to be supplied, some right enforced, some evil remedied. Government, therefore, whether in its legislative, executive, or judicial function, in so far as it acts at all, is the servant of the will of its members in the same way that the brain is the servant of the animal will In the next two chapters the analogy will be pushed a step further, but it will suffice here to remark that it is only in its psychological aspects that it is properly applicable. Just as the biological theory of society was seen to be everywhere unsound from ignoring the interjacent science of psychology, so the organism theory of society holds good even analogically only in so far as the comparison is confined to its psychic aspects.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

THE SOCIAL WILL.

Whatever be the objects of government, it is clear that it can have no other just origin than the will (not the "consent," which is merely negative and permissive, but the positive, declared will) of society. - Dynamic Sociology, II, 230.

It [the executive branch of government] alone knows what the real demands of the state are. It is constantly subjected to pressure from various quarters arising out of the normal operations of trade, manufactures, and industry in general. These pulsations it cannot help instantly feeling, and it is ever stepping to the verge of its statutory authority to meet these demands. Dynamic Sociology, II, 575.

The individual will, in the only proper and intelligible sense of the word, is the conative faculty - the faculty through which a being strives to satisfy its desires. It is the means by which it exists, leading to the supply of its wants and the safety of its life. All feelings, internal and external, that reach the seat of consciousness react as motor discharges determining the appropriate actions. In society the wants of individuals struggle to reach the seat of social consciousness, the organized state, and produce like reactions, tending to their relief. In highly developed governments this analogy is very clear, and a degree of responsiveness is attained corresponding somewhat closely to that of the individual will. But even in the lower and cruder forms there is some degree of responsiveness. Every government, even the most despotic, is to a certain extent representative of the state of society over which it acts, and all government is much more nearly the best that can exist under the circumstances than is generally supposed. For example, it is common to regard the present government of Russia as greatly out of harmony with the people of that empire, but this is probably a mistake. It arises from two causes. First, those living

under a more liberal government are apt to judge other societies by their own. They forget that the very reason why their government is so much more liberal is because their society is so much more intelligent, and that it is society which determines the character of government. The second mistake in this case is that the people of Russia are so heterogeneous in this respect. There exists there a large intelligent class for whom the government is undoubtedly ill-adapted, and who necessarily chafe under it. But this class is numerically small and the government does not well represent it. It represents rather the great mass for whom a better government would not be adapted. Government must always adapt itself to its worst class and even a small class of unintelligent citizens lowers its standard out of proportion to the importance of that class. This makes the intelligent class appear to be the dangerous and turbulent one, and leads some to regard intelligence as a curse rather than a blessing. The greatest of all desiderata in society is a degree of uniformity of intelligence, or intellectual and moral homogeneity.

The important fact to be noted in connection with the manifestations of the social will is that in all existing governments they are so frequently abortive or unsuccessful. Government is perpetually trying to satisfy the demands of individuals and a large proportion of its efforts prove to be failures. In the main they are successful, otherwise society itself would fail, but the successes do not attract attention, while the failures are seized upon as proofs of the entire futility of all governmental action. Laws are enacted which do not accomplish their purpose, some of them have effects which are the opposite of those which were intended. Numbers of them have to be repealed because they are found injurious, etc., etc. This is not the place to answer the superficial arguments that are based upon such facts. What concerns us here is to inquire into the causes of these failures. And first, it is nothing more than what takes place in the acts of will on the part of individuals. When

undirected by intelligence the will is constantly prompting acts that fail to secure desired ends, acts that produce effects which are the opposite of those intended, and acts which prove injurious to those who commit them.

It is obvious that in both cases the failures are chiefly due to what is commonly called ignorance But it is a special kind of ignorance, viz., lack of acquaintance with the principles involved. In individuals it is often ignorance of physical laws, but most commonly ignorance of human nature. By this is meant the motives to human action, Social or governmental failures are almost exclusively due to ignorance of social laws. And by this again is meant the principles of human action in collectivity. In other words, those who enact unsuccessful or obnoxious laws have no knowledge of the nature of social forces. As a rule they are influenced by a blind zeal to secure some perceived end and it is the nature of the will to proceed in the most direct way to the accomplishment of any purpose. The social will acts like the individual will, directly toward the object of desire. This can be a successful method only in the simplest cases. I have somewhat fully discussed this subject in Chap. VIII of Dynamic Sociology under the head of the "Direct Method of Conation" and need not, therefore, enter into it here. It need only be pointed out that for all governments thus far this has been the prevailing method, or if the indirect method has been applied it has been with such a feeble grasp of the complex laws of social phenomena as to amount to nearly the same thing. Only the simpler functions of government can be thus successfully carried on, and these have been satisfactorily performed. All attempts to exceed these have met with varying success, and it has required many failures and renewed trials to make the little progress that has actually taken place in the higher duties of the state.

"

It is, therefore, in the highest degree illogical to argue that the state can never extend its powers. It is the organ of social consciousness and must ever seek to obey the will of society.

Whatever society demands it must and always will endeavor to supply. If it fails at first it will continue to try until success at last crowns its efforts. If it is ignorant it will educate itself, if in no other way by the method of trial and error. Higher and higher types of statesmanship will follow the advancing intelligence of mankind, until one by one the difficult social problems will be solved. It is useless to maintain that the functions of government are necessarily limited to the few that have thus far been undertaken. The only limit is that of the good of society, and as long as there is any additional way in which that object can be secured through governmentall action such action will be taken.

It seems scarcely worth while to notice the exceedingly narrow attitude of a certain class of persons who habitually speak of government as if it were something foreign to the people and hostile to the true interests of society. If there have been cases in which the ruling class wholly mistook their relations to society and seemed for brief periods and in certain countries to justify such a view, events have soon taught them better; and even where a king has imagined that he was the state he was at that moment only a servant of the social will, refusal to obey which would cost him and his descendants their title to power or their lives. But such views are especially meaningless in modern times when governments have become so extremely sensitive to the social will that a single adverse vote will overthrow a cabinet, and where appeals are every year taken to the suffrage of the people. The fact is that, so far from any modern government daring to inaugurate any scheme of oppression, they are all so intensely deferent to the public will that every new step is tardily taken and only after it has become certain that it will be gladly welcomed and generally approved. This country is to-day fully ripe for a series of important national reforms which cannot be made because a comparatively small number of influential citizens oppose them. Conservatism, fear of disapproval, and general timidity before