darwin and modern science-第132部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ce；　upon　the　necessity　of　the　solitary　struggle　of　creatures　in　a　state　of　nature；　each　for　himself　and　against　all。　　On　the　contrary；　in　〃The　Descent　of　Man〃；　he　pointed　out　the　serviceableness　of　the　social　instincts；　and　corroborated　Bagehot's　statements　when　the　latter；　applying　laws　of　physics　to　politics；　showed　the　great　advantage　societies　derived　from　intercourse　and　communion。　　Again；　the　theory　of　sexual　evolution　which　makes　the　evolution　of　types　depend　increasingly　upon　preferences；　judgments；　mental　factors；　surely　offers　something　to　qualify　what　seems　hard　and　brutal　in　the　theory　of　natural　selection。

But；　as　often　happens　with　disciples；　the　Darwinians　had　out…Darwined　Darwin。　　The　extravagancies　of　social　Darwinism　provoked　a　useful　reaction；　and　thus　people　were　led　to　seek；　even　in　the　animal　kingdom；　for　facts　of　solidarity　which　would　serve　to　justify　humane　effort。

On　quite　another　line；　however；　an　attempt　has　been　made　to　connect　socialist　tendencies　with　Darwinian　principles。　　Marx　and　Darwin　have　been　confronted；　and　writers　have　undertaken　to　show　that　the　work　of　the　German　philosopher　fell　readily　into　line　with　that　of　the　English　naturalist　and　was　a　development　of　it。　　Such　has　been　the　endeavour　of　Ferri　in　Italy　and　of　Woltmann　in　Germany；　not　to　mention　others。　　The　founders　of　〃scientific　socialism〃　had；　moreover；　themselves　thought　of　this　reconciliation。　　They　make　more　than　one　allusion　to　Darwin　in　works　which　appeared　after　1859。　　And　sometimes　they　use　his　theory　to　define　by　contrast　their　own　ideal。　　They　remark　that　the　capitalist　system；　by　giving　free　course　to　individual　competition；　ends　indeed　in　a　bellum　omnium　contra　omnes；　and　they　make　it　clear　that　Darwinism；　thus　understood；　is　as　repugnant　to　them　as　to　Duhring。

But　it　is　at　the　scientific　and　not　at　the　moral　point　of　view　that　they　place　themselves　when　they　connect　their　economic　history　with　Darwin's　work。　　Thanks　to　this　unifying　hypothesis；　they　claim　to　have　constructed　as　Marx　does　in　his　preface　to　〃Das　Kapital〃a　veritable　natural　history　of　social　evolution。　　Engels　speaks　in　praise　of　his　friend　Marx　as　having　discovered　the　true　mainspring　of　history　hidden　under　the　veil　of　idealism　and　sentimentalism；　and　as　having　proclaimed　in　the　primum　vivere　the　inevitableness　of　the　struggle　for　existence。　　Marx　himself；　in　〃Das　Kapital〃；　indicated　another　analogy　when　he　dwelt　upon　the　importance　of　a　general　technology　for　the　explanation　of　this　psychology：a　history　of　tools　which　would　be　to　social　organs　what　Darwinism　is　to　the　organs　of　animal　species。　　And　the　very　importance　they　attach　to　tools；　to　apparatus；　to　machines；　abundantly　proves　that　neither　Marx　nor　Engels　were　likely　to　forget　the　special　characters　which　mark　off　the　human　world　from　the　animal。　　The　former　always　remains　to　a　great　extent　an　artificial　world。　　Inventions　change　the　face　of　its　institutions。　　New　modes　of　production　revolutionise　not　only　modes　of　government；　but　modes　even　of　collective　thought。　　Therefore　it　is　that　the　evolution　of　society　is　controlled　by　laws　special　to　it；　of　which　the　spectacle　of　nature　offers　no　suggestion。

If；　however；　even　in　this　special　sphere；　it　can　still　be　urged　that　the　evolution　of　the　material　conditions　of　society　is　in　accord　with　Darwin's　theory；　it　is　because　the　influence　of　the　methods　of　production　is　itself　to　be　explained　by　the　incessant　strife　of　the　various　classes　with　each　other。　　So　that　in　the　end　Marx；　like　Darwin；　finds　the　source　of　all　progress　in　struggle。　　Both　are　grandsons　of　Heraclitus：polemos　pater　panton。　　It　sometimes　happens；　in　these　days；　that　the　doctrine　of　revolutionary　socialism　is　contrasted　as　rude　and　healthy　with　what　may　seem　to　be　the　enervating　tendency　of　〃solidarist〃　philanthropy：　　the　apologists　of　the　doctrine　then　pride　themselves　above　all　upon　their　faithfulness　to　Darwinian　principles。

So　far　we　have　been　mainly　concerned　to　show　the　use　that　social　philosophies　have　made　of　the　Darwinian　laws　for　practical　purposes：　　in　order　to　orientate　society　towards　their　ideals　each　school　tries　to　show　that　the　authority　of　natural　science　is　on　its　side。　　But　even　in　the　most　objective　of　theories；　those　which　systematically　make　abstraction　of　all　political　tendencies　in　order　to　study　the　social　reality　in　itself；　traces　of　Darwinism　are　readily　to　be　found。

Let　us　take　for　example　Durkheim's　theory　of　Division　of　Labour　（〃De　la　Division　du　Travail　social〃；　Paris；　1893。）　　The　conclusions　he　derives　from　it　are　that　whenever　professional　specialisation　causes　multiplication　of　distinct　branches　of　activity；　we　get　organic　solidarityimplying　differencessubstituted　for　mechanical　solidarity；　based　upon　likenesses。　　The　umbilical　cord；　as　Marx　said；　which　connects　the　individual　consciousness　with　the　collective　consciousness　is　cut。　　The　personality　becomes　more　and　more　emancipated。　　But　on　what　does　this　phenomenon；　so　big　with　consequences；　itself　depend？　　The　author　goes　to　social　morphology　for　the　answer：　　it　is；　he　says；　the　growing　density　of　population　which　brings　with　it　this　increasing　differentiation　of　activities。　　But；　again；　why？　　Because　the　greater　density；　in　thrusting　men　up　against　each　other；　augments　the　intensity　of　their　competition　for　the　means　of　existence；　and　for　the　problems　which　society　thus　has　to　face　differentiation　of　functions　presents　itself　as　the　gentlest　solution。

Here　one　sees　that　the　writer　borrows　directly　from　Darwin。　　Competition　is　at　its　maximum　between　similars；　Darwin　had　declared；　different　species；　not　laying　claim　to　the　same　food；　could　more　easily　coexist。　　Here　lay　the　explanation　of　the　fact　that　upon　the　same　oak　hundreds　of　different　insects　might　be　found。　　Other　things　being　equal；　the　same　applies　to　society。　　He　who　finds　some　unadopted　speciality　possesses　a　means　of　his　own　for　getting　a　living。　　It　is　by　this　division　of　their　manifold　tasks　that　men　contrive　not　to　crush　each　other。　　Here　we　obviously　have　a　Darwinian　law　serving　as　intermediary　in　the　explanation　of　that　progress　of　division　of　labour　which　itself　explains　so　much　in　the　social　evolution。

And　we　might　take　another　example；　at　the　other　end　of　the　series　of　sociological　systems。　　G。　Tarde　is　a　sociologist　with　the　most　pronounced　anti…naturalistic　views。　　He　has　attempted　to　show　that　all　application　of　the　laws　of　natural　science　to　society　is　misleading。　　In　his　〃Opposition　Universelle〃　he　has　directly　combatted　all　forms　of　sociological　Darwinism。　According　to　him　the　idea　that　the　evolution　of　society　can　be　traced　on　the　same　plan　as　the　evolution　of　species　is　chimerical。　　Social　evolution　is　at　the　mercy　of　all　kinds　of　inventions；　which　by　virtue　of　the　laws　of　imitation　modify；　through　individual　to　individual；　through　neighbourhood　to　neighbourhood；　the　general　state　of　those　beliefs　and　desires　which　are　the　only　〃quantities〃　whose　variation　matters　to　the　sociologist。　　But；　it　may　be　rejoined；　that　however　psychical　the　forces　may　be；　they　are　none　the　less　subject　to　Darwinian　laws。　　They　compete　with　each　other；　they　struggle　for　the　mastery　of　minds。　　Between　types　of　ideas；　as　between　organic　forms；　selection　operates。　　And　though　it　may　be　that　these　types　are　ushered　into　the　arena　by　unexpected　discoveries；　we　yet　recognise　in　the　psychological　accidents；　which　Tarde　places　at　the　base　of　everything；　near　relatives　of　those　small　accidental　variations　upon　which　Darwin　builds。　　Thus；　accepting　Tarde's　own　representations；　it　is　quite　possible　to　express　in　Darwinian　terms；　with　the　necessary　transpositions；　one　of　the　most　idealistic　sociologies　that　have　ever　been　constructed。

These　few　examples　suffice。　　They　enable　us　to　estimate　the　extent　of　the　field　of　influence　of　Darwinism。　　It　affects　sociology　not　only　through　the　agency　of　its　advocates　but　through　that　of　its　opponents。　　The　questionings　to　which　it　has　given　rise　have　proved　no　less　fruitful　than　the　solutions　it　has　suggested。　　In　short；　few　doctrines；　in　the　history　of　social　philosophy；　will　have　produced　on　their　passage　a　finer　outcrop　of　ideas。


XXIV。　　THE　INFLUENCE　OF　DARWIN　UPON　RELIGIOUS　THOUGHT。

By　P。N。　WAGGETT；　M。A。；　S。S。J。E。

I。

The　object　of　this　paper　is　first　to　point　out　certain　elements　of　the　Darwinian　influence　upon　Religious　thought；　and　then　to　show　reason　for　the　conclusion　that　it　has　been；　from　a　Christian　point　of　view；　satisfactory。　　I　shall　not　proceed　further　to　urge　that　the　Christian　apologetic　in　relation　to　biology　has　been　successful。　　A　variety　of　opinions　may　be　held　on　this　question；　without　disturbing　the　conclusion　that　the　movements　of　readjustment　have　been　beneficial　to　those　who　remain　Christians；　and　this　by　making　them　more　Christian　and　not　only　more　liberal。　　The　theologians　may　sometimes　have　retreated；　but　there　has　been　an　advance　of　theology。　　I　know　that　this　account　incurs　the　charge　of　optimism。　　It　is　not　the　worst　that　could　be　made。　　The　influence　has　been　limited　in　personal　range；　unequal；　even　divergent；　in　operation；　and　accompanied　by　the　appearance　of　waste　and　mischievous　products。　　The　estimate　which　follows　requires　for　due　balance　a　full　development　of　many　qualifying　considerations。　　For　this　I　lack　space；　but　I　must　at　least　distinguish　my　view　from　the　popular　one　that　our　difficulties　about　religion　and　natural　science　have　come　to　an　end。

Concerning　the　older　questions　about　originsthe　origin　of　the　world；　of　species；　of　man；　of　reason；　conscience；　religiona　large　measure　of　understanding　has　been　reached　by　some　thoughtful　men。　　But　meanwhile　new　questions　have　arisen；　questions　about　conduct；　regarding　both　the　reality　of　morals　and　the　rule　of　right　action　for　individuals　and　societies。　　And　these　problems；　still　far　from　solution；　may　also　be　traced　to　the　influence　of　Darwin。　　For　they　arise　from　the　renewed　attention　to　heredity；　brought　about　by　the　search　for　the　causes　of　variation；　without　which　the　study　of　the　selection　of　variations　has　no　sufficient　basis。

Even　the　existing　understanding　about　origins　is　very　far　from　universal。　　On　these　points　there　were　always　thoughtful　men　who　denied　the　necessity　of　conflict；　and