258
PARTISAN REVIEW
and in the further sense that explanations of even purposive behavior are
sought which make no use of final causes.
The truth seems to he that Professor Hayes has little sympathy for
any naturalistic type of explanation for social phenomena. Nowhere
in
his hook is there even a half·way sympathetic statement of the aims of
those who try to use the methods of the natural sciences in the study of
human affairs-certainly none comparable with the understanding he
exhibits for the aspirations of Leo XIII. On the contrary, he flatly rejects
as "scarcely scientific" the acceptance of the general working hypothesis
according to which the origin and nature of man is to he explained
in
physico·hiological terms, on the ground that such an approach leaves "no
room for God's creation or man's soul" (pg. 124). Pragmatism is equated
with amoralism and the gospel of success at any price; and the various
attempts to establish a naturalistic basis for morals are dismissed by citing
James Ward's conclusion that the only solid basis for ethics is a theistic
interpretation of the universe. Professor Hayes sees in the anti·clericalism
of the late 19th century only sectarian intolerance, allegedly incompatible
with the professed ideals of science and its liberal followers; and he
regards the "conflict" between science and religion as really pointless, on
the ground that no genuine conflict can arise between them since the cate·
gories of science are not "ultimately" explanatory. In the light of these
commitments, the reader is entitled to conjecture whether the author of
this book has an adequate grasp of the nature and aims of naturalistic
(i.e., "mechanistic" or "materialistic") science, and of the social condi·
tions for its successful functioning. The reader is certainly entitled to
conclude that there is no basis whatsoever for attributing our present
social ills to the dominance of mechanistic science, in spite of the disre·
putable uses to which its theories may sometimes. he put. And in point of
fact, it is an open question whether the misuse of Darwinian biology has
been any worse than the employment of theological and biblical writings
to support the institution of human slavery or to oppose badly needed
social reforms.
Professor Hayes's dislike of mechanistic science brings him into con·
flict with the Marxist interpretation of history. In particular, his discus·
sion of 19th century imperialism aims to show that the economic interpre·
tation of this phenomenon is false, on the ground that imperialism is pri·
marily a manifestation of
nationalism
and only incidentally the outcome
of economic pressures. The evidence Professor Hayes produces seems to
this reviewer to be fatal to an
exclusively
economic interpretation of the
subject at issue. However, Professor Hayes is not content with this, and
insists that nationalism provides the only ground for understanding impe·
rialism. He thus counters one hit of dogmatism with another no less
dubious. He certainly exhibits no clear method for evaluating the relative
strength of the factors he employs as explanatory categories; and he
would have been wise not to claim that he had established something
which only such a method can establish. As it is, some of the evidence
