of which but two volumes appeared. The author died before its completion. ^ Russia and Europe, p. 91. ' The Russian original which we translate as " historical types of cul- ture " is equivalent to the German " Kultur-Historische " This nomen- clature was used by the German historian Riickert, and it is possible that Danilevsky borrowed the term from him. For the relation of Danilevsky to iRiickert, see article of Bestuzhev-iRasumnik, Russky Vyestnik, October, 1894. * Russia and Europe, p. 88. 48 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [48 here its infancy comes to an end, here its youth, its maturity, here we see its old age, its decay ; which is to divide its history into archaic, ancient, mediaeval, and modern.^ There can then be no division of general history ex- cept into a natural system of historical types of culture or independent and original civilizations. These in their chro- nological order are as follows : (i) Egyptian, (2) Chinese, (3) Assyro-Babylono-Phoenician, Chaldean or Ancient Semitic, (4) Indian (Hindo), (s) Iranian, (6) Hebrew, (7) Greek, (8) Roman, (9) New- Semitic or Arabian, (10) Germano-Romanic or European. To these could be added two American types, the Mexican and the Peruvian which perished by violence thus being robbed of opportunity to complete their development.^ Only those peoples that produced an historical type of culture were the direct promoters of civilization. The var- ious types are to be discriminated into isolated types of civilization, like those of India and China, and into civiliza- tions which are built successively, one upon the ruins of the other, the decaying types serving the newly-rising types as material or as a " fertilizer ". Such were the civilizations of Egypt, the Assyro-Babylono-Phoenician, the Greek, the Roman and the European.^ Analogous to the comets and to the cosmic matter which moves among the planets of the solar system, there are in the world of man, besides the directly functioning cultural types or independent civilizations, temporary phenomena which disturb the existing order. " Such were the Huns, 1 Russia and Europe, p. 90. ' Ibid., p. 91. ' Cf. ibid., p. 92. 49] SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES 49 the Mongols, and the Turks, who having completed their destructive task of aiding the struggling civilizations to breathe their last, and of tearing asunder their remains, dis- appear and are again engulfed in obscurity. Let us call them the negating agents of humanity "} Finally there are tribes which, for various reasons, have neither a constructive nor a destructive mission tO' fulfill. They are largely ethnographic material, adding to the diver- sity and richness of those types of which they form constitu- ents; such are the Finnic tribes of Russia. At times also decayed historical types of culture descend to this stage.^ History proves that civilizations are not transferable from one historic type to another, their role is merely that of stimulating, " feeding " or " fertilizing ". " If civiliza- tions are spread by way of colonization or grafted upon peoples that are making their own civilizations, then the graft does not benefit the grafted either in the physio- logical or in the historical sense." * It lives on it like a parasite and its own original development also is hindered. " The transition from the ethnic stage to the civil and from the civil to a civilized and cultural stage is conditioned by series of spurs or shocks which stimulate and support the activity of peoples along a certain direction." * Such spurs and wars, competition of all kinds, and similar stimuli. Progress does not consist in a general movement of all peoples towards one set goal. Rather it consists in working the whole field of historical life in diverse ways. Thus 1 Russia and Europe, p. 93. ' Cf. ibid., p. 93. » Ibid., p. 104. * Ibid., p. 117. 50 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [50 " the many-sided manifestation of the human mind is progress "/ Civilizations which have developed upon the ruins of past historical types of culture, as, e. g., those of Europe, have the appearance of exceptional progressiveness.^ The East and Asia are " but characteristic indications of that age, in which a nation is wherever it may live "/ To nations as to all other organisms " is given but a cer- tain lease O'f life, and when this is exhausted they must die".* Hence progress is subject to the law of diminishing returns. "If the ethnic period is a time of ingathering, of storing for future activity, so the period of civilization is a time of expenditure . . . and no matter how great the store of energy, it must finally diminish and be exhausted". ° His theory O'f social evolution Dandlevsky sums up in five generalizations or laws, which are as follows : First law. Each family of peoples, which is characterized by a separate language or group of languages, so far alike among themselves that their kinship is immediately recog- nizable without elaborate philological investigations, pre- sents an original Historical Type of Culture, if in its mental capacity it is fit for historical development and has passed its stage of infancy. Second law. In order that a civilization capable of be- coming an original Historical Type of Culture, may arise and develop, it is necessary that the peoples which belong to it shall enjoy political independence. Third law. The beginnings of civilization of one His- torical Type of Culture are not transmitted to peoples of a different type. Each type must work these out for itself, ^ Russia and Europe, p. 92. ' Ibid., p. 76. ' Ibid., p. 77. *Ibid.,p.7S. ^Ibid., p. 113. 51 ] SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES 51 even when under the influence of more or less foreign types which have preceded it or which are contemporary with it. Fourth law. The civilization peculiar to each Historical jType of Culture reaches its plenitude, variety and rich- ness, only when the various ethnographic elements that compose it form a federation or a political system of co- ordinate governments ; presuming that they were not already assimilated in a political whole. Fifth law. The evolution of Historical Types of Culture is nearly analogous to those perennial plants which bear fruit only once. These plants, although having an indefinite period of growth, enjoy but a relatively short period of bloom and fruit-bearing and through this exhaust once and for all their vital forces.^ This theory of the " Historical Types of Culture " the author applies to his study of the Slavic peoples in contrast to their western neighbors. He finds among the Slavs, es- pecially the Russians, all the elements necessary to form an independent Historical Type of Culture. According to this author also, there are four main lines of activity to which nearly all independent civilizations have contributed : These are: (i) Religion, (2) Culture proper, as science, art and industry, (3) Politics, and (4) Social Economics. All past civilizations have contributed to one or more of these fac- tors, not one has done justice to all. In the case of the Slavs it is to be different. He says : " On the basis of analysis of the general results of activity of past Historical Types of Culture, and comparing thejm in part with the special characteristics ^ of the Slavic world and in part with 1 Cf. Russia and Europe, pp. 9S-96. • The " special characteristics " which Danilevsky believed the Slavs to possess are much the same as those recognized by other Slavophil writers mentioned, supra, ch. i. 52 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [52 those latent abilities peculiar to the Slavic nature — ^we may cherish a well founded hope that the Slavic Historical Type of Culture will for the first time present a synthesis of all the aspects of cultural activity. . . . We may hope that the Slavic type will be the first complete four-basal His- torical Type of Culture." ^ This outline of Danilevsky's views needs little comment. His Slavophil predictions are not coincident with the facts of Russian historical development.^ There is still the pos- sibility, however, that Russia may develop a relatively in- dependent type of civilization. Danilevsky's a:ttempt to divide history " naturally " is commendable, nevertheless, his tenfold division is arbitrary, as is apparent from such groupings as the "Assyro-Baby- lono-Phoenician, Chaldean or Ancient Semitic ". Modem study of the civilizations of the Mediterranean basin shows at least as much relative difference among these as among the civilizations of contemporary Western and Eastern Europe. The cultural achievements of humanity are the product of no people in particular. It is true that there are types of civilization, but these are not so rigidly divided as Danilevsky supposes. In their aggregate they present a multimodal curve, their independence at its best being merely relative, as all have a common base. As modern means of communication continue to develop and the nations of the world are brought closer together, this fact becomes more and more generally recognized. And there are sociologists who believe that the future will produce one federated type of civilization.' 1 Russia and Europe, p. 556. Italics are the author's. ^ Cf. footnote, supra, p. 32. ' For example, De Graff, On Boundaries and Yacov Novicov in sev- eral of his works. 53] SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES 53 II. The Rtissophilism of Leontiev Akin to the Slavophil views just examined are the social theories of Leontiev.^ By temperament an ultra-conservative, he even parted ways with the Slavophils who seemed to him to undermine Russia's independence by their doctrine of Panslavism.^ His aim was to preserve at any cost: first, a particular kind of mystic Christianity, strictly ecclesiastical and mon- astic and of a Byzantine and partly Roman type; second, a firm and centralized monarchical government, and finally, the original beauty and simplicity of life in its national forms. Democracy and internationalism he regards as signs of racial decay and therefore as the worst enemies of hu- manity.^ His reactionary policy he justifies by a theory of social evolution which presents in itself an attempt to syn- thesize the ideas of Saint Simon, Hegel, Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer.* * Konstantin Nikolaevitch Leontiev (1831-91). By profession a sur- geon, he served as an officer of foreign affairs in the near Orient, was censor of literature, editor, novelist and social philosopher. He ended his life in a monastery, little known and appreciated by his kinsmen. Volumes V and VI of his works cover his sociological writings. ' He says : " The idea of an orthodox cultural Russism is actually original, lofty and firmly official. But Panslavism " at any price " is but an imitation and nothing else. It is a contemporary European- liberal ideal, it is a striving to be like the rest — the Russians of our age must strive passionately towards spiritual, intellectual and cultural independence. . . . And then also the other Slavs will in time follow in our footsteps." Works, vol. vi, p. 189. ' He says : " The leveling process brought about by the mixture of classes and the strong tendency towards shallow homogeneity, instead of the former despotic unity in an heterogeneous forcibly controlled environment— this is the first step towards disintegration." Ibid., p. 219. * Leontiev claims to have arrived at this theory of social evolution in- dependently of Herbert Spencer. He says : " Herbert Spencer was not known to me when in 1870 I wrote my essay, " Byzantium and Slavo- philism." Ibid., p. 52, chapter vii of this essay contains in outline his theory of social evolution. 54 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [54 A brief outline of his theory is as f ollowsi : " The idea of evolution is carried over from the exact sciences into the historical sphere and presents a complex concept." ^ The process of evolution in the organic world is A gradual ascent from the simple to the complex, a continuous adaptation on the one hand to the environment of its similar and kindred organisms, and on the other hand a continuous individuation from all similar and kindred phenomena. . . . It is a continuous process from inexpressiveness and simplicity to originality and complexity ... a gradual accretion of complex elements, an inner increase and simultaneously a continuous integration ... so that the highest point of evo- lution is the highest degree of complexity, held together by some inner despotic force. This is the case not only with organic bodies, but generally with all organic phenomena. . . . With this process of evolution goes on a continuous differen- tiation of form in the parts as in the whole. . . . The same is found in the evolution of an animal body, in the evolution of the human organism and even in the evolution of the human mind and character.^ " All organic phenomena are subject to the same law." * " When things begin to approach death a simplifying of the organism begins." * Before the final decay the individuation of parts as of the whole weakens. The disintegrating organism becomes internally more homogeneous, is closer to its environment and more like its kindred phenomena. ° Thus organic and social evolution constitute a triune process following the three stages: " (i) of prindtive sim- » Works, vol. V, p. 188. ' Ihid., p. 189. Cf. also vol. vi, p. 219. • Ihid., p. 190. * Ihid., p. 191. » Cf. ihid., p. 192. 55] SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES 55 plicity, (2) of flourishing complexity, and (3) 0/ a second- ary disintegrating simplicity." ^ Leontiev thinks this formula is applicable also to the in- organic world. He says : This triune process is peculiar not only to the world which calls itself strictly organic but perhaps also to everything existing in space and time. It may be characteristic also of the heav- enly bodies, and also of the history of their mineral incrusta- tions and of the character of man, it is clearly seen in the process of evolution of the arts, in the schools of painting, of music and of architecture; in philosophic systems, in the his- tory of religions and finally in the life of tribes, government organisms, and in whole civilizations.^ The evolution of government is usually expressed in a simultaneous development of a peculiarly suitable form. Dissolution begins by the breaking-up of this form, and by its becoming more like its environment. " The form is a despotism of an inner idea, which prevents it from falling apart. To break the bonds of this natural despotism means the perishing of the phenomenon." * Accordingly each nation has its own governmental form which in the main is unchangeable throughout its historical existence. There are, however, more or less rapid changes lin its parts from beginning to end. In its development it is at first not self-conscious, and not at once to be understood. It expresses itself well only in its middle period of highest complexity and highest unity, sooner or later follows some injury to the parts of the form and after that begins its dis- integration and death.* 1 Works, vol. V, p. 197. Italics are the author's. ' Ibid., pp. 193-194. ^ Ibid., p. 197- ; * Cf. ibid., p. 204. 56 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [56 The author concludes that, as this is the case with all nations and governments, one ought to be active like " a moving sail or a steam boiler " as the nation is approaching* its heights, but after that " it is more worthy to be an anchor or a brake for a nation which is descending as down a steep mountain ".^ By this curious application of his theory of social evolution, Leontiev seeks to justify Russian despotism and to combat democracy, which he feared as a sign of approaching disintegration. We cannot deny to the author a certain degree of in- genuity, but throughout he lacks consistency and the ability to correlate facts with a theoretic formula. His picture of Democracy is a phantom of his imagination and is not drawn from historical facts. Throughout known history Democracy has not been primarily a leveling and shallow- ing force. Its tendency has been rather to equalize oppor- tunity and so to advance a natural and not an hereditary aristocracy. Probably the highest degree of complexity has been reached only in democratic society which necessi- tates an extensive division of labor. It has been held together not by bonds of ecclesiastical and Jmonarchical despotism, but by the bonds of homogeneous consumption and equali- zation of opportunity. Whatever of truth Leontiev's theory of the three organic stages may possess, the facts of Euro- pean history do not fall within his categories. III. The Neo'-Slavophilism of, Vladimir S. Soloviev To conclude the review of the Slavophil theories we pre- sent the contribution of Vladimir Soloviev to this trend of thought.^ ^ Works, vol. V, p. 208. ^Vladimir Sergeyevitch Soloviev (1853-1900) was the son of the emi- nent Russian historian S. M. Soloviev. VI. S. Soloviev is regarded as 57] SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES 57 P. N. Milyoukov ^ calls him the founder of Neo-Slavo- philism or of the left insurgent wing of the Slavophil move- ment. He claims that Soloviev based this new school on the principle that the social ideals of Christianity must be realized in the social and political life of humanity, and that the Russian people united with the Roman hierarchy are best fitted to realize this ideal in a united Catholic Church.^ This premise of the older Slavophilism seems to have been difficult for Soloviev to part with, although he himself had severely criticized the Slavophils as " idolaters of the people ", because they considered the Slavic people to be endowed with ultimate truth, power and beauty.* Soloviev is not so much of a partisan as his predecessors were. He is, however, strongly biased by religious pre- dilections. Sociology in his system appears as social ethics. He says : " The actual ethical problem inevitably carries us into the province which determines the current historical exist- ence of society, or of collective man." * The problem which he tries tO' solve is that of the inter- relation of society and of the individual, or the problem of one of Russia's most able thinkers and the creator of the first complete system of Russian Philosophy. His works are in nine volumes. His philosophical system has been summed up in a doctor's dissertation by D. V. Usnadse, " Die Metaphysishe Weltanschauung Wladimir Ssolo- wiows mit orientirendem Uberblick seiner Erkenntnistheorie." Halle- Wittenberg, 1909. 1 In an article, " The Disintegration of Slavophilism," Questions of Philosophy and Psychology (Russian), May, 1893. ' In Russia and Its Crisis, p. 63. Milyoukov says : " Pope and Tzar allied with the prophet of their union between them; such was Solo- viov's apocolyptical vision." • Cf. his National Questions of Russia, Works, vol. v, pp. 139-336. ■* Works, vol. vii, p. 210. 58 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [58 individuation with social control. He resents on the one hand the ideas of the moral subjectivists or individualists who regard each individual as self-determining and inde- pendent of society; on the other hand he thinks that man is more than a social animal which exists only for the sake of the group.^ According to Soloviev, the human indi- vidual is a potentiality for realizing unlimited possibilities. He is a unique form of infirate content. The potentialities of man, dividing him off from other animals, are three pecu- liar psychic characteristics, the religious., the sense of pity and the sense of shame. These are the premises upon which Soloviev's whole system of ethics and of sociology is built.' Society is nothing else but an objectively-realizing con- tent of the individual. According to its actual purpose so- ciety is not an outer boundary of the individual but is his completion, and in relation to the multiplicity of individ- ual units society is not an arithmetical summing-up or a mechanical aggregate. It is an indivisible unit of life, which in part is already realized and is preserved through enduring social traditions, and in part is being realized in the present by means of social activities, and which finally proceeds through a better knowledge of the social ideal towards its future complete realization.^ In the process of historical evolution, too, these three prin- cipal remaining characteristics of the socio-individual life — the religious, the political and the prophetic — correspond to three successive stages in human consciousness and in the social structure, namely: " (i) The tribal which belongs to the past and which is preserved in the family, having changed only its outer form, (2) the national-gov- ' Cf. ibid., p. 273. ' Cy. Works, vol. vii, pt. i, and also pp. 480-81. 'Ibid., p. 214. 59] SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES eg ernmental order, which dominates at present, and, (3) the universal association of man as the ideal of the future." "^ Thus society is a supplemented or widened individual, and the individual is a condensed or concentrated society. The moral historical problem consists not in creating socio- individual solidarity (for it is potentially present) but in raising it into consciousness, in transforming it from an involuntary into a voluntary entity, so that everyone may understand, accept and do the common task as his own. From the beginning man appears to be a socio-individual being, and all of history is but a continuous deepening, ele- vating and widening of the two-sided socio-individual life. Out of these two indivisible and correlated terms the indi- vidual is the moving, the dynamic force and society is the indirectly controlling, static basis of history. There is no necessary antagonism between the individual and society; there is but conflict, arising in individual initiative, between new and previous stages of socio-individual evolution.^ The primitive group — the clan — contains in germ all the elements, religious, altruistic and artistic, which are necessary to the realization of individual human dignity. The clan developed into the tribe, the ethnic nation into civilized society. But in every stage the right of control by the group is conditioned and relative, man continuing to develop his primary ethical characteristics towards individ- ual dignity.' Each human society can assure its survival and raise its dignity only by conforming to its moral norm. The moral norm or law is the sanctioning by reason of those impulses 1 Works, vol. vii, p. 215. ' Condensed from ibid., pp. Z15-17. » Cf. Works, vol. vii, pp. 480-81. 6o RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [6o which proceed from the three pecuHar psychic character- istics of man.^ Accordingly the crucial matter lies not in the outward pre- servation of institutions, be these of one kind or another, good or bad, but " in a systematic effort to improve social relations and institutions internally, subjecting them to the one moral ideal of voluntary conformity for the general good ".' Progress in its moral or historical sense consists in " an organic and indivisible unification of the highly individu- ated man with social control ", i. e., progress is the identifi- cation of man individualized and man socialized.* It is a continuous and better execution of duties which grow out of the past but which continue to serve as a new force to move on towards the perfect goal.* " Organization in its general meaning is a coordination of many means and implements of a lower order for the purpose of reaching one general goal of a higher order." " The moral organization of humanity is an indivisible triune task. Its absolute purpose is determined by the church as organized piety, collectively receiving divine influence ; her formal means and implements are given by a purely human voluntary beginning of just pity or sym- pathy, collectively organized in the state ; and only the final substratum or material of the divinely human organism is found in the province of the economic life, being con- trolled by the principle of restraint." ' Cf. Works, vol. vii, p. 481. » Ihid., p. 287. ' Ihid., p. 420. * Cf. ihid., p. 433. 5 Ihid., p. 475. « Cf. ibid., p. 476. 6l] SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES gi These are the general features of the theory of society which is the basis of Soloviev's Neo-Slavophilism.^ To recapitulate, Soloviev starts with the premise that there are three primary psychic characteristics peculiar to the human, species. They are the sense of piety, the sense of pity and the sense of shame, answering to the three logic- ally possible stages of high, level and low. Because of these psychic peculiarities man is more than a social animal. He is a socio-individual being. His progress through the var- ious historical stages, from the primitive ethnic group to civilized society, consists in the concurrent development and unification of his individual interests and aspirations with those of the group. His highest development is as a mem- ber of a Christian brotherhood, the Catholic Church, which represents organized piety. The state protecting society is organized pity, and finally, humanity's economic mainten- ance is secured by organized restraint, the third peculiar psychic characteristic of man. ^ It is also the sociological aspect of his system of ethics : " The justification of the good," which is the subject of vol. vii of his works. Most of our quotations are taken from this volume. We call Soloviev a Neo^Slavophil not because he called himself so, for he did not, but because of the organic connections of his conclu- sion with the Slavophil School. CHAPTER III The Sociological Theories of the Westernists (chaadaev, belinsky, herzen, bakunin, granovsky AND CHERNISHEVSKY) The Slavophils, who' had turned away from the culture of Western Europe, emphasizing national and racial soli- darity and exclusiveness, found themselves opposed by a class of thinkers who^ placed individual and humanitarian interests in the forefront, and who believed that Russia had much to learn from the West before it was to become a civilized nation. These thinkers were generally called " Westernists ".' There appear to be three relatively distinct trends of thought that may be studied under tiie caption of West- ernism. They are: (i) The theocratic trend of the thir- ties with Chaadaev as its representative intellect and theo- rizer; (2) the humanitarian trend of the forties with Belinsky as its leading exponent; (3) the populist philos- ophy of the sixties for which Herzen and others paved the way in the previous decade, but which is most closely asso- ciated with the name of Chernishevsky. All these currents of thought were accelerated by Western ideas: the first had the impetus of Jesuit philosophy; the second of German idealism and French rationalism; and the last of German materialism and French positivism. 1 Some English authors prefer to transliterate the term as " Occi- dentalists." 62 [62 63] THEORIES OF THE WESTERNISTS 63 I. The Theocratic Theory of Chaddaev The representative theorizer of the Theocratic phase of Russian Westernism was Chaadaev.^ His opinion of Rus- sia was that " it is one of those nations which, it seems, do not represent any necessary part of humanity but merely exist for the purpose of teaching the world at some time a great lesson ". According to our geographic location between the West and the East, resting with one elbow on China and with the other on Germany, we ought to unite in ourselves the two great fun- damentals of knowledge : imagination and reason. We ought to correlate in our civil education the history of the whole world. But such has not been our lot. Marooned in the world we have given nothing to it, have taken nothing from it. We have added no single idea to the mass of human ideas, have given nothing to perfect human understanding, and have distorted everything which brought us such perfection.^ The root of this evil, according to his opinion, lies in the fact that Russia received its " first seeds of moral and in- tellectual enlightenment from corrupt Byzantit^, ostra- cized by all peoples ".' " Our exotic civilization," he con- tinues, " has set us apart from the rest of Europe in such a way that we have none of her ideas. ... If our own ante- 1 Peter Yakovlevitch Chaadaev (1793-1856) was a Moscovite gentle- man of considerable erudition. His theories concerning Russia ap- peared in his " Philosophical Letters '', the first of which when pub- lished in a Russian periodical, the Telescop, vol. 34, no. IS, roused the Russian nationalists to great indignation. The government exiled the publisher, and the author was declared' insane and put under medical observation. Chaadaev's works are now being edited in Moscow; the first volume appeared in 1913, and contains his famous " Philosophical Letters'', in French. 2 Chaadaev, Lettres sur la philosophie de I'histoire. Works, vol. i, Moscow, 1913, p. 84. » Ibid., p. 85. 64 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [64 cedents do not tie us to any other people on earth, if, in fact, we do not belong to any other people on earth, nor to any of the moral systems of the universe, we cling, in spite of it, through our social superficiality, to the Occident." '■ Chaadaev thinks that the only way for Russia to be- come truly civilized lies through yielding to the Roman Catholic Church and faith. He looks with great admira- tion upon the Roman Church, which succeeded in accom- plishing the unity of Europe, something that since the schism created by the reformation, no other institution has been able to achieve. We never dreamed that for centuries this society [the Roman Church] had formed a real federal system and that this sys- tem was not dissolved until the time of the reformation. The nations of Europe considered themselves before this deplorable event as one social body. Although geographically divided into states, they were one from the moral point of view, as for a long time there was no other public right among them than the decree of the Church.^ Medieval history is to Chaadaev a history of one great Christian people and its wars may be viewed as civil wars. Trouble began with the Protestant schism. " The breaking of the unity of thought has broken the unity of society." ^ This last statement may be taken as the basic doc- trine of Chaadaev. He saw no other institution fit to es- tablish unity of thought except the intolerant Roman hier- archy. Rome has guarded the moral and intellectual de- velopment of all former generations since the origin of things. She, therefore, should remain the unifying and 1 Works, vol. i, p. 137. ' Ibid., p. 106. • Idem. 65] THEORIES OF THE WESTERNISTS gc civilizing force of humanity. Chaadaev hoped for the day on which the schismatic churches, in a spirit of penitence and humihty, in sack-cloth and ashes, should decide to recog- nize their error and return to the mother church.^ Chaadaev was admired for his bold thinking by many of the Russian intellectuals, although but few of them took him seriously. They preferred for themselves the Hegelian phil- osophy of history which promised them a little more than an opportunity to yield to the control of a medieval insti- tution. II. The Hwmanitarianism of. Belinsky Belinsky ^ was representative of the humanitarian trend of Russian Westernism. He was not a sociologist in the severely scientific sense of the word, but he may be re- garded as a precursor of what later became known as the populist wing of the Subjectivist School of Sociology. He saw the fundamental problem of that school and tried to find a solution of it. This problem consisted in finding a principle that would estabHsh the true relation be- tween society and the individual. He made use of the organic view. "A people," he says, " is not an ab- stract concept ; a people is a living individuality whose vital diversities serve one end. A people is an individual like a separate man." ' When it first arises, a people is unconscious; passing 1 Works, vol. i, p. 118. 'Vissarion Gregorievitch Belinsky (1810-1848), one of Russia's illus- trious literary critics and publicists, reflects in his writings the rapid changes through which the intellectual class of Russia passed. From Schelling, Fichte and Hegel he went over to Feuerbach and Marx, becoming one of the first advocates of Marxian ideas in Russia. Works (Russian), four volumes. ' Belinsky, Works, St. Petersburg ed., i8p6, vol. i, p. 337- 66 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [66 through all the stages of a human being it emerges into consciousness within the periods of its youth and man- hood. " The beginning of the life of each people is hidden by geographic, ethnographic, geological and climatic condi- tions. When man passes out from his state of nature, he begins a struggle with nature, subjects her to himself and even changes her by the power of his reason." ^ Primitive groups or tribes are " a kind of infusoria of political society, powerless to take on a definite, rational form, i. e., a form of government." ^ Through conflict primitive tribes become increasingly self-conscious and are amalgamated into peoples. " A peo- ple becomes a state only when control, sanctioned by time, reaches formulation; then folk life receives definite, confirmed spoken or written forms, and these forms pass into laws." Hence, " the state is the highest stage of asso- ciated life and its highest and only rational form. Only by becoming a member of the state does man cease to be a slave to nature, and only as a member of the state does he appear as a truly rational being." " In Hegelian fashion Belinsky views society as a product of opposites. He says, " Struggle is the necessary condi- tion of life; when the struggle ends life ceases. The sub- jective man is in eternal conflict with the objective world and therefore with society — but this conflict is not a revolt, it is a continuous striving towards one side or the other." * " Hence each man has two lives, each of which successively holds and impresses him. In the conflict of these two he finds his own life." ' Thus Belinsky attempts to solve the problem of the rela- 1 Works, vol. i, p. 342. ^ Ibid., p. 343. s Idem. * Ibid., p. 355. ' Ibid., p. 357. 6;] THEORIES OF THE WESTERN ISTS 67 tion of the individual to society. We see that he makes the individual subject to the group. Society is to him " a huge body with innumerable heads, but with one soul, with one individual I." ^ When in later years Belinsky disavowed his allegiance to the German idealist metaphysicians and entered the ranks of the young Hegelians, he still remained true to his earlier views which made the individual a product of and sub- ject to the group. He says : " What lives unconsciously in a people as a potentiality appears in the genius as a reali- zation and as an actuality. A people is related to its great men as the soil is to the plant which it brings forth. Here is unity and not division, there is no dualism here." ^ The source of all progress, of all advance lies not in the dualism of a people, but in the nature of man. Belinsky, after he accepted positivism and German ma- terialism, did not live long enough to develop these new views nor to apply them to the political and social life of his generation. III. Herzen, the Precursor of Russian. Populism The thought which Belinsky seized upon in the latter years of his life was brilliantly developed by Herzen,^ the famous leader of the Russian intellectuals, who was one of the first of the group later known as the Populist or Rus- sian Socialist School of Sociologists. '• Works, vol. i, p. 358. ' Vol. iv, p. 466. 'Alexander Ivanovitch Herzen (1812-1870), one of Russia's most powerful writers. He lived in exile in Western Europe after 1846. He is best known through the publication of his progressive periodical, " The Bell ", which played a great role in bringing about the great Russian reforms of the sixties. Works, Petrograd ed., 190S, vii vol- umes. 68 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [68 Herzen left Russia as an ardent admirer of Western Europe. He hoped that from the West would come salva- tion to his native country. But when after the revolution- ary year of 1848, a general reaction set in, he was much disappointed. He says : " I see the inevitable ruin of old Europe. I am not sorry for anything she has, neither for her superb education, nor for her institutions. I love noth- ing in this world save what she persecuted; I appreciate nothing but what she puts to death." He was convinced that Western Europe was evolving a commonality — a bourgeoisie, which he greatly disliked and which he hoped that Russia might escape. " Commonality is the ideal toward which Europe is tending." ^ " Common- ality is the last word of a civilization founded upon the un- limited right of private property; it is democratizing aris- tocracy and aristocratizing democracy." " In a bourgeoisie individuality is wiped out, although people without indi- viduality are bettered." ^ Everywhere the hydra-headed commonality lacks discrimin- ation, is ever ready to hear everything, to see everything, to dress in everything, to eat ever)rthing ; it is that autocratic mob of conglomerated mediocrity, as John Stuart Mill expresses it, which buys everything and therefore owns everything; a mob which is not ignorant, but also is never truly educated.* " Commonality is the final mode of Western civilization ; alas, it is the etat adulte." * It must be noticed that Herzen was not agitating against the bourgeoisie merely as a class, as Socialist writers com- monly do. He disliked the shallowing, leveling tendency, which was introduced into Europe with the triumph of ' Vol. V, p. 356. ' Ibid., p. 357. » Ibid., p. 359. * Ibid., p. 392. 69] THEORIES OP THE WESTERNISTS gg the bourgeoisie, and which had penetrated everything, even Socialism, which was to him only a further extension of the same commonizing or leveling tendency. Herzen, the founder of Russian socialism, was at heart an aristocrat, an individualist,^ and his theory of a " special " evolution of Russian society reflects throughout his deep-seated in- dividualism. He resents the imputation that since the Russians belong to the European family, they must follow, according to an unalterable physiological law, the same evolutionary pro- cess through which the Romano-Germanic peoples have passed; " there is no such paragraph in the code of physio- logical laws, . . .the general plan of evolution permits of unlimited numbers of variations, unforeseen as the trunk of the elephant or the hump of the camel." ^ Hence there are no biological obstacles to a special evolution of the Russian people. " In nature, in life, there exist no monopo- lies, no means by which the crossing of zoological species, of new historical destinies, and of governmental forms could be prevented. But not only the phases of evolution and the forms of customs change ; there are created new nations and peoples, whose destinies follow diverse ways." * He points to the American people as an example, and adds : if a new soil was sufficient to make from the commingling of old peoples a peculiar characteristic nation, why should a 1 " The goal of each generation," says Herzen, " is itself. Nature not only refrains from making generations the means for the attain- ments of the future, but it never even cares for the future." Works, vol. V, p. 187. " The individual virhich is the only real monad of society, has always been sacrificed to some kind of a general concept, to a col- lective name, to some kind of a banner.'' ..." We live not for the purpose of entertaining others, we live for ourselves." Works, vol. v, pp. 256 and 261. » Works, vol. v, p. 402. ' Ibid., p. 404. yo RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [70 people that had an independent development under conditions different from those of the Western nations and with other origins in the ways of life — depend upon European remnants, especially if they know in advance whither they lead ? ^ "Russia heretofore has evolved nothing of her own, but she has preserved some things; she, like a stream, reflected on the surface the shores which pressed her; she reflected them truly but only on the surface." ^ "The commune saved the Russian people from Mongolian barbarism, from the landlord of European fashion, and from German bu- reaucracy. The communal organization, although largely shattered, stood against interference of the state; it has fortunately lived till the development of Socialism in Europe." * How fortunate for Russia that the present commune did not perish, that personal property did not dissolve the property of the commune; how fortunate for the Russian people that it was omitted from all political movements, from European civilization, which without doubt, would have undermined the commune and which now has reached in Socialism the stage of self-renunciation.* " The man of the future Russia will be the peasant," just as in " France he will be the workingman." ° " The idea of a social revolution is a European idea; but the conclusion should not be drawn that the Western peo- ples are the only ones called to realize it." ° "In fact, should socialism prove unable to re-establish decaying so- 1 Works, vol. V, p. 404. ' Ibid., p. 403. ^ Ibid., p. 274. Italics are authors. * Ibid., pp. 274-275. ' Ibid., p. 275. 6 Ibid., p. 305. 71 ] THEORIES OP THE WESTERNISTS 71 ciety and complete its destiny — Russia will complete it." '^ " The Slavic world is much younger than the European." ^ " In Russia there is nothing fixed, nothing fossilized ; every- thing in it is in a plastic stage of preparation." * " The re- volutionary idea of Socialism can become with us an idea of the people. Whereas in Europe socialism is taken for the phantom of disorder and terror, with us, on the contrary, it appears a prophetic vision of the future development of our people." * " To retain the commune, while giving freedom to the individual, to spread local self-government, while retaining national unity — in these lies the problem of the future Rus- sia." ° " National Russian ways of life and the science of the West, these two synthesized will become our power, our future, our prerogative." " The contribution of the Russian peasant world to future civilization consists of elements which are old, but now are rising into consciousness and are met with in the efforts of the West for economic reconstruction. They consist in these three factors: 1. The right of each one to the use of the soil. 2. Its communal ownership. 3. Local self-government. Upon the basis of these three, and only upon them, can the future Russia develop.^ These quotations from a wide range of Herzen's works give us in brief his idea of the " special " evolution of Rus- 1 Works, vol. V, p. 311. ' Ibid., p. 315. ' ibid-' P- 317. * Ibid., p. 323. ^ Ibid., p. 320. « Collection of , articles of "The Bell" Geneva ed., 1887 (Russian), p. 454- ' Cf. Works, vol. vi, p. 285. ^2 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [72 sian society. It approaches at several points the Slavophil view. Of this Herzen was aware ; he says : We and the Slavophils represented a kind of two-faced Janus : only they looked backward, and we looked forward. At heart we were one; and our hearts throbbed equally for our minor brother — the peasant — with whom our mother country was pregnant. But what for them was a recollection of the past, was taken by us as a prophecy for the future.^ Herzen, as also some of the Slavophils, saw no solution of the existing social problems in political revolutions or in parliamentarianism. He wanted a social, not a political, revolution. His writings, which throughout his earlier works sounded a distinctly anarchistic note, changed their temper as he grew older. In his posthumous works, espec- ially in his letters to his friend Bakunin, we get interesting evidence of his increasing conservatis,m. He says : " The slowness and confusion of the historic process is maddening and is choking us; it is intolerable to us and many of us hasten and hurry others, although we know better. Is this good or not? Herein lies the whole question." ^ His an- swer is that force can bring on a premature birth but will not make the infant more perfect. A certain stage in the process of social evolution may be broken up, but this does not guarantee that existing conditions are favor- able for the next stage. " I fear not," he continues. " the word gradvAil, . . . gradualness, as continuity is impercep- tible to any person of reason. Mathematics is acquired gradually, why then should the generalization of sociology ' From Herzen's Memoirs. Quoted by Milyoukov, Russia and Its Crisis, p. 366. •"Letters to an old friend" (1869). A. J. Herzen, Geneva, 2d ed., 1874, pp. 288 et seq. 73] THEORIES OF THE WESTERNISTS 73 be inoculated like small-pox ". And then he concludes : " I do not believe in the former revolutionary ways and I seek to understand human advance in the past and in the present, in order to know how to keep up with it, and not straggle nor run ahead so far that the people will not fol- low and cannot follow." ^ Herzen, we have learned, hoped for a special evolution of the Russian people. His aversion to specialization of any kind, on the one hand, and to mediocrity and dilet- tantism, on the other hand, made him seek for a synthesis of these extremes. To have succeeded he could not claim, and so he resigned himself to the fact that the his- toric process cannot be accelerated or changed; the wisest way is to keep- step. This comparative conservatism which marks the eve of his life remained, however, unnoticed by the fervent spirits of the younger generation who seized and cherished his revolutionary ideas alone. IV. The Anarchistic Theories of Bakunin Bakunin's ^ writings have little scientific value. They are extremely doctrinaire, being baised by the author's bitter hatred of existing social institutions, especially by his dis- like of church and state. But he must be mentioned in this symposium of precursors because of his wide and con- ' Idem. ' Mikhail Alexandrovitch Bakunin (1814-1876), a dynamic personalitj expressing in himself the critical transitional stage through which Russia was passing with the rise of the bourgeoisie and the struggle for democracy. In 1840 Bakunin left Russia. He took part in almost all revolutions of that period which swept over Western Europe. Twice he was sentenced to death; he tasted Siberian exile. He is especially known by his opposition to Marx in the Association inter- nationale des travailleurs, from which he was expelled in 1872. Works (Russian), Bolashev edition, two volumes, and French, " Oeuvres de Bakunine", 1895, also some in German. 74 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [74 tinuous influence upon the radical elements not only of Rus- sia but also of other parts of Europe. Bakunin adheres to the organic view of society. " We must," he says, " look at human society as at any organism " ; it is true that it is much more complex than a biological organism but just as natural, being subject to the same laws in addition to which it is governed by its own exclusive and characteristic laws."^ " Each people appears as a collective being possessing physical, psychic and politico-social peculiarities, which individualize it, and separate it from all other peoples." All this is due "to an infinitely complex aggregate of an innum- erable amount of very dififerent causes, large or small, of which a part is known, while much of it remains unknown."^ Everything that exists, all beings, whatever be their nature in regard to quality and quantity influence each other, regard- less of desire or consciousness, by means of direct or indirect actions and reactions. These endless actions and reactions combining into unified movement comprise what we call gen- eral coherence, life, causation.* " This universal life creates worlds — it continues in the human realms, creating society with all its past and all its future development." * Bakunin warns his readers not to interpret his words in the metaphysical sense when he says that " life is creative- ness ",° and that man is a dynamic creative force within the human realm. He says : What we call the human realm, has no other direct creator than man, who makes it, forging little by little from the outer world and from his own animality his liberty and his 1 Bakunin, Works, Bolashev ed. (Russian), vol. i, p. 89. ' Ibid., p. 91. ' Ibid., p. 91. ' Ibid., p. 90. ^ Ibid., p. 99. 75] THEORIES OF THE WESTERNISTS 75 human dignity. He conquers it by a craving force, independ- ent of himself, unconquerable and equally a part of all human beings. This force, this universal stream of life, is the same which we term universal causation or nature, and which ap- pears in all living beings, plant or animal. The tendency of each individuality is to ascertain for itself conditions necessary for the life of its kind, i. e. needed to satisfy its own necessities.^ " Within that environment which itself produces' man he attains, by means of toil and thanks to his reason, his con- sciousness of liberty." * " Nature itself in its successive phenomenal changes strives towards liberation A greater individual liberty appears to be an unfailing sign of perfection." ^ " Man is the most individualized of earthly beings but he also appears to be the most socialized of all beings." * Thus " Society is the natural phenomenon of existing peo- ples, independent of any kind of contract. It is governed by disposition and by traditional customs, but never by laws. It gradually progresses, being moved forward by impulses of individual initiative, and not by the thought and will of the legislator." ° By this view of society and its moving forces, Bakunin justifies his anarchistic negations of law and government. The state, accordingly, is to him : A huge cemetery in which occur self-sacrifice, death and burial of all phenomena of individual and local life, of the interests of those parts, which in their aggregate compose society. It is an altar upon which the real liberty and welfare of the 1 Works, vol. i, p. 109. ' Ibid., p. 112. ' Ibid., p. 131. * Ibid., p. 132. ' tbid., p. I33- 76 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [76 people is brought as a sacrifice to political greatness ; and the more this sacrificing is extended the more the state is complete.^ Hence the state is an abstraction which devours the life of the people; but for such an abstraction to be born, de^ velop and continue its existence in the real world, a real collective body must exist whose interests are bound up with the existence of the state. Such cannot be the ma- jority of the people, for they appear to be victims of the state. He concludes : " The state was always the pos- session of a privileged class : the priesthood, the nobility or the bourgeoisie ".^ The rise of classes Bakunin traces back to the animal in- stinct of difference. He says: "Each species of animals subdivides into different groups and families which change under influences of geographic and climatic conditions." * Through these external influences small groups or varieties are formed within the species which are hostile to one an- other and which seek to destroy one another. The instinc- tive hostility of animal groups the author calls : " Natural Patriotism ", and he defines it as : " instinctive, mechanical and deprived of any critical attachment of oneself to the socially accepted, hereditary, traditional mode of life, and an equally instinctive, mechanical hostility to any other mode of hfe." * " Natural Patriotism " carried over into human society (as it emerged from the animal world) and, equipped with religious sanction, became finally the goverimient. " Thus God, or rather the fiction of God, appears as the sanction, and as the intellectual and moral cause of every slavery on earth; and the liberty of man will be complete 1 Works, vol. i, p. 188. ' Ibid., p. 189. » Ibid., p. 193. • Ibid., p. 194. yy-\ THEORIES OF THE WESTERNISTS 77 only when man completely annihilates the pernicious fiction of the heavenly ruler." ^ The origin of religion Bakunin explains by man's sense of dependence upon the powers of nature. Religion " like all other human institutions has its origin in animal life." ^ This is Bakunin's account of the rise of existing institu- tions. What form of society does he regard as proper and beneficent? He believes that the organization of society should be from the bottom up. Federalism is the ideal organization/ and the goal of evolution. According to the Hegelian tril- ogy, Kakunin views "the centralized states as thesis, anarchy or amorphism as antithesis, and federation of the inde- pendent groups and people as synthesis." * Anarchism as the antithesis is to be attained by direct action through " the propaganda of the deed ",^ and by teaching that the revo- lution (j. e., the end) sanctions the means. ° V. The Historism of Granovsky As representative Westemist and precursor of later Rus- sian sociology must be mentioned Granovsky.'' 1 Works, vol. i, p. 14. ' Ibid., p. 103. ' Cf. Oeuvres, vol. i, " Federalisme, iSocialisme, etc." * Bakunin's Sozialpolitischer Briefwechsel mit Herzen und Ogarjow, Stuttgart, 189s, p. 388. 5 Ibid., p. 359. ' Ibid., p. 363. ' Timofy Nikolaevitch Granovsky (1813-1855) was a close friend of Herzen and a popular Professor of History in the University of Mos- cow. Kareyev says of him: "Granovsky thought in terms of history, and in terms of history he made propaganda." (N. I. Kareyev, Works, vol. ii, p. 40.) Granovsky, as a propagandist professor, looms tradi- tionally as a much greater figure among the Russian intellectuals, than as an author, among those who have to content themselves with his rather meagre literary output. Works, ii volumes. 78 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [78 Granovsky combated the Slavophil notion that the peo- ple are the dynamic force in history, and along with the other Westernists he defended individual initiative and hu- manitarian interests.^ His thesis is that of the disintegration of the masses by thought. He says: " Each people has many beautiful and deep political traditions but there is something higher than these: this is reason, which destroys tradition's positive in- fluence on life." ^ Although viewing society as a static mass and the individual as the actual factor of progress, he realized man's limitations; brought upon him through natural law. The life of mankind is subject to the same laws to which is subjected the life of nature, but the law does not equally realize itself in these two spheres. The phenomena of nature are much more uniform than the phe- nomena of history. Constant development is not to be had in history. History has a law which must inevitably be fulfilled ; but no set time is given it — it may take ten years or ten centuries. The law stands like the goal towards which man is moving, but it is not concerned, as to which road he chooses thither, nor as to how much time he may spend on the way. Here the individual is not the tool, but is an independent abettor or opponent of the historical law ; he takes upon himself the responsibility for a whole line of events called forth or suppressed by himself.' Besides his discussion on the " laws " of society and his- torical phenomena Granovsky was probably the first to in- troduce among Russian scholars the statistical method of studying history. He says : " So long as history will not '■ Cf. his essays on the four historical characters : Timur, Alexander the Great, Louis IX, and Francis Bacon. Works, 4th ed., pt. ii. ' Essay in review of Mishel's History of Cursed Nations, 1847. • Cf. Works, 4th ed. in one volume, Moskow, 1900, pp. 26-27. 79] THEORIES OF THE WESTERNISTS 79 adopt the necessary statistical method, it can never be called an experimental science." ^ As the discoveries of naturalists did away with old and harmful prejudices that obscured man's view of nature ... so the interpretation of historical laws will lead to a like result. It will put an end to those non-realizable theories and notions which disturb the regular development of the social life. History will not appear as a past cut off from the present, but as a whole organism of life, in which the past, the present and the future are in continu- ous interaction. With Granovsky we may dismiss the Westernists who belonged to the transitional stage of Russian social theory, i. e., from the humanitarian-metaphysical stage to the naturalistic and positivist stage. Apart from their methods the theories now to be anal- yzed are those known as Russian Populism or Russian Socialism. As we have already observed, they presupposed a special evolution of Russian Society. VI. The Populist Theories of Chernishevsky Russian populism is associated with the work of Cher- nishevsky, its principal theorizer, who, although he was not primarily a sociologist, is important as one of the precursors of Russian sociology. Chernishevsky^ built his theories on presuppositions 1 Cf. Works, op. cit., p. 27. ' Nikolai Govrilovitch Chernishevsky (1828-1889) is best known by his Utopian novel, " What is to be done " ? He was a bold, original thinker with an encyclopedic range of knowledge. His "Notes" to John Stuart Mill's Principles of Political Economy are to be had in French translation. His work was prematurely curtailed by the severi- ties of the Russian prison regime and by the Siberian exile to which he was condemned for no other offense than his advocating of some progressive ideas of society. He is considered the " Father " of Rus- sian Nihilism. Works, St. Petersburg ed., 1906, ten volumes. 8o RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [8o much the same as those accepted by the left wing of the Hegelian school of philosophy, especially as interpreted in the writings of Ludwig Feuerbach, i. e., on materialism, though he is influenced also by French rationalism and posi- tivism. To him historical and social phenomena are dia- '"lectic processes of development. He believes in but one set of laws, which controls alike the organic and the inorganic L worlds.^ Society is to him but the stun of individual lives. He says: "Aggregate life is the sum of individual lives'',^ and in its earlier stages is controlled by geographic and climatic conditions. But in civil society these influences be- come secondary. " Thus a people having entered the field of historical evolution, its occupations and customs cannot be explained by nature nor by temperament, which is a pro- duct of nature." * Reason becomes predominant in civil- ized society. " Climate, soil, resources of capital, even the strength of physical force — all these are very negligible in comparison with the development of thought. Out of this development everything arises, everything clashes, even that greatness which is commensurate with it ; by it only is every- thing upheld." * '&»gress is nothing more and nothing less than a physi- cal necessity. " Progress is simply the law of growth." The elements of progress in the history of society are much more complex than in the history of nature, and, there- fore, it is much more difficult to observe its laws in society ; but in all spheres of life law is the same. To deny progress ' Cf. his " Anthropological Principle in Philosophy," Works, vol. vi, p. 196. ^ Works, vol. iv, p. 327. ' Works, vol. iii, p. S15. * Works, vol. vii, p. 189. 8iJ THEORIES OF THE WESTERNISTS gl is just as absurd as to deny the force of gravity or the forced) of chemical affinity.^ " Progress takes place slowly, . . . but nine-tenths of it is accomplished in brief periods of intense activity. History moves slowly and yet almost all its advance is by leaps.^ After each leap a reaction sets in, but of necessity each reaction gives an impetus to < further advance." ^ Great historical events are not dependent upon any one person's will, nor upon any personality. They are realized through a law as immutable as is the law of gravitation, or of organic growth. The rapidity or slowness of the process depends upon circumstances which can neither be predeter- mined nor foreseen. The most important of these circum^ stances is the rise of strong personalities, who by the nature of their activity give to the unchangeable trend of events a certain characteristic, and who hasten or retard the course of the trend; and by their superior strength give definite direction to the chaotic forces that move the masses.* Accordingly, the individual appears to be but the agent of his time, but one of historical necessity. The individual, therefore, is himself subject tO' the demands and i the standards of society. Satisfying the demands of society, man receives from it sympathy and cooperation, but when he deviates from it he arouses criticism and opposition. Yet the author does not regard public opinion as a direct force of control or of progress. He says : Public opinion only shows the evil and the means to remedy it ; but if these remedies are not applied the evil remains un- changed. All social phenomena depend upon the laws gov- ' Cf. Works, vol. V, p. 490. ' Idem. Cf. vol. vi, p. 87. ' Works, vol. V, p. 491. * Cf. Works, vol. iii, p. 644. / 82 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [82 erning society. . . . Laws only then are powerless when di- rected against the mere symptoms of the disease : but they are all powerful when having learned the real cause of evil the legislator changes that institution which is productive of the evil.^ The author thinks institutions highly important social products. Thus, speaking of the institution of Russian serf- dom, he says : " It arose just as naturally as later on arose the relation of hired laborer to the capitalist, . . . nothing in life comes about artifically, everything is a natural product." ^ Social habits and customs become subject to civil institu- tions and are modified or changed by them. He says : If we carefully survey the history of each European nation, all the so-called peculiarities are explainable by those civil in- stitutions under whose influence they lived or live. . . . The nation changed its habits in harmony with the spirit of its institutions and laws. Events and institutions in various lands were different and, therefore, nations which began their exist- ence with perfectly equal habits and inclinations appear at the present time entirely different.* Customs are created by civil institutions. Laws which do not change civil institutions are also powerless over cus^ toras. But with the change in civil institutions, the customs of a people do necessarily change. The factors that change civil institutions in a nation are historical events of a criti- [cal nature. " Progress in institutions consists in changes which are in harmony with the evolution of existing social needs." * ^ Works, vol. iii, p. 526. ^ Works, vol. vi, p. 4. " Works, vol. iii, p. 522. * Works, vol. vi, p. 91. 83] THEORIES OF THE WESTERNISTS 83 These quotations from a wide range of his writings are sufficient to show that the author emphasizes institution^ as all important in shaping the character and customs of a people.^ This emphasis upon institutions is easily understood when we remember that Chemishevsky wrote on the eve of and! during the great social and civil reforms of Russia. He wanted to go further than the abolition of Russian serfdom. He wished his government to direct the reorganization of the Russian peasant commune in such a way as to preserve the institution of common possession of land and add to it the advantages of capitalistic production with its principle of division of labor; and yet to escape the consequent evil of reducing the individual to a tool by making him continu- ously do some one kind of work only, which the principle of division of labor forces upon him. He also wished ( to save his people from proletarization and from the curse of unlimited aggregation of wealth and of private property. In short, he wanted Russia to leap the capital- istic era and enter directly into the era of social democracy. He says : " The evil effect of division of labor upon the economic system and upon the very organism of the work- ing classes under the present regime is not to be doubted. . . . For human welfare the increase of production is nec- essary, and increase of production demands division ofj 1 We must, however, not conclude that by his emphasis upon institu- tions Chemishevsky disregarded the interests of the individual. On the contrary, he exalted the individual's interests over everything else, he says: "Some presuppose for the state a purpose higher than the needs of separate individuals — ^namely, a realization of far-fetched ideas of justice, truth, etc. There is no doubt that out of some such principle it is more easy to derive rights for the state, than from that other theory which speaks only about the benefit to the individual in general. We hold to the latter; we do not hold anything on earth higher than the human individual." (Works, vol. iv, pp. 439-40.) 84 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [84 labor." ^ Here " we have two formulas, the combination of which gives the result : the factor, which is necessary for welfare is at the same time during its development destruc- tive to the mass of the people." " T~ We have already pointed out that this paradox of the cap- italistic era made Qiernishevsky fall back upon the Russian commune as the one escape from the difificulty. The com- mune was to him neither a special product of the Slavic genius, as was claimed by the Slavophils, nor an artificial product of the Moscovite State, as was held by some of the Westernists ; he saw in the commune a survival of a primi- tive institution once common to all peoples, but which through historical circumstances has been retained in Russia although not in Western Europe. " But," says the author, " in spite of the evil consequence of our slowness, ... in the present stage of economic evolution in Western Europe, . . . this slowness becomes highly important and use- ful," and he reasons that " since the highest stage of evolu- tion equals in form the primitive stage," * and " since the achievement of progressive people can be adopted by primi- tive people without necessarily passing through all the inter- mediary stages, Russia can pass directly from the lowest 1^0 the higher stages." * These conclusions at which Chernishevsky arrived were identical with those of Herzen and of the populist move- ment in general. ' Works, vol. vii, p. 183. ^ Idem. ' Works, vol. iv, p. 331. * Works, vol. iv, pp. 327 et seq. PART II THE SUBJECTIVIST SCHOOL OF RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY CHAPTER I The Sociological Contributions of Peter L. Lavrov The populist movement inaugurated through the Hterary efforts of Chernishevsky and popularized by his disciples, Dobrolubov and Pissarev, culminated during the sixties and early seventies in the Russian intellectual youth " going among the people ". This movement made clear two things: First, that the "people", i. e., the great mass of*] Russian peasant folk, were utterly unable to appreciate the advanced ideas of the Russian intellectuals and emancipa- tors. Secondly, it made clear that whatever progress was to be realized, must be achieved through the initiative and agency of an unselfish critical-intellectual class. Thus the Russian Subjectivist School took its rise. The first and one of the most able advocates of this propagandism was Peter Lavrov.^ We shall devote this 1 Peter Lavrovovitch Lavrov (1823- 1900), a man of noble birth, was educated as an artillery officer. He early showed interest in philosophical studies and in time devoted himself entirely to them. Having joined the Russian revolutionary ranks, he was exiled to a remote province (1868). Here he wrote his first sociological treatises, the famous His- torical Letters, which were published under the pseudonym Myrtov. In 1870 he made his way to Paris, where he continued his work as writer on sociology and history, and as editor of much Russian revo- lutionary literature. His works have not been edited collectively; much of his writing is to be found among Russian periodicals under various pseudonyms as Myrtov, Dolengi, Arnoldy, Shchukin and others. His larger books, from which we shall quote principally, are: Sketches concerning Questions of Critical Philosophy, i860; Before Man, 1870; Civilization and Savage Tribes, 1871; Historical Letters, pseudonym Myrtov, 1870, to be had in German ; Experiments in a His- 87] 87 88 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [88 chapter to an analysis of his theories, some of which have not lost their significance even to-day. Laiuroi/s Philosophical and Methodological Presuppositions Much misunderstanding and unnecessary criticism was aroused by Lavrov's use of the misleading terms " subjec- tive point of view " and " subjective method ". Whatever meaning these had for Lavrov's critics, what they connoted for him is apparent in the following quotation : 'i In sociology and in history there are truths which are as unalterable and absolute as are the truths of all other sciences. These truths are objective, they may be unknown at one epoch and discovered at another. . . . But socio- logy and history also contain other truths which cannot be dis- covered before certain epochs, not because of any objective inadequacy in the material to be known, but in consequence of the subjective unpreparedness of society to understand the [jiuestion in its active setting.^ ' He insists that history does not repeat itself and that the laws of social solidarity and the process of historical evolution are not something unalterable, but are themselves progressive. These are not objective truths existing abso- lutely and subject to revelation, they are truths which are brought out at certain stages of historical evolution and [therefore are subjectively perceived by the people of a given tory of Thought, 1876; Problems in the Understanding of History, pseudonym S. S. Arnoldy, 1898; Principal Epochs (literally "Mo- ments") in the History of Thought, pseudonym A. Dolengi, igoo. (The first three books of this list are not obtainable in this country for reference; recourse was had for them to secondary sources, es- pecially to Professor Kareyev's Etudes.') All of these writings were to be introductory volumes to a great encyclopedic work entitled, The History of Thought, which Lavrov did not live to finish. Lavrov is without doubt one of Russia's most able thinkers and scholars. ^ Lavrov, Experiments in a History of Thought, pp. 92-93. 89] CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV 89 epoch.^ Therefore it became necessary to acknowledge this important factor as a " highly necessary and fully scientific subjectivism "J' Besides his emphasis upon the kaleidoscopic changes of history which make rigid laws impossible, Lavrov also dwells upon the factors of social and individual evolu- tion which seem to be inevitable in any study of society. He says : " Scientific structure is obtained by the co-working ^ of two processes equally subjective, one of which takes place in the minds of the historians, and the other is the re- sult of observing historical individuals and groups ".* But j only those events are considered which contribute to the development of their (the historians') ideal, or those which mostly obstruct its realization. This selective tendency in 1 dealing with historical facts as they make for or against a real or ideal good as conceived of by us — this development of our moral ideal in the past life of humanity — " this comprises to every one the only meaning of history, the only law of historical grouping, the law of progress ".* j From these few quotations it is apparent that Lavrov did not mean to shirk an objective study of society in the in- terest of subjective standards which may more or less affect the choice of objective facts. He merely demanded the consideration of an additional fact, namely, that, besides * Among others the author uses this example to make his thought clear : " Until in the laboring class there was aroused the desire to take part in public historical life in behalf of their own interests, there was no necessity for the historian to understand the past which had laid the foundation for this desire, and a multitude of facts recorded in annals and memoirs were well known, but did not enter and could not enter into a scientific understanding of history." Ibid., p. 94. • Idem. ' Historical Letters, 2d ed., p. 34. *■ Ibid., pp. 38-3p. go RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [90 the theoretical consideration of historical facts, man is bound by an ethical relation. In other words, he believed it necessary to ask not only the Aristotelian questions how ? ^In what way? but also' the questions whence? and whither? This teleological aspect of sociology seemed to Lavrov highly important, because to him, as to most Russian schol- ars of the time, the social sciences were to serve humanity in its struggle for happiness. The end towards which hu- manity should strive Lavrov did not mean to postulate a priori; he hoped to decide upon that after an inductive study of society, both animal and human, and thus to con- struct his theory of progress, basing it upon those factors which in the process of evolution seemed to have been most important for the individual and for society, and to have Lf urthered human advancement. The subjective point of view and the subjective method, should reveal to us the individual as the only real factor of society, and make it plain that to disregard him and his in- terests is to disregard the most important social phenomena. p But here we are confronted with the old vexing meta- physical questions of free will and determinism. Our aluthor, who is a materialist with a mechanistic conception, of life,^ tries to rid himself of the difficulty by considering [_f ree will as a proximate reality, and determinism as an ulti- mate fact. He says : " The world of ends and means, like all other subjective phenomena, should be studied not only as a necessary resultant of mechanical, chemical and bio- logical process subject to an unconditional determinism, but also as it is related to those peculiarities which ' He says : " A mechanistic system of the universe is the only one that can lead to a scientific understanding of the world, and it elimi- nates any concept of world purpose." Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 971. 91 J CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV gi were conceived of as exclusively subjective." ^ The inter-'^ pretation of the historical process, by taking both of these points of view into consideration, presents both an element of inevitableness which enters into the act of volition as a condition of the will itself and also an element of the best and the highest, which has no meaning from the point of view of determinism.^ The reader will note that this stat&^ ment admits of a charge of dualism, but it is not our purpose here to get into metaphysical quibbling. In his study of society, Lavrov follows out these two aspects with special emphasis upon the importance of the critically-minded in- dividual. What is Sociology cmd what are its Problemsf Lavrov had definite views on the province and problems of sociology. During the years of his work, however, as was to be expected, he modified his concepts somewhat. In his earlier works he defines sociology as " the theory of the processes and products of social development ".^ This definition permits the consideration of a wide range of problems theoretical and historical. In time, however, Lavrov saw fit to narrow the province of sociology and to transfer some of the problems to other social sciences.* Thus sociology becomes " the science of solidarity of con-'^ scious individuals ", i. e., the study of the " formation, growth, weakening and disintegration of this solidarity ".* In another place he defines it as " the analysis or study of j ' Problems in the Understanding of History, p. iii. » Cf. ibid., p. 127. ' Historical Letters, p. 14. * Thus he names one branch the science of social morphology, whose problem is the evolution of social forms. Cf. Experiments in a His- tory of Thought, p. 82. ' Problems in the Understanding of History, p. 129. "\ 92 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [92 the forms of solidarity among conscious individuals, of the conditions of its growth and its weakening in the various stages of development of these individuals and the forms of congregated life ".^ These definitions suggest the principal problems which Lavrov thought that sociology has to solve and upon which Jour author spent his: energies. He saw two parallel pro- cesses moving throughout history — ^the growth of solidar- ity, and the growth of individuality. These he attempts to trace back to the simplest forms of organic life, and up through the stage in which the social animal, man, attains self-consciousness and attempts to direct his own future by applying his critical faculties. History becomes a record of the development of thought, showing the continuous attempt to reconcile solidarity or group interest with that Laf the individual. Society begins a positive striving to at- tain this moral good which he calls progress. For example, he says : Thus sociology not only thinks it her task to understand the forms of solidarity and the processes which take place dur- ing the quantitative and qualitative changes of these forms, but also as inevitably it strives to realize the practical problem of creating such forms when understood; first so far as its actual understanding makes realization possible; secondly, by presenting elements of conviction held by individuals who have grasped the sociological meaning. The understanding of the problems of sociology not only in their theoretical inter- pretation, but also in their practical import, makes possible judgments by the individuals of their own behavior.^ Many of Lavrov' s sociological theories are to be foimd ' Experiments in a History of Thought, pp. 75-76. ' Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, pp. 980-981. 93] CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV no lin books to which he has given historical titles.^ Therefore it may be of interest to know how he differentiates sociology from history. " History as a science is the comprehension "" of the phenomena of progress in the process of historical life, and the discovery of the laws of that order in which the phenomena of progress and of regress inevitably follow one after the other in this process." ^ In further differen— I dating this concept of history from that of sociology, he says: The sociologist asks himself what phenomena of growth or of weakening, of widening or of narrowing, of solidarity could and ought to have resulted under given historical combinations of social forms and acquired processes of thought in a given society and at a given epoch ? Which of these actually did so occur and which would inevitably have repeated themselves had the same historical conditions reappeared.* The historian wants to know : what combination of living elements and sur- vivals, of special problems of society, and what germs of the ' This is true with the exception of a few earlier works, as Before Man and Civilization and Savage Tribes, the gist of which, however, is found repeated and supplemented in later works, such as Principal Epochs in the History of Thought. ' Experiments in a History of Thought, p. 99. ' Our author adds here in parentheses that such reappearance with sufficient similarity is not met with in history. Similar to the ques- tions quoted above, which he says are to be answered by sociology, are the questions which a sociological law has to formulate. He says: " The laws which are to be sought in it (sociology) will be those laws which shall serve for the solution of the question : Under what con- ditions can individuals of a certain development be bound by the soli- darity of congregated life of a given strength? What elements of strengthening or weakening of this solidarity are conditioned by the degree of development of individuals and by the degree of strength of their solidarity? What technical demands proceed from the under- standing of the form and the strength of this solidarity for the activity of the individual in view of this strengthening or weakening?" Ex- periments in a History of Thought, p. 82. 94 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [94 future, does a given epoch present; also in what way did this combination finally develop into a more or less different com- bination from the first, — by casting off some survivals, and by calling forth and developing in its environment new germs of ' the future? Both sociology and history take all their ma- terial from the collective organism, but the first is analogous to the study of physiological phenomena in the province of biology, the second to the study of the law of changes of form which condition the transition of the larva of an insect into a mature animal, or the transition of the human germ into a j_self-directing historical personality.^ Thus it seems clear that in Lavrov's view sociology should study the static structure and function of the social organism while history should point out those events in the life of the organism which work toward and through changes.^ We may now proceed to a study of the three funda- mental theories of Lavrov. They are : 1. A theory of social solidarity or of social control. 2. A theory of individuation or of personality. 3. A theory O'f social progress. I. The theory of social solidarity \~ Solidarity and its antithesis, individuality began simultan- eously and have conditioned one another all along the way. " The history of mankind," says Lavrov, " had as its task the attempt to solve the problems of individualism in the best possible way, the problem which was prepared for man Lby the preceding stages of evolution of the zoological ' It would seem that what Lavrov calls history, others might call the philosophy of history. The author thinks the philosophy of history conditioned by the problem of developing a theory of progress. Cf. Problems in the Understanding of History, pp. 131 et seq. ^ Problems in the Understanding of History, pp. 20-21. 95] CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV 95 world in its sociological relation." ^ For the purpose of analysis we will deal with these two factors separately, although actually they are never in isolation, but from their earliest stages continually interact. First we will attempt to show how, according to Lavrov, solidarity arises. How solidarity arises. According to Lavrov, the study of the behavior of lower organisms presents to the observer facts which strongly suggest the source of the rise of soli- darity. The process of multiplication of organic beings and their interaction differentiates intO' two opposite pro- cesses. On the one hand, there is the formation of complex but unified individual biological organisms, and on the other hand, there is the transition of such in- dividual biological aggregates into a society, or collec- tive social organism, which is characterized by a psychic solidarity, and is subjected by it to certain social laws, whereby purely social organisms are differentiated from biological organisms.^ The unifying force of the earli- est forms of solidarity is instinct. The social instinct, which stimulates individuals unconsciously to form social solidarity, appears early in the zoological world, as soon, in fact, as development has passed beyond that stage in which parts of protoplasm form new nuclei by approach- ing each other and uniting, or by separating, and all with- out any cause so far as the observer can judge. " In this manner socialization of particular elements appears to take place in the first stages of the evolutionary life process." ^ This association of similars, which in the lower forms takes place unconsciously and is but very loosely held together, increases with the growth in complexity of organic life. Lavrov says: • Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. loi. ' Cf. ibid., p. 23. ' Ibid., p. 60. 96 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [96 All higher organisms were at first apparently associations or colonies of like units. This association of individual units having thereby preserved self-existence, consequently, because of its association, worked out a more or less conscious solidar- ity. On the foundation of similar instincts, similar habits, similar sympathies, similar interests and similar convictions, the beginnings of social organism are erected.^ Of course Lavrov is aware that these elementary psychi- cal processes and elementary phenomena of socialization of organic units have, in the earlier stages of organic evolu- tion, primarily only a biological meaning, as the biological process remains in them the factor chiefly dominant. Still it is possible with more or less exactitude to ascer- tain here the presence of psycho-sociological phenomena. He concludes: "Perhaps in them [the organisms] there awakens a certain consciousness of likeness with other units r with whom association proceeds. There appears an ele- mentary consciousness of similar danger and of similar needs; but most probably there is a vague desire to be to- gether, a vague pleasure of associated life." ^ Thus in the association of organisms, in " mutual service for mutual aid ", lay the beginning of cooperation and of solidarity, for the most part apparently unconscious, but " which, IjLfterwards, merges into consciousness ".* According to Lavrov solidarity arises in the lowest strata of the organic world, because of the response of nerve ptissue to the impress of certain stimuli; it proceeds by re- ceiving assistance and pleasure from association; associa- tion develops mutual aid and cooperation finally becomes a Lconscious solidarity.* 1 Ibid., p. 61. 2 ii,iii_^ p 64_ ^ Ibid., p. 65. Compare the earlier statement of Giddings, " Principles of Sociology," 1896. * At this point a question as to the author's view of evolution and heredity may be raised. Lavrov is a Darwinian; the Spencerian 97] CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV 97 Transition from animal solidarity to human society. The animal ancestors of man, according to Lavrov, having evolved during their various stages the ability to work out concepts and their combinations, the capacity for sympa- thetic life, the power of reasoning along reflections and in- stincts, finally the disposition for associated life — have transferred this heritage to man. He says: "The transi- tional ape-like beings, the primate apes, which developed into man, brought to him all the treasures of psychic and sociological heritage of the preceding zoological world." ^ With man, however, solidarity took on new forms, and we will now attempt to outline Lavrov's theory of their suc- cessive stages. The first form of human social solidarity was the met- ronymic family. " On the basis of the primitive metrony- mic family," says Lavrov, " was formulated the first exten- sive purely human group which was the matrilinear tribe." ^ This earliest natural form of social solidarity, which had H to some degree also existed among animals, received new and heretofore unknown reinforcement, which goes under the name of religion. This reinforcement the author looks _j upon as pathological in nature but nevertheless as tre- mendously important as a factor in the growth of social solidarity. He says : The firm center of pretribal society appears to have been the formula he thinks is too far-fetched and that it explains nothing. He says : " Each element of the organic world adapts itself to the environ- ment and transmits the results to its progeny by way of heredity. . . . The law of heredity and the law of transformation under the influence of the struggle for existence practically explain all conditions or origin, existence and disappearance of forms of the organic world." Ibid., p. 28. 1 Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 99. ' Historical Letters, p. 52. 98 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [98 group of nursing mothers who cared for their own children and those of the tribe who needed them. But now a phan- tastic world of apparitions arose before the imagination of man through a general interest in one and the same object. The sources of the phantastic phenomena kept the adolescent near his mother, who had greater knowledge and whose ex- perience in life permitted her to interpret signs more cor- rectly. She held in custody the amulets which warranted good luck and prevented failure. The belief in magic bound with a new and a powerful sympathy the members of the whole group who exercised the rite collectively.^ ^ This new achievement, unknown to the animal world, had aided strongly in the development of the tribal form of so- ciety. It was perpetuated by imitation and the consequent rise of custom. Our author calls custom " the tool of soli- darity ".' By its aid small groups of men were merged into more stable forms of association, more lasting than Lany previous form. Says Lavrov : The kingdom of custom may present itself to us as the in- evitable condition of primitive social life, and as the most undesirable environment for individual persons. ... It may be hoped, however, that in a distant future custom will cease to govern man. But this can hardly be accomplished other- wise than by developing widely the habit of critical thought and a life lived according to conviction.* It is the nature of custom to remain unchangeable. Never- theless it is bound to change in consequence of alterations in environment and conditions of social life which lead to new adaptations. Lavrov says : " In consequence of an unconscious accumulation of small deviations in thinking- and in life from previous generations, or of an unex- ' Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 170. ' Ibid., p. 147. ' Ibid., p. 153. 99] CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV 99 pected inflow of people belonging to a different culture, cus- toms change, but for each generation its new form remains an aatcient custom."'^ This unconscious change accounts for the various differentiations of social forms in tribal so- ciety, but all the changes have this in common, they are within the " kingdom " of custom and of real or of fictitious kinship. Lavrov views them all as belonging to the pre-"~| historic stage, the transition from which is determined by the rise of critical thought, directing changes. The series of changes, however, does not follow a straight line. It pro- ceeds rhythmically by means of compromise. " As soon as the principal demands of a protest are satisfied," says Lav- rov, " the mind manifests something like fatigue, and a dis- position to remain on the new forms of culture just estab- lished by the protesting mind ; these forms adopt more and more the characteristics of life according to custom." ^ Thus a new epoch of adjustment tO' custom begins, again to be upset by protest and consequent compromise with the^ new order. Historical forms of solidarity are those which show signs of the working of the critical mind. " The characteristic of the first period of historical life," says Lavrov, " was the attempt to weave into one fabric all the elements of social life, cultural, political, economic, aesthetic, philosophical, religious, and later also moral and scientific." * Controlled by this desire early Greek philosophers sought to rid reason and life of all contradictions and to harmonize in aesthetic products all collective life, collective understandings and beliefs, collective ideals of morality and activities arising from conviction. Rome, following Greece, sought to unify the conflicts of the mind and the contradictions in life in 1 Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, pp. is6-iS7- » Ihid., p. 183. ' Ibid., p. 291. lOO RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [lOO an elaborate legal system. In the middle ages this task was undertaken by the church through her scholastic philosophy. After the Protestant revolt there arose political systems of unification to which especially England, France and Ger- many were subject, although at present it has spread all rbver the world. The development of class solidarity as seen in the rise of the bourgeoisie was; a unifying factor, since it paved the way to democracy, the final stage in the L,evolution of conscious solidarity. Throughout the long process of the evolution of so- ciety the social organism struggled for existence by es- tablishing firm forms of solidarity. Through customs, Conscious interests, general convictions, general ideas, soli- darity was established, and in a degree harmonized with the conscious development of the individual. " In this con- tinuous struggle," says Lavrov, " grew, grows and shall grow the conviction that for a successful combat the best tactics appear to be the development of a solidarity between critically minded and energetic individuals, and the spread- ijng of this solidarity among all mankind." ^ Dynamic factors of Solidarity. We shall conclude Lav- rov's theory of solidarity by pointing out the factors which seemed to him to produce changes in the forms and func- rtions of the social organism. " Where then to look for the moving force of all the various changes? " asks Lavrov. He answers by pointing to twO' combinations of forces. " First," he tells us, are " the interests of separate individ- ^uals." Second, is the influence of social environment. . . The interaction of individuals and their social forms appears as one of the most vital elements of history.^ Lavrov does not disregard the factor of geographic en- '■ Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 42. ' Problems in the Understanding of History, p. 27. lOi] CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV loi vironment. He says : " for the realization of a strong and firm solidarity in human society the most directly stimu- lating cause was the struggle of man against a hostile physi- cal environment. ... In the struggle with these many ene- mies the brain of man early worked out inventions of thought, and created the more stable forms of social life." ^ However, geographical environment plays its part prim- v arily and chiefly in the earlier stages of the evolution of society. Individual interests and social environment be-~^ come conspicuous elements when society has entered upon ^ its historic career. Lavrov presents two groups of interests ^ which he thinks the principal moving forces in the evo- lution of social solidarity. He says: "Pleasure received from social life, the instinct of sexual approach, and par- ental attachment make up the first group; need of food, safety and nervous exhilaration are the second." Besides these fundamental needs or interests there are"! also more or less temporary interests which are in part pathological, and interests of development (individua- . tion) ; the latter two are but false efforts to satisfy the fun- damental normal interests.^ These interests are not equal in importance but form a kind of hierarchy, which, accord- ing to Lavrov, is as follows : At first we have an uncondi- tional ride of custom, departures from which are accom- panied by sickly nervous excitations; secondly, after this despotic sway of custom, those interests hold their own which in the continuous progress of events disclose eco- nomic bearing. Finally, with the beginning of historic life, influences of ' nervous exhilaration of an idealistic nature begin to be felt. ^ They enter the struggle coevally with the pleasures of cus- 1 Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 42. ^ Cf. Problems in the Understanding of History, p. 40. 102 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [102 tomary life and also with the lower political and economic interests. Struggle is carried on in the name of ideal inter- im ests, conceived of as the highest influence of belief and conviction/ The second complex of moving forces in the evolution of social solidarity is found in the social environment. <^ Lavrov regards play as of great importance. Play, like most social activities of man, goes back to the animal stage. " In the play of animals," says Lavrov, " we observe the preparatory development of a great number of future instincts absolutely necessary for mature beings." " Play stimulates and develops the aesthetic, religious and intel- lectual interests of the individual. Inventiveness and imita- tion are most common on the play-ground. Another social factor of great importance, first recognized by John Fiske, is the prolongation of the infancy of vertebrates which, " and a great variety of plays, were the precursors of the ^childhood of man." * Youth and adolescence also are great ' forces in promoting social solidarity. Language, custom, and religion, are preparing the individual to enter larger L units of solidarity.* To summarize. Solidarity emerges in the lowest strata of organic life. Association, which is pleasurable to congre- gated organisms, is a means of further development of solid- arity. Development is continuous in the struggle against common enemies and in cooperation for satisfying similar need. The solidarity of the animal world is unconscious and is raised gradually into consciousness with the transference of the social achievements of the animal world into the hu- > Cf. ibid., p. sg. ' Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 109. ^ Ibid., p. 43. * Cf. ibid., p. 437. I03] CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV 103 man group. The earliest form of human solidarity de- veloped in the group of nursing mothers. It grew under newly arising religious ties of group magic, group customs, and group rites. The kingdom of custom and fictitious kin- ship were the strongest forces of solidarity in tribal so- ciety, which came into existence because of these forces and was maintained by them. The transition to historical or civil society was brought about by rational activity still rein- forced largely by custom, progressing rhythmically by means of compromises between the new and the old. Greek philosophers, Roman jurists and medieval scholastics at- tempted to create a solidarity of the mind. In modern society solidarity is strengthened by statecraft and by democ- racy and emerges into prominence with the rise of the bour- geoisie. The forces that helped on these developments of solidarity were the interests of the individual and the in- fluence of social and of geographic environment. 2. Lavrov's Theory of Individuality In the preceding chapter we saw how social and political struggles in Russia were potent in bringing the strong individual to the forefront. Russian revolutionary socialism had throughout its history an individualistic aspect. Our author may be regarded as a typical "individ- ualistic " socialist. He devotes all his mental abilities to justifying this rather paradoxical doctrine, and therefore in presenting his theory of individuality we reach to the very heart of Lavrov's sociological theorizing. Individuality is the antithesis of social solidarity. It is, however, intrinsically related tO' it, which makes its con- sideration as a separate topic difficult. Of this our author is himself aware. He says: " When speaking of the indi- vidual, it is necessary to have in mind the social life; and I04 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [104 when speaking of society, individuals are inevitably in ques- tion. Nevertheless, the phenomena constituting the theory of individuahty can easily be separated from those constitu- ting the theory of society." ^ It is clear that certain social phenomena are attributable to social and geographic environ- ment, others to individual initiative, and others to the inter- action of twO' or more factors. In the study of these com- plex phenomena, it is the problem of the theory of indi- viduality to specify those " happenings of human activity which primarily issue from the independent individual as source ".^ Following his investigation to its earliest sources, Lav- rov presents an important aspect of his theory of individ- uality in his study of the genesis of the individual. Thus he traces the individual back through the animal world and finds its source in the third fundamental phenomenon of or- ganic life, i. e., the need for nervous excitation which al- ready manifests itself with the beginning of life,^ and which gradually increases with the growth in complexity of the organism. The earlier works of our author, espec- ially " Before Man " and "Civilization and Savage Tribes", are in part devoted to the study of animal psychology with a special emphasis upon the transitional stages in the devel- opment of the animal mind. Comparing the psychic life of invertebrates with that of the lower forms of vertebrates, Lavrov finds that among the latter it is possible to observe an increasing individual difference in submitting to instincts and habits. Furthermore, the vertebrates are better adapted ' Sketches concerning Questions of Critical Philosophy, p. 11. 2 The first two being the need of food and of safety which are at the basis of the economic and political interests. Cf. Problems in the Understanding of History, p. 11. j" ' Cf. Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 44. I05] CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV 105 for training and domestication, and finally, they show the ability to herd in cases of emergency under the temporary leadership of one of their kind."^ All this, Lavrov con- cludes, shows not merely a quantitative but also a qualita- tive difference between vertebrates and invertebrates. " Ac- tivity of mind — this is the stage reached by mammals in their psychical evolution." ^ In observing the complex *^ psychic activities of primates he thinks that more often similarities are met with among animals of various species in the lower stages of development than among the higher. -^ He says : In animal groups, the further development progresses, ac- cording to its degree, so much more these groups differentiate among themselves according to psychic type. In its highest product the diversity of evolution in both aspects extends to individuation of psychical complexes, approaching that which we meet with among highly developed human individuals.^ Lavrov differentiates the species of animals into- types. " Within the different classes, families and species, there are worked out different groupings of psychic elements — these are different types of mind." * His estimate of the animal's psychic functioning is high. He sees in it almost all the characteristics which are necessary for the develop- ment of the individual. Summing up his investigations of the animal world, Lav- rov says : The preparation of man as a reasoning and social animal in the zoological world may present itself to us in the following 1 Cf. Memoirs of the Fatherland, 1870, pp. 68-80. ^ Ibid., p. 84. * Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 59. * Ibid., p. 58. I06 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [lo6 manner: We may acknowledge that the elements into which psychology differentiates the psychic activity of man have in all probability entirely similar analogies among animals. ' Differentiation lies here at the basis of the psychic life; per- ception moulds itself out of elementary undifferentiated psychic acts; concepts begin to form, also images and in some cases understanding; motives of activity appear first in the form of unconscious reflexes, and afterwards in a form of instinctive activity partly conscious but not sufficiently so to aim at a general end, and only later taking on the character of rational activity which is prompted by inner stimuli of sympathy, or by motives of gain, to the point of passion. There are also motives approaching aesthetic feel- ings with an aim to decorate. Finally there are signs of reli- Igious and of moral possibilities.^ This psychical superstructure is based upon the biological principle : that the higher the animal species the less is divi- sion of labor in the social organism conditioned by physio- logical peculiarities of the individual, as this, for example, is observable among ants. On the other hand, the higher the animal species the less the individual is able passively and willingly to yield to society and to the existing order. Thus, according to Lavrov, the human individual, in both his biological and his psychical characteristics, was well pre- pared within the animal world and he continues the struggle for individuality within the group which has produced him. The Individual a Product of the Group Our author is well aware of the intrinsic relation which exists between the individual and the group. He says: '^Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 93. Compare this array of the psychic traits of animals with the analysis of animal nature made by Professor Thorndike of Columbia University. See The Animal Mind. I07] CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV joy Conscious individuals are nothing else but products of so-~] cial processes, conditioned in all their acts by intellectual and affective life and by the order and life of that collective organism of which they are a part. In the separate in- dividual is vested the life of society. No one individual can receive motives, knowledge, habits of thought and life, either as ends or as means, except in and through that society in which the individual developed and continues to< live, and whose product he himself is.^ The Historical Functionings of the Individual The frank admission of the social dependence of the in- dividual does not however mean to Lavrov that the histori- cal functioning of the individual is nil. On the contrary, he asserts that, " in the functioning of the social aggregate i the real is but the individual." ^ In history the first place must be allotted to conscious influences. The relative im- portance of these is determined by their scale or by the gra- dation which they hold in consciousness. Our author asks, therefore, "According to this consciousness, what pro-~| cesses are of predominant influence upon the genesis of events ? " ^ His answer is that there are three groups of processes. One emanates unconsciously from the physical and psychical constitution of man. The second is ob- tained by the individual, also unconsciously, from the contemporary or ancestral social environment by way of habits, traditions, customs, established laws, and political regulations, making up what may be called the general cultural form.* Thirdly and finally, there are interests and_i 1 Problems in the Understanding of History, p. iiS. » Ihid., p. 1 14. ' Historical Letters, p. 32. * The author defines culture as : " That combination of social forms and psychical activities which . . . manifests a tendency to transmit itself from one generation to another as something unalterable." Problems in the Understanding of History, p. 26. Io8 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [lo8 linclinations that are completely conscious and which seem to form themselves independently of outside pressure and appear to be self-willed products of consciousness. They become especially powerful because they contain a new social force, " the motive from the inevitable logical con- [clusion "/ Hence the individual is a social force which plays a role in history. This role is achieved only with his ability to Fview things critically. " Without criticism," says Lavrov, " there is no development ; without criticism there is no per- > fection; without criticism of one's environment man would Lpever have progressed beyond the animal stage." ^ With the awakening of critical thought, humanity enters upon a new historical epoch. " The development of criti- cal thought in man is the condition of understanding both the problem of solidarity and the problem of the develop- ment of the individual; and it formulates the problem of progress by harmonizing the two." ° " Upon the individuals who are enlightened rests the re- sponsibility for disseminating knowledge and culture for the benefit of the majority, so making possible their own lindividuation and culture." * This categorical imperative of the enlightened minority •'^towards the majority, the author explains upon utilitarian grounds. There is pleasure in respect of one's own devel- opment, " which remains the basis of human morality and which exists only where self-respect exists ".^ ' Cf. Problems in the Understanding of History, p. 55. " Three Discussions on the Contemporary Importance of Philosophy, P- 55. ' Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 370. ■* Cf. Historical Letters, pp. 90 et seq. 5 Sketches Concerning Questions of Critical Philosophy, i860, p. 31. log] CONTRIBUTIONS OP PETER L. LAVROV log The utilitarian interests of the individual have not of course always been ideal. More often the impelling force has been personal greed, nevertheless its influence often has been beneficent. The individual and social forms The developing individual, critical of all social forms, applied to family ties as well as to political unions his ana- lytical faculties. None of the social forms proved suffi- ciently powerful to withstand on the one hand the greed of egotism or on the other the enlightening grasp of high ideal interests: high as compared with the narrow interests of the family and the mechanical ties of the state. He says : The diversion of the powers of the state to the interests of particular individuals or groups, undermined the solidarity of the state. But the conflict arising from exploitation was de- veloping in the individual a more sharply defined consciousness of his relation to the state. In accord with his egotistic in- terests he understood that the enlightened individual has to view the forms and functions of the state not as elements of progress but as a means for attaining ends apart from the in- terests of the state.'^ With the growth of the critical intellect the group became"' conscious of the difference between the social organism and the mechanism of the state, thus paving the way for de- mocracy.^ The conclusion of the author is that : Individualism does not always appear to be a progressive fac- tor, since it has too often undermined solidarity in the interest of a class. On the other hand, it should not be regarded as only a regressive factor, since almost all achievements of conscious processes have been attained under its influencej 1 Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 272. ^ Cf. ibid., p. 273. no RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [uo Everywhere and always it has been one of the most powerful of dynamic forces.^ *~ Thus the critical reasoning individual may be a disinte- grating force destroying existing social forms, initiating and organizing new ones. He is a variant from the norm, the nucleus about which, under favorable conditions, a new [type group is formed. Lavrov shows himself aware that his theory could be attacked by those defending historical determinism, and states his relation to the determinists' position. He does not deny the existence of determinism in the world, and therefore the individual who sets before himself some de- sirable end must do so in harmony with the inevitable and the immovable. His end can be attained only by the use of the determined as a tool. There are eventualities which will follow without individual effort, but again there are -occasions where individual initiative is imperative. The agent of historical determinism is the force of thought and ^he energy of volition as shown by the individual.^ Summing up Lavrov's theory of individuality we find that individuation in the lower forms of life was physio- logical. Developing with the psychic processes, it becomes in man relatively rational and self-purposive. The individ- ual, although a product of the group, reacts upon the group, disintegrating old forms and preparing for the formation of new types which survive because they are adopted by the group. The individual's freedom, although important as a working force, is conditioned by the comparatively un- changeable order of the historic process. The theses of Lavrov's sociology are : Solidarity and its antithesis. Individuality; and the synthesis of these two op- ^ Cf. ibid., p. 231. * Cf. Problems in the Understanding of History, pp. 120 et seq. Ill] CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV i j i posites is, the whole subject-matter of his theory of progress, to a consideration of which we shall now proceed. Lavroifs Theory of Progress Lavrov views the theory of progress as " an applica- tion of natural laws of ethical development to the problems of sociology as they present themselves in their historical development ".^ Progress is not necessarily a continuous movement. " Necessary is only an evaluation of the his- torical movements from the point of view of progress as a final end." == A theory of progress presents therefore two problems, a theoretical and a practical one. The participation in the ' struggle for progress appears to be a moral obligation of the individual who has grasped the meaning of it. This re- quires a program of action and a theory of ends to be at- tained. "A theory appears to underly the practice of progress as a natural process and as a real historical phe- nomenon, namely the application of the theory to that social order and to that social environment which calls the agent i of progress to its practical activity." * In what has progress consisted, and in what could it con- sist, in the history of mankind? This query Lavrov an- swers by saying : The theory of progress presents three questions which have to be put in the following order: (i) On the basis of contemporary data of biology, psychology and sociology, in what could progress consist in human society? (2) On the basis of classified and investigated historical ma- terial, in what have consisted the various phases of historical 1 Historical Letters, p. 294. ' Ihid., p. 296. • Ibid., p. 308. X 112 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [lI2 progress? (3) On the basis of society sufficiently near to be observable by us, on the basis of the various existing groups of rational activity, taking also into consideration the historical origin of the contemporary order and the principal phenomena of progress in history, in what does a social progress possible for our time consist?^ The achievement of progress, obligatory upon every en- lightened individual will depend upon the answers given to these three queries. In order to answer the question, in what could progress consist, it becomes necessary first of all to define the nature of progress. Lavrov believes that there are two processes which constitute the factors of progress, that they seem to oppose each other, and that in history have often done so. He says : Before us is the growth of personal thought, with its technical inventions, with its scientific achievements, with its philo- sophical constructions, with its creations of art and with its moral heroism. Before us also is the solidarity of society with its principal incitement, " each for all and all for each " to all the necessities of life and development, from each one all his strength for the work of social benefits, for social good, for social development.^ I If, then, the process of conscious individuation is a factor of progress, conditions favoring further individua- tion ought to be socially approved. On the other hand, strong social ties are necessary to the welfare of the indi- viduals that compose the group. Therefore whatever furthers social solidarity is also a factor of progress. So- . ciety will be ideal when its units have like interests and like 1 Historical Letters, p. 332. « Ibid., pp. 332-333. 1 13 J CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV 113 convictions, live under equal conditions of culture, exclude as far as possible all disturbing elements and forbid all modes of the struggle for existence among themselves. J Picturing thus the two phases of society, Lavrov in- quires whether individuation may not be possible without the exploitation of the group and whether the enlightened minority has a right to live at the expense of the majority. His answer is that, the truly progressive development of individual thought isT realized only when the development is directed towards a consciousness of solidarity between the more developed in- dividuals and the less developed groups, and is directed also towards an alteration of social relations favorable to the lessening of inequalities in the development of members of a homogeneous society. The true development of the individ- ual can take place only in a developed group of men, under_J the interaction of the social elements. ... In a healthy aggregate, individuals develop at the expense of other individ- uals by means of an active cooperation of all those who are themselves on the path of development.^ " Facts of history," says Lavrov, " show that there are no uncompromising contradictions between a strong social bond and a strong mental activity within society, and that indi- vidual thought can work constructively ... in the direc- tion of solidarity between the developed individual and so- ciety." ^ Progress, therefore, is possible only when " into") the convictions of the individual in a developed minority there enters the consciousness that his interests are identical with the interests of the majority in the name of the dura- bility of the social order." ^ On the basis of these require- 1 Historical Letters, p. 335. ' Ibid., p. 336- ' ^^^^■' P- 339- 114 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [114 merits, progress becomes " the growth of social conscious- ness, in so far as it leads to the strengthening and widening of social solidarity; and it is a strengthening and widening of social solidarity, in so far as it rests upon the growth of the social consciousness." ^ ' The agent of progress is the developing individual upon whom progress depends. The individual discovering the laws of solidarity applies them to his environment and re- shapes that environment according to his ideal. Through- out history the enlightened minority has done little to ad- vance progress. It has used its superiority primarily for selfish ends. But the few who have lent themselves to the welfare of the group have done so everywhere with due [attention to local interests, following these general practices : . . . changing the forms of distribution of social forces, es- pecially the forms of distribution of wealth, in harmony with existing conditions of production and exchange ; utilizing exist- ing customs and legal forms of social organization; taking into consideration diiferent existing conquests of scientific thought, the structures of philosophic thought, the types of thought in art and the ideals of moral thought; accomplish- ing these changes in the direction of the greatest strengthening and widening of social solidarity and of the largest growth of social consciousness; finally strengthening the accomplished changes by political forms in better harmony with the accom- plished change, strengthening them with those ideal products of science, philosophy and art which best justify the change, and incarnating into actual life those moral ideals which correspond to the respective healthy needs of man.^ The author assures us that only in this wise could progress have been possible in human society. From this viewpoint he asks the next question : In what do the real phases of 1 Historical Letters, p. 339. 'Ibid., p. 350. 115] CONTRIB UTIONS OF PETER L. LA VRO V 115 historical progress actually consist? The answer to this question is found in the history of civilizations, whose prob- lem it is " to show how the critical thought of the in- dividual transforms the culture of societies, by striving to carry into their civilizations truth and justice." ^ This problem our author attempts to solve in his great work, " The Principal Epochs in the History of Thought ". Here he searches through the wide range from animal and primitive tribal society to present industrial society and the rise of democracy. He shows how, out of the zoological and prehistoric periods man emerged as a reasoning being, but conditioned in his activities by strong cus- tom, whose roots were deep in animal instincts. He was a being for whom no solidarity and no individua- tion could exist as conscious motive. But presently on the basis of individualism and of conscious interest in events which themselves were more or less conditioned by a conscious grasp of interests, there developed a hier- archy of life's ends which called forth a further development of them but was checked by a lack of motives to stimu- late struggle against survival from the world of estab- lished custom, and against occasional fads or modes. As] one of these historical forces predominated, so was one or the other of the forms of development conditioned. Solidarity was confined tO' particular groups. Universal solidarity has met less favorable conditions in civil societies than in the period of the kingdom of custom ; the animosity of group with group grows deeper with the efforts of each . to strengthen its own inner solidarity. New historical periods have begun within small groups of intellectuals, which have desired their own development. These groups have worked out critical thought, and their first product has been two new historical forces : first, a personal conviction as a product ^Historical Letters, p. 352. Il6 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [ll6 fof the development of the individual in the direction of service to ideal and not to egotistical interests; and sec- ond, a universalistic conception of the unity of mankind. The group of critically intellectual people has been, and prob- ably will remain, relatively small. The majority will still be directed by its selfish aspirations, by habit and by the mode. The elite group will be large and strong enough to become an example to be imitated and thus to create the mode which all will want to attain to, and the intellectual Iglass that all will wish to belong to.^ Lavrov is thus brought to the third practical question, namely: In what consists the social progress possible for our time? To this he gives no' definite answer, believing that not books but experiences of life have here to decide. iHowever, from his wide range of writings upon prac- tical questions, one may infer that the principal task is to achieve a reconstruction of the existing economic order and political forms according to the socialist program. Also, philosophical systems, types of art and ideals of mor- ality must be construed so as severally to lend their assist- jance. r Lavrov called himself a socialist, but he was not a Marxist. Although holding the economic factor an im- portant one, he was no economic determinist. His social- ism was based upon ethical considerations rising out of his , social imperative.^ We have seen that Lavrov expects from the sociologist a formula of progress; from the historian he demands to know how far the ideal has been realized; and from the enlightened individual and the social reformer, he demands changes in society to bring it closer to the goal established by sociology. ' Cf. Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, pp. 995 et seq. 2 Cf. supra, p. 108. 1 17] CONTRIBUTIONS OF PETER L. LAVROV 117 To recapitulate tersely: Lavrov sees social progress in the development and strengthening of solidarity, so far as it does not hinder conscious processes and motives in the rational activity of individuals. Again, social pro- gress consists, in like manner, in the continuous develop- ment of the conscious processes and rational activities of individuals, so far as it does not hinder the development and the strengthening of solidarity among the largest pos- sible number of individuals. Therefore, progress is a har- monizing and synthetising of the social forces of solidarity and individuality. In estimating Lavrov as a sociologist, one must credit him with contributions which before or after him were or have been made independently by others, preeminently by American sociologists. Lavrov's system shows the influ- ence of Kant, Hegel, Comte, Proudhon, Buckle, Darwin, Spencer and Marx. Lavrov applied Kant's criticism, which lacked historical background, to Comte's positivism, which was historical but lacked the criticism that was valuable in Kant. Darwin's and Spencer's evolutionism he sought to reconcile with the historism of Comte, Hegel, Buckle and others. He has hardly succeeded in accomplishing an al-~| together satisfactory synthesis ; especially is he weak in the epistemological formulation of his premises. Still to him belongs the honor of having been among the first to attempt this synthesis, which since has quite generally been attempted by others. He was also among the first tO' show the fallacies and inadequacies of biological analogy in sociology and to seek to base sociology upon psychology and ethics. -J Thus Lavrov adopts a social imperative which reminds one of Kant's formulations, although he tried to strip *^ it of its idealistic premises.^ His emphasis upon the criti- ' Cf. supra, p. 27. Il8 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [ng fcally-minded individual as a social power and as the creator of new types and standards was strongly resented by his contemporaries, because of his unfortunate use of such terms as " subjective method " and " subjective point of view". Still he did not mean by these anything more than I Professor Lester F. Ward meant by the term " anthropo- l-teleological method". With all his merits as an independ- ent thinker and tireless investigator, Lavrov was a child of his time. His early philosophical training was Hegelian, and the Hegelian scheme of trilogy is easily discernible in all of Lavrov's works. His sociological concepts are three : "Soli- darity " is the thesis, " Individuality " is the antithesis, and " Social Progress " is the synthesis of the former two. It is interesting to note in passing that his critically- minded individuals as agents of social progress are those young Russian revolutionists who made up his following.^ Lavrov's sociology is truly Russian, because it was stimu- lated and conditioned by the social and political movements in the Russia of his day. Its purpose was to justify the progressive elements of Russia in their struggle against autocracy, and also to supply his followers with a program which was scientifically sound. Apart from these tractarian tendencies, there is much of lasting value in Lavrov's work, which ought to find its deserved recognition. * A faction of the Russian revolutionary propagandists named them- selves " Lavrovtzy ", i. e., Lavrov Followers, and were in opposition to the anarchistic Bakunists and also to those Marxists who resented the subjective view. CHAPTER II The Sociological System of N. K. Mikhalovsky What might be called the " Sturm und Drang " period of Russian history called into life the Russian subjectivist school of sociology. To Lavrov, as we have seen, belongs the honor of priority in this school. The writings of Mikhalovsky/ one of Lavrov's contemporaries are not less important and have had a wider circulation. He is one of the few Russians who may be credited with having de- veloped a sociological system of his own — a system which has not heretofore, been brought under the covers of one specific sociological work, but which must be collected and deduced from his miscellaneous writings. This chapter is an attempt to make the social-philosophy of Mikhalovsky accessible to the student of sociology. Mikhalovsky was recognized and generally feared as a critic and publicist. For almost half a century he followed this dangerous profession without meeting the fate of his less fortunate colleagues, Chernishevsky, Lavrov, Kropotkin, and many others who were exiled. Because of this con- ' Nikalai Konstantinovitch Mikhalovsky (1842-1904) received his edu- cation at the St. Petersburg School of Mines. As early as i860 he began his literary career, contributing to many of the principal period- icals published in the Russian capital, such as the " Otechestvennyie Zapisky" and the " Russkoye Bogatstvo." He enjoyed unprecedented popularity, which he successfully maintained to the end of his days. His sociological and ethical theories shaped the thinking of his genera- tion in Russia, and he was generally acknowledged the leader of its populist movement. His writings have an encyclopedic range, filling, in the most recent edition, ten large, double-column volumes. 119] "9 I20 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [l20 stant danger, Mikhalovsky developed the art of expressing his opinions in an indirect way. Thus his own sociological theories are to be found in essays analyzing and criticizing the theories of Darwin, Spencer, Comte, Mill, and others. In common with other writers of the subjectivist school of Russian sociology, Mikhalovsky held that the struggle for individuality was of the greatest importance. Mikhalovsky' s Philosophical and Methodological Pre- suppositions Philosophically, Mikhalovsky is a radical positivist and an empiricist. He follows Hume as corrected by Mill. Comte also influenced his thinking. Mikhalovsky says : " With both factions of Comte's disciples I agree in ac- knowledging the principle postulates of positivism in regard to the limits of the knowable." ^ While rejecting every imperative, whether it be Kant's, Lavrov's, or any one else's, Mikhalovsky nevertheless be- lieves in the necessity of a strictly ethical relation among social phenomena. In fact, he believes this to be his prin- cipal problem : the reconciliation of the abstract truth with concrete truth, i. e. with truth socially evaluated. He says : " I have never been able to believe it impossible to find a view wherein abstract truth and concrete justice could go together supplementing each the other." ^ Elsewhere he says : This system of reconciliation between the abstract good and the concrete good, requires a principle that not only may serve as the directing factor in the study of the objective ' Mikhalovsky, Works, iii ed., vol. iv, p. 99. ' Vol. I, p. V. The Russians have two words to express the concept truth. Istina is abstract truth in the absolute sense, pravda is applied truth in the sense of justice. Mikhalovsky makes use of the expres- sions, pravda istina and pravda spravedlivost. 121 ] SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 121 world, thereby answering the scientific questions that naturally arise in every man ; and as a directing factor in practical activ- ity, thereby answering queries of conscience and of ethical evaluation, which also naturally arise in every man ; but which also must finally accomplish these things with such power that the proselyte must strive with religious zeal towards that end which the principle of the system reveals as true happi- ness.^ This system which he calls the pravda system gives but little space to the epistemological aspect of phenomena. Like Spencer, Mikhalovsky is agnostic about the nature of things. His pravda system he applies principally to social and ethical phenomena and he postulates as the final criterion of judgment the individual and his interests. He says : In all political questions you must make the focus of your reasoning not the interests of the nation, not the government, not the commune, not the province, not the federation, but the individual. The individual is the center from which the rays of truth will interpret to you the meaning of that or any other social bond. You will not get confused by the historic kaleido- scope if you will remember that all psychic processes take place within the individual and only within the individual. Only the individual receives impressions, perceives, thinks, feels, suffers, and enjoys.'' He maintains that all mental processes take place within the individual, but recognizes that the individual is limited on the one hand by nature and on the other by the historic trend of things. " It is generally acknowledged that man can attain only to relative truth. He attains to the elements of truth through the medium of his five senses ; had he less or more, the truth would appear differently to him." * How- ' Mikhalovsky, Works, St. Petersburg, 1896, vol. iv, p. 405. ^ Ibid., p. 460. ' Idem. 122 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [122 ever, this relative truth possesses in practical life an absolute value because it fills the compass of man's possible attain- ment. In addition to these natural limitations, peculiar so- cial limitations are added by the historical trend of things. " Tell me," says Mikhalovsky, " virhat are your social bonds and I will tell you how you look at things." ^ Dismissing absolute truth as unknowable, he strives nevertheless for what he calls human truth. He says : " Truth is that which satisfies the mental cravings of man." ^ Thus it seems clear that the basis of his pravda-system is the human individual. The Methods of Sociology. Mikhalovsky's sociological method grew out of his philo- sophy. " Is it," he asks, " scientifically commendable to eliminate the teleological aspect from sociology ? Can the ob- jective method alone give sociology sufficient results?"* His view is that elimination of the teleological idea would silence talk about " progress " and that there would be no distinction then between development and disintegration.* A purely objective attitude seems impossible and undesir- able. When the nature of phenomena permits of an ex- amination of the whole process subject to investigation, by any man who has sufficient information, the objective method is used ; but where for the verification of the investi- gation, besides the objective facts an evaluation of facts is needed, the subjective method must be used."" Besides this Mikhalovsky believes that the very nature of man renders an unbiased attitude towards facts impossible. 1 Mikhalovsky, op. cit., p. 405. " Cf. vol. iii, pp. 330-354- ' Vol. i, p. ss. * Cf. ibid., p. 132. ' Cf. vol. iii, p. 401. 123] SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 123 Previous experience, whether conscious or unconscious, and the moral character of the investigator inevitably determine his judgment. Thus Mikhalovsky approaches the study of social pheno- mena in much the same way that Lavrov did. The criticisms brought against Lavrov's methods apply therefore to those of Mikhalovsky. Mikhalovsky rejects the principles of analogy in the study of social phenomena ; he considers them misleading. How- ever he reserves the right of comparison of social phenomena with certain biological phenomena because of the many points of contact existing between sociology and biology. '^ The Province of Sociology and its Relation to the Sciences Sociology was to Mikhalovsky the science of the laws of intra- and inter-group relations and of the relations between group and individual. He says : " Sociology can never persist unless its object becomes the discovery and modifica- tion of the laws of inter-relation among the various forms of group life, and the relations of these forms to the human individual." ^ He accepts Comte's classification of the sciences which he regards as one of the greatest philo- sophical contributions of all time.' But he differs from Comte in viewing psychology as an independent science, building his sociology largely upon its principles. Social phenomena, he maintains, are governed by specific laws. This however does not mean that sociology is unre- lated to other sciences. Sociology as well as biology deals with the struggle for exist- ence. It points out for us the direction the struggle takes ' Cf. vol. i, p. 378. " Vol. vi, p. 299. * Cf. vol. iv, p. 99. 124 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [124 under the influence of cooperation. If several types of co- operation co-exist, the relation of one to the other, as well as their combined influence should be studied. The sociologist observes these influences not only in human society, but also in animal societies.^ Thus sociology not only receives from other sciences but in turn contributes to them; for example, the socio- logical analysis of the laws of cooperation aided in the un- derstanding of changes in the biological structure of animal organisms. Statistics are indispensable to sociology. But because of the insufficiency of material obtainable under existing meth- ods, they are far from satisfactory. Mikhalovsky signi- ficantly warns his readers that " if the statistician forgets that his laws are but empirical laws applicable only to those conditions of time and place whence they have been deduced, an unjustifiably fatalistic attitude of mind will be produced because of the meagerness and limitation of the facts ob- tained as a basis for the laws." ^ Statistical conclusions, because constituting a purely inductive process, ought to be supplemented, Mikhalovsky thinks, by deductive methods to such extent as the complexity of the social phenomena may require. With these philosophical and methodological presupposi- tions well in mind we may now proceed to an analysis of Mikhalovsky's principal thesis, to which all his other so- ciological writings are subordinated. An exhaustive ex- amination of his many writings results in the following analysis of Mikhalovsky's Theory of Sociology, which may be considered under the general heading of : ' Vol. i, p. 381. » Ibid., p. 374. 125] SYSTEM OP N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 125 The Theory of the Struggle for Individuality 1 . The relation of the Spencerian and Darwinian theories of evolution to the theory of the struggle for individuality. 2. The biological aspect of the theory of the struggle for individuality. 3. The psychological aspect of the theory of the struggle for individuality. (i) The individuating process and the functions of the hero and of the mob. (2) The individuating process and the function of love. (3) The individuating process and the function of religion. (4) The individuating process and the functions of libertinism and asceticism. 4. The economic aspect of the theory of the struggle for individuality. (i) The individuating process and the functioning of division of labor. (2) The individuating process and the functioning of Russian economic institutions. 5. The historical aspect of the theory of the struggle for individuality. I . The Theory of the Struggle for Individuality in its Retor- tion to the Spencerian and Darwinian Theories of Evo- lution. Mikhalovsky began his sociological theorizing by a critical analysis of the Spencerian theory of evolution as applied to social phenomena.^ He denies the validity of Spencer's law of evolution especially as applied to the evolution of society. He says, " Spencer's two fundamental laws (of 'This work is entitled, What is Progress? It appeared in 1869 and is placed in vol. i of his collected works. It is also to be had in French translation. 126 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [126 integration and of differentiation) are not sufficient to ex- plain evolution as a transition from homogeneity to hetero- geneity. Therefore the generalization of Spencer does not work out in the field of experience, it does not formulate any general and evident fact which can be taken as a cause for evolution." ^ Again, he believes Spencer's theory to be inconsistent in its relation to the individual and to society. " Spencer," he continues, " who Hkes to escape the teleo- logical meaning of progress, had nevertheless to admit in his course of observation the necessity of evaluating the individual and the group." ' Spencer's theory, however, at its best shows but the continuity of change without regard to human happiness as an end. If society as an ideal unit, develops like an organism from a homogeneous state to a heterogeneous, from the simple to the complex, " Whati" asks he, " happens at the same time to the actual individual, — the member of society? Does he experience the same process of development as the type of organic progress ?" ° Mikhalovsky points out that according to the Spencerian formula the differentiation of society is possible only at the expense of the individual. While society is advancing from homogeneity to heterogeneity the indivisible parts composing the social organism have changed from hetero- geneity to homogeneity. Thus, for example, the savage man utilizes all his faculties, mental and physical, but this is not the case in a society which is based upon minute di- vision of labor. Primitive man as a member of a homo- geneous society is a complete individual, an individual in which the mental and physical aspects are in mutual har- mony. Mikhalovsky concludes : In the homogeneous mass of primitive society the indivisible ' Vol. i, p. 29. ' Ibid., p. 32. ' Idem. 127] SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 127 units of society were heterogeneous in so far as this was possible under the given condition of time and place. They were complete bearers of their culture ; but with the transition of society from the homogeneous and complex began the destruction of unity of particular individuals and their transi- tion from the heterogeneous to the homogeneous.^ The idea of a social organism he held to be not only fictitious in principle but also impossible of practical reali- zation. " In an organism," he says, " the whole, not the parts, is suffering or enjoying itself; in society, on the contrary, only its parts are conscious, therefore there is no similarity between society and organism." ^ Accord- ingly : " Society is not an organism, but a coordination of indivisible organisms. It consists not of organs specially predetermined for one or another function, but of indivis- ibles, which have all organs and therefore execute the sum of functions." * Mikhalovsky believed that if society could be reduced to an organism it would be its destruction. He says: " If. in the struggle for existence society becomes an organism, it, like all organisms, must be limited as to the length of its life. Its doom is inevitable. But if in- dividuality conquers, society does not become an organ- ism, and thus it does become practically immortal." * Mikhalovsky does not deny that society is changing like a physical organism, but he asserts that the indivisible parts of society are changing in a direction opposite to that of a physical organism. The differentiation of indivisibles (i. e. men) and the differentiation of organs in a physical organ- ism were brought by Spencer and his school under a com- mon denominator. Mikhalovsky, on the contrary, regards 1 Vol. i, p. 34. "^ Ibid., p. 54. ' Idem. * Vol. i, p. 573. 128 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [128 them as mutually exclusive phenomena to be in eternal and inevitable antagonism.^ This opinion of Mikhalovsky was to become the cardinal factor in his whole theory of the struggle for individuality. Dismissing Spencer's theory of evolution on the basis of this criticism, he proceeds to substitute another formula of evolution, or progress. This reads as follows : Progress is the gradual approach toward integrality of the in- divisibles, and thus to the sub-divided and re-divided division of labor among men. Whatever retards this movement is im- moral, or unjust, or harmful, or unwise. Whatever dimin- ishes the heterogeneity of society is moral, or just, or wise, or useful, nothing else : this same act is increasing also the hetero- geneity of the separate members.^ Like many other Russian thinkers he disliked Darwinism because of its anti-democratic and plutocratic interpretation by the bourgeoisie of Western Europe.* The principles of differentiation, of variation by means of adaptation, and of competition, or struggle, are fre- quently carried over from the realm of biology, as inter- preted by Darwin, into the realm of sociology. Mik- halovsky resents the practice, thinking it an arbitrary use of biological laws in sociology. He attempts to show that the principle of adaptation is not necessarily a progressive phenomenon within the limits of differentiation, because " adaptation always helps the practical type at the expense ' Cf. ibid., p. 149. ' Ibid., p. 150. For a more detailed comment upon this formula, cf. the next section on the biological aspect of the theory of the struggle for individuality. ' Cf. his essays on " Darwinism and Liberalism," Works, vol. i. By " Darwinism," he meant the carrying over of the principles of natural selection into the human sphere. H« did not depreciate Darwin's con- tribution to the explanation of the origin of species. 129] SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 139 of the ideal type." ^ He illustrates his thought by showing how a species may change for the purpose of survival. Let the formula (a+bH-c+ m), a, b, c, m signify- ing characteristics peculiar to the species, represent the life of a certain species. If, by transition of this species into some new type the relation of its organs and characteristics remains the same, and they merely differentiate and become more com- plicated without changing their former relation, the result is (a-|-b-l-c+ m)n and innumerable other changes are possible in the formula of life. They all amount to this, that the species adapting itself to new conditions of life, loses some former characteristic of its organization and develops others, thus possibly simplifying itself rather than becoming more highly differentiated. Thus the formula (a+b-t-c-|- . . . •+.ni) n may change to the formula -^a+b-f-c-j-. . . .+m.^ This illustrates Mikhalovsky's contention against the prin- ciples of Darwinism. Adaptation intensifies the physio- logical division of labor by differentiating organs for special functioning. In this manner organized matter is pushed further towards complexity. Under its influence the sum of forces and the capacities of the indivisibles grow con- tinually. Heredity, according to Darwinian sociology, is the static factor, the inertia of society; while adaptation and survival are the dynamic factors of society. Mikhalovsky rejects this vigw as lacking a progres- sive element because it does not consider the best as the fittest. He says : " Darwinism presents in itself the latest revised and supplemented edition of utilitarianism." ' " When converted into a sociological doctrine Darwinism," he continues, " only substitutes for the word ' species ' — 1 Vol. i, p. 289. ' Ibid., p. 257. ' Ibid., p. 293. I30 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [130 ' society ' ; for the term ' differentiation of characteristics ' — ' division of labor,' for the slogan ' struggle for existence ' — ' competition.' " * Worst of all, this view of progress disregards the interest of the individual. Mikhalovsky says : Understand, then, that in such a progress the individual re- gresses. If we contemplate only this aspect of the matter so- ciety is the greatest, the nearest and the worst enemy of man, against which at all times he must be on guard. Society strives to transform the individual into a mere organ of itself.'' This danger is, however, not as great as some think. Mik- halovsky calls attention to the fact that man is not neces- sarily subject to the laws of natural selection. Although he has his natural limitations, nevertheless artificial selection strives to outrun natural selection. He says : The natural trend of things exists only when and where there is no human being, because man by each step, even by the simplest operations of life modifies his environ- ment and changes in one way or another the existing com- bination of forces . . . man brings with himself a new force into the world, which, like all other force complexes presents a certain coordination of the principal forces of nature, and also, like all other forces, strives to control all nature.' Mikhalovsky's critique of the evolutionary doctrines of Spencer and Darwin and his formula of social progress reveal his purpose to rescue the individual from the de- grading encroachments of social control. To obtain a highly complex and differentiated society both without sacrifice of the individual's own complexity and with the raising of the individual to the highest possible power, this was the problem Mikhalovsky set himself. ^Vol. i, p. 295. ' Ibid., p. 461. » Ibid., pp. 329, 331. 131 J SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 131 2. The Biological Aspect of the Theory of the Struggle for Individuality Mikhalovsky although sternly critical of the biological school of sociology could not break away from the Comtian precedent of rearing the structure of sociological theory upon biological foundations. He therefore makes a study of biological forms of individualities, starting from the principles of Karl Baer and Ernst Haeckel. Baer main- tained that the perfection of the organism varies di- rectly as the degree of its complexity; as the high or low differentiation of organs and structure in morphological relations; as the physiological division of labor; and as the coordination of functions (physiologically considered).^ This same idea was present in the doctrines of other bio- logists but was completely developed by Ernst Haeckel in his tectological studies. He worked out a sixfold classi- fication of biological individualities ^ which Mikhalovsky follows, applying it to the social relations of the human in- ' Cf. vol. i, p. 228. ^ These we give in the original from Haeckel's works : " I. Plastiden (Cytoden und Zellen) oder Elementarorganismen.'' II. Organe oder Idorgane, Zellenstocke oder Zellfusionen, einfache oder homoplastische Organe, zusammengesetzte oder heteroplastische Organe, Organsysteme, Organapparate). III. Antimeren (Gegenstiicke oder homotype Teile). "Strahlen" der Strahltiere, "Halften" der endipleuren (bilateralsymmetrischen) Tiere, etc. IV. Metameren (Folgestiicke oder horaodyname Teile). " Stengel- glieder " der Phonesogamen, " Segmente," Ringe oder Zoniten der Gliedertiere, Wirbelsegmente 'der Wirbeltiere, etc. V. Personen (Prosopen) Sprosse oder gemmae der Pflanzen und Coelenteraten usw. " Individuen " in engsten Sirme bei den hoheren Tieren (Spater als Histonalen zusammengefasst). VI. Cormen (Stocke oder Kolonien). Baume, Straucher, etc. (Zu- sammengesetzte Pflanzen). Salpenketten, Polypenstocke, etc." Haeckel, " Prinzipien der Generellen Morphologie." Edition of 1906, p. 106. Cf. Mikhalovsky, Works, vol. ii, p. 346. 132 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [132 dividual. In determining the mutual relations of these bio- logical individualities our author sent forth the following argument : The higher the stage of organic individuality the more firmly are the cells held together. Among the higher animals cells insignificant in number are utilized in the for- mation of physiological individuality and strive to adapt themselves to independent functioning within the organism. The organic individuality, named by Haeckel Plastide, is high or higher in proportion to the quantity of plasmic mole- cules composing it ; it is high also in proportion to the com- plexity of the atomic compositions of these molecules ; again the more the molecules are dependent upon one another and also upon the whole Plastide, and finally the more the Plastide is centralized and independent of a higher individ- uality, the organism is individual. The individualities which Haeckel calls Personen or Individuals are more perfect in the degree that they are more differentiated in their organic and histological structure, and in the functions of their in- tegral parts, and the more these parts are dependent upon one another and also upon the whole, and finally the more cen- tralized and independent the individual itself is in its rela- tion to the next higher individuality — the colony. The last individuality, which Haeckel calls Corwien or colony, is more perfect the more heterogeneous are the individuals, the organs and the tissue composing it; and the more inde- pendent the five previous individualities (i. e. the Plastide, Organe, Antimeren, Metameren, Personen),^ are the more they all are dependent upon the whole colony, and the more the colony itself is centralized.^ In brief each individuality strives towards greater and greater complexity, but this complexity can be attained only at the expense of lower * Cf. last foot-note. " Cf. Mikhalovsky, Works, vol. ii, p. 351. 133] SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 133 individualities. Thus conflict in the process of evolution is inevitable. Each individuality contends with its neigh- boring individualities which it tries to subdue. Says Mik- halovsky : The history of life with all its diversity, with its beauty and its ugliness, consists in a succession of victories and of defeats. The struggle is waged with alternating fortunes; either one or another of the stages of individuality is victorious. But the struggle never ceases . . . Man, as an individual presents by himself one of the stages of individuality [the fifth, ac- cording to the classification of Haeckel.] Into his make up enter four lower orders and over him is the individuality of a sixth order i. e. society, which in its turn may have different forms which will become absorbed in the next stages in the system of individuality.^ This argumentation and conclusion shows us the biologi- cal first principles of Mikhalovsky's system of society. The conclusions deducible from all this as to the duty of the in- dividual and as to his relation to society are apparent. Mik- halovsky expresses them thus : The struggle for individuality arises for the human individual out of the very situation that nature has allotted to him. His task is two-fold. First the individual must mercilessly subject to himself as an integral all lower individualities which have entered intO' his constitution. According to the old Roman motto : divide et impera he must rigidly carry out the policy of division of labor among his bodily organs demand- ing from each the highest efficiency for the sake of his own personal interests. Secondly, the individual must carefully guard himself that this motto: divide et impera may not be applied to him by some other stage of individuality, no matter how high sounding a name it may have.^ 1 Mikhalovsky, op. cit., p. 353. 2 Ibid., p. 354- 134 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [134 This two-fold task Mikhalovsky regards as the principle duty of each individual, and one imposed upon him by nature itself. He regards man and society as organisms on different stages of individuality and exposed to the same dangers as are all other organisms in the biological realm. On the other hand, Mikhalovsky fears that a continual division and redivision of labor will result in the atrophy of some organs of the human body. He points to the feeble- ness of woman in certain physical and mental functions.^ The existence of a sexless ant suggested to him the possi- bility of a sexless man, as a result of the continual re- division of labor.^ At this point we may indicate the fallacy and inconsis- tency underlying the biological foundations of Mik- halovsky's theory. Although he strongly and justly criti- cises Spencer and others of the biological school for their misleading use of biological analogy yet he himself does not escape this pitfall. Having refused to adopt the or- ganistic theory of society, he nevertheless considers society as the sixth stage of individuality in Haeckel's classifica- tion. (The Cormen of Haeckel's classification is an or- ganic society) . But according to Mikhalovsky's own state- ment, human society should not be considered as an organ- ism at all.* ' " Let us express the sum of the strength and ability of man and woman by the formula a-Hb-j-c. After division of labor, the formula for the man became a-|-c, and for the woman b-|-c. The two formulae, (each simpler than the first) when intensified in their one-sidedness to am_|_cn and bP-|-ct, becomes dangerous through the threatened atrophy of the " b " capacity in the man and of the '' a " capacity in the woman. Therefore, from time to time it may become necessary to return to the primitive proportions, e. g. to a-|-b-|-c rising to ( a-(-b-|-c) 1." Vol. i, p. 258. ' The reader may have noticed that this view is tenable only on the theory that acquired characteristics are transmissible by heredity. Mik- halovsky, like most laymen in biology of his day, holds this view. 2 Cf. vol. i, p. 54. Also supra, p. 131. 135] SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY £35 Again, carried away by his biological analogy, Mik- halovsky declares the existence of a ceaseless war between the individual and society. No one denies that the individ- ual is in danger of being arrested or diverted in his develop- ment by a too rigid social control or by a too intensive sub- division of labor. On the other hand, Mikhalovsky does not fully appreciate the fact that much of the superiority of the human over the animal individual is attributable to the wholesome influences of human society. 3. The Psychological Aspect of the Theory of the Struggle for Individuality Psychic phenomena are real to Mikhalovsky. He re- gards psychology as a science independent of biology al- though related to it. He was one of the first to apply psychological principles in the study of social phenomena. We have seen that to him progress is the harmonious de- velopment of all of the natural functionings of the individ- ual and that therefore it is the individual's imperative duty to protect himself against control by any group which threatens to encroach upon these functionings. In his effort to safeguard the individual Mikhalovsky turned his attention to the frequent mass movements of which Russia had had its full share and which, it appeared to him, were psychic and pathological in their nature and tended greatly to the suppression of individual initiative. He made careful studies of these mass movements and described them in two works under the title, The Hero and the Mob.^ Here he points out the bearings of these phenomena upon the struggle for individuality. In these studies he also shows the socializing forces of impression, suggestion and imitation, although he emphasises especially their baleful influences. 'These studies were first published about 1882 and fill a large part of the second volume of Mikhalovsky's collected works. 136 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [136 ( I ) The Individuating Process and the Functioning of the Hero and the Mob Mikhalovsky's hero is not necessarily a great man as Carlyle and others of the " great man " school picture him. " Hero," he says, " we shall call that man who by his example captivates the mass for good or for evil, for noble or degrading, for rational or for irrational deeds. Mob we shall call the mass which is able to follow an ex- ample or suggestion whether highly noble or degrading or morally indifferent.^ This definition our author trusts will protect him against the charge of attempting to revive the great man theory of history as presented by Carlyle and others. Great men, according to Mikhalovsky, do not fall from Heaven upon earth but rather grow from the earth up into the Heavens. They are products of the very environ- ment which at the same time creates the mob. They incarnate in themselves those forces, feelings, instincts, thoughts and desires which are found scattered in the mob. The " great man " may seem a demi-god from one point of view and an insignificant creature from another point of view. Occa- sions give men their relative evaluation. Says Mikhalovsky : Men not considered great in their own generation, were re- surrected as great by a succeeding age. Hence the problem lies in the mechanics of the relation between the mob and that man whom the mob considers a great man; and not in some objective standard of greatness. Therefore an evil doer, an 'Vol. ii, p. 97. It may be noticed here that Mikhalovsky was not of the opinion that great men do not influence the trend of history. On the contrary, he says "Granted that he (the great man) be but a tool of history, yet him has history chosen ojit of tens and hundreds of thousands to be its tool; but it is a feeling, thinking tool, and, more than that, one consciously acting and striving towards a set goal. The great man may be the resultant of certain forces, but while striving towards his goal, he becomes in turn an active, conscious agent — a cause in the further process of events.'' Vol. ii, p. 386. I37J SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 137 idiot, or an insane man may be as important as some world- renowned genius, so long as the mob has followed him, has truly subjected itself to him, has imitated and worshiped him.^ Our author then proceeds to show by what process the mass selects a hero from out of its own composition. He thinks that Carlyle was not far from the truth when he as- serted that in each person lives a craving towards an ideal, towards something definitely higher and better than any trifling and narrow actuality. This craving for the ideal may express itself in following some one who suggests a kind of heroism. Mikhalovsky gives his own interpretation of the existence of those cravings which call for a hero; but the hero himself is simply one who first breaks the ice, who makes the decisive step which the mob awaits anxiously in order to precipitate itself in one or the other direction. The hero in himself is important only in so far as he has called forth a mass movement, giving it its initial impetus. ' The author cites many interesting historical episodes to illustrate the nature of the hero and of the mob and of the controlling factors of suggestion and imitation. He ob- serves that the Middle Ages were unusually rich in patholo- gical moral epidemics such as flagellation, frenzied dancing, persecution of the Jews, the crusades, and witch-burning, All mass movements have characteristics in common; these we must discriminate from characteristics that tend to unconscious imitation. The former characteristics may differ in kind, but among general conditions there is, apparently, some kind, or similarity, or current which oc- casions the imitative character of mass movements, what- ever their difference in origin or in cause. In pathological cases the cord of imitation vibrates strongly, but its silence 1 Vol. ii, p. 98. ^Ibid., p. 100. Cf. p. 366. 138 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [138 in those phenomena which we recognize as normal does not necessarily follow. Mikhalovsky thinks there is a general law of imitation. He says : Let us imagine a meeting of about 300 members who are addressed by an orator. Let the initial number 10 express the excitement that the orator feels, and let that excitement induced by the first outbursts of his oratory in every one of his 300 hearers be expressed by 5, or at least half of his own excitement. Each in the audience will express this by ap- plause or by increased attention ; in their pose and in the look on their faces there will be something strained. Each will observe not the excited orator alone, but also the many strenu- ously interested or excited fellow listeners. Granting that each hearer perceives but half of the general excitement, we still must express it numerically not by the number 5, but by the number 750, i. e. (2}^ X300). As to the orator himself, who is the center of the reacting currents of excitement, he may become entirely crushed by them as in fact often happens to inexperienced orators. Of course in reality such ava- lanche-like growth of excitement cannot be quite as rapid as would theoretically be true because not every one of the 300 hearers sees from his seat each and all of his 299 excited comrades. But the general law of the process is still such as I have described.^ So the mob is created under pressure of the interactions of similar stimuli, its principal characteristic being uncon- scious or involuntary imitation. It remains to be shown under what conditions the ten- dency to imitate prevails and what manner of people are most prone to make up a mob.^ 1 Vol. ii, p. 14s. ' Mikhalovsky combats the idea of certain writers that the mob must be something exceptionally cruel. He says : "The mob, like a photo- graphic camera, copies the beautiful and the ugly. Man, who is in a 139] SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 139 Imitativeness, according to Mikhalovsky, even in its most abnormal forms, is but a specific case of consciousness ob- scured, of feebleness of will, occasioned by special circum- stances. These special circumstances are the key to all these various phenomena. For the creation of a disposition which readily imitates and is good material for a mob movement, it is necessary to have either an impression strong enough to overcome for the time being all other impressions, or, to have a continuing lack of all impressions. The combination of these two conditions would further increase the effect of imitation.^ In a word they are the conditions that the hypnotist needs successfully to exercise his powers. Such conditions were characteristic of the Middle Ages. The mediaeval masses were always ready to yield their wills to some hero. Deprived of all original initiative and of all sta- bility, they were depressed by the monotony of the social environment and by the poverty of individual life. There- fore, whenever a peculiar personality appeared the mob was ready to follow him, to make of him a hero or a saint. One needed but to start a frenzied dance, or to whip himself, — all without any good reason, — and he became at once a hero to the crowd. ° Mikhalovsky presents much condition of one-sided concentration of attention, will involuntarily commit acts good or evil. This is a simple case of imitation. But it becomes complex partly by the addition of conscious factors and partly by the struggle between the elements in the image to which attention has been drawn." Vol. ii, p. 459. ' Mikhalovsky believes that physiological imitation in the animal world is attributable to these causes, and not to natural selection, as the Darwinians assert. Animals imitate color, forms and relation of parts from other animals or objects, and this not because of any external process of selection or of gradual adaptation, at least not because of these alone; but because of an inner dynamic force stimulated into imitative activity by the environment. Cf. vol. ii, pp. 113 et seq. ^ Cf. ibid., p. 161 et seq. I40 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [140 historical evidence in support of his contention that the cause of the mob with its readiness to imitate is found in the infringement of individuality. The only remedy is to prevent society from turning the individual into an organ or tool for the sake of social efficiency and social safety.^ The craving toward an ideal which made Carlyle seek for heroes is caused by the suppression of individuality. It will cease whenever society shall give to the individual the op- portunity for an harmonious development. (2) The Process of Individuation and the Functioning of Love In his studies of the psychic aspects of the struggle for individuality, Mikhalovsky turns his attention to the phenomenon of love between the sexes. Though love, he asserts, has physical roots, its flower is neverthe- less psychic and is of great importance in completing human individuality. The desire for love originates in the physiological differentiation of organic individualities. The development of the family and the growth of sexual differences go hand in hand. The family in itself repre- sents a type of individuality. According to the law of evolution the family itself differentiates its parts, es- tablishing among its members a division of social and phy- siological labor. Results of adaptation to these special functionings are still noticeable in certain peculiarities of the '"In the measure," says Mikhalovsky, "that division of labor more and more draws its deep furrows into society, so the striving for unison is but an unconscious make-believe, and in reality changes its character and direction : instead of sympathy there is but imitation. This increases to such a degree that there may be bloody conflict be- tween the representatives of various branches of the divided social labor . . . this was the case especially in the Middle Ages, because of the absence in society of those elements which in one way or another balance the disadvantages of division of labor." Vol. xi, p. 190. 141 J SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 141 human body. In time the process of differentiation cut man in half and to regain his integrity he seeks his missing half in the opposite sex. Thus love is a striving toward integrity, a striving of men and women toward one an- other with the purpose of re-establishing the original nature of man. Each one of us is but a half man or a half woman and each half seeks its other half. A happy marriage is a successful selection or coming together of two halves of the whole and an unhappy marriage is an unsuccessful selection.^ His differentiated sexual status man receives by heredity and cannot alter. But there are secondary sexual charac- teristics which are developing in man, and which threaten to lower his type. Man's individuality is subjected to the individuality of the family into which enter parents, children and other kindred. Continuous subjection of one stage of individuality to higher stages including the clan, the tribe, the people, the class, the profession, the caste, political and economic groupings, differentiates the sexes more and more, consequently more is required to fill the widening gap. Mikhalovsky correlates the exceptional social stratification of the Middle Ages with its abnormal romanticism. The romances of Abelard and Eloise, of Dante and Beatrice, of Petrarch and Laura, the " Cours d'amour " and similar mediaeval phenomena were products of the extreme social differentiation of the sexes, which therefore demanded much more from love than would otherwise have sufficed for the harmonious development of individualities. Mikhalovsky's conclusion is that in a given race or in a given epoch, the more men are manly and the more women are womanly, the more powerful will love be. Social differentiation among men and women in- creases the contrasts, which in their turn increase the demand ' Cf. vol. i, p. 509. 142 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [142 for love. Here we get not halves of human beings, as was provided by nature, but still smaller fractions, and the smaller the fraction the more passionately does it strive to supplement itself, — to complete its integrity ; but tragically it then becomes increasingly difficult to find this larger supplementing fraction.^ The increase of divorce Mikhalovsky accounts for in great part by this same cause — too great differentiation of the functions of the sexes. He says : Civilization which has conquered the individual in the inter- est of society, increases the desire for love and makes its satisfaction more difficult because of the increased differen- tiation of its individuals. The more civilized individual seeks greater compensation in love than the uncivilized or less civil- ized individual, because for the latter the functions in the life of the male and of the female are less differentiated.^ It is clear that to save individuality from such abnormali- ties society should provide for both sexes ample opportunity to develop all their natural characteristics harmoniously. But society has its own interest, and seeks to increase efifi- ciency by dividing social labor and by maintaining social control. Therefore arises the inevitable struggle between the individual and society. (3) The Process of Individuation and the Functioning of Religion Mikhalovsky writes relatively little upon religious sub- jects. He avoids passing any opinion upon dogmatic questions, taking the position of an agnostic positivist who relegates the question of an ultimate cause to the realm of the unknowable. But he recognizes in religion an import- iC/. vol. i, p. 554- ' Ibid. p. 577. 143] SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 143 ant social phenomenon which has its psycho-social bearings, and which plays a considerable role throughout the struggle for individuality. He defines religion as " the inseparable bond of the things which are, and the things which ought to be. This bond powerfully and infallibly directs the activities of man." ^ Mikhalovsky believes that one may have true and many-sided views about the trend of things, that one may stand at the summit of the knowledge of his time and yet not have any directing principles of life and activity. On the other hand one may have high directing principles and yet keep them apart from objective science, or, knowing their relation to science, one may fail to apply them in practical activity; that is, one may have them as facts but not use them in life. " These disjuncta membra of the life of the spirit," he concludes, " must be brought into harmonious unity, and to do this is the function of religion." ^ He observes that the demand for religion in spite of its abuses and its outlived grotesque forms, never ceases to exist even among the educated classes in Europe. It manifests itself in the rise of continuously new forms and sects, as Robespierre's "religion of reason;" or Auguste Comte's "religion of humanity;" or the "religion of morals " offered by the society for Ethical Culture ; or the " Neo-Budhism " of the Theosophical Society or the " petites religions de Paris " and elsewhere. Historically every new form of social relationship was correlated with the expansion of a religious idea. Religion can be traced through the clan and through the family with its ancestral worship, to the rise of nations with their state religions, al- ways greatly aiding in the maintenance of unity and of solidarity. What love is doing in supplementing the physi- ' Final Works, St. Petersburg, 1905, vol. xi, p. 5. Cf. Works, vol. vi, p. 124- ' Idem. 144 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [144 cal differences of individuals, religion is doing for the highly diiiferentiated and specialized realm of ideas. It aids in- dividuality to find itself spiritually, just as love aids the in- individual to find himself physically. (4) The Process of Individualization and the Destructive Functions of Libertinism and Asceticism In concluding the study of the psychic aspects of Mik- halovsky's theory of the struggle for individuality there remain to be mentioned the phenomena of libertinism and of asceticism to which our author devotes much attention.^ Libertinism and asceticism have, according to Mik- halovsky, the same psychological bearing. They are the individual's protest against a too rigid control by society. The libertine's protest is militant and active, the ascetic's protest is peaceful and passive. But each breaks all rela- tions with society.^ Individuality will not stand being cur- tailed beyond certain limits and it will avenge itself upon its enemy — society. Says Mikhalovsky. Man in himself is not a double-faced Janus, in him are not wedded two subjects and two consciousnesses but many sub- jects and many consciousnesses, which, however, are hierarchi- cally subjected to the control of the whole, which is self-con- scious, and which shows its will as the indivisible Ego. The more centralized this unity is, the more are the specialized and serviceable functionings controlled and adapted by the higher ones; and the more elevated in stage is the individ- ual. In this despotic centralization lies the secret of the health, happiness and moral superiority of the individual. Inversely, sickness and moral degradation express them- selves objectively in the de-centralization of our Ego, by the * In his essays on the " Volnitza and Podvizhniki " in vol. i. ' Cf. vol. i, p. 580 et seq. 145] SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 145 disintegration of individuality as if there were a revolt of the lower individualities against the legal rule of the entire Ego.^ The libertine and the ascetic are two of the pathological re- actions to this suppression of the entire ego, and either can be cured only by a healthy social environment which permits an harmonious development of all normal characteristics of the individuality. 4. The Economic Aspects of the Theory of Struggle for Individuality The economic aspect of society looms high in Mik- halovsky's theorizing. " The task of sociology," he says, is to interpret the relation of objective happi- ness, i. e. wealth, to subjective happiness, i. e. con- sumption of wealth." ^ He believes that individuality can best express itself in work. Work is to the individual what motion is to matter. Work is purposeful expenditure of energy and therefore it is in work that there develops the personality of the individual. Of course Mikhalovsky does not limit his concept of " work " merely to the production of material goods : he includes in it all purposeful activity vi^hich can sustain and develop man. Cooperation in work is the strongest factor of socialization. The " people " and the " working class " are to Mikhalovsky almost synonyms. Among the economic aspects of his theory, division of labor and Russian economic institutions receive close attention and therefore we shall now proceed to analyse these. • Vol. xi, p. 3s8. ' Vol. i, p. 443. 146 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [146 ( I ) The Theory of Individuation and the Function of the Division of Labor We have seen that Mikhalovsky attaches great importance to the division of labor. He considers it in its physiological, social and economic phases. His formula of progress de- mands integrity of indivisibles, and the complete-as-pos- sible and many-sided division of labor among men. That means, in his view, that division of labor is desirable only so far as it leaves unharmed the integrity of the in- divisible, that is the individual, man. Physiological divis- ion of labor within the organism was attained by dif- ferentiating the organs and increasing their complexity. Man, being the most complex indivisible, has also the task of exercising all of his organs to prevent them from atrophying. Atrophy of the physical or of the mental characteristics of man is possible through social or economic sub-division of labor; therefore we are confronted with the problem of devising such forms of cooperation as shall safeguard the integrity of the individual. The reason Mik- halovsky gives for safeguarding the individual's physiologi- cal complexity is that " each natural physiological function is a source of pleasure; therefore the indivisible has happi- ness in the degree that the physiological functions are complete and varied.^ Mikhalovsky distinguishes between cooperation and the economic division of labor. The first is simple social co- operation and consists in the co-working of equal persons pursuing the same end. The other is complex social co- operation and consists in differentiating and specializing functions during the process of production. The latter has ushered in the factory system, and Mikhalovsky rejects is as dangerous to the individual's physical, intellectual ' Vol, i, p. 60. 147] SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY i^y and even moral development. He says : "Among bees and ants the economic division of labor has resulted in physical degeneration as appears in the sexless workers among bees."^ This result he fears will occur in human society when a factory worker becomes a " hand," his work consisting in certain mechanical, continuous and similar motions of hand or foot. Although modern life demands intellectual equipment, the very mode of working is such as to weaken the mind because it calls for an unceasing stimulation of certain nerves, which inevitably has the effect of deadening them. Mikhalovsky criticises the Manchester School of political economy which sees in the economic division of labor the advent of the brotherhood of man. He says : Division of labor supports love not more nor less than a rope supports a man who has been hanged. If such a man were not taken off the gibbet and buried after justice had been satisfied, the rope would cut deeper and deeper into his neck and finally the head would separate and the body would fall. If love towards one's neighbor is to be established upon the principle of division of labor the principle will cut in deeper and deeper to support the love towards one's neighbor, but by this process it will diminish the number of neighbors.^ So the economic division of labor is death to individuality. It will transform him into a tool and crush in him that har- mony of functions which alone renders him happy, and ele- vates him in the animal world. When in later years Durkheim's " Division du travail social " appeared, and when the modern forms of division of labor were looked upon as an organic division of labor, with individuals specializing in cooperation, and 1 Vol. i, p. S3. ° Ihid., p. 182. 148 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [148 thereby achieving both solidarity and individuation, (the opposite of what Mikhalovsky had held would happen) he still defended his conclusions, pointing out that the modern workman is by no means an independent in- dividuality. He usually is rigidly controlled by the small trade union which has no sense of solidarity with so- ciety at large. The highly differentiated union system, called into life by the modern division of labor, has all the disadvantages, he believes, of the caste and of the guild systems of the past, and none of their advantages, be- cause of the minute specialization in the various branches of production. The cooperation of the industrial world, for example, is in principle radically different from the co- operation of a group of scientists. The solidarity which binds together various branches of science is not organic solidarity founded upon the division of labor, but, rather, is a mechanical solidarity based upon simple cooperation. Similarity, not difference, is the principal bond which creates solidarity among men of science.^ This he thinks is not true of the organic division of labor. (2) Individuation and Russian Economic Institutions Mikhalovsky holds that one of the duties of sociology is to point out what institutions of production are best for the safeguarding of the integrity of individuality.^ We have just now seen that he opposes the modern division of labor, and, naturally, he also opposes the factory system with pro- duction on a large scale. He thinks Western Europe irre- deemably degraded and lowered to the bourgeois type,' but he hopes that Russia may be spared this lowering of ' Cf. Mikhalovsky's article on Durkheim's Theory. In Russkoye Bogatstvo, May, 1897. ^ Cf. vol. i, p. 443. ' Mikhalovsky discovers a difference between type and stage of devel- 149] SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY 14^ type by the maintenance and development of her communal system. He says: Adversaries of our communal land system clamor for personal liberty. They say that the commune ties the owner hand and foot to the soil, and that it does not give him any freedom for individual activity. This was once spoken in the West. There the commune decayed, the individual triumphed and received the liberty of choosing his occupation, he had but to adapt himself to the new conditions. The right of " free choice "of the emancipated individual was however immedi- ately limited by historical development. He became a factory slave instead of a land owner, producing great wealth and yet actually starving.^ So Mikhalovsky believes that individual initiative in eco- nomic lines is possible only to a property holder. He says : " Fear more than anything else a social order that will divert property from labor. It will deprive the people of the possibility of individual initiative, of independence and of liberty." = Nor does Mikhalovsky hold the theory of the classic economist that the natural resources of the country can be developed only by a competitive system of industry. He says: The natural resources of a country can also be developed opment. Division of labor raises the stage of development but lowers the type; for example, the sexless ant is more efficient than the ancient undifferentiated ant. It produces more, and is, therefore, more useful to its society, wherein the stage of civilization rises while the type is lowered. Thus also he believes the English workingmen to be upon a higher plane of civilization than the Russian peasant who lives in the commune; the latter, however, has a higher type of civilization be- cause it presents a wider range of activities. Cf. vol. i, pp. 477-478. ' Vol. iii, pp. 199-200. ^ Vol. i, p. 704. 150 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [l^O by communal land ownership. For this purpose it is but necessary to have well directed social principles. . . . Besides wealth consumers, there exist in this world also consumers of human beings, and these should not be allowed to be brought as sacrifice to the Moloch of national wealth.^ The commune of the country and the workingmen's cartel! of the cities were precious to him not for their own sakes like one's own idol, but because they were a refuge for the individuality of the common man fleeing from the threatening perils of a capitalistic-industrial order of so- ciety. Mikhalovsky therefore advocates the maintenance of the commune by government interference " because he is convinced that the commune determines the future of the Russian people. The commune, if properly restricted and conducted, will give an opportunity for the harmonious de- velopment of man's entire individuality; it will protect against any lowering of the type and it will gradually ap- proach a higher plane of civilization. 5. The Historical Aspect of the Theory of the Struggle for Individuality The idea of the struggle for individuality reflects itself also in Mikhalovsky's views on the philosophy of history. Like many other philosophers of history he discerns three stages in the evolutionary process of history. He calls them the objective anthropocentric stage, the eccentric stage and the subjective anthropocentric stage. His exposition of these stages reminds one of Comte's famous interpretation of history. Mikhalovsky does not deny Comte's influence upon him. He says : " The law of the three stages (of Comte) which does not satisfy me completely I neverthe- ' Vol. vi, p. 301. ' Cf. vol. i, p. 704, and vol. iv, p. 1000. 151 ] S/STEM OF N.K.MIKHALOVSKY 151 less acknowledge as an extraordinarily valuable generaliza- tion, but when I first became acquainted with the great work of Comte, I already had my own views on the subject suf- ficiently developed." ^ The principal difference between the two is that Comte emphasizes the intellectual aspect of the historical process, believing that it explains other functions of society ; while Mikhalovsky, on the contrary, proceeds from the ethical relations and the forms of cooperation peculiar to certain periods in history. He agrees generally with Comte, however, as to the extent of the several stages. We shall indicate briefly the characteristics of each. (i). The objective anthropocentric stage is character- ized by a naive faith, in which man regards himself as the one objective, absolutely real, center of nature. " It receives its highest development," says Mikhalovsky, " when all humanity, man in general, is recognized as the center of nature, and not this or another ethnological, political or professional caste." ^ It is the age of anthropomorphism, mysticism, theology and religion. Economically it expresses itself in simple co- operation i. e., in work towards a common end. (2). The eccentric stage reduces the dualism of body and soul to manifest absurdity and puts man under the rule of abstract concepts. " Man," says Mikhalovsky, " is here halved and torn and deprived of his empirical content." ^ His ideals and duties are all outside of himself in an ab- stract void, which he thinks more worth while than himself. During this period metaphysical systems flourish. Economically this period expresses itself as complex co- operation which takes the form of the division of labor and the specialization of economic functions. ' Vol. iv, p. 100. ^ Vol. i, p. 199. ' Ibid., p. 200. 152 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [152 (3). The subjective anthropocentric stage is character- ized in two-fold manner, by its humaneness and by the con- trol of nature by man. Says our author : Here we hear men say : " Yes, nature is unmerciful to me, she knows no difference of justice between me and the spar- row ; but I also shall be unmerciful to her ; with bloody judg- ment I shall conquer her. I shall compel her to serve me, I shall eliminate evil and create good. I am not the goal of nature, nature has no goal. But I have a goal and I shall reach it." ^ In this stage ethical ideals and purely humane theology are attained. It is at the same time the age of science and of positivism. Economically it is characterized by cooperation still simple but more highly developed than in the first period of human history. Mikhalovsky, who is deeply impressed by this historic process, says that were he an artist he would create only three paintings, which should express in turn these three stages. He pictures in words what he would limn upon the canvass : " In the midst of a city's square a half rotten execution block and on it the prostrate skeleton of the last criminal. A raven that is on the scene, could he speak, would caw the principle of Kant: tiat jtistitia pereat mundiis!" ^ This is a picture of the eccen- tric period developed to its logical extremity, as in Kant's contention that the last criminal ought to be punished though society had itself ceased to exist. The subjective anthropocentric period has also its gloomy aspect. This Mikhalovsky thinks could be pictured by Byron's poem, " Darkness," which represents the struggle of the individual with nature.^ 1 Vol. i, p. 215. ' Ibid., p. 137. 'Lord Byron, Works (ed. by E. H. Coleridge), vol. iv, pp. 42-45. 153] SYSTEM OF N.K.MIKHALOVSKY 153 " The bright sun was extinguished, and the stars Did wander darkling in eternal space, A fearful hope was all the World contained ; some lay down And hid their eyes and wept; and some did rest Their chins upon their clenched hands, and smiled. And others hurried to and fro, and fed Their funeral piles with fuel, and looked up With mad disquietude on the dull day. The pall of a past World; and then again With curses cast them down upon the dust. And gnashed their teeth and howled : . . . Even the dogs aided their masters, all save one, . . . The crowd was famished by degrees ; but two Of an enormous city did survive. And they were enemies : they met . . . and beheld Each other's aspects . . saw, and shrieked and died. . . ." In general Mikhalovsky is pessimistic about the triumph of the individual in his struggle with environment and with society. In Russia matters have not gone his way; the commune has gradually been disintegrating, and signs of the times seem to indicate that his hope of a special economic and social evolution in Russia will remain but a pleasant dream of reform and that the bourgeoisie will triumph in Russia as it has in Western Europe. Conclusion We have attempted to give an analysis of Mikhalovsky's sociological system which he called " The Struggle for Individuality." These ideas permeated all of his social, ethical and historical thinking. We have presented each one of its important phases, although there were many difficulties to be overcome on account of the incoherence of the scattered material. Mikhalovsky often expressed the hope of being 154 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [154 able to write one comprehensive book, and to unite the vari- ous parts of his system into a coherent whole, but his busy- life as editor and as critic made this impracticable. Regarding his theory, we may say that in reality Mik- halovsky does not differ very radically from the organic school in sociology, which he criticised. He only substi- tutes the concept Individuality, for that of Organism. We must remember that the hierarchy of Haeckel's Individuali- ties which Mikhalovsky adopted without reservation, itself consists of organic individualities. The only difference is that he views organisms as in a negative and hostile relation to one another, but this is more in the nature of an opinion than of a fact. One may find in this tectological hierarchy as many reasons in support of the contrary opinion. Hu- manity strives as persistently towards social solidarity as towards individuation. Therefore the rigid individualism of Mikhalovsky is more an ideal of his than an historical and scientific necessity. Apart from this weakness Mik- halovsky has rendered valuable services as one of the first writers to make psychological analysis of social phenomena. His early protest against a too intensive division of labor has been proven to have been fully justified, only he over- looked the fact that extreme differentiation in production is offset by an ever-increasing homogeneity of consumption ^ and by the shortening of hours of labor, giving everyone opportunity to develop his individuality without sacrific- ing the advantages of a subdivided and specialized labor. Mikhalovsky seems to be bitter and unjust in his attitude towards society. He forgets at times the great services which it has rendered to the individual. But this may be pardoned him if we remember that he wrote in sociology not as a professor who has only scientific interests in mind 'See Giddings, "The Quality of Civilization," in American Journal of Sociology, vol. xvii, no. 5, 155] SYSTEM OF N.K.MIKHALOVSKY 155 but as a leader of a movement which was fighting the in- stitutions of autocracy. Like Lavrov's theories his system was principally a scientific justification of a current, social political movement. His aim was to protect the individual against too rigid autocratic control, and he sought to reconcile what he called the pravda-tmth with the pravda-]\xs\!ict. His heart beat warmly for his people, whose intellectual leader and guide he was for a generation. Thus Mik- halovsky is important principally to his own people and generation, but he also contributed to sociology at large, and this should be gratefully although it has been tardily ac- knowledged by the scientific world. CHAPTER III The Sociological Contributions of Youzhakov Lavrov and Mikhalovsky greatly influenced the intellec- tual classes of Russia. Many, stimulated by their writings, tried to branch off and to develop theories of their own. The most important of these later writers was S. N. Youz- hakov whose contributions to Russian sociological theory we shall consider next. Youzhakov ^ appeared in the Russian sociological arena as a critic of the " subjectivist " method in sociology, attack- ing both Lavrov and Mikhalovsky. His argument is briefly this : Lavrov is wrong in maintaining that history does not repeat itself. Youzhakov says : " There are common fea- tures in the recurring events of history, and deviations are found : even in exact science there are deviations as, for example, in astronomy." ^ Again, there is but one human logic, " The logical process of thinking and the psychological phenomena of perception are alike among all men, so that things true to one are true to others also; they may be checked up by others." * The peculiarity of the subjective ' Sergey Nikolaevitch Youzhakov (1849-1910) is well known in Russia as a contributor to various leading Russian periodicals and as the editor-in-chief of the Russian " Large Encyclopedia." His contribu- tions to sociology were made between the years 1872-1875, and have been edited in two volumes under the title of Sociological &tudes; vol. i, St. Petersburg, 1891, and vol. ii, St. Petersburg, 1896. ' Youzhakov, Sociological Etudes, vol. i, p. 242. • Ibid., p. 245. 156 [156 157] CONTRIBUTIONS OP YOUZHAKOV 157 method, Youzhakov thinks, is that it is based upon an evalu- ation of the relative importance of social phenomena, and upon the individual views of the investigator as to what relations of members of society to each other and to the whole, are normal. There is really no special contribution in this, and the subjective method therefore is but an em- phasis of one very important sociological proposition, namely, that society is based upon individuals, and that the evolution of society takes place by means of individuals and for individuals/ This proposition Youzhakov considers of vital importance. Yet he sees no need to study subjective and ethical phenomena by other methods than those hither- to generally adopted in the social sciences. Youzhakov, therefore, prefers to call the subjectivist school in Russia simply the Russian School of Sociology, believing that the Russians were first to emphasize the psychological and ethi- cal aspects of sociology. Youzhakov worked towards the development of a complete system of sociology according to an outline that is given below. Outline of Youshakov's Theory of Sociology I. A survey of the sociological problems and of the principal forces in the socializing process. II. The organic principle as a factor of the socializing process. III. The moral principle and the social equilibrium. IV. The economic principle and the social struggle. V. The political principle and the disturbed equilibrium between the moral principle and the principles of organic and economic struggle. VI. The intellectual principle and progress, conceiving progress not as natural evolution, as it appears in ' Cf. ibid., p. 242 et seq. 158 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [158 the combined results of the organic, economic and poHtical principles, but as a purposefully directed evo- lution of mankind towards self-preservation and perfection. VII. Classification of the forms of social life. VIII. Historical environment, i. e. the relation of one so- ciety to its neighboring societies. IX. Physiological environment.^ The author does not claim to have treated all these topics exhaustively. Some of them are barely indicated, and others meagerly synthetized. What Youzhakov actually has written may be analyzed under the following heads : I. Sources of Youzhakov's philosophical and sociological views. II. What is sociology and what are its principal problems? III. What is society and what are the ultimate and proxi- mate causes of socialization? IV. The organic-physical aspect of sociology. V. The ethical aspect of sociology. VI. The economic aspect of sociology. VII. Resume and conclusion. I. Sources of Youzhakov's Philosophical and Sociological Views Youzhakov, belonging to the school of Lavrov and Mik- halovsky. holds in general the same philosophical views that they had appropriated and developed. He is positi- vist and empiricist, acknowledging Comte and Spencer as his principal authorities. Like Comte he holds: (i) That what is true of inorganic and of organic phenomena, is ' Cf. vol. ii, pp. iii-v. 159] CONTRIBUTIONS OF YOUZHAKOV 159 true also of social phenomena; (2) That the laws of physi- cal Hfe everywhere are applicable to social life; (3) That physical and organic laws are modified in society by new conditions and agents and that, therefore, they there present a peculiar and specific character.^ On the basis of these generalizations Youzhakov in part adopts Comte's classifica- tion of the sciences, but he describes sociology as an ab- stract science which analyzes the structure and function of social aggregates, (social statics), and, which studies the forces of development or progress (social dynamics)/ Spencer's theory of evolution as it applies to the inorganic and the organic realm is adopted in principle by Youzhakov, but with reservations as to its uniform validity in the evolution of society. Here he accepts Mikhalovsky's cri- ticism of Spencer and Darwin, although he deviates to some extent from his fellow countryman's constructive theories. Buckle and Darwin had their share in shaping Youzhakov's views, and he was intellectually influenced by many others, especially by some of the French writers. Thus, like Lavrov, he attempts a synthesis of the principal sociological theories, gathering them around the individual. He thinks that the individual can by means of his social and economic surplus adapt environment to himself and direct it to a goal. So far we have mentioned the theoretic sources from which Youzhakov has drawn. But the real forces that stimulated him to study and write on sociology were not his scholarly interests. He was one of the populist leaders whose interests were to re-shape Russian society and lead it on to progress. Thus he is not only a contributor to the subjectivist school of sociology; he is a comrad-i of Lavrov and Mikhalovsky in the Russian people's cause of social reform. ' Cf. vol. i, p. 4. ' Cf. vol. vi, pp. 40-44. l6o RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [l6o II. What is Sociology and What are Its Principle Problems. We have already mentioned that Youzhakov in general followed iComte's classification of the sciences, viewing sociology as the final product in the formulation of scientific thought. He defines sociology as " the science of the laws controlling group living and accounting for its origin, de- velopment and disintegration." ^ Sociology generalizes, ac- cordingly, the products of many other social sciences such as political economy, ethics, law, and linguistics. The first and chief business of sociology, our author thinks, is the discovery of those forms of social life in which the universal laws of interaction (or association) and of equili- bration are manifested.^ In dealing with this problem, the author makes an analysis of the laws of evolution as they apply to social phenomena. Although he devotes much space to them, he does not get very far away from the Spen- cerian view as found in " First Principles." The second principal business of sociology, Youzhakov believes to be the exposition of the influence of organic life upon the universal laws of association and equilibration.* We recognize here the organic nature of society in contrast to the inorganic or physical nature of environment. We shall deal with this problem later.* The third main task of sociology is to show the influence of individuality within the social aggre- gate upon association and equilibration, the peculiarities arising from the association of individuals within a social aggregate, and how association reacts upon individuals and upon environment.^ Finally Youzhakov devotes attention ' Vol. ii, p. 39. ' Cf. ibid., p. 45. ' Cf. ibid., p. 48. * Infra, sec. iv, pp. 163 et seq. ' Cf. ibid., p. 49. Vide infra, sec. v. l6ij CONTRIBUTIONS OF YOUZHAKOV i6i to the economic aspect of sociology. Viewing on the one hand the modern production of wealth as a handicap to individuality, he on the other hand acknowledges it to be an important factor in the struggle for individuation. Accordingly the storing of matter and energy by society is the phenomenon of economic culture, and the equilibration of stored energies appears as civilization or as ethical and political culture.^ III. What is Society and What are the Ultimate and Proximate Causes of Socialization? In his study of the socializing process our author makes a distinction between aggregates formed by co-dwelling and aggregates that can be called societies. "A co-dwelling group is an integral composed of units with poorly ex- pressed individualities," ^ i. e. of units possessed of but an inferior ability to counteract the influence of environment and the conditions of existence in general. Such groups are the material from which societies are formed at the price of suppressing a mass of lower individualities that are sacrificed to higher individualities. Thus " So- ciety is an aggregate of active units which has created its own social environment or culture and which has welded itself into one complex body. In brief, society is an ac- tively cultural social aggregate." * The ultimate cause of socialization is complex activity. The author arrives at this conclusion or formula from a survey of the cosmic and of the biological processes. The cosmic process is that of continuous integration, differentiation and equilibration. The organic process consists in the storing of energy by the matter in organisms. Physical disintegration absorbs ' Cf. ibid., p. 75. ^ Ihid., p. 89. ^ Vol. i, p. 36. l62 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [1^,2 less energy than is dissipated by chemical integration. This liberated surplus is spent on work which by society is stored into objects of culture. Hence activity is inverse to the organic process, it consists in the physical disintegration of chemically integrated matter. Activity and passivity present the fundamental differ- ence between animal and plant life, activity being the new additional characteristic of an animate being. Pur- poseful work is the dynamic aspect of activity. The or- ganic process consists in the storing of energy by the matter within the organism. Purposeful work or activity, or the active process, consists in its expenditure. " If," concludes Youzhakov, " we have called work the dynamic aspect of the phenomenon of activityi then individuality and culture are its static aspect. In individuality and culture activity becomes materialized, the former in the structure of the organism, the latter in environment." ^ Thus activity ex- presses itself in a reaction on life and environment. It differs from the reaction of passive life (which adapts itself to environment) by adapting environment to itself to satisfy its needs. Hence purpose fulness in reacting on environ- ment is its first distinctive characteristic and " activity is work for the purpose of self-preservation." ^ The proxi- mate causes of the process of socialization arise from this ultimate cause which, as we have seen, Youzhakov iden- tifies with activity or purposeful work, which shows itself first in the struggle for self-preservation. Individual self- preservation naturally tends towards the formation of groups which, through habit, in time become permanent. Group life creates a new task, for along with the struggle for individual self-preservation the struggle for the pre- servation of the group becomes necessary. These two 1 Vol. i, p. 36. Cf. also pp. 161 et seq. ' Ibid., p. 162. 163] CONTRIBUTIONS OF YOUZHAKOV 163 interests, naturally conditioned, may come in conflict, the one at times infringing upon the other. So are cre- ated the ethical problem, and moral concepts, which, arising out of conflict between the individual and the group, become an important socializing factor. Energies expended in maintaining the group are obtained from the surplus anteriorly produced by efficiency from co- operation and by better security. Thus surplus grows as the group increasingly practices the exploitation of nature and the division of labor. Cooperation creates social activ- ity. The welding of social-cultural activity with social life creates society. Thus activity after having established the group, uses the products of group life for further so- cialization, and its activity becomes social progress when it succeeds in establishing an equilibrium between social and individual activity. IV. The Organic and Physical Aspects of Sociology What influence have the laws of organic life and of physical environment upon the social aggregate? This question Youzhakov attempts to answer in his Sociological fitudes. He analyzes the generalizations of Darwinism and Malthusianism as these are applied to social evolution, and puts them in juxtaposition with what he calls historical selection. Of the two principal generalizations of Darwin- ism, natural selection and sexual selection, he believes that only the latter has been of considerable influence in the development of society. He enumerates the principal phases of sexual selection in human society as follows : ( i ) In communal marriage, sexual selection is conditioned by the numerical inequality of the sexes occasioned by infanticide. (2) In polyandry, sexual selection is conditioned by the same cause, here the factor in selection is the handsomeness of the male. ( 3 ) Along with polyandry develops polygamy, begin- 1 64 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [164 ning with wife-stealing ^ and the factors which are selected by this practice are personal strength and bravery of the male. (4) When polygamy becomes legalized selection is conditioned by a caste system and its accompanying despot- ism of the wealthier or so-called higher classes whereby the selective process in the lower strata of society is artificially limited. (5) In monogamy, sexual selection loses its im- portance. The selective process is conditioned by social stratification and by the mutual leanings of both sexes. The rise of the power of the state which regulates marriage and divorce, the general prevalence of monogamy, the triumph of democracy which grants equal rights to both sexes, and the corresponding changes in moral ideals — these are, ac- cording to Youzhakov's opinion, consecutive stages in the elimination of sexual selection as a factor in social evolution.^ Youzhakov made some statistical verifications of the generalizations of Malthus. On the basis of these, he argues that the Malthusian formula, holding true in the realm of nature, is offset by what he calls historical selection, which tends to supersede the struggle for existence. Scien- tific production, a fairer distribution of economic goods, and opportunity for intellectual development, which he believes inevitably tends to check human fertility — these are the fac- tors which equilibrate demand and supply and which eli- minate the dangers of over-population.' Artificial selection * struggles with natural selection and strives to disintegrate ' Cf. vol. i, p. 98 et seq., and p. 200. ' The author gives interesting ethnographic observations among the various Slavic tribes and he believes that among the primitive Slavs wife-stealing vi^as a common practice, and therefore also polygamy. ' Cf. vol. i, pp. 80-81. Divorce, concubinage, and prostitution in mod- ern society are having some importance as factors of sexual selection, but their role is more negative since sexual excesses usually result in sterility or in a relatively small number of progeny. Cf. ibid., p. 91. * " Historical selection " is Youzhakov's expression. 165] CONTRIBUTIONS OF YOUZHAKOV 165 the hereditary and adverse products of natural selection. Historically this process of disintegration was carried out through the aid of human culture, which already in savage society showed itself in the use of artificial weapons, which checked to some extent the process of natural selection. Cultural activity, once begun, must continually increase, to maintain its superiority over nature. It selects the best arti- ficial tools and weapons needed in the struggle. Besides the superiority of the weapon, complex cooperation becomes an important factor in this struggle against natural selection. Cooperation develops with the growth of economic, political and religious institutions. These give the group a strong sense of solidarity, and moral ideals, which limit the individ- ual struggle, and which, with the growth of intelligence and of surplus, create an equilibrium between the increase of population and the means of subsistence.^ Moreover, Youz- hakov might have added, that natural selection is offset by historical selection because cultural achievements are not transmitted hereditarily, but must be learned anew, although more rapidly by each generation. Thus not nature but nurture is the principal factor of historical selection. If natural selection should be thought desirable in society it must establish conditions which of themselves do not exist. Says Youzhakov: In such a society no legal inheritance of wealth and of political power must exist; all of its members must receive an equal general education and all must have an equal opportunity for a higher education or for a specialized education; all must be equally cared for until of age, but the institution of private property must be maintained. Under these conditions natural selection would have a chance to show itself, though there are no guarantees that it would help to perfect the race.- ■ Cf. ibid., p. no et seq., and pp. 121-122. ^ Ibid., p. 139. 1 66 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [l66 Thus is social progress principally differentiated from or- ganic progress; and thus does social progress tend to limit or to suppress organic progress. Although there is much that is analogous ^ between a social and a vital organism, the laws of the latter are subordinated to new laws which themselves appear in the process of the development of the social organism. Natural selection was the decisive factor in the early savage stage of man. Physical environment was then but of secondary importance, but as man began to learn to the full how to utilize his environment, the serviceability of his environment became decisive. Natural selection was thus weakened by man's use of his environment, the latter in its turn becoming decisive in his historical development. But in time environment is conquered through the development of culture ; and then the process of history is determined by the coordinated activity of culture and of the individual's initiative. Youzhakov concludes : Thus the history of mankind from the days of the primitive family and tribe to the present forms of civilization presents in itself three distinct periods: (i) The period in which na- tural and sexual selection are the determining factors of de- velopment, and in which the direct influence of environment is of secondary serviceable importance ; (2) the period in which with the disintegration and partial elimination of the complex agents of organic progress, the influence of environment rises to primary importance ; and, through the inadequate develop- ment of culture the characteristics of this period are deter- mined by the climate, the soil, the topography and the general ' " The (biological) concepts of life and death are as applicable to social aggregates as to cultural evolution. . . . Social life and its cul- ture are to be conceived of as analogous to organic life in the process of chemical disintegration and physical integration of matter." Vol. i, pp. 70-71. 16;] CONTRIBUTIONS OF YOUZHAKOV 167 conditions of nature: finally (3) begins the epoch in which culture attains such power that it either eliminates the in- fluences of physical environment or considerably delimits their importance. It is in this period that mankind, more than ever before, becomes lord over its destiny and its history. The terms that conveniently designate these three periods are : ( i ) savagery, (2) barbarism, and (3) civiHzation.^ V. The Ethical Aspect of Sociology Organic activity differentiated the individual. His struggle to preserve himself in the arena of life created the group which, on the one hand made individual existence pos- sible, and on the other hand continually threatened individ- uality by differentiating the individual's activity into special functionings in the interests of the aggregate. The inter- relations of the individual and the group give rise to moral- ity and create the ethical problem. The struggle for existence at the stage of active social life takes the form of a struggle for individuality and the struggle for culture. These two are the goal of social evolution. Under normal conditions they develop along parallel lines and in direct relation to each other, but if culture suppresses individuality, the lowering of culture itself results. On the other hand, individuality which de- stroys culture, shortens life and lowers its own type.^ Individuality becomes a personality * when the social ag- gregate in which it is found regards it as a member or a responsible agent of the group. This makes the formation of a moral principle possible. Says Youzhakov : ' Vol. i, p. 231. ' Cf. vol. ii, pp. 184-185. By culture, the author means the surplus products from the adaptations of environment to the needs of the group. " Cf. vol. ii, p. 187. 1 68 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [l68 Moral progress consists in the adaptation of the activities of the individual to social conditions, and this adaptation expresses itself in the creation of perfect ideals of sociability and in the perfect correlation of the ideals of an epoch with the feelings of individuals. Thus the development of morality becomes a process of adaptation of life to social existence. The degree of this development may be the best criterion for determining the status of society.^ The moral principle is the product of an equilibration be- tween the struggle for individual, and for social, self- preservation; in the moral individual energy voluntarily harmonizes with the interests of social life; in it the anta- gonism between individual and social development is abol- ished. On the one hand is seen the abolition of criminality in the individual ; and on the other, the abolition of coercion by the group. Thus moral principle consists in a socially harmonized self-directed activity. Coercive harmony is au- thority: self-directed socially disharmonious activity is criminality. Hence the development of moral principle equally limits the province of crime and the province of coercion, and at the same time advances individual activity and serves the purpose of social self-preservation. Ac- cordingly, morality is but a form of activity which is con- ditioning aggregate life and which makes further develop- ment possible.^ Criminal activity of individuals tends to disintegrate society, and unnecessary social control which handicaps individual activity is no less a waste of social energies. Only a proper equilibration of social and in- dividual interests can perpetuate society and prevent ab- normal disintegration and decay. All social phenomena have for their cause not any one category of antecedent ' Vol. i, p. 148. * Cf. vol. ii, pp. 191-192. 169] CONTRIBUTIONS OF YOUZHAKOV 169 events, but all categories. Thus, for example, economic changes are produced not only by economic factors but also by political, intellectual, moral and organic factors. In this manner moral activity of necessity reacts upon economic, political and organic activity as well as upon itself.^ Since moral ideas are the product of the equilibra- tion of social and individual interests, therefore " the dis- covery of the laws of equilibrium between these two ten- dencies, and the laws which would establish the continuity of this equilibrium, will mean the discovery of the laws of progress of social life and will make it possible to establish a formula of social progress.^ VI. The Economic Aspect of Sociology We have learned that activity in the sense of purpose- fully directed work lies at the basis of the process of so- cialization according to Youzhakov. Economic activity creates a physical or material surplus which in turn makes possible the growth of culture or general surplus product. Now cultural activity, we already know, prevents further organic differentiation because of the artificial production of tools and weapons. In this manner individuality is protected against further organic differentiation. Further economic development has the tendency to establish permanence of location and of func- tioning. The higher the culture, the more stable are social relations, the more differentiated are the social functions and the more unchanging are the individual's location and occupation.* This process of economic differentiation, or division of labor becomes, however, a menace when society in its effort to increase its aggregate efficiency transforms ' Cf. vol. ii, p. 221. * Ibid., p. 186. " Cf. vol. ii, p. 97. 170 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [170 its members more or less into mere organs and turns them back upon the road of organic development. This control of activity by organized society tells sooner or later in a decrease of the sum of energy in the differentiating aggregate itself, in its own gradual weakening and disin- tegration. Only those aggregates which succeed in mak- ing tools out of their economic surplus instead of out of their living members escape the vicious cycle of his- torical rise and fall. But when culture becomes a sup- plementary weapon, in the struggle between rivaling races, it does not lead towards organic differentiation and cyclism. It becomes a factor in establishing pro- gressiveness, altruism and morality. In brief, economic surplus becomes a weapon in protecting and develop- ing individuality.^ The weapons of cultural activity, such as wealth, power, morals, find their static expression in the development of institutions. Wealth as the weapon of the economic struggle has its own institutions whose history Youzhakov develops from the earliest times of wealth pro- duction. We will briefly enumerate their characteristics. The period of savagery passes as man learns the arts of pastoral and agricultural pursuits. Wealth in cattle makes the growth of population possible. This wealth among nomadic peoples becomes a means of autocratic control. Law and justice are based upon the principle of kinship which the nomad learns from his herds. The tilling of the soil encourages permanent settlement. In agricultural communities the principles of law and justice change from the kinship basis to the basis of toil. Thus in ethnic society surplus is attained principally through cattle breed- ing and agriculture. In civic society economic develop- ment passes through three stages, that of slavery, that of ' Cf. ibid., pp. 95-100 and 263-264. I7l] CONTRIBUTIONS OF YOUZHAKOV iji monopoly and that of disintegration of the factors of production. The passing of slavery was beneficient as far as it helped to prevent the rigid cultural integration which threatened to demoralize society. The establishment of artisan monopolies and gilds in place of slave labor tended towards a similar although less crude, cultural integration. It, however, differentiated political from economic functions. Further development of capitalistic monopolies gradually displaced the medieval trade corpor- ation and the artisan gilds and still more divorced the economic from the political functions.^ Economic functioning, which became an important factor in individual and group control, has an analogous function in the international struggle. As national wealth and na- tional power were achieved in passing through the succes- sive stages of slavery, monopoly and free labor, so analog- ously international control has to pass through the like stages. The first was that of raiding expeditions and the levying of tolls upon the conquered. The second was the development of the world-wide commercial and industrial monopolies such as the great trading companies of Spain, Holland and England, which tolerated no competitors, but disposed of them forcibily. The third stage is characterized by the laissez-faire, laissez-passer policy in industrial and commercial exploitation, with accompanying wars for the control of world markets. But along with this develop- ment grows the international solidarity of the working classes. Slavery produced no solidarity, the medieval trade union had but a limited solidarity, whereas the mod- ern labor movement is expanding its boundaries beyond occupational and national lines. ' Cf. ibid., pp. 271-292. 172 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [172 VII. Resume and Conclusion In reviewing our survey of Youzhakov's sociological studies we see that in general he developed the principal ideas of Comte and Spencer, as well as those of Lavrov and of Mikhalovsky. We cannot credit him with having successfully or adequately developed a synthetic system of sociology, which was what he attempted to do. Never- theless he brought out and emphasized a few important truths which are now quite generally accepted by sociolog- ists. Thus he showed quite clearly that the socializing process is an equilibration between the inner and the outer relations of hfe and environment. In this process, life first adapting itself to environment, in its turn adapts en- vironment to itself. This Youzhakov calls social culture. The surplus gained from the control of nature sets limits to natural selection among men. Thus ethical and not bio- logical laws begin to control human relations. Self-directed activity increases social and economic surplus and helps to produce an equilibrium between the individuating and the socializing forces and also between supply and demand in the increase of population. The emphasis laid upon the role of surplus in emancipat- ing the individual from a too rigid social control and from the evil consequences of too highly dififerentiated and too minutely divided labor exhibited a truth which, as we have seen, was not sufficiently emphasized by Mikhalovsky. Thus Youzhakov's illuminating discussion of this factor is a welcome element in the later subjectivist school of so- ciology. CHAPTER IV The Sociological Contributions of N. I. Kareyev Kareyev' is the most synthetic of the subjectivist school. As a philosopher of history he recognized in sociology the science which can give to history a scientific interpretation, and saw that with its aid a formula of social progress can be found which, in his opinion, should help to solve the problems of the historian. He says : "A formula of pro- gress must give an ideal criterion for the evaluation of his- torical progress; without such evaluation a reasoned judg- ment upon actual history and its meaning is impossible." ^ His major interest is the philosophy of history, which he is more careful than many writers are to distinguish from sociology.* Accordingly he attempts to assign to so- ^ Nikolai Ivanovitch Kareyev ( 1850- ) is the only contributor to the subjectivist school who belongs to the professorial rank. He holds the chair of the philosophy of history in the University of Petrograd, and he lectures also on sociology. Among the subjectivist sociologists he is distinguished by his wide and thorough scholarship and a degree of originality. He is the author of many works on his- tory, philosophy and sociology. His sociological ideas are principally ■developed in volume H of his Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, 1883; The Nature of the Historic Process and the Role of the Individual in History, 1890; Historico-Philosophical and Sociologi- cal Etudes, 1896; and Introduction to Sociology, 1897. Although since this last date he has written considerably, he has not contributed any- thing of importance to sociology. 2 Kareyev, Historico-Philosophical and Sociological Etudes, p. 211. ' E. g.. Dr. Paul Barth, Die Philosophie der Geschichte als Sosiologie, Leipzig, 1898. 173] 173 174 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [174 ciology its definite province. A study of his work suggests the following analysis of his sociological contributions. I. Kareyev's philosophical and methodological presup- positions. II. What society is in its various aspects. III. The nature of the historic process and the role of the individual in history. IV. The sociological problem of progress. V. Conclusion: Kareyev and the subjectivist school of Russian sociologists. I. Kareyev's Philosophical and Methodological Presup- positions Like the other writers of the subjectivist school Kareyev is an idealistic positivist and empiricist. He believes that an idealistic attitude is compatible with a strictly posi- tivist view. He explains it thus : " Idealism is misin- terpreted and confused with spiritism, the latter being a metaphysical system as much as is materialism." ^ He ob- serves that many writers who characterize idealism as un- scientific are nevertheless not free from it, " because any seeking for a meaning in objective phenomena is idealism in the larger sense of the word." ^ Therefore to consider psychic phenomena as objects of study according to scien- tific methods is not contrary to realism as some naturalistic sociologists assume. " If," he concludes, " philosophy should be scientific, science should be philosophic." ^ Looking at the problem of free will and determinism he believes it to be a mistake to regard it from the in- dividualistic point of view. We should consider not the ^ Historico-Philosophical and Sociological £tudes, p. 127. ' Ibid., p. 128. " Ibid., p. 133. 175] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV 175 abstract individual versus nature, but the social individual versus nature, i. e. the individual in continuous interaction with other individuals. He says : " Events do not run by themselves in a certain direction, we are directing them ... of course, the action of man upon the trend of history is not without an antecedent cause; but if my activity instead of being subjected, subjects things to itself, does it follow, that my activity, because independent of the general trend, must be independent of everything?" ^ To him the process of history is the interrelation of human activity with the process of nature.^ " This," he says, " is why, although considering myself a determinist, I firmly believe in the necessity of individual interference with the process of history." '^ These quotations sufficiently indicate Kareyev's attitude in the controversies upon subjectivism and objectivism which were carried on with his school. He spends much time in stating his position which here can be but briefly summarized. He does not advocate a subjec- tive method but he emphasizes the subjective factor in society, which he believes cannot be disregarded by social science.* He says : " The very principle of scientific ob- jectivism demands that an object be studied from all sides in all its manifestations, and if we once find a subjective aspect in social facts we cannot escape from the conclu- sion that there is a subjective factor in sociology." ^ Since, according to Kareyev, social life and all of history are but one and the same product of a coordinated conscious and ' Historico-Philosophical and Sociological Etudes, Ibid., p. 301. ' The process of history is more fully treated in sec. iii, infra. ' Historico-Philosophical and Sociological Etudes, p. 302. ' Cf. ibid., pp. 222 et seq. ' Ibid., p. 234. 176 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [176 unconscious activity of individuals upon nature and upon each other, therefore, the activity of everyone is a social factor. Thus to the sociologist the principal object of in- vestigation should be the individual in his social activity. The thinking, feeling, vifilling individual, who creates social institutions, and experiences their reacting influence upon himself has the right to demand a sympathetic evaluation. Kareyev concludes : The advocates of objectivism should recognize that in sociology there necessarily arises a subjective relation since the investi- gator meets with phenomena which he himself has experienced in his own life. On the other hand, those who recognize a subjective factor should limit themselves to such subjectivism as has just been indicated, and must bar any other. ^ In dealing with the epistemological aspect our author recognizes four forms of knowledge : Numenological knowl- edge, which seeks for the nature of phenomena ; phenomeno- logical knowledge, which has to do with the phenomena themselves; nomological knowledge, which determines the laws under which phenomena work; and deontological knowledge which gives principles to our ideals. Numeno- logical knowledge is hypothetical and cannot be listed among the empirical sciences. " These phenomena, laws, and prin- ciples .... these three comprise the knowable to us." ^ According to this scheme natural sciences are limited to questions of what is, but social sciences must consider both what is and what ought to be. A general law in science, according to Kareyev, " is a formula in which is expressed a constant relation of co- existence, or sequence." * There are in existence not only laws of nature but also laws of the human mind and laws of i Historico-Philosophical and Sociological Etudes, p. 245. ^ Ibid., p. 195. ^ Ibid., p. 115. 177] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV 177 human society. All these laws are natural laws. The problem of the social sciences is to discover the laws both of individual activity and of social conduct. The latter being ethical in nature has an additional philosophical element.^ In general Kareyev adopts Comte's classification of the sciences, but would improve upon it by dividing them into phenomenological and nomological sciences corresponding respectively to Comte's concrete and abstract sciences. The advantage of this change of nomenclature shows itself, Kareyev thinks, in distinguishing the philosophy of his- tory from sociology, and assigning to each its own province. Thus history, which describes the consecutive process of events, is a phenomenological science; where- as the constant relations of its phenomena are its philo- sophical aspect and must be studied by a nomological science like sociology.^ Broadly speaking, sociology is " the gen- eral theory of society," ^ and philosophy of history is " that abstract phenomenology of the cultural and social life of man which has to answer the questions : what has humanity received, and what will it gain from its historic life." * Thus history, the philosophy of history, and sociology are seen to be closely related to each other, history supplying the material, sociology pointing out what is constant in the his- toric process and the philosophy of history deducing its teleological lesson from established facts. Besides the study of the historic process, sociology has also to deal with the social life of man in particular, which brings it again into a cross relation with biology and with psychology. " Sociology," Kareyev says, " must be directly based upon psychology which thus becomes the connecting 1 Cf. Ibid., p. 127. ' Cf. Ibid., p. 137. ^Idem. * Ibid., p. 154. 178 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [178 link between sociology and biology." ^ Neither history nor sociology can dispense with psychology, especially social psychology. The spiritual culture of a people and its so- cial organization are products of the psychic relations of individuals and constitute the province of social psychology. Psychology has its place, " on the border line of socio- logy;" ^ the latter still having a special task to investigate those special phenomena which cannot be explained either by biologj' or by psychology. Social organization, for ex- ample, he thinks a phenomenon so to be accounted for. Thus he says in another place : " Psychology has to do with spiritual culture, but sociology with social organization." * Kareyev sums up and presents the relation of the various aspects of sociology to biology and to psychology in the following table.* BIOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY SOCIOLOGY I. Object Species Cultural group Social organization 2. Indication Organic structure Culture Social forms 3. Factors of unity Physical heredity of structure Physical tradition of culture Conservation of so- cial forms 4. Factors of change Individual variation Individual initia- tive Freedom of the individual 5. Principal Struggle for exist- ence Psychic interaction Social solidarity He gives but little attention to the statistical aspect of ^ Historico-Philosophical and Sociological £tudes, p. 141. » Ibid., p. 143. " Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. 8. * The Nature of the Historic Process and, etc, p. 502. Cf, Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, pp. 99-icx). 179] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV 179 sociology, and expects little from it for the reason that he believes " empirical generalization cannot pass for so- ciological laws," ^ and that statistics at their best are but samples. Kareyev's conclusion is that the general truths discovered by the special social sciences must enter into the structural woof and warp of sociology which, on its side, must synthetize and weave together the diverse products of the social sciences; therefore sociology stands much closer to political theory, to law, and to eco- nomics, than to biology, upon which alone some writers would establish it.^ Thus sociology is a science which has both a wider and a narrower province. " In the first sense," says Kareyev. " it is the discovery of laws govern- ing all phenomena in society, i. e. its social-biological, so- cial-psychological and peculiarly social aspects. This last aspect belongs to the more narrow province of sociology." ^ What are the methods of sociology? Are they those common to all other social sciences, or has sociology its own methods? Our author devotes much space to answering these questions.* The gist of his conclusion is this : It is not enough to speak about a logic, or a methodology, of the ' Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. 35. 2 Defending his synthetic view against eclecticism Kareyev says : " Eclecticism is given its proper sphere only in philosophy where the individual attitude of the thinker has an important part and where the union of the two systems is brought about by compromise. An eclectic takes from various systems what suits his taste and what an- swers his purpose even though this union of heterogeneous ideas be incompatible with sound logic and prove contrary to the facts. In sci- ence it is different: the scientist, examining the opinion of other sci- entists, accepts from them only that which is actually established in logic and in facts." Introduction to Sociology, 3rd ed., p. 131. * Historico-Philosophical and Sociological Etudes, p. 145. The author himself devotes his attention principally to what he calls the wider province of sociology. * Cf. his Introduction to Sociology, 3rd ed., pp. 180-230. l8o RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [l8o social sciences, for there exist such dififerences among them that each, and, therefore, sociology as well, must have its own methodology. Sociology is a pure and abstract science, and that fact must condition its whole methodology. Al- though scientific logic has but two methods, the inductive, and the deductive, which in their turn are nothing more than different expressions of synthetic and analytic thinking, particularly arranged for the attainment of scientific ends, yet those two methods may have various secondary forms, such as the hypothetical, the analogical, the dialectical and the comparative; and these are used in the various social sciences and in sociological theory. The word " method " has been employed loosely in speaking, for example, about a biological or a psychological method in sociology when what has been meant, is that sociology should be based upon biology or upon psychology. Sociology must not shrink from using the deductive method because it has been mis- used by metaphysicians. Nor may it abstain from using the inductive method merely because John Stuart Mill has rightly shown that induction as used by natural sciences may not be applied to social phenomena, which are always com- plex. Induction must adapt itself to its material. The comparative historical method is valuable and permits of the deductive method by generalization from particular cases. Kareyev concludes that " Neither the general logic of the social sciences, nor the methodology of history, political economy, law and politics, is sufficient to take the place of a sociological methodology which still awaits its complete development by sociologists." ^ II. What is Society in its Various Aspects What is society? Is it an organism, or a mechanism, or a psychic phenomenon? Kareyev devotes much attention '■ Cf. his Introduction to Sociology, 3rd ed., p. 222. l8i] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV i8i and effort to answer by a careful analysis of the various theories built upon one or another assumption. The gist of his critique and his own deduction will be considered in the following pages. Is society an organism ? Our author replies in the nega- tive, making the following comparison between an organ- ism and society : An organism is a concrete whole, society is discrete. The parts of the former are unconscious beings, the parts of the latter are conscious beings. The ties of the one are material, and of the other spiritual. The former absorbs its parts, the members of the latter retain their individuality. The one changes arbitrarily, the other adapts forms to its needs through the activity of its members. In the organism there is de- veloped a general organ of feeling with unity of conscious- ness; in society there is no common organ of feeling, the in- dividual retains the consciousness of his ego and expresses his adherence to the whole by the form we. The organism is something limited in space, while society has no particular form. The former bears in itself the germ of its death; the latter is created for lastingness and for immortality. The development of the one takes place by a differentiation of its whole at the expense of the integrity of its parts ; the progress of the other consists in the development of the individual by the aid of the whole. The former postulates no goal; the latter lives by its teleological ideals.^ In this manner Kareyev disposes of the organic view of society. He believes that the Darwinian principles which hold true in animal society should not be applied to human society. He says : " Darwinism cannot be unreservedly ac- cepted by social science because the sociological principle of solidarity, without which even the smallest society cannot 1 Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. 88. l82 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [182 exist, is an antithesis to the biological law of the struggle for existence." ^ Where once there was animal struggle, now psychic interaction and social solidarity have become preva- lent. Where once there was organic heredity, now cultural and social traditions are the determining factors in human society. Where once there was individual variation of the organism, now individual human initiative and man's inde- pendence in social organization are substituted in the his- toric life of mankind. Thus in human society the process of natural selection, — which consists in individual variation perpetuated through heredity and by the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence, — is offset by another process which begins in individual initiative but has a chance of becoming traditional through psychic interaction and re- sulting changes in social organization, which tend to become permanent if there is an increasing solidarity of the inter- acting individuals. This social process may be progressive or regressive, as also natural selection may be which does not always perfect the organism, but merely adapts it to its actual environment. Upon this reasoning Kareyev establishes the principal differences between human and animal societies. He does not deny that animal societies have some psychic characteristics similar to those which are found in human society. "Animal social forms are the transitional stages from organism. They have some psychic characteristics similar to those which are found dominant in human society. He says : " animal social forms are the transitional stages between an organism and a human society . . . the social forms of animals are, biologically speaking, peculiar to each species, its members cannot pass into other forms." ^ Man, on the contrary, can 1 Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. 99. ''Ibid., p. 103. 183] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV 183 simultaneously be a member of several abstract wholes. " The animal is bound to its visible aggregates, while man can become antagonistic to the acknowledged views of his society; the animal subjects itself, and enters struggles which are purely concrete in nature." ^ Thus society, according to this reasoning, is not principally a biological phenomenon nor a mechanical aggregation of independent individuals. The individuals are themselves social products, entering instantly into a heritage of tradition and culture, held to- gether by psychic interaction and continuing to change with the aid of individual initiative. Society, therefore, is largely a psychic phenomenon : " every social organism is nothing else but a certain organization of human interrela- tions through which the conscious or unconscious will of human hfe is manifested." ^ What then is society? Says Kareyev : It is not entirely an organism, nor yet completely a develop- ment of art, but social evolution points to what it should be, namely, a living product of art, a harmonious coordination of individuals, possessing solidarity without sacrificing their in- dividuality, and remaining individualistic without being to one another antagonistic* Social phenomena begin with the animal family in which temporarily several individuals live under the authority of parents : this is the biological aspect of the social aggregate. Beginning with the establishment of customary relations, which are transmitted to new generations by means of edu- cation, we have the psychological phenomena of social ag- gregates. And beginning with accidental and unstable mass- ing or herding of animals for self-defense and for sub- ^ Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. no. ' Introduction to Sociology, 3rd ed., p. 131. ' Historico-Philosophical and Sociological Etudes, p. 278. l84 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [184 sistence we have the inception of strictly social pheno- mena. Thus social phenomena extend over a wide range, from the natural growing of animals, up to and through civil society with its state, its law and its industrial co- operation.^ Our author also pays some attention to the anthropologi- cal aspect of society. He distinguishes between races in the physical sense, and in the cultural sense, the former being principally a product of physical environment, while the latter are a product of superorganic environment, i. e. of a continuous psychic interaction. The psychic characters of race are more enduring than the physical characters are. Races cannot keep their unity unless their mem- bers remain in continuous psychological interrelation, and this of course becomes impossible when great distances begin to separate them. There is no necessity for racial decay so long as there is harmony between the super- organic environment and the increase of the race ; abnormal use, i. e. exploitation, of the former inevitably leads to racial decay. Nationality should not be confused with race. There may be a natural nationality developed out of race coordinated with a particular culture, or there may be an artificial nationality created by political coercion. This latter kind of nationality however is in constant danger of disintegration.^ Kareyev's notion of society is thus in harmony with his synthetic view in sociology. So- ciety is a complex product of biological, psychological and environmental factors, but the psychological factor performs a dominating, organizing function manifested through the individual units in society. ' Cf. Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. 19. ^ For a detailed discussion of the author's anthropological aspect of society, cf. Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, pp. 111-156. 185] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV 185 III. The Nature of the Historic Process and the Role of the Individiml in History To the nature of the historic process Kareyev paid parti- cular attention, and he incorporated the results of his inves- tigations in one of his larger works bearing the same title as that of this section. He does not attempt to deal with the historic process metaphysically, but confines himself to its pragmatic aspect. The pragmatic process of history, he states, "consists in the generating activity of other people." ^ " In the historical process," he says elsewhere, " there take part human individuals united in socioties." ^ The contents of the historic process being volitional acts of individuals and social changes, it becomes necessary to study the nature of man in his social reactions, especially in the psychic aspect. " Our task consists in finding out how one individual reacts upon other individuals, and why particular cases of such activity present among themselves such great differences." ^ Here he also raises the question whether the hero and the mob must be considered as two distinct and separate en- tities in a state of psychic interaction? He concludes : that " the hero (a) must be placed over against other units (b, c, d, etc.), i. e. must be measured up with homogeneous and measurable factors and not with the mob; (b) the sum of units (b, c, d, etc.) is not an indivisible whole." * There is a continuous mental interaction among individuals and these in their entirety make up pragmatic history. Thus the nature of the historic process is essentially psycho- logical. Every action is a creation called forth by some ^ The Nature of Historic Process and the Role of the Individual in History, 1st ed., p. 376. ' Historico-Philosophical arid Sociological Etudes, p. 148; cf. also p. 152. ' The Nature of the Historic Process, etc., p. 376. * Ibid., p. 377- l86 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [i86 previous inner or outer stimulus. " Nevertheless," says Kareyev, " each of these depends in addition upon an in- dividual psychic process." ^ For example, the hero reinterprets the impressions re- ceived by him from the mob, and the impressions received by the mob from him. These in their turn are reinter- preted more or less individually before reacting upon members of the mob. The individual, therefore, is not necessarily a passive tool of history, nor is he merely a reflection of environment. " In a word," concludes Kareyev, " we acknowledge a relative independence and originality in the individual, although we do not deny the general importance of outside forces and influences." ' The inequalities of reaction among persons under apparently similar conditions are attributable, on the one hand, to the complexity of the various inner and outer factors, and, on the other hand, to the individual differences among the members of society. Kareyev spends much time analyzing the sources of these differences, and he makes an attempt to divide the differing individuals into classes. Briefly stated, differences of individual activities under apparently similar conditions are attributable : ( i ) to the degree of dependence of a particular response upon other responses; (2) to pos- sible expectation that an action may produce a definite re- sponse although it is a complex result of several actions; (3) to the relative consequences caused by an action as compared with other actions. In the first case, the oper- ative cause-action is belittled in its importance by not acting alone; in the second case the importance of the operating cause-action is exaggerated. In both of these two cases, however, the fact of relativity in both cause and effect 1 The Nature of the Historic Process, etc., p. 378 ; of. p. 269. ' Idem, cf. pp. 277 and 283. 187] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV 187 is apparent. In the third case there is an element of rela- tive evaluation attached to the action, which increases its importance. To these three our author adds a fourth cause of difference in individual activity, which he sees in individ- ual power of invention.^ Although it is one of the problems of social science to classify individual minds into categories or types, Kareyev confesses his inabihty to do this at present, and makes but a rough classification into highest and lowest types of mind. The principal characteristic of the former is ability to plan complex activity and to coerce others to execute the plan. The lowest type is characterized by in- capacity for individual initiative and willingness to be the tool of another's will.^ Thus does Kareyev analyze the nature of the pragmatic process of history. It is a continuous psychic interaction, wherein the activity of some of the members of sociey calls forth the activity of the others. But this influence of some persons upon others is subjected in a degree to individual change before it, in its turn, becomes an antecedent of some new activity. The degrees of development attained by in- dividuals, as well as their social satisfactions, being thus different, the changes they produce are similarly different. The ego is but seldom introduced to any marked extent into the trend of events. In most cases it is largely a reflex of somt one else's activity and will. Nevertheless subjective change injected into something new is the pragmatic pro- cess of history, and this fact demands a close analysis of the role of the individual in the historic process. To it ac- cordingly Kareyev devotes much space. The problem is to determine the role of the individual in the cultural process of history," i. e. in those changes which take place in the 1 Cf. ibid., p. 30s. » Cf. ibid., pp. 346-347- l88 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [igg material, spiritual and social forms of the life of a people." ^ Social culture is nothing else but the coordination of con- tinuously similar repetitions of thoughts, acts and relations of the individual members of society, subject to the psychic interactions of these members, and to conditions of environ- ment.^ What role does the individual play in this process, and how is his creative activity compatible with the process of evolution? These questions he raises and proceeds to answer. Beginning with the last question he agrees that from the evolutionary point of view the change of one cultural fact by another can not be exclusively the product of hu- man will. Evolutionary changes have their lawful rela- tions ; and yet, Kareyev reminds us, " the elements of cul- ture develop not only according to their own laws, but also under outer influences, to which class belongs also the con- scious influence of the human will." ^ The activities of man which result in cultural changes appear to have not only genetic, but also teleological elements. Together these form a coordination of causes which, in their entirety, our author calls " the sum of ends." The general end is nothing pre-existing, it is related to individual ends and purposes as is the sum to its components.* Cultural evolu- tion should not be confused with organic evolution. In cultural evolution, individual initiative and its imitation be- come factors. It is, therefore, necessary to distinguish among causes which condition the spread of innovation by means of imitation. The gift of invention is not pos- '^ The Nature of the Historic Process, etc., p. 596. ^Ibid., p. 477. Cf. Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. SS. ' Ibid., p. 597. Cf. also pp. 427-428. * Cf. ibid., p. 598. 189] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV 189 sessed by each individual, and any innovation must have a favorable environment, lacking which it cannot spread. The environment is not merely material, although nature and economic and material forces do determine man's action to a limited degree. Kareyev calls special attention to such facts as habits, customs, passions, prejudices, and all kinds of feelings and ideas which exert an influence upon individ- ual initiative. These psychic factors and social forms Kareyev calls a super-organic environment.^ He says : " the tendency of super-organic environment is to deprive the individual of his independence and originality, as the individuating principle consists in the safeguarding not only of individual independence but also of the changes in cultural-social forms proceeding from individual initia- tive." ^ Individual variations may be either unconscious and unintentional or, again, conscious and intentional.^ Both unconscious and conscious changes are observable in the development of language, of law and of religion. Such exist also in the natural and artificial cooperation of economic life, and in the development of political institutions. What is the relative extent of the conscious and the unconscious factors, it is difficult to determine, because every social phenomenon is very complex. Also the historic process itself becomes an additional factor in the lives of individuals ^ Kareyev adopts this term from Spencer. But he informs it with new content. He says : " We adapted this term to cultural-social phe- nomena as to an environment of a particular kind which surrounds man in society and conditions his activity.'' The Nature of the His- toric Process, etc., p. 475. He calls super-organic environment also secondary environment. Cf. Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, p. 64. 2 Ibid., p. 598. ' Kareyev points out that unconscious and unintentional variations are consistent with the organic viewpoint in sociology; not so, the conscious. Cf. idem. igo RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [190 of every generation/ Tradition is that aspect of the super- organic environment which shapes the life of generations and is the strongest obstacle to individual initiative. Still, even the firmest tradition gives to the individual a certain degree of liberty and itself undergoes considerable unnoticed changes. The relative stability of social tradition maintains unity in culture and in social organization and is of the same importance to society that organic heredity is to an animal species in maintaining unity in type. Traditional forms, however, change through the accumu- lation of individual variations by means of imitation. " Thus, within the boundaries of tradition individual inven- tion has certain liberties ; changes are introduced into tradi- tional forms by collective and individual initiative." ^ How- ever, not every innovation is imitated. The new idea may not become sufficiently known, or it may not fill a felt need or want in life. On the other hand, an innovation is at times received not because there is any positive need for it, but simply because there are no forces opposing it.' Cul- tural tradition then, with its imitative repetition, is the prin- cipal phenomenon of the super-organic environment. Op- posed to it is individual initiative with its innovating inven- tions, which can have their roots only in individual life, in an innate capacity for independence and creativeness. Outer conditions either curb or develop this ability; but they can never create it. Summing up this section in which are presented Kareyev's ' Cf, Historico-Philosophical and Sociological £tudes, p. 153. ^ Ibid., p. 505. Kareyev recognizes the similarity of his views to those of Tarde; he says: "When I became acquainted with the works of Tarde I recognized the similarity of our thinking." Ibid., p. S08. Kareyev was, however, inclined towards the study of imitation by the works of Mikhalovsky, which fact he acknowledges appreciatively. ' Cf. ibid., pp. 440-441. igi] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV igi views on the nature of the historic process and the role of the individual in history, we see : ( i ) that the historic pro- cess has two aspects, the pragmatic and the cultural. These two are not parallel currents but are continually crossing each other and are reciprocally conditioned by continuous interaction. In the pragmatic process of history the agents are human individuals ; in the cultural process they are cul- tural forms. (2) The role of the individual is not to be understood by the opposition: the hero versus the mob. All individuals play both an active and a passive part ; they are not equal, they have a wide range of differences. (3) Individual activity and cultural evolution are in continuous interaction, but they stand in various relations to each other, presenting proportions to which a graded scale is applicable. Finally, the individuating principle manifests itself with particular force in a small group, whereas cultural tradition is spread by the masses or by the majority.^ From the nature of the historic process Kareyev believes that deduc- tions may be arrived at upon which a scientific theory of progress may be erected. IV. The Sociological Problem of Progress (l) ELEMENTS OF A SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY OF PROGRESS Sociology strives to attain to a purely objective knowledge of social evolution. Hence its deductions as to a possible future are based not upon subjective wishes but upon facts independent of individual bias. In the idea of progress it becomes necessary to distinguish between objective-scientific and subjective-ethical aspects. Some schools of sociology have tried to eliminate the subjective-ethical aspect as un- scientific, but it is found nevertheless in the theories of even ' Cf. ibid., p. 626. 192 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [192 the extreme objectivists/ According to Kareyev the idea of progress is but a certain subjective concept of evolution, it is psychological and ethical and is without metaphysical presuppositions. He says : " The social ideal must be com- patible not only with ethical, judicial, economic and poli- tical notions, but it must also be psychologically and socio- logically possible, its realization must be probable and it must be viewed as the necessary resultant of the whole process of social evolution." ^ The practical significance of the sociological idea of progress would appear in an evolu- tionary formula, which should present both the goal and the means of progress. A theory of progress must have both deontological and nomological component elements, and these again must stand in such a coordinated relation to each that the theory will not expose the knowledge of the end without the knowledge of the means. The goal with- out the means becomes a mere ideology. And the means without the goal are without purpose. He believes that a goal of progress cannot be constructed without a subjective aspect. He says : Each condition in life is of a many-sided complexity, whose elements in part favor and in part obstruct progress ; the same thing may exert different influences in various stages of its progress. Therefore a subjective discrimination becomes ne- cessary. A formula of progress must present merely the gen- eral tendency and not particular means of progress, for such will necessarily differ in various cases, under various conditions. In taking a broad view, such as would cover the complete de- 1 Kareyev claims that an optimistic attitude on the part of a material- istic evolutionist is not warranted by the actual data and that it is in- troduced by the subjective opinion of the investigator. Cf. Introduc- tion to Sociology, 3rd ed., p. 369. ' Ibid., p. 383. 193] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV igo velopment of personality and everything that aids it, the so- ciologist will avoid one-sided views. These in part account for the diversity of views on progress.^ It also becomes necessary to determine in what this de- velopment consists and under what conditions it is possible. Then also it becomes necessary to make clear those particu- lar processes which develop in man an ideal individuality; and again what outward conditions are necessary for the purpose. Finally, having investigated the laws which make these processes possible, and having refused to accept abstract ideas, one may develop a completely scientific theory of progress. A formula of progress cannot be arrived at by the a posteriori method alone. Induction and a purely objective method may give a formula of evolution but not one of progress. The investigator has to approach his problem a priori in harmony with an ideal of human life.^ (2) WHAT IS PROGRESS, AND WHAT IS A PROGRESSIVE PROCESS ? Kareyev has written a good deal on these questions. In his various works are found descriptions and definitions of progress and of the progressive process of history in the sociological sense. The gist of these descriptions and defi- nitions follows : ' Kareyev gives five reasons for the existence of great diversity in the formulas of progress. " (i) Over-emphasized subjectivism creates a one-sided formula; (2) the desire to deduce a formula directly from the facts presented makes it only applicable to the organic aspect; (3) this latter condition hinders the bringing together of the separate for- mulas under a common denominator; (4) insufficient acquaintance with the laws of nature, of mind and of society results in a disregard of important aspects of progress; (4) finally, the striving towards sim- plicity makes formulas too narrow." Principal Queries of the Phil- osophy of History, vol. ii, p. 208. ^ Cf. ibid., p. 202. 194 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [194 " Progress is nothing else than the interpretation of the meaning of life by postulating higher and higher goals, and the attainment of these ends by the aid of a growing culture and a social organization which makes possible an increasing reaction upon nature." ^ Enlarging upon this view of pro- gress he says elsewhere in the same book. " Progress is such an evolution as on the whole corresponds to our ideal. A true philosophy of progress must be a synthesis, — of faith in the possibility of progress, with the knowledge of the laws of evolution." " Therefore progress is that which gives man new means in the struggle for existence. The struggle is viewed, however, not as a contest with one's neighbor but as a conflict with environing nature. By in- creasing his knowledge of technical inventions for the at- tainment of the means of life man ennobles the struggle for existence. Such knowledge manifests itself in sympathy, altruism, conscience and the sense of justice. These coun- teract individual struggles among men; they create in so- cial organization forms of social life, and regulations of social relations and cooperation, that make individual struggle unnecessary and harmful. Such progress, how- ever, is only possible when psychically developed individ- uals have entered into spiritual relations and have become units in a society.' Thus by progress is meant either the perfection of the individual in his psychic relations, or the improvement of material relations among members of so- ciety, or a gradual rise of social forces that are favorable to the development of the individual and to his control and exploitation of nature. In this manner progress has its intellectual, moral, social and economic phases. ' Historico-Philosophical and Sociological £tudes, p. 206. * Ibid., p. 351. " Cf. Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. 95. 195] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV 195 Synthetizing these various phases, Kareyev gives us the following formula of progress : " Progress, on the one hand, is the gradual elevation of the standard of human develop- ment accompanied by conditions which make it possible for a larger and larger number to attain this standard; on the other hand, it is the most just division of labor among man- kind." ^ In this sense the prototype of progress appears to be individual psychic development " which is not only an objective fact of observation but also a subjective fact of consciousness." ^ Thus, in its narrower senste, progress does not consist in organic evolution accomplished by means of organic heredity, but in superorganic evolution ever chang- ing through criticism and through the creativeness of the human mind and perpetuating itself in tradition.^ The in- terchange of thoughts, feelings and traditions is the first and principal condition of mental progress. The union of individuals for the attainment of general ends creates so- cial solidarity and organization. It eliminates individual struggle from within the aggregate and through cooper- ation it makes individual moral and mental development possible.* Kareyev emphasizes the psychic aspect of pro- gress because he believes that man's ideals and spiritual interests far outweigh his material interests. He diflfers from any philosophers who may be said to teach that man thinks in order to eat. In Kareyev's theory man eats in order to think. The development of spiritual interests in man is, how- ever, unthinkable apart from political forms that emancipate ' Cf. Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. iii, p. 214. 2 Ihid., p. 215. ' Cf. for more detailed discussion of super-organic evolution, sec. iii, supra, pp. 189 et seq. * Cf. Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. 223. ig6 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [iq6 the individual from subordination to the aggregate and transform him into a free member of society. So the development of moral convictions in man is unthinkable without a coincident progress of justice, which protects the individual from arbitrary force that would make him sub- ject to law alone. So the abolition of the physical or animal struggle for existence is unthinkable without eco- nomic institutions that can emancipate the individual from the cruder forms of exploitation and transform him into a cooperating member of society, himself conscious of social solidarity. These separate processes of political, moral, social and economic development are integral parts of the complex process of social progress, and mutually they con- dition each other. This general concept of progress Kareyev divides into five particular concepts. He says : Mental progress is educating the capacity for realizing spirit- ual interests and improving our views of the life of the world. Moral progress is educating the power to act ac- cording to conviction and to improve the principles of ethics. Political progress is the development of freedom and the bet- terment of the state. Judicial progress is the development of equality and the betterment of the institutions of law and justice. Economic progress is the development of solidarity and the betterment of ways of obtaining the means of existence.^ Kareyev realizes that all these aspects of progress may develop simultaneously and concurrently only under pecu- liarly favorable conditions. But clearly, it is because such conditions have not existed heretofore, that progress has been so unstable. He adds, however, that " progress is a process which gradually improves itself, i. e. it gradually 1 Cf. Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. 239. 197] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV i^y creates new means for its own stability, which man has the power to realize." ^ In the actual history of society, progress and regress have been realized principally in crises. " We call progressive that crisis which breaks up regressive evolution ; and we call regressive that crisis which breaks up progressive evolu- tion." ^ Throughout history nature has made no leaps in the evolution of society from the animal stage to ideal society, from occasional aggregations of savage to well organized civilized nations. There have been, however, certain transi- tional stages between the beginnings of social aggregation and modern society. These our author classifies in the fol- lowing manner : * ( 1 ) Primitive societies of savage tribes are characterized by the rule of force, by antagonism, by the struggle for existence, by particularism and individualism. This is the stage of anarchy ; (2) Societies, which maintain the rule of crude force, of antagonism and the struggle for existence, but which are already centralized, although by force, and differentiated through the appearance of caste and by economic exploita- tion. This is the stage of the union of despotism with anarchy. (3) Societies wherein the rule of crude force is diminish- ing, where antagonism and the struggle for existence are growing less fierce. These are more disciplined; authority is acknowledged in them and subjection to it is more con- scious. This is the stage of the weakening of despotism and anarchy; (4) Societies in which crude force, antagonism and the iC/. Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. 241. * Ibid., p. 201. ' Cf. ibid., p. 244. Iq8 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [198 Struggle for existence are still more suppressed; wherein the individual is gradually being liberated from the con- trol of his environment, and wherein society is being freed from the rule of caste. In these, societies voluntary sub- jection to authority and a civil consciousness are on the increase. This is the stage of the coordination of freedom and of order. (5) Ideal societies would be characterized by complete solidarity, by the rule of law and by cooperation, by in- dividuation and by equality. This would be the stage of the rule of truth and justice. In these transitional stages a gradual decrease of animal characteristics is noticeable. Stages one, two and three ap- proach the conditions of an organism and are in danger of entering upon an evolution without reformations and without those progressive crises which would advance them to the higher stages that are both more stable and more fit for progress. "A new humanity," says Kareyev, " seems to strive towards cultural cosmopolitanism in spite of the nationalistic trend of recent decades." ^ 3. THE GENERAL LAW OF PROGRESS " The general law of historic progress," according to Kareyev, " can be nothing else than the expression of the possible way of human progress." " The goal of progress is the development of individuality, and in this sense pro- gress consists " in the self-liberation of personality through the recasting of cultural ideas and social forms of institu- tions in the direction of a set goal." * But since it is the general tendency of the super-organic environment to re- press individual initiative a conflict seems to be inevitable. 1 Cf. Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. 252. " Ibid., p. 256. ' Ibid., p. 262. 199] CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV igg Progress therefore can be achieved only through a com- promise between the individual and the social interests, and by remaking super-organic environment to meet the needs of the individual. " History," says our author, " consists in the evolution of the super-organic environment which is a product of the non-rational activity of man. The remak- ing of this environment by critical thought is the only de- finitely progressive factor of history." ^ In designating the law of progress as a compromise of opposites, Kareyev approaches the Hegelian idea, especially when he says : Thesis is the self-conditioning of the individual in the face of social and cultural forms; antithesis is the subjection of the individual's self to ideas and institutions of super-organic environment; synthesis is the subjection of the super-organic environment to the individual, and the self-conditioning of the individual with the aid of culture and social organization.^ Progress, then, is possible only when conscious activity outbalances the unconscious ; when purposef ulness displaces arbitrariness. Progress is based upon critical thought and not upon some hap-hazard activity of mind. Arriving at his final conclusion as to progress and as to its general law, Kareyev says : progress is a forward movement through the development of opposites, and such is the formula of social progress. In order that something may progress it is necessary to deny what has preceded it. In social progress we may differentiate two evo- lutions: The evolution of organizations, consisting in their in- 1 Cf. frincipal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. 270. » Idem. Kareyev claims not to apply the Hegelian formula to the actual process of history as did Hegel, whom Kareyev thinks mistaken in this. Kareyev adopts merely a rational construction of an abstract formula of progress. 200 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [200 tegration and differentiation ; and the evolution of the individ- ual. These two are antagonistic developments. Organiza- tion strives to transform itself into an organism which absorbs the individual, the individual on the contrary strives for free- dom. Viewing social progress from this aspect we may give it this formula; first stage: freedom of the individual from social control; second stage: negation of freedom through the rise and development of institutions which tend to trans- form society into an organism ; third stage : negation of social control by means of adapting institutions to individual self- direction.^ The process we already have indicated, and it is analogous to intellectual progress in the formation of the individual's opinion of the universe. In the first stage weak logic is controlled by a strong imagination, since imagination de- velops much faster than logic. During the second stage imaginary concepts still predominate over critical thought. In the third stage critical thought gradually becomes strong enough to secure control of the imagination. Concretely we see the helpless individual of primitive society struggling to survive by the aid of an imperfect social organization which soon, however, becomes stronger than himself and begins to control him rigidly, until by the aid of cooper- ation the individual, in his turn, recasts society more in harmony with individual interests. The law of the compromise of opposites shows itself also in the political, judicial and economic aspects of social or- ganization. In politics liberty first approaches anarchy, then there is a negation of liberty by the development of despotic control, and finally there comes a negation of despotism by the establishment of order through liberty. In law, by reason of its close relation with morals, pro- gress is analogous to the progress of ethics. First there is ^ Cf. Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History, vol. ii, p. 293. 20lJ CONTRIBUTIONS OF N. I. KAREYEV 201 equality of all because law is non-existent; then law is es- tablished upon non-equality ; finally, equality is re-established upon law. In economic relations there is first uniform solidarity be- cause of the severity of the struggle for existence. Then there is caste solidarity for the purpose of exploiting the weaker classes and using them as tools. Finally, there is an increasing general solidarity and the gradual cessation of the exploitation of the many by the few.^ This briefly sums up Kareyev's idea of social progress in its various phases. Here is the goal of his sociological theorizing. V. Conclusion: Kareyev and the Subjectivist School of Russian Sociologists With Kareyev we may close our analysis of the sub- jectivist school of Russian sociologists. The four authors studied represent the whole range of ideas advanced and developed by this school.^ If we ask what there is in com- mon in the works of the four writers analyzed, we may answer that they all adhere to the principles of the positiv- istic and empiricist philosophy which they believe to be com- patible with the subjective-teleological ideas introduced by them into sociology. Lavrov is the extremist. He has introduced a socially evolved, categorical imperative. All have adopted Comte's classification of the sciences, except, however, that they regard psychology and ethics as transi- ' Cf. ibid., pp. 244, 24s and 293. 2 Other authors of this school who may be mentioned are Ivanov Rasumik, who analyzed the historical role of the individual as pic- tured in Russian literature and the role of the intellectual class in general as a factor in social progress, and whose principal works are: " History of Russian Social Thought," " The Meaning of Life," "What is the Makhaevchina " ; and S. N. Bulgakov, a converted Marxist, who advocated the subjectivist point of view in his articles in Questions of Philosophy and Psychology, 1896, and in the New World, 1897. 202 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [202 tional and relatively independent sciences, lying between biology and sociology. Although they have written much on sociological method they have not gotten far beyond what was said upon this subject by John Stuart Mill. All of our writers reject in principle the deductions of the biologic-organic school of sociology, and of the impersonal mechanistic view of the dialectic school of economic deter- minists. They all agree that the dynamic of the social pro- cess is a complex of psychical, biological, physical and eco- nomic forces. They emphasize, however, the psycho-social activities and the work of the critically-minded individual as determining factors in progress within organized society. Mikhalovsky should be recognized as the most original among Russian sociologists. He alone of this school developed an independent system. Lavrov, Youzhakov and Kareyev were principally synthetizers, emphasizing one or another of the various aspects of sociology and occasionally introducing a new idea. To Kareyev belongs the honor of being the most thorough and extensive scholar, but to Lavrov must be conceded priority in originating that trend of thought and method which the Russian subjectivist school of sociologists claims as peculiarly its own. Whether these writers succeeded in elaborating a complete organic syn- thesis of sociological theories may be questioned. It is our impression, however, that they did make a good start in this necessary work which at present is being carried on by many sociologists both in Europe and in America. The theoreti- cal contribution of Russian sociology should, however, not eclipse the fact that first and foremost the subjectivist school of Russian sociology was a rationalizing effort to give intellectual bearing to the social-political movements of a people aspiring to found a democracy. This fact gives it a d^nite stamp, and makes it peculiarly and above all a truly national Russian Sociology. PART III MISCELLANEOUS SCHOOLS AND TRENDS OF RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY CHAPTER I The Objectivist School of Sociological Criticism (The Orthodox Marxists Plekhanov and Lvov) The popularity of the subjectivist school with its popu- listic propaganda and with its hope of a special, non-capital- istic, social-economic evolution of Russia was diminished by the introduction of the Marxian philosophy of social evolution. Russian Marxism both possessed a sociological theory and made a practical appeal. The latter was directed to the rapidly increasing city proletariat, whereas the former was seized upon by the intellectual classes and by them ex- ploited for an attack upon the subjectivist sociology which in the eighties had reached the zenith of its popularity. Hegel, Feuerbach and the English and French materialists had prepared the Russian mind for the philosophy of Marx. The readiness to embrace the Marxian creed is the more easily understood when we remember that the desire of the Riissian intellectuals was to cast off the yoke of autocracy and to emancipate the individual. Marx's social philosophy showed that changes in the forms of production are followed by an inevitable change of social and political institutions.^ The Marxian or Objectivist Sociologists were divided into two factions. The ortho- dox, who were championed by the " father " of Russian Marxism, Plekhanov, and his pupils and friends ^ and the ^ Cf. Plekhanov, History of Russian Social Thought, Petrograd, 1914, vol. i, p. 129. ^ Of these we may mention Lenin, Ulianov, Patressov, and Maslov. They voiced their opinions principally in the socialist monthly, " The Contemporary World," and in other publications. 205] 20s 2o6 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [206 heterodox Neo-Marxists and Revisionists, of whom Struve and Tugan Baronofsky are the principal exponents. I. Plekhanov's Marxist Sociology Plekhanov ^ is not only the first but also the foremost of the Orthodox Marxist School in Russia. His principal sociological work is On the question of the development of the Monistic Conception of History; it is inscribed to Mikhalovsky and Kareyev as the surviving champions of the subjectivist school and its avowed purpose is to con- trovert their views by developing the Marxian monistic conception of history and social evolution. A brief analysis of Plekhanov's theory of social evolution follows : 1. Plekhanov's critique of the non-Marxian subjective sociologists and Russian populists. 2. Plekhanov's philosophical and methodological presup- positions. 3. Plekhanov's theory of history or of social evolution. I. plekhanov's critique of the NON-MARXIAN SUBJEC- TIVE SOCIOLOGISTS AND RUSSIAN POPULISTS Plekhanov who, to begin with, was an ardent Russian populist, became in the early eighties after his conversion to Marxism, just as ardent and militant an advocate of this new political and social creed. His attacks were directed against the leaders of the Russian populist movement and he ridi- ' Georgy Valentinovitch Plekhanov (1857- ) is one of iRussia's famous revolutionists ; he founded the Marxian wing of Russian Social Democracy. In 1880 he was forced to leave his native land, nor has he been allowed to return thither. Being considered legally an unde- sirable citizen, he was compelled to write under various pseudonyms as N. Beltov, Volgin, Valentinov, etc. He enjoys an international reputation as Russia's most scholarly Marxist. His writings cover the various phases of the Russian socialist and revolutionary movement and are written for propaganda or for polemical purposes. 207] THE OBIECTIVIST SCHOOL 207 culed as Utopian their hope for a special non-capitalistic social evolution of the Russian people.^ Plekhanov classed the Russian populist leaders among the French and English Utopian socialists of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The populist movement received its intellectual bearings from subjectivist sociology, especially that of Lavrov and Mikhalovsky,^ and, therefore, Plekhanov pours out his wrath fiercely against this school in a manner which, to a foreign observer, seems hardly warranted but which, nevertheless, proves how intensely nationalistic these Russian sociologists were. Thus the " objectivism " of the Marxist school proves to be highly colored by passionate subjectivism which actually discredits its claim as a truly scientific theory.* Plekhanov's attack upon the subjectivist school is directed first upon its " subjective " method which 1 This hope even Marx had cherished at the time of the Russian transition period which began with the emancipation of the serfs. He expressed his opinion in this regard in a letter to the editor of the " Otechestvenyya Zapiski". This letter was later used by Mikhalovsky and other populists as an argument against the Russian Marxists. Plekhanov explains away Marx's wording in that letter which he claims was written not as an argument but as a letter of consolation, intended for the purpose of quieting the troubled young Mikhalovsky, who worried over the inevitable doom of the Russian commune. " It was necessary," says Plekhanov, "to show the young Russian author that dialectical materialism does not condemn any nation to anything, that it does not show a general and ' inevitable ' way for all people and at any given time; but that the development of any given society always depends upon the coordination of the inner social forces, and therefore it is necessary for every serious man to study the existing coordina- tion, for only such study can show what is determined or indetermined for a given society." On the Question of the Development of the Monistic Conception of History, 4th ed., p. 218. 2 Vide supra, pp. 39-40. ' This intense polemical spirit shows itself in all of Plekhanov's so- ciological writings and especially in his book, A Critique of Our Critics, Petrograd, 1906. 2o8 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [208 he identifies with the idealists' presupposition that ideas of individuals shape environment and history and not that environment conditions and determines man's ideas/ Secondly, Plekhanov attacks the subjectivists' idea that society is the product of the interaction of social forces or factors. " What is ' a social-historical factor ' ?" he asks. His answer is that "a social-historical factor" is an abstraction, the conception of it arising by means of abstraction and because of this abstracting process, the different aspects of the social integer take on the appearance of particular categories, and the different pheno- mena and expression of activity of the social man, as morals, law, economic forms, etc., are transformed in our mind into particular forces, as if they were advancing and conditioning this activity, which is its final or ultimate cause.^ Therefore interaction of the factors explains nothing; it only leads one into a vicious circle which reduces itself to the formula: that environment creates man and man creates environment. Or, in other words, " the develop- ment of human nature interprets itself through its collective needs, and on the other hand the development of collective needs interprets itself through the development of human nature." * In order to free oneself from the subjectivistic eclecticism and to escape the vicious circle in which it has continually been moving, Plekhanov says that ' On the Question of the Development of a Monistic Conception of History, p. 26. Plekhanov thinks that even Comte did not emerge from this vicious circle, but that, despite all his positivistic pretences, he only "chewed over" the ideas of St. Simon, and the ideas of the anonymous author of " De la physiologic appliquee a I'amelioration des institutions sociales." Cf. ibid., pp. S4-S6. ^ Cf. On the Question of the Development of a Monistic Conception of History, p. 9. ' A Critique of Our Critics, p. 311. 209] THE OBJECTIVIST SCHOOL 209 we must find that historical factor which created both the characteristics of a given people and its form of government, the factor that created the very possibility of their inter- action. If we find such factor, we shall have the cor- rect point of view sought for, and then without any difficulty we shall solve the disturbing contradiction.^ As the reader may readily surmise, Marxism is the " point of view " that will furnish the key to the mysteries of the universe ! ^ The role of the exceptional individual as a factor of progress was emphasized by the subjectivist school.* Tliis view Plekhanov attacks as an antiquated Utopian doctrine, which cannot successfully be maintained against the criti- cism of dialectical materialism. " The peculiarities of reason of a given time can be understood only in relation to the peculiarities of reason of the preceding epoch." * At its best, therefore, the genius surpasses his contemporaries only in that sense, that " he earlier than they grasps the meaning of new generating social relations." ^ This, Plek- hanov believes, justifies him in seeing in the genius nothing but a product of his environment. And since the dialectic process of evolution has no set goal, everything being in the process of change, formulas of progress have no mean- ing whatsoever.^ 1 Cf. On the Question of the Development of a Monistic, etc., p. 11. Cf. also p. 166. 2 Vide infra, p. 213 et seq. 3 Vide supra, p. 202. * On the Question of the Development of a Monistic, etc., p. 173. 5 Idem. Italics are Plekhanov's. • Cf. ibid., p. 87. 2IO RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [210 2. PLEKHANOV'S PHILOSOPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS Plekhanov describes himself as a dialectic and monistic Materialist. He believes that there can be but two types of philosophy : the idealistic and materialistic. He says : "All those philosophers in whose view the prime factor is matter belong to the camp of materialists; but all those who con- sider this factor spirit, are idealists." ^ Epistemologically he holds to Engel's naive, pragmatic realism ex- pressed in the old prosaic epigram : " The proof of the pudding is the eating thereof." The criterion of truth is not subjective but social. It " lies not in me, but in the relations existing outside of me," ^ says Plekhanov. Hence " true " are the opinions which correctly represent these re- lations ; " wrong " are those opinions which misrepresent them. " True " is that theory of natural science which correctly grasps the mutual relations of the phenomena of nature ; " true " is that historical description which correctly depicts the social relations of the epoch under description." ' Our author reviews the history of materialism in the eigh- teenth century and places the blame for its failure to main- tain itself in the face of the revival of German idealism upon its conclusion that man is the product of environment, and that the changes of environment are the product of man. In this manner they were entrapped in the same vicious circle from which the older schools of philosophers in vain tried to escape. This perplexity was solved by Hegel's great contribution of the dialectic method, which, when freed from its idealistic accretions, enriched the older materialism and made of it the philosophy of the new age. Plekhanov, who ^ Cf. On the Question of the Development of a Monistic, etc., p. 3. ^ Ibid., p. 178. • Idem. Italics are Plekhanov's. 21 1 j THE OBJECTIVIST SCHOOL 21I anticipates the accusation of Hegelianism, defends the great teacher and ranks his contribution, as it appears in Marx, with that of Copernicus, of Darwin, and of the other im- mortals.^ Dialectics is the principle of all life. " Every motion is a dialectical process and a living contradiction; and since in the interpretation of every phenomenon of nature in the last instance it becomes necessary to appeal to motion, so we must agree with Hegel who said, that dialectics is the soul of scientific knowledge." ^ TheH most important aspect of the dialectic process is that it af- ' firms " the transition of quantity into quality." * If every- thing moves, everything changes, " every phenomenon sooner or later is inevitably transformed into its own oppo- site by the activity of those very forces which condition its ^^ existence." * Thus, if every phenomenon negates itself, no "^ institution can be of absolute or of permanent value; every- thing is good in its place and in its time, that is to say, rela- tively good. " Dialectical thinking excludes every Utopia, and, in fact, any formula of progress with a set goal. Social forms do constantly change, by reason of " thej higher development of their content." ° Thus does Plek- hanov express his mysteries of Hegel, who furnished the key to unlock the mysteries of the universe and to rid hu- manity of every Utopian view of society. The idealistic dialecticians, however, failed to exploit their new method properly, and by identifying the dialectic pro- cess with logical thinking they returned to the old view which explained everything by human nature, " since thinking is one of the aspects of human nature." ° Plekhanov explains that the earlier idealists remained in 1 Cf. ibid., p. 176. ' Ibid., p. 62. Italics are Plekhanov's. ' Ibid., p. 75. * Ibid., p. 64. Italics are Plekhanov's. ^ Idem. "/ftid., p. 98. 212 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [212 the dark as to the true nature of social relations. It re- mained therefore for the young Hegelians Feuerbach and the Bauer Brothers, and especially for Marx and Engels to emancipate dialectics from its subjective idealism and to ap- ply it to an objective materialism/ which viewed human nature and social relations as an ever-changing product of the historic process entirely independent of any individual's ideals or wishes.^ Plekhanov is in philosophy and method an Hegelian who, following Marx, inverted Hegel's idealism into materialism. (To Hegel objective history was but the reflection of the abs- solute which he arrived at from subjective process. To the dialectic materialist the real is but the objective world and T^ process, of which the subjective is but the reflex. " For us," says Plekhanov, " the absolute idea is but the abstrac- tion of motion, by which is called forth all coordination Land condition of matter." * Upon this philosophy and by means of the dialectic method Marx and Engels developed their history of social evolution which Plekhanov attempts to defend and to develop as a sociological theory.* 3. PLEKHANOV'S THEORY OF HISTORY OR OF SOCIAL EVOLUTION Plekhanov attempts to be the Russian alter ego of Marx. ' " At the basis of our dialectics lies the materialistic conception of nature. ... It would fall were this the fate of materialism. And in- versely: without dialectics ... a materialistic theory of knowledge is impossible." Plekhanov in his introduction to his Russian translation of Engel's Feuerbach, ist ed., Geneva, 1895, p. xxv. ' Cf. ibid., p. 108. ' Introduction to Engel's Feuerbach, p. xxvi. * Plekhanov believes that dialectics are inevitable to sociology. He says : " In order to understand the important role of dialectics in Sociology, it is enough to remember in what way Socialism out of an Utopia was transformed into a science." Ibid., p. xxviii. 213 J ^^^ OBJECTIVIST SCHOOL 213 He aims to interpret Marx so as to suppress the popular sub- jectivist school of Russian sociology. Marx's theory of so- cial evolution he expresses as follows : " In order to exist, man must support his organism, which support he obtains by utilizing natural environment. This dependence presup- poses a certain reaction of man upon nature, but while reacting upon natural environment man's nature also changes." ^ Our author differentiates environment into geographic environment or the conditions of place, and into historic environment or the conditions of time. " Geogra- phic environment acts upon a given people, but it does so through the medium of social relations, which take either one or another form as they hasten or retard the growth of productive forces in possession of that given people." ^ Man is differentiated from the animal because his an- cestors learned the use of tools. Implements of labor are equal to new organs and react upon the anatomical struc- ture of the tool-using individual. " Quantitative differ- ences are passing into qualitative differences." ^ History takes a new trend of development. It is the era of the perfecting of his artificial organs, of the growth of produc- tive forces. As the perfecting of the tool begins to play a determining part in man's existence, " social life itself be- gins to change in accordance with the development of the productive forces." * The tools of production are analogous not so much to new organs of the individual man as to those of the social man. Therefore every definite change in the manner of production is inevitably followed by a change 1 On the Question of the Development of a Monistic, etc., p. 108. ^ History of Russian Social Thought, Petrograd, 1914, vol. i, p. i. = On the Question of the Development of a Monistic, etc., p. 109. Cf. also p. 147. * Ibid., p. no. 214 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [214 in social structure. The role of geographic environment is all-important in this transitional period. Says Plekhanov: It was because of peculiar characteristics of geographic environment, that our anthropomorphic ancestors rose to those heights of mental development which were necessary for their transition into tool-making animals. And, again, only some peculiarities of that same environment could give favor- able opportunity for the use and for the continuous perfecting of this new achievement — the making of tools.^ The ability to make tools is constant with man, but the application of this ability in practice is continually changing. "At any given time the criterion of this ability is conditioned by the criterion of the already attained development of productive forces." ^ Thus the further development of any given people at any given time depends upon the degree of development to which it has already attained. For example, the slave system of the Greek Republics made a practical use of Archimedes' inventions impossible.* Plekhanov does not deny to intellect the power of invention, but he believes that the economic background alone can explain why intellect acts in some one certain manner and not dif- ferently. Every ideal and social institution — whether it be the family, the state, property, or law, — every institution changes with any alteration in the process of production.* Changes are at first quantitative and finally become qualita- tive. Qualitative changes present in themselves revolution- 1 On the Question of the Development of a Monistic, etc., p. 114. ''Ihid.. p. IIS. ' Cf. ibid., p. 118. * In defending this theory, Plekhanov attempts to prove his case by anthropological data. All changes in social institutions, the beginnings of art, even the play of children, are to him. but the reflex of economic conditions. Cf. A Critique of Our Critics, last two chapters, espec- ially pp. 383 et seq. 215] ^^^ OBJECTIVIST SCHOOL 215 ary phenomena, i. e. the change is not gradual, but one which has come by leaps and bounds after relatively long periods of apparent quiet/ According to Plekhanov these changes though often mas- querading as ethical and religious movements, have an eco- nomic cause. " The psychology of society adapts itself to its economy. Upon a given economic basis there inevitably develops a corresponding ideological superstructure." " This Plekhanov maintains is a monistic process : economics and psychology are but two aspects of one and the same thing. He says: Every new step in the development of the productive energies, forces a people in their every day life into new relationships which do not correspond to the passing form of production. These new and never heretofore existing relations reflect themselves in the psychology of the people, and change it. But in what direction? Some members of society defend the old order, these are the static people. Others, to many of whom the old order is not profitable, want the new. Their psychology changes in the direction of those relations of production which in time will be sub- stituted for the old economic order. . . . Once this revolu- tion is accomplished a complete correlation of the psychology of society with that of economics is established. On the soil of the new economy flourishes the new psychology, and for a time the relation remains undisturbed; it even continues to perfect itself. But little by little new differences show them- selves : the psychology of the progressive class again outlives the old relations of production. Not ceasing to adapt itself to the economic background, it, however, again begins to adapt itself to the new scheme of production, which is the seed of the economics of the future.* " Cf. On the Question of the Development of a Monistic, etc., p. 147. ' Ibid., p. 152. Italics are Plekhanov's. ' Ibid., pp. 152-153. Italics are Plekhanov's. 2i6 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [216 The simplicity of this psychology is offset and compli- cated by the historical environment of every social aggre- gate. The historical environment of any one group is never entirely like that of other groups. This hetero- geneity of historical environment, plus the economic dif- ferences existing within the group, intensifies the class struggle which expresses itself through political and indus- trial organizations. The class struggle he regards as the realistic expression of abstract, dialectical materialism. Historically, it shows itself first in the disintegration of primitive communism, leading to inequality and to the rise of classes with different and often with conflicting interests. These classes are in and among themselves engaged in a continuous, hidden or open, struggle which reflects itself in their ideologies.^ Summarizing Plekhanov's theory of so- cial evolution ^ we see that, like all other animals, our pre-human ancestors were in the beginning in complete sub- jection to nature. Their development was brought about unconsciously through adaptation to environment and by means of natural selection. During this period we find no signs of self-consciousness and therefore no freedom; it is the reign of physical necessity. Somehow man began to dif- ferentiate from the rest of the animal world into a tool- making animal. Tools are artificial organs directed to- wards the subjection of environment to man's own interest. So gradually nature is more or less subdued to the con- scious will of man. The degree of the development of the productive forces conditions the extent of man's control over nature. These productive forces, in turn, are condi- tioned by the characteristics of geographic environment. In other words, nature furnishes man with the means for its own subjection. Man's struggle with nature is therefore ^Cf. ibid., p. 166. ' Cf. ibid., pp. 192, and 197-200. 2I7J THE OBJECTIVIST SCHOOL 217 a social one. The degree and nature of man's sociability is conditioned by the extent of the development of the pro- ductive forces which also condition the development of the structure of society. Geographic environment determines the rise of productive forces; hence it is antecedent to the development of the social structure. Once, however, certain social relations have come into being, their further develop- ment proceeds according to their own inner laws, the energy of which may hasten or retard the development of produc- tive forces which, in their turn, condition the historical de- velopment of mankind. Geographic environment acts now upon man through the medium of historic environment and greatly changes his direct relation to nature ; which varies at every stage of the development of the productive forces. The development of social environment according to its own laws, does not mean that the nature of such development depends upon the will and consciousness of the people. Whereas in the first stages of social evolution geographic environment dominated man, he is ruled now by a new slav- ery created by himself while utilizing his physical environ- ment. This new slavery is economic necessity, which increases directly with the growth of the productive forces, and is ac- companied by an ever-increasing complexity of social rela- tions. This new social process tends completely to es- cape social control, the producer appearing to be the slave of his own product.^ The logic of development of the pro- ductive and social relations leads man to realize the causes of his economic enslavement. Once conscious that the cause of his enslavement by his own product is brought about by the anarchy of production, the producer organizes his pro- duct, and in this manner subjects it to his own will. Here then ends the kingdom of necessity; freedom is sovereign, 1 Plekhanov illustrates this by the " anarchy " of capitalistic produc- tion. 2i8 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [218 liberty itself has become a necessity. The prologue of human history has been played, the individual has been set free and history proper begins. Thus the dialectic pro- cess shows how man shall come into his own. His future is bright, and furnishes no excuse for the pessimism towards which many disappointed idealists drift. These in brief, are Plekhanov's conclusions. His theory, by reason of its abstractness, may be a satisfactory hypo- thesis for a philosopher of history, but it does not satisfy a modern sociologist who is more interested in the proximate causes or antecedents of social phenomena than in their ulti- Jmate, all-determining causes. Plekhanov's criticism of the subjectivist school is little more than a criticism of philo- sophical presuppositions and is not directed against its socio- \/ logical superstructure, much of which was arrived at by an I inductive study of actually existing social facts. Plek- nanov's dialectic-monistic materialism, founded upon the Hegelian philosophy, is an a priori metaphysical presupposi- tion and may be charged with dogmatism. The monistic attitude towards the universe is not dictated by experience y of reality; it is, rather, that emotionalism which character- ized the mystic philosophy of Heraclites. Plekhanov's charges of dualism and eclecticism, there- fore, do not disturb the positivist sociologist who deals with facts and not with a priori presuppositions. Plekhanov ignores nearly everything accomplished by sociology from the days of Comte, and limits his criticism to the sociologi- cal thinking that preceded the rise of positivist sociology. So he over-emphasizes dialectics at the expense of the many achievements of science in biology and psychology. Plekhanov, however, has been of real service to the Russian social-political movement. His consistent appli- cation of the dialectical logic has saved him from the con- fusion and despair into which other factions in the Russian 219] THE OBJECTIVIST SCHOOL 219 revolution have been thrown, but we cannot credit him with having contributed anything of lasting value to sociology. 11. Lvov's Marxist Sociology Few of Plekhanov's pupils and followers have contributed anything of importance. Lvov's attempt to formulate a law of social evolution on Marxist lines may be mentioned.^ Lvov thinks Marx the Darwin of sociology. As Darwin discovered the law of the origin and evolution of species, so Marx discovered the fact which interprets the origin of the various species of society.^ This fact is the collective labor of mankind. Lvov discriminates it from the " divis- ion of labor " which is incoordinate and one-sided. He says : " Collective labor presupposes the combination of forces as well as their division." * So at the basis of so- cial life lies the fact of cooperation, which moves towards measurement and apportionment of the proceeds of labor and therefore yields a formulation of the concept of value. The laws of political economy are therefore basic. Upon them rest the quantitative phenomena of society which alone can make sociology an exact science. This quantitative ele- ment, according to Lvov, can be introduced solely in two ways : by means of the anthropologic-statistical methods and by means of a concept of value. And although the anthro- pologic-statistical method can be applied to other than economic phenomena they all depend upon economic need and therefore must be regarded as its superstructure and must be studied as such by sociology.* These conclusions are like those of Plekhanov; the criticism applied to Plekhanov's monism is applicable to the dependent theories of Lvov.*" ' In a book, The Social Law, Petrograd, 1899. ' Cf. ibid., p. 153. ' Ibid., p. 140. * Cf. ibid., pp. 155-157. ^ Cf. supra, p. 218. CHAPTER II The Neo-Marxists Struve and Tugan-Baronovsky I. The Theories of Peter Struve The widespread popularity of Marxism in Russia in the nineties waned rapidly during the first decade of the new century. The heresy in the orthodox school was caused by the revisionist movement among the German social demo- crats, and was also an outcome of the failure of the Rus- sian Revolution. Peter Struve, whose life and work are closely associated with the Marxian movement and the Russian Revolution, may be called the " Father " of the Neo-Marxists and Re- visionists of Russia. His writings fall into three periods: the Orthodox Marxist period, that of the transition from Marxism to Revisionism, and that in which he rejects Marxian dialectic materialism and returns to idealism and sociological subjectivism.' A brief analysis of Struve's sociological criticism of the Marxian social philosophy follows : Like Plekhanov, Struve is opposed to the populist and subjectivist sociologists who desire a special economic non- ' These three stages of development of Struve's ideas are most easily distinguished in the following writings: (i) "Critical Notes on the Questions of the Economic Development of Russia," Petrograd, 1894. (2) " Die Marxsche Theorie der Socialen Entwicklung," in Archiv fiir Sozialegesetsgebung und Statistik, 14 Band, Berlin, 1899. (3) " Ideas and Politics in Contemporary Russia," Moscow, igo6, and "The Intelligence and iRevolution," in Vekhy, Moscow, 1908, and other works. 220 [220 22 1 J THE NEO-MARXISTS STRUVE 22 1 capitalistic evolution of Russian society and who think the individual the important factor in progress/ Struve de- pends largely upon Simmel and Riehl's sociological and psy- chological generalizations, which he attempts to titilize in support of the Marxian sociological presuppositions. Struve believes that the exceptional individual may be disregarded as a factor in social evolution inasmuch as he is but the product of the social group. " The individ- ual," he says, " is but a form-expression whose content is ascertained by investigating the social group." ^ The group is the sum of the various interactions among individ- uals which are expressed objectively in custom, laws, char- acter, morality and religious conceptions.' The struggle between groups or classes is the inception of social evolution and the starting point for the sociologist.* Apart from his group the individual is nil, and so his ideas, apart from group facts, are of no importance as factors in social evo- lution. Struve says : " The idealists who moon over the preservation of the past are, in a sociological sense, a negli- gible quantity." ° Discarding the individual, and ideas, as factors, the way is prepared for the Marxian social philo- sophy. Struve also rejects the notion that the state has any crea- tive power ; he sees in it but an organization for purposes of order, controlled by the ruling classes and limiting its activi- ties to promoting their interests.® These interests are prin- cipally economic ; social classes express economic distinctions within a given social environment, and therefore the social progress of Russia does not depend upon the exceptional 1 Vide supra, p. 212 et seq. ' Critical Notes on the Question of the Economic Development of Russia, 1st ed., p. 40. ' Cf. ibid., p. 31. *Cf. ibid., p. 33. * Ibid., p. 71. ' Cf. ibid., p. 72. 222 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [222 individual or upon the maintenace of the peasant commune. It depends upon the increase and a more equal distribution of economic surplus, obtainable only through the medium of capitalistic production. He says : " Capitalism ... so- cializes not only the product but also the producer. It turns man into a truly social being through binding up his in- dividual existence by a thousand threads with the whole of the social organism." ^ Production on the large scale, requiring, as it does, many consumers, prepares the way for social reform, and organ- izes the masses by teaching them consciously to relate them- selves to the conditions of their existence. Then the psycho- social results of economic progress become, in their turn, new factors in the whole stream of economic and social progress. Capitalism, from the subjective ethical point of view, may appear a dread institution, with purposes of exploitation, but viewed objectively it would seem to be an important means of increasing the productive forces of society. " Hence," concludes Struve, " capitalism is not merely an evil but is also a powerful agent of cultural progress ; it is not merely a destructive factor but is also a creative force." ^ This in brief is Struve's Marxian sociological creed, some years later discarded as untenable. The introduction of Revisionist doctrines, characterized the second period of Struve's writings. His reaction to Neo-Marxian ideas may be found in his " Die Marxsche Theorie der Sozialen Entwicklung." * In this essay Struve sums up the Marjcian theories of social evolution. These ^ Critical Notes on the Question of the Economic Development of Russia, 1st ed., p. 106. 2 Ibid., p. 287. ' In Archiv fur Sosiale Gesetsgebung und Statistik, 14 Band, Berlin, 1899. This article called forth a heated controversy among the Russian Marxists whom Plekhanov answered at length in his Critique of Out Critics. 223] -^^^ NEO-MARXISTS STRUVE 223 are: (i) The theory of sociaHzation and concentration of production, and the theory of anarchy of production in capitaHstic society. (2) The theory of increasing misery, and the theory of expropriation of small capitalists through the great capitalists. (3) The theory of a socialistic mis- sion through an ever-increasing proletariat created by capi- talistic development. The proletariat, although kept in squalor, attains at the same time a social and political soli- darity which enables it to overthrow the capitalistic system and to establish in its place the socialistic regime.^ Struve observes that Marx based these theories upon conditions existing during the forties of the last century ; that the ten- dencies of capitalistic production then existing have since changed, and that at present, for example, there are no signs of any increase in the anarchy of production nor of any in- crease in the misery of the proletariat. In fact, none of the fundamental Marxian doctrines, as enumerated above, is borne out by actual conditions in the present state of society. Therefore Marxism has become a socialistic Utopia, and a pseudo science, having for its premises not facts but the Hegelian dialectical logic. Struve criticizes the dialectical logic of Hegel and Marx. His conclusion is that social evolution proceeds not by cataclysmical leaps of antagonistic opposites but rather by a gradual compromise and reform. Accordingly, the Marx- ian doctrine of revolutionary progress cannot be maintained in the face of historical facts.^ The transition of quantity ' Cf. p. 600. More detailed criticism of Marxian ideas has since been offered by Edward Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, London, 1909, and especially by Vladimir Simkhovitch, Marxism versus Socialism. New York, 1913. ^ " Soziale siege werden viel haufiger durch schrittweise Abschwach- ung der Wiederstande als durch revolutionare Aufhebung potenzier- ter Gegensatze errungen." Archiv fiir soisale Gesetzegebung, etc., vol. 14, 1899, p. 674. 224 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [224 into quality, which is the principle of dialectical progress, Struve rejects. The process by logical categories breaks down when epistemologically analyzed. He undertakes the analysis, with the aid of Schuppe and Kane.^ Struve con- cludes that dialectics must not be taken for the principle of evolution; that it is nothing but a method of logic tending towards an ontology.^ Therefore social evolution and dia- lectics have nothing in common; they merely confuse real issues with abstract far-fetched mental concepts. Thus step by step Struve abandoned the Marxian position. From a revolutionist he changed into a reformer. The ex- perience of the Russian revolution strengthened his new theoretic convictions, and at present he is again recasting his theory of society in order to harmonize it with his politi- cal and social practices.* His more recent writings reveal him as an idealist, almost a mystic. He belongs to the sub- jectivist school of sociology.* Emphasizing the importance of the individual in social evolution he agrees with Tolstoi that the political perfecting of society depends upon the edu- cation of the individual.^ He goes so far as to place the blame for the failure of the Russian Revolution upon the ' We regret that space does not permit our reproducing Struve's in- teresting analysis. A spirited reply was made by Plekhanov in his Critique of Our Critics. ^"Die 'Dialektik' ist eine auf einem bestimmten metaphysischen Prinzip — namlich auf der Identitat von Denken und Sein — auf-gebaute logische Methode. Die ' Dialektik ' macht somit die Logik zur On- tologie." Archiv fur sociale Gesetzgebung, etc., vol. 14, 1899, p. 687. ' Since the Russian Revolution (1906), Struve, like many other Marx- ists, abafldoned the socialist party for the Liberal-Constitutional-Demo- cratic or " Cadet " party. ■* By this vie do not mean that iStruve upholds the old populist hope of a non-capitalistic evolution of Russia. This doctrine is generally abandoned by all the neo-populists. ' Cf. P. Struve, Ideas and Politics in Contemporary Russia, Moskow, 1906, p. 10. 225] ^^^ NEO-MARXISTS STRUVE 225 " intellectuals' " lack of faith in God, and he exhorts the leaders of Russian society to adopt higher ideals and to improve their morals/ Here we see the once leading Marx- ist turning toward liberalism and mysticism. II. The Theories of Tugan-Baranovsky Among the objectivist Neo-Marxian sociologists Tugan- Baranovsky ^ appears to be the most scholarly and the most superior to partisan passions. He realizes the vagueness and the onesidedness of the Marxian system of social evolu- tion and attempts to improve upon it. He professes to adhere to the materialistic conception of history and ac- cepts as his psychological presupposition the voluntaristic psychology. He says : "The will to live directs the develop- ment of consciousness and not the contrary, — not that con- sciousness directs the will to live." * The practical interests of life determine what outer stimuli the organism shall respond to. " Therefore, from the biological point of view, consciousness is nothing else than the regulator of the move- ments of the organism. It is directed, in its turn, by the will to live." * He believes that this voluntaristic psychology which was in vogue in the nineteenth century, was adopted by Marx in his interpretation of social evolution. Marx, however, subjected all interests in life to one, that is, to the all-determining economic interest, responsible for the class struggle and for consequent changes in the structure and ^ Cf. P. Struve, " The Intelligence and Revolution," in Vekhy, Mos- cow, 1908. ^ Tugan-Baranovsky, one of the younger professors of Political Economy at Petrograd, is the author of a number of works on Eco- nomic Theory and History. His principal sociological work is The Theoretical Basis of Marxism, Petrograd, 1905. German Edition, Dunker and Humblat, Leipzig, 1905. ' The Theoretical Basis of Marxism, ist ed., p. 26. * Idem. 226 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [226 function of society. Tugan-Baranovsky analyses the mater- ialistic conception of history under three heads : ( i ) Man's needs or interests, as the dynamic force of social evolution, (2) Economics and the social life, and (3) The social classes and the class struggle. This order will be followed in the brief analyses of his views herewith given : 1. Man's Needs or Interests as the Dynamic Forces of Social Evolution According to Marx, all human interests are economic. Production is the one great dynamic force of social evolu- tion. Anything aiding in the process of production is a productive force. This, observes Tugan-Baronovsky, is too indiscriminate. He says : " What in this sense would not be a productive force? Religion, morals, science, the state, law, and many other things undoubtedly have a con- siderable influence upon social production and hence would have to be recognized as productive forces." ^ This vague- ness of the concept of productive forces endangers the in- tegrity of the whole materialistic interpretation of history. He therefore decides to analyse all existing categories of human interest and to estimate their relative importance. He says : " Since society is composed of separate individ- uals each of whom strives to satisfy his needs, therefore so- cial life and activity can have no other purpose than the satisfaction of the different needs of the separate individ- uals composing society." ^ These needs Tugan-Baranovsky resolves into five prin- cipal groups : ( 1 ) physiological needs for the immediate support of life and of the sense of pleasure ; (2) sexual needs; ' The Theoretical Basis of Marxism, ist ed., p. 2. 2 Ibid., p. 28. 227] ^^^ NEO-MARXISTS STRUVE 227 (3) sympathetic instincts and needs; (4) ego-altruistic needs; (5) needs not founded upon practical interests. ( 1 ) Needs of the first group are the psychological basis of the individual's life and are common to man and animals. As the satisfaction of needs for the preservation of life pro- duces a sense of pleasure, it stimulates increased consump- tion. Pleasure, however, is not always necessary for self- preservation. On the contrary, pleasure in excess actually harms the organism. The production of the necessaries of life, although prior to the development of such institutions as politics, religion, etc., is strongly influenced by them. For example, clothing was at first used not so much for the pre- servation of life as for decorative purposes. The posses- sion of clothing had great influence also in gaining control in politics and religion. Tugan-Baranovsky thinks that such an important economic institution as the domestica- tion of animals had its origin in the love of play with animals and in the pleasure of their companionship. Thus other motives besides those of material necessities had their influence in economic development.'^ Only a people freed from overwhelming fear of starva- tion can take part in the development of civilization. A certain degree of productive labor is a necessary pre-condi- tion of civilization, and a determining factor of social life. When, however, there is no ultimate danger of starvation, interests awaken in man which influence economic pro- duction.^ (2) Next to hunger the sexual needs command the great- est attention. But Tugan-Baranovsky does not account sexual love an important social factor. He says : " It is a mistake to see in love a social factor equal to ' hunger.' " ^ '■ Cf. ibid., pp. 30-31. " Cf. ibid., p. 32. ' Ibid., p. 35. 228 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [228 He thinks that the various forms of the family are deter- mined by economic conditions. Thus, for example, the matriarchal family is attributable to the working of the land by the woman while the men roam abroad as hunters or as shepherds. The criticism may here be offered that Tugan-Baranovsky, if substantially right in his criticism of Morgan's theory of the family, overlooks the important role that sexual differ- ences have played in determining the economic activities of the sexes, and therefore also the resulting family organiza- tion. The fact that the woman as mother was compelled to live a relatively settled life made the working of the soil by her near the campfire to be expected. And Tugan-Baran- ovsky fails to mention the metronymic family, which was common in primitive society and greatly differed from the matriarchal family if, indeed, the latter ever existed. (3) Tugan-Baranovsky holds that sympathetic feel- ings in human nature are as old as the race. Their source lies in parental love and in filial love, especially in the mother. Care of the infant develops altruistic feelings. The question arises whether these should be regarded as an important social force. This question is answered in the negative because " sympathetic feelings are only strong in relatively small groups of people." ^ Those persons who belong to the same social class, as a general rule, sympathize with one another more than do those belonging to different classes. In this manner there arises a class feeling which enters into close relationship with egotistic and ego-altruistic feelings ; and such class feel- ing then appears as one of the most powerful dynamic fac- tors in history. (4) The ego-altruistic feelings, the psychology of which ^ The Theoretical Basis of Marxism, ist ed., p. 38. 229] ^^^ NEO-MARXISTS STRUVE 229 was made clear by Spencer, underly all class feeling. The sense of solidarity is a complex feeling composed of various elements with a predominance of the egotistic and the ego-altruistic. It may be observed among social classes and it also dominates national feelings. The ambition for power and honor, with the sense of self-preservation and the thirst for pleasure, are the principal motives of human be- havior. " The struggle for power," says Tugan-Baran- ovsky, " has in the history of mankind the same importance as the struggle for existence." ^ Political and social history would look entirely different had ego-altruistic feelings not existed among men. (5) Practical interests although powerful in the life of man do not exhaust its content. He attaches importance to non-practical interests. The most general and simple of these he says is play, which to him is a pleasurable discharge of surplus energy and is as common among animals as among men.^ Our author believes that art had its origin in play, but that science, on the contrary, was at first the product of necessity, for the maintenance of life, and that only after having transformed practical life did it become an end in itself. Religion, he thinks the highest among human interests. Unlike other Marxists he sees in religion more than a means for practical selfish ends; there are many religious natures to whom religion is an end in itself, with the Deity as the highest good. He concludes that " Religion always was, and remains up to the present time, one of the most powerful of historical forces." ' We see that Tugan-Baranovsky deviates from the Marx- ist view in recognizing other human interests along with the economic interests as important social forces in a con- tinuous interaction within the social group. ^ The Theoretical Basis of Marxism, ist ed., p. 42. '' Cf. ibid., p. 43. ' Ibid., p. 50. 230 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [230 His theory of interests reminds one of the sociology of Ratzenhoffer, Labriola, and Small. It is possible that he received suggestions from them, although his classification of interests differs from theirs. II. Economics and the Social Life Man as a social being lives in a twofold environment, one spiritual, one material. The spiritual environment is produced by the social interaction of man upon man, but the association is possible only through the medium of a material environment. So the spiritual and the material are inseparable. Economy is simultaneously a material and a social process. Man changes his material environ- ment; this is the material aspect of economics. But at the same time man changes himself and other persons ; this is the social aspect of economics. Reasoning in this manner Tugan-Baranovsky looks upon the production and exchange of goods as belonging primarily to the material aspect of economy, while the distribution of goods presents essentially social aspects.^ He asks whether the complexity and the kaleidoscopic variation of psychic motives make a materialistic conception of history impossible ? His answer is that the materialistic system, after some reconstruction, may again become a useful tool of scientific investigation.^ The fallacy of Marxian historical materialism, he be- lieves, lies primarily in a wrong conception of economics, which by the Marxists is interpreted to include ever5rthing pertaining to the preservation of life, including food, cloth- ing, and shelter. Tugan-Baranovsky defines economics as " The coordination of human activity directed upon the outer world. — ^having for its end the creation of a material ' Cf. ibid., pp. 9 and 10. " Cf. ibid., p. S3. 231] THE NEO-MARXISTS STRUVE 23 1 environment necessary for the satisfaction of human needs." ^ Economic activity is always a means and never an end in itself; it is always directed upon the material, outer environment, conditioning our existence. The eco- nomic struggle is with most people not a struggle for exist- ence merely, but is rather for achievement, for power, for pleasure. Each phase of human interest, however, even the religious, has its economic aspects; for example, whole villages in Russia live by the painting of sacred images. Whatever province of social activity is under observation, we perceive that it is correlated with an economic activity. This, then, gives economics its central position in life. Says Tugan-Baranovsky : Lines of social activity, of the most varied kind, emerge like radii from the economic center. And the center is the only point of contact of all radii, touching each other only at the center. Thus, also, social economy is the only common ground, and it binds together all branches of social activity. Everything that happens at the center is reflected in all the radii. Therefore, any considerable change in social economy calls for corresponding changes along all lines of social labor.^ Himself commenting upon this illustration, he warns his readers not to make the mistake of considering social life as concomitant with economics, " for only at its starting point is the radius covered by the central ground; after that it radiates further and further away from it." ^ The continuous deviation of social activity from the economic base and a shifting of the center of gravity from the lower physiological needs to the higher spiritual interests, are the essence of social progress. As humanity advances so the social importance of the economic aspect correspondingly 1 The Theoretical Basis of Marxism, 1st ed., p. 54. ' Ibid., pp. 58-59. ° Idem. 232 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [232 diminishes.^ In this process the individual is gradually be- coming emancipated from the control of environment, and although society will always remain in a degree bound by economic determinism, yet increasingly it directs social evo- lution in an artificial, teleological process. This view, as is well known, is held by Lester Ward, while a gradual eman- cipation from the direct control of man's economic needs is also emphasized by Simon Patten. In this aspect of his theory of society Tugan-Baranovsky appears much more closely related to certain American sociologists than to Marx. III. Social Classes and the Class Struggle Monistic Marxism views the class struggle as a constant factor in the evolution of productive forces. Our author wants to determine whether there is an organic unity of these forces of social evolution, and whether the class struggle is of determining importance in history. Like the concept "productive forces," the concept "class" has been vaguely formulated by Marx. Tugan-Baranovsky thinks that Marx looked upon class phenomena through Hegelian spectacles, observing two phases of the develop- ment of social classes. At first the rising class appears as a class only when viewed in relation to other classes, and not as a class in itself (fiir sich). In the second phase of de- velopment it becomes a class in itself; this is its stage of maturity.^ Satisfied that the principal dififerentiating factor in the formation of classes is an economic one, Tugan- Baranovsky defines a social class " as a social group, the members of which find themselves in a like economic posi- tion towards an appropriation by one group of the surplus labor of another group, and who therefore have common economic interests and common antagonists." * ' Cf. ibid., pp. 60 and 68. » Cf. ibid., p. 16. ' Ibid., p. 17. 233] ^^^ NEO-MARXISTS STRUVE 233 If social classes were to be discriminated only upon an economic basis the intellectual class would not be a class in itself, because professional people in reality serve both the rich and the poor ; therefore the intellectuals are a special group without any definite class characteristics.^ In the light of this definition history in one of its aspects may be regarded as Marx views it, as a class struggle. Still history can not mean this only, since actual revolutionary struggles are relatively rare phenomena. However, when they do occur they are of determining importance. " In this sense," Tugan-Baranovsky concludes, " history is the history of class struggle, namely: the history of the gradual develop- ment of classes, of the appearance of class consciousness which leads to class struggle and social revolution.^ With this general formulation of the importance of class struggle, our author makes a closer analysis of the motives that result in class struggle. Tugan-Baranovsky disputed the Marxian theory that phy- sical need is the all-determining impulse toward economic, social and political activity. Self-preservation is supple- mented by other motives ; more people strive for wealth as a road to power, than for power as a road to wealth. More wars are waged for glory or power than for wealth. There- fore even wars should not be thought of as merely a form of class struggle. There are two forms of group struggle ( I ) the struggle of classes within a political unit, a struggle predominantly economic although the lust for power is also present; and (2) the struggle among political or national units, which is to a great extent provoked by the desire for power and glory. The economic and the political powers, however, are intricately related and mutually de- pendent.* ^ The Theoretical Basis of Marxism, p. 20. * Ibid., p. 22. ' Cf. ibid., pp. 76 and 77. 234 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [234 To interpret the higher realms of human interest, includ- ing science, philosophy, art, morals and religion, the theory of class interests is evidently inadequate. " Class interests," says Tugan-Baranovsky, " are not a criterion of good- ness, of truth or of beauty. Human history is some- thing infinitely higher than a mere struggle by social groups for the means of life." ^ Thus Tugan-Baranovsky rejects the attempts of Feuerbach, and Marx and Engels to reduce ethics, art and religion to a utilitarian level. If that could be done the class struggle could not be viewed as determining, nor as coordinate with the economic basis of history, which is related ^ to every social activity. He be- lieves that those Marxists who try to reduce the higher realm to a utilitarian economic level, in order to preserve the monistic integrity of their system, are proceeding from false premises and will find themselves contradicted by the real facts of history. Social groups struggle not only for the means of life, but also for power; and even this struggle does not exhaust the content of history, since it does not cover the higher realms of human activity. Class struggle is limited to the realms of eco- nomic interests. Furthermore, since the economic interest is not the only human interest, the antagonism of the economic classes does not lead to antagonism within the whole social life. " Therefore," concludes our author, " the doctrine of the class struggle is a false application of generalizations true within a partial sphere of phenomena, but not true of the whole province of human history." * Tugan-Baranovsky's analysis of the Marxian sociology, and the formulation of his own theories, do away with the ' The Theoretical Basis of Marxism, p. 82. 2 Cf. infra, p. 231. » Ibid., p. 87. 235] ^^-^ NEO-MARXISTS STRUVE 235 materialistic monism for which the Russian Marxists, es- pecially Plekhanov, fought so valiantly yet so hopelessly. Although Tugan-Baranovsky calls himself a materialistic objectivist, his conclusions differ little from the generaliza- tions of the subjectivist school. They all concede an eco- nomic determinism in the earlier stages of social evolution, and only yvhen an economic surplus is in store see society progressing teleologically, under the direction of exceptional individuals. Tugan-Baranovsky does not discuss the role of the in- dividual, and therefore we do not know his attitude towards one important doctrine of the subjectivists, but in his other generalizations he differs from them but little. CHAPTER III Russian Anarchist and Revolutionist Sociology (the theories of kropotkin and Chernov) /. Kropotkin' s Anarchical Sociology Akin to the subjective sociology are the sociological theories of the Russian " philosophical anarchists". The earliest of the Russian anarchist theorizers was Bakunin, who, although not without influence upon the develop- ment of the more recent anarchist writers, was chiefly important as one of the precursors of the subjectivist sociology, and his views were therefore discussed in the setting of his time. Related to Bakunin's principles of anarchy are the theories of Russia's most scholarly anarchist, Kropotkin.' A trained scientific man, he seeks to give to anarchism a scientific basis and an established sociological bearing. Philosophically Kropotkin is a positivist and an empiri- ' Prince Peter Alexseyevitch Kropotkin (1842 — ) is well known through his autobiographical sketches, "The Memoirs of a Revolu- tionist." Although educated as an aristocrat and at one time an officer in the Russian army, in 1872 he joined the Revolutionists. He was arrested in 1874 and escaped in 1876 ; since when he has lived in Wes- tern Europe. He is known as scientist, historian and agitator. His sociological theories are found in his "Mutual Aid", "Conquest of Bread," and in numerous pamphlets and magazine articles. Kropotkin, although for many years resident in Western Europe, still stands in close and vital relation to Russian thought and ideals. He reflects some of the ideas of Lavrov, Chernishevsky, and Mikhalovsky and agrees in general with the populists as to the possibility of a Rus- sian peasant commune of the future. 236 [236 237] RUSSIAN ANARCHIST 237 cist. To him "natural law" is nothing more than a certain relation among phenomena which we dimly see, and each " law " takes a temporary character of causality. " This," he explains, "is to say: if such a phenomenon is produced under such conditions, such another phenome- non will follow. No law is placed outside phenomena : each phenomenon governs that which follows it . . . not law.' " A social phenomenon demands no other conception of law than any other phenomenon, therefore the methods of social science are the same as the methods of natural science. Anarchism, which our author defines as " the no-gov- ernment system of socialism "," he believes is to come about as a result of the trend of all social evolution. All history is but a continuous struggle " between the coop- erating standardized group and the self-asserting group of individuals." 3 This evolutionary struggle is at times slow and calm, but at other times violent. " Revolution is only an es- ' Anarchism : its Philosophy and Ideal, San Francisco Free Society Library no. 8, 1898, p. 6. 'Anarchist Communism: its basis and principles, third ed. London, 1897, p. I. Elaborating this definition he says: " In common with all socialists the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, cap- ital and machinery has had its time ; that it is condemned to disappear ; and that all requisites for production must and will become the common property of society and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organi- zation of society is a condition of things where the functions of govern- ment are reduced to a minimum and where the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying by means of free groups and federations . . . freely constituted ... all the infinitely varied needs of the human being." ^Mutual Aid, p. 295. Cf. also The State : Its Historic Role , London, 1898, p. 42 238 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [238 sential part of evolution : in nature no evolution is accom- plished without revolutions. Periods of very slow changes are succeeded by periods of violent changes. Revolutions are as necessary for evolution as are the slow changes which prepare them and succeed them."^ Kropotkin views everything as being in a state of moving equilibrium. Harmony, however, is usually but a temporary adjustment, established among all forces act- ing upon a given spot. Let but one of those forces be hampered in its action for some time, and harmony disappears. Force will accumulate its effect ; it must come to light, it must exercise its action, and if other forces hinder its manifestation it will not be annihilated by that, but will end by upsetting the present adjustment, by destroying harmony, in order to find a new form of equilib- rium.'' Accordingly, the revolutions of history are to be viewed in the light of necessary adaptations; anarchistic society is approaching, and must break down the obstacles to its realization. Kropotkin regards society as " a grand total, organized to produce the greatest possible result of well-being with the smallest expenditure of human strength." ^ It is " an aggregation of organisms trying to find out the best ways of combining the wants of the individual with those of cooperation for the welfare of the spe- cies."" Society is not an artificial product ; it is older than ^Revolutionary Studies, London, 1892, p. 9. ^Anarchism : its Philosophy and Ideal, p. 6. Cf. Les temps nouveaux , Paris, 1894, p. 12-13. ^Revolutionary Studies, p. 24. * Anarchist Communism: its Basis and Principles, p. 4. 239] RUSSIAN ANARCHIST 239 the human species, and our author takes great pains to trace its origin to its earliest sources, and he also at- tempts to determine what are the dynamic forces that have created it, and that are bidding it advance towards the ideal of anarchism. According to Kropotkin all social aggregates, whether animal or human, are held together by the sense of sym- pathetic oneness of each individual with each and with all. Man is appealed to and is guided in his acts, not merely by love, which is always personal, or at best tribal, but by the perception of his oneness with each human being.^ This sense of oneness or solidarity may be at the stage of instinct, as among animals; or it may have become the sense of justice which ultimately brings the human being to regard the rights of every other individual as equal to his own. Each individual is a unit who is independent, it is true, but who can survive and progress better by federating himself with other units and by practicing mutual aid. Our author sees traces of this principle throughout the whole universe. He says : "With the astronomer we perceive that solar sys- tems are the work of infinitely small bodies; that the power which was supposed to govern the system is itself but the result of the collisions among those infinitely tiny clusters of matter; that the harmony of stellar sys- tems is harmony only because it is an adaptation, a resul- tant of all these numberless movements uniting, complet- ing, equilibrating, one another.^ The principle of federation, already perceptible in the inorganic world, is in a greater degree apparent in life. Science to-day takes for its unit not the species but the individual. ' Mutual Aid, p. 300. Italics are mine. Cf. also p. xiii, xiv. "^Anarchism: its Philosophy and Ideal, p. 4. 240 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [240 A species will be what the individuals are, each undergoing numberless influences from the surroundings in which they live, and to which they correspond each in his own way ; and when the physiologist speaks now of the life of a plant or of an animal he sees rather an agglomeration, a colony of mil- lions of separate individuals, than a personality one and indi- visible . . . The individual is quite a world of federations, a whole universe in himself.' Even each microscopic cell is " a world of autonomous organisms, each of which lives its own life, looks for its well-being for itself and attains it by grouping and asso- ciating itself with others." ' In such manner man is nothing but a resultant, an al- ways changeable one, of all his divers faculties, of all his autonomous tendencies, of brain cells and nerve centers. All are related so closely to one another that each reacts on all of the others, but each leads its own life without being subordinated to a central organ — the soul.3 Thus, first the sense of oneness or of solidarity of the individual with his species, and secondly a federated co- operation through mutual aid rather than individual con- flicts, have been, in Kropotkin's view, chief factors in creating society. If it were not for this assocation " the most advanced being upon earth would still be one of those tiny specks swimming in the water, and scarcely percep- tible under a microscope. Or would even these exist? For are not the earliest aggregations of cellules them- selves an instance of association in the struggle?"'* In " Mutual Aid ", Kropotkin adduces many illustra- ^ Anarchism : Its Philosophy and Ideal, p. 5. '^ Idem. 'Cf. ibid., pp. 5-6. 'Kropotkin, Anarchist Morality, San Francisco Free Society Library No. 4, 1898, p. 12. 241 ] RUSSIAN ANARCHIST 241 tions of the principle, viewed as the causal factor of evo- lution ; and he concludes that in animal and in human society only those who have practiced mutual aid have survived, and are prepared for further progress, while inner struggles within the species are concomitant with retrogressive development. The periods when institu- tions have been based on mutual aid have made the greatest progress in arts, industry, and science. ^ Mutual aid tends towards communism. Communistic organization cannot be the product of a minority, nor can it be imposed from above. " It must be the work of all, a natural growth, a product of the constructive genius of the great mass."^ Communism must be free from centralized control. " It cannot exist without creating a continuing contract among all, for the thousands and thousands' of common transactions; it cannot exist without creating local life, independent in the smallest units." ' Communism is therefore most favorable for individual development and freedom. Communistic individualism is not a war of each against all, it is an opportunity for a " full expansion of man's faculties, the superior development of whatever is original in him, the greatest fruitfulness of intelligence, feeling and will." ■• Kropotkin believes that in social evolution the com- munistic tendency is present; and that in every civili- ^ Mutual Aid, p. 296. It may be noticed here that Kropotkin does not disregard struggle as a factor in evolution, but lie emphasizes the group struggle. Besides he thinks that Darwinism has been over-em- phasized and by his theory of " mutual aid" he wishes to add an im- portant factor overlooked by Darwinian evolutionists. Cf. his introduc- tion to Mutual Aid. ^Anarchism: its Philosophy and Ideal, p. 20. ^ Idem. * Idem. 242 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [242 zation social disintegration and decay have followed the centralized state. The communistic tendency of social evolution ex- presses itself in two ways. First, there is a tendency towards integrating labor for the production of all riches in common, so as finally to render it impossible to discriminate the part of the com- mon product attributable to the single individual. ' All wealth is a social product of many generations ; " nearly every new machine is a synthesis, a result of thousands of partial inventions."' Secondly, there is "a tendency towards the fullest freedom of the individual in the prosecution of all aims, beneficial both to himself and to society at large." ^ The ideal of the anarchist is therefore but "a mere summing up of what he considers to be the next plan of evolution." "• Kropotkin studies history to trace the development of tendencies and to determine in what form of organ- ization the communistic ideal has been established. The first form of social organization was tribal, and the communal ties were kinship and the worship of common ancestors? The savage identifies his interests with those of his tribe. He is no individualist. His law is the custom of the group to which he adheres, and is to him a matter of habit and usage. "Without social feeling and usages, life in common would have been absolutely impossible."* ^Anarchist Communism: its basis and principles , p. 4. ^Ibid., p. IS. ^Ibid., p. 4. * Idem. * Cf. The State : Its Historic Role, p. 8. Also Mutual Aid, ch. iii. '" Law and Authority," San Francisco Free Society Library, no. i, 1898, p. 8. 243] RUSSIAN ANARCHIST 243 Kropotkin believes that only customary law should be tolerated by society. All modern law he condemns as being " born of violence and superstition, and established in the interests of consumer, priest and rich exploiter; it must be utterly destroyed on the day when the people shall desire to break its chains." ' Tribal ties were broken and peoples were disaggregated when climatic changes drove them to migration and into conflict. At this time the paternal family sprang up, with the kidnapping of women from neighboring tribes or taking them as spoils of war. The kinship ties, once broken, were succeeded by a new common principle, namely, the communal possession of land. " The pos- session in common of a certain territory, of certain valleys, plains or mountains, became the basis of a new agreement. Ancient gods had lost all meaning; and the local gods of a valley, river or forest, gave the religious consecration to the new agglomeration, substi- tuting themselves for the gods of the tribe." ° The village commune conducted its social affairs by its own customs, which become law : " the plenary council of all chiefs of families — men and women — was judge, the only judge in civil and criminal societies.^ All other social needs were met by voluntary societies, as fraternities or guilds. The free city, known in ancient civilization and devel- oped at its best during the middle ages, takes its origin in a combination of the village community with the numerous fraternities and guilds that were constituted outside territorial unions. " It was a federation of these ' " Law and Authority." op. cit., p. 12. ' The State : its Historic Role, p. 8. ^Ibid., p. 9. Cf. Mutual Aid, ch. iv. 244 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [244 two kinds of unions, developed under the protection of the fortified enclosure and the turrets of the city." ' " In these cities, — under the shelter of their liberties acquired through the impulse of free agreement and free initiative, — a whole new civilization grew up and attained to such expansion, that the like has not since been seen." " Kropotkin is convinced that federation, the free com- mune and a free city are the culminating forms of social organization, and that the policy of centralization pur- sued by the state is a dangerous menace and a sure sign of decay. The Greek clan, with a large initiative which was left to the individual and the group by means of the federal principle, gave to mankind the two greatest periods of history — the ancient Greek city and the Mediaeval city periods ; while the ruin of the above institutions during the State periods of his- tory, which followed, corresponded in both cases to a rapid decay.' In the communal institutions of the ancient and the mediaeval periods there was struggle for the attainment and the maintenance of the liberty of the individual, for the principle of federation, for the right to unite and to act. Mutual aid gave them the victory. And when these federal institutions did collapse, it was because of their failure to widen the area of their mutual aid and of federation. Kropotkin enumerates three specific reasons for the decay of the mediaeval free city : ( i ) the burgers held in subjection the " inhabitants " i. e., the strangers and new comers and also the peasant ; (2) they turned to trading at the expense of tilling the soil, thus creating ' The State: its Historic Role, p. 14. 'Ibid., p. 18. ^ Mutual Aid, p. 297. 245] RUSSIAN ANARCHIST 245 a plutocracy in their community; and (3) they adopted the hierarchical teaching of Rome, the one power.' These conditions gave an opportunity for the develop- ment of the modern state. Against it Kroptokin is bitter. He sees in it nothing but " an institution devel- oped in the history of human societies to hinder union among men, to obstruct the development of local initia- tive, to crush existing liberties and to prevent their restoration." ' The state cannot tolerate customary law ; it demands personal and direct submission, it requires equality ni servitude, " it cannot allow the state within the state." ' Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Palestine, Greece, Rome started to their destruction when they adopted the institution of the political state. On the ruins of the Roman empire, tribes, — Celtic, Ger- manic, Slavonian and Scandinavian, — began civilization anew. Slowly the primitive tribe elaborated its institutions and reached the village commune. It remained at that stage until the twelth century. Then there arose the republican cities which produced the glorious expansion of the human mind, attested by the monuments of architecture, by the noble development of the arts, by the discoveries that laid the basis for the natural sciences. But then came the state .... Will it again produce death ? — of course it will, unless we reconsti- tute society on a libertarian and anti-state basis.* Kropotkin believes that to construct society upon an anti-state basis it is necessary to have " solidarity and equality of all." ^ ' Cf. ibid., p. 215-221. ' The State : its Historic R6le, p. 39. ^Ibid., p. 32. ^Ibid., p. 42. "Revolutionary Studies, p. 22. 246 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [246 This can be attained by the activity of an enlightened minority, who by education and by directing revolutions can free humanity from its bondage, and can permit it to continue its natural development. Initiative, free individual initiative, and the possibility of each making: use of that force at the time of a popular uprising, that is what has always made the irresistible power of revolu- tions. If revolutions have accomplished something: in the past, that is entirely due to men and women of initiative, to the obscure persons springing out of the crowd not tearing to assume, face to face with their brethern and the tuture, the re- sponsibility of acts considered madly rash by the timid} Since the masses follow the precedents of the past it is difficult to discover the men of initiative in every- day life. " But they arise in numbers in revolutionary times and it is they, in reality, who do the enduring work of revolutions."^ This, in brief outline, is the sociological foundation of Kropotkin's system of anarchy. It contains doubtless many ingenious and true ideas. He credits Adam Smith with suggesting to him the principle of mutual aid and the consciousness of sympathetic solidarity, which gave rise to society, and which he believes were its greatest dynamic forces throughout the process of social evolution.^ It seems strange, however, that Kropotkin, who is a careful scientist, ■* and who arrives at the conclusion that '^Revolutionary Studies, p. 28. Italics are Kropotkin's. ^Idem. ' Kropotkin says that he received these suggestions when reading Adam Smith's "Theory of the Moral Sentiments." He says, " Adam Smith's only failure was that he did not understand that this same feeling of sympathy, in its habitual stage, exists amongst animals as well as amongst men." Kropotkin, Anarchist Morality, p. 11. ' Cf. for example his inductive study of " Fields, Factories, and Work- 247] RUSSIAN ANARCHIST 247 human progress is real and that it consists in social soli- darity with complete freedom of individual initiative,' should be so impatient with our present civilization and so bitter against it. If humanity is progressing at all, it is progressing slowly, and in spite of the anarchist's impatience it will continue to progress only slowly. Kropotkin places himself in a dilemma when he asserts that the state is the rule of an arbitrary minority, " while affirming also that " revolutions are made by minorities. " ^ If this be true, as no doubt it is, it means nothing more than that heretofore, almost every society has been ruled by a powerful minority. In tribal communism, in the free city, and in modern political democracies — every- where — society exhibits the feudal relation of the " ben- efit" and the "commendation." This has recently been made clear by Professor Giddings, in his theory of " pro- tocracy," in which he traces the psychological origin of the state. He says : " A more vigorous and complex common reaction, and a livelier consciousness of kind manifested by some individuals than by others, make the dynamic men a ruling group, which converts society into the state."* Every dynamic person attracts others who serve him shops," new, revised, and enlarged edition, New York, 1913, where he arrives at the conclusion that we are entering upon a period of indus- trial and agricultural decentralization. ' ' ' The greatest intensity of life is to be found in the greatest socia- bleness, in the most complete identification of oneself with others . . . never at any epoch, historical or geological, have individual interests been in opposition to those of society. From all time they have re- mained identical, and those who have best understood this have always enjoyed the completest life." Kropotkin, Anarchist Morality, p. 23. ^ Cf. The Stage, p. 22. ' Revolutionary Studies, p. 5. * Franklin H. Giddings, Sociology Outline, 1914, p. 4. 248 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [248 for the protection and benefits which he grants them. This is the psychology of the feudal relationship existing in every stratum of society and of the state. Revolutions will always be a failure if they are expected to introduce the millennium. At its best a revolution only makes room for another minority, but one less arbitrary and less exploiting, whose conduct is better usually only because of fear of being thrown over by a succeeding revolution or by a popular election. In the last analysis the realization of a pure democracy, such as Kropotkin calls for, is an ethical problem. It presupposes the willingness of the naturally stronger to yield his power voluntarily for the benefit of the naturally weaker. This our author feels but he does not clearly realize. If he did, he would not proclaim force as the means of attaining complete democracy, or ideal anarchy, as he prefers to call it. As long as men react dififerently in feeling, thinking and action there will be leaders and followers, and governors and governed. Kropotkin's idea of non-centralized federated society is not so remote from reality as our author may himself believe it to be. The United States of America, the Swiss Federal Republic, and other states, are exemplifying it to a degree that proves its actual practicability. The suggestion in " Mutual Aid " that the more we cooper- ate the more rapidly shall we approach the goal of demo- cratic perfection is of great importance. On the other hand, Kropotkin's scientifically unfounded radicalism is but another example illustrative of the sad conditions arising from the struggle of Russian democracy with its arbitrary autocracy. It is these conditions that have made Russian sociology peculiarly " Russian " and Kropotkin's sociology is no exception. 249] RUSSIAN ANARCHIST 249 //. Chernov's Revolutionary Sociology Midway between the Marxist sociologists and the Communist anarchists we must place the Russian Social Revolutionists. Chernov' attempts to work out the philosophical and sociological bearings of the social revo- lutionist movement. He starts from the Russian sub- jectivists, Lavrov and Mikhalovsky, and attempts to synthetize them with the Marxist economic ideas. In its epistemological aspect he utilizes the empirical criti- cism of Avenarius, of Mach, and especially of Riehl, whereas his sociological theories are strongly influenced by Simmel and Ward. He aims to develop an active, dynamic sociology which he calls " the scientific equiva- lent of practical revolutionary socialism." ° /. Chernov s Philosophical and Methodological Presuppositions The Marxian dialectics could not avail for Chernov's revolutionary socialism of direct action. He therefore seeks not only to explode the " Marxian Myth, but also to state the concepts of a synthetic social revolutionary philosophy of life uniting a theoretical realism with an existing, active practical idealism." 3 Materialism and idealism he believes are being fused, "as in the organic life of man is found the mechanical action of the brain with the conscious work of thought and feeling." "t 'Victor Mikhailovitch Chernov (1873—) is one of the principal organizers of the more recent revolutionary movements. He has been jailed many times, and has spent three years in exile. Famous as propo- gandist and editor, he has contributed appreciably to the theoretical and sociological studies of revolutionary theories. Cf. supra, pt. i, Ch. i. ^ Philosophical and Sociological Etudes, Moscow, 1907, p. 379. '■Ibid, p. 3. "^ Ibid, p. 296. 250 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [250 Chernov attempts to disprove the old fallacy of " cause " and " effect " as independent agents. Experience knows nothing but antecedents and sequences. We know " no relation of an active agent to a passive reaction, but simply a relation of a fact to the whole." ' The " functional "view, so successfully developed in the study of mechanics, biology and psychology, should be utilized also in sociology.^ Social phenomena being too complex, induction is not adequate, therefore deduction may legitimately be employed. Chernov, starting with Lavrov and Mikhalovsky, adopts and develops their theory of the " Subjective Method" in sociology. He asserts that a sociological investigation as compared with one in the realm of natural science, has this peculiar feature, that it requires " adding to the objectively constructed combinations, further con- structions out of materials from the inner, subjective, psychological world." ^ Without this addition he believes it impossible to un- derstand sociological phenomena. In the science of man and human society, where the investigating subject makes himself also the object of the investigation, both subjective and objective psychological phenomena must be recognized and harmoniously united. The method for the study of this combination of objective and subjective phenomena he calls the "subjective method."* With this subjectivism in mind Chernov dififerentiates the problems of sociology. The first problem is the investigation of values and their re-evaluation for the purpose of deriving a formula of progress. To be ^Philosophical and Sociological £tudes, p. 302. ^ Cf. ibid., pp. 307-309. ^ Idem. ^Idem. 25 1 ] RUSSIAN ANARCHIST 251 Strictly scientific, the formula " must be founded prim- arily upon the psychology of interest." ' It will furnish also "a theory of normal, healthy, har- monious satisfaction of interests." " Such is the subjective-psychological aspect of sociology as distinguished from arbitrary subjectivism. Chernov lays down three rules which, when applied in harmony with all other requirements of logic and scien- tific methodology, " will raise the inevitable human sub- jectivism to a scientifically regulated means of thinking, that is, to a subjective (or subjective teleological) method of thinking." ^ Chernov's three rules are as follows: "(i) Utilize elements which constitute the inner subjective world of the investigator in order to construe out of them, — on the basis of similarities to subjective phenomena or of differences from them, — the subjective psychological world of other persons. (2) Construct rationally an ideal of normal social life, which shall present the highest unity of all active tendencies and interests of the human mind; the concrete content of the ideal being conditioned by scientific knowledge of the relation between the subjective requirements of man and the objective means of satisfaction. (3) Utilize this ideal as a criterion for (a) the classification of social phenomena according to the degree of their importance, and (b) the evaluation of phenomena and their division into progressive or regressive, normal or pathological, healthy or ailing. The ideal appears here as the formula of progress."* To Chernov the second great problem of sociology is the study of social forms, — economic, judicial and polit- ' Philosophical and Sociological Etudes, Moscow, 1907, p. 214. ''Idem. 'Ibid., p. 239. *Ibid., p. 238. 252 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [252 ical institutions and forms, and of their relation to the healthy normal development of the individual.' Chernov does no more than outline these problems of sociology. He proceeds next to make a critical analysis of men's various views upon the social process, and finally he presents his own view. //. Chernov's Theory of the Social Process Chernov thinks it a futile task to search for a pri- mum agens of social changes. The historical process is not the result of any one force. He asserts that sociol- ogists who have attempted to reduce the social process to the influence of economics, or of law or ideologies have failed, and have been guilty of forging statements or pres- entations to fit the theory. Such were the Comtian and Hegelian schools which postulated the intellectualistic view. Marx, Engels and their following swung the pen- dulum the other way, rejecting ideologies and attempting to explain all historical changes by means of man's ma- terial and economic interests. Reaction to a one-sided monism brought in the eclectic attempts of more recent sociologists who have wished to establish a synthetic theory of the interaction of social factors. Yet, after all, the " interaction " is but a convenient formula, pretend- ing to solve everything, while in fact giving no exact, clear, or determinate view of the nature or the mechanism of social development.'' To such vagueness our author prefers an honest con- fession of "we do not know."^ There are no separate intellectual, economic, or judicial processes. There are only social processes, which have those aspects. They may be discriminated, separated for 'C/. ibid., p. 214. ^Ibid., p. 27s. ^Idem. 253] RUSSIAN ANARCHIST 253 purposes of abstraction, but in fact they are inextricably interrelated. So every economic relation embraces both law and physical relations. "When our attention is directed upon the formal aspect of human relations, we have before us a coordination of forms of law, or judi- cial structure ; but when it is directed upon the objective realistic aspect we have production, exchange and distri- bution of material products, in a word, the material culture of society. Finally, there is the inner, subjective aspect, which gives us status of education, mental asso- ciation, literature, and the moral norm ; in brief, the social ideology, or psychology. In this manner, from three dif- ferent points of view, there are opened up to us three aspects of social development, — the formal or normal, the objective-realistic or material, and the subjective or psychological.' This view of the social process Chernov likes to call the "historical monistic," or "the realistic conception of history." = This historic monism is not one-sided ; " it is an all- sided, synthetic monism."^ Economics, law, and ideologies cannot be the " cause" of the historic process, since they are themselves the products of it. Therefore the principles whereby the his- toric process may ultimately be interpreted, can be found only in elements that precede history.""* The prehistoric elements are natural environment and man; the natural environment as the objective factor and man as a unique biological type that developed pe- culiar characteristics through the struggle for existence ^Philosophical and Sociological Btudes, Moscow, 1907, p. 279; cf. also pp. 368-369. ^ Cf. ibid., p. 278 and 371. ^ Ibid., p. 37i- '^Ibid., p. 368. 254 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [254 in prehistoric times. These are the origins from which the sociologist and the historian must start. " In the interaction of natural environment with the quantitative and qualitative growth of man may be found the origin of the social process." ' Man, then, is not a passive element exposed to the actions of nature. Man is not at all a tabula rasa, upon which outer objective conditions and forces may freely write anything that they may desire. Man is also a complete power of nature, presenting: in himself one of the highest complex combinations of the ele- mentary forces of nature ; like every other force he possesses his own definite inner laws of self-activity, and he manifests a definite coordination of active tendencies.^ So Chernov sees in man himself the major dynamic force of history. Interacting with natural environment, he creates an artificial environment or culture, so-called. In this secondary environment various cultural types are formed. Differences depend, on the one hand, upon the concrete differences of natural environment, and on the other hand, upon the different racial peculiarities of people or tribe. Institutions and ideologies, in their turn, are " equally productive." ' These various social forces are produced by man under the direct or indirect influences of natural environment. They should not be placed one over against the other. None of them is an ultimate cause of the other. They are each and all but aspects of the same social process, presenting in themselves the content of the realistic con- ception of history. Such in brief is Chernov's dynamic and monistic theory ^Philosophical and Sociological £tudes, Moscow, 1907. 'Ibid., p. 364. 'IMd., p. 368. 255] RUSSIAN ANARCHIST 255 of society. It is " functional psychology " applied to social life. Feelings and the will appear in this process as the dynamic forces, and the intellect as the directive force. With all the other Russian subjectivists Chernov strives to defend the strong individual and, at the same time, to protect social solidarity from disintegration. He realizes that the relation of these two elements in society can be made satisfactory only through a proper conception of ethics. We cannot discuss exhaustively the ethical aspect of Chernov's monism. He wishes on the one hand to get away from the utilitarian point of view, and, on the other hand, to do away with the " categorial imperative " of abstract Kantian metaphysics. Like Lavrov he at- tempts to arrive at a social and realistic imperative as a guide to the individual in his relation to society. He says : An ideal can and must be the supreme criterion of all human values. Only its commands can in the role of the supreme imperative withstand the voice of separate instincts, affections and interests, because it is the highest unit of all ; everything else in relation to it is of a lower order and has no right to existence as an independent entity, self-sufficient, and equal. And this is why man who has developed up to the critical scientifically-disciplined mind can evaluate social phenomena only from the view point of an ideal. ' To determine the highest ideal is the task of sociology. The ideal must be one to satisfy all the normal instincts and interests of man. While Chernov at the task of determining the ideal, does not wholly divest his work of old utilitarian maxims, his efifort to establish ethics upon a sociological basis is ' Philosophical and Sociological Etudes, Moscow, 1907, p. 213. 256 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [256 commendable, and is in harmony with the general modern trend of the science of morals. In evaluating Chernov's sociological work we find that it shows an advance over that of the older subjectivists. Its theories have a sounder philosophical (epistemologi- cal) basis and they are brought into line with modern functional psychology. But Chernov's sociological theor- ies are scarcely more than general outlines, and it would be well were they more fully developed. Slight as are his services to sociology at large, Chernov's efiforts to give the Russian revolutionary socialists a positive dy- namic sociology have been more successful. He guar- antees success to the efforts of enterprising individuals, by freeing his sociology from dialectical materialism, which denies the importance of the individual in the social process. Chernov's sociology, however, has the qualities of the earlier subjectivists. Although closely related to the thinking of many foreign sociologists it is first and foremost " Russian Sociology," and as such it has a limited value for sociology at large. CHAPTER IV The Juristic and the Historical-Genetic Schools of Russian Sociology the contributions of korkunov and kovalevsky /. The Contributions of Korkunov and Kovalevsky Independent of the current social-political movements which have so strongly influenced other schools of Rus- sian sociology, stand the Juristic and the Historico-genetic schools. They began their work early in the seventies and still are yielding valuable contributions. The repre- sentatives of this branch of Russian sociology are without exception scholars from the great Russian Universities of Moscow and Petrograd. Their interest in sociology was aroused through their eflforts to find a positive and scien- tifically sound basis for the theory of law and politics, which heretofore had taken its premises from the axioms of metaphysics. Already Sergeyevitch,' in his doctor's dissertion, " Prob- lem of the Political Sciences" (1871), had sought by the aid of Comte, as authority, to rid the theory of politics of dogmatic presuppositions and to establish its premises upon facts inductively obtained by sociology from a study of the forms of organized society. This earher attempt was further developed by Mu- ' Vasily Ivanovitch Sergey evitch, Professor of Law in the Petrograd University (1872-1899) . Author of many books and articles on law and politics. He was one of the first to make a study of the ancient Rus- sian popular assembly, the Vecha. 257] 2S7 258 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [258 romtzev ' who, realizing the isolated position of law among the other social sciences, demanded that law should be studied in close relation to all other aspects of social life. He wanted to have the historic-compar- ative studies of ancient and modern institutions utilized for this purpose, and also the history of the development of the theory of law. He makes a rigorous distinction between " law " in its judicial and in its scientific sense. The former stands for a principle, which, whatever may be its origin, is by no means the same thing as a scien- tific relation or law. Social laws are not necessarily identical with existing moral and judicial norms. Mu- romtzev did not live to develop fully the sociological aspects of his theory of law, but his suggestions were taken up by others, and among these Korkunov is the most important. Korkunov influenced by Muromtzev, developed a theory of law based upon sociological premises. To get the true sources of law and to establish its proper func- tioning in society Korkunov attempted to make, with the aid of sociology, a study of the social conditions of legal development, including the nature of society, the character of law considered as the social order, the forms of social groupings, and the conception of the state. In reviewing these topics we will first analyze his concept of the nature of society. Society is to Korkunov neither a mechanism nor an or- ganism. " Doubtless," he says, "the general laws which ' Sergey Andreyevitch Muromtzev, Professor of Civil Law at the University of Moskow, expressed his progressive views on the theory of law in his Outlines of a General Theory of Civil Law (1879), and in his Outlines of Sociology which remained unfinished. '^ Nikolas Mikhailovitch Korkunov, Professor of Law in the Petrograd University since 1879. He is the author of many works. His General Theory of Law and the Social Meaning of Law are the most important. 259] HISTORICAL-GENETIC SCHOOLS 259 govern the organic and the inorganic world apply equally to the phenomena of social life."' The principal characteristic of the inorganic world is the unimportance of its past. It is determined by present conditions. The organic world, on the contrary, and also the social world, are determined by both the present and the past. Standing ever beside the present, the past always plays an important part in social affairs. Each generation has a certain influence upon the development of the social life of future generations. "Our inheritance from our fathers is of overwhelming importance." = Thus society, according to Korkunov, is controlled by these three elements, " ist, the present conditions under which it acts ; 2nd, its past ; 3rd, the ideal drawn from the past." 3 These three factors in their correlation present social phenomena, which are complex and peculiarly different from all others. Their peculiarities result principally from the moral and psychical ties which bind individuals into social groups. Ability to produce ideals is the characteristic sign of all social phenomena, and we must conclude that it exists in direct proportion to the development of the social life. The weaker the social bonds of a people, the weaker is that people's intellectual development and the greater its carelessness of the future.* Another conclusion which Korkunov draws from his theory that power to create a social ideal is in proportion to the social life already achieved, relates to the future development of social life. Conditions favoring the de- ' General Theory of Laws, English translation by W. G. Hastings. Boston 1909, p. 289. ' Idem. ' Ibid. , p. 290. * Cf. ibid., p. 294. 26o RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [260 velopment of the psychic life of the individual are equally favorable to the life of the aggregate. Where the develop- ment of individual thought is stifled, the growth of the social ideal becomes impossible.' He cites the Messianic hope of the Jews as an example of an idea that binds a people to the preservation of its national unity under historical conditions otherwise unfavorable. It is a cor- ollary of these truths that if social relations are determined by the degree of development of the ideal formed by individuals, in actual social life conditions of existence are modifiable according to the ideal held by the society, and false notions may have a great influence upon social development.' Since no limits can be assigned to social ideals, and since change of ideas can bring about significant changes in social life, no limit can be set to social growth.' Viewing the nature of society as on the whole psychic, Korkunov attempts to establish the relation of society to the individual. His problem is to give an answer to the question whether there is anything like indi- vidual independence, or whether the individual is a mere subject of the general law of causation and cannot exist in opposition to society. He says : " From the point of view of modern psychology can the existence of an individual consciousness be explained in such a way as to set this consciousness over against the rest of the universe? Again, can a certain independence of the in- dividual's part in his relations with society be estab- lished?"'' These psychological problems are conditioned by the significance given to ideas of causation and finality. "If we admit, just once, the existence of an objective end for ' Cf. Hid., p. 293 ^ Cf. idem. ' Cf. ibid., p. 296. '■Ibid., p. 316. 26lJ HISTORICAL-GENETIC SCHOOLS 261 which the universe was created and which has guided its progress through the ages since, everything in the world, and by consequence the individual also, is inevitably re- duced to the condition of a means."' Korkunov holds that in proving the proposition it is impossible to go beyond oneself. Whatever are the ends towards which the individual compels himself to strive, they exist only in him, in his consciousness. They are ends which he conceives and whose elements he finds in his own head. From this point of view, the individual is objectively neither a means nor an end. Subjectively, it may be said that he is his own end, in the sense that every end which he conceives is a product of his own consciousness, of his own intelligence.^ The individual, although conscious of himself as an end, is nevertheless not an independent being in the sense in which the mechanistic sociologists so regard him. On the other hand, he is not a subordinate part of an organ- ism as he is viewed by the organic sociologists. The psychological theory to which Korkunov adheres does not deny that the individual to a large degree is the pro- duct of society. But " He is never a simple product of it, never the simple reflection of the principles which set in motion a given collectivity. Every individual is the pro- duct of the simultaneous influence of several societies, and in each man can be seen combinations of distinct traits from many social influences." ' As the individual never completely identifies himself with society he remains a distinct and an independent principle, tending to transform society little by little, and in this manner he contributes to the progress of social life. ' General Toeory of Laws, p. 318. 'Ibid., p. 319. ^Ibid., p. 321. 262 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [262 " From our point of view," concludes Korkunov, " so- cial development is the resultant of all the conscious tendencies and efiforts of individuals, (the active element), which are reacted upon, also (and this is the passive element) , by an order of things which is the result of a long historic evolution." ' So the individual is not only a part of his social en- vironment, subjecting himself to its control, but also is a dynamic force changing and directing the social life. Having arrived at this conclusion as to the nature of society and its relation to the individual, Korkunov at- tempts to formulate the principles of the relation of law to the social order. The activity of the various elements of society which are in psychic unity, must have an exterior coordinating and controlling principle. " The factor which institutes and controls this coordination in society is no other than law."' Viewing society psychologically, we cannot regard law " as simply an order imposed by society upon individ- uals who are only passive beings. The final basis of law is the individual consciousness. It is there that the ideas as to the means to be employed for the delimitation of conflicting interests take their origin ; and consequently thence arise all ideas as to juridical norms." 3 The conception of right therefore has been a subjective idea, and only gradually has taken on the form of custom, juridical practice and, finally, of legislation (which dififer- entiates law as an objective factor). Therefore, also, the actual course of life never coincides precisely with legal abstractions. Laws, gradually formed, are not determined merely by the subjective qualities of the in- ' General Theory of Laws, p. 322. 'Ibid., p. 323. ^ /did., p. 324. 263] HISTORICAL-GENETIC SCHOOLS 263 dividual but by his environment as well. Besides making it possible for co-existing individuals to enjoy a degree of liberty, laws constitute one of the important conditions of human progress. Law protects minorities and fixes bounds for all new, striving interests, the predominance of which would quickly ruin weaker ones, and deprive society of conditions indispensable to its own develop- ment. Without law the future would be sacrificed to exi- gencies of the present.' Human groupings may be voluntary, like stock com- panies, and clubs, or involuntary, like the family, and especially the state. Both kinds must have a sense of solidarity holding them together. "In some societies this results from the collective life, instead of producing the collectivity, as in the family and the state, for ex- ample; while in others it is the basis and not the result of the grouping."^ Among the various forms of social organization Kor- kunov analyzes the state as the chief institution in the development of law. He defines the state as a " social body asserting for itself independent, recognized, coer- cive, governmental control over a free people.^ Korkunov attributes to the state an exclusive right of coercion, which he believes to be of great importance for the whole social life. It reduces acts of violence and so makes economy of force. The constraint of the state is not arbitrary, it is " disciplined by law. It is penetrated with ethical principles."'' Governmental authority does not need to be the per- sonification of any one's will. It is a " force arising out of the citizen's consciousness of his dependence on the state." 5 'Cf. idid., p. 327. VWrf., p. 328. ^/did., p. 343. */l>id., p. 344. ^Ibid., p. 351. 264 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [264 The state functions through its organs, which may be unipersonal or collective in form; its organs carry out in their organization the principle of division of labor. Korkunov's contribution does not amount to the development of an independent sociological system. He borrowed many of his ideas from sociologists like Spen- cer, Fouillee, Kareyev, Gumplowicz and others. His importance to social science is that he succeeded in developing a system of law from sociological presupposi- tions. That the theory of law needs more positivist elements than it has possessed heretofore is conceded by many eminent jurists, who have shown appreciation of Korkunov's efforts and have given his work a wide circulation by translating it into a number of modern languages. //. Tke historical-genetic sociology of Kovalevsky The most important among the historical-genetic sociologists is Kovalevsky.^ Already in his initial work "The Historic-comparative Method in Jurisprudence and a Manual for the Study of the History of Law" (1880) — he expresses his opinion upon the inadequacy of the philosophical approach to the study of social institutions and recommends the historical-comparative method. Influenced by Maine, Tylor, McLenan, Morgan, Spencer and others, Kovalev- sky developed his studies of the genesis of institutions in what he calls " Genetic Sociology." Besides the historical aspect of sociology he also devoted himself to the study of sociological methodology and to the various ' Maxim Maximovitch Kovalevsky, Professor of Law at the University of Moscow (1877-1887): having been removed from this position he continued lecturing in various European universities and writing on the genesis of institutions. In igo8 he became Professor of Sociology at the Neurological Institute in Petrograd. 265] HISTORICAL-GENETIC SCHOOLS 265 theories of society. We will briefly sum up his ideas of the methodological and the historical-genetic aspects of sociology. The Methodological Aspect of Kovalevsky's Sociology In general, Kovalevsky follows Comte in his classifica- tion of the sciences and in defining sociology as " the science of order and progress in human societies." He thinks, however, that this definition has been better worded by Professor Elwood as the science of the organ- ization and evolution of society."' This definition contains the two principal aspects of sociology which Comte called " Social Statics " and " So- cial Dynamics." This double aspect safeguards sociology from limitation to a mere philosophy of history, which at its best embraces only the dynamic aspect of sociology. This is true also of ethics and of psychology. When, for example, De Roberty attempts to reduce sociology to social ethics, he does not cover the whole province of sociology. Besides the moral considerations which are important for the progress of society, there are other as- pects of the social process, such as the biological and the economic, which stand apart from ethics. Therefore, sociology is the only social science that can take for its business the discovery of all these causes and their in- teraction.^" A part of this is true also of psychology. Kovalevsky disagrees with Tarde that the field of sociology is fully covered by psychology. It is true that much in society can be explained by what Tarde calls " interpsychology," or the theory of the interaction of one mind upon another. But the inadequacy of this collective or social ' Kovalevsky : Sociology, vol., i, p. 6. ^ Cf. ibid., vol. i, p. 14. 266 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [266 psychology to interpret all of the social process brings it under sociology as a branch of the latter science/ So also biology. In so far as it covers the social life of animals it may be utilized by sociology to interpret the genesis of social institutions.' The concrete social sciences, such as ethnography, statistics, political economy, poHtics etc., all supply sociology with material for its genetic studies, but in their turn these sciences must base their generalizations upon sociological laws, which present a synthetic whole of the process and progress of human societies.' This is especially true of the genesis of law, of political institutions and of political economy. Sociology alone can supply the jurist with sure guiding principles for determining various stages in the evolution of law, and so emancipate jurisprudence from its traditional meta- physical premises.'' To sum up: "The concrete social sciences," says Kovalevsky, " although furnishing sociology with mater- ials for its synthesis, must at the same time base their empirical generalizations upon those general laws of coexistence and development which sociology, as a sci- ence of the order and progress of human society, is called upon to establish." = Kovalevsky after a careful study of the various systems of sociology* arrives at the conclusion that there is no one all-determining social factor. He says : "Sociology will gain measurably, if the effort to find a first cause is eliminated from its immediate problems and if it " Cf. ibid., p. 26. = Cf. ibid., p. 28. ' Cf. ibid., p. 30. * Cf. ibid., p. 62. "Ibid., p. 30. ' Cf. his work Contemporary Sociologists, St. Petersburg 1905, and is Sociology, vol. i, part ii. 267] HISTORICAL-GENETIC SCHOOLS 267 limits itself in accordance with the complexity of social phenomena to showing the simultaneous and parallel action and reaction of many causes."' He is impatient with sociologists who show a monistic bias and who are continually seeking some all-determin- ing factor of the social process. He says : We deal not with factors but with facts, each of which, in one way or another, is bound up with a mass of others ; is condi- tioned by them and in turn conditions them. To talk about a factor i. e. about a central fact, which determines after itself all others, is to me the same as to talk about those drops of the waters of a river which, by their movement, condition its current.' Abandoning the idea of the all-determining factor, Kova- levsky recommends the historical-comparative synthetiz- ing method as best adapted for sociological research. In this manner Kovalevsky leads up to the study of "genetic sociology" to which he devotes most of the space in his "Sociology." The Historical-genetic Aspect of Kovalevsky' s Sociology ^ Kovalevsky finds this branch of sociology of special interest to Russians because of the extraordinarily rich ethnographic material possessed by them, which in spite of generations of research has by no means been ade- quately treated. He divides his material into the ethno- graphic — with special attention to the survivals of the metronymic family, of exogamy, of animism, etc. — ' Contemporary Sociology, p. xiv. ^ Ibid., p. viii. ° Kovalevsky's " Genetic Sociology '' is the substance of the second volume of his " Sociology." We reviewed this work in the American Journal of Sociology , vol. xix, no. 3, pp. 386-398; and reproduce here the substance of that article. 268 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [268 and the historical-legendary, containing a large mass of folklore. Employing the historical comparative method, he is careful not to overestimate anything, but to draw his conclusions from premises which admit of being checked up by comparison. Thus he hopes to be able to point out how all aspects of the social life are psychi- cally related to one another and how by their interaction they result in various social institutions. His argument that it is impossible to establish a criterion of primitive- ness from ethnography, since it does not put us face to face with the primitive conditions of mankind, leads him to an hypothesis of primitive man, which is formed by way of successive conclusions not only from ethnography but also from animal life. This leads to analysis of the social and family life of animals, which thereupon is con- sidered as the starting point of the human family and the human horde or herd. In these chapters the much-de- bated topics of the metronymic family and sexual taboos are thoroughly discussed. The author favors the view which ascribes priority to the metronymic order. He also thinks that the most primitive sex taboo was limited to the mother, as can be also observed among anthropoid apes. The tribe has not grown from the family ; it is rather a hu- man herd which grew through the integrating influences of taboo, of exogamy, and of the elimination of blood ven- geance within the group. Exogamy originated as a means of stopping the bloody feuds and quarrels for the possession of women, so protecting the tribe against annihilation. Gradually, with the transition into an agri- cultural state of life and the increase of property, which he thinks had its beginning in the fear of magical con- tagion, the regulative functions of the group differentiated into simple forms of government, which in their turn hastened the decay of tribal forms of organization. Agri- 269] HISTORICAL-GENETIC SCHOOLS 269 culture and private property made slavery possible and profitable. The latter institution encourages raids and conquests, which coerce the weaker tribes to confederate or to be absorbed by their enemies. War and conquest give opportunity for leadership. The successful leader gradually rises above his tribesmen in wealth and power and is able to dictate to them and to subordinate them. This situation prepares the way for feudalism. Along with these developments of property and government, and in its psychical aspect intrinsically related to them, there goes on the development of religion. According to Kovalevsky religion has its roots in an animistic conception of nature, in fear of departed ancestors, and in dreams. Fetichism, totemism, animal and plant cults and finally the worship of the cosmic forces of nature, are the earlier forms of expression in religion. Briefly this is the gist of " Genetic Sociology." Although the foregoing arguments are more or less familiar, they are richly illustrated by old and new ethno- graphic material, some of which was gathered by Kova- levsky personally in his expeditions among the barbarian and savage tribes of the Russian Empire. His interpre- tation of exogamy is original and finds support in a later independent research by W. M. Strong, described in an article on "The Origin of Exogamy," Sociological Review v, no. 4. His view of the origin of religion is a little out of date, being based on the animistic hypothesis of Tylor. This, fact however, does not diminish the value of his illustrative material, which would lend itself as well to the recent interpretations of Miss Jane Harrison (in Themis) , or of fimile Durkheim (in Les formes H^ment- aires de la vie riligieuse) . Kovalevsky, who still continues his genetic studies, has given us in his "Sociology" some valuable contribu- 270 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [270 tions. He is one among the few writers in Russian sociology who have pursued research apart from any partisan movement. His works, therefore, being less "Russian" are of greater value to sociology at large. The whole juristic and historical-genetical school should be recognized as one of the first groups of scholars that have sought to rid the study of law and of politics of their metaphysical premises and to establish them upon a scientifically sound sociological basis. CHAPTER V The Franco-Russian Sociologists (de roberty and novicov) The Sociological Theories of De Roberty More or less removed from the social-political prob- lems of the Russian people are the sociological theories of Yakov Novicov and Eugene De Roberty. Having emi- grated to France, they wrote in French under the influence of French thought and life. De Roberty published his first work on sociology (1881) simultaneously in Russian and in French. The book was much more favorably received on the banks of the Seine than on those of the Neva, and De Roberty remained in France until recent years when he returned to Petrograd and joined Kovalevsky as a lecturer on sociology in the newly established Psycho- Neurological Institute of Petrograd and co-operated in editing the newly established yearly series of sociologi- cal books. This re-introduction of De Roberty's socio- logical ideas into Russia may have some influence upon the future development of Russian sociological thought and therefore it is proper to give his theories a brief ana- lytical survey. De Roberty began his writing on sociology as an or- thodox positivist. His first work, " Sociology " purposes only to interpret the positivist sociology, especially in its methodological aspects, including the place of sociology within the classification of the sciences, the nature of sociology, and its method. 271] 271 272 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [272 Comte had given to the sciences an abstract classifica- tion. Each abstract science was to have its correspond- ing concrete science ; which, however, he failed to provide for sociology. De Roberty explains that such classi- fications are made only for the sake of symmetry and are not required by logical necessity. Sociology " is founded upon various abstract sciences ; it does not present signs of logical or subjective necessity ; it proceeds entirely from an objective necessity." ' Sociology is an abstract science and therefore funda- mental, since the concrete sciences are always derived from the abstract. Each of the Comtian sciences has its peculiar province. That of sociology embraces the laws of the social life in relation to its environment. One would imprint upon sociologfy a particular absurdity if one tried to assign to it anything else but the study of the rela- tions of "socialite" with the other "proprietes" of matter; or, to speak more plainly, if one tried to study society, after having subtracted the physical conditions of our globe and the biological conditions of its inhabitants.'' Psychology is closely related to sociology. It may be regarded as " a prolongation of sociology and is like a study which does not know how to become a constituted science until sociology shall have attained its complete development." ' De Roberty hopes to improve on Comte's method in sociology by applying to the study of social phenomena the descriptive method. "What is missing in the social sciences is a natural history of society, a description of social phenomena as analytic as possible." ^ 'De Roberty, La Sociologie ii ed., Paris 1886, p. 38. 'Ibid, p. 34- ' /did., p,iSS. '■Ibid., p. 5- 273] ^^^ FRANCO-RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGISTS 273 From his generally Comtian views De Roberty moved on to a more independent position which he calls " hyper- positivism ", from which he attempts to reduce sociol- ogy to a system of social ethics. He outlines his " hyperpositivism " in twelve points. In an abbreviated form the gist of his teaching follows. Hyperpositivism consists : i) In a thorough separation of object from method, between two ideological species of which one precedes, engenders and fashions the other in its image ; 2) In introducing, according to the empiric law of the three states, the theoretic law of correlation between the sciences and philosophy, and its correlative law of the three types — or unilateral directions — of metaphysics (materialism, sensualism, idealism); 3) In demonstrating the law of identity of contrary abstractions when raised to the n* power (la loi de I'identite des contraires surabstraits) ; this is an equation in the world of ideas equivalent to the great law of the conservation of energy ; 4) In reducing the transcendent to experience, the unknowable to the knowable, deity to entity; 5) In reducing finality to causality; 6) In conceiving reality as an essentially homogeneous unit, be it in the elements which necessarily transform one thing into another, or be it in the laws which govern infinite evolution; 7) In distinguishing between abstract and concrete knowledge, and basing the distinction upon a theory of knowledge which would complete the hierarchy of sciences established by Comte : 8) In formulating and defending the bio-sociological hypothesis in sociology ; 274 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [274 9) In conceiving of psychology as a concrete science of the mind made up of biological and sociological laws ; 10) In conceiving of sociology as an abstract science in the world of superorganic facts, a science the essential phenomena of which are identical with the phenomena of the moral world as studied by ethics ; 11) In formulating and defending the important theory which gives the order of the four great factors of super- organic evolution ; these are : science, philosophy (in- cluding religion), art and work; it also specifies the principle social values, and finally indicates the conditions which sociology (or any other science) must fulfill before passing from an empiric to a theoretic state; 12) In formulating and defending an hypothesis which, departing from the present, is destined to serve the fu- ture abstract science of the super-organic world. The ideas formulated in these twelve theses reappear in a modified form in De Roberty's "nouveau pro- gramme de sociologie".' Here he gives under three captions : 1. A fundamental hypothesis of the nature of the superorganic ; 2. A scientific method ; 3. A general law of evolution." In summing up De Roberty's more recent sociological ideas we observe the following ; There is an unbroken continuity of development from the organic and physio- logical to the super-organic, which is also the social. The psychological and the social or moral life have the same source. He says: "The same current of energy divides itself into two branches, of which one mani- ' Paris, 1Q04. 'Cf. Nouveau programme de sociologie, p. 6. 275] ^^^ FRANCO-RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGISTS 275 fests itself as physiological action and returns almost im- mediately to its first source, and the other, having become ideation, tends to express itself as social or ideologi- cal action." ' Thus superorganic or social life begins with ideation and becomes increasingly complex and is more and more bound to the ideological environment and more and more shaped by the actions of the group.^ Having deduced the super-organic life from its biolo- gical sources, De Roberty next develops his psychology from the former. Collective psychism is solidarity. Soli- darity exercises a great influence upon the psychical development of the individual; it shapes the individual after itself and transforms him into a part of the group, Morality and sociality are identical. " But sociality is in some way the progressive rationalization of life, of the great organic dominion, and in this manner of the entire universe." 3 Society is a permanent and natural composition of all selves, whether present or future selves, with all others, — as they are found in a certain organic and geographic environment.^ Society will always remain an abstract reality, a corol- lary of which fact is that it is not the biological, but the social, individual who is the concrete unit of society. The individual is the end and not the beginning of the social process. He does not create the group. The group creates him. The dynamic of the social process is psychical. It consists of feelings and ambitions. Altruism is the principal cause of social activity. Also ' Le psychisme sociale, p. 107-108. 'Ibid., p. 106. ^Ibid., p. 116. * Cf. Constitution de VHhique, p. 132. 276 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [276 there are customs which produce many psychic pheno- mena; opposite to these are innovations.' In this progress is a necessary development ; it is always a development of altruism, of sociality ; it is a transition from the organic to the super-organic, a striving towards an ideal." Super-organic evolution arising from biological sources is realized in a relatively small number of species among which it takes two characteristic forms : with some, as, for example, in animal societies, it remains instinctive and stationary; but with others, as in human societies, it continually increases in consciousness and becomes more and more fit for adaptation and development. The evolution of the super-organic passes through three stages : the bio-individual consciousness, the group or collective consciousness, and the social-individual con- sciousness. The first is a biological fact and the last is a social fact.^ The dynamics of the social realm are ideas ; " Les idees menent le monde ",* says De Roberty. Objectively viewed the social, or super-organic process, has four phases ; " Science, philosophy, art and work are the four great stages in the scale of super-organic facts." = These four are also the factors of the law of historical development which in their subjective or rational, ideo- logical sequence are in reversed order and appear as work, art, philosophy and science.* As the world is moved by ideas, material progress will ' Cf. Le psychisme sociale, p. 162 et seq. ' Cf. Les fondaments de VHhique, p. 153 et seq. ' Cf. Constitution de VHhique, p. 73-74. *Ibid., p. 71. ^ Ibid., p. 42. * Cf. ISIouveau progamtne de sociologie, p. 188 et seq. 277] ^^^ FRANCO-RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGISTS 277 naturally not precede moral progress. However, both kinds of progress are closely related, only the material depends upon the spiritual. Finality is characteristic of the social process and this necessitates for sociology the tasks of emphasizing the teleological point of view and of justifying the interpre- tation of the social process by the dynamic activity of ideas. This theory also harmonizes finality and causality.^ De Roberty attempted to divorce sociology from the Darwinian principles by his hypothesis of social psychism, in which neither to biological nor to environmental facts are to be ascribed any determining influences. Excep- tional men being products of the group, are likewise not to be considered as determining factors. Social progress is brought about by a non-personal psychism expressing itself through the ideas of science, philosophy, art and work which are the products of no individual in particu- lar but which have been created by social contact and by innumerable psychic interactions. De Roberty in his effort to free himself from the extreme views advanced by biological and environmental sociology, swings the pendulum far out into the opposite direction, which is as extreme as what he wishes to avoid. II. THE SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF NOVICOV. Novicov is even less known to his own people than is De Roberty, although in sentiment he harmonizes in many respects with his Russian colleagues, being an anti- Darwinian pacificist and federationist, traits we have observed among both Slavophils and Westernists. As an uncompromising enemy of all forms of despotism he frequently attacks the political institutions of Russia, and this may be the principal reason why his books were but ' Cf. Consiituiion de I'Hhique, p. 56 et seq. 278 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [278 little if at all circulated in his native country, since the Russian censor would naturally have to bar them out. It is however likely that as the freedom of the press increases in Russia, his French works will be translated into Russian and exert an influence upon Russian socio- logical thought. It may therefore be not out of place to give here a brief analysis of his sociological theories. Novicov may be called an anti-Darwinian-pacificist and a bio-sociological theorizer. He proceeds from the presupposition that there is but one set of laws, which controls all phenomena, whether inorganic, organic or social. These universal laws are laws of conflict or struggle and of association or cooperation ; they manifest themselves in various ways, according to the nature of the phenomena. In general, he defines struggle thus : " Material atoms having been grouped around a center, free themselves from it and combine with a new center."' Universal struggle varies greatly in its particular manifestations. The social struggle is not identical with the biological, and for this reason Novicov continually attacks Darwinism as applied to social phenomena.' He believes that much mischief was done by failing to distinguish between biological and social struggles, and between struggles within the same class or species and struggles between classes or species. He therefore makes this classification : " I. Struggles between individuals of differing species and struggles between individuals of the same species. " II. Struggles between individuals capable of associa- tion and struggles between those incapable of associa- tion. ' La Justice et I' expansion de la vie, quoted from the authorized Ger- man translation of Alfred H. Fried, Berlin, 1907, p. 259. ' Ci. especially Novicov' s work : La critique du Darwinism sociale, Paris 1910. 279] ^^-^ FRANCO-RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGISTS 279 " III. Struggles among individuals with high intellec- tual characteristics and struggles among individuals with only embryonic intellectual faculties."' The normal social struggle manifests itself through invention, which is followed by competition with the old, and by discussion. " The natural forms of the struggle are the psychical phenomena of invention and of discus- sion ; but the struggles among men themselves are only a fraction of those struggles which our species is forced to wage against its external enemies." ' Novicov makes a detailed analysis of the struggles among human societies,^ and among individuals in their various phases, as the physiological, economic, political and intellectual, which have for their ends respectively the attainment of nourishment, of riches, the satisfaction of selfish aims, and intellectual interests. These ends may be attained either in a slow and irrational way, through brute force, or in a quick and rational way, through justice.'* Although, according to Novicov, society is a direct continuation of a biological organism subject to the law of selection,' yet he believes that justice can accom- plish a more complete selection than force. Justice is the social mode of the evolution of (human) species ' La Justice et V expansion de la vie, German translation, p. 264. 'Ibid., p. 3S2. 'Cf. his work Les luttes entre sociStis humaines, Paris, 1893. * Cf . his "tableau de la lutte pour I'existence," in Les luttes entre sociStis humaines, p. 402, also ibid. p. 462. * He says : ' ' One may say in general that the biological development which had begun with the unicellular animal and proceeded up toman, will as well continue in society "; La Justice et V Expansion de la vie, German translation, p. 153, and " since biological methods are perpet- uated in society, one may assert a priori that the phenomena of positive and negative selection are found there as well ". Ibid., p. 150. 28o RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [280 which biologically goes on through the survival of the fittest. Through the establishment of justice the assent of the fittest is quickly obtained and in opposition to it the distruction of the less fit is also accomplished through the triumph of justice.' Therefore justice becomes almost a synonym for all social achievements and virtues. He says : " Expansion of life, happiness, association, order, organization, health, safety, liberty, equality, material well being, civilization and world-wide justice, are from a certain point of view identical concepts. " ° Society is an association of associations. ^ Association is the second universal law which cannot be disregarded with impunity, " Through the mechanism of association every individual injures himself who injures his neighbors, in other words he puts himself into a pathological state."'' Therefore " every action which leads to association is normal, and every action which leads to disassociation is pathological." 5 Wars are unjustifiable in human societies. They create conditions of disassociation or anarchy. In animal soci- eties bloody struggles are normal, but to man are given resources to prevent those occasions which create wars among animals. " Man can multiply his resources to an almost unlimited extent through agriculture and the raising of cattle, while animals cannot do this man can limit the growth of population to suit himself, while the animal cannot do this."* Knowledge is the key to a harmonious development of association and therefore to human happiness. "Love '/Wrf., p. 158. '/did., p. 156. 'Ci. idid., p. 354. * Ibid., p. 29,1. ''Ibid., p. 282. ^Ibid., pp. 272-273. 28l] THE FRANCO-RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGISTS 281 of struggle, crimes, passions and the imperfections of our nature are not by any means the real and true hindrances to human happiness ; the true and only hind- rance is ignorance."' Novicov teaches that a widely disseminated education which would range over the whole hierarchy of Comte's classification of the sciences would insure the abolition of poverty. The improvement of man's nurture not nature is the principal problem. " Social happiness will never come as a result of the betterment of human nature. "° It has to come by improving social and political insti- tutions. Novicov is a thoroughgoing utilitarian. He believes that " social welfare is not based upon altruism but upon egotism." ^ If man can once grasp the idea that to act according to justice is most profitable for his own welfare he will do what is right, compelled by motives of sheer selfish- ness. This idea of the profitableness of justice our author believes will in time eliminate not only struggle between individuals but also among classes, races, nations, and and so enable man to reach the goal of social happiness which Novicov views as a worldwide federation of peo- ples.* Novicov believes that throughout the history of social evolution such motives have been at work ; that the growing consciousness of the profitableness of an asso- ciation of associations and not bloody struggle, as the Darwinian sociologists assert, has created the state. Of course he cannot deny that innumerable wars have been waged in the making of states, but these have been rather pathological phenomena proceeding from man's ignor- ance of the true sources of happiness. '/Wrf., p. 394. VWrf., p. 389. ' Ibid., p. 10. *Cf. ibid., p. 385 et seg. 282 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [282 Briefly outlined, then, the development of the state, according to Novicov, proceeds thus : Man having orig- inated from an inferior animal starts forth as a nomad. In the days of horde, clan and tribe the limits of human association could not be determined by terri- tory, but were fixed by bonds of blood relation and by individual relations. After man settled down he began to build dwellings and to till the soil. By and by di- visions of labor and exchange appeared, and production increased and dififerentiated. Institutions of all kinds were created, and the social bond became a territorial one. The first form of territorial grouping is the city. Com- munications with neighboring cities make a code of laws necessary. Communities so unified become the state. Riches and leisure are obtained, and needs of the in- tellect arise. Art and literature flourish. With the latter begins the problem of language. A favored dialect becomes universal, — becomes a so-called national lang- uage. Step by step with social progress there is pro- gress in other lines, in art, in science and in philosophy, and the state has reached the phase of nationality. When this has been established, the intellectual bond, together with the territorial bond, unifies men as members of the same nation. Powerful relations may thus exist between citizens of dififerent states, provided that they belong to the same nationality. Later on, neighboring nationalities may join, and so are formed cultural groups, as in the Europe of to-day. The last phase will be attained when finally a still larger association shall have unified the whole of humanity.' We have briefly presented the principal points of Novicov's sociological theories. In criticising them it ' Cf. ibid., pp. 308-319. 283] THE FRANCO-RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGISTS 283 may be said that they present two extremes. The first is an unwarranted biological analogy crudely applied to society. For example Novicov says : Economic production is a direct continuation of the physio- logical process. Some cells of certain animals produce hair which protects the animal from cold. If man through the united effort of his intelligence and his limbs makes for himself a dress or a coat which protects him against adversities of the season he simply continues the physiological process of the wool-producing cells. ' This kind of analogy is not only absurd but, worst of all, it explains nothing. Man wears cloth for various other reasons than simply to protect himself against the cold. To what cells of the sheep, therefore, shall we ascribe the clothing worn in the hot season? Secondly, Novicov goes to extremes in his utilitarian ethics. He overlooks the fact that most persons, even those who have been educated in the whole hierarchy of Comte's classification of the sciences, have interests greatly diversified, and often dififerent from those of the group in which they live. Therefore, if they conform to the ways of the group they do not feel that they are benefiting themselves, but rather that they are doing an altruistic act. Take, for example, a southern gentleman who achieved and enjoyed his culture at the expense of slavery ; he may well have realized that the institution of slavery was harmful to society and therefore in the long run would be harmful to his progeny, He may have realized all this and yet, if like Washington he freed his slaves, it was a self-sacrificing act. Like cases are presented by the liquor traffic to-day and by much of the ^Ibid., p. ISO. 284 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [284 anti-social big business. Ultimately every anti-social deed will avenge itself upon the race. In this we agree with Novicov, but we must call to mind that most men who let themselves be guided by their self-interest live not for ultimate but rather for proximate ends. To quote a word from Novicov's illustrious kinsman Alexander Herzen : " The goal of each generation is itself." " We live not for the purpose of entertaining others ; we live for ourselves." ' And this was said by a thorough-going positivist who was well at home in the whole hierarchy of the sciences. But perhaps Herzen was a pathological case ! ' Cf. supra sec. on Herzen. CHAPTER VI Retrospect and Future of Russian Sociology In estimating Russian Sociology two questions may be asked. First, what has it achieved for the Russian people in the solution of their economic, social and po- litical problems. This question is important since, as we have learned, most of Russian sociology was written as stimulated by the needs of the time. The second ques- tion is. What contributions have Russian sociologists made which are valuable to sociology as a science? In answering the first question we may say that the Russian theorizers have had a good deal of influence in shaping the policies of the time, although it is questionable whether they have ever arrived at any real solution of Russia's tremendous problems. The Slavophils who con- trolled the reform policies which were to give independ- ence to the Russian serfs, decided upon the maintenance of the much-idealised peasant land-commune. They desired the perpetuation of this ancient institution to bar from Russia the big capitalism with its proletarization of the masses. In this policy the Slavophils were supported by the populists who, however, agitated for still more radical measures. The peasant land-commune, as we have learned, was unable to bar capitalism from Russia but it retarded its development for about half a century, so giving Russia an opportunity to benefit by the experi- ence of Western Europe. The Subjectivist School, which is the most important one among Russian sociologists, may be credited with hav- ing exploded some of the false Slavophil notions as to the innate goodness and perfection of the common people, 285] 28s 286 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [286 and of the Russian political and ecclesiastical institutions. It also modified among the intellectual class some of the fanatical radicalism which preached the creative revolu- tionary ability of the common people. It recognized the necessity of social control and above all, of education, but at the same time it was aware of the danger of over- standardization and emphasized the creative function of the critically-intellectual individual. Along with this sub- jective matter it recognized the imperative necessity of economic surplus, and the possibility of wealth increase through applied science and the division of labor. Rec- ognizing and evaluating all of the important aspects of society, it viewed the preservation and the complete de- velopment of individuality as the most important task, in fact as the very end of society. The representatives of the subjectivist school were leaders of the opposition, and therefore their influence in bringing about changes in affairs of state and in social reform were indirect; nevertheless, they were highly important. The Marxist sociologists, who were converted populists, turned their attention to the city proletariat and organized it into an important political force, spurring by their rivalry the radical populists into new activity. In general, one may conclude that with the exception of the nationalist trend, Russian sociology has been the theoretical aspect of the dynamic-progressive forces of the Russian people. The following analytical table will give a brief resume of Russian sociology as it has concerned itself with the economic, social and political problems of the Russian people. It embraces the whole range of Russian Sociol- ogy, with exception of the juristic and historical-gen- etic schools, and the contributions of the Franco-Russians. The column showing the profession of the authors and ANALYTICAL TABLE OF RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY PROFESSIONS OF RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGISTS THEIR PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS AND METHODOLOGICAL PECULIARITIES WHAT IS SOCIETY AND WHAT IS ITS NATURE The Principal Problems of Russian Sociology SOCIOLOGISTS GROUPED BY SCHOOLS SOCIAL control AND individuation, OR the individual versus SOCIETY WHAT IS SOCIAL PROGRESS SPECIAL EVOLUTION OF RUSSIA. THE ROLE OF THE PEASANT LAND COMMUNE PECULIARITIES AND IMPORTANCE OF CONTRIBUTORS Tht Nationalist School Danilevsky (Slavophil) Publicist and Naturalist Theistic Idealist — Em- ploys Biological Anal- ogy Society a Type of Culture Like Biological Type or Species Individual Subject to his Type or Species Varied and All Sided Manifestation of the Human Mind To Develop Non-Capital- istically upon the Peas- ant Land Commune Attempted to develop Slavophilism upon the Basis of Natural Science Leontiev ( Russophil) Surgeon, Government Official, Literary Cen- sor and Monk Theistic Idealist — ^Em ploys Cosmic and Bio- logical Analogies Society an Organism Passing Through the Three Stages of Bio- logical Evolution. Individual Absolute Sub- ject to the Powers in Control Attainment and Main- tenance of the Second Stage of Social Evolu- tion. Ibid. Attempted to Justify Au- tocracy and Condemn Democracy by the Aid of Natural Science Soloviev (Neo-Slavophil) The Wtsternist School Professor and Philoso- pher Synthetic Idealist — Critic of Positivism Society a Supplemented or Widened Individual Individual and Society Inseparable and Sup- plementary to Each Other Identification of Individ- ualized Man and So- cialized Man Attempted to Synthesize the Interests of State, Church and Individual Chaadaev (Theocratic) Non- Professional Scholar Theistic Idealist Society a Divine Crea- tion Individual Subject to Church Increasing Homogeneity of Thought To Develop After West- ern Europe Admirer and Advocate of Jesuit Philosophy Belinsky (Humanistic) Publicist From Hegelian Idealism to Feurbach's Mater- ialism Society a Human Or- ganism Individual Subject to the Social Organism Unhindered Constructive Struggle Ibid. One of the First to Rid the Russian Intellec- tuals of Hegelianism Herzen (Socialistic) Publicist and Agitator Positivist Society a Simple Aggre- gate of Relatively Free Individuals Individual Relatively In- dependent of Society Highest Possible Indi- viduation and Growth of Social Democracy To Develop NonCapital- istically upon the Peas- ant Land Commune Initiator of Populist Pro- paganda Bakunin (Anarchistic) Army Officer, Publicist and Anarchist Agitator Materialistic Positivist Society a Bio-Psycholog- ical Organism Individual Subject to So- ciety but not to the State Unobstructed Develop- ment of Life Force and Growth of Federation Ibid. Apostle of the Propo- ganda by Deeds Granovsky (Liberal) Professor of History Positivist Society a Static Aggre- gate of Individuals Individual Relatively In- dependent Growth of Intellectual Control C. Chernishevsky (Socialistic Populist) Publicist and Populist Agitator Feurbachian Materialist Society a Mechanistic Aggregate Individual Relatively In- dependent Progress and law of Growth the Same Ibid. " Father " of Russian Nihilism The Subjeciivist School Lavrov (Socialistic Populist) Army Officer, Publicist and Revolutionist Positivist and Empiricist Emphasised the Sub- jective Method Society a Psychological Organism Individual a Relatively Independent Dynamic Factor of Society Harmonizing and Syn- thesizing Solidarity and Individuation Ibid. Founder of the Subjec- iivist School of Russian Sociology Mikhalovsky (Socialistic Populist) Publicist and Intellectual Agitator Ibid. Society a Bio-Psycholog- ical Organism Ibid. Attainment of Complex Society Without Sacri- fice of Individuality Ibid. Author of an Original Sociological System Youzhakov (Socialistic Populist) Publicist Positivist and Empiricist — Critic of Subjective Method Ibid. Ibid. Aggregation and Demo- cratic Distribution of Economic and Social Surplus Ibid. Emphasized the Eco- nomic Aspect of Social Evolution Kareyev ( Libera! ) The Objectivist School Professor of Philosophy ^.f Jfistory Idealistic Positivist Society a Complex of Bio. Psycho, and Environ- mental Factors Ibid. Elevation of Standard of Human Development for the Largest Possible Number ; and Most Just Division of Labor Principal Synthesizer of the Subjectivist School Plekhanov (Orthodox Marxist) Publicist and Revolu- tionist Dialectic Monistic Ma- terialist Society an Aggregation of Tool- Making and Tool-Using Individuals Individual Product of Group and Hence Subject to Society Growth and Develop- ment of Productive Forces Capitalistic Development Imperative, Commune Undesirable " Father " of Russian Marxism Struve (Neo-Marxian) Publicist, Revolutionist and Politician Dialectic Materialist — Later Neo-Kantian Idealist Society a Psycho-econo- raic Aggregate Individual and Society Complementary Increase in Production and Just Distribution of Economic Surplus Ibid. " Father " of Russian Revisionism Tugan Baranovsky (Neo-Marxian) Anarchist and Rtvolu- ttonist Schools Professor of Political Economy Emperio-Critical Posi- tivist Ibid. Ibid. Growth of Spiritual In- terest over Economic Interests Ibid. Most Able Russian^Critic of Marxism Kropotkin ( Anarchistic) Army Officer, Naturalist, Publicist and Revolu- tionist Positivist and Empiricist Society a Psychic Aggre- gate of Independent C^rganisms Individual Independent of Society Growth of Psychic Sol- idarity and Equality Commune Necessary Nucleus of Federal Anarchist Society Most Scholarly of Rus- sian Anarchists Chernov ( Revolutionary Social- ist) Publicist and. Revolu- tionist Empirio-Critical, Monis- tic Positivist — Em- phasizes Subjective Method Society a Psychophysical Organism Individual Relatively In- dependent Dynamic Factor of Society Highest Possible Indi- viduation with Main- tenance of Solidarity Commune Natural Nu- cleus of Agrarian So- cialism Principal Leader of the Russian Revolutionary Socialists 287] RETROSPECT AND FUTURE 287 their official positions bears out the statement that Russian sociology is not the work of professional scholars, but rather of leaders of public opinion. The columns indi- cating their principal problems make clear what they re- garded as most important for the welfare of their people. Have Russian sociologists contributed anything of value to sociology at large ? To say that they have not, would be unfair. Much of what is in vogue among sociologists to-day has been worked at by Russian sociologists. They were among the first to try to rid sociology of Darwinism and Spencerianism and to seek to establish it upon a psychological basis. But when all this is conceded to them we must also say that most of their good ideas have remained foreign to sociologists generally, and have since been wrought out independently by West European and American sociologists in a much more systematic way than by the earlier and unknown Russians. Of course, there are contributions made by such men as Kropotkin, ' Kovalevsky, " Korkunov, ^ and others, that have now become the common possession of West- ern European and American students of social science. Also there is much ingenious sociological thought still buried in Russian periodical literature, or poorly edited in the collected works of many authors. The principal defect in much of Russian sociology is its tractarian nature, which depreciates its value to soci- ology as a science. What are the prospects of Russian sociology for the future? Reasoning on the basis of the past, one may say that it depends greatly upon the attitude which the 'His " mutual aid" theory. 'His studies of Russian primitive institutions. • Sociological theory of law. 288 RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY [288 ruling classes take towards the more progressive oppo- sition. The present world war has established some- thing in the nature of a truce among the various con- flicting movements of thought in Russia. It offers opportunity for a future poHcy of peaceful compromise. Will the parties in power embrace the opportunity? If they do, a way for a normal evolution of Russia will be established and Russian sociology will probably reflect the situation. If Russian autocracy, however, continues its old policies of suppression of public opinion, sociology will also keep its revolutionary character. Russian soci- ology in the past was moulded by the economic, social and political problems of the time, and the tendency is not likely to cease so soon in Russia. Not all of Russian sociology, however, has been of the propagandist kind. What, we may ask, is therefore being done by Russians to contribute to sociology as a science ? Here we notice a deadlock not peculiar to the Russians alone. The philosophical and the psychological approach to sociology, and the development of systems has nearly reached the stage of the vicious circle. The circle can be broken only by introducing new methods. Of these there are two which are now being developed. The historical-genetic is generalizing princi- pally from ethnograpic materials. This method is being used by Kovalevsky and his pupils, who have rendered val- uable service, and there is still unexplored material in the Russian empire to continue the work. Another method is the inductive-statistical, and in this very little has been done in Russia, because there is but little reliable data on hand, and secondly the tedious work which the statistical method demands does not appeal to the present sort of Russian students of sociology. Therefore, we may hardly expect that much if anything will be accomplished by them along this line of work for the present. APPENDIX I The Teaching of Sociology in Russia Sociology as a university study is still in its infancy in Russia. This, however, does not mean that sociolog'y has not been or is not studied in Russia. On the contrary, it was and is very popular within the progressive circles of the Russian in- tellectual class. The Russian reformers hoped to receive from sociology a key for the solution of their perplexing economic, social and political problems, and therefore diligently pursued it. In the universities sociology was introduced first by profes- sors of law and politics in an effort to re-construct those sciences and to establish them upon a positivist basis by the aid of sociology.^ It was also taken up by various philosophers of history, espe- cially by Professor Karyevj who hoped by the aid of sociol- ogy to rid the philosophy of history of its metaphysical prem- ises. As an independent study, however, sociology was only recently placed in the curriculum of the newly (1Q08) founded Psycho-neurological Institute of Petrograd with Maxim Kovalevsky and Eugene De Roberty (died 1914) in charge of the Department. This inadequate presentation of sociology in the Russian universities is principally attributable to the authorities' ignorance of the nature of this science, and to a traditional prejudice against introducing anything new into the university curriculum. ' Cf. supra pt. iii, chapter iv. 289] 289 APPENDIX II. Sociological Literature in Russia. Although there are but few Russian university chairs from which sociology is taught, Russian scholars have created a large sociological literature. Almost all of the principal sociological works may be had in Russian, as those of Comte, Buckle, Spencer, Lilienfeld, Ward, Giddings, Gumplovitz, Durkheim, De Greef, Lacombe, Le Bon, Worms, Kidd and many others. The various works by Russian authors, we need not mention here. We have learned to know them in the pages of this book.' Much of the current sociological thought appears in the Russian periodical literature. There are, however, no speci- fically sociological periodicals as yet in Russia. In the past many articles on sociology appeared in the following monthly periodicals, which we give in their chronological order. Sovryemennik, St. Petersburg, 1836-66 ; Otechestvennyya Zapiski, St. Petersburg, 1846-84 ; Sovryemennoye Obozrenye, St. Petersburg, 1868 ; Znaniye, St. Petersburg, 1870-77 ; Dyelo, St. Petersburg, 1874-87 ; Svyet, St. Petersburg, 1877-79; Mysl, St. Petersburg, 1880-82 ; Severny Vestnik, St. Petersburg, 1885-97 ; Russkoye Bogotstvo, St. Petersburg, 1880-1918 ; Mir Bozhi, St. Petersburg, 1892-1906 ; Novoye Slovo, St. Petersburg, 1894-1897 ; Of the monthlies now in existence the Russkaya Mysl, Moscow and Petrograd, The Russkiya Zapiski, Petrograd, and ' Cf., Bibliography for Russian Sociology. 290 [290 291 J APPENDIX 291 the Zavyety, Petrograd, are voicing the traditions of the sub- jectivist school. The Sovremenny Mir, Petrograd, and the Vestnik Evropy, Petrograd are the organs of the objectivist school. Besides these the scientific journals Voprosy Philoso- phee i Psychologee, Moscow, and the Vyestrik Psychologee, Petrograd, discuss sociological problems. In recent years (since 1913) Kovalevsky and De Roberty began the issue of year books on New Ideas in Sociology which are to be to Rus- sia what Durkheim's annual publications are to France. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOURCES FOR RUSSIAN iSOCIOLOGY Books for General iReference. Brueckner, Alexander. Geschichte der Russischen Litteratur. Leip- zig, 1905. 2 vols. Encyclopedia Lexicon (Russian). Petrograd, 1891. The Great Encyclopedia (Russian). Petrograd, 1902. IvanovHRazumnik. History of Russian Social Thought (Russian). Petrograd, 1907. 2 vols. Masaryk, Tomas G. Russland und Europa. Studien Uber die geisti- gen Stromungen in Russland. Jena, 1913. 2 vols. Melnik, Josef. Russen Uber Russland. Frankfurt a/M., 1906. Milyoukov, Paul. Russia and its Crisis. Chicago, 1906. Novoye Vremya. Almanack for Current Statistics. Petrograd, 1914. II The Beginnings of Russian Sociology BOOKS Aksacov, K. ,S. Works (Russian). 3 vols. Moscow, 1861. Alexinsky, G. Modern Russia. Translated by B. Miall. London, 1913. Bakunin, M. A. Sosialpolitischer Briefwechsel mit Herzen und Ogar- jov. Stuttgart, 1895. Works. 2 vols. (Russian, to be had in French and German.) Petrograd, 1907. Belinsky, V. G. Works. 4 vols. (Russian). Petrograd, 1896. Catherine II of Russia. The Grand Instructions. (Nakazy.) Trans- lated by Michael Tatischeff. No date. Chaadaev, P. Y. Works. Vol. I. (French and Russian.) Moscow, 1913. Chernishevsky, N. G. Works. 10 vols. (Russian.) Petrograd, 1906. Danilevsky, N. Y. Darwinism (Russian). Petrograd, 1885. Russia and Europe (Russian). Sth Edition. Petrograd, 1895. Granovsky, T. N. Works. 2 vols., 4th edition. Moscow, 1900. Herzen, A. I. Letters to an Old Friend. Geneva, 1874. Collection of Articles of the Bell (Russian). Geneva, 1887. 292 [ 292 293] BIBLIOGRAPHY 293 Works. 7 vols. (Russian). Petrograd, 1905. Katkov, M. N. Sbornik of Articles (Russian). Moscow, 1887. Khomyakov, A. S. Works. Vols. V-VII (Russian). Moscow, 1900. Kluchevsky, V. O. A History of Russia. Translated by C. J. Hogarth. London and New York, 1911. 3 vols. Lamansky, V. I. A Historical Study of the Graeco-Slavic World in Europe (iRussian). Petrograd, 1870. Leontiev, K. N. Works. Vols. V-VI (Russian). Moscow, 1912. Novicov, Y. A. The Russian People. In Rambaud, A. N. The Ex- pansion of Russia. New York, 1904. Pissarev, D. I. Works. 6 vols. (Russian). Petrograd, 1901. Plekhanov, G. V. N. G. Chernishevsky (German). Petrograd, 1910. Radischev, Alexander N. A Journey from Petrograd to Moscow (Russian). Moscow, 1906. Rozhkov, N. A. The Origin of Autocracy in Russia (Russian). Mos- cow, 1906. Sbornik of Russian Imperial Historical Society. (Material in Russian and French.) Vols. X-XV. Soloviev, V. S. Works. 9 vols. (Russian). Petrograd, 1901. Steklov, Y. M. A''. G. Chernishevsky, his Life and Activity. Petro- grad, 1909. Turgeniev, Nikolai. Russia and the Russians (Russian). Moscow, 1907. Usnadse, v. D. Die Metaphysische Weltanschauung Solovieifs. Halle- Wittenberg, 1909. Valuyev, D. A. Sbornik for Historical and Statistical Information about Russia and Peoples Akin to Her in Faith and Race (Rus- sian). Moscow, 1845. Wallace, Sir Donald Mackenzie. Russia. New edition. New York, 1905. Bestuzhev-Rumin. "Relation of Danilevsky to Rueckert." In Russky Vyestnik. October, 1894. Milyoukov, Paul. "The Disintegration of iSlavophilism (Russian). In Questions of Philosophy and Psychology. May, 1893. Ill The Subjectivist iSchool Haeckel, E. Generelle Morphologic. Berlin, 1866. Kareyev, N. I. Principal Queries of the Philosophy of History (Rus- sian). 2 vols. Petrograd, 1883. 294 BIBLIOGRAPHY [294 The Nature of the Historic Process and the Role of the Individ- ual in History (Russian). Petrograd, 1890. Historico-Philosophical and Sociological £tudes (Russian). Pe- trograd, 1895. Works. (Recent.) 3 vols. (Russian). Petrograd, 1912-13. — ■ — ■ Introduction to Sociology (Russian). 3rd edition. Petrograd^ 1913. Lavrov, P. L. Sketches Concerning Questions of Critical Philosophy (Russian). Petrograd, i860. (Pseudonym Myrtov). Historical Letters (Russian). 2d edition. Geneva, 1891. To be had in German translation. Experiments in a History of Thought (Russian). Geneva, 1894. (Pseudonym Arnoldi, S. S.) Problems in the Understanding of History (Russian). Moscow, 1898. (Pseudonym Dolengi, A.) Principal Epochs in the History of Thought (Russian). Moscow, 1903. Mikhalovsky, N. K. Works. 6 vols. (Russian). Petrograd, 1896. Final Works. 2 vols. (Russian). Petrograd, 1905. Youzhakov, S. N. Sociological Etudes (Russian). Vol. I. Petrograd, 1891. Vol. II. Petrograd, 1896. ARTICLES Lavrov, P. L. "Civilization and Savage Tribes (Russian). In Ote- chestvennyja Zopiski, 1869. "Before Man'' (Russian). In Otechestvennyja Zopiski, 1870. Mikhalovsky, N. K. " Durkheim's Theory of Division of Labor (Rus- sian). In Russkoye Bogatstvo, May, 1897. IV Miscellaneous Schools and Trends of Russian Sociology BOOKS Chernov, V. M. Philosophical and Sociological Etudes (Russian). Moscow, 1907. Korkunov, N. M. General Theory of Law. English translation by W. G. Hastings. Boston, 1909. Kovalevsky, M. M. The Historico-Comparative Method in Jurispru- dence. Moscow, 1880. Contemporary Sociology. Petrograd, 1905. Sociology. 2 vols (Russian). Petrograd, 1910. Krapotkin, P. A. Revolutionary Studies. London, 1892. Anarchist Communism. 3rd edition. London, 1897. The State. London, 1898. Memoirs of a Revolutionist. New York, 1899. 295] BIBLIOGRAPHY 20? Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution. New York, 1902. Conquest of Bread. London, igo6. Modern Science and Anarchism. New York, 1908. Fields, Factories and Workshops. New York, 1913. Lvov, B. The Social Law (Russian). Petrograd, 1899. Muromtzev, S. A. Outlines of a General Theory of Civil Law. Mos- cow, 1877. Definition and Principal Divisions of Law. Moscow, 1879. Novicov, Y. A. Conscience et volonte sociales. Paris, 1897. ■ Theorie organique des societes. Paris, 1899. Les luttes entre societes humaines et leurs phases successives. Paris, 1903. La Justice et I'expansion de la vie. Paris, 1905. La critique du darwinism sociale. Paris, 1910. Mecanisme et les limites de I'association humaines. Paris, 1912. Plekhanov, V. L Introduction to Engels" Feuerbach (Russian). Geneva, 1895. Introduction to Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and F. En- gels. Odessa, 1905. Upon Two Fronts (Russian). Geneva, 1905. Works (Russian). Vol. L Geneva, 1905. (Pseudonym Beltov, N.) For Twenty Years (Russian). 2d edi- tion. Petrograd, 1906. (Pseudonym Beltov, N.) On the Question of the Development of a Monistic Conception of History (Russian). 2d edition. Pe- trograd, 1906. (Pseudonym Beltov, N.) The Critique of Our Critics. Petro- grad, 1906. History of Russian Social Thought (Russian). Vol. L Petro- grad, 1914. iRoberty, E. de. La Sociologie. 2d edition. Paris, 1886. L'Ethique, le bien et le mal. Paris, 1895. L'Ethique, le psychism sociale. Paris, 1897. Les fondaments de I'ethique. Paris, 1899. L'Ethique, constitution de I'ethique. Paris, 1900. Nouveau programme de sociologie. Paris, 1904. Struve, P. B. Critical Notes on the Question of the Economic Devel- opment of Russia (Russian). Petrograd, 1894. " Die Marxsche Theorie der Sozialen Entwicklung." In Archiv fur soziale Gesetsgebung und Statistik. 14 Band. Berlin, 1899. Ideas and Politics in Contemporary Russia. Moscow, 1906. Tugan-Baronovsky, M. The Theoretical Basis of Marxism. Petro- grad, 1905. (German) Leipzig, 1905. 296 BIBLIOGRAPHY [296 ARTICLES Kropotkin, P. A. Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal. San Fran- cisco, Free Society Library, No. 8, 1898. Anarchist Morality. San Francisco, Free Society Library, No. 4, 1898. Law and Authority. iSan Francisco, Free Society Library, No. i, 1898. Struve, P. B. Periodical: Osvohozhdenye. Stuttgart, 1902-5. The Intellectuals and the Revolution. In the Collective work: Vekhy. Moscow, 1908. INDEX Abelard, 141 Abolition of serfdom, 83 Achievements, of animals, 103 Achievement, struggle for, 231 Activity coordinated, l66j creative, 188; cultural, 165; defined, 162; dynamic, aspect of, 162; instinctive, 106; moral, 169; rational, 103; self-directed, 172; social how created, 163; social, 176 Acts, volitional, 185 Adaptation 54, 129, 239; of custom, 98-99; principle of, 128; to environ- ment 216 Advance, human, 73 Aggregate, social, environment of, 2l6; beginning of, 183; of causes, 74; healthy, 113; mechanical, 183 Aggregation, social, 197 Aid, mutual, 96, 240, 241 Aksakov, K. S., 32 Alexander 1, 26, 27, 28 Alexander II, 35, 36; assasination of, 40 Alexander III, 33, 43 Alliance, holy, 28 Altruism, factor of, 170; role of, 275 American people, 69 Amorphism, 77 Analogy, biological, 46, 47, 134, 135; falacies of, 117; principles of, 123 Anarchism, defined, 237; ideal of, 239 Anarchist, communist, 249; ideal of, 242 Anarchists, philosophical, 236 Anarchy, 77; 197; 200; 280 Ancestors, anthropomorphic, 214; pre- human, 216 Animality of men, 74 Animals, domestication of, 227; tool- making, 214 Animism, 267 Ant, 106; sexless, 134. Antagonism of individuals to organism, 128 Anthropoteleological method, 118 297] Anthropomorphism, 151 Antimeren, 131 Antithesis, no, 118 Archimedes, 214 Aristocracy, 56, 68 Aristotelian questions, 90 Arnoldy, 87 Art, types of, 116; origin of, 229; revo- lution of, 55 Ascent, of fittest, 280 Asceticism, in individuation, 144; func- tion of, 125 Assembly, Roman, 21 Association, 59, 98, 102; law of, 280; of similars, 95-96; of individuals, 160 Assyro-Babylono-Phoenician, 48, 52 Atrophy, of organs, 134; prevention of, 146 Attainment of man, 122 Authority, governmental, 263 Autocracy, 19, 31, 33, 34, 205; institu- tion of, 155; Russian, 21; policies of, 22, 26, 28; struggle against, 118 Avenarius, 249 Baer, Karl, 131 Bakunin, 35, 37, 38, 40, 62, 72, 73 et seq., 236 Bakunists, 41, 118 Barbarism, 167; Mongolian, 70 Earth, Paul, 7 Basarov, 39 Bauer Brothers, 212 Bearings, psycho-social, 143 Behavior of organisms, 95 Beliefs, collective, 99 Bell, The, 36, 37 Belinsky, 35, 62, 65 et seq. Beltov, N., 206 Bernstein, E., 223 Best, as fittest, 129 Bestuzhev, Rasumnik, 47 Biology, 178, 179,260 Bias, individual, 191 297 298 INDEX [298 Blood vengeance, 268 Bond, social, 121 Bourgeoisie, 68, 73, 76, 103; of Western Europe, 128; triumph of, 153. Brotherhood, Christian, 61; of man, 147 Brueckner, 20 Buckle, 117, 159, 290 Bulgakov, S. N., 201 Bureaucracy, 19, 70; exploitation of, Byron, 152 Byzantine, 53; missionary, 21 Cadet party, 44, 224 Capitalism, 31, 222 Capitalist, 82 Carlyle, 137, 140 Cartell, workingmen's, 150 Cast, 148, ethnological, 151, system, 164 Catherine II, 22, 23 et seq. Catholic Church, 57, 61 Catholicism, Roman, 31 Causes, coordination of, 188 Causes and effect, fallacy of, 250 Cause of socialization, 161; ultimate, 142 Causation, 74; universal, 75 Censorship, 24, 28 Centralization, 22; policy of, 224 Chaadaev, 34, 35, 62, 63 et seq. Chaikovstsy, 41 Changes, climatic, 243; conscious, 189; continuity of, 126; cultural-social, 189; economic, 169; of history, 89; individual, 187; from quantity to quality, 214 et seq.; series of, 99; social, 185; social, cause of, 252; unconscious, 189 Characteristics, animal, 198; acquired, 134; psychic, 58, 61; sexual, 141 Chernishevsky, N. B, 37, 38, 39, 79; 87, 119,236. Chernov, V, 249 et seq. Cherny peredel, 42 Choice, free, 149 Churches, schismatic, 65; task of soli- darity, 100 Circle, vicious, 208, in sociology, 288 City, free, 243; decay of, 244 Civilizations, 55; conquests of, 142; development of, 227; European, 70; history of, 115; present, 166; pro- duct of, 161; Russian, 31; type of, 149; western, 68 Class, consciousness, 233; critical- intel- lectual, 87; feeling, 228; intellectual, 23, 28, 65, 205, 233; intellectuals of Russia, 156; interests, 234; laboring, 89; privileged, 76 ; progressive, psychology of, 215; rise of, 76, 216; solidarity, 100; social, definition of, 232; struggle, 32, 216, 221, 225, 226; struggle, analyzed, 232 et seq.; strug- gle, limits of, 234; working, 145 Classification of sciences, 133 Clothing, used for, 227 Coleridge, S. H., 152 Compromise, law of, 200; peaceful, policy of, 288 Commune, 71, 121, 149; definition of, 84; disintegrating, 153; maintenance of, 150; parish, land, 31; peasant, 222, 236; reorganization of, 83; in Russia, 70; village, 243 Communism, 241 ; disintegration of, 216; Russian, 20 Complexity, 55, 192; degree of, 131; of factors, 186; growth of, 95, 104; of individuality, 132; psychic, 230 Comte, August, 7, 53, 117, 120, 123, 143. '5°. 158, 17°. 172. 177. 201, 208, 218, 257, 265, 272, 273, 281, 283, 290; classification of sciences, 159 Concubinage, 164 Conflict in evolution, 133 Consciousness, defined, 225; gradation, of, 107; of kind, 247; of likeness, 96; national, 32; social, grovrth of, 114; subjective fact of, 195 Constitution, French, 26; national, 27; Spain, 26; United States, 26; Constitutional Democrats, 44, 45 Consumers, wealth, 150 Consumption, economic, 227; homo- geneity of, 154 Control, autocratic, 170; despotic, 200; force of, 81; international, 171; of nature, 152; protection against, 135; social, 58, 135, 142, 217; social, necessity of, 286; social, theory of, 94 Convictions, similar, 96; general, 100; moral, development of, 196 Cooperation, active, 113; beginning of, 96; complex, 151, 165; economic, 189; forms of, 146, 151; industrial, 148; influence of, 124; laws of, 124; simple, 151, 152; social, 146 Coordination, of forces, 130; of func- tions, 131; of psychology of society, 215; in society, 262 Copernicus, 211 299J INDEX 299 Cosmopolitanism, cultural, 198 Cossacks, 22 Creativeness, 74, 190 Crimean war, 22, 35 Criminalty, 1 68 Crisis, 197 Critically-intellectual individual, 39 Criticism, empirical, 249, importance of, 108; Kant's, 117, of method, 123 Culture, conditions of, 113; definition of, 107, 167; development of, i65; ethical, 161 ; French, 35; growth of, 169; human, 165; product of, 162; social, defined, 172, 188; spiritual, 178; static aspect of activity, 162; struggle for, 167; unity in, 190; as weapon, 170; Western 21, 62 Customs, 80, 98, ICO, 189; as law, 242 et seq.; changed by, 82,; created by, 82; kingdom of, 98, 103, 115; role of, 276, 115; traditional, 75 Czars, messianic mission of, 23 D'Alembert, 23 Danilevsky, N. Y., 33, 46 et seq. Dante, 141 Darwin, 47, 117, 120, 159, 130, 211, 219 Darwinian, 96, 139; evolution, 125 Darwinians, 139 Darwinism, 47, 181, 241, 278, 287.; anti-pacifist, 277, 278; definition of, 128, principles of, 129; generalizations of, 163 Decay, racial, 184 Decembrist movement, 26 et seq., 34 Decentralization, 247 Degeneration, physical, 147 Degradation, moral, 144 De Greet, 52, 290 Democracy, 53, 56, 68, 73, 100, 103, 202; Russian, 20, 248; realization of, 248; rise of, 115, triumph of, 164; tribal, 21; social, 83 De Roberty, E., 265, 271, 289, 291 Despotism, 197, 200; natural, 55; Russian, 56; of Catherine II, 25; Tarter, 21 Determinism, 90, 91; historical, no; economic, 232, 235; problem of, 174 Determinist, 175, economic, 116, 202 Development, economic, 169; intel- lectual, 164; of nations, 70; organic, 170; social aspects of, 253 Dialectics, 211, 218, 224; Marxian, 249 Dialectic process, 80 Diderot, 23 Difference, individual, 104, 186; eco- nomic, 216 Differentiation, 54; of characteristics, 130; of organisms, 127; of organs, 131; organic, 169; principles of, 128; process of, 161; psychic, 106 Direct action, 38, 77 Disassociation, conditions of, 280 Discussion, form of struggle, 279 Disintegration, 56; of aggregate, 1 70; of masses, 78; of production, 171 ; physical, 161; process of, 165 Distribution, economic, 164; forms of, 114; social meaning of, 230 Division of labor, 56, 126, 128, 130, 140, I45> I5'. '54, 163, 169, 195, 219, 286; among bees and ants, 147; animal, 106; evil of, 83-84; function of, 125; modern, 148; of organs, 133; or- ganic, 134; physiological, 129, 131, 146; social, 142 Deviation of thinking, 98 Divorce, 164; increase of, 142 Dobrolubov, 39, 87 Domestication, 105 Dostoevsky, 7 Dualism, 67, 91, 151, 218 Durkheim, 147, 269, 290, 291 Dukhobors, 20 I Duma, 44 Dynasties, Russian, 21 Eclecticism, 218; definition of, 179; subjectivist, 208 Economics, 179, 226; conception of, 230; defined, 230; position of, 231 Economic factor, 116 Economy, 215; political, 160 Education, 183 Ego, de-centralized, 145; indivisible, 144 Elements, disturbing, 113; prehistoric, 253; progressive in Russia, 118; ra- dical, 74 EUwood, 265 Emancipation, 35; Act of, 36; of serfs, 22 Emancipators of peasant, 87 Empiricist, 120, 158, 174 Encyclopaedists, French, 24 Energy, storing of, 161 Engels, F., 210, 212, 234, 252 Environment, adaptation of, 159, 162; artificial, 254; control of, 198; coun- teraction of, 161 ; differentiated, 213; geographic, 103, 104, 214, 217; his- 300 INDEX [300 torical, 216, 217; material, 230; modified, 130; natural, 213; physi- cal, 160, 163, 166; products of, 136; secondary, 189; social, 103, 104, 100, 145; superorganic, 189, 190; 184, 198, 199; spiritual, 230 Enslavement, economic, 217 Equality, 198, 201 Equilibration, 172; laws of, 160; pro- cess of, 161; of energies, 161 Equilibrium, moving, 238, of population and subsistence, 165; social and in- dividual, 163 Equipment, intellectual, 147 Era, capitalistic, 83; in Russia, 285 Ethics, conception of, 255; social, 57; utilitarian, 234, 283 Evaluation, of facts, 122, of social phe- nomena, 157, of movements, ill Evolution, cause of, 126, 241; cultural, 188, 191; ethical 121; goal of, 77; economic, of Western Europe, 84; historical, 58, 80, 88: result of, 262; infinite, 273; laws of, 150; non-capi- talistic, 205, 221, 224, 207; organic, 54, 188, 195; superorganic, 195, 274; psychic of mammals, 105; regressive, 197; social, 44, 56, 94, 191, 223, 232, 224; Marxian, 229; inception of, 221 ; goal of, 167; communistic, 242; special m Russia, 69, 79, 73, 153; theory of, 159 Evolutionism, 117 Exclusiveness of Slavophils, 29 Exhilarations, idealistic, loi Exile, Siberian, 79 Exogamy, 167, 268 Expeditions, raiding, 171 Exploitation, 184; industrial, 171; of group, 113 Expropriation, theory of, 223 Factor, cardinal, of Mikhalovsky's theory, 128; of equilibration, 164; directing, 120, 121; historical, 209; social, all-determining, 266 et seq., social-historical, definition of, 208; interaction of, 252; socializing, 163; subjective, 175, 176 Factory slave, 149; system, 146, 148; worker, 147 Faculties, critical, 92 Failures, revolutionary, 40 Family, 58, 143, 214; animal, 183; development of, 140; European, 69; forms of, 228; individuality of, 141 ; life of animals, 268; metronymic, 97, 267, 268; paternal, 243; primitive, 166; type of, 140 Federal system, 64 Federalism, 77 Federation, 121; of groups, 77; principle of, 239 Federationist, 277 Feelings, aesthetic, 106; altruistic, 228; ego- altruistic, 222, 229; national, 229; sympathetic, 228 Feudalism, way for, 269 Feuerbach, Ludwig, 65, 80, 234, 212, 20s Fertility, human, 164 Fichte, 65 Finality and causality, 273 Folklore, 268 Forces, individuating, 172; productive, 217, 226; socializing, 172 Forms, cultural, 191; social, 1 10; social of animals, 182; social, study of, 251 Formula, evolutionary, 192 Foundations, biological, of sociology, 131. 134 Free will, 90; problem of, 174 Freedom, individual, 110 Fiske, John, 102 Functioning, independent of organism, 132; special of organs, 129, 167 Function, specializing of, 146 Fundamentals of slavophilism, 32 Genius, 137; defined, 209 Giddings, F. H., 96, 247, 290 God, ancient, 243; fiction of, 76 Going-among-the-people, 41, 87 Good, abstract, 120; concrete, I20 Government, 58, 59, 121 ; evolution of, 55; interference, 150; monarchical, 53; origin of, 76 Granovsky, T. K., 62, 77 Great man, school of, 136 Great Russians, 20; secret society, 37 Greatness, political, 76; standard of, 136 Greek, 48; church, 31; Republics slave system, 214 Group, co-dwelling, defined, 161 ; coer- cion of, 168; creation of, 167; evalua- tion of, 126; formation of, 162; life, products of, 163; maintenance of, 163; of critically intellectuals, 116; racial and linguistic, 19; struggle, 233 Groupings, economical, 141; human, defined, 263; political, 141 30lJ INDEX 301 Guild system, 148 Gumplowicz, 264, 290 Habits, 189; similar, 96; of critical thought, 98; social, 82; submitting to, 104 Haeckel, Ernst, 131, 134, 154 Handsomeness, factor of, 163 Happiness, degree of, 146; subjective, 14s Harrison, Jane, 269 Hegel, 29-30, 53, 65, 117, 199, 205, 223; contribution of, 210 Hegelian, 66, 118, 252; school, 33 Hegelians, young, 67, 212 Hegelianism, 211 Heredity, 96; as static factor, 129; organic, 182, 190, 195, transmission t>y. 134 Hero, 185, 186, 191; definition of, 136; function of, 125; how selected, 137; and mob, 135 et seq. Heroism, 137; moral, H2 Herzen, A., 35, 37, 62, 67 et seq., 77, 84, 284 Hierarchy, of individualities, 154; of life's ends, 115; Roman, 64 Heterogeneity, transition to, 126; diminishing of, 12S Historian, demands from, 116; problems of. 173 Historical types of culture, 46 et seq. Historism, 117 History, defined, 93, 237, 199; natural of society, 272; realistic, content of, 254; conception of, 253; dynamic force of, 254; division of, 47; Euro- pean, 56; geological, 55; interpreta- tion of, 150; materialistic, 225, 226, 230; meaning of, 89; mediaeval, 64; movement of, 81; pragmatic, 185; process of, 175; proper, begins, 218; related to sociology, 177; repetition of, 88, 156; trend of, 213 Holy Trinity, of Autocracy, 33, 34 Homogeneity, 53, 126; transition from, 126; transition to, 127 Hostility, instinctive, 76 Humanitarianism, 65 et seq., trend, 62 Humanity, 134; services of, 90 Hume, 120 Hypothesis, bio-sociological, 273; of the superorganic, 274 Hyperpositivism, 273 et seq. Ideals, changes of, 164; craving for. 137, 140; ethical, 152; outside, 151 ; produce of, 259 et seq., social, 192 Idealism, 273; definition of, 174; Ger- man, 24, 62, 210 Idealist, 224; disappointed, 218 Idealogies, 45, 192; productive, 254 Ideas, cultural, recasting of, 198; as dynamics, 276, 277; Hegelian, 199; moral product of, 269; realm of, 144; religious, 143; revolutionary, 73; subjective, teleological, 20i Images, mental, 196 Imitation, 98, 102, 188, 190; controling factor, 137; law of, 138; physiological, 139; as socializing force, 135; uncon- scious, 138 Imitativeuess defined, 139 Imperative, categorical, 108, 116, 117, 120, 121; supreme, 255 Impression, as socializing force, 135 Independence, 149; in organization, 182; political, 50 Indivisibles, integrity of, 146 Individual, abstract, 175; agent of his time, 81; civilized, 142; characteris- tics of, 105; creative function of, 286; critically-minded, 91, 1 18, 202; definition of, 221, 240; destination of, 127; development of, 113; differ- entiated through, 167; differentiation of, 142; as disintegrating force, no; dynamic force, 262; end of social process, 275; enlightened, 116; eval- uation of, 126, 176; exceptional, 209, 221; factor of society, 90; freedom of, 242; functionings of, 107 et seq., 135; genesis of, 104, harmonized, 100; importance of, 224; independ- ence of, 186; interacting, 182; inter- est of, 83, 130; unit of science, 239; war with society, 135; as tool, 83; tool-using, 213; triumph of, 153; organ of, 130; product of, 106-7, no; psychic preparation of, 106; rational activity of, 117; relation to society, 260; responsibilities of, 108; role of, 185 et seq., 191, 235; self conditioning of, 199; social, 175; social dependence of, 107; social force, 108; social product, 183; strong, 103, 255; struggle of, 152; struggle with society, 142; superiority of, 144 Individualism, 154; communistic, 241; problems of, 94 Individuality, abnormalities of, 142; 302 INDEX [302 biological, 131 ; biological aspect of, 131 ; biological, relations of, 132; charactistics of, 145; curtailed, 144; death of, 147; development of, 150, 154, 170, ig8; disintegration of, 145; economic aspect of, 125, 145 et seq.; expression of, 145; handicap of, 1 61; historical aspect, 125, 150 et seq.; influence of, 160; infringement of, 140; integrity of, 148; organic, 132; refuge for, 150; spiritual, 144; static aspect of activity, 162; stages of, 133; struggle for, 120, 133, 135, 143, 167; suppression of, 140; system of, 133 Individuation, antithesis to, 103; bio- logical aspect of, 125; conscious, 112, 115; and division of labor, 146 et seq.; and economic institutions, 148 et seq.; factor in struggle of, 161 ; forms of, no; growth of, 92; psycho- logical aspect of, 1 25 ; psychical com- plexes, 105; and religion, 142 et seq.; theory of, 94, 103 et seq. Inequalities, lessening of 113; of per- sons, 186 Infancy, prolongation of, 102 Infanticide, 163 Initiative, individual, 78, 104, no, 149, 166, 182, 183, 187, 188, 189, igo, 198, 274; original, 139; individual supression of, 135 Innovation, 188 et seq. Instincts, animal, 115; of difference, 76; similar, 96; social, 95; submitting to, 104; sympathetic, 227 Institutions, change of, 205 ; civil, 82 ; communal, 224; development of, 1 70; economic, Russian, 145, free, of Slavs, 21; genesis of, 264, 266; growth of, 165; importance of, 82; improving of, 281; mediaeval, 65; political, 189; progress of, 82, 241; social, 73, 214 Integrality, approach to, 128 Integration, process of, 16 1 et seq. Intelligence, growth of, 165 Intelligenzia, 55 Intellectuals, Russian, 43, 65, 77, 87, 225 Interaction, 95; of factors, 104; of forces, 208; laws of, 160; mental, 185; psychic, 182. 183, 184, 188; result of, 268; social, 230 Interests, conscious, 100, 108, 115; economic, 225; egotistical, 116; humanitarian, 78; human, higher, 234; of individual, 121; like, 112; as moving forces, 100; personal, 133; practical, 229; predatory, 22; schol- arly, 159; scientific, 154; similar, 96; social hierarchy of, loi; social force of, 226; spiritual, 195J utilitarian, 109 Interference, individual, 175 Interpsychology, 265 Interstimulation, 100; of social ele- ments, 113 Invention, loi, 188; form of struggle, 279; individual, 190; power of, 187, 214 Inventiveness, 102 Invertebrates, psychic life of, 104 Investigator, individual views, 157 Ivanov, 41 Ivan the Great, 21 Ivanov Rasumnik, 201 Jacobinism, 37, 41 Janus, 72, 144 Jews, messianic hope of, 260, persecu- tion of, 137; Jedish Bund, 44 Jurists, Roman, 103 Justice, 32, 152, 170; defined, 179; concrete, 120; in civilization, 115 Kant, 117, 120, 152, 224 Korakozov, 38 Kareyev, N. I., 88, 173, 176, 202, 206, 264, 289; analysis of contribution, 174; presuppositions, 174 Katkov, 33 Khomyakov, A. S., 32 Kidd, 299 Kinship, principle of, 170 Knowledge, forms of, 176; key to happi- ness, 280 Knowable, the, 176; limits of, 120 Korkunov, 258 et seq., 287; contribu- tion of, 264 Kovalevsky, M., 271, 287, 288, 289, 291 Kropotkin, P., 41, 119, 236, 287 Leader, intellectual, 155; populist, 159 Leadership, 105 Labor, collective, 219; divided, 172; free, 171; integrating of, 242; move- ment, modern, 171 ; productive, 227; redivision of, 135; specialized, advan- tage of, 154 Labriola, 230 Lacombe, 290 Lamansky, V. I., 33 303] INDEX 303 Land, communal, 20, 149, 243; and liberty, 37, 42 Landlord, 70 Language, 102, 189 Lavrov, P. L., 39, 40, 41, 86 at seq., 119, 120, 155, 156, 158, 159, 172, 201, 202, 207, 236, 249, 250, 255; estimate of, 117 Lavrovtzy, 1 18 Law, 75, 160, 170, 179, 189, 226; general, in science, 176; institution of, 214; natural, 78; defined, 237; of diminishing returns, 50; Spencer's, of evolution, 125; basis of, 227; theory of, 258 et seq., relation to social order, 262; defined, 262; gene- sis of, 266; customary, 245; of three states, 273; of three stages, 150; of identity of contrary abstractions, 273; of grouping, 89; of history, 78,81; origin of, 66; progress of, 200 Laws, So; historical, 79; natural, iii; of physical life, 159; their importance, 82; social, 13; physiological, 69; organic, 163; organic, modified in society, 159; of social phenomena, 123 Le Bon, 290 Lenin, 205 Leontiev, K. N., 33, 53 et seq. Liberalism, 35, 225; Western, 33 Liberals, 44 Libertinism, defined, 144; function of, 125; in individuation, 144 Liberty, 74, 76, 149, 190, 200; a neces- sity, 218; consciousness of, 75 Life, animal, 162; contradictions of, 99, historical, 99; individual, poverty of, 139; relations of, 172; plant, 162; social defined, 176; social, ele- ments of, 99; universal, 74 Lilienfeld, 290 Limitations, natural, 122, 1 30; of man, 78; social, 122 Linguistics, 160 Literature, revolutionary, 87 Little Russians, 20 Local government, 27 Logic, 178; control of, 200; Hegelian, 223; human, 156; scientific, 180 Love, 143; 144; defined, 141; flower of, 140; function of, 125; importance of, 140; in individuation, 140, roots of, 140; to neighbor, 147 Luck, 98 Lvov, 219 Mach, E., 249 Magic, 98; contagious, 208; of group, 103 Maine, H., 264 Majority, 113; benefit of, 108 Malthusianism, generalizations of, 163, 164 Man, activities of, 143; as creator, 74; centre of nature, 151, nature of, 122; primitive, 126; power of nature, 254; sexless, 134; social animal, 105; socialized, 75 Manchester school, 147 Mankind, history of, 94, 166; unity of, 116 Marriage, 141 ; communal, 163 Marx, 39, 43, 65, 73, 117, 211, 212, 213, 219, 223, 225, 226, 232, 234, 252; philosophy of, 205 Marxism, 299; monistic, 232; orthodox, 205; popularity, 220; Russian, 205 Marxist, 39,43, 44, 116,229; fallacy of, 230; Russian, 235 Masaryk, 20 Masons, 24 Maslov, 205 Masses, 44; mediaeval, 139 Mass movement, 135; impetus of, 137 Materialism, 174, 273; dialectical, 209, 218, 220; history of, 210; German, 62, 67; objective, 212 Materialists, English, French, 205 Maxims, utilitarian, 255 Mechanics of relation, 146 Mechanistic conception, 90 McLenon, 264 Mediocrity, 68, 73 Method, anthropological-statistical, 219; objective, when used, 122; his- torical-comparative, 267, 264; de- scriptive, 272; scientific, 274; sub- jective, 88, 90, 157, 175, 156; subjec- tive defined, 250 Methodology, 179, 180; sociological of Kovalevsky, 265; statistical, 78-79 Middle Ages, 100, 137, 139, 140; social stratification of, 141 Mikhalovsky, N. K., 40, 119 et seq., 156, 158, 159, 172, 202, 206, 207, 236, 249, 250 Mill, J. S., 68, 79, 120, 180, 202 Milyoukov, Paul, 28, 45, 57, 72 Mind, animal, 104; attitude of, 124 conflicts of, 99; creativeness of, 195; human, laws of, 176; weakening of, 147 304 INDEX [304 114, Minority, enlightened, 108, 11 3, 246; protection of, 263 Misery, increasing, theory of, 223 Mission, of Slavs, 30; socialistic, theory of, 223 Mob, 137, 185, 186, 191 ; definition of, 136; function of, 125; how created, 138 Modes, occasional, 115 Monad of society, 69 Monism, 219; historic, 253; material- istic, 235 Monogamy, 164 Monopoly, 170 Montesquieu, 27, 23-24 Morality, collective, 99; factor of, 170; identical to sociality, 275 Morgan, 228, 264 Moscow Vyedomosty, The, 33 Mothers, centers of solidarity, 103 Movements, ethical, religious, 215; liberal, 22; political, 7c; political, justification of, 155; Russian, 118; revisionist, 220; social-political, 218 Multiplication of organic beings, 95 Muraviev, Colonel, 26 Muromtzev, A. S., 258 Myrtov, 87 Mysticism, 151, 225 Nakazy, 23, 24, 25 Napoleonic wars, 26, 28, 29 Napoleonic yoke, 30 Narodnaya, Rasprava, 41 Nation, ethnic, 59 Nations, European, 82; rise of, 143 Nationalism, 33, 34 Nationalists, 63 Nationality, 184 Nationalization, of land, 38 Nature, exploitation of, 163; subjection to, 216 Necessity, economic, 217 Nechayev, 38, 40, 41 Needs, analyzed, 226 et seq., collective, 208; sexual, 227 et seq. Negations, anarchistic, 75 Neo-Buddhism, 143 Neo-Marxists, 206 Neo-Marxism, 220 et seq. Neo- Marxian, 225 Neo-Populists, 224 Nicholas I, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36 Nicholas II, 34 Nihilism, 79; movement, 39 Nobility, 76; exploitation of, 23 Norms, juridical, 262; moral, 59 Northern Alliance, 42 Novgorod, 21 Novikov, N., 24 Novicov, Y., 52, 271-277 et seq. Objectivism, 175, 297; advocates of, 176; materialistic, 235 Occidentalists, 62 Odoevsky, Prince, 30 Ogarjov, 77 Oneness, sense of, 240: sympathetic, 239 Opportunism, political, 44 Order, capitalistic, 150; economic, 215 Organic point of view, 65 Organism, analogy of, 166; human, 54; individual, 133; limitation of, 127; social, 183; social, idea of, 127; structure of, 162 Organisms, danger of, 134 Organization, tribal, forms of, 242; communistic, 241 ; definition of, 60; evolution of, 199-200; of society, 77; political, 237; industrial, 216; changes of, 182; social, 190 Orthodoxy, 33, 34; Russian, 32 OverpopiUation, danger of, 164 Ownership, communal, 71, 150 Panslavism, 53 Parliamentarianism, 72 Paris, religions of, 143 Patten, Simon, 232 Patressov, 205 Patriotism, natural, 76 Peculiarities, physiological, 106; psy- chic, 74; of nations, 82 Phenomena, social, evaluation of, 255 People, disaggregation of, 243; static, 215; definition of, 65; life of, 66 People's will, 44; federation of, 281 Perception, psychic, 106, 156 Perfection, sign of, 75; democratic goal of, 248 Periodical press, 36; literature, Russian, 290 Periods, historical, communal, 115; excentric, 152 Personality, defined, 167: importance of, 81 Persecution, 39; Jewish, 20 Pestel, Colonel, 26 Peter the Great, 23, 29 Peter III, 23 Petrarch, 141 305] INDEX 305 Phenomena, biological, 123, 183; ethical, 121, 157; historical, 78, in; mediaeval, 141; psychic, 135; social, antecedents of, 218; social, begin, 183; depend on, 81; range of, 184; relation of, 120 Philosophers, Greek, 99, 103 Philosophy, of Cossak uprisings, 22; empiric, 201; German - romantic, 29; Hegelian, 65, 80, 218; of history, 173; defined, 177; Jesuit, 62; Marx- ian, 205; Moscovite, 29-30; Mystic, 218; positivist, 201; populist, 62; products of, 114; revolutionary, 249; types of, 210 Pissarev, 39, 87 Pleasure, of association, 96; source of, 146 Plekhanov, 43, 205 et seq., presupposi- tions of, 210 et seq. Play, 102, 229 Pobyedonoszev, 33-34 Pogroms, 20 Policy, laissez-faire, 171 Politics, basis of, 157 Polyandry, 163 Polygamy, 164 Populism, Russian, 67 et seq., 79 Populist movement, 39, 78, 84, 119 Populists, Russian, 206, 236 Positivists, agnostic, 142; idealistic, 174; orthodox, 271 ; radical, 120 Positivism, age of, 152; Comte's, I17, French, 62, 80 Potentiality, of people, 67; human, 58 Poverty, abolition of, 281 Power, ambition for, 229 Pravda system, 121, 122 Precedent, Comtian, 131 Precursor of sociology, 77, 79 Premises, idealistic, 117; epistomolog- ical, 117 Presuppositions, of Chernishevsky, 80; of Chernov, 249; of Lavrov, 88 et seq., Marxian, 221; metaphysical, 46, 192, 218; of Mikhalovsky, 120; phil- osophical, 218 Primates, psychic, 105 Primitiveness, criterion of, 268 Principle, biological 106, 133; Darwin- ian, 277; directing, 143; individua- ting, 189, 191; moral, 167, 168; social, 150 Problem, ethical creation of, 163; rise of, 167;; of Mikhalovsky, 130; social solution of, 285 Process, biological, l5l; cosmic, 161; dialectic, 2l8; historic, 72, 73, 151, 185 et seq., 191; interpretation of, 91; individuating, 125; inductive, 124; organic, l6i; defined, 162; pragmatic, of history, 191 ; psychic, 96; psychic individual, 186; socializ- ing, 161 ; 172; social dynamic, 202, 275; origin of, 254; teleological, 232 Production, capitalistic, 83, 217, 222; anarchy of, 223 ; change of manner of, 213; concentration of, 223; differ- entiation of, 154; economic, anal- ogous to, 283; forms of, 205, 215; increase of, 83; scientific, 164; social meaning of, 230; socialization of, 223 Progeny, number of, 194 Progress, achievement of, 112; agent of, 114; concept of, 196; conditions of, 263 ; cost of, in Russia, 22 ; cultural, 222; definition of, 60, 80, 92, 128, I35> '94> 247; diversity of views on, 193; formula of, 146, 195, 209, 250 et seq., goal of, 192, 198; idea of, 192; laws of, 169, 199; meaning of, 126; mental condition of, 195; moral definition of, 168; organic, 166; phases of, 194; philosophy of, 194; problem of, 108; processes of, 112; prototype of 195; questions of. III; realized, 197; revolutionary, 223; scientific theory of, 193; social, defin- ition of, 117, 163; differentiated, 166; social formula of, 130, 200; social, possible, 116; social theory of, 94; social, of Russia, 221; source of, 67; theory of, in et seq., 191 et seq., type of, 129; when possible, 113, 199 Progressiveness, factor of, 170 Proletariat, city, 286 Proletarization, 83, 285 Property, beginning of, 268; of com- mune, 70 Propaganda of the deed, 77; populistic, 205 Propagandists, professor, 77; revolu- tionary, 118 Prostitution, 164 Protestant revolt, 100 Protocracy, theory of, 247 Proudhon, 127 Pskov, 21 Psychology, animal, 105; as a science, 135; concrete science, 274; feudal, 248; functional, 255, 256; of interest, 3o6 INDEX [306 251; related to sociology, 177, 272; social, province of, 178; social, 178; of society, 215; voluntaristic, 225 Public opinion, beginning of, in Russia, 24 Pugatchev, Y., 22-23, 24, 37 Pushkin, A., 23 Questions, dogmatic, 142; scientific, 121 Race, Germanic, 30 Races, cultural, 184; physical, 184 Radicalism, 248; fanatical, 286 Radischev, 24 Rahzin, Stenka, 22, 37 Rationalism, French, 62, 80 Ratzenhofer, 230 Reaction, in history, 81; social, 185 Realism, 39, 1 74 Reason, 75, 80; absolute, 29; function of, 78; power of, 66 Rebellion, Polish, 37 Reconciliation of truth, 120 Reconstruction, economic, 71 Reflexes, unconscious, 106 Reforms, of Russia, 83 Reformation, 64 Reformer, social, 1 16; Russian, 289 Reform, social, 159, 222 Regicide, 42 Regime, socialistic, 223 Relations, economic, 201 ; ethical, 90, 150; morphological, 131; of individ- ual and society, 65, 67; subjective, 176 Relationship, social, 143 Religion, 51, 55, 102, 151, 189, 226; definition of, 143; development of, 269 ; function of, 1 25 ; historical force, 229; origin of, 77; significance of, 142-143, social significance of, 97- 98; utilitarian, 234 Resignation, Christian, 32 Revisionists, 206, 22c, doctrine of, 222 et seq. Revisionism, German, 44 Revolution, 77; political, 72; made by, 247; and failure, 248 power of, 246; Russian, 20 220, 224, 249; social, 70,72; in evolution, 238; of Western Europe, 73 Revolutionists, Russian, 1 1 8, 236 Riehl, 249 Right, conception of, 262; equal, of sexes, 164 Robespierre, 143 Rome, 30, 64, 99 Roman, 48, 53; Catholic, 35; Church, 64; hierarchy, 57, 245 Romano-Germanic, 33, 69 Romanticism, abnormal, 141 Rueckert, 47 Rurik, 31 Russia, land of extremes, 19; theories of, 63 Russian socialist, 67; people, character- istics of, 25, 32; individuality of, 29 Russo-Japanese War, 22, 44, 45 Russophils, 33, 34, 53 et seq. Saint Simon, 53, 208 Sanction, religious, 76 Savagery, 167; period of, 170 Saxons, 25 Schelling, 29, 65 Schuppe, 224 Sciences, classifications of, 165, 177, 201, 271, 272; natural, limited, 176; product of, 114, 229; philosophic, 174; relation to religion, 143; social, concrete, 266; social, methods of, 237; social, problem of, 177; social, product of, 1 79 Scientist, solidarity of, 148 Schism, Protestant, 64 School, biological, of sociology, 134 Schools, Comtian, 252; Marxist, Ortho- dox, 206 Scholastics, medieval, 103 School, objectivist, 205 et seq.; sub- jectivist, 202, 213, 224, 235, 285; subjectivist, criticism of, 218; subjec- tivist, popularity of, 205 Sects, Russian, 20 Selection, artificial, 130, 164; historical, 163, 164, 165; law of, 279; natural, 163, 164, 165; natural, factor of, 166; natural, 216; natural, laws of, 130; natural, limits of, 172; natural, pro- cess of, 182; sexual, phases of, 163 Self government, local, 71 Self preservation, individual, 168; sense of, 229; social, 168; struggle of, 162 Sergeyevitch, V. I., 257 Serfdom, 82 Sexes, activities of, 228; development of, 142; differentiation into, 141 Shchukin, 87 Simkhovitch, V., 223 Simmel, 221, 249 Simplicity, disintegrating, 55 Sippyagin, 44 307] INDEX Slav, characteristics of, 51; democratic organization, 25; psychology, 19, 20; wife stealing of, 164; people's, 32; races, 30; type of culture, 52; world, 71 Slavophils, 46, S3, 62, 72, 184, 29s; newer, 33 Slavophilism, 29 et seq.; Neo, 56 et seq. Small, A., 230 Smith, Adam, 24, 27, 246 Smolikovsky, 7 Sociability, degree of, 217; ideals of, 168 Social Democratic party, 44 Social Democracy, Russian, 43 Social Economics, 51 Social Revolutionaries, 44 Socialism, 36, 43, 69, 70, 71; revolu- tionary, 103, 249; Russian, 79 Socialists, 31; individualistic, 193; Uto- pian, 207 Socialization, factor of, 145; phenomena of, 96; process of, 169; proximate cause of, 162 Society, animal, 115, 124; anthropo- logical aspect, 184; aspects of, 180 et seq., civic, 170; changes of, 127, 225, 226; control of, 144, 259; created, 74; criterion of, 168; decay of, 70, 71 ; definition of, 58, 59, 75, 78, 80, 126, 127, 134, 161, 168, 183, 184, 238, 275; 280; development of, 217; dynamic, factors of, 129; effi- ciency, 169; end of, 186; as enemy, 130; ethical culture, 143; ethnic, 170; evolution of, 100, 159; federated, 248; feudal relation of, 247; how created, 163; how it develops, 126; human, laws of, 177; ideal, 198; industrial, 115; interests of, 142; nature of, 258; organic nature of, 160; organic views, 74; an organism, 181; phases of, 113; phenomena of, 170; primitive, characterized, 167; productive forces of, 222; recasting of, 200; Russian, 159; secret, military, 27; services of, 154; transition of, 127; tribal, 115; voluntary, 243; wholesome influence of, 13s Sociologists, American, 117; Franco- Russian, 271; Marxist, 249, 286; mechanistic, 261 ; naturalistic, 174; organic, 26 1 ; positivist, 218; Russian, contribution of, 285, 287; Russian, school of, 201 Sociology, basis of, 117; biologic-or- ganic, 202; and biology, 123; Dar- winian, 129; definition of, 91, 123, 159, i6o, 177, 265; duties of, 148; economic aspect of, 161, 169; ethical aspect of, 157, 167 et seq.; as ethics, 57, 274; functional, 250; genetic, 257, 264 et seq.; juristic, 257 et seq.; laws of, 93; method of, 122, 199, 288; organic, 154, 189; outline by Youzhakov, 157; Physical aspect of, 163 et seq., positivist, 218; problems of, 250 et seq., 160; province of, 123 et seq., 91 et seq., 179, 272; psycho- logical aspect of, 157; Russian, de- finition of, 286; Russian, future of, 285; Russian prospects for future, 287, 288; Russian School of, 157; relation to history, 173; relation to the sciences, 123; statistical aspect of, 178-179; subjective, critique of, 206 et seq.; task of, 145; teaching of, in Russia, 289; teleological aspect of, 90, 122 Soloviev, V. S., 34, 56 et seq. Sources of Yozhakov's views, 158 et seq. Specialization, 73; of production, 148; of function, 151 Species, 46; change of, 76, 128; charac- teristics of, 240; ideological, 273; origin of, 128, 219; substitute of, 129 Spencer, Herbert, 53, 117, 120, 121, 128, 130, 134, 158, 159, 172, 189, 264, 290; generalization of, 126 Spencerian, 96; evolution, 125; view, 160 Spencerianism, 207 Speransky, 27 Spiritism, 174 Squillace, Faustus, 7 Stage, eccentric, 151; of evolutionary process, 150; humanitarian, 79; ob- jective, anthropocentric, 151; organic, 56; subjective, anthropocentric, 152; transitional of Russia, 73; transitional of social theory, 79 Standards of society, 81; subjective, 89 State, 73, 77, 224, 226; anarchist, defi- nition of, 237; craft, 103; creation of, 281 et seq.; creative power of, 221; definition of, 66, 75-76; function of, 264; institution of, defined, 263; interference of, 70; modern, develop- ment of, 245 ; of nature, 66 ; power of, 164; purpose of, 83; religious, 143 308 INDEX [308 Statistician, laws of, 1 24 Statistics, in sociology, 1 24 Stepnyak, 41 Sterility, sexual, 154 Stratification, social, 164 Strength, personal factor of, 164 Strong, W. M., 269 Stronin, 7 Structure, social, change of, 214 Struggle, animal, 182; against survivals, 115; classification of, 278 et seq.; definition of, 27S; economic, 231 ; with environment, loi ; for existence, 90, 123, 130; law of, 182, 194, 253; for happiness, 90; for individuality, 40; individuals, limitation of, 165; individuality, 195, inner, 241 ; inter- national, 171; pohtical, 103; for power, 231 ; role of, 66; selective, 39 Struve, P., 42, 206, 220 et seq. Subdivision of labor, 135 Subjectivism, rules of, 251; scientific, 89; sociological, 220; school, 36, 65, 157; Russian, 249 Subjective method, 118; when used, 122 Study, inductive, of society, 90 Suggestion as socializing force, 1 35 Super-organic, stages of, 276 Superstruction, idealogical, 215; phys- ical, 106 Surplus, 162, 163; distribution of, 222; economic, 159, 170, 235; economic necessity of, 286; physical, 169; role of, 172; social, 159 Sympathy, task of, 140; similar, 96; stimuli of, 106; Synthesis, sociological, 117, 202 Synthetizers, 202 System, competitive, legal, loo; mech- anistic, 90; metaphysical, 151 ; syn- thetic, 172 Taboos, sexual, 268 Tarde, 265 Tatischev, M., 24, 25 Tendency, selective, of historians, 89; tractarian, 118 Theocracy, Roman, 35; Russian, 34 Theocratic theory, 63; trend, 62 Theology, 151; humane, 152 Theories, ethical, TI9; sociological, 119 Theorizer, bio-sociological, 278 Terror, 71 Thesis, no Thorndike, 106 Thought, critical, 99, 108, 115, 199; function of, 78; growth of, 112; im- portance of, 80; individual, 113; liberal, 23; moral, 114; philosophic, 114; scientific, 114; sociological, 7 Tkachov, 41, 42 Toil, basis of, 170; role of, 75 Tolstoy, 7, 224 Tools, making of, 214, use of, 213 Trade union, control of, 148 Trade unionism, 44 Tradition, 58, 190, 195; boundaries of, 190; cultural, 190, 191 ; social, 182 Transition to civil society, 103 Tribes, 55, 59, 66, 141 ; definition of, 208; matrilinear, 97; primitive, 66, )66 Trilogy, Hegelian, 77, 118 Truth, absolute, 122; abstract, 120; criterion of, 210; definition of, 122; human, 122; objective, 88; relative, 121; rule of, 198 Tugan-Baronovsky, 206, 225 et seq. Turgeniev, I. 7, 26, 39 Tylor, 264 Types, bourgeois, 148; creator of, 118; formation of, no; ideal, 129; lower- ing of, 141, 149; cultural, 254; of minds, animal, 105; of minds, 187; practical, 128; psychic, of animals, 105; unity in, 190 Ulianov, 205 Understandings, collective, 99; animal, 106 Unification, system of, loo Unison, striving for, 140 Unity, centralized, 144; of thought, 64 University of Moscow, 29 Usnadse, D. V., 57 Unknowable, realm of, 142 Utilitarianism, edition of, 129 Utopia, 79, 211, 223 Uvarov, Count, 33, 34 Valentinov, 206 Value, concept of, 219; absolute, 122 Valuev, 32 Variant, from norm, 1 10 Variations, biological, 69; individual, 182, 189, 190 Variags, 21 Vecha, 21 Vertebrates, psychic life of, 104 Vodka, 22 Volgin, 206 309] INDEX 309 Volition, act of, 91 Voltaire, 24 Wallace, 30 War, (1914), 22 Ward, L., 118, 232, 249, 290 Washington, 283 Waves, revolutionary, 43 Wealth, consumption of, 145; social product, 242; curse of, 83; definition of, 145; national, 171; production of, 16;, 170 Welfare, social, based on, 281 ; social, principles of, 1 14 Well-being, how attained, 240 Weltgeist, 30 Westernists, 277; theories of, 62 et seq., 77, 78, 79, 84 Westernism, 29, 34 White Russians, 20 Wife-stealing, 164 Will, human, 188 Witch-burning, 137 Work, definition of, 145; purposeful, 162 Workingmen of France, 70 World, scientific, 155; inorganic, char- acteristics of, 259 Worms, 290 Yourhakov, 156 et seq., 202 Youth, 102 Zemstvos, 34 Zenith, of Russian Sociology, 45 ®0lumMa Wiulvzicsitvi in mz mtvi uf W^tm 3ov^ The University includes the following : Columbia College, founded in 1754, and Barnard College, founded in 1889, offering to men and women, respectively, programmes of study which may he hegun either in September or February and which lead normally in from three to four years to the degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science. The programme of study in Columbia College makes it possible for a well qualified student to satisfy the requirements for both the bachelor's degree in arts or science and a professional degree in law, medicine, technology or education in six, five and a half, or five years as the case may be. The Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy and Pure Science, offering advanced programmes of study and investigation leading to the degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy. The professional schools of Law, established m 1858, offering courses of three years leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws. Medicine. The College of Physicians and Surgeons, established in 1807, offering four-year courses leading to the degree of Doctor of Medi- cine. Mines, founded in 1863, offering courses of three years leading to degrees in Mining. Engineering and in Metallurgy. Chemistry and Engineering, set apart from School of Mines in 1896, offer- ing three-year courses leading to degrees in Chemistry and in Civil, Electrical, Mechanical and Chemical Engineering. Teachers College, founded in 1888, offering in its School of Education courses in the history and philosophy of education and the theory and practice of teaching, leading to appropriate diplomas and the degree of Bachelor of Science in Education ; and in its School of Practical Arts founded in 1912, courses in household and industrial arts, fine arts, music, and physical training leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science in Practical Arts. All the courses in Teachers College are open to men and women. Architecture, offering a programme of indeterminate length leading to a certificate or a degree in Architecture. Journalism, founded in 1912, offering a four-year course in Journalism leading to the degree of Bachelor of Literature. Pharmacy. The New York College of Pharmacy, founded in 1831, offer- ing courses of two and three years leading to appropriate certifi- In the Summer Session the University offers courses giving both gen- eral and professional training which may be taken either with or without regard to an academic degree or diploma. Through its system of Extension Teaching the University offers many courses of study to persons unable otherwise to receive academic training. . , , ^ The Institute of Arts and Sciences provides lectures, concerts, read- ings and recitals— approximately two hundred and fifty in number— in a single season. , ^ . ^ ^^^ There are three Residence Halls providmg accommodations for 820 men. There are also residence halls for women. The price of the University Catalogue is twenty-five cents postpaid, Detailed information regarding the work in any department will be fur- nished without charge upon application to the Secretary of Columbia University, New York, N. Y. ALBERT SHAW LECTURES ON DIPLOMATIC HISTORY Delivered in the Johns Hopkins University Diplomatic Negotiations of American Naval Officers 1778-1883 By CHARLES OSCAR PAULLIN LECTURER ON NAVAL HISTORY IN THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 380 Pages. Cloth, $2.00 The naval officer as a diplomat was distinguished for simplicity, candor and di- rectness, and as his negotiations were for the most part with far distant oriental peo- ples, he was often the first to establish permanent relations with the United States. The story of the negotiation with Barbary, Tripoli, Algiers and other Mohammedan states upon the Mediterranean is graphically told, and interesting chapters are devoted to the successful efforts of American commanders to break down the diplomatic bar- riers of China, Japan and Korea. American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk By JESSE S. REEVES, Ph.D. PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 335 Pages. Cloth, $1.50 This volume discusses the Northeastern Boundary Controversy; the Ashburton Treaty; the Relations between Mexico and the United States, 1825-1843; the Annex- ation of Texas; The Northwestern Boundary Controversy; The Oregon Treaty; Polk's Attempted Negotiations for California; The Outbreak of the Mexican War; The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. British Interests and Activities in Texas 1838-1846 By EPHRAIM D. ADAMS, Ph.D. PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN LELAND STANFORD JR. UNIVERSITY 276 Pages. Cloth, $1.50 This book is a valuable contribution to the diplomatic questions discussed in part in the previous volume by Reeves, published also in this series. It contains chapters on First Indications of British Interest; The Negotiations of Treat and Hamilton; British Recognition Postponed ; Kennedy's Mission to Texas; The Monte- zuma and the Guadeloupe; First British Offer of Mediation; Elliot in Texas; The Robinson Armistice and the London Abolition Meeting; The Calhoun-Pakenham Correspondence; Aberdeen's Plan to Prevent Annexation; Aberdeen's Withdrawal from Joint Action with France; Elliot's Mission to Mexico; Texas Annexed; English Interest in the Annexation of California. International Law and Diplomacy of the Spanish-American War By ELBERT J. BENTON PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN ADELBERT COLLEGE 300 Pages. Cloth, $1.50 Among the topics discussed are : Cuba and National Policy; American Neutral- ity, 1895-1897; Abandonment of Non-intervention Policy; Intervention; Transition from Neutrality to Belligerency; Relations of the Belligerents; Relations Between Belligerents and Neutrals; Negotiations of Belligerents during War; Restoration of Peace; Interpretation and Fulfillment of Treatv of Peace. THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Columbia University Press Publications SOCIAL EVOLUTION AND POLITICAL THEORY. By Leonard T. Hob- HOUSE. Professor of Sociology in the University of London. Pp. ix-f-2l8. CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES. By WooDROW Wilson, LL.D., late President of Princeton University. Pp. vii + 236. THE BUSINESS OF CONGRESS. By Samuel W. McCall, late Member of Congress from Massachusetts. Pp. vii + 215. THE COST OF OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. A Study in Political Pathology. By Henry Jones Ford, Professor of Politics in Princeton Uni- versity. Pp. XV -j- 147. POLITICAL PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT. By Albert Shaw, LL.D., Editor of the Review of Reviews. Pp. vii-f 268. THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN. By Jeremiah W. Jenks, LL.D., Professor of Gov- ernment and Public Administration in New York University. Pp. xviii-|- 187. WORLD ORGANIZATION AS AFFECTED BY THE NATURE OF THE MODERN STATE. By David Jayne Hill, LL.D., late American Ambas- sador to Germany. Pp. ix -|- 214. THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE LAW. By John Chipman Gray, LL.D., Royall Professor of Law in Harvard University. Pp. xii -t-332. THE GENIUS OF THE COMMON LAW. By the Right Honorable Sir Fred- erick Pollock, Bart., D.C.L., LL.D., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrisler-at-Law ; Honorary Fellow of Corpus Christ! College, Oxford. Pp. vii-(- 141. THOMAS JEFFERSON. His Permanent Influence on American Institutions. By John Sharp Williams, United States Senator from Mississippi. Pp. ix + 330. THE MECHANICS OF LAW MAKING. By Courtenay Ilbert, G. C. B., Clerk of the House of Commons, Uniformly bound, 12mo, cloth. Each, $1.50 net. STUDIES IN SOUTHERN HISTORY AND POLITICS. Inscribed to William Archibald Dunning, Lieber Professor of History and Political Philosophy in Columbia University by his former pupils, the authors. A collection of fifteen essays. 8vo, cloth, pp. viii -|- 294. JS2.50 net. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY. An illustrated magazine which, in addition to its record of all official University action, and to its historical and biographical articles of interest to Columbia men, aims to represent that wide variety of literary, philosophic, and scientific activity which focuses at Columbia and through which the University contributes to the thought and work of the world. Above all else, it it intended that this magazine shall be a means of maintaining close relations between the alumni and the University. The Quart- erly is issued in December, March, June and September, each volume beginning with the December number. Annual subscription, one dollar ; single number, thirty cents. 500 pages per volume. Managing Editor, Professor CHARLES S. BALDWIN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS LEMOKE & BUEOHNER, Agents 30-32 West Twenty-Seventh Street, New York City Longmans, Green, & Co.'s Publications WORKS by W.J. ASHLEY.M.A., Hon. Ph.D.CBerlin) Professor of Commerce in the University of Birmingham ; formerly Professor at Harvard University. BRITISH DOMINIONS Their Present Commercial and Industrial Condition. A Series of General Reviews for Business Men and Students. Edited by W. J. Ashley. Crown 8vo. |i.8o, net. THE BRITISH DOMINIONS. By the Right Hon. Alfred Lyttleton, M.P., K.C., late Secretary of State for the Colonies. AUSTRALIA. By the Right Hon. Sir George Reid, K.C.M.G., High Com- missioner of the Commonwealth of Australia. AUSTRALIA. By Sir Albert Spicer, Bart, M.P., Chairman of the Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire at Sydney, 1909. NEW ZEAI.AND. By the Hon. William Pember Reeves, Director of the London School of Economics ; late High Commissioner of New Zealand. SOUTH AFRICA. By the Hon. Sir Walter Hely-Hutchinson, G.C.M.G., Late Governor of Cape Colony ; formerly Governor of Natal. SOUTH AFRICA. By Henry Birchenough, C.M.G., Director of the British South Afirica Company ; late Board of Trade Commissioner to South Africa. THE WEST INDIES. By Sir Daniel Morris, K..C.M.G., D. Sc, late Im- perial Commissioner of Agriculture for the West Indies. CANADA. By W. L. Griffith, Secretary to the High Commissioner of the Dominion of Canada. The Lectures contained in this hook were delivered before the University of Birmingham in i^io-ii. THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES. A Study on the Coal and Iron Industries of Great Britain and the United States. With Four Maps. 8vo., J54.00, net. BRITISH INDUSTRIES. A Series of General Reviews for Business Men and Students. By various authors. Edited by W. J. AsHLBY. Crown 8vo., Si. 80, net. THE SCOTTISH STAPLE AT VEERE. A Study in the Economic History of Scotland. By JOHN DAVIDSON, M.A., D.Phil. (Edin.), and ALEXANDER GRAY, M.A. With 13 Illustrations. ^4.50, net. THE TRUST MOVEMENT IN BRITISH INDUSTRY. A Study of Business Organisation. By Henry W. Macrosty, B.A. 8vo. JS2.50, net. THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. By Ernest Ludlow Bogart, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics in the University of Illinois. With 26 Maps and 95 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., »i.7S. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., Publishers, Fourth Avenue and SOth Street, New York. Longmans, Green, & Co.'s Publications Day — A History of Commerce. By Clive Day, Ph.D., Pro- fessor of Economic History in Yale University. With 34 Maps. 639 pages. JS2.00. This book contains the essentials of commercial progress; and development with special attention to the relative proportion of subjects. During the nineteenth century, the appor- tionment of space to the different countries has been regulated by their respective commer- cial importance. The first two chapters on the United States are designed to serve both as a summary of colonial history and as an introduction to the commercial development of the national period. Later chapters aim to include the essentials of our commercial progress. Follett— Tlie Speaker of tJie House of Representa- tives. By M. P. FoLLETT. With an Introduction by Albert Bush- NELL Hart, LL.D. Crown 8vo, with Appendices and Index, f 1.75. "In few recent works belonging to the field of politics and history do we find so much evi- dence of the conditions which are essential to the making of a good book — a well-chosen theme, grasp of subject, mastery of material, patient, long-continued, wisely directed labor, good sense and good taste . . . the wonder is that in a region so new the author should have succeeded in exploring so far and so well. The work has placed every student of politics and political history under heavy obligations '* — Political Science Quarterly. CadbTiry— Experiments in Industrial Organization. By Edward Cadbury, part author of " Women's Work and Wages " and " Sweating." With a Preface by W. J. Ashley, M. A., Professor of Commerce in the University of Birmingham. Crown 8vo. $1.60 net. Bipley— Railroads. In tTro volumes. By William Z. Ripley, Ph.D., Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Economics in Harvard University, author of "Railway Problems," etc. Vol. I, Rates and Regu- lation, with 41 maps and Diagrams. 8vo, pp. xviii -|- 659, $3.00 net. Vol. II, Finance and organization, with 29 maps and diagrams in the text. 8vo, pp. xx-l-638, J>3.oo net. Eo-w^e— United States and Porto Bico. With Special Refer- ence to the Problems arising out of our contact with the Spanish American Civilization. By Leo S. Rowe, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science in the University of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the Porto Rican Commission (1901-1902), etc. Crown 8vo. 280 pages. S1.30 net ; by mail, S1.40 Willougliljy— Political Theories of the Ancient World. By Westel W. Willoughby, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Political Science in the Johns Hopkins University. Author of "The Nature of the State," "Social Justice," "The Rights and Duties of American Citi- zenship," etc. Crown, 8vo. 308 pages. |2.oo. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., Publishers, Fourth Avenue and 30th Street, New York. Noteworthy New Books Priest: Germany since 1740 By George Madison Priest, Professor of Germanic Languages and Literature in Princeton University. i2mo, xvi-)-i99 pages, Jji.25. A brilliant historical account of the genesis of modern Germany. The chronicle includes one of the most interesting periods of German history, from the time of the accessions of Maria Theresa and Frederick the Great down to William II and the beginning of the present wai. The book is fully equipped with maps, a chronological table, genea- logies of leading ruling houses, bibliography, and index. Gettell: Problems in Political Evolution By Raymond Gettell, Professor of Social and Political Science, Am- herst College. 8vo, 400 pages, ;^2.oo. An attempt to trace the formation and evolution of modern government. Among the many problems considered are : — the leading factors in political development; the origin of the state; relations of the state to the family, the church, industrial organizations and military organizations ; the functions and purpose of the state ; and the present tendencies in political evolution. Thallon: Readings in Greek History By Ida Carleton Thallon, Assistant Professor of History in Vassar College. 8vo, xxix-l-638 pages, ^2.00. This book comprises extracts translated from the Greek of the original sources, ranging from the time of Homer through the Battle of Chaeronea. Students of history unacquainted with Greek can read in this volume not merely passages from the historians but translations of historical inscriptions, selections from the orators, and those passages from the dramatists and poels which throw light on the history of the period to which they belong. Hayes: British Social Politics By Carleton Hayes, Assistant Professor of History in Columbia Uni- versity. l2mo, 580 pages, JS1.7S. This volume deals with tlie recent work of social reform and working- class legislation in Great Britain. During the past seven years many important workingman's acts have been passed : workmen's compensation, trade dispute, labor exchange, old-age pensions, etc., accomplishing collectively a veritable revolution, though a comparatively peaceful one. Eacli of these is treated in a separate chapter and in each case the act itself is given. An invaluable book not merely for historians and economists, but also for social workers and in- telligent, earnest citizens. GINN AND COMPANY BOSTON NE>V YORK CHICAGO LONDON Studies in History, Economics and Public Law edited by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University VOLUME I, 1891-92. 2nd Ed., 1897. 396 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 1. The Divorce Problem. A Study In Statistics. iJy Walter F. Willcox, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents, a. Tbe History ot Taritl AdmlnlKtratlon In the United States, from Colonial Times to the McKlnley Administrative Bill. By John Dean Goss, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 3. History of Municipal Land OTvnershlp on Manhattan Island. By George Ashton Black, Ph.D. Price, $x.co. 4. Financial History of Massachusetts. By Charles H. J. Douglas, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. VOLUME II, 1892-93. (See note on page 4.) 1. The Economics ol the Russian "Village. BylsAAcA. Hourwich, Ph.D. {Out of print.) 3. Bankruptcy. A Study In Comparative Legislation. By Samuel W. Dunscomb, Jr., Ph.D. {^Not sotd separately.) 3. Special Assessments ! A Study in Municipal rinance. By Victor RosEWATER, Ph.D. Second Edition, 1898. Price, $1.00. VOLUME III, 1893. 465 pp. (Sold only in Sets.) 1. 'History ol Electlonsln American Colonies. By Cortland F. Bishop, Ph.D. Price g2.oo, cloth. 13. The Commercial Policy of England tovrard the American Colonies. By George L. Beek, A.M. {Noi sold separately^ VOIXTME IV, 1893-94. 438 pp. (Sold only in Sets.) 1. T'inanclal History of "Virginia. By William Z. Ripley, Ph.D. Price, |i.oo. 5. *Tlie Inlieritance Tax. By Max "Wkst, Ph.D. Second Edition, igo8. Price, J2.00. 3. History ot Taxation in Vermont. ByFREDBRiCKA. Wood, Ph.D. {^Not sold separately^ VOLUME V, 1895-96. 498 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 1. Double Taxation in the trnited States. By Francis Walker, Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo. S. The Separation of Governmental Po-wers. By William Bondy, LL.B., Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo. 3. Mnnlclpai Government in Michigan and Ohio. By Delos F. Wilcox, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. VOLUME VI, 1896. 601 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; Paper covers, $4.00. History of Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania. By William Robert Shepherd, Ph.D. VOLUME VII, 1896. 512 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 1. History of the Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth Govern- ment in Massachusetts. By Harry A. Cushing, Ph.D. Price, {2.00. 8. * Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the tTnlted States. By Henry Crosby Emery, Ph.D. Price, $1.50, VOLUME VIII, 1896-98, 551 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. The Struggle hetween President Johnson and Congress over Recon- struction. By Cbakles Ernest Chadsey, Ph.D. Price, |i.oo. S. Becent Centralizing Tendencies in State Educational Administration. By William Clarence Webster, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. S. The Aholitlon of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris. By Francis R. Stark, LL.B., Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 4. Public Administration In Massachusetts. The Belation of Central to Local Activity. - By Robert Harvey Whitten, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. VOLUME IX, 1897-98. 617 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. *EnKllsh Local Government of To-day. A Study of the Kelatlons of Cen- tral and Local Government. By Milo Roy Maltbis, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 5. German "Wage Theories. A History of their Development. By James W. Crook, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. S. The Centralization of Administration In New York State. By John Archibald Fairlie. Ph.D. Price. Th.e Past and Present of Commerce in Japan. By Yetaro Kinosita, Ph.D. Price, gi.50, S. Tlie Employment of Women in th.e Clothing: Trade. By Mabel Hurd Willet, Ph.D Price, $1.50. 3, Xh.e Centralization o£ Administration in Ohio. By Samuel P. Orth, Ph.D. Price, $i.go, VOLUME XVII, 1903. 635 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. * Centralizing Tendencies In the Administration of Indiana. By William A. Rawles, Ph.D. Price, ^2.50, a. Principles oljastice In Taxation. By Stephen F. Weston, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. VOLUME XVIII, 1903. 753 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. The Administration of Io"wa. By Harold Martin Bowman, Ph.D. Price, J1.50, S- Turgot and the Six Edicts. By Robert P. Shepherd, Ph.D. Price, |i.so, 3. Hanover and Prussia 1705-1S03, By Guy Stanton Ford, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. VOLUME XIX, 1903-1905. 688 pp. Price, clotli, $4.00. 1. Joslah Tucker, Economist, By Walter Ernest Clark, Ph.D. Price, $i 50. 3, History and Criticism of the Labor Theory of "Value in English Political Economy. By Albert C. Whitaker, Ph.D. Price, Ji.50. 8, Trade "Unions and the LaTV in New Tork. By George Gorham Groat, Ph.D. Price, $r.oo. VOLUME XX, 1904. 514 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 1. The Office of the Justice of the Peace in England. By Charles Austin Beard, Ph.D. Price, ^1.50, S. A History of Military Government in NeTvly Acquired Territory of the United States. By David Y. Thomas, Ph. D. Price, $2.00. VOLUME XXI, 1904. 746 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. * Treaties, their Making: and Enforcement. By Samuel B, Crakdall, Ph.D. Price, 1S1.50. 2. The Sociology of a No-w York City Block. By Thomas Jesse Jones, Ph.D. Price, i£i.oo. Q, Pre-Malthusian I>octrlnes of Population. By Charles E. Stangeland, Ph.D. Price, $2.50. YOLUKE XXII, 1905. 520 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50; paper covers, $3.00. The Historical Development ol the Poor Law of Conneotlcnt. By Edward W. Capen, Ph.D. VOLUME XXIII, 1905. 594 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. I. The Economics of Land Tenure In Georgia. By Enoch Marvin Banks, Ph.D. Price, fx.oo. 3. Mistake in Contract. A Study In Comparative Jurisprudence. By Edwin C. McKbag, Ph.D Price, ^i.oo. 3. Combination In the Mining Industry. By Henry R. Musskv, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 4. The English Craft Guilds and the Government. By Stella Kramer, Ph.D. Price, $i.oo. VOLUME XXIV, 1905. 521pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. The Place of Magic In the Intellectual History of Europe. By Lynn Thorndike, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 2. The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodoslan Code. By William K. Botd, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 5. * The International Position of Japan as a Great PoTver . By Seiji G. Hishida, Ph.D. Price, ^2,00. VOLUME XXV, 1906-07. 600 pp. (Sold only in Sets.) 1. *Munlclpal Control of Public utilities. By O. L. Pond, Ph.D. (Not sold separately.) S. The Budget In the American Common'wealths. By Eugene E. Agger, Ph.D. Price, ^1.50. 3. The Elnances of Cleveland. By Charles C. Williamson, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. VOLUME XXVI, 1907. 559 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. Trade and Currency In Early Oregon. By James H. Gilbert, Ph.D. Price, $i.oo. 3. Luther's Table TalK. By Preserved Smith, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 3. The Tobacco Industry In the United States. By Meyer Jacobstbin, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 4. Social Democracy and Population. By Alvan A, Tennev, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. VOLUME XXVII, 1907. 578 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. The Economic Policy of Robert Walpole. By Noreis A. Brisco, Ph.D. Price, Ji.so. 3. The United States Steel Corporation. By Abraham Berglund, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 8. The Taxation of Corporations in Massachusetts. By Harry G. Friedman, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. VOLUME XXVIII, 1907. 564 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. DeWltt Clinton and the Origin of the Spoils System in New York. By Howard Lek McCain , Ph. D. Price, $1.50. 3. The Development of the Legislature of Colonial Virginia. By Elmer I. Miller, Ph.D. Price, fi.50. 3. The Distribution of Ownership. ByJosEPH Harding Underwood, Ph.D. Price,$i.5o. VOLUME XXIX, 1908. 703 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. Early New England Towns. By Anne Bush MacLear, Ph.D. Price, J1.50. 3. New^ Hampshire as a Eoyal Province. By William H. Fry, Ph.D. Price,$3.oo. VOLUME XXX, 1908. 712 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; paper covers, $4.00. The Province of New Jersey, 1664—1738. By Edwin P. Tanner, Ph.D. VOLUME XXXI, 1908. 575 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. Private Ereight Cars and American Railroads. ■^ s. By L. D. H. Weld, Ph.D. Price, ^1.30. 3. Ohio before 1850. By Robert E. Chaddock, Ph.D. Price, $1.50 3. Consanguineous Marriages in the American Population. By George F. Louis Arner, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 4. Adolphe Quetelet as Statistician. By Frank H. Hankins, Ph.D. Price, ^1.25. VOLUME XXXII, 1908. 705 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; paper covers, $4.00. The Enforcement of the Statutes of Laborers. By Bertha Haven Putnam, Ph.D. VOLUME XXXIII, 1908-1909. 635 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. Factory Legislation in Maine. By E. Stagg Whitin, A.B. Price, Ji.oo. 5. •Psychological Interpretations of Society, t,v r^ t, . By MICHAEI.M. Davis, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 3. * An Introduction to the Sources relating to the Germanic Invasions. By Carlton Huntley Hayes, Ph.D. Price, ^1.50. VOLUME XXXIV. 1909. 628 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1 ■ [88] Transportation and Industrial Development In tlie Middle West. By William F. Gsfhaet, Fh.D. Price, ta.o*. S. [90] Social Reform and the Reformation. By Jacob Salwtk Schafiko, Ph.D. Price, |i.is. S. [91] Responsibility tor Crime. By Philip A. Parsons, Pli.D. Price, $1.50. VOLUME XXXV, 1909. 568 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [98] The Conflict over the Judicial Powers In the United States to 1870. By Charles Grove Haihbs, Ph.D. Price,$i.5o. 9, [93] A Study of the Population of Manhattanvllle. By Howard Brown Woolston, Ph.D. Price, ^1.25. 8. [94] 'Divorce: A Study In Social Causation. By Jambs F. Lichtbhbergbr, Ph.D. Price, I1.50. VOLUME XXXVI, 1910. 542 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [95] •Reconstruction in Texas. By Charles William Ramsdbll, Ph.D. Price, |a.so. 8. [981 ' The Transition In "Vlrelula from Colony to Commonwealt]]. By Charles Ramsdbll Lingley, Ph.D. Price, ^x. 50. VOLUME XXXVII, 1910, 606 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [97] Standards of Reasonableness In Liocal Freight Discriminations. By John Maurice Clark, Ph.D. Price, |i.a5. 8. [98] liceal Development In Colonial Massachusetts. By Charles J. Hilket, Ph.D. Price, $1.25. 8. [99] * Social and Mental Traits of the Negro. By Howard W. Odum, Ph.D. Price, fi.oo. VOLUME XXXVIII, 1910. 463 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 1. [100] The Public Domain and Democracy. By Robert Tudor Hill, Ph.D. Price, ^.oo. 8. [lOl] Oreanlsmic Theories of the State. By Francis W. Cokbr, Ph.D. Price, #i.jo. VOLUME XXXIX, 1910-1911. 651 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [108] The Making of the Balkan States. By William Smith Murray, Fh.D. Price, $r.5o. 8. [103] Political History of New York State during the Period of the Civil War. By Sidney David Brummer, Ph. D. Price, 3.00. VOLUME XL, 1911. 633 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [104] A Survey of Constitutional Development In China. By Hawklihg L. Yen, Fh.D. Price, fi.aa. a. [105] Ohio Politics during the Civil War Period. By George H. Porter, Ph.D. Price, $r.75. 8. [106] The Territorial Basis of Government under the State Constitutions. By Alfred Zantzingbr Reed, Fh.D. Price,f 1.75. VOLUME XLI, 1911. 514 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50; paper covers, $3.00. [107] New Jersey as a Royal Province. By Edgar Jacob Fiskbb, Ph. D. VOLUME XLn, 1911. 400 pp. Price.cloth, $3.00; paper covers, $2.50. [108] Attitude of American Courts In liabor Cases. By George Gorham Groat, Ph.D. VOLUME XLin, 1911. 633 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [109] 'Industrial Causes of Congestion of Population In New^ York City. By Edward Ewing Pratt, Ph.D. Price, fs.oo. 8. [110] Education and the Mores. By F. Stuart Chapin, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 8. [ml The British Consuls In the Confederacy. By MiLLEDGE L. BoNHAM, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $9.0*. VOLUMES XLIV and XLV, 1911. 745 pp. Price for the two volumes, cloth, $6.00 ; paper covers, $5.00. [lis and 113] The Economic Principles of Confucius and his School. By Chen Huan-Chang, Ph.D. VOLUME XLVI, 1911-1912. 623 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [114:1 The RIcardlan Socialists. Bv Esther Lowhnthal, Ph.D. Frice.$i.oo 3. L115] Ibraliim Paslia, Graad Tlzler of Suleiman, the Magnificent. By Hb3Tek Donaldson Jenkins, Ph.D. Price, $i.oo. 3. [1161 *Syndlcallsm in Trance. By Louis Levine, Ph.D. Second edition. 1914. Price, $1.50. 4, [117] A Hoosier Vlllase. By Newkll Leboy Sims, Ph.E. Price. $1.50. i\i .f,f^'^* 't.'l 'A V