ter is to exhibit the variety
and diversity of men's thought with reference to the concept of
progress. What they show is that there is as yet no general agreement in
regard to the meaning of the term. In all the special fields of social
reform there are relatively definite conceptions of what is desirable
and what is not desirable. In the matter of _progress in general_ there
is no such definition. Except for philosophical speculation there is no
such thing as "progress in general." In practice, progress turns out to
be a number of special tasks.
The "progress of civilization" is, to be sure, a concept in good
standing in history. It is, however, a concept of appreciation rather
than one of description. If history has to be rewritten for every new
generation of men, it is due not merely to the discovery of new
historical materials, but just to the fact that there is a new
generation. Every generation has its own notion of the values of life,
and every generation has to have its own interpretation of the facts of
life.
It is incredible that Strachey's _Life of Queen Victoria_ could have
been written forty years ago. It is incredible that the mass of men
should have been able to see the Victorian Age, as it is here presented,
while they were living it.
The materials in this chapter fall under three heads: (a) the concept
of progress, (b) progress and science, (c) progress and human
nature.
a) _The concept of progress._--The first difficulty in the study of
progress is one of definition. What are the signs and symptoms, the
criteria of progress? Until we have framed some sort of a definition we
cannot know. Herbert Spencer identified progress with evolution. The law
of organic progress is the law of all progress. Intelligence, if we
understand by that the mere accumulations of knowledge, does not
represent progress. Rather it consists in "those internal modifications
of which this larger knowledge is an expression." In so far, Spencer's
conception is that of the eugenists. Real progress is in the breed--in
the germ plasm. For men like Galton, Karl Pearson, and Madison
Grant,[330] what we call civilization is merely the efflorescence of
race. Civilizations may pass away, but if the racial stock is preserved,
civilization will reproduce itself. In recent years, a school of
political philosophy has sprung up in Europe and in the United States,
which is seeking to define our social policy toward the "inner enemies,"
|