[1]. Compare the chapter on Gothic Palaces in Ruskin’s Stones of Venice.
[2]. Professor Albion W. Small puts it as follows: “Described with respect to form rather than content, the social process is a tide of separating and blending social processes, consisting of incessant decomposition and recomposition of relations within persons and between persons, in a continuous evolution of types of persons and of associations.” (American Journal of Sociology, 18, 210.)
[3]. “I rather demur to Dinosaurus not having ‘free will,’ as surely we have.” (More Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. I, 155.)
[4]. W. C. Mitchell, Business Cycles, 581.
[5]. Autobiography of Henry M. Stanley, 535.
[6]. Among the writers who have expounded conflict and co-operation as phases of a single organic process are J. Novicow, in Les luttes entre sociétés humaines, and Lester F. Ward, in Pure Sociology. Professor L. M. Bristol gives a summary of their views in his Social Adaptation.
[7]. The word means, in general, devotion to a small part as against the whole, and is most commonly used in historical writing to describe excessive attachment to localities or factions as against nations or other larger unities.
[8]. American sociologists are, with a few exceptions, opponents of particularism and upholders of the organic view. Among recent writers of which this is notably true I may mention C. A. Ellwood, in his Introduction to Social Psychology and other works, E. C. Hayes, in his Introduction to the Study of Sociology and his papers on methodology, Maurice Parmelee, in his works on poverty and criminology, L. M. Bristol, in his Social Adaptation, Blackmar and Gillin, in their Outlines of Sociology, and A. J. Todd, in his Theories of Social Progress.
[9]. Compare the views of Professor A. G. Keller, as expressed in his Societal Evolution, 141 ff.
[10]. Other varieties of particularism are discussed in Chapters XV, XVIII, XXI and XXII.