Social process — Context and Discussion

The Tentative Method and Adaptive Growth

Cooley introduces the 'tentative method' as the fundamental mechanism of social process. He describes growth as adaptive, meaning that each phase of life—persons, associations, traditions—develops in contact and interaction with others. This is not a mechanical or predetermined evolution but a series of adjustments. He illustrates with the claim that 'any one phase of the movement may be regarded as a series of adaptations to other phases.' The language is deliberately organic: growth, impulse, kindling of mind. Cooley avoids fixed categories and instead emphasizes fluid, ongoing adjustment.

The excerpts show that Cooley is less interested in defining static structures than in describing how change occurs through trial and error. He uses the phrase 'tentative process' repeatedly, suggesting that social forms are provisional and subject to revision. This approach aligns with his broader rejection of particularism—the view that social phenomena can be understood in isolation.

Poverty, Philanthropy, and Biological Selection

A substantial portion of the excerpts addresses poverty and biological survival. Cooley directly confronts the argument that poverty is primarily a matter of hereditary unfitness. He calls this the 'extreme biological view' and finds it absurd because it would require tolerating a 'bad state of society' to produce a stock fit for a good one. Instead, he argues that environmental causes are primary and that philanthropy is not 'interference' but 'an essential part of the evolutionary process.'

Cooley uses a striking example: if babies were subjected to Tierra del Fuego conditions, most would die of exposure, but the surviving type would not be improved for civilized purposes. He also cites Havelock Ellis's work on the feeble childhood of geniuses to argue that harsh selection might eliminate desirable types. For Cooley, the intelligent social worker is the 'real social biologist,' while those who ignore social factors are 'doctrinaires.'

Fitness and Social Standards

Cooley insists that fitness is not an absolute quality but is relative to a particular social order. He asks, 'Who are the “fit” whom we wish to preserve?' and answers that fitness implies a 'general situation by which it is tested.' The kind of fitness we want is for 'the higher social order we are trying to build up.' This leads to a pragmatic conclusion: the only way to test for desirable types is to create as high a social order as possible and give each competing type a chance to function within it.

He warns against crude elimination of the 'unfit' and argues that social conditions must be improved first. Only then can inferior hereditary types be discerned and addressed. Cooley's position is nuanced: he does not deny biological differences but insists they cannot be understood apart from environment. His argument is a direct challenge to eugenic thinking of his era, though he stops short of rejecting biological considerations entirely.

Cooley's Social Process is best approached as a series of interconnected essays rather than a linear argument. Readers will find that his organic view recurs across topics as varied as class, valuation, and international relations. The excerpts here focus on his critique of biological determinism, but the full work extends this method to many other domains. Pay attention to how Cooley uses concrete examples—like Tierra del Fuego or Havelock Ellis—to ground his theoretical claims.

There’s something oddly comforting in Cooley’s insistence that we grow by fumbling, not by fate. It makes me think of the Gypsies he’d have known, living their adaptive, tentative lives — and of a dear old book, Romany Life Experienced and Observed during many Years of Friendly Intercourse with the Gypsies — Background and Themes, which felt less like a study and more like a slow, kind afternoon beside a campfire.