The concept of social capitalization was originated by Lilienfeld. By it he meant the ability of society to store up useful ideas and methods and transmit them from generation to generation. In this way each generation becomes the inheritor of all the human experiences that have gone before. Lilienfeld was one of the first sociological writers to develop the definite concept of social pathology.[XVI-14] His treatment of this theme, however, was exceedingly weak. He distinguished between a normal and diseased organism and then, by analogy, between a normal and diseased society. Social pathology, according to Lilienfeld, deals with three sets of diseases, namely, of industry, of justice, and of politics. Lilienfeld carried the organic analogy to a ridiculous and puerile extreme when he compared the diseases of industry to insanity; of justice, to delirium; of politics, to paralysis. He also elaborated a system of social therapeutics to correspond to the diseases. In Albert Schaeffle (1831–1903), the organic analogy found another disciple, but a more worthy one than either Spencer or Lilienfeld. In the thought of Schaeffle, society is not primarily a large organism but a gigantic mind. Schaeffle presented a functional analogy rather than a biological analogy. Whereas Spencer was especially interested in social structures, Schaeffle set his attention upon social functions. In his functional analogies Schaeffle compared the reason with the legislature in society; the will, with the executive officers; and the esthetic judgment, with the judiciary. Schaeffle’s psychology is inaccurate and on the whole unscientific; his analogies add little to an understanding of society. Nevertheless, his thought on these subjects represents an advance over the ideas of Spencer. In the _Bau und Leben des Socialen Körpers_, Schaeffle undertook to develop a complete sociological system. His teachings follow the principle that “function leads structure and structure limits function.” Activities produce developments in bodily structure, and also cause the formation of new social institutions. Bodily structures and social institutions alike limit activities and usefulness. These propositions are a reversal of the emphasis which Spencer maintained. They are fundamentally correct. Although Schaeffle referred frequently to the “social body,” he did not give the concept a specific meaning. He introduced the term “social process,” but did not analyze its nature. He repudiated the idea that the individual is the social unit; he considered the group to be the all-important unit in society. Natural selection in social evolution manifests itself in conflicts between the ideals of different groups. René Worms, it may be added, has assumed the existence of a social consciousness apart from the consciousness of individuals, and argued that the chief difference between biological organisms and social organizations is one of degree.