LOOKING FORWARD

I.

INTRODUCTION.

The State and the family are social institutions, and as such, of course, have their history. Likewise, the status of woman in society has its history. Having a history, in this instance means to have been different at different times, to have undergone changes. Neither the social status of woman, nor the family, nor the form of social organization have always been what they are now. We have what we call the woman movement for the betterment of the condition of women, socially, economically and politically. The numerous divorces, of which we hear so frequent complaints, prove at least one thing, namely, that the family itself offers no guaranty of happiness; and the many cases of abandonment, infidelity and cruel treatment show that the family, as an institution, leaves room for improvement. The existence of what is generally called the social evil is also partly evidence of the imperfection of the family. The imperfections of our government are so frequently mentioned in speeches and newspapers that their existence needs no proof.

The status of woman and the imperfections of our family life, as well as our political life, offer problems for solution. For the purpose of understanding problems and finding means to solve them, it is necessary to

7

know the history and the course of development of the status or the institutions which present the problem, unless we are sure that in the history and in the evolution of society no other forces prevail but mere chance or the casual caprice of man. If, on the contrary, we are of the opinion that evolution is governed by certain principles, or certain influences, be they of a natural or social character, it is clear that no presumptions as to the future can be correct, which are not based upon the knowledge of those principles or influences. If we do not know them, we must try to find them. Whatever men do, we cannot but believe that in their actions they are guided by some reasons and that these reasons are in some way related to the conditions surrounding them. We must know how the State and the family came to be what they are, and how the status of woman came to be what it is, if we want to avoid error in our conclusions as to the possibility and the direction of changes in the future. Religious orthodoxy may believe that everything is the effect of God's will, but science and philosophy cannot rest at that, or they must go out of business. For, there is surely no reason whatsoever, why, if everything in the past went according to God's will, it should not do so in the future. And if so, of what use can it be to trouble ourselves with social problems?

We have societies for this reform and that reform, societies composed of men, and such composed of women, they publish programs and pass resolutions, but they all seem to act under the belief that social institutions can be reformed or altered at the will of wellmeaning reformers without regard to their history and the course of their development. The historical sense

is not well developed in Americans; probably because the country is young and has not much of a history, compared with the older countries of the world. Although there is hardly a subject more adapted to broaden the mind, than history, yet our public schools confine themselves mostly to national history and impart only very meagre instruction, if any at all, in the history of the world.

Yet, it should not be forgotten that the history of the old world is, to some extent, also the history of our own country, that the first white settlers on this continent were not a newly created race, but brought the views, the customs and the usages of the old world with them, that civilized life on this continent was only a continuation of the life upon the other hemisphere, and that civilization did not commence from a new starting-point.

But even the history of our own country is taught without spirit and philosophy, the spirit of patriotism, perhaps, excepted. But this spirit alone, unaccompanied by other thoughts and sentiments, is more apt to drown intellectual understanding than to impart it. History is taught as if it were nothing but a chronology of events, springing from the heroism or the wisdom of certain individuals. Sociologists and modern historians, however, take a different view, and search for the forces behind the human will. "We shall thus be led," says Buckle in his history of the civilization of England, "to one vast question, which indeed lies at the root of the whole subject, and is simply this: Are the actions of men, and therefore of societies, governed by fixed laws, or are they the result either of chance or of supernatural interference?" "Fortunately," he also says, ....the

66

believer in the posibility of a science of history is not called upon to hold either the doctrine of predestined events, or that of freedom of the will; and the only positions which......I shall expect him to concede are the following: That when we perform an action, we perform it in consequence of some motive or motives; that those motives are the results of some antecedents, and that, therefore, if we were acquainted with all the laws of their movements, we could with unerring certainty predict the whole of their immediate results. This, unless I am greatly mistaken, is the view which must be held by every man whose mind is unbiased by system and who forms his opinions according to the evidence actually before him. If, for example, I am intimately acquainted with the character of any person, I can frequently tell how he will act under some given circumstances. Should I fail in this prediction, I must ascribe my error not to the arbitrary and capricious freedom of his will, nor to any supernatural prearrangement, for of neither of these things have we the slightest proof, but I must be content to suppose either that I had been misinformed as to some of the circumstances in which he was placed, or else that I had not sufficiently studied the ordinary operations of his mind. If, however, I were capable of correct reasoning, and if, at the same time, I had a complete knowledge both of his disposition and of all the events by which he was surrounded, I should be able to foresee the line of conduct which, in consequence of those events, he would adopt."

Entering then into the problem of ascertaining the method of discovering the laws upon which human action is based, Buckle concludes that their existence is proven by the regularity of recurrence, and then turns