CO-OPERATION THEORIES IN SOCIOLOGY
One of the first persons to work out a systematic interpretation
of co-operation was Giovanni Vico (1668–1744), an Italian
philosopher.[XXI-1] Vico rejected the social contract idea because he
believed that it was a false interpretation of the true principle of
co-operation. The concept of a social contract embodied an artificial
and metaphysical notion of social life.
In his chief work, _Principles of a New Science Concerning the
Common Nature of Nations_, Vico inaugurated a study of actual social
phenomena. He sought to discover possible social laws. He attempted
to cast aside the accidental social elements and to organize the
regularities of social phenomena into laws. He searched for the laws
governing the growth and decay of societies. He undertook to analyze
the history of human society.
Although Vico’s important treatise was not known outside of Italy until
a century and a half after it was originally published, it contained a
statement of the factor which is basic to any sound co-operation theory
of social progress. Vico was one of the first writers to describe the
principle that all human groups have a common nature. His comparative
studies of human institutions everywhere, led him always to the belief
in the common mind of mankind, a concept which in recent years has been
ably elaborated by D. G. Brinton. For this contribution Vico has been
called “the father of sociology.”
According to Vico, the fundamental social movement is a gradual
unfolding or evolution of social institutions in response to the
common needs of people. Society owes its development in part to the
reflections of the wise, as the social contract theorists have said,
but also to the human feelings even of the brutish. This natural
sociability of man has furnished the chief basis for the rise and
development of the spirit of co-operation.
The natural sociability of human beings has led, more or less
unconsciously on the part of man, to the establishment of necessary
social relations and institutions. The purpose of social organization
is to produce perfect human personalities. Vico outlined the
evolutionary character of society according to the spiral theory,
namely, that society does return upon itself but that, when it
completes a cycle, it is upon a higher plane of co-operation than when
the given cycle began. Vico also made religion a necessary principle of
progress. Although in adjusting himself to the prevailing theological
dogmas of his time, Vico committed serious scientific errors, he
nevertheless is deserving of special credit for his emphasis upon the
common nature and natural sociability of mankind.
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), the celebrated Dutch scholar, gave to social
thought the international concept. He advanced the idea of the coming
co-operation among the nations--nations which in his time were moved
primarily by jealousy and hatred in their relations with one another.
Grotius was the originator of a definite set of principles and laws for
international co-operation. His work in this regard accentuated the
importance of like-mindedness in matters of international polity.
Spinoza, whose contributions regarding the concept of sovereignty have
already been stated, declared that the instinct to acquire is naturally
stronger than the tendency to share. Hence, man must be educated to
perceive the advantages of co-operative living. When this appreciation
occurs, when the advantages of co-operation become clear, then man will
sublimate his egoistic and self-seeking desires to altruistic communal
living. As man comes to understand, step by step, the values of
co-operative conduct, he will overcome, degree by degree, his selfish
impulses.
The references which were made in Chapter XIV to the work and writings
of certain socialists, such as Robert Owen, form another link in this
discussion of the development of the co-operation concept. While the
experiments in consumers’ co-operation, such as the activities of
the Rochdale Pioneers, have had splendid success in many countries,
they have demonstrated that they can flourish only in an environment
where the co-operative spirit rules. While the experiments in
producers’ co-operation have often failed and have not yet as a class
been successful, they have testified to the absence of a developed
co-operative spirit rather than to the failure of the principle upon
which they are based.
Peter Kropotkin, whose opposition to socialism was indicated in Chapter
XIV, rendered a useful service in writing his _Mutual Aid; a Factor
in Evolution_. Kropotkin, a loyal Darwinian, protested against the
falsely labeled “social Darwinianism.”[XXI-3] Kropotkin made plain that
Darwin’s interpretation of evolution, while stressing the struggle for
existence, also pointed out that there is in evolution a powerful tide
of co-operation. The logical conclusion of this treatment of evolution,
according to Kropotkin, is not a phase of “social Darwinianism” with
its emphasis upon a biological struggle in the highest human realms,
but a world of human association in which the co-operative spirit has
risen to a position of control over physical force and selfish desire.
Kropotkin studied animal life extensively and concluded that, although
there was among animals a severe struggle against a heartless Nature,
there was essentially no bitter struggle for existence “among animals
belonging to the same species.”[XXI-3] There is no pitiless inner war
for life within this species, and moreover, this alleged war is not a
condition of progress. War, declared Kropotkin, is not a condition of
social progress.
Kropotkin considered the clan and the tribe rather than the individual
or even the family the starting point of society. The tribe itself
developed a morale on the basis of beliefs in its common origin and
in the worship of common ancestors. Then the possession in common of
certain lands served to arouse new tribal loyalties. These loyalties
expressed themselves in the form of “con-jurations,” sworn agreements,
and ultimately in fraternities and guilds for mutual support. Kropotkin
believed that primitive man was naturally peaceful, and that he fought
from necessity rather than from ferocity.
In primitive communal organization the judge and military chief united
for “mutual insurance of domination,” drawing to their support the
slavish loyalty of the witch-doctor or priest. In the twelfth century,
however, the old communal spirit broke forth with “striking spontaneity
all over Europe;” it stopped for a time the growth of the despotic
monarchies of Europe; it produced endless numbers of communes.
The free cities developed under the shelter of communal liberties, and
in them art and invention flourished, producing the beauty of Raphael,
the vigor of Michaelangelo, the poetry of Dante, and “the discoveries
which have been made by modern science,--the compass, the clock, the
watch, printing, gunpowder, the maritime discoveries, the law of
gravitation.”[XXI-4]
Then, there came the modern State formed by a triple alliance of
the military chief, the Roman judge, and the priest. The industrial
revolution and the rise of capitalism furthered the interests of
the military-legal-priestly triumvirate. When the State and Church
were separated, the money baron took the place of the priest in
the triumvirate. With the overthrow of militarism the power of
the triumvirate is broken, and the old communal co-operative
feelings of man again begin to express themselves. Kropotkin led
the way in defining the law of co-operative individualism. He urged
decentralization in social control, and attacked monopolies of all
types, public as well as private. Although he exaggerated the rôle of
mutual aid in primitive society, considering it the main social factor,
he nevertheless rendered a valuable service in giving the world a
vigorous presentation of a significant concept.
The social process was analyzed in terms of both conflict and
co-operation by Gustav Ratzenhofer (1842–1904). It is characterized
by a continuous reappearance of the phenomena of individualization
of structures already extant.[XXI-5] Both differentiation and
socialization arise out of the operation of human interests. Both
are implicit in the nature of man. Certain human interests lead to
individualization and some to communitization.
At this point we encounter Ratzenhofer’s theory of force. Force and
interest are made the two primordial principles. These two factors work
together in order to secure for the individual the largest possible
degree of self development.
The struggle of pre-primitive men against the harsh phases of nature
established a pre-primitive sociality. Struggle has always led
to co-operation in the interests of preservation. Similarly, war
leads to co-operation. In primitive society institutions arose in
response to community needs. Among barbarians the increase in numbers
produced an increasing emphasis upon conflict, which was expressed in
robberies, wars, and enslavements. Warfare led to the formation of
classes and class conflicts. Class interests, as distinguished from
individual interests, then began to secure definition. With the rise
of capitalism, the interests of capital were asserted; and at once
the interests of labor, in apposition, assumed tangible expression.
A stage, however, of stable social conditions is coming, in which
the whole world will be organized on the basis of a single system
of economic and non-competing production and of free international
exchange.[XXI-6]
Throughout this analysis Ratzenhofer gives force a leading
place.[XXI-7] He also develops a theory of a ruling aristocracy
of supermen. Despite these unfortunate emphases, Ratzenhofer’s
contribution to social thought in his theory of interests as
dominating human factors, and his accent upon the rise of an
increasing degree of co-operation, is noteworthy.
Professor Albion Small, whose methodology will be indicated in Chapter
XXVII, has modified, corrected, and refined Ratzenhofer’s theory
of interests. “In the beginning were interests,” says Professor
Small.[XXI-8] An “interest” is defined as an unsatisfied capacity, an
unrealized condition of the organism, a tendency securing satisfaction
of an unsatisfied capacity.[XXI-9] In its subjective phase an interest
is a desire, and in its objective phase, a want. An interest is
developed when the individual knows something, feels something, or
wills something. Consequently, the whole individual or social process
consists in developing, adjusting, and satisfying interests.
The six groups into which Professor Small divides all interests are
as follows: (1) The health interest arises from the sheer interest
in keeping alive. It is expressed in the food interest, the sex
interest, the work interest and includes all the desires which find
satisfaction in the exercise of the powers of the body. (2) The wealth
interest is encompassed in the desire for mastery over things. (3)
The sociability interest is represented at its best by the appetite
for personal interchanges of stimulus of a purely spiritual nature.
(4) The knowledge interest arises from the curiosity impulses. The
limits of its possibilities are expressed in the terms, nescience
and omniscience. (5) The beauty interest secures satisfaction through
an appreciation of the symmetrical phases of material and spiritual
phenomena. (6) The rightness interest traverses the gamut of all other
interests. It results in enjoyment when it secures the sanction of the
individual’s ideal self or of his whole self.
Each of these interests tends to be absolute.[XXI-10] Each seeks
satisfaction regardless of the others. In consequence, there is a
universal conflict of interests. Moreover, there is a universal
conjunction of interests. The conflict, however, is more spectacular
than the conjunction. In the history of mankind this conflict has been
the predominating relationship. The social process has resolved itself
into a series of reactions between persons some of whose interests
comport, but others of which conflict. Furthermore, the social process
is a continual formation of groups and institutions around interests.
It is a perpetual equating and adjusting of interests;[XXI-11] it is a
rhythm of differentiations and integrations.
Professor Small points out that struggle and co-operation are always
to a certain extent functions of each other.[XXI-12] Moreover, in
the social process viewed historically, there is a movement “from a
maximum toward a minimum of conflict, from a minimum toward a maximum
of helpful reciprocity.” The social process, thus, is a perpetual
readjustment between the forces which “tend backward toward more
struggle, and those that tend forward toward more socialization.” By a
minimum of conflict, Professor Small does not mean absence of conflict,
for he recognizes that stagnation would result in a society in which
conflict was eliminated. By a maximum of co-operation he does not refer
to a state of complete social solidification, which in turn would mean
stagnation and death.
The fundamental social problem is to give free scope to those interests
which require the fullest rational development of all other interests.
The social problem is to intellectualize all the interests, and
moreover, to intellectualize the conflict of interests. Hence the
fundamental conflict today is between the knowledge interest and all
other interests.[XXI-13] Socialization, then, becomes the process of
transforming conflict into co-operation.
Sociology may be said to be the study of human interests, together with
their conflicts and reciprocities. It is an interpretation of human
association in terms of the effective interests of man. It focalizes
within one field of vision all human activities so that the persons
who have the benefit of this outlook may rate their own activities in
relation to the whole.
In a concrete, specific way Professor Small has presented his theory
of the social process in the book, _Between Eras, From Capitalism to
Democracy_. Here is a vivid picture of the conflict between labor
and capital, with the resultant misunderstandings and injustices. A
young lady, Hector, observes the essential activities of labor and
capital, and as a representative of capital perceives the relationship
which actually exists between herself and one of the working girls.
She receives large dividends, for which she puts nothing into the
productive activities of the corporation. The working girl is paid
low wages, but is giving her life to the industrial concern from
which Hector’s liberal dividends are pouring forth. The main end of
the discussion is an argument for the establishment of the principle
of industrial democracy. Professor Small urges that the employees,
_per se_, be given representation on boards of directors. While this
representation at first will necessarily be a minority one, it will
serve the useful purpose of providing for regular meetings of the
representatives of the employees around the same council table. These
council meetings will enable the representatives of either party in the
bitter labor-capital conflict to become acquainted with the problems
which the opposing group faces. In this interchange Professor Small
sees the rise of a spirit of co-operation which will melt many of the
difficulties that have sprung up in the controversy between capital
and labor.[XXI-14] Although Dr. Small’s _Between Eras_ was published
in 1913, the idea of industrial representation was not considered
seriously in the United States until about 1918. The initial steps
which have thus far been taken toward industrial representation in the
management of business and in the determination of wages, hours, and
conditions of labor, have produced noteworthy co-operative results and
have fully justified Professor Small’s prophetic recommendation for the
solution of a world-disturbing social situation.
The primordial social group, according to Professor E. A. Ross, is
a band of mothers and their children. In such groupings preliminary
socialization took place. In earliest societies definite principles of
human action made themselves evident.[XXI-15] Domination was one of the
ruling principles. Note for example the domination (1) by parents over
offspring, (2) by old over young, (3) by husband over wife, (4) by men
over women, (5) by the military over the industrial classes, (6) by the
wealthy over the poor. The chief purpose in dominating is to exploit,
that is, to use other individuals as means to one’s own ends.[XXI-16]
Socialization, or social adaptation, runs the gamut of toleration,
compromise, accommodation, and amalgamation. The simplest form of
co-operation is mutual aid, which, however, is more popular among the
lower classes than among the higher. Socialization, it may be noted
here, has been shown by E. W. Burgess to be the fundamental process in
the determination of social progress.[XXI-17]
Organization of effort is a specific societal method, which has
developed in society, for getting things done. Organization results
(1) in the accomplishment of ends which are unattainable otherwise, (2)
in arousing a common interest intermittently in all, (3) in dividing a
task into its natural parts, (4) in securing a degree of expertness,
(5) in producing a co-ordinated, intelligent plan, (6) in eliminating
needless duplication of effort.[XXI-18] On the other hand, organization
leads to wastes and abuses, which are: (1) overhead expenses; (2) undue
time devoted to making out reports and similar routine work; (3) a loss
in personal contacts; (4) a tendency to formalism and red tape; (5) an
inflexibility of machinery; (6) a misapplication of power to personal
ends; (7) too much specialization; (8) the organization becomes an end
in itself.
Socialization, in content, is the development of a we-feeling in a
number of persons, and “their growth in capacity and will to act
together.”[XXI-19] A very simple causal factor of this process is the
age-long custom of giving a banquet, that is, in eating and drinking
together. A consciousness of kind arises which, as Professor Ross
believes, is not the perception of a general resemblance but “an
awareness of likeness or agreement in specific matters.”[XXI-20]
Nationalism, or the process of creating a spirit of national
patriotism, illustrates the meaning of the socialization concept.
The sociology of L. T. Hobhouse, discussed in part in Chapter XVIII,
is largely an interpretation of society in terms of increasing
co-operation. Professor Hobhouse has defined social progress as
the development of the principle of union, order, co-operation, and
harmony among individuals. He has described a certain mutual interest,
similar to Giddings’ consciousness of kind, which has served to keep
individuals together, from the lowest groups of savages to the highest
civilized groups.[XXI-21]
The social process, as Professor Cooley analyzes it, is not a series of
futile repetitions or brutal and wasteful conflicts, but an eternal,
onward growth which produces increasingly humane, rational, and
co-operative beings. While the element of conflict is useful in that
it awakens and directs human attention and thus leads to activity, it
is limited by a superintending factor of co-operation and organization
to which the contestants must adjust themselves if they would
succeed.[XXI-22]
The discussions in this and the preceding chapter have shown that the
natural trend of evolution is away from a pitiless competitive and
destructive social process, and toward a tempered, productive, and
co-operative process. Of course, there are reactionary movements from
time to time which halt the co-operative trend. On the other hand, the
development of reason gradually eliminates the more brutal effects of
conflict. Conflict, however, will always remain, as far as can now be
seen, an essential factor in the processes of individual and societal
growth. Through rational controls, it will operate in the direction and
interest of the co-operative spirit. In the old social order, hate
and the spirit of conflict have ruled. The spirit of co-operation has
often been utilized only for selfish purposes. In the coming social
order love and the co-operative spirit will direct, while the spirit of
conflict will play a vital but secondary rôle.