A THEORY OF SOCIAL MOTIVES 779
It is quite possible, hovrever, that when Professor Williams turns from his theory of personality, which he regards merely as introductory, and when he presents the theory of social forces which he has promised, the importance of that portion of his paper which deals with the relation of the emotions to instinct will appear more definitely. In conclusion I may add that if Professor Williams had defined his terms clearly I might, per- haps, have avoided whatever misinterpretation of his theory he may detect in my criticism.
Henky Raymond Mussey, Columbia University I shall speak only of Professor Williams' two criticisms of the econo- mists. He objects to the marginal-utility theorist's alleged assumption that men act from a nice balancing of utilities in consumption, rather than from impulse, imitation, anything except rational calculation. I should be willing to accept this criticism as a protest against a highly deductive method of economic study, based on an incomplete psychology. No econo- mist in his senses imagines that the vagaries of fashion, for example, represent truly rational choice on the part of its devotees. But from the days of Ricardo down, economists have found a convenient starting-point in the assumption contrary to fact of a man engaged simply in the calcu- lation of utilities, and then have gone serenely ahead forgetting the correc- tions required by their original incomplete assumption, though they have usually been ready enough to admit them when reminded of it. This besetting sin of the economist theorist justifies Professor Williams' protest. The second criticism is directed against the productivity theorists for a shifting and unscientific use of the term "efficiency." I should not care to be set to defend the productivity theory, but I confess I cannot see wherein Professor Williams' theory of motives impeaches the current use of this word. So far as mere terminology goes, "efficiency of labor" appears to me to have in the mouths of the productivity theorists a definite, if imfor- tunate, meaning, namely, the power of labor to produce wealth under any given set of conditions. Change either the quality of labor or the external conditions, and you change the efficiency of labor. More skilful labor, better land, improved machinery, all alike increase the efficiency of labor in this sense. It would be desirable in my opinion, to limit the term "efficiency" to the internal characteristics of the laborer, whether natural or acquired and to use some other term, such as "productivity," to cover the whole complex of circumstances, both internal and external, which determine his output. Thus we should say that the productivity of a day's labor is greater on a prairie farm than on a New England hill farm, because it is expended on better land, though the efficiency of labor be the same. We should say that the efficiency of the intelligent and trained worker is greater than that of the stupid and untrained, irrespective of the conditions under which
