cally-minded individual as a social power and as the creator of new types and standards was strongly resented by his contemporaries, because of his unfortunate use of such terms as "subjective method" and "subjective point of view". Still he did not mean by these anything more than Professor Lester F. Ward meant by the term " anthropoteleological method". With all his merits as an independent thinker and tireless investigator, Lavrov was a child of his time. His early philosophical training was Hegelian, and the Hegelian scheme of trilogy is easily discernible in all of Lavrov's works. His sociological concepts are three: "Solidarity" is the thesis, "Individuality Individuality" is the antithesis, and "Social Progress" is the synthesis of the former two. It is interesting to note in passing that his criticallyminded individuals as agents of social progress are those young Russian revolutionists who made up his following.1

Lavrov's sociology is truly Russian, because it was stimulated and conditioned by the social and political movements in the Russia of his day. Its purpose was to justify the progressive elements of Russia in their struggle against autocracy, and also to supply his followers with a program which was scientifically sound. Apart from these tractarian tendencies, there is much of lasting value in Lavrov's work, which ought to find its deserved recognition.

A faction of the Russian revolutionary propagandists named themselves "Lavrovtzy", i. e., Lavrov Followers, and were in opposition to the anarchistic Bakunists and also to those Marxists who resented the subjective view.

CHAPTER II

THE SOCIOLOGICAL SYSTEM OF N. K. MIKHALOVSKY

WHAT might be called the "Sturm und Drang" period of Russian history called into life the Russian subjectivist school of sociology. To Lavrov, as we have seen, belongs the honor of priority in this school. The writings of Mikhalovsky,' one of Lavrov's contemporaries are not less important and have had a wider circulation. He is one of the few Russians who may be credited with having developed a sociological system of his own—a system which has not heretofore, been brought under the covers of one specific sociological work, but which must be collected and deduced from his miscellaneous writings. This chapter is an attempt to make the social-philosophy of Mikhalovsky accessible to the student of sociology.

Mikhalovsky was recognized and generally feared as a critic and publicist. For almost half a century he followed this dangerous profession without meeting the fate of his less fortunate colleagues, Chernishevsky, Lavrov, Kropotkin, and many others who were exiled. Because of this con

'Nikalai Konstantinovitch Mikhalovsky (1842-1904) received his education at the St. Petersburg School of Mines. As early as 1860 he began his literary career, contributing to many of the principal periodicals published in the Russian capital, such as the "Otechestvennyie Zapisky" and the "Russkoye Bogatstvo." He enjoyed unprecedented popularity, which he successfully maintained to the end of his days. His sociological and ethical theories shaped the thinking of his generation in Russia, and he was generally acknowledged the leader of its populist movement. His writings have an encyclopedic range, filling, in the most recent edition, ten large, double-column volumes.

119]

119

stant danger, Mikhalovsky developed the art of expressing his opinions in an indirect way. Thus his own sociological theories are to be found in essays analyzing and criticizing the theories of Darwin, Spencer, Comte, Mill, and others. In common with other writers of the subjectivist school of Russian sociology, Mikhalovsky held that the struggle for individuality was of the greatest importance.

Mikhalovsky's Philosophical and Methodological Pre

suppositions

Philosophically, Mikhalovsky is a radical positivist and an empiricist. He follows Hume as corrected by Mill. Comte also influenced his thinking. Mikhalovsky says: "With both factions of Comte's disciples I agree in acknowledging the principle postulates of positivism in regard to the limits of the knowable." 1

While rejecting every imperative, whether it be Kant's, Lavrov's, or any one else's, Mikhalovsky nevertheless believes in the necessity of a strictly ethical relation among social phenomena. In fact, he believes this to be his principal problem: the reconciliation of the abstract truth with concrete truth, i. e. with truth socially evaluated. He says: "I have never been able to believe it impossible to find a view wherein abstract truth and concrete justice could go together supplementing each the other." Elsewhere he says:

This system of reconciliation between the abstract good and the concrete good, requires a principle that not only may serve as the directing factor in the study of the objective

1 Mikhalovsky, Works, iii ed., vol. iv, p. 99.

'Vol. I, p. v. The Russians have two words to express the concept truth. Istina is abstract truth in the absolute sense, pravda is applied truth in the sense of justice. Mikhalovsky makes use of the expressions, pravda istina and pravda spravedlivost.

world, thereby answering the scientific questions that naturally arise in every man; and as a directing factor in practical activity, thereby answering queries of conscience and of ethical evaluation, which also naturally arise in every man; but which also must finally accomplish these things with such power that the proselyte must strive with religious zeal towards that end which the principle of the system reveals as true happiness.1

This system which he calls the pravda system gives but little space to the epistemological aspect of phenomena. Like Spencer, Mikhalovsky is agnostic about the nature of things. His pravda system he applies principally to social and ethical phenomena and he postulates as the final criterion of judgment the individual and his interests. He says:

In all political questions you must make the focus of your reasoning not the interests of the nation, not the government, not the commune, not the province, not the federation, but the individual. The individual is the center from which the rays of truth will interpret to you the meaning of that or any other social bond. You will not get confused by the historic kaleidoscope if you will remember that all psychic processes take place within the individual and only within the individual. Only the individual receives impressions, perceives, thinks, feels, suffers, and enjoys.2

He maintains that all mental processes take place within the individual, but recognizes that the individual is limited on the one hand by nature and on the other by the historic trend of things. "It is generally acknowledged that man can attain only to relative truth. He attains to the elements of truth through the medium of his five senses; had he less or more, the truth would appear differently to him." How

1 Mikhalovsky, Works, St. Petersburg, 1896, vol. iv, p. 405. Idem.

2 Ibid., p. 460.

ever, this relative truth possesses in practical life an absolute value because it fills the compass of man's possible attainment. In addition to these natural limitations, peculiar social limitations are added by the historical trend of things. "Tell me," says Mikhalovsky, "what are your social bonds and I will tell you how you look at things." Dismissing absolute truth as unknowable, he strives nevertheless for what he calls human truth. He says: " Truth is that which satisfies the mental cravings of man." " Thus it seems clear that the basis of his pravda-system is the human individual.

The Methods of Sociology.

1

Mikhalovsky's sociological method grew out of his philosophy. "Is it," he asks, "scientifically commendable to eliminate the teleological aspect from sociology? Can the objective method alone give sociology sufficient results?" His view is that elimination of the teleological idea would silence talk about "progress" and that there would be no distinction then between development and disintegration.* A purely objective attitude seems impossible and undesirable. When the nature of phenomena permits of an examination of the whole process subject to investigation, by any man who has sufficient information, the objective method is used; but where for the verification of the investigation, besides the objective facts an evaluation of facts is needed, the subjective method must be used.5 Besides this Mikhalovsky believes that the very nature of man renders an unbiased attitude towards facts impossible.