Physiological Foundations of Behavior

Physiologically the lower and simpler sorts of organismic pattern are essentially autocratic in character (pp. 146, 258). The dominant region controls other parts in development and function but is practically independent of them. For example, the apical region of a hydroid, the head of a planarian, is able to develop in the complete absence of other parts, but when other parts are present it dominates them, while they are able to affect it only when strongly excited and then only slightly. Such autocratic physiological dominance is apparently more highly developed in motile than in sessile forms. The motile form resembles an army advancing through hostile territory, the sessile form a primitive settled community,

We have seen, however, that in the course of evolution and in the individual development of higher animals and man there has been progress toward a physiological democracy with more or less representative government (pp. 257-258). The cerebral cortex of the higher vertebrates is a sort of physiological parliament, a deliberative assembly. Through lower centers it may receive reports from any part of the organism and-its final action, the efferent impulse, depends upon these and upon its records of past events, 7. e., memory.

That the evolution of the state and nation and of many, if not all other social groupings follows in general a similar course seems evident. This does not necessarily mean that the autocratic or even the oligarchic type of integration is characteristic of all social integrations or all states among primitive peoples, nor does it mean that the autocratic form of dominance always involves personal autocracy. With individuals of a low grade of intelligence the autocratic dominance of the impersonal idea, as given in the body of tradition, custom, tabu, etc., may be more complete and effective than that associated with any personality. And it is this sort of autocracy that appears to be the characteristic feature of the social integrations approaching or attaining state form, as well as of most other institutions, among the more primitive peoples. T he idea dominates the individual and his effect upon it is practically nil. Such an integration may persist through long ages, but is rigid and unplastic and undergoes little or no evolutionary progress. Like the simpler organisms of the autocratic type, it represents a sort of integration, a pattern, which has attained the highest development possible with that particular protoplasm and environment (Herrick, ’24, Chap. XII, first section). In the case of the social pattern, as in the case of the organism, changes in the protoplasm through intermixture of blood or otherwise, changes in social environment through contact with other tribes, peoples or races, or changes in physical environment, such as climate, may sooner or later be effective in modifying the dominant idea and so in bringing about social progress.

Even in the great nations of modern times this autocratic dominance of the idea has by no means disappeared. The events of recent years have afforded abundant evidence that national tradition, custom, sentiment, are still potent factors in controlling in an autocratic way the actions of individuals. But these same events have not been without effect in bringing about some degree of modification of the dominant ideas, that is, the dominance has not been entirely autocratic for all members of the group, even though it has been for some.

So far as the individual is concerned, this autocratic type of dominance of the idea is essentially unintelligent. As other parts of the more primitive axiate organism are subordinate to the apical region or head, so the individual is subordinate to such ideas and is practically without influence in modifying them. In fact, autocratic domimance, whether physiological or social, whether through physical force or of purely psychic character, is essentially compulsory and not the result of codperation or representation, nor of compromise among conflicting views and interests.

Even in the more primitive axiate organisms the general autocratic dominance is not absolute, but within restricted limits relations of parts may be mutual to a greater or less extent and determined by local conditions. Within certain limits of distance transmission of local excitation may occur in any direction. Within such restricted areas there is some approach to physiological democracy. With the development of the process of excitation and of special transmitting paths of higher conductivity than the general protoplasm, the boundaries of such areas are extended, until in the higher vertebrates and man any part of the body may cooperate in determining the condition of the cortex, the content of consciousness and the resulting efferent impulses. There seems to be little room for doubt that it is the development, on the one hand, of the process of excitation, 7. e., leadership, from its primitive, inefficient protoplasmic forms to the highly specialized and efficient nervous type, and on the other, of the processes and means of transmission, which have been the chief factors in making possible and determining the progressive evolution of the organism from physiological autocracy toward physiological democracy.

That the development of efficient, 7. e., intelligent leadership and of the processes and means of communication between human beings and groups are the fundamental factors in the progress of social integration is very generally admitted by sociologists. Whether leadership be primarily a matter of exceptional individuals or consists in ideas worked out by the codperation or conflict of many minds, is a matter of minor importance. Communication may take place in most diverse ways, e. g., by signs, speech, writing, and with the aid of various mechanical devices and agencies. But the important fact remains, that in social integration, as in the organism, the development of leadership and of communication are the foundations. of progress.

It is evident that, as physiological democracy appears, first in = limited areas of the organism, so coéperative or democratic and intel- ~ ligent social integration appears first in small groups. » Under prim- _ itive conditions the means of communication limit narrowly the size _ of the group, and even under the most favorable conditions of modern life, though we have greatly extended the range of democratic integration and believe that the best way to settle many questions is to talk them over, we still go to war to settle some of the larger questions. With the development of the means of communication the possibility of the appearance of new ideas or effective modifications of old ones increases and the range of effectiveness of ideas is extended until it becomes unlimited, so far as distance is concerned. At the

present time the factors of greatest importance limiting human integration are differences of language, custom and race. As in the case of the higher organisms, mere distance is no longer an effective obstacle to integration, as it was in primitive life. Even as regards the enormous and highly complex groups representing the great modern nations, integration has in many cases proeressed far toward democracy, at least in political form of government, if not as yet in the intelligent cooperation of all individuals and in intelligent and purposive modification of the dominant ideas underlying the nation. But there can be no question that intelligent and purposive progress is gathering headway. In the relations between nations, however, the primitive, unintelligent, autocratic dominance of bodies of tradition, custom, sentiment, still plays a very large part.

The part played by physiological isolation in the reproduction of new individuals and the reduplication of parts was considered in Chapter X. The range of physiological dominance is limited in the simpler organisms, and in the earlier stages of development of the higher forms, because of the primitive character of communication. Parts may become physiologically isolated in four different ways, or more strictly speaking, four different factors may be concerned in physiological isolation. First, erowth and resulting increase in size of the whole beyond a certain limit may carry some part beyond the range of dominance. Second, decrease in dominance through decrease in activity of the dominant region by advancing age, external factors, ete., may isolate parts most distant from the dominant region without increase in size of the whole. Third, difficulties or obstacles in the way of communication may isolate parts physiologically. And

fourth, conditions affecting directly a subordinate part, increasing its activity, or determining new gradients in it to such an extent that the original dominance is no longer effective, also lead to physiological isolation. ~The part isolated in any of these ways, if it is not too highly specialized, undergoes more or less dedifferentiation, and if the original gradients persist in it, or if new gradients are determined by local factors, it may become a new complete individual. The result of physiological isolation in such cases is the same as that of physical isolation. When physiological isolation is not complete, or when the part concerned is more or less specialized, it may give rise to a new part, a tentacle, a segment, a branch, as in plants, or a new zooid, as in colonial animals, and such reduplicated parts may be more or less integrated into a more complex individuality.

The higher the development of physiological correlation and_primarily of transmissive correlation, that is, the better the means of communication, the less readily and frequently do such physiological isolation and reproduction occur and vice versa. In many organisms we see such isolations occurring in the earlier stages of development, when transmissive correlation is still primitive in character and shows a marked decrement, while in later stages isolation becomes impossible under normal conditions. And finally in the higher animals physiological isolation in normal life is limited to very early stages of development and even there usually gives rise to reduplicated parts, such as segments, rather than to complete individuals. The tumors, particularly the malignant forms, probably represent isolation of cells, but the nature of the conditions determining the isolation and the continued growth have not yet been determined for animals. Apparently the fourth factor in physiological isolation is largely concerned here, 7. e., direct action, stimulation, irritation of the cells concerned until they become so active that they are no longer under control. But since cancer occurs chiefly in old individuals the decrease in dominance in consequence of advance in age is probably also concerned.

In the processes which we may call social reproduction and reduplication of groups, the factor of social isolation in its various forms and degrees plays a part essentially similar to that of physiological isolation in organisms. Moreover, in the simpler and more primitive sorts of social groupings four factors similar to those concerned in physiological isolation are involved. First, the growth of the group, the mere increase in size, tends toward isolation of the parts

least effectively dominated. Growth in size is a factor in social reproduction in primitive tribes and clans and even in many social groups in advanced civilization. A society founded for one purpose or another increases in size and becomes unwieldy, too large to handle its business efficiently, and splits up into several societies or into groups or sections, which remain more or less integrated into one whole. Social dominance in the simpler forms of the community or state is limited in range, and growth favors the appearance of new groups, either independent of the old, or as subdivisions of it.

Second, a decrease in dominance without increase in size of the group may constitute a factor in the origin of new social groups. This appears most clearly perhaps in groups integrated on the basis of a personal leadership. With advancing age, illness, or death of the leader, his dominance becomes less effective, and unless there is some one to take his place and continue the representation of that for which he stood in the mind of the group, a more or less complete disintegration of the group may occur, just as some of the simpler organisms separate into their constituent cells with the disappearance of dominance. Or as the original dominance weakens, factions may arise within the group, each with its own leader, and so determine the origin of new groups as new gradients determine the origins of new axes and individuals under similar conditions in organisms. Even in the nation or state, the government may decrease in effectiveness through the weakening, or degeneration of the ruler, the royal family or the governing class, or through the ineffective representation of the dominant idea by the party or group in power, and disintegration of the whole, with the formation of independent, or partially independent smaller groups may result. Factors of this sort evidently played a part in the downfall of the Roman Empire.

Third, obstacles to communication are powerful factors in social reproduction. In its more primitive forms the working of such factors is seen very clearly in the influence of geographic obstacles such as rivers, mountain ranges, deserts, etc., on social integration. The migration of part of a tribe or clan across a2 mountain range or a desert commonly leads to their integration into a new group, more or less independent of the old. Even a river may have the same effect to a greater or less degree. The more primitive the means of communication, the more effective are such obstacles and the more limited the size of the integrated group or state. Even temporary obstacles, such as a flood, destruction of a bridge or other means of communication across a stream, may, if other conditions are favorable,

2. €., at a critical period, result in social isolation and reproduction. Again, capture or killing of official couriers, capture of ships, or railway trains, the stoppage of transmission of messages by cutting the wires or by any other means, all these and many other methods of obstruction of communication have played their parts upon occasion as factors in social reproduction of one kind or another. And finally, the local conditions under which some portion of a social group finds itself may determine reproduction, that is, its inintegration as a new group in spite of the original dominance. A new leadership, personal or impersonal, of such force that it is able to maintain itself, persist and be effective in spite of the original goyernmental or other dominance, may arise in this portion. Such leadership may consist in the “exceptional” individual who promulgates new ideas, or the geographic, economic, or other conditions may determine the working out of a dominant idea or a modification of the old, which is effective as an integrating factor. In the separation of the American colonies from Great Britain, for example, factors of this sort played a part, though they were of course not the only factors. The origin of new religious sects often represents a social reproduction of this sort and numerous other examples will occur to the reader.

Of course in human society, as in the organism, more than one of these four factors of isolation may be concerned in any one case. A certain degree of social isolation through increase in size of the group, decrease in dominance, or obstructed communication, renders the isolated part of the group more susceptible to new personal leadership or to new ideas arising in relation to local economic or geographic conditions. All four factors may be concerned in a particular case and any one of the four may be predominant, and it seems to be true that all cases of social reproduction, 7. e., of the origin of new groups from parts of preéxisting groups, are determined by some one, or some combination cf these four factors.

With the development in modern times of the mechanical means of communication, mere size, whether a matter of geographic area or of number of individuals, is practically eliminated, as it is in the higher organisms for essentially the same reasons, as a factor limiting social integration. The most important limiting factors at present are diversity of interests, language, custom, race, ete., 4. €., factors of more or less primitive autocratic character. The more fundamental social groupings, e. g., the great nation-states, have therefore become relatively stable, persistent integrations, and na-

tional social development consists largely in the origin and differentiation of subordinate groups within the nation, in the complication of the correlation between them, and in the gradual modification of the dominant idea or ideas underlying each group from the nation itself down. As in the higher animals, isolation and reproduction occur chiefly in the specialized groups subordinate to the whole and result in diversity or reduplication of parts, rather than in the formation of new wholes. - The forms of physiological reproduction on which this consideration is based are all primarily asexual or agamic and do not necessarily involve the union of gametes or sex cells. If, however, we examine sexual or gametic reproduction from the physiological viewpoint, it seems to differ from asexual reproduction as a physiological process only in that the reproductive elements are so highly specialized in consequence of their past history as parts of an organism that isolation alone is not sufficient, except in cases of parthenogenesis, to bring about or initiate reproduction. In addition to isolation, certain specific changes, bringing about excitation or acceleration of living in the egg, and probably other changes as well, are necessary and the physiological relations between sperm and egg provide these. But in many cases in which the development of the egg is initiated in nature by the sperm, it can be initiated experimentally by various physical and chemical agents. Viewed physiologically then, sexual reproduction seems to be a process depending on isolation plus a more or less definite or specific excitatory factor.

The sex cells or gametes are cells so highly specialized that they have lost their capacity to react to isolation alone and in nature are dependent on each other for further existence and the development of a new individual. Sex is obviously a matter of protoplasmic constitutions or activities, and while some remote analogy to sexual reproduction may be found in the effects on society of mixture of races, or the effects of new ideas from without in initiating the development of new social groups it is not necessary to force any such analogy. Sex in biology represents certain protoplasmic differences and their results, including their significance as conditions of certain forms of reproduction. It is quite unnecessary for present purposes to attempt to determine whether analogous specializations and reproductions exist in society, and there appears to be no reason why they should exist. The only reason for bringing up the matter of sex in this connection is to point out that it is a specialized form of reproduction requiring special conditions for its occurrence and not

a fundamental physiological factor in reproduction in general. Even if we seek to parallel physiological and social integration and reproduction it is entirely unnecessary to look for anything analogous to sexual specialization in organisms as a basis for social reproduction. The chief purpose of this incursion into sociology has been to call attention to the fact that between the organism and society as processes of integration, certain interesting and significant similarities or identities exist. These result, I believe, from the fact that both the organism and society represent integrations of living protoplasmic systems through their relations to each other and to other environmental factors. The similarity or identity of process seems to me the interesting point. Whether society is an organism, whether it is morphologically or functionally similar to an organism, are matters of minor and chiefly academic interest. But the recognition of similarity in processes of integration among living protoplasmic units or systems, from cells or parts of cells at the one extreme to human individuals at the other, constitutes one step in synthesis from the dynamic viewpoint.

It has often been said that the purpose and end of science is to control and to predict, but in many fields of biology we are still a long way from attaining this end and the biological prophet does not always prove a safe guide. Nevertheless, life is largely concerned with the question of the future, even though it be no more than a question, and it is of perhaps some interest to raise the question here. In the preceding chapters we have been concerned with the problem of the integration of living action systems, or reaction systems of specific constitution into larger systems, patterns or wholes. . Consideration of the evidence has led us to the conclusion that from the simplest organism to the most complex social group, the process of integration is based upon the behavior of the living systems, 7. e., upon their reactions to their environment including each other. Moreover, certain significant and apparently fundamental similarities, or in a broad sense identities, in the processes and course of physiological and social integration have been pointed out, and if these are admitted we seem to have some justification — though doubtless many sociologists will not agree — for regarding social integration as one aspect, plane or order of magnitude of biological integration.

The evolution of protoplasm and of the potentialities of behavior and physiological integration have been going on through millions of years, and the beginnings of social integration lie far back in this— evolutionary history, but social integration among human beings is of comparatively recent origin. In the light of the various facts and conclusions we may, without assuming the réle of prophecy, at least ask the question whether we can find in physiological integration any suggestions or indications for the future of human social integration. Attention has been called repeatedly in the preceding pages to the autocratic character of the more primitive process of physiological integration and to the progress of the organism toward a democracy with representative government vested in a deliberative organ connected through various centers with all parts of the body and in touch with the external world through the sense organs. This type of integration is the one which has thus far proved most successful and efficient, and it is in this type of integration that consciousness and self-consciousness have attained their highest development, involving in man conscious recognition of the organism as a whole. In such an organism there is governmental control, regulation and codrdination of the various parts, but there is also conflict and competition. In starvation, for example, we find certain organs maintaining themselves at the expense of others. The different cells as specialized parts of the organism are not actually equal, even though they may be so potentially. Certain cells, e. g., the muscles, lose their ability to function and undergo degeneration when the nerves leading to them are cut. The progress of evolution then has apparently not been toward a socialistic or communistic form of integration. On the contrary, those types of integration which approach communism most closely, e.

g., the colonial animals such as the sponges, hydroids, etc., and the multiaxial plants have been left far behind in the course of evolutionary progress and such success as they have attained appears to be due to the fact that they are not strictly communistic but possess some degree of autocratic or oligarchic dominance. Physiological anarchy in the simpler forms may result in disintegration of the organism as an organism, though its constituent cells may live independently or may give rise to new organisms like the old, or in its more extreme forms it may give rise to pathological growths such as cancer which destroy the organism because they do not react to its dominance.

In short, the course of evolution of physiological integration has been in the main toward democracy with representative government, assisted so to speak by experts, the organs of special sense. Autocracy, on the one hand, and approaches toward communism on the other produce only relatively simple organisms. Whether these facts have any significance for the future of human society must remain a matter of opinion, but it seems at least to be true that the integration of human society is progressing psychologically, in later times, to some extent intelligently and self-consciously, toward what may be called a democracy of ideas, with representative government, 7. é., dominance of the most effective ideas, as worked out by the intelligent codperation and conflict of the minds composing the group. Even now integration in small groups for special purposes approaches this form. The pattern resulting from such integration represents in terms of social psychology something very similar to the pattern of the higher organisms in terms of physiology. In such a pattern, as in the organism, material and transportative, 7. e., commercial relations in the broadest sense may play essential parts in determining the differentiations of groups within the whole, but they are not the fundamental factors in integration (Herrick, ’24 Chap. XXI).

And finally it may be noted that socialistic, communistic and even anarchistic schemes of human relationship are such primarily with respect to material factors. Psychologically every one of them involves the dominance of an idea and often this dominance is of the primitive, autocratic type. Even the most advanced and intelligent socialistic or communistic schemes of human society are such only as regards material relations. Psych ologically they are democracies, i. e., democracies of ideas involving dominance and subordination, codperation, competition, conflict and representation. From this psychological viewpoint we can see no more indication of approaching socialism or communism in human society than in organismic integration. No matter what the form of material or commercial relation in human society, the fundamental factors in the future progress of social integration will be ideas; for even according to the socialistic and communistic schemes the ideal society will be socialistic or communistic only in general political form, but fundamentally it will be a democracy of ideas.

In the present book we have been concerned with the dynamics of the integration of living systems into systems or patterns of higher orders of magnitude. I have attempted to show that from the simplest ~ organism to the most complex human society integration is based on ‘the behavior of living protoplasms of specific constitution and therefore shows a certain fundamental similarity or identity in process and course of development and evolution. Differences appear with the differences in complexity of the behavior mechanisms, whether protoplasmic or social, but in spite of these differences the fundamental similarity is evident. The incursion into the sociological field is the

~ result of the belief that the consideration of the organism as a process of integration and development of pattern on the basis of behavior affords a more adequate formulation for biological approach to sociological problems than mere morphological or functional analogies between an organism and society. How far that belief is justified the future must determine. In this brief discussion of social integration consideration of many points which are of interest from the dynamic biological viewpoint has been impossible. For example, the progress and increase in fixity of differentiation, and the accompanying loss of the power or growth through decrease in birth-rate, or failure to add new members to the group, in short, the phenomena of senescence and even of death are not unknown in social groups. On the other hand, in the origin of new social groups by some form of isolation we often see extensive dedifferentiation and reorganization, accompanied by an increase in irritability and vigor of the group, in short, a social rejuvenescence. Biology has learned something of the conditions determining these phenomena and of the methods of control, at least in the simpler or-

- ganisms, and the consideration of certain social problems in the light of our biological knowledge is of interest. Again the development of barter and exchange, of commerce and its control and regulation may well be examined in the light of what we know concerning chemical or transportative correlation in organisms. Experimental biology aims at the control of processes and phenomena, and so of physiological integration. Intelligent social progress is based essentially on the experimental method as employed in biology. The earlier analogies drawn between society and the organism have been based on the data of descriptive anatomy and physiology, but the discussion of social integration in these two chapters is based primarily on the conclusions of experimental biology. I have attempted to show that the results of the experimental method as applied to the process of integration of living systems which constitutes the individual organism seem to throw some light on the integrations of organisms including human beings into larger and more