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


831-ubc_1923_a8_m5_7_m2.pdf [ 25.67MB ]
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

Full Text

^ b t t f e ? jryf e M&J  fates* SQbolio. HCDOUOALL^S 3CH3EPTICN C? THE TROUP KIND by Stanley Fyfe 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 n - Dr. r.cDougall, the Scientifi c sponsor of group mind - others who have touohed o n the theory - a torief statement of what th e oonoept entails . II. A n outline of the leading theories o f the nature of Society, Contractual* trganio. Psychologic, and thei r exponents. KoDougall's Grrou p Mind a florescence o f the last named . III. Th e oonoept o f Oroup Hind examine d -  what it implies -  how developed toy LioDougall. IV. Jriticism s of the oonoept,especially toy Kaoiver - 31milar views expresse d toy Oooley.Ellwood, bidding s - Perry's inquiry as t o reality of concept. 7. A n estimate of the worth and validity of 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 phil-osophy, had its inception barely one hundred years ago, in the "(Jours de Philosophie Positive" of Anguste Comte. Sociologica l problems have been im-plicit in the philosophies of all ages, but it is only in the last century that they have been regarded as the subject matter of a special science. Just as the consideration of general socio-logical problems, in a philosophic rather than 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 is a political anima l th e idea had receive d little attention throug h th e ages, and i n its scientific application t o the problems of group life, may be said t o be as original with LcDougall as the evolutionary theor y with Darwin, Dr . McDougall i s the originator of the conoept of a group mind, which is claimed t o be exactly and entirely what th e ter m implies* Grou p mind i s not a metaphor or an analogy with McDougall, it is a demonstrable fact. Dr. UoDougall does not claim to stand alon e in maintaining his conception - one feels tha t he is rather pleased t o share th e responsibility with My, E. Barker, who outlines a somewhat similar conceptio n in his "Political Though t in England fro m Herbert Spencer to the Present Day", from which LloDougall quotes freel y in the introduction t o his "The Group Kind". Germain idealist philosophers, too, with their theories of the state as a super-individual, a magnificent and superhuma n individuality , are admitted by LloDougall t o have influenced him. Ye t he disclaims any belief, "provisionally at least", in a super-individual consciousnes s which also com-- 3  -prises the consciousness of the individual members of the group* and demonstrates the mischief that suoh an idea, deifying the state md subordinatin g the in-dividual, 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 the 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 (British 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  sociological problems, for whose viewpoint McDougall expresses a hearty sympathy, have dealt mainly with groups of low organ-isation, 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 the days of Aristotle and his "political animal", who point out tha t man only reaches his highest develop-ment la group activity. Suo h a conception is back of the tremendously powerful movements of the "Service Clubs" of our own day aad land. At the outset, then EcDougall recognises 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 ("The Orou p Kind", page 28J» An d he sets about to 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 of the qualities of the individuals who eater iato Its ooa-posltioa 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 ob-served. 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 system of interacting mental or psyohioal foroes" (op, oit. page 13). Hind and consciousness are not identical. It is this conception which enables him to solve the paradox mentioned before. A  highly organized group, such as the British Nation, oan be endowed with a collective mind, and those who participate in 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 and inter-related, and consequently there is no restraining influence on the activities of Its members, who act at a sub-normal moral level, because of the sh -ring of respon-sibility for their acts. Group mind, with KoDougall, exhibits in its higher manifestations esprit de 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 in terms of this idea, education is largely the building of a group mind. It is upon pragmatic sanction 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 these units display certain qualities and characteristics as members of a society which they do not exhibit alone. Society , the group, has therefore 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 to generalize, where generalization seems well founded, though he realizes the dangers of the practice. Vithout generalization there is no intellectual pro-gress - not even in the realm of science. Fher e is a refreshing breadth about Dr. McDotigall in very  distino t contrast to the scrappy, microscopi c method s of some of his ori tics. After having reviewed some of the character-istic groups which exhibit the group mind, Dlr. Ho Dougall's book goes on to discuss what he terms the most important kind of group mind, that of the nation-state. 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 "psychological 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 and "2he Iroup ::ind", stresses the im-portance of a sound psychological foundatio n on which to rest the superstructure of 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 know-ledge of the fundamental traits 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 is evident. .  e got little help from - 8 -most psychologists, who spend their 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 to gTasp, even If he has faithfully investigated. I t is true that such a one might wade through volumes of psychological literature and emerge with the haziest ideas 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 for him by the philosophers scientist - in the realm of group life, more successfully performed by Dr. HoDougall than by any of his contem-poraries. Dr. UeDougall's views are a modification, or perhaps one might say a florescence of the third and most truly 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 the view of society as an organism. Purel y mechanistic and materialistic ccnoePt*on3 aj,9 also possible. The contractual view of society is briefly that society exists because of a contract entered into by, or implicit with, the individuals composing it. Me n have seen the value of combinations, and have entered into 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 the 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 inter-national repute. Though not the dominant theory of the nature of society among sociologists and 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 scientif-ically or philosophically inclined, and without technical education along these lines, and the type answer is "because we realize that we can get more safety and en-joyment out of life that way". Th e theory is held at any rate implicitly, by the great majority of our pro-fessional 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 of the oontraot theory is, of course, that it is not broadly psychological, but in-telleotualiatio* Ther e is no doubt that 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 to danger-ous consequences is obvious. 1'h e contract theory certainly does not explain the 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 11 n Bolshevist Russia, and the ex-periment may be fairly stated to 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 con-scientious 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 entirely of normal in-dividuals 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 the contract theory is untenable. I t is intellectualistic - it ignores certain potent biological and psychological facts from which there 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 from 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 the brains, the fatherland the skeleton, the transient human beings - 12 -the flesh, ?h e first modern of repute to champion the theory was Herbert Spencer who, in an essay, "She Social Organism", published in 1660, gave a clear and emphatic statement of it. Schaffl e and Lilienfeld elaborated 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 in a broad, philosophical sense littl e objection was to be found with it. S o used it emphasizes the unity of soeiety and is a useful metaphor. Bu t so soon as those to whom the 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 is 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 oon-oeption 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 entertain-ing the idea that an individual oan oompose an integral part of three organisms at one and the same time - as would be the oase of an Austrian by nationality, who might be of German race and of the Roman Catholic re-ligion - 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'Stre le d<C-guisement positiviste 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 to the dis-cussion by attacking Foulllee's compromise between the contractual and organism theories, by which society is described as a contractual organism. (I t may be noted, parenthetically, that in the "Group Hind" (p.241-2), 14 -HoDougall more or less aooepts this 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 the 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 found their 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 un-sung at the humble task to which one has been born will oontent them. Unfortunately , the cells of the social organism have not relinquished consciousness to a specialized group* Bathe r like some of the lower annelids, each little segment wishes to crawl in its own direction when the ties that bind it to its fellows are cut. - 15 -There remains th e psychological theor y of society, which asserts tha t th e unity of society is that of a psychica l process. Society , especially i n some of its more artificial forms , contains th e contractual element; i t has, too, many of the characteristics o f the organism; 'ou t its unity is primarily psychical. I n other words, the most significant element s in society are sub-jective. Professo r Illlwood points ou t tha t this conceptio n must 2101 ho confused with th e contractual theory , which it superficially resemble s (Sociolog y i n its Psychological Aspects pp.see,36 9 J. Not , is it t o be taken as a modification of the organic theory . I t contains th e elements of value i n both these , allowing on the one hand for the intellectual factors , which increase in importance as society advances i n th e evolutionary scale , and making allowance o n the other hand fo r the blind, biological forces of organic nature. S o far , Fouillee's contractua l organism. B ut t o this is added a recognition of imitation, sympathy, conflict, control an d instinct . I t is synthesis succeeding the analysis of earlier thinkers. Professor biddings recognize s thre e form s of this conception and regard s the m all as "modernized form s of very ancient notions". (Descriptiv e & Historical Sociology p.4 et seq. ) i?her e is firs t of all the view of Durkheim and Le Bon, thai society i s explained by 16 -the contagious influenc e exoroise d upo n th e individua l by an aggregation o f living beings, that i t i s a phen-omenon very lik e tha t o f suggestim* Jard e i s re-sponsible fo r th e second variation o f th e idea. Societ y to him i s explicable i n terms o f imitation. .'h e third view I s tha t o f Professor '.idciinjs , himself, and is summed u p i n his famou s ter m "consciousnes s o f kind". "ike response t o a given stimulu s aino n ; a number of individuals jive s us th e inception of cooperation ; anllke respons e explain s competitio n an d individuation . From thes e t o th e complexities o f uodern lif e i s a logical step * I t i s in th e fact tha t i t explain s variation as well a s similarity, tha t i^rof. biddings claims a suporiority fo r his conceptio n ove r those of Durkheim an d ?arde , which he agrees, may adequatel y explain cooperation . III. •after this brief examination int o th e theorie s of society which have mainly influence d sociologist s i t will be obvious tha t Dr. MoDougall's ide a of a group mind i s a development o f th e psychological theory , or, as was said before, a florescence o f it. H e agrees with Durkheim i n emphasising th e enormously Importan t - 17 role whloh suggestion plays in human life; h e states in "An Introduction to Social Psychology" that in "making imitation the Tory essence of soolal life" M. Tarda "hardly exaggerates its importance (op.oit.p . 323. )7or Professor Glddings one feels that Dr. UePougall has less sympathy. I n discussing those (Group Hind p. 7) who "have made vast assumptions about the constitution and working of the human mind" he mentions that "Prof. Glddings has disoorered the principal force underlying all human associations in consciousness of kind". MoSougall carries us much farther than these thinkers, giving us net a theory to account for the origin of society - there 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 the validity of his conception. H e first oonsiders the mental life of the crowd. Thi s is a sphere of group life which has been very thoroughly studied, Whil e there is no concourse of human beings whloh does not exhibit the rudiments of organisation; there are masses of human beings, fortuitously gathered. - 18 -la whioh th e element of organisation la negligible. Snob la the orowd. T o exhibit any payohologioal element at all there araat be some oentre of intereat - a fire* an arreat, a "human fly", what not. Th e moat atriklng payohologioal oharaoterlstio of the orowd la the apread and lntenaifioatlon of emotion. UoDougal l rejects the idea of oolleotlre oonaolonaneas to explain orowd payohology, though retaining an open mind on the question, and finda that suggestibility la 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 inapplioable to the payohlo phenomena of a orowd, whioh are not organised* Be then turna to the highly organised group, of whioh he takes the army as a typa. I n it he finds, elearly evidenced, group will, an aapeot of the group ml whioh modifies its oolleotlre life and ralaea it to a muoh higher level than that of the orowd. Group s whioh hare a mental life fall into two great olaseea -natural and artlfioial groupa. Th e natural groups are those rooted In kingship, auoh as the family, and thoae determined geographically, for example the inhabitanto of the Zale of Han. Th e artlfioial groupa are of three - 1 9 -kinds, purpeelr e ,  oustonar y o r tradi t ional , an d thoe e ooablalng th o tw o loo t a t t r ibute 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 third , 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 in teres t ing , moo t ooaplex , an d nost lnportan t kin d o f grou p min d lop.o l t .p .135 ) i s that o f th o notlon-otato * Dr . HoDougal l examine s th o onrront o o no opt ions o f nat ional i t y an d find s tha n in -adoqnato. l a t i o n a l l t y l a a  thin s oooontiall y psy -ehe leg ioa l . Throughou t hl a dioonoslo n O f th o oonoop t • f nat iona l i ty . HoDongal l Maintain s a  o t r lo t l y so iont l f l o a t t l tndo . 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 oplr i t o f th o ago , an d findo tha m anoolont l f io , woakonln g t o th o oono o o f respons ib i l i ty , Justifyin g ogols t l o oondnot . Th e aer o oo ioat l f io ooaooptlon s ar o oxaalao d nezt t th o attoap t to explai n histor y b y a  r igi 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 ex-ceedingly complex, and occupies a position midway be-tween 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 than in other group minds. Wha t the n are the conditions necessary to the existence of a highly developed national mind and character? (I t may be stated here that, in HcDougall*s view, which is stated in full in.his "Psychology, the Study of Behaviour'*, mind and character are two aspects of the same thln^, of that"organised system of mental or psychical forces, which expresses itself in the be-haviour and the consciousness of the individual man". Such a system has two aspects, which are really in-divisible, but may be considered abstractly apart, namsly, the intellectual or cognitive, and the volitional, conatlve, or affective. Min d if the first, character the second.) The essential condition is some degree of mental homogeneity, and it is here, by the way, that Dr. MoDougall feels 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 from 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 discusses as he does in Part III 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 there is evidence whioh seems to point in an opposite direction. Wha t it does mean la that intellectual and moral traditions are improved, and this.improvement depends upon scientifically sound social organization. I n other words, continued im-provement depends upon development of group mind. Th e race making period has passed, and human evolution now differs from 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 in-dividual evolutionary development consists 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 Idea it is - 22 -that Just as men developed a sentiment for family before they deveopled one for the nation, so must they develop one for the nation before they can love all humanity, Perhap s Tennyso n was not, after all, a re-actionary when he declared that the best cosmopolite loved best his native country* Olde r civilizations perished through 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 the 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 to 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 the 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 of aoiamuni ty, Maoiver gives considerable space to refutation of the idea of community as a mind or soul, that is, the idea of a group mind* His first objection is fundamental. l. c Dougall's definition of mind as an organized system of mental forces he considers totally 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 the present development of 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 that such a question is merely one of degree, and that the point where mental interaction becomos sufficiently organised to justify the term group aind is a question of purely academic interest* Vh o can set a lowest limit for the emergence of individual con-sciousness in the animal series? To t who would deny mind to man for 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 similar rlew is expressed by Professor O.H. Jooley, lc "Jooial Organisation" (p.4) , where ha statesi "Th e unity of the sooial mind consists not in agreement but in organisation, in the faot of reolprooal influence or oausition among its p^rts by virtue of whloh ererything that take plaoe in 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 those of UoDougall. ihe y reoognisa tha phenomena with whloh MoDougall deals, and take a rather similar Tlaw as to their manifestations, but make BO attempt t o give to them so rigid an inter-pretation 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 to speak of the sooial mind, provided that we understand tha t that term Is simply a aame for the mental life, the psyohloal unity of society". I n none of the three works Just mentioned is this statement of the nature of the sooial mind mentioned in 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 6 -of 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 tate s tha t whil e ther e indoubtedl y i s a  soola 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  "sc ient i f i c Bind" , ther e i s BO a  prior i reaso n fo r pos i t in 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 se l f -contradictory , 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 arise s froB th e def in i t io n o f Bin d a s indiv i s ib 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 th 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 ta t in g hi 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 tude , that o f grou p superio r t o Individual , an d s tate s tha t soolal whole s are,rather , inferio r -  "  a s a  whole , society 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 la a pioneer in a broader outlook on soolal psychology. Hi s conception of goin (roup mind places the foundations of a study of sooiety upon firmer ground than 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 to 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 the "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 is to me ne more and no less than the awakening of a collective consciousness in humanity, a collective will and collective mind". But Br. MoDougall gees beyond these thinkers in advancing his conception as a fact of psychology, of scientifically sound 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 to the journalistic dreamer or thejutopian novelist is not allowable. Undoubtedly the crux of the theory lies In the definition ef mind, bn e cannot but feel, after following BoDougall through 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 system of mental or pur-posive 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 to 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 terms 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 the gamut from soul substance to 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 facets 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 to immortality - we do not want to believe but evidence is so strong that •,?e feel compelled to do so. Commo n sense will re-solutely set .Its faoe against the 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 important ~lpment. I f the theory of a group uind is adopted - 31  -by Sociologists generally. It will eventually be aooepted i n practice. The writer would la the Meantime, to borrow a phrase from his author, "provisionally reboot" the oonoeption. I s it any more than a statement ef the undoubted faot that the sooial inheritance, the teachings ef the past experience of the race, crystallised in writings, has an enormous influence upon the lives of succeeding generations? 'wer e a second caliph to arise to burn all the libraries of the world, as the first Oallph did the library of Alexandria in 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 system ef mental forces, find its organisation largely in books and constitutions and codes? One feels that Dr. UoDougall's definition of mind, is after all, inadequate. I t fails to satisfy. True, there are no definitions that do. Bu t if the science of psychology could commence by defining mind with aoouraoy its task would be completed. Definition is the end rather than the beginning. Tha t community is greater than the sum of its part seeme to nave been proved - mathematical reasoning 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« recognize the real and praotioal importance of this new element, and this Dr. MoDougall has olearly demonstrated, we have grasped the central idea of his group psy-oology. Bu t nomenclature is important, and it would seem premature to 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 from 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 Perry, R.B, Ellwood, C.A. -Maoiver, R.M. -openoer, H. Tarde, Q, Kidd, B . I l a o E e n s i e , J . 3 . -R o s s , E • A « — G i d d i n g s , F . H. . Chapter II. An Approach to Philosophy, 0. 3oribner*s Sons, H.Y., 1908 Sociology in it Psychological Aspeots Appleton, H.Y., 1919 Community Maomillan, London, 1920 The Elements of Social Science Methuen, London, 1921 Principles of Sociology H.Y., 1906 Etudes de Psychologic Sooiale, Giard et Briere, Paris, 1898 Social Eyolution, H.T., 1895 Manual of Ethics, University Tutorial Press, London, 1910 Foundations of Sociology, Maomillan, H.Y., 1919 Readings in Descriptive and Historical Sociology Maomillan, N.Y., 1921 - 33 -Chapter III. HeDougall, V.'. - A n Introduction to 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 H.Y., 1909 La Science Sooiale Conteraporaine Paris, 1904 Social Psychology Maomillan, II.Y., 1908 Cooley, C.H. Pouillee, A. Hoss, 3. A* '.'/alias, '•• » -James, W. -Watson, J.B. -Loeb, J. Pyle, V/.H. Titchener, B. B. Chapter V. Human Nature in Politics, Ilaomillan, London, 1910 The Great Society, Maomillan,London, 1914 Principles of Psychology Maomillan, N. Y., 1890 Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist Ilaomillan, KJY., 1922 Comparative Psychology Putnam, H.Y., 1903 The Outlines of Educational Psychology Warwick & York, Baltimore, 1911 - A Text-hook of Psychology, Maomillan H.I.. 1911 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. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items