NOTE ON WARD'S "PURE SOCIOLOGY" 573
In the further course of his argument Ward next works out some rather popular illustrations of what a "law" is in human actions. My caveat here is that it would be well if we could pension off our decrepit habit of confusing statements of process which we have not explained, with the conception of law understood as explanation of the process. But passing this, Ward posits the law of parsimony as the fundamental law of everything psychic. " Here we have a law as exact as any in physics or astronomy" (p. 59).
One is, of course, a bit puzzled over this confident assurance, if one chances to recall the author's other dicta : wastefulness is the " method of nature in general" (p. 68, cf. p. 88) ; and again, "We not only dis- cover one great law of evolution applicable to all the fields covered by the several sciences of the series" /. e., the whole range of science "but we can learn something more about the true method of evolution by observing how it takes place in each of these fields" (p. 71). Stranger paradoxes may have been explained away, but one's confi- dence in a guide who offers to show the way through the mysteries of physical and psychical phenomena is a good deal shaken by this appar- ent facing in opposite directions. We feel like demanding at the outset an understanding, after the fashion of the English premier, of whom tra- dition says that he once delayed adjournment of a cabinet meeting by standing with his back to the door, and holding off his colleagues with the ultimatum : " First, gentlemen, which lie do we agree to ? " Before we abandon our base we should like to know whether we are to assume that social evolution is a thing by itself or a part of general evolution ; and, if the latter, whether we are to understand that its law is parsi- mony or wastefulness. Removal of this slight discrepancy would elucidate the argument.
But to pry into this "law of parsimony," a little. It is unfortunate that Ward simply leaves us with a phrase for this most exact of formulas a sort of unknown god which we must for the present ignorantly worship when he might have revealed the law itself. He says it means "a rational being will always seek the greatest gain" (p. 59), but that does not always mean p'ecuniary gain (p. 60). Then he illustrates the action of the " law" in the case of " creating a class of paupers or mendicants by simply letting it be known that food or alms will be given to those who ask. All considerations of pride or self-respect will give way to the imperious law of the greatest gain for the least effort" (p. 61). I must submit that I do not yet get on the track of the "law." That a man who would rather eat cold victuals than work
