Reviews : Hobhouse, L. T. Social Evolution and Political Theory. Pp. ix, 218. Price, $1.50. New York: Columbia University Press, 1911

• Author: Thomas D. Eliot
• DOI: 10.1177/000271621204300123
• Published date: 01 September 1912
• Date: 01 September 1912
• Subject Matter: Articles

339

dencies

which

these

practices

reveal,

or

than

with

the

relations

they

bear

to

the

general

character

and

efhciency

of

our

governmental

organization.

As

the

plan

of

the

bibliography

is

comprehensive,

there

are

several

notable

omissions.

For

example,

among

special

treatises,

Grover

Cleveland’s

&dquo;Presi-

dential

Problems&dquo;

and

Goodnow’s

&dquo;Principles

of

Administrative

Law

in

the

United

States&dquo;

would

seem

to

have

deserved

a

place.

Several

recent

depart-

mental

histories,

issued

from

Washington,

are

omitted.

Gaillard

Hunt’s

&dquo;De-

partment

of

State&dquo;

(1893)

is

listed,

but

not

his

more

recent

articles

on

the

same

subject

in

the

American

Journal

of

International

Law.

The

&dquo;Register

of

Debates

in

Congress&dquo;

(1824-37)

does

not

appear

in

the

list

of

documentary

materials;

and

no

reference

is

made

to

Van

Tyne

and

Leland’s

&dquo;Guide

to

the

Archives

of

the

United

States

in

Washington.&dquo;

Ohio

State

University.

F.

W.

COKER.

Hobhouse,

L.

T.

Social

Evolution

and

Political

Theory.

Pp.

ix,

218.

Price,

$1.50.

New

York:

Columbia

University

Press,

1911.

What

is

&dquo;progress?&dquo;

How

far

has

it

been

realized?

What

are

the

prospects?

The

ultra-biologists

are

wrong

in

assuming

that

evolution

is

necessarily

progress.

Ethical

values

are

social,

not

biological;

and

the

sociologist

deals

only

with

&dquo;the

social

fact

as

distinct

from

the

biological

and

the

psychological.&dquo;

Its

vehicle

is

not

heredity

but

tradition:

society’s

achievements.

These

are

psycho-

logical,

but

not

exclusively;

nor

entirely

imitative.

&dquo;Progress

is

not

racial,

but

social.&dquo;

&dquo;

The

interest

shown

in

eugenics

led

the

lecturer

to

give

two

hours

to

an

expansion

of

his

cautions

but

not

hostile

critique.

Rational

selection

of

the

&dquo;best&dquo;

as

the

&dquo;fit,&dquo;

by

segregation,

through

which

there

is

least

net

misery,

is

the

logical

solution

of

the

dilemma

between

natural

and

social

evolution.

But

the

premises

are

doubtful.

What

is

social

worth?

What

defects

are

biological?

The

elimination

of

a

bad

trait

may

carry

with

it

several

valuable

traits.

Social

worth

lies

in

proportion

and

blending,

more

than

in

&dquo;unit

characters.&dquo;

Social

status

indicates

inertia

or

social

selection,

not

necessarily

degree

of

biological

fitness

or

social

worth.

Society

must

be

perfected

before

the

socially

undesirable

and

the

biologically

unfit

are

identical.

Biology

itself

holds

variations

insig-

nificant

in

heredity,

beside

mutations.

Biological

improvement

is

subject

to

social

progress,

which

increasingly

preserves

valuable

mutations,

and

which

will

add

to

our

knowledge

of

which

variants

should

be

destroyed.

The

fatal

treadmill

of

the

Theory

of

Value

is

avoided

by

assuming

rather

daringly

that

good

is

in

(1)

some

kind

of

life,

(2)

the

fuller

the

better;

(3)

some

form

of

happiness;

(4)

some

form

of

self-realization,

and

(5)

the

completely

social

life-all

subsumed

in

the

idea

of

harmony.

This

modified

organism-concept

of

society

depends

on

the

social

evolving

of

intelligence.

The

social

mind,

its

highest

product,

adjusts

society

to

its

physical

environment.

Harmonious

social

growth,

like

that

of

the

individual,

consists

in

increased

scope,

articulate-

ness,

unity,

and

self-conscious

direction.

&dquo;Mutual

interest,&dquo;

or

&dquo;consciousness

of

kind,&dquo;

in

three

phases

of

kinship,

authority

and

citizenship,

is

the

&dquo;descriptive

formula&dquo;

(not

&dquo;law,&dquo;

though

the