darwin and modern science-第146节

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！


n；　valid　though　they　might　be　for　the　animal　kingdom；　were　not　applicable　to　the　human。　　And　so　a　return　was　made　to　the　classic　dualism。　　This　indeed　seems　to　be　the　line　that　Huxley　took；　when；　for　instance；　he　opposed　to　the　cosmic　process　an　ethical　process　which　was　its　reverse。

But　the　number　of　thinkers　whom　this　antithesis　does　not　satisfy　grows　daily。　　Although　the　pessimism　which　claims　authorisation　from　Darwin's　doctrines　is　repugnant　to　them；　they　still　are　unable　to　accept　the　dualism　which　leaves　a　gulf　between　man　and　nature。　　And　their　endeavour　is　to　link　the　two　by　showing　that　while　Darwin's　laws　obtain　in　both　kingdoms；　the　conditions　of　their　application　are　not　the　same：　　their　forms；　and；　consequently；　their　results；　vary　with　the　varying　mediums　in　which　the　struggle　of　living　beings　takes　place；　with　the　means　these　beings　have　at　disposal；　with　the　ends　even　which　they　propose　to　themselves。

Here　we　have　the　explanation　of　the　fact　that　among　determined　opponents　of　war　partisans　of　the　〃struggle　for　existence〃　can　be　found：　　there　are　disciples　of　Darwin　in　the　peace　party。　　Novicow；　for　example；　admits　the　〃combat　universel〃　of　which　Le　Dantec　（〃Les　Luttes　entre　Societies　humaines　et　leurs　phases　successives〃；　Paris；　1893；）　speaks；　but　he　remarks　that　at　different　stages　of　evolution；　at　different　stages　of　life　the　same　weapons　are　not　necessarily　employed。　　Struggles　of　brute　force；　armed　hand　to　hand　conflicts；　may　have　been　a　necessity　in　the　early　phases　of　human　societies。　　Nowadays；　although　competition　may　remain　inevitable　and　indispensable；　it　can　assume　milder　forms。　　Economic　rivalries；　struggles　between　intellectual　influences；　suffice　to　stimulate　progress：　　the　processes　which　these　admit　are；　in　the　actual　state　of　civilisation；　the　only　ones　which　attain　their　end　without　waste；　the　only　ones　logical。　　From　one　end　to　the　other　of　the　ladder　of　life；　struggle　is　the　order　of　the　day；　but　more　and　more　as　the　higher　rungs　are　reached；　it　takes　on　characters　which　are　proportionately　more　〃humane。〃

Reflections　of　this　kind　permit　the　introduction　into　the　economic　order　of　limitations　to　the　doctrine　of　〃laisser　faire；　laisser　passer。〃　　This　appeals；　it　is　said；　to　the　example　of　nature　where　creatures；　left　to　themselves；　struggle　without　truce　and　without　mercy；　but　the　fact　is　forgotten　that　upon　industrial　battlefields　the　conditions　are　different。　The　competitors　here　are　not　left　simply　to　their　natural　energies：　　they　are　variously　handicapped。　　A　rich　store　of　artificial　resources　exists　in　which　some　participate　and　others　do　not。　　The　sides　then　are　unequal；　and　as　a　consequence　the　result　of　the　struggle　is　falsified。　　〃In　the　animal　world；〃　said　De　Laveleye　（〃Le　socialisme　contemporain〃；　page　384　（6th　edition）；　Paris；　1891。）；　criticising　Spencer；　〃the　fate　of　each　creature　is　determined　by　its　individual　qualities；　whereas　in　civilised　societies　a　man　may　obtain　the　highest　position　and　the　most　beautiful　wife　because　he　is　rich　and　well…born；　although　he　may　be　ugly；　idle　or　improvident；　and　then　it　is　he　who　will　perpetuate　the　species。　　The　wealthy　man；　ill　constituted；　incapable；　sickly；　enjoys　his　riches　and　establishes　his　stock　under　the　protection　of　the　laws。〃　　Haycraft　in　England　and　Jentsch　in　Germany　have　strongly　emphasised　these　〃anomalies；〃　which　nevertheless　are　the　rule。　　That　is　to　say　that　even　from　a　Darwinian　point　of　view　all　social　reforms　can　readily　be　justified　which　aim　at　diminishing；　as　Wallace　said；　inequalities　at　the　start。

But　we　can　go　further　still。　　Whence　comes　the　idea　that　all　measures　inspired　by　the　sentiment　of　solidarity　are　contrary　to　Nature's　trend？　　Observe　her　carefully；　and　she　will　not　give　lessons　only　in　individualism。　Side　by　side　with　the　struggle　for　existence　do　we　not　find　in　operation　what　Lanessan　calls　〃association　for　existence。〃　　Long　ago；　Espinas　had　drawn　attention　to　〃societies　of　animals；〃　temporary　or　permanent；　and　to　the　kind　of　morality　that　arose　in　them。　　Since　then；　naturalists　have　often　insisted　upon　the　importance　of　various　forms　of　symbiosis。　　Kropotkin　in　〃Mutual　Aid〃　has　chosen　to　enumerate　many　examples　of　altruism　furnished　by　animals　to　mankind。　　Geddes　and　Thomson　went　so　far　as　to　maintain　that　〃Each　of　the　greater　steps　of　progress　is　in　fact　associated　with　an　increased　measure　of　subordination　of　individual　competition　to　reproductive　or　social　ends；　and　of　interspecific　competition　to　co…　operative　association。〃　　（Geddes　and　Thomson；　〃The　Evolution　of　Sex〃；　page　311；　London；　1889。）　　Experience　shows；　according　to　Geddes；　that　the　types　which　are　fittest　to　surmount　great　obstacles　are　not　so　much　those　who　engage　in　the　fiercest　competitive　struggle　for　existence；　as　those　who　contrive　to　temper　it。　　From　all　these　observations　there　resulted；　along　with　a　limitation　of　Darwinian　pessimism；　some　encouragement　for　the　aspirations　of　the　collectivists。

And　Darwin　himself　would；　doubtless；　have　subscribed　to　these　rectifications。　　He　never　insisted；　like　his　rival；　Wallace；　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　n