Page:The evolution of marriage and of the family ... (IA evolutionofmarri00letorich).pdf/360

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

relationship with the neighbouring species of the animal kingdom is more strongly shown in his psychic than in his anatomical traits.

More than once, I fear, the accumulation of detailed facts which forms the groundwork of this book may have fatigued my readers; but this is the only condition on which it is possible to give a solid basis to sociology. It is, in fact, nothing less than a matter of creating a new science. We are scarcely beginning to be really acquainted with mankind, to take a complete survey of it in time and space. Now this would be quite impossible without the help of comparative ethnography. We must regard the existing inferior races as survivals, as prehistoric or proto-*historic types that have persisted through long ages, and are still on different steps of the ladder of progress; it is this view alone which we shall find suggestive and enlightening; and it is in strict correlation with the method of evolution, to which, indeed, it owes its value.

The innumerable dissertations on the history of marriage and of the family which appeared previous to the rise of scientific method, have necessarily been devoid of accuracy and especially of breadth of thought. A thick veil concealed the real origin of these institutions; religious legends, that had become venerable on account of their antiquity, paralysed scientific investigation. To submit our social institutions to the great law of evolution, by means of disagreeable researches, was not to be tolerated by public opinion. In fact, if marriage and the family have been constantly modified in the past, we cannot maintain that these institutions will remain for ever crystallised in their present state. Until this revolutionary idea had taken root and become sufficiently acclimatised in public opinion, all so-called social studies were scarcely more than empty lucubrations. From time to time, no doubt, a few bold innovators, braving scoffs or even martyrdom, have dared to construct theories of new societies; but, being insufficiently informed, they could only create Utopias contemned by the mass of the public. Scientific sociology builds its edifice stone by stone; its duty is to bind the present to the most distant past; its honour will lie in furnishing a solid basis of operation to