eation
and peculiar national sanctity. On these grounds alien races are
pronounced necessarily inferior. China's scorn for foreigners is due
to these ideas.

Although this pagan notion has been theoretically abandoned in the
West, it still dominates the thought not only of the multitudes, but
also of many who pride themselves on their high education and liberal
sentiments. They bring to the support of their national or racial
pride such modern sociological theories as lend themselves to this
view. Evolution and the survival of the fittest, degeneration and the
arrest of development, are appealed to as justifying the arrogance and
domineering spirit of Western nations.

But the most subtle and scholarly doctrine appealed to in support of
national pride is the biological conception of society. Popular
writers assume that society is a biological organism and that the laws
of its evolution are therefore biological. This assumption is not
strange, for until recent times the most advanced professional
sociologists have been dominated by the same misconception. Spencer,
for example, makes sociology a branch of biology. More recent
sociological writers, however, such as Professors Giddings and
Fairbanks, have taken special pains to assert the essentially psychic
character of society; they reject the biological conception, as
inadequate to express the real nature of society. The biological
conception, they insist, is nothing more than a comparison, useful for
bringing out certain features of the social life and structure, but
harmful if understood as their full statement. The laws of psychic
activity and development differ as widely from those of biologic
activity and development as these latter do from those that hold in
the chemical world. If the laws which regulate psychic development and
the progress of civilization were understood by popular writers on
Japan, and if the recent progress of Japan had been stated in the
terms of these laws, there would not have been so much mystification
in the West in regard to this matter as there evidently has been.
Japan would not have appeared to have "jumped out of her skin," or
suddenly to have escaped from the heredity of her past millenniums of
development. This wide misunderstanding of Japan, then, is not simply
due to the fact that "Japanese progress, traced to its causes and
explained by reference to the means employed, is not nearly such
fascinating reading as when represented