DYNAMIC SOCIOLOGY
OR APPLIED SOCIAL SCIENCE
AS BASED UPON STATICAL SOCIOLOGY
AND THE LESS COMPLEX SCIENCES (2nd ed., 1893)
BY
LESTER F. WARD
Extracts – In these sections, Ward is outlining the views of social conservatives who believed in
laissez faire economic views
[From Chapter 1]
We shall come back to the question of the legitimate functions of government as well
as to that of the nature of religion as a social factor (vol. ii, pp. 212, 252). Let us content
ourselves here with the most general survey of the doctrine which has in modern times
been indicated by the term laissez faire. Indeed, let us expand this notion beyond the
limits usually assigned to it, and embrace not only the question whether human
government can rightfully or successfully undertake to initiate and conduct reformatory
and progressive measures, but with this the wider one, whether society, no matter by
what means, whether through political, moral, religious, or any other system of
institutions, regulations, or measures, can, either rightfully or successfully, prosecute
any plans having the improvement of its own condition for their object. The question of
right can be disposed of with a word. We do not care to discuss the question as to
whether society or any other organism has a right to manage itself. Throughout nature
the rights of individuals to carry out their desires are limited only by their power to do
so.
[32]
Man only pretends to do differently. A bird's-eye view of human history shows him to have acted
on the same principle as the rest of nature the principle that "might makes right."
Not until we have succeeded in banishing the metaphysical conception of abstract
right, and taken down the unrealizable standards of an imaginary disinterestedness in
action, shall we be prepared to discuss intelligently the conditions of man's progress
conceived as capable of accomplishment by his own efforts. The first step in this
movement is the recognition of the primary law that in the last analysis all results are
accomplished by force. Although this proposition may shock the minds of many when
brought forward as a law of society, it is really no more than saying in other words that
all effects are produced by causes, which is a truism. But its effect as a law of
sociology is to establish the necessity for a paramount source of power in human
society.
It is here that the new science is destined to be strongly antagonized by the growth of
erroneous ideas respecting liberty. The so-called “abstract rights" of mankind must be
denied if society is ever to become the arbiter of its own destiny - in theory, that is, for it
is impossible that the real enjoyment of liberty should be thereby in the least
diminished, while the sum of human happiness must be greatly increased, and this is
the only conceivable object of any right. All the prevailing theories of human rights are
but ideal conceptions which not only have never yet been realized, but in the nature of
things never can be. In point of fact, all things are now and always have been governed
by force, and all the attempts to disguise it under the color of abstract right have only
served to make it easier for the unscrupulous to accomplish their personal
aggrandizement. Government has always wielded an iron scepter, which the forms of
law have only rendered the more inexorable. The most complete recognition of the
right of force in human
_____
[33]
society - the only rule known to the rest of the sentient world, and the only one ever
acted upon by mankind - could by no possibility render matters, worse than they are.
But this recognition would put it in the power of the controlling authorities in society to
introduce progressive elements into government, and make the coercion which is now
so fruitless a positive and increasing future benefit. Under the negative system of
government which has prevailed thus far, the world naturally looks round and asks
what return it has received in exchange for all this sacrifice, and it is no wonder that
many insist that the account is against government, and would gladly dissolve the
partnership and annul the "social compact."
The remainder of the problem can only be profitably discussed in the abstract. For
there is, on the one hand, nothing in the experience of the past to teach us the
possibility of the ultimate success of teleological measures, while, on the other hand,
the short-sighted and profoundly mistaken character of nearly all such measures as
have thus far been tried renders them wholly useless as signals either to follow or to
shun.
[NOTE: TELEOLOGY is the philosophical school of thought that is based on the belief that all
things in existence are designed for a specific result, that there is an inherent purpose or final
cause for all that exists in the universe. Established by Greek philosophers it has been developed
by theologians, historians, and ethicists to argue that humans are part of a design. Ward had
doubts that “natural rights” were anything but a human invention.]
……
508
GENESIS OF CIVIL JUSTICE.
We are now prepared to consider the question, How far has natural justice, or the "right
of might," been modified by the transition to civil justice? How much of what we term
loyalty and respect for the rights of others can be attributed to sentiment - to a
subjective force - and how much must find its explanation in circumstances, or an
objective force? How law-abiding would men be of their own accord? Involved in these
questions is the paradox that, while society virtually denies the sufficiency of sentiment
and moral character by refusing to abolish its prohibitory laws, it at the same time
vehemently affirms such a sufficiency as often as it is questioned. The greater part of
this difficulty is sought to be avoided by the claim that society is divided into two
classes, one of which does, and the other does not, require the maintenance of these
laws whether social or civil. Admitting the truth of this statement, the question is
narrowed down to determining the line of demarkation between these classes, between
the loyal and the lawless, between those who recognize and accept the human or
artificial code, and those who were the penalties removed, would revert to the natural
code.
[509]
This lays bare a second paradox, for, while almost any one would say that this
boundary lies somewhere between the higher and the lower classes, and while all laws
are made especially severe against the low and ignorant, still, the same persons who
say this and the men who make these laws might deny, if asked the question, that
intelligence or education exerts any influence on morals (supra, p. 134, note). An
attempt has already been made to solve this perplexity by showing that, although
intelligence, consisting as it must of intellectual elevation coupled with the possession
of real knowledge, does unquestionably strengthen and promote all the virtues that
make up a high moral character, that it does so in proportion to its degree, and that this
is the only possible means of securing this object; yet, as actions are the result of the
forces in operation within and without, and as these forces, which are the desires, may
be disproportionately and abnormally strengthened under peculiar circumstances, it
therefore often happens that increased intelligence which really exalts the character,
affords a keener appreciation of justice, and intensifies the desire to see it done,
increases, at the same time and under the peculiar and unequal circumstances of
those involved, the desire to possess what is only obtainable by manifest injustice, by
furnishing easy means of thus obtaining it. If the circumstances be such that the latter
desire predominates over the former, action follows of necessity, and the injustice is
clearly chargeable to intelligence. In other words, knowledge increases the temptations
to act unjustly at the same time that it increases the desire to act justly, and which one
of these is to prevail must depend upon circumstances. It must necessarily follow that,
wherever intelligence works evil, it is due to inequality of opportunity to acquire
knowledge; and this constitutes a powerful argument for impartial education (vol. ii, pp.
535, 596, 607). The line of demarkation which we are seeking must therefore lie
between that class of persons whose knowledge has elevated them above the
temptations to
[510]
which they happen to be subject, and that class whose temptations are too strong for
their character. It must, therefore, depend upon two different elements - intelligence
and circumstances - and vary as these two forces vary. But what I desire particularly to
bring into view is the error of supposing that the condition of character which renders a
man incapable of larceny or robbery takes him out of the class who obey the natural
rather than the human code.
Not all of those who appear to have risen above this natural law have really done so.
The moral progress of the world is more apparent than real, especially as regards
respect for proprietary rights. This is evidenced in a thousand ways. In fact, it must be
assumed as a basis for all legislation and a postulate for every human transaction that
men will pursue the course which secures to them the greatest gain. Not gain in its
widest sense, as the greatest amount of happiness, but pecuniary or possessory gain.
Moral considerations cannot be trusted. Moral obligations are voidable at law.
Supreme selfishness is presumed in all business transactions. And it is reasonably
presumed, to depend upon anything else is to build upon the sand.
Ward believed that religion and philosophy had been used to justify governments that could not
redistribute property and effectively deal with such issues as poverty, educations, etc. In is view,
the emerging discipline and profession of sociology could be used to plan a better social system,
that government could erase inequality, end poverty and make society a planned ‘mechanism’
that would treat all people equally. Ward’s critics charged that he was arguing for a form of
"soft Marxism". Ward, however, wrote that socialism's plan to use government to own all means
of production would likely fail – those who govern were human as well and would be only too
happy to use power for their own selfish purposes. Ward, being a pragmatist, thought all social
programs should be “fluid” and altered with circumstances. Ward’s ideas impressed many
important men – Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt knew of his work and employed
some of his ideas in their legislative initiatives. Lyndon Johnson was in turn influenced by
Wilson and Roosevelt when he pushed his “Great Society” legislation through Congress.