darwin and modern science-第118章

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！


f　〃The　Descent　of　Man〃：　　it　is　an　accumulation　of　typical　facts；　all　tending　to　diminish　the　distance　between　us　and　our　brothers；　the　lower　animals。　　One　might　say　that　the　naturalist　had　here　taken　as　his　motto；　〃Whosoever　shall　exalt　himself　shall　be　abased；　and　he　that　shall　humble　himself　shall　be　exalted。〃　　Homologous　structures；　the　survival　in　man　of　certain　organs　of　animals；　the　rudiments　in　the　animal　of　certain　human　faculties；　a　multitude　of　facts　of　this　sort；　led　Darwin　to　the　conclusion　that　there　is　no　ground　for　supposing　that　the　〃king　of　the　universe〃　is　exempt　from　universal　laws。　　Thus　belief　in　the　imperium　in　imperio　has　been；　as　it　were；　whittled　away　by　the　progress　of　the　naturalistic　spirit；　itself　continually　strengthened　by　the　conquests　of　the　natural　sciences。　　The　tendency　may；　indeed；　drag　the　social　sciences　into　overstrained　analogies；　such；　for　instance；　as　the　assimilation　of　societies　to　organisms。　　But　it　will；　at　least；　have　had　the　merit　of　helping　sociology　to　shake　off　the　pre…conception　that　the　groups　formed　by　men　are　artificial；　and　that　history　is　completely　at　the　mercy　of　chance。　　Some　years　before　the　appearance　of　〃The　Origin　of　Species〃；　Auguste　Comte　had　pointed　out　the　importance；　as　regards　the　unification　of　positive　knowledge；　of　the　conviction　that　the　social　world；　the　last　refuge　of　spiritualism；　is　itself　subject　to　determininism。　　It　cannot　be　doubted　that　the　movement　of　thought　which　Darwin's　discoveries　promoted　contributed　to　the　spread　of　this　conviction；　by　breaking　down　the　traditional　barrier　which　cut　man　off　from　Nature。

But　Nature；　according　to　modern　naturalists；　is　no　immutable　thing：　　it　is　rather　perpetual　movement；　continual　progression。　　Their　discoveries　batter　a　breach　directly　into　the　Aristotelian　notion　of　species；　they　refuse　to　see　in　the　animal　world　a　collection　of　immutable　types；　distinct　from　all　eternity；　and　corresponding；　as　Cuvier　said；　to　so　many　particular　thoughts　of　the　Creator。　　Darwin　especially　congratulated　himself　upon　having　been　able　to　deal　this　doctrine　the　coup　de　grace：　　immutability　is；　he　says；　his　chief　enemy；　and　he　is　concerned　to　showtherein　following　up　Lyell's　workthat　everything　in　the　organic　world；　as　in　the　inorganic；　is　explained　by　insensible　but　incessant　transformations。　　〃Nature　makes　no　leaps〃〃Nature　knows　no　gaps〃：　　these　two　dicta　form；　as　it　were；　the　two　landmarks　between　which　Darwin's　idea　of　transformation　is　worked　out。　　That　is　to　say；　the　development　of　Darwinism　is　calculated　to　further　the　application　of　the　philosophy　of　Becoming　to　the　study　of　human　institutions。

The　progress　of　the　natural　sciences　thus　brings　unexpected　reinforcements　to　the　revolution　which　the　progress　of　historical　discipline　had　begun。　　The　first　attempt　to　constitute　an　actual　science　of　social　phenomena　that；　namely；　of　the　economistshad　resulted　in　laws　which　were　called　natural；　and　which　were　believed　to　be　eternal　and　universal；　valid　for　all　times　and　all　places。　　But　this　perpetuality；　brother；　as　Knies　said；　of　the　immutability　of　the　old　zoology；　did　not　long　hold　out　against　the　ever　swelling　tide　of　the　historical　movement。　　Knowledge　of　the　transformations　that　had　taken　place　in　language；　of　the　early　phases　of　the　family；　of　religion；　of　property；　had　all　favoured　the　revival　of　the　Heraclitean　view：　　panta　rei。　　As　to　the　categories　of　political　economy；　it　was　soon　to　be　recognised；　as　by　Lassalle；　that　they　too　are　only　historical。　　The　philosophy　of　history；　moreover；　gave　expression　under　various　forms　to　the　same　tendency。　　Hegel　declares　that　〃all　that　is　real　is　rational；〃　but　at　the　same　time　he　shows　that　all　that　is　real　is　ephemeral；　and　that　for　history　there　is　nothing　fixed　beneath　the　sun。　　It　is　this　sense　of　universal　evolution　that　Darwin　came　with　fresh　authority　to　enlarge。　　It　was　in　the　name　of　biological　facts　themselves　that　he　taught　us　to　see　only　slow　metamorphoses　in　the　history　of　institutions；　and　to　be　always　on　the　outlook　for　survivals　side　by　side　with　rudimentary　forms。　　Anyone　who　reads　〃Primitive　Culture〃；　by　Tylor；a　writer　closely　connected　with　Darwinwill　be　able　to　estimate　the　services　which　these　cardinal　ideas　were　to　render　to　the　social　sciences　when　the　age　of　comparative　research　had　succeeded　to　that　of　a　priori　construction。

Let　us　note；　moreover；　that　the　philosophy　of　Becoming　in　passing　through　the　Darwinian　biology　became；　as　it　were；　filtered：　　it　got　rid　of　those　traces　of　finalism；　which；　under　different　forms；　it　had　preserved　through　all　the　systems　of　German　Romanticism。　　Even　in　Herbert　Spencer；　it　has　been　plausibly　argued；　one　can　detect　something　of　that　sort　of　mystic　confidence　in　forces　spontaneously　directing　life；　which　forms　the　very　essence　of　those　systems。　　But　Darwin's　observations　were　precisely　calculated　to　render　such　an　hypothesis　futile。　　At　first　people　may　have　failed　to　see　this；　and　we　call　to　mind　the　ponderous　sarcasms　of　Flourens　when　he　objected　to　the　theory　of　Natural　Selection　that　it　attributed　to　nature　a　power　of　free　choice。　　〃Nature　endowed　with　will！　　That　was　the　final　error　of　last　century；　but　the　nineteenth　no　longer　deals　in　personifications。〃　　（P。　Flourens；　〃Examen　du　Livre　de　M。　Darwin　sur　l'Origine　des　Especes〃；　page　53；　Paris；　1864。　　See　also　Huxley；　〃Criticisms　on　the　'Origin　of　Species'〃；　〃Collected　Essays〃；　Vol。　II；　page　102；　London；　1902。）　　In　fact　Darwin　himself　put　his　readers　on　their　guard　against　the　metaphors　he　was　obliged　to　use。　　The　processes　by　which　he　explains　the　survival　of　the　fittest　are　far　from　affording　any　indication　of　the　design　of　some　transcendent　breeder。　　Nor；　if　we　look　closely；　do　they　even　imply　immanent　effort　in　the　animal；　the　sorting　out　can　be　brought　about　mechanically；　simply　by　the　action　of　the　environment。　　In　this　connection　Huxley　could　with　good　reason　maintain　that　Darwin's　originality　consisted　in　showing　how　harmonies　which　hitherto　had　been　taken　to　imply　the　agency　of　intelligence　and　will　could　be　explained　without　any　such　intervention。　　So；　when　later　on；　objective　sociology　declares　that；　even　when　social　phenomena　are　in　question；　all　finalist　preconceptions　must　be　distrusted　if　a　science　is　to　be　constituted；　it　is　to　Darwin　that　its　thanks　are　due；　he　had　long　been　clearing　paths　for　it　which　lay　well　away　from　the　old　familiar　road　trodden　by　so　many　theories　of　evolution。

This　anti…finalist　doctrine；　when　fully　worked　out；　was；　moreover；　calculated　to　aid　in　the　needful　dissociation　of　two　notions：　　that　of　evolution　and　that　of　progress。　　In　application　to　society　these　had　long　been　confounded；　and；　as　a　consequence；　the　general　idea　seemed　to　be　that　only　one　type　of　evolution　was　here　possible。　　Do　we　not　detect　such　a　view　in　Comte's　sociology；　and　perhaps　even　in　Herbert　Spencer's？　　Whoever；　indeed；　assumes　an　end　for　evolution　is　naturally　inclined　to　think　that　only　one　road　leads　to　that　end。　　But　those　whose　minds　the　Darwinian　theory　has　enlightened　are　aware　that　the　transformations　of　living　beings　depend　primarily　upon　their　conditions；　and　that　it　is　these　conditions　which　are　the　agents　of　selection　from　among　individual　variations。　　Hence；　it　immediately　follows　that　transformations　are　not　necessarily　improvements。　　Here；　Darwin's　thought　hesitated。　　Logically　his　theory　proves；　as　Ray　Lankester　pointed　out；　that　the　struggle　for　existence　may　have　as　its　outcome　degeneration　as　well　as　amelioration：　　evolution　may　be　regressive　as　well　as　progressive。　　Then；　tooand　this　is　especially　to　be　borne　in　mindeach　species　takes　its　good　where　it　finds　it；　seeks　its　own　path　and　survives　as　best　it　can。　　Apply　this　notion　to　society　and　you　arrive　at　the　theory　of　multilinear　evolution。　　Divergencies　will　no　longer　surprise　you。　　You　will　be　forewarned　not　to　apply　to　all　civilisations　the　same　measure　of　progress；　and　you　will　recognise　that　types　of　evolution　may　differ　just　as　social　species　themselves　differ。　　Have　we　not　here　one　of　the　conceptions　which　mark　off　sociology　proper　from　the　old　philosophy　of　history？

But　if　we　are　to　estimate　the　influence　of　Darwinism　upon　sociological　conceptions；　we　must　not　dwell　only　upon　the　way　in　which　Darwin　impressed　the　general　notion　of　evolution　upon　the　minds　of　thinkers。　　We　must　go　into　details。　　We　must　consider　the　influence　of　the　particular　theories　by　which　he　explained　the　mechanism　of　this　evolution。　　The　name　of　the　author　of　〃The　Origin　of　Species〃　has　been　especially　attached；　as　everyone　knows；　to　the　doctrines　of　〃natural　selection〃　and　of　〃struggle　for　existence；〃　completed　by　the　notion　of　〃individual　variation。〃　　These　doctrines　were　turned　to　account　by　very　different　schools　of　social　philosophy。　　Pessimistic　and　optimistic；　aristocratic　and　democratic；　individualistic　and　socialistic　systems　were　to　war　with　each　other　for　years　by　casting　scraps　of　Darwinism　at　each　other's　heads。

It　was　the　spectacle　of　human　contrivance　that　suggested　to　Darwin　his　conception　of　natural　selection。　　It　was　in　studying　the　methods　of　pigeon　breeders　that　he　divined　the　processes　by　which　nature；　in　the　absence　of　design；　obtains　analogous　results　in　the　differentiation　of　types。　　As　soon　as　the　importance　of　artificial　selection　in　the　transformation　of　species　of　animals　was　understood；　reflection　naturally　turned　to　the　human　species；　and　the　question　arose；　How　far　do　men　observe；　in　connection　with　themselves；　those　laws　of　which　they　make　practical　application　in　the　case　of　animals？　　Here　we　come　upon　one　of　the　ideas　which　guided　the　researches　of　Galton；　Darwin's　cousin。　　The　author　of　〃Inquiries　into　Human　Faculty　and　its　Development〃　（〃Inquiries　into　Human　Faculty〃；　pages　1；　2；　3　sq。；　London；　1883。）；　has　often　expressed　his　surprise　that；　considering　all　the　precautions　taken；　for　example；　in　the　breeding　of　horses；　none　whatever　are　taken　in　the　breeding　of　the　human　species。　　It　seems　to　be　forgotten　that　the　species　suffers　when　the　〃fittest〃　are　not　able　to　perpetuate　their　type。　　Ritchie；　in　his　〃Darwinism　and　Politics〃　（〃Darwinism　and　Politics〃　pages　9；　22；　London；　1889。）　reminds　us　of　Darwin's　remark　that　the　institution　of　the　peerage　might　be　defended　on　the　ground　that　peers；　owing　to　the　prestige　they　enjoy；　are　enabled　to　select　as　wives　〃the　most　beautiful　and　charming　women　out　of　the　lower　ranks。〃　　（〃Life　and　Letters　of　Charles　Darwin〃；　II。　page　385。）　　But；　says　Galton；　it　is　as　often　as　not　〃heiresses〃　that　they　pick　out；　and　birth　statistics　seem　to　show　that　these　are　either　less　robust　or　less　fecund　than　others。　　The　truth　is　that　considerations　continue　to　preside　over　marriage　which　are　entirely　foreign　to　the　improvement　of　type；　much　as　this　is　a　condition　of　general　progress。　　Hence　the　importance　of　completing　Odin's　and　De　Candolle's　statistics　which　are　designed　to　show　how　characters　are　incorporated　in　organisms；　how　they　are　transmitted；　how　lost；　and　according　to　what　law　eugenic　elements　depart　from　the　mean　or　return　to　it。

But　thinkers　do　not　always　content　themselves　with　undertaking　merely　the　minute　researches　which　the　idea　of　Selection　suggests。　　They　are　eager　to　defend　this　or　that　thesis。　　In　the　name　of　this　idea