PUBLIC OPINION 33
It is first to be remarked that public opinion is one of a large] number of very serviceable terms in common use which assume a theory of society, which, so far from being generally accepted, is probably the most fiercely contested of all philosophical dogmas in the world today. Such terms as "social consciousness," "social will," "social mind," "national sentiment," "national conscience," while permissible as convenient expressions in a busy world which is forced for time to take verbal short-cuts, contain a connotation which is very apt to lead into pitfalls. They all assume that society, or the state, is an organism, endowed with all the mental faculties, capable of self-direction and quite distinct from the individuals which compose it. This theory, which has received its impetus from the development of cvolutionistic science, is defended by many scholars of note and has found wide acceptance in many cir- cles. It is however as strenuously combated by the individualistic school, who advance incontrovertible arguments and appeal to a galaxy of quite as celebrated names. Indeed, this controversy bids fair to be endless; we are already perhaps not overhasty in consigning it to the company of such other long-contested prob- lems as "free will." It is not my intention to enter into the merits of this question. It is however necessary to indicate how the terminology of this organic theory has become so prevalent that its use is unavoidable, and the dangers which this involves. We are thus very apt to read into the history of the unification of Italy something which on consideration we would be quite unwill- ing to admit. We speak of Italy awakening to "national con- sciousness." This is certainly a very convenient and expressive phrase, but it conveys the idea that the nation, Italy itself, awoke out of something comparable to a long trance. Unless we happen to be adherents of the organic theory of the state we would pre- fer to explain the phenomena otherwise — the citizens of Italy became conscious of a bond of union between them all in the fact that they belonged to the same nation. The individualist would certainly maintain that it was an awakening of the citizens to this realization, and nothing more, that constituted "national con- sciousness ;" that there is certainly no consciousness in the nation apart from the individuals. Likewise we speak of the United
