MOO T POINTS IN SOCIOL OGY 783
tion," while very properly calling attention to the continuity of social change and to resident forces as causing change, is apt to convey the idea that the series of social changes is the mere unfolding of characters preformed in the very germ or bud of society. An idea so misleading should be diligently avoided. It will never do to assume that the succession of social changes is predetermined, and that accidental, extraneous, and historic events and influences are not among the causes of variations.
Again it is essential not to identify social dynamics with the theory of social progress. The promotion of progress is, of course, our greatest practical concern, but the true cleavage between social statics and social dynamics turns on the distinc- tion between persistence and change. Change means any qualita- tive variation, whereas progress means amelioration, perfection- ment. The one is movement; the other is movement in the direction of advantage. Progress is better adaptation to given conditions. Change may be adaptation at first, perhaps, very imperfect to new conditions.
The biologist can assure himself whether a given variation is a progress by observing if it leaves the creature better able to survive. The sociologist, alas, has no such simple practical test. A society is not solidary to anything like the degree that most organisms are, and it is not so incessantly pitted against other societies. As regards the effects on its members, we find any number of institutional changes which are progress from the standpoint of one sex, class, race, or local group, but spell regress for another sex, class, race, or local group. It is not easy to characterize them from the view-point of "society as a whole," for it is by no means clear what is best for "society as a whole." Each of us considers a change progressive when it advances society toward his ideal. But one man's ideal is freedom, while another's is order ; one man borrows from biology the criterion of differentiation, while another imports from psychology the idea of harmony; one man's touchstone is the happiness of the many, while another's is the perfecting of the the superior few. It is therefore hopeless to look for a test of progress that shall be objective and valid for all. Since change is
