Beyond the limits of this formula, says Mihailovskii, no compromise is possible between the interests of the individual and those of society; beyond the limits of this formula, no end can be secured for the wearisome struggle between these respective interests.
All formulas of this character, precisely because they are so extremely generalised, are liable to divergent interpretations; and this criticism is especially applicable to Mihailovskii's formula owing to the deliberate vagueness of its terminology (e.g. the use of the expressions "maximum possible" and "minimum possible"). Lavrov contested the validity of the formula, saying that it did not deal with the actual facts of evolution; it was negative; it merely prescribed what history ought not to have been. Later critics, adherents as well as opponents of Mihailovskii, have refused to accept the formula. Mihailovskii himself seems to have been aware of its vagueness, for he frequently returns to the subject with elucidations and amplifications. Interesting is Mihailovskii's relationship to Durkheim, who, following Comte, regards the modern division of labour as the most important factor in recent history and as the foundation of social solidarity. The possibility of this sociological conception and valuation of the division of labour compelled Mihailovskii to revise and supplement his formula. Durkheim's De la division du travail social was published in 1893. Criticising the work in 1897, Mihailovskii wrote, in definite opposition to Durkheim, that the social division of labour must be conceived as involving class differences and class contrasts. But it is open to question whether the emendation can save the formula or free it from ambiguity.
§ 123.
FOR the history of philosophy, at least for the two earlier epochs, Mihailovskii contents himself with the most abstract formulas. He reviews the work of Louis Blanc, Vico, Comte, etc., drafts his schemata, supplements or modifies in various respects what he has culled from these authorities. It is needless to go into fuller detail here, though I may mention in passing that Mihailovskii assumes that after the first development of man from the animal world there was a period wherein no cooperation was practised He was greatly interested in studies dealing with the primitive forms of marriage
