man group. The earliest form of human solidarity developed in the group of nursing mothers. It grew under newly arising religious ties of group magic, group customs, and group rites. The kingdom of custom and fictitious kinship were the strongest forces of solidarity in tribal society, which came into existence because of these forces and was maintained by them. The transition to historical or civil society was brought about by rational activity still reinforced largely by custom, progressing rhythmically by means of compromises between the new and the old. Greek philosophers, Roman jurists and medieval scholastics attempted to create a solidarity of the mind. In modern society solidarity is strengthened by statecraft and by democracy and emerges into prominence with the rise of the bourgeoisie. The forces that helped on these developments of solidarity were the interests of the individual and the influence of social and of geographic environment.

2. Lavrov's Theory of Individuality

In the preceding chapter we saw how social and political struggles in Russia were potent in bringing the strong individual to the forefront. Russian revolutionary socialism had throughout its history an individualistic aspect. Our author may be regarded as a typical "individualistic" socialist. He devotes all his mental abilities to justifying this rather paradoxical doctrine, and therefore in presenting his theory of individuality we reach to the very heart of Lavrov's sociological theorizing.

Individuality is the antithesis of social solidarity. It is, however, intrinsically related to it, which makes its consideration as a separate topic difficult. Of this our author is himself aware. He says: "When speaking of the individual, it is necessary to have in mind the social life; and

1

when speaking of society, individuals are inevitably in question. Nevertheless, the phenomena constituting the theory of individuality can easily be separated from those constituting the theory of society." It is clear that certain social phenomena are attributable to social and geographic environment, others to individual initiative, and others to the interaction of two or more factors. In the study of these complex phenomena, it is the problem of the theory of individuality to specify those "happenings of human activity which primarily issue from the independent individual as source ".2

Following his investigation to its earliest sources, Lavrov presents an important aspect of his theory of individuality in his study of the genesis of the individual. Thus he traces the individual back through the animal world and finds its source in the third fundamental phenomenon of organic life, i. e., the need for nervous excitation which already manifests itself with the beginning of life,3 and which gradually increases with the growth in complexity of the organism. The earlier works of our author, especially "Before Man" and "Civilization and Savage Tribes", are in part devoted to the study of animal psychology with a special emphasis upon the transitional stages in the development of the animal mind. Comparing the psychic life of invertebrates with that of the lower forms of vertebrates, Lavrov finds that among the latter it is possible to observe an increasing individual difference in submitting to instincts and habits. Furthermore, the vertebrates are better adapted

1 Sketches concerning Questions of Critical Philosophy, p. 11.

2 The first two being the need of food and of safety which are at the basis of the economic and political interests. Cf. Problems in the Understanding of History, P. II.

3

Cf. Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 44.

for training and domestication, and finally, they show the ability to herd in cases of emergency under the temporary leadership of one of their kind.1 All this, Lavrov concludes, shows not merely a quantitative but also a qualitative difference between vertebrates and invertebrates. "Activity of mind-this is the stage reached by mammals in their psychical evolution." 2 In observing the complex psychic activities of primates he thinks that more often similarities are met with among animals of various species in the lower stages of development than among the higher. He says:

In animal groups, the further development progresses, according to its degree, so much more these groups differentiate among themselves according to psychic type. In its highest product the diversity of evolution in both aspects extends to individuation of psychical complexes, approaching that which we meet with among highly developed human individuals.

*

Lavrov differentiates the species of animals into types. "Within the different classes, families and species, there are worked out different groupings of psychic elements— these are different types of mind." His estimate of the animal's psychic functioning is high. He sees in it almost all the characteristics which are necessary for the development of the individual.

Summing up his investigations of the animal world, Lav

rov says:

The preparation of man as a reasoning and social animal in the zoological world may present itself to us in the following

1 Cf. Memoirs of the Fatherland, 1870, pp. 68-80.

• Ibid., p. 84.

Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 59. • Ibid., p. 58.

4

manner: We may acknowledge that the elements into which psychology differentiates the psychic activity of man have in all probability entirely similar analogies among animals. Differentiation lies here at the basis of the psychic life; perception moulds itself out of elementary undifferentiated psychic acts; concepts begin to form, also images and in some cases understanding; motives of activity appear first in the form of unconscious reflexes, and afterwards in a form of instinctive activity partly conscious but not sufficiently so to aim at a general end, and only later taking on the character of rational activity which is prompted by inner stimuli of sympathy, or by motives of gain, to the point of passion. There are also motives approaching aesthetic feelings with an aim to decorate. Finally there are signs of religious and of moral possibilities.1

This psychical superstructure is based upon the biological principle: that the higher the animal species the less is division of labor in the social organism conditioned by physiological peculiarities of the individual, as this, for example, is observable among ants. On the other hand, the higher the animal species the less the individual is able passively and willingly to yield to society and to the existing order. Thus, according to Lavrov, the human individual, in both his biological and his psychical characteristics, was well prepared within the animal world and he continues the struggle for individuality within the group which has produced him.

The Individual a Product of the Group

Our author is well aware of the intrinsic relation which exists between the individual and the group. He says:

1 Principal Epochs in the History of Thought, p. 93. Compare this array of the psychic traits of animals with the analysis of animal nature made by Professor Thorndike of Columbia University. See The Animal Mind.

Conscious individuals are nothing else but products of social processes, conditioned in all their acts by intellectual and affective life and by the order and life of that collective organism of which they are a part. In the separate in

dividual is vested the life of society. No one individual can receive motives, knowledge, habits of thought and life, either as ends or as means, except in and through that society in which the individual developed and continues to live, and whose product he himself is.1

The Historical Functionings of the Individual

The frank admission of the social dependence of the individual does not however mean to Lavrov that the historical functioning of the individual is nil. On the contrary, he asserts that, "in the functioning of the social aggregate the real is but the individual." In history the first place must be allotted to conscious influences. The relative importance of these is determined by their scale or by the gradation which they hold in consciousness. Our author asks, therefore, "According to this consciousness, what processes are of predominant influence upon the genesis of events?" His answer is that there are three groups of processes. One emanates unconsciously from the physical and psychical constitution of man. The second is obtained by the individual, also unconsciously, from the contemporary or ancestral social environment by way of habits, traditions, customs, established laws, and political regulations, making up what may be called the general cultural form. Thirdly and finally, there are interests and

1 Problems in the Understanding of History, p. 115.

2 Ibid., p. 114.

Historical Letters, p. 32.

The author defines culture as: "That combination of social forms and psychical activities which . . . manifests a tendency to transmit itself from one generation to another as something unalterable." Problems in the Understanding of History, p. 26.