International > Proceedings of the second General conference of national committees on intellectual co-operation, Paris, July 5th-9th, 1937

— 32 —
therelorehatno’twtWnl0?! ”.AaS ’S6" SubjeCt t0 consi<ierable misunderstanding and
implement ^nd works nf iyte d' ?utwhe" Ze Z°into deeP study of certain techniques,
npiemeius, and works of art, we arrive at the “ diffusion theory” insistine1 that thn^P
Other wedHWlth °ne .another' A with B> and B with C, and that the world is ultimately one In
other words, we arrive at “ cultural monogenism y
I ari ^ studyinS ancient Japanese ships, cannot help admitting more clearly as
I advance that the ships of the world started from one common origin. I thinkThe world must
a large nueml?er of persons who have had the same experience as mine. Therefore if we
ask the opinions of the scholars of the world upon the question of the singularity or plurality of
cultural origins as that of the ancestry of mankind and ask them to offer, as much as possible
matter0UnTf it argament,s' wf. to see the first ray of hope for the solution of the
r+ thf Pr°Priety and validity of the “ cultural diffusion theory ” be once recognised
^ 11°V.e °f f?110^ men Wil1 make a steP farther in the direction of laying! firm
foundation for the solution of ethical problems, especially those of international concern g
C. The Conflict Theory or the Co-operation Theory?
In the third place, I can enumerate a still more fundamental question. It is a Question
concerning the cause of evolution — whether the evolution of organic life and consequently that
of mankind, is based on conflict or on co-operation. The philanthropic nottns whir lout
prevailed throughout the world were undermined by the deep-rooted “ conflict theory ” underlying
Wxnl1011^ conceptloIJ of Karl Marx and his school, and a marked tendency has been observed
ThfJ?1 T the frocess of econormc evolution in the world’s history by the principle of class strife
that TrnSaLm rnTtfri^0 S °f P°litiCal movements- ^ results^ the conclusion
tnat imperialism, militarism, anarchism, communism and other “ isms ”, though differing in
their designations, are all ultimately based upon this “ conflict theory ” in their tendencf to
consohdcite the power of wealth and arms among certain races for the oppression and subiection
of other races. But we regard the “ conflict theory ” as a mere prejudice resulti^ from the
misunderstanding of the “ struggle for existence ” theory of Darwin. Of course there^ave been
Wh° have Pomted oat the falsehood of the theory, such as Kropotkin who insisted
that evolution was chiefly caused by mutual aid - viz., co-operation for existence.
But the common thought of the races is unconsciously caught in its own trap made bv the
powerful notion of struggle for existence, based upon the conflict theory. But a strict investigation
wil immed^tely shoW that conflict is never the true cause of evolution, but is only one of its
definitely ^itto^th^^^^ ^ llVmg to 3ay nothing of mankind, evelyone must
aenmtely admit that the security of groups has rested upon mutual co-operation which is the
SS onTutuS^oJh0'"^ the r/CeS 0f the WOrM are ,ayinS emphaPsis?fr°omI racialist
co-operation theory b °n and c0-°Peratl0n - a course of action clearly based on the
But turning our eyes to the relation of a race to other races who are independently carrying
out their own combination and co-operation, we find that they repel and reject each other neve!
eacHthtaTanv cost’Th'1011 They say plausible things, but mean to’defeat
put into practice7 ^ clearly be regarded as the principle of the " conflict theory "
sinri^use^nd'iw thatfl-bere is 110 f“on why we must think »f evolution as starting from a
,ge cause’ and that conflict is one of the causes of evolution, just as co-operation is a strict
observation will immediately reveal that evolution in the true sense of the word is based upon
now,the “ cpnilict theory " rules the world, where the “ co-operation
;be°ry 13 thought of as a dreamer s ideal. Therefore the countries of the world are solidly
estabLhed^or the^k^f10115 and ba;ve "ot the wherewithal to spend on cultural institutions
years aeo of the mke^lhf Notwithstanding the full recognition, hardly more than ten
preparations for war reSult °f the War’ varlous countries are absorbed in the renewal of
evolutioneof maSnk,fndhLThld C0UM undorstand m°re deeply and definitely that the cause of the
°f anl Ila3 been co-operation, they would be able to alleviate somewhat the present
tendency to give themselves up to the realisation of the •' conflict theory It is incumbent on
anthropologists to strive, at this time, for the definite solution of the question — whether evolution
°r ®!"ates b'om confhct or co-operation. It should not necessarily prove impossible to dispel
aff "1Vl tlng’ investigating and criticising the opinions of the scholars of the world and
affording them opportunity for a full discussion. oiars or tne world and
of thl^hdlre of thTwnrW wlim«nti0ned are intecte'ated with one another. The co-operation
ot tne scholars ot the world will offer various methods of solving those great questions We can
It, achievlnS the purpose in view either by writings, conferences or debates “
think these three questions are fundamental and that it is the duty of anthropologiste to co-operate
wo'r deir 15 " matter °f neCeSSity f°r the of Pea“ and relief tothe