UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

McDougall’s conception of the group mind Moodie, Stanley Fyfe Middleton 1923

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1923_a8_m5_7_m2.pdf [ 25.67MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0088729.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088729-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088729-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088729-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088729-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088729-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088729-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0088729-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0088729.ris

Full Text

^ b t t f e ? jryf e M&J fates* SQbolio.  HCDOUOALL^S 3CH3EPTICN C? THE TROUP KIND by Stanley Fyf e Middleton Hoodie  A Thesis submitted fo r the Degree of MASTER 0? ARTS in the Department of PHILOSOPHY  THE UNIVERSITY OS BRITISH 3CLU!'BI.i upril, 1923.  IABL13 OP 0('HTB1I?3.  I. Introductio sponsor touohed of what  n - Dr. r.cDougall, th e Scientifi c o f grou p mind - others who hav e o n th e theor y - a torief statement th e oonoep t entails .  II. A n outlin e o f th e leadin g theorie s o f th e nature o f Society, Contractual * trganio . Psychologic, and thei r exponents . KoDougall's Grrou p Mind a florescence o f the last named . III. Th e oonoep t o f Orou p Hin d examine d - what it implie s - how develope d toy LioDougall. IV. Jriticism s o f th e oonoept,especiall y toy Kaoiver - 31mila r views expresse d toy Oooley.Ellwood, bidding s - Perry' s inquiry a s t o realit y o f concept . 7. A n estimat e o f th e worth an d validit y o f the concept .  U31>0UCULL*3 JjrmSPPION 0? ?HR TICU? 1'ITTD.  Sociology may be defined aa the science of the processes of human associations. Consequently , a sociological element has been present in the works of all thinkers who have reflected upon human experience. The O'd Testament prophets, Plato, many of the Jhurch fathers, have oontributed much of value to the Science (of. bidding's , Descriptive & Historical Sociology) , But the Science of Sociology, as distinct from philosophy, had its inception barely one hundred years ago, in the "(Jours de Philosophie Positive" of Anguste Comte. Sociologica l problems have been implicit in the philosophies of all ages, but it is only in the last century that the y have been regarded as the subject matter of a special science. Just as the consideration of general sociological problems, in a philosophic rather tha n scientific manner, may be traced beck to very early days, 3 o nay the concept of a group mind be shown to be of ancient origin, ileDougall , himself, traoes his theory back to that of the Sreek city-state. Bu t though latent in Ireek thought, particularly in the dictum of Aristotle  - 2 -  that man i s a political anima l th e ide a had receive d little attentio n throug h th e ages, and i n it s scientific applicatio n t o th e problems o f group life , may be said t o be as origina l wit h LcDougall a s th e evolutionary theor y with Darwin, Dr . McDougall i s the originator o f the conoep t o f a grou p mind, which is claimed t o be exactly an d entirel y what th e ter m implies* Grou p mind i s not a metaphor o r an analog y with McDougall, it i s a demonstrable fact . Dr. UoDougall doe s no t clai m t o stand alon e in maintaining hi s conceptio n - on e feel s tha t h e i s rather pleased t o share th e responsibility with My , E. Barker, who outline s a somewhat simila r conceptio n in his "Politica l Though t i n England fro m Herber t Spencer t o the Present Day" , from which LloDougall quotes freel y i n th e introductio n t o his "Th e Grou p Kind". Germain idealis t philosophers , too, with their theorie s o f the state a s a super-individual , a magnificent an d superhuma n individuality , ar e admitted b y LloDougall t o have influence d him . Ye t he disclaims an y belief, "provisionall y a t least" , in a super-individual consciousnes s whic h als o com -  -3  -  prises the consciousness of the individual members of the group* and demonstrates th e mischief tha t suoh an idea, deifying the state md subordinatin g the individual, has done. Hi s attitude in this is to take what is valuable in the conception of the state as advanced by Kant and Hegel, and avoid th e gross and patent errors into which they and their followers fell in their efforts to serve the estate of Prussia. For 3uoh attempted discrimination, he has been aooused, notably by some American reviewers, of being under the influence of a war-bred hostility to all things German. ..'alte r Lipprasnn, in the "Hew Itepublio", roundly aocusas hira of prejudice- 0. H* Bartlott, too, speaks of LIoDougall's partisan attitude (Britis h Journal of Psychology, Vol.11, page 344). O n the other hand, the reviewer in the London "2iraes" states that he "verges on 2reitsohke". The French writers on sociologica l problems, for whose viewpoint McDougall expresse s a hearty sympathy, have dealt mainly with groups of low organisation, and have consequently left largely untouched an examination into the phenomena to be explained by a oonoeption of a groxxp mind. Dealin g with crowds.  - 4 HO'bs, fortuitously gathered groups , these latter stress the degrading influence of participation in group life. Jhere are others, hot/ever, and have teen sinoe th e days of Aristotle and his "political animal", who point out tha t man only reaches his highest development la group activity. Suo h a conception is back of the tremendously powerful movements o f the "Service Clubs" of our own day aad land. At the outset, then EcDougall recognise s a paradox - on the one hand group life ennobles, on the other it degrades* "Th e resolution of this paradox is the essential theme of this book ("Th e Orou p Kind", page 28J» An d he sets about t o resolve it by aid of his cheeryt A  Soolety which has enjoyed a long life  aad has become highly organised, aoquiree "a structure aad qualities whioh are largely independent o f the qualities of the individuals who eater iato Its ooaposltioa and take part for a brief time in Its life (op. eit. page 12). I n other words it develops a collective mind or collective soul. Hot a collective ooaeoiouaness, be it observed. Tha t oonoeptioa, elaborated by Kant and Hegel, he repudiated, "provisionally". I t becomes necessary to examine Dr. UoDougall's oonoeptlon of mind, and  - 5 we find that he defines it as "an organized syste m of interacting mental o r psyohioal foroes " (op, oit. page 13). Hin d and consciousness ar e not identical. It is this conception which enables him t o solve the paradox mentioned before. A highly organized group, such as th e British Nation, oan be endowed with a collective mind, and thos e who participate i n its life may feel the ennobling influence of such a mind. The fortuitously gathered orowd has no such mind, for its elements are not organized an d inter-related , and consequently ther e is no restraining influence on the activities of Its members, who act at a subnormal moral level , because of th e sh -ring of responsibility fo r their acts. Group mind, with KoDougall, exhibits in its higher manifestations esprit d e corps. Mob s lack it, necessarily. Th e imperfectly organized nation lacks it. In this ve obtain a hint as to the great praotioal use of iIoDougall*s conception* State d i n terms of this idea, education is largely the building of a group mind. It is upon pragmatic sanctio n that IloDougall relies. "Th e conception of a group mind is useful, and therefore valid (op.cit.p.12)" . Society , he states, has certain inherent  - 6 -  qualities which it does not owe to the units presently composing it. Furthermor e thes e units display certain qualities and characteristics as members of a society which they do not exhibit alone. Society , the group, has therefor e an individuality, a mental life, a taind. The ohief charm and quite possibly a considerable share of the value of Dr. iicDougall's work lies in its happy wedding of science and philosophy. H e is not afraid t o generalize, where generalization seems well founded, though he realizes the dangers of th e practice. Vithout generalization ther e is no intellectual progress - not even in the realm of science. Fher e is a refreshing breadth about Dr. McDotigall in very distino t contrast t o the scrappy, microscopi c method s of some of his ori tics. After having reviewed some of the characteristic groups which exhibit th e group mind, Dlr. Ho Dougall's book goes on to discuss what he terms the most important kind of group mind, that of th e nationstate. Hi s discussion as to what constitutes a nation, under what conditions true nationality can exist, how a nation exhibits the working of its mind in action, is a practical application of his theory. Th e group spirit he claims to be "the supreme agent of human  7 progress (op . cit.p.413)".  XI. rhe necessity of arriving at an accurate conception of society is certainly fundamental to all social progress, and i t is recognized fcy LIcDougall and many other "psychologica l sociologists " that many of the errors into which society has been led and Is still being led are duo to a faulty or insufficiently^ reasoned conception. Dr . licDougall, in his "^n Intro duction to Social Psychology", "Psychology, the Study of Behavioury an d "2he Irou p ::ind", stresses the importance of a sound psychological foundatio n on which to rest the superstructure o f the social sciences. 'J?o o often this has been ignored, and political and social writers have assumed an almost wholly rational basis for communit y interests . Ther e is little doubt that much of the hopelesness of the endeavor to reconcile capital and labor, nationalist an d internationalist, materialist and idealist, is due to a lack of knowledge of the fundamental trait s of human nature or to failure to take these into account. Here again the value of such a work as that of Dr. I'oDougall i s evident. .  e got little help from  - 8 most psychologists, who spend thei r time, quite properly, in an investigation of the minutiae of their scienoe the results of which investigations are unintelligible to the layman. Th e relationship of their findings to other facts of life he fails t o gTasp, even If he has faithfully investigated. I t is true that such a one might wade through volumes of psychological literatur e and emerge with th e haziest idea s as to how these facts of mental life had any direct bearing upon his life, or the welfare of the community of which he forms a part, Such a work is performed fo r him by the philosophers scientist - in the realm of group life, more successfully performed by Dr. HoDougall tha n by any of his contemporaries. Dr. UeDougall's views are a modification, or perhaps one might sa y a florescence of the third and most trul y scientific of the leading conceptions of society, the psychological view. Othe r widely held and influential views are those of the contractual nature of society, and th e view of society as an organism. Purel y mechanistic and materialistic cc n o e Pt* o n 3  aj,  9 also possible.  The contractual view of society is briefly that society exists because of a contract entered int o by, or implicit with, the individuals composing it. Me n have seen the value of combinations, and have entered int o them.  - 9 sacrificing certain of their liberties of action in order to participate in the benefits of community life. AS with other philosophic ideas, the contract theory of society is of ancient standing. I t was held Ions ago by th© Epicureans. Little , however, was made of it until th e 17th i 16th centuries, when it wae elaborated by Ilobbes, Locke and Rousseau. ><it h the 19th century the popularity of the idea waned, but it still has adherents. Its most distinguished adherent of our titaes is Be Greef, a Belgian Sociologist of international repute. Though not th e dominant theory of the nature of society among sociologists an d psychologists, it is fair to say that it is the conception of the man in the street. Th e writer has put the query "7/hy no we live in communities?" to scores of persons not markedly scientifically or philosophically inclined, and without technica l education along these lines, and the type answer is "because we realize that we can get more safety and enjoyment out of life that way". Th e theory is held at any rate implicitly, by the great majority of our professional socialists. Th e actual words of an orator addressing a gathering of working men recur to the memory: ./©(i.e . the workers] entered into a very bad  - 10 bargain when we beoame a part of the present day society, and, as the agreement was the result of misrepresentation and treaohery on the part of those who are now benefitting by it, we dont have to keep it". She obvious criticism o f the oontraot theory is, of course, that it is not broadly psychological, but intelleotualiatio* Ther e is no doubt tha t it v/ill explain the more artificial form s of social organization, perhaps those whioh are the highest in the evolutionary scale. Industrial organization does rest upon this basis, and it was to it, primarily, that the speaker Just quoted had reference* But , as his subsequent remarks showed, he regarded all social organization in the same light, and that this is a false view and one that may lead t o dangerous consequences is obvious. 1'h e contract theor y certainly does not explain th e origin of cooperation. I t may be held as an ideal, towards whioh social organization should work, but it cannot explain social organization as we have it. One gathers that an attempt is at present being made to realize such an Idea 111 n Bolshevist Russia, and th e experiment may be fairly stated t o have failed. Th e Bolshevik i have "jjjold" the idea of a contractual society by bayonets rather than by reasons. Th e case of the conscientious objector during the war is a clear example cf the break down of the theory. Societ y very speedily  - 11 demonstrated tha t it was not contractual* «. s an ideal the theory is tenable, and may he put into practice in a society whioh will consist entirel y of normal individuals each of a high degree of intelligence. I ental tests are beginning to tell us that no society is as yet within measurable distance of that condition. And certain writers are even of the opinion that as an ideal th e contract theor y is untenable. I t is intellectualistic - it ignores certain potent biological an d psychological fact s from which ther e is no escape. Societ y is Tar deeper that a mere thing of mutual agreement on reasoned grounds, though, at any rate in some of its forms, it contains t'.is element. That there is nothing in common between Dr. HoDougall's conception of society and the view ^ust commented upon, is obvious. Indee d he makes no reference to it or its exponent II. Be Greef. H e does, however, take space to examine a second and widely held view, that of society as an organism. This latter, too, dates fro m Greek days. I n the middle ages the obvious analogy between <i society and the body and its parts was elaborated by many writers. Uicolas of Cues named the offices of state the limbs, the laws the nerves, the imperial decrees th e brains, the fatherland the skeleton, the transient human beings  - 12 the flesh, ? h e first modern of repute t o champion the theory was Herbert Spencer who, in an essay, "She Social Organism", published i n 1660, gave a clear and emphatic statement of it. Schaffl e and Lilienfeld elaborate d Spencer, the latter regarding the organic conception not as an analogy, but as an accurate description of society. Certain modern French Sociologists of "L*institute International d e Sooiologie5' notably Fouillee, adopt as a wording theory a fusion of the organic and contractual theories, and regarc1 society as a "Contractual Organism". The value of this conception is (rather historical than actual. I t was an effective protest against the contractual theory, emphasising as It did the biological nature of society, and minimizing the intellectual element. So long as the term organism was employed i n a broad, philosophical sens e littl e objection was t o be foun d with it. S o used it emphasizes th e unity of soeiety and is a useful metaphor. Bu t so soon as those to whom th e idea appealed began pushing it t o its logical conclusion , the inevitable opposition was encountered. Many eminent Sociologists have given detailed criticism of the theory. II . Sarde devotes a chapter to it in his "Etudes de Psyohologie Socials", published in 169e. Hi s criticism i s necessitated by a recrudescence of the theory, which he had believed exploded, in the  - 13 work of K« Hene Worms, a Russian Sociologist, Th e oonoeption is referred t o by M, Tarde as "oette vieille me'taphore{ op. cit. p. 120)". Afte r a slashing attack dwelling particularly upon the absurdity of entertaining the idea that an individual oan oompose an integral part of three organisms at one and th e same time - as would be the oase of an Austrian by nationality, who might be of German race and of the Roman Catholic religion - M, Tarde ends his discussion by saying: "L e fait est que l'idee de l'organisme social , an fond, est du pur mysticisms ( op.oi t .p.1.15 J L  e reproche que  Je fais a la these de l'organisrae social , o*est d'Str e le d<C-guisement positivist e de l'estrit d e chimere. Sterile ea verity's - oar elle nous decouvre rien que ce que nouj? aavions de'ja, et oe qu'elle pretend deoouvrlr, elle ne fait que nous le traduire en langago obsour - elle est remarnuablesent feoond e en illusions, en visions ohlmeriquea, apocalyptiques parfois, et aussl en aveuglements systematiques (op.oit.p.127)" • In his work "Community" (p.75)Professo r Maclver la equally contemptuous. H e adds t o the discussion by attacking Foulllee's compromise betwee n the contractual and organism theories , by which society is described as a contractual organism . (I t may be noted, parenthetically, tha t in the "Group Hind" (p.241-2) ,  14 HoDougall more or less aooepts thi s compromise, "out sinoe his entire viewpoint is psychological one may doubt that ho has done 30 deliberately after a due consideration of what the view entails). Community , Kaoiver's term to avoid th e ambiguities of the word '"Society", is not a oonstructed organization , it is a life* Thi s is essential too, the position of Professor Sllwood aad of Professor biddings. Unlike the contractual theory , the idea of society as an organism finds little popular favor in our day. A S oan be readily seen, it is a conception which would make an appeal and be to a degree applicable in a static sooiety, one in which men had foun d thei r level and were content. Bu t in the ferment of modern politics its inadequacy is evident* Th e hands ana feet wish to be the head, or, at any rate, wish t o have something to say in the selection of a head, and no pretty little fables as to the dignity and beauty of working unseen and unsung at the humble task to which one has been born will oontent them . Unfortunately , the cells of the social organism have not relinquished consciousnes s t o a specialized group * Bathe r like some of the lower annelids, each little segment wishes t o crawl in its own direction when the ties that bind it to its fellows are cut.  - 15 There remain s th e psychological theor y o f society, which assert s tha t th e unity o f society i s tha t of a psychica l process . Society , especially i n some o f its more artificia l forms , contains th e contractua l element; i t has, too, many o f the characteristic s o f th e organism; 'ou t its unity i s primarily psychical . I n other words, th e most significan t element s i n society are subjective. Professo r Illlwoo d points ou t tha t thi s conceptio n must 210 1 ho confuse d wit h th e contractual theory , which it superficially resemble s (Sociolog y i n its Psychologica l Aspects pp.see,36 9 J. Not , is i t t o be take n as a modification o f the organi c theory . I t contains th e elements o f value i n both these , allowing on th e one hand for th e intellectual factors , which increas e i n importanc e as societ y advance s i n th e evolutionary scale , and makin g allowance o n th e other hand fo r th e blind, biologica l forces o f organic nature . S o far , Fouillee's contractua l organism. B  ut  t o thi s i s added a recognition o f imitation,  sympathy, conflict, control an d instinct . I t i s synthesi s succeeding th e analysis o f earlie r thinkers . Professor bidding s recognize s thre e form s o f this conceptio n and regard s the m al l a s "modernize d form s of very ancient notions" . (Descriptiv e & Historica l Sociology p. 4 e t seq . ) i? her e is firs t o f all th e vie w of Durkheim an d L e Bon, tha i societ y i s explained b y  16 the contagiou s influenc e exoroise d upo n th e individua l by an aggregation o f livin g beings , tha t i t i s a phenomenon ver y lik e tha t o f suggestim * Jard  e i s re-  sponsible fo r th e secon d variatio n o f th e idea. Societ y to him i s explicabl e i n term s o f imitation . .'h e third view I s tha t o f Professo r '.idciinjs , himself, and i s summed u p i n his famou s ter m "consciousnes s o f kind" . "ike respons e t o a give n stimulu s aino n ; a number o f individuals jive s u s th e inceptio n o f cooperation ; anllke respons e explain s competitio n an d individuation . From thes e t o th e complexitie s o f uodern lif e i s a logical step * I t i s i n th e fac t tha t i t explain s variation a s well a s similarity , tha t i^rof . bidding s claims a suporiority fo r his conceptio n ove r thos e o f Durkheim an d ? arde , which h e agrees , may adequatel y explain cooperation .  III. •after thi s brie f examinatio n int o th e theorie s of society which have mainly influence d sociologist s i t will b e obviou s tha t Dr . MoDougall's ide a o f a grou p mind i s a development o f th e psychological theory , or , as was sai d before , a florescenc e o f it . H e agree s with Durkhei m i n emphasisin g th e enormousl y Importan t  - 17 role whloh suggestion plays in human life; h e states in "An Introduction to Social Psychology" that in "making imitation th e Tory essence of soolal life" M. Tarda "hardly exaggerates it s importance (op.oit.p . 323. )7or Professor Gldding s on e feels that Dr. UePougall has less sympathy. I n discussing those (Grou p Hind p. 7) who "have made vast assumption s abou t th e constitution and working of the human mind" he mentions tha t "Prof. Glddings has disoorered th e principal forc e underlying all human associations i n consciousness of kind". MoSougall carrie s us much farther tha n these thinkers, giving us net a theory t o account fo r the origin of society - ther e he is evidently quite willing to go with M. Tarde - hut a theory which will explain society as we have It, and which will enable us to ooatrol its future workings. Following out his belief that there is a group mind, MoDougall begins an examination into different groups to test th e validity of his conception. H e first oonsiders th e mental lif e of the crowd. Thi s is a sphere of group life which has been very thoroughl y studied, Whil e ther e is no concourse of human beings whloh does not exhibit th e rudiments of organisation; there are masses of human beings, fortuitously gathered.  - 18 la whioh th e element o f organisation l a negligible. Snob la the orowd. T o exhibit any payohologioal elemen t at all ther e araat be som e oentre of intereat - a fire* an arreat, a "human fly", what not. Th e moat atrikln g payohologioal oharaoterlsti o o f the orowd l a the apread and lntenaifioatlon of emotion. UoDougal l reject s the idea of oolleotlre oonaolonaneas t o explain orowd payohology, thoug h retaining an open mind on the question, and find a tha t suggestibility l a suffiolent to explain the obaerred phenomena. Crowd s do not dlaplay the group mind. Min d being an organised system •f lnteraoting mental forces , la a term inapplioabl e to the payohlo phenomena o f a orowd, whioh are not organised* Be then turna t o the highly organised group, of whioh he takes the army as a typa. I n it he finds, elearly evidenced, group will, an aapeot o f the group ml whioh modifies it s oolleotlre lif e and ralaea i t to a muoh higher level than that of the orowd. Group s whioh hare a mental lif e fall into two great olaseea natural and artlfioial groupa. Th e natural groups are those rooted I n kingship, auoh as the family, and thoae determined geographically , fo r example th e inhabitanto of the Zale of Han. Th e artlfioial groupa are of three  -1 9kinds, purpeelr e , oustonar y o r t r a d i t i o n a l , an d thoe e ooablalng th o tw o loo t a t t r i b u t e s . Bxaaple  s o f th o  f i r s t ar o th o oooia l oln b an d th o ooaaeroia l oeapany « Of th o ssoond , th o onoto o o f th o Hind u world , an d th o rroo Masons | o f th o t h i r d , th o Christia n Oharo h an d tho anolon t UniYereity.(Zh e 3 roup Kind , p.12 2 o t ooq. ) Bnt th o "noa t i n t e r e s t i n g , moo t ooaplex , an d nost lnportan t kin d o f grou p min d l o p . o l t . p . 1 3 5 ) i s that o f th o notlon-otato * Dr . HoDougal l examine s th o onrront o o no opt ions o f n a t i o n a l i t y an d find s tha n i n adoqnato. l a t i o n a l l t  y l a a thin s oooontiall y psy -  e h e l e g i o a l . Throughou  t hl a dioonoslo n O f th o oonoop t  • f n a t i o n a l i t y . HoDongal l Maintain s a o t r l o t l y s o i o n t l f l o a t t l t n d o . H e dlooaooo o th o idoa o o f Prowidonoo , th o Destiny o f l a t i e n a , th o genlu e o f a pooplo , th o nnoon ooiono oon l o f n nation * th o o p l r i t o f th o ago , an d findo tha m a n o o l o n t l f i o , woakonln g t o th o oono o o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , Justifyin g o g o l s t l o oondnot . Th e aer o o o i o a t l f i o ooaooptlon s ar o oxaalao d nezt t th  o attoap t  to explai n histor y b y a r i g i d applicatio n o f Darwinia n principles i t o oo o i t a o th o stag e o f a n eoonoal o strnggle betwee n olaeoos , a s doo o Marx , o r t o attribut e a l l difference s o f nationa l oharaote r t o phyoioa l en •ironaent,ae doo o Buokls .  - 20 HoDougall's interpretation of history is in terms of national mind. Th e mind of a nation is exceedingly complex, and occupies a position midway between the two extremes of the crowd and the highly organised group , mentioned before. I n it the influence of the past is of greater importance tha n in other group minds. Wha t the n are the conditions necessary t o the existence of a highly developed national mind and character? (I t may be stated here that, in HcDougall*s view, which is stated i n full in.his "Psychology, the Study of Behaviour'*, mind and character are two aspects of the same thln^, of that"organised syste m of mental or psychical forces, which expresses itself in the behaviour and th e consciousness o f the individual man". Such a system has two aspects, which are really indivisible, but may be considered abstractly apart, namsly, the intellectual or cognitive, and the volitional, conatlve, or affective. Min d i f the first , character the second.) The essential condition is some degree of mental homogeneity, and it is here, by the way, that Dr. MoDougall feel s doubtful of the future of the United States. Hi s discussion of racial characteristics, their durability and influence, is exceedingly interest ing and far-sighted , but is apart fro m our present  - 21 purpose. Othe r conditions are freedom of communication, leaders, common purpose, national responsibilities, and continuity of national life, (op.cit .p.150 at seq.) It is when Br, I'cBougall discusse s as he does in Part II I of ? '2he Sroup Mind", the development of irati=onal mind and character, that the immense practical significance of the conception of a group mind is evident. Civilizatio n does not mean an improvement in racial qualities, indeed ther e is evidence whioh seems to point in an opposite direction. Wha t it does mean la that intellectua l and moral tradition s are improved, and this.improvemen t depends upon scientifically sound social organization. I n other words, continued improvement depends upon development of group mind. Th e race making period has passed, and human evolution now differs fro m the evolution of animals In being group evolution. Ration s are becoming self-conscious, or rather, since they have had self-consciousness In germ, it is becoming'richer In content. Jus t as individual evolutionary development consist s in a growth of self-consciousness, so with the nation. "Han" , says Browning,, "is put on earth to grow a soul". Kations must grow souls as a further step in their evolution. A s one takes Dr. EcDougall's Ide a it is  - 22 that Just as men developed a sentiment fo r family before they deveopled one for the nation , so must they develop one for the nation before the y can love all humanity, Perhap s Tennyso n was not, after all, a reactionary when he declared tha t the best cosmopolite loved best his native country* Olde r civilizations perished throug h a lack of knowledge of natural laws. Our civilization may be saved by realization of the nature and power of community. "Thu s the group spirit, rising above th e level of a narrow patriotism t .at regards with hostility all its rivals, recognising that only throu^i the further development of the collective life of nations can man rise t o higher levels than he has yet known, becomes the supreme agent of human progress", are I>r« LlePougall *s concluding words, {op. oit.p.413)  IV.  ,7hile no one can fail to recognize th e intense earnestness of purpose of Dr. UoDougall's work, and its scientific viewpoint, his theory of a group mind has not been acceptable to all sociologists. Perhap s his most redoubtable critic is Professor Maciver.  - 23 In disoussing false perspectives o f aoiamuni ty, Maoiver gives considerable spac e to refutation of the idea of community as a mind or soul, that is, the idea of a group mind* His first objection i s fundamental. l. c Dougall's definition of mind as an organized system of mental force s he considers totall y inadequate. She individual mind, aays Maoiver, is something much more integral, isolated, than this. "I t has a unity other than that of suoh a system (Communit y p.77 J.'1 But Maoiver does not very plainly indioate what his more adequate ooneeption of mind is . Unlik e HoDougall, Maoiver, more economist tha n psychologist, does not seem to realise that mind is not necessarily the Isolated and perfeotly Integrated unity which he would consider it. Th e work of Br. Morton Prince particularly has profoundly shaken any such conception. Dr. HoDougall'a definition of mind is perhaps as rigid a one as th e present development o f psychological theory will permit. liaoiver's second objection is in the nature of a reductio ad absurdum. "I f England has a collective mind, why not Birmingham, and why not each of its wards? I f a nation has a collective mind so also  - 24 have a church and a trade union". T o the positing of collective minds there may be no end. lioDougal l disposes of this objection by pointing out tha t such a question is merely one of degree, and that the point where mental interaction becomos sufficiently organised t o justify th e term group aind is a question of purely academic interest* Vh o can set a lowest limit for th e emergence of individual consciousness in the animal series? To t who would deny mind t o man fo r this reason? (Grou p Mind p.15) Maoiver*s arguments are rather neatly disposed of by MoDougall who quotes an eloquent passage, expressing forcibly the beliefs upon which the conception of a group mind rests,from a "recent work on sociology", which reoent work is Maoiver*s "Community". (op . oit.pp.16, 19) I t is not unjust to say that Maoiver repudiates ilcDougall's conception of a group mind, ye t discusses community very largely in terms of such a conception. She view of Professor Giddings, the most influential of American Sociologists, has been mentioned. S t him social mind is "the concert of thought, emotion and will" of individual minds (Elements of Soc. p.120; Hist.& Doc. 3oc.p.lB5).  - 25 * somewhat simila r rlew i s expressed b y Professor O.H. Jooley, lc "Jooial Organisation" (p.4) , where ha statesi "Th e unity of the sooial mind consists not in agreement bu t i n organisation, in the faot of reolprooal influenc e or oausition among its p^rts by virtue of whloh ererything tha t tak e plaoe i n it is oonneoted with everything else, and so is an out oome of tha whole". Thes e views are, of oourse, in substantial agreement with thos e of UoDougall. ihe y reoognisa th a phenomena with whloh MoDougall deals, and take a rather similar Tlaw as t o their manifestations, but make BO attempt t o give to them so rigid a n interpretation as he does* Professor Ellwood (Soo . in its Psyoh. aspects, p. 381) argues for the retention of the term "sooial mind'', purely on the grounds of oonvenlenoy. H e says, "It should be allowable t o speak of the sooial mind, provided tha t we understand tha t tha t ter m Is simply a aame fo r the mental life , the psyohloal unity of society". I n none of the three works Just mentioned is thi s statement of the nature of the sooial mind mentioned i n oonneotion with the theory of Dr. Ho Dougall. Hi s views are not oonsldered by the writers. Ralph Barton Perry has an extended oritloism of the theory of a group mind la the -.merioan Journal  -2 6of Sociolog y fo r Ha y 1922 , unde r th o t i t l e , "I s ?her e a Soola l UindT " B e s t a t e s tha t whil e ther e indoubtedl y i s a s o o l a l alad , i n th o sens e i n whic h w e oa n spea k of "a n infan t Bind " o r a " s c i e n t i f i c Bind" , ther e i s BO a prior i reaso n fo r p o s i t i n g a soola l Bin d i n th e sense o f a grou p Bind . T  o hi a th e theor y o f a grou p  Bind I s s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t o r y , whethe r on e adopt s th e soul-substance theor y o r th e introspec t IT S theor y o f Bind} I n th e f i r s t eas e th e s e l f contradictio n a r i s e s froB th e d e f i n i t i o n o f Bin d a s i n d i v i s i b l e ( thoug h i t shoul d h e pointe d ou t tha t ItaDougal l hinsel f i s an adheren t o f t h i s vie w (Bod y ft Hind) , an d ha s take n care t o obviat e thi s d i f f i c u l t y l a s t a t i n g h i s con ception e f grou p Bind) 4 i n th e secon d case * th e introspective theor y regard s Bin d a s private * pre cluding th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a share d Bind . Perr y find s fault wit h wha t h e regard s a s MoSougall' s a t t i t u d e , that o f grou p superio r t o Individual , an d s t a t e s tha t soolal whole s are,rather , i n f e r i o r - " a s a whole , s o c i e t y i s Inferio r t o Ban" . H e quote s wit h approva l a stateaen t o f Durkheia , "Societ y i s a r e a l i t y , su l generis".  - 27  Dr. IcDougall l a a pioneer in a broader outlook on soolal psychology. Hi s conception of goin (roup mind places the foundation s of a study of sooiety upon firmer ground tha n does the work of earlier students in that field , dom e vaguer principle was relied upon by them to explain social phenomena. "Imitation", "suggestion", "gregariousness", while undoubtedly explanatory of much, fall short of an explanation of the inextricably Involved relationshi p of man t o his social environment. Tha t 7>r* Uo&ougall's theory does afford a satisfactory basis is evident it Is pragmatically sound. Sh e sume conception of Society underlies th e "Human Nature and Politics" and "The Great Sooiety " ef Mr. Wallas. Oddl y enough, too, it is given succinct expression by H.d. './ells in his "First and Last things". H e says, "Socialism i s to me ne more and no less than the awakening of a collective consciousness i n humanity, a collective will and collective mind". But Br. MoDougall gee s beyond thes e thinkers in advancing his conceptio n as a fact of psychology, of scientifically soun d and capable^scientific proof. It is the logioal outcome of a lifetime of psychological  - 28 thinking and writing. £ o it he gives the prestige of an eminent scientist, one who must rigidly adhere to the methods and findings of his science, and to whom the latitude which is permitted t o the journalistic dreamer or thejutopian novelist is not allowable. Undoubtedly th e crux of the theory lies In the definition ef mind, bn e cannot but feel, after following BoDougall throug h his "Phyaiologioal Psychology", "Body and Mind", "Psychology, the Study of Behaviour," "A n Introduction to Social Psychology", and "The Sroup Kind", that, granting his definition ef mind as "an organised syste m of mental or purposive forces", he has succeeded i n proving his point. I f mind is such, there is a group wind. Now, to arrive at a satisfying concept of mind brings one dangerously near the disoussion of material and Immaterial, at which commonsense so violently shies, Examinin g the thousand and one definitions offered, one fails t o find anything more illuminating than the dictum of Dr. MoDougall. Both Mr. P. 0. Bartlett, and Mr. Molver criticize MoDougall's definition of mind as inadequate, but neither offers one which is more adequate.  - 29 The truth of the matter is that neither science, in the narrower acceptance of the term, nor common sense can offer any definition of mind except in term s of its manifestations. Tha t there is some faotor in the individual life that must he taken into consideration and can only he labelled mind is evident; its nature is not at all evident. S o says common sense. 2h e philosophers and scientists run th e gamut from soul substance t o musole-twitch • Y7 e may place Dr. MoDougall at the top of the scale - for undoubtedly it is the top - and regard him as a believer in soul substance, On e feels that to Dr. MoDougall min  d  has myriad facet s from which we individuals strike a unitary gleams. She ideal of group mind is one to whioh one feels as does Dr. MoDougall, himself, as expressed in Body and Mind, in regard t o immortality - we do not want to believe but evidence is so strong that •,?e feel compelled t o do so. Commo n sense will resolutely se t .Its faoe against th e doctrine, for it smacks of the transcendental. Tha t matters little, however. Ou r civilisation carries on it the stamp of great minds; leader s are its most importan t ~ l p m ent. I f the theory of a group uind is adopted  - 31 -  by Sociologists generally . It will eventuall y be aooepted i n practice. The writer would l a the Meantime, to borrow a phrase fro m his author, "provisionally reboot " the oonoeption. I s it any more than a statement ef the undoubted fao t that the sooial inheritance, the teachings ef the past experience of the race, crystallised i n writings, has an enormous influence upon th e lives of succeeding generations? 'wer e a second caliph to arise to burn all th e libraries of the world, as the first Oallph did the library of Alexandria i n 640 A.D., would he not very effectively destroy th e group mind, as well as furnish fuel for the public baths? Doe s not the group mind, that organised syste m ef mental forces, find its organisation largely in books and constitution s and codes? One feels tha t Dr. UoDougall's definition of mind, is after all, inadequate. I t fails to satisfy. True, there are no definitions tha t do. Bu t if the science of psychology could commenc e by defining mind with aoouraoy its task would be completed. Definition is the end rather tha n the beginning. Tha t community i s greater tha n the sum of its part seeme to nave been proved - mathematical reasonin g is here  31 -  inadequate. Shal l we call that which is added to the sum of these parts to produae the new whole "group mind"? S o Ions a« w« recogniz e the real and praotioal importanc e of this new element, and this Dr. MoDougall has olearly demonstrated, we have grasped the central idea of his group psyoology. Bu t nomenclature is important, and it would see m premature t o label this element "group mind".  - 32 BIBLIOGRAPHY Chapter I* McDougall, '/. - Th e Group Mind, G. P. Putnam's 3ons, H.Y., 1920 Barker, E. Political Thought i n England fro m Herbert Spenoer to the Preeent Day, Home University ^lbrary, ^ondon, 1915 Davldaon, T. - Aristotle , 3 . 3 o r i b n e r * s S o n s , H . T . , 169 2 D i c k i n s o n , G . L . - 2h e Gree k Vie w I f L i f e ,  Methuen, London, 1912  Chapter II. An Approach to Philosophy, 0. 3oribner*s Sons, H.Y., 1908 Ellwood, C.A. - Sociology in it Psychological Aspeots Appleton, H.Y., 1919 Maoiver, R.M. - Community Maomillan, London, 1920 The Elements of Social Science Methuen, London, 1921 Principles of Sociology openoer, H. H.Y., 1906 Etudes de Psychologic Sooiale, Tarde, Q, Giard et Briere, Paris, 1898 Social Eyolution, H.T., 1895 Kidd, B . I l a o E e n s i e , J . 3 . - Manual of Ethics, University Tutorial Press, London, 1910 Foundations of Sociology, Ross, E • A « — Maomillan, H.Y., 1919 G i d d i n g s , F . H. . Readings in Descriptive and Historical Sociology Maomillan, N.Y., 1921  Perry, R.B,  - 33 Chapter III. HeDougall, V.'. - A n Introduction t o Social Psychology Luce & Co., Boston, 1921 • Physiologica l Psychology Dent, London 1908 - Psychology , the Study of Behaviour Home University Library, London, 1912 Body and kind, London, 1911 Chapter IV. biddings, P. H,- Elements of Sociology Maomillan, N.Y., 1698 - Sooial Organization Cooley, C.H. H.Y., 1909 La Science Sooiale Conteraporaine Pouillee, A. Paris, 1904 Social Psychology Hoss, 3. A* Maomillan, II.Y., 1908 Chapter V. Human Nature in Politics, Ilaomillan, London, 1910 » The Great Society, Maomillan,London, 1914 Principles of Psychology James, W. Maomillan, N. Y., 1890 Psychology fro m the Standpoint Watson, J.B. of a Behaviorist Ilaomillan, KJY., 1922 Comparative Psychology Loeb, J. Putnam, H.Y., 1903 The Outlines of Educational Pyle, V/.H. Psychology Warwick & York, Baltimore, 1911 Titchener, B. B. - A Text-hook of Psychology, Maomillan H.I.. 1911  '.'/alias, '••  34 (Jorks referred to are mentioned only onoe in the above list, in oonneotion with the topio in consideration of whioh they were first consulted). Numerous articles in American Journal of Sociology, British Journal of Psychology, American Journal of Psychology, Liind.and other periodicals, have also been consulted.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0088729/manifest

Comment

Related Items