spirit, and also historically, but through a telescope. Every historian feels himself in contact with "secret living impulses (v. Ranke), which are half empiric laws, half aspirations grounded on selfknowledge; and Hegel's generalisation that consciousness of freedom (De TOCQUEVILLE's (1835) "Democracy") passes down the ages in ever widening circles is an effort to see what the philosophic historian feels; and so far only, Hegel tells us, history accords with what other scientific processes might lead us to expect. The philosopher, therefore, does not follow history any farther than this. True, this is only a vague rough outline, which historians must fill in with the aid of their microscopes; and even they desist from details the moment that their sympathies wane. But it has the merit of being a bridge which leads straight on from science to history, and so to real life. As Schlözer's Vorstellung einer Universal Historie (1772) was the prelude to his WeltGeschichte (1785) so (as Bernheim tells us) v. Ranke's Welt-Geschichte (1881) took up the thread where Hegel dropped it. And history itself only reaches up to real life a little farther than scientific knowledge; so that philosophies of history mark the dividing line where science gradually fades away and loses itself like a dream in the waking world.

(2) The extreme sociologists start from the opposite point of the compass. As the PHYSIOCRATS made natural science, so, since Cabanis (1795), biologists have made biology reach down to human life, as though there were some law of the outer which would unlock every secret of the inner world. Thus St. Simon and Comte wished to explain the social sense as a force like gravitation; yet Fourier and Fouillée were surely wiser in writing of gravitation as a sort of social sense, for "we come nearer to a real knowledge of the causes in the case of "the working of an intelligent will," than in the case of "an unexplained force" (E. A. Freeman, Methods of Historical Study, p. 154), and St. Simon and Comte therefore explained "ignotum per ignotius." Again, H. SPENCER'S law of progress as progress towards definite and orderly variety is admirable but for his genitive cases-the "integration of matter,” and "dissipation of motion," which may suit the stars but do not suit human life. Even he holds that human beings are under the yoke of physical laws. Again, Spencer, Lilienfeld, Schäffle, De Greef, and Worms, define society as "a discrete organism," or "superorganism," and Giddings as "an organism with duplicate functions," i.e. potential and actual institutions. Yet organism applied to humanity is only a metaphor which they, like PLATO, have a perfect right to work out each in his own way, but which, if pressed, misleads. Much of what goes to make society, some fraction even of its language, folk lore, and common law, is deliberate invention, and might more justly be compared to mechanism than to organism; and the residue"wisdom without reflection," as Burke called it— grew partly by the influence of mind on mind (BAGEHOT, Durkheim, Tarde), partly by other motives which may act like, but are not an organ. And if they were an organ-no one understands why organs work together, every one partly under

stands why he and his class contribute to the well. being of a society; for in the first case he attacks the problem from outside and sees it through a glass darkly; in the second case he attacks it from within, and what he knows he knows at first hand. The metaphor of organism leads us into a blind alley, somewhat farther from the truth than the point from which we started. Again, efforts to make "survival of the fittest" a central social principle have failed, for nations struggle in a way that single men do not, and even with nations "consciousness of kind" tempers the wind to the shorn lamb (Gumplovicz, Novicov, Huxley, Vaccaro, Giddings, among others); indeed Brentano in that passage in which he declared his method identical with COMTE'S method traced competition and union-with a view to extinguish competition -to one and the same cause, namely, industrial changes in a free state (Arbeitergilden (1871), ii. 310); moreover, the whispers of individual consciences produce social effects of great moment, thus a good poor law softens natural with what Ritchie calls moral selection, and MALTHUS knew the moral and immoral checks to births. Again Comte, and perhaps H. Spencer (ch. xxvii.), made sociology into history, while BUCKLE made history into sociology. Now science has only to do with types and typical relations; it selects them from the real world, and discovers laws which are immutable only because conflicting units or relations are left out. But Comte and Buckle, ignoring what they omitted, transferred laws and prophecies about sociological man-a type to which no one ever quite conformed-to real men. The method of regarding one's units "quantities" and therefore "négligeables' which, by the way, science has not yet justified in the case of organisms-is the only possible method with external nature, of whose units we can know nothing; but in human sciences it must only be followed provisionally and for a purpose, for there the scientist is, and therefore must know the unit. Or the matter may be put thus: these writers forget that life consists of an action and reaction between individuals and society; but for society individuals are phantoms; but for individuals society is a shadow, therefore social laws apply literally to shadowland alone; they can only be applied to the inexplicable sea of human life-every wave of which is unlike its fellow-with modifications suited to each case.

as

(3) Social science is also regarded as a science which selects its material, and therefore its results only hold good of one aspect of life. If so it is just like political economy and the other special social sciences; and the only wonder is that they have done so much and it so little; so that it seems, as A. Clément and Letourneau virtually admit, but a mosaic composed of them. True, Mill claimed Malthus as a sociologist; but that was not Malthus's view, and the best writers in English on those questions which natural selection has suggested-Bagehot and Ritchie-call their subject-matter politics. Again, Maine was perhaps encroaching on sociology when he wrote that society goes from status to contract; and De Greef supports and Durkheim combats this "sociological" view. Again, social philosophy figures

430

along with political economy on the title page of the book always cited as Mill's political economy, Pulszky brackets the theory of law and civil society (1887), G. Mayr statistics and social theory (1897), and so on. Why then, if social science has a legitimate sphere of its own, have the special social sciences invariably encroached upon this sphere ? The reason must be sought in the peculiar character of those sciences which deal with human nature. A common-sense summary of every human problem is dimly present to every one's consciousness; hence, if an inquirer who has with the artificial aids of science investigated some part of human nature-wealth, language, etc.— ends off with his scientific results, there is a conflict between these results and his instinctive common sense; it is as though he ended with a discord. The nature of his task urges him to look across the gap between what his science supplies and his common sense demands. And the same reason causes not only the special social sciences but social science itself to overflow its banks; thus, for instance, a healthy mind cannot long keep its ideals out of its ideas about society. Mill and Maine ought really to have trespassed further afield in order to probe the soil in which their sciences were rooted. Not only the social and political sciences-as SCHMOLLER and the New York Society of that name call them-but all branches of "moral and political science" -to use Hume's name, and the name of the modern French Académie-hang in a cluster; their subject-matter, if divided for a moment, must be reunited. Division and reunion is the only means by which we advance our knowledge of human nature. L. v. Ranke wrote of social scientists, "they embrace not Juno but a cloud, and turn vendors not of truth but of formulæ and empty wind"; but formulæ are often valuable half truths, and the wind (though not solid) is not empty. Science cannot be a substitute for, but it may be the utmost help to history, and to a keen perception of the concrete facts of life.

[Criticisms on sociology: (1) Philosophical, W. Dilthey, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften (1883) (classes philosophies of history with sociology).-C. Menger, Untersuchungen über die Methode der Socialwissenschaften (1883).-J. S. Mill, Logic, bk. vi. (2) Historical, E. A. Freeman, Methods of Historical Study (1886) (identifies politics and history).—W. E. H. Lecky, Political Value of History (1892).-L. v. Ranke, Werke, bd. xxiv. p. 280. (3) Both, E. Bernheim, GeschichtsForschung (1880); Lehrbuch der Historischen Methode (1889). (4) Political science, Sir G. C. Lewis, Methods of . Politics (1852), p. 51, etc. -Sir J. Seeley, Political Science (1896), p. 25, 142, etc.-H. v. Treitschke, Die Gesellschaftswissenschaft (1859).

Recent writings which express sociological views and belong at least partly to the third type are:American Journal of Social Science (1869, etc.); American Journal of Sociology (1895, etc.).— Annales de l'Institut international de Sociologie (1894).-S. P. Andrews, Science of Society (1851). -W. Bagehot, Physics and Politics (1872).-J. Bascom, Sociology (1887).—T. Braga, Systema di Sociologia (1884).-H. Carey, Social Science (1877).

-A. Clément, Essai sur la Science Sociale (1867).-J. Courcelle-Seneuil, Études sur la Science Sociale (1862).-P. Delbert, Social Evolution (1891). — A. Dulk, Entwurf einer Gesellschaftslehre (1889). -E. Durkheim, Cours de Science Sociale (1888); Les Règles de la Méthode Sociologique (1895). A. Espinas, Des Sociétés animales (1877).- E. Ferri, Socialismo e Scienza positiva (1894).—A. Fouillée, La Science Sociale Contemporaine (1880); Le mouvement positiviste et la conception sociologique (1896).-F. H. Giddings, Principles of Sociology (1896).-G. de Greef, Introduction à la Sociologie (1886).-M. L. Gumplovicz, Der Rassenkampf (1883); Sociologie und Politik (1892).— G. Hauriou, La Science sociale traditionnelle.T. H. Huxley, The Struggle for Existence (1888); Nineteenth Century, xxiii. 161.-Combes. de Lestrade, Eléments de Sociologie (1889).-C. J. M. Letourneau, La Sociologie d'après l'Ethnographie, 3rd ed. (1892).-P. v. Lilienfeld, Gedanken über die Sozialwissenschaft der Zukunft (1873).-J. S. Mackenzie, Introduction to Social Philosophy (1895).-J. M'Clelland, Social Science and Social Schemes (1894).-A. Majorana, Teoria Sociologica della Costituzione politica, 2nd ed. (1894).— J. Novicou, Les luttes entre sociétés humaines (1893); Les gaspillages des sociétés modernes (1894); Conscience et Volonté Sociales (1897); Revue internationale de Sociologie (1893, etc.).D. G. Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (1889); Rivista Italiana di Sociologia, 1897.-E. de Roberty, La Sociologie (1881).-A. Rondelet, Philosophie des Sciences Sociales; Le Psychisme Social (1894).-M. Sales y Ferré, Tratado de Sociologia (1894).-A. Schäffle, Bau und Leben des sozialen Körpers (1875).-P. Siciliani, Socialismo, Darwinismo e Sociologia moderna (1879). – G. Simmel, Ueber soziale Differenzierung (1890); Die Probleme der Geschichtsphilosophie (1892).— A. W. Small and G. E. Vincent, Introduction to the Study of Society (1894).- H. Spencer, Principles of Sociology (1874-96).-G. Tarde, La Logique sociale (1895); L'Opposition universelle (1897); Transactions of the National Association for the promotion of Social Science (founded by Lord Brougham, 12th October 1857, as "a point of union for social reformers," and for promoting legal, sanitary, educational, and economic reforms by means of annual public meetings: dissolved 15th April 1886).-A. Vaccaro, La Lotta per l'esistenza (1886).-I. Vanni, Programma critico di Sociologia (1888).-L. F. Ward, Dynamic Sociology (1897).-R. Worms, Organisme et Société (1896).]

J. D. R.

SOCIAL SCIENCE (SOCIOLOGY) A hybrid word first employed by Auguste COMTE to denote the vast department of knowledge which was earlier in the 19th century ternied the science of society or SOCIAL SCIENCE, and is dealt with in the dictionary under the latter name. Herbert SPENCER in the preface to vol. i. of the Principles of Sociology, defends the word in spite of its origin on grounds which have been generally accepted as sufficient. Purists have suggested the word "politics," the title of ARISTOTLE'S great work on social

science as conceived by the Greek mind of the fourth century B.C.; but this word has long since acquired in European languages a much narrower signification, and is therefore inadmissible.

Strictly speaking sociology, in the sense in which it is generally used, would seem to require the qualifying epithet "human," for the class of phenomena under consideration, which Mr. Spencer, and others who have followed him, term " super-organic," are seen to some extent among communities of various kinds of birds and other animals, and of bees and ants. Such qualification is, however,

needless in most cases.

The science of society is still in an extremely imperfect condition, and probably will remain so for a considerable time. It is only during the present century that exact quantitative observation of social facts has received systematic attention, and even now the difficulties in the way of obtaining such facts are very great. Much more has been obtained regarding some classes of phenomena than others. Many facts of an economic character, and what are called vital statistics, are collected with considerable regularity and accuracy, but regarding vast fields of investigation the information is scanty. Nevertheless several eminent philo. sophers have expressed a confident hope that eventually a science of sociology will be constituted, and Mr. Herbert Spencer, in the concluding volumes of his Synthetic Philosophy, has sketched in a masterly manner the lines on which, so far as can be seen at present, it must be constituted. In the Principles of Sociology, pt. i. ch. ii., and ib. pt. ii. chs. i. and xii., will be found a summary of the views of Mr. Spencer on the subject; but the whole volume, and those which precede and follow it, should be read in order to acquire a clear conception of the position he takes up. Mr. Spencer conceives of society as an organic whole constantly tending to differentiation of parts and functions, between which, however, a great degree of interdependence subsists. This complexity and interdependence of parts tends to increase with the growth of the social body. Many writers have conceived of a science of society, from PLATO and Aristotle to Comte, Spencer, and Schäffle. The latter philosopher's voluminous work, Bau und Leben des sozialen Körpers, is well worth the attention of the inquirer. His philosophical standpoint differs in some important particulars from that of Spencer, as well as of Comte.

It is hardly necessary to say that history, anthropology, ethnology, and economics, are the basis of sociology, and that the statistical method is one of the most valuable aids in sociological inquiries. For many branches of sociology it is the only method available, and this fact has led some thinkers to claim for

431

statistics the position of an independent science (Maurice Block, Sir R. W. Rawson, Gabaglio), but this claim is not conceded by the majority of authorities. The claim of economics to the position of a distinct sub-science appears to be more tenable, but would not now be admitted as readily as half a century ago.

[Herbert Spencer, Synthetic Philosophy, passim, but more particularly the volumes relating expressly to sociology.-Comte, Philosophie Positive. -Schäffle, Bau und Leben des sozialen Körpers, Tübingen -F. H Giddings, Sociology.]

SOCIALISM.*

W. H.

Definitions and Character of Socialism, p. 431; Socialism merges into Social Democracy, p. 431; Reaction against Laissez Faire, and Individualism established by French Revolution, 1794, p. 432; Influence of St. Simon, p. 432; A. Comte, p. 432; Fourier, p. 432; Socialism in connection with French Revolution of 1848, p. 432; Spread from France to other countries of Europe, p. 432; Scientific Socialism and K. Marx, p. 432; Gerinan Social Democracy and Lassalle, p. 433; Statistics of Socialistic Vote in different countries, p. 433; Socialism in Germany, p. 432; Socialism in Austria, p. 433; Socialism in Switzerland, p. 434; Socialism in France, p. 434; Socialism in Belgium, p. 434; Socialism in the United Kingdom and the Colonies, p. 435; Socialism in the United States, p. 435; Political Influence of Socialists, p. 435; Internationalism and Anarchy, p. 435; Socialism, State, p. 436; Socialists of the Chair, p. 437.

It was

SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. The term socialism, as opposed to INDIVIDUALISM was coined by Pierre LEROUX in 1838. then adopted by L. REYBAUD in his Études sur les Réformateurs ou Socialistes modernes (1840); in its widest signification it is a protest against the doctrine of LAISSEZ-FAIRE, and a general attack on capitalistic enterprise. Socialism requires that the process of production and distribution should be regulated, not by competition, with self-interest for its moving principle, but by society as a whole, for the good of society. The term COLLECTIVISM more accurately connotes its aims and methods. This implies that the individuals who make up society should, in their collective capacity, possess all the instruments of production, and thus prevent the evils arising from the present industrial system. It implies the subordination of the individual to the community, and puts public utility above private interest. Under the new socialistic régime, it is assumed that all will receive their due, according to the measure of their capacity and willingness to perform the social duties assigned to each by public authority.

ANARCHISM, the exact opposite of socialism, would do away with state authority and destroy the present social system. There are several varieties of socialism: State Socialism (see SOCIALISM, STATE), regulation by government. Voluntary Co-OPERATION (see article CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM) is the application of the principle of association, instead of egotistical conflict of interest. But whatever its varieties, the essential character of socialism is some economic

theory which shall prove a corrective of the existing order of things, and prevent the recurrence of those social inequalities and inequitable arrangements which have produced social dissatisfaction and the problems now calling for solution. It proposes to remove the existing conflicts between capital and labour and the dependence of the worker on his employer. Thus socialism merges into social democracy, which seeks to solve the problem how to reconcile the increase of political power among the masses with the increase of wealth among the classes, and to equalise not only political rights, but also economic possessions, to enable all to share the results of human effort in more equal proportions. The earlier history of socialism is described in UTOPIAS. Here we may refer to the schemes of the fathers of the movement, St. SIMON, FOURIER, and OWEN, which contain the first protesta against the theory of laissez-faire, or the practical working of the individualism established by the French revolution of 1794, which, as A. HELD points out in his Sozialismus, Sozialdemokratie und Sozialpolitik (1878), was itself a reaction against the state socialism of the ancien régime -against those effects of unlimited competition which were established by the political and aggravated by the industrial revolution in France and elsewhere, with the introduction of steam and machinery. The early socialists raised their protest, and in their works we see reflected the contemporary reaction of romanticism as opposed to the rationalism of the revolution. The socialism of St. Simon was eminently religious he calls it le nouveau Christianismeand it was mainly ethical; he desired to apply the principle of Christian brotherhood to industry, and that of association under the authority of a "hierarchy of capacities," in fact a "centralised industrialism under royal patronage," and all this with a view to prevent the "exploitation de l'homme par l'homme." St. Simon, and his friend and disciple A. COMTE, first introduced the idea of social evolution, with the growth of the altruistic sentiment, into economic literature. FOURIER'S leading principle, that if men were permitted to follow their own bent they would select that kind of work for which each is best fitted, and do it cheerfully and well, as opposed to the prevailing economic doctrine that all labour is repugnant to human nature, was the basis of his elaborate theory of the association of labour. Fourier suggested the grouping of the workers into "phalanges," according to their predilections and passions, in his Nouveau monde industriel. OWEN also desired a new organisation of labour on a moral basis, and emphasised the importance of education, as, in the "new moral world," co-operation is to replace competition. Labour tickets, representing the value of so much work done, are to be the medium of ex

change in the place of money. Each of these proposals, it will be seen, militates against some of the evils of society which arise out of the free play of economic forces, and searches for some new method for reuniting the scattered units of the industrial world, so that all the weak as well as the strong may be protected and encouraged in the industrial warfare. Their final object was l'association pacifique universelle (see Les précurseurs du socialisme moderne, by B. Malon in La Revue Socialiste, tome xi., No. 61). The next stage of socialism was reached in 1848, in connection with the revolution of that year in France. An attempt was made to organise labour by the state. As the first revolution claimed the " rights of man," the revolution of 1848 (see ATELIERS NATIONAUX), through Louis BLANC, demanded the "rights of labour." The opening of national workshops, and the foundation of co-operative association supported by government, form the beginnings of state socialism. In his book on the organisation of labour, L. Blanc shows that the state, as the greatest capitalist, can alone compete satisfactorily with the power of capital; let it, then, become the chief competitor as an employer of labour, and by degrees the uneven conflict between capital and labour will disappear. Thus the state becomes the "sovereign of industry," but only for a time. By degrees the direction may be left to those concerned the producers themselves-by acting committees elected out of their own class. From France, social democratic ideas found their way, through the instrumentality of secret societies, to other parts of EuropeBelgium, Switzerland, and Germany.

Germany. In this country it led, under the influence of MARX and ENGELS, to the formation of the Kommunistenbund, from which emanated the celebrated "Communistic Manifesto," which contains the leading ideas of "scientific socialism" in embryo, and constitutes the "literary arsenal of the social democratic party." It concludes with the words," Working men of all countries, unite," and points to a new departure of socialism, which ceases to be now a political, and becomes a purely economic movement in theory, though still using the state for party purposes. (See an article on "Socialism" (historical), in No. 2 of Subjects of the Day; also on further development of German socialism up to 1884, Fortnightly Review, for December of that year, pp. 30-34, by M. Kaufmann.)

Scientific socialism is a deduction from the doctrine of value "that labour is the only measure of value," as held by the old economists, after A. SMITH. Lassalle, following the same track, adopts Ricardo's theory of the "iron law" of wages. From the doctrine of Surplus Value, the mother idea" of K. MARX's negative criticism is deduced the doctrine that the capitalist is enriched by appropriating the surplus

value of commodities created by the workmen over and above that which is necessary to keep them alive. Thus "the productive power of labour in society becomes the productive power in the interest of the capitalist" (see Scheel in Handbuch der politischen Oekonomie, 3rd ed., p. 124 seq.; also HELD, on the principles and tendencies of contemporary socialism, loc. cit., pp. 14-16). These ideas are ably and succinctly summarised under the following five heads by B. MALON. They are: (1) class antagonism; (2) the technical organisation of production with modifications which determine the organisation and transformation of economy and politics; (3) the capitalistic modes of production are distinguished from those which preceded them by (a) the separation of the producer from the instruments of production; (b) the intensification of work under conditions rendered more severe through those who direct and those who are engaged in the work being not brought into personal relations with each other; (c) reduction of wages, together with the employment of women and children, owing to the use of machinery and uncertainty of employment; (d) incessant increase of capital at the expense of underpaid labour, which becomes in turn the cause of further exploitation; (e) "the absorption" of small into large capital enterprise; and the rise of an industrial governing force, gradually diminishing in numbers and increasing in wealth and power; (4) from this results an acute antagonism between capitalists and producers whose massing in factories favours combined effort; the victory of the latter is to be attained by "la conquête des pouvoirs publics," i.e. by securing parliamentary majorities. (5) The victorious proletariat can only fulfil its historical mission either by gradual or by revolutionary means, according to circumstances (Revue Socialiste, tome xi., No. 62, pp. 137-138). As to methods of action socialists differ to some extent. There have been always the moderate and the more advanced sections, inclining towards reformatory or revolutionary methods respectively, the former willing to take their share in politics and party organisation; the latter despising and discarding such expedients in order to obtain concessions piecemeal from reluctant legislatures, and determined to work for the entire bouleversement of the present social order.

Thus LASSALLE, the original organiser of German social democracy (1862-64), demanded universal suffrage and state subvention of productive associations. RODBERTUSJAGETZOW proposed a gradual modification of the laws of property and such governmental interference for the protection of labour (e.g. fixing a normal day of labour and regulation of the rate of wages) as would gradually bring about a complete transformation of social conditions. K. MARX, the founder of the INTER

VOL. III

433

NATIONAL, though opposed to ineffectual revolts against society, regarded the social revolution as inevitable, and identified it with evolution and its natural results. A union, by way of compromise, was effected between these two wings of social democracy at the Gotha congress (1874), expressed in the programme of the party (see the text in appendix to Zacher's Die rothe Internationale, p. 173; and the Statutes of the International Labour Association, ib., p. 171). This programme has since been superseded by that adopted at the Erfurt congress (1891), which omits the preamble that labour is the source of all wealth and culture, and the reference to the "iron law of wages, so as to bring the programme into greater conformity with contemporary economic science. It also drops the Lassallean demand for productive associations, and emphasises the importance of class struggles. The confident tone of the early triumph of social democracy is its special characteristic (see full text of the programme in the Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des Parteitags, now printed in every subsequent yearly report under that title, and cp. H. Herkner, Die Arbeiterfrage (1894), pp. 126-128, 173 seq.; also the Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, Band v. p. 725, for the latest developments of German socialism). The following statistics show the growth of the party. In 1874 the socialist vote in the German empire amounted to 351,670; in 1884 to 549,990; in 1893 it had reached 1,800,000. The contributions from members in 1883 amounted to 95,000 marks (£4750); in 1893 to 258,326 marks (£12,916). As to the socialist press there existed in 1893, 75 political party organs in addition to 58 trade-union papers-which in Germany are mainly under socialist influence-the number of subscribers to the central organ Vorwärts was 42,500, and its annual profit 40,655-10 marks (£2033). Its predecessor of the same name, confiscated in 1878, had only 12,000 subscribers, whilst the whole of the party organs in that most flourishing year of social democracy did not exceed 44. The social democratic deputies in the German parliament numbered 56 in 1898, compared with 46 in 1894, and 24 in 1884. figures explain the confident tone adopted of late by the party leaders and programmes.

These

Austrian Socialism, originally imported from Germany by Oberwinder and A. Becker, both followers of Lassalle, has also considerably advanced with industrial progress, greater freedom of association, and liberty of speech and meeting. The official programme of the party, adopted at the Hainfeld congress (1888-89), was framed on German models. Dr. V. Adler, son of a Jewish millionaire, is at the head of the party. Here, as in Germany, a minority of young zealots threaten from time to time to divide the party, but as yet without serious

2 F