But a further consideration will show that war is not really a method of social progress, except in a figurative sense. For method, as De Greef properly observes, is the highest manifestation of knowledge and consciousness;[1] or, as Spencer remarks, the highest self-conscious manifestation of the rational faculty. It implies always and everywhere the perception of an end to he reached, and the conscious selection and employment of the means of reaching it. Before war can properly be regarded as a method of social progress, then, social progress must be conceived as the end to be realized, and war must be entered upon with the conscious intent of thereby promoting social advancement. It is hardly probable, however, that any nation has ever deliberately declared war with the conscious aim of promoting social progress, and it is not likely that any nation ever will do so. Unless and until this is done war, while it may be employed from time to time as a method of attaining governmental, class, or dynastic ends, can not properly be classified as a method of social progress.
We have seen then that war is neither a "factor" of progress, nor, properly speaking, a "method" of social advancement. It follows that it is not a "means" of social progress. For a means, strictly speaking, is something chosen for use in the achievement of an end. It implies method. It is that which mediates between the existing condition and the purpose to be achieved. Until some government, nation or society sets up social progress as an aim, and selects war as the agency for bringing it about, it is just as improper to speak of war as a means to social progress as it is to speak of it as a method or a factor of social progress.
So much for what war is not. It is sufficient perhaps to show that what is asserted of war as "an essential factor of progress," an "indispensable method of social advancement," etc., is incorrect, and that the widely prevalent conception of the necessity of war in the promotion of "kultur" and civilization is not well founded—is in fact mere unsinnige Reden.
But if war is none of the things already described, what is it? Plainly it can not be argued out of existence. In addition to being a frequent occurrence in the past, it is just now a very conspicuous and stubborn fact. What, then, is its real nature as a social phenomenon? and what is its true relation to progress?
From the social standpoint war is manifestly a form of group interaction. The nations involved have collided while in pursuit of what is regarded as their own individual well-being. War, then, is always entered upon, not with the large and generous object of promoting social progress, but in order to realize one or the other of the narrower and conflicting purposes of social groups. Social progress is not the conscious end, although any of the nations engaged will be ready to identify its own "cause" with progress, and with all that is precious in
- ↑ See Introduction, "A la Sociologie," p. 441.
