PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEW OF SOCIETY 617
viduals, after having acquired the habit of conflict, keep it up for its own sake and find such pleasure in combat and opposition that they keep up these processes without reference to whether they have any function in the life-process or not.
I also accept nearly all that Dr. Davis said in criticism of my paper. I think he is wrong, however, in saying that my statement does not ade- quately recognize the element of environment, for the influence of the en- vironment is, of course, brought in under the head of stimulus. There- fore, this term makes it possible to recognize to the fullest degree all environmental influences modifying social co-ordinations or forms of asso- ciation. As to the relative felicity of Dr. Davis' term "coadaptation" and my term "social co-ordination" I would say that I am not particularly wedded to the term "social co-ordination." If the term "coadaptation" is a happier one to express the ideas that I have set forth I am willing to use it and must leave that to you to decide. What Dr. Davis says about my premises is, of course, entirely correct, but I would say that these premises are necessary common-sense postulates and that to question them would involve us in metaphysics. As to what he says about my sociology not applying to a society in which there is caste or in which there is a hard and fast separation between groups or classes, I would say that I think that it can be made to apply very readily if we remember that we are then dealing with two or more relatively separate and unified groups, and that the question then becomes a question of the co-ordination between groups in- stead of a co-ordination of individuals.
With most that Professor Hayes says, I think I also agree, if I under- stand him, although he seems to me to lean toward a social realism which I cannot indorse. Certainly there is no such thing as social activity apart from the activities of individuals, and it seems to me that Professor Hayes does not sufficiently take note of the biological individual as a relatively independent element in all social activity and function. I certainly see no objection to the term "social habit." If we speak of social activities, then persistent social activities may certainly well be termed social habits, just as persistent activities in the individual are termed habits. Moreover these persistent social activities rest upon habitual ways of acting in the mass of individuals.
I cannot agree that my paper does not recognize the element of uncon- sciousness in social change, though, perhaps, I have failed to develop suffi- ciently that thought. I distinctly said, however, that many of these processes involved in social change, the individual is often unconscious of. This follows from the fact that habit and instinct play such a part, not only in maintaining a certain order in society, but also in bringing about social changes.
I must take exception, however, to Professor Kelsejr's criticism of my paper. I am surprised at Professor Kelsey's criticism of my use of the
