492 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
up a right of appropriation to anything that is produced by common efforts nor to anything that is of joint use. Of the former one may cite the game of a communal hunt of the primitive folks. For an example of the latter the situation in a family presents a happy illustration, No member, it can be said without fear of being challenged, will ever set up a right of private appropriation to the articles of the Table or to the articles of decoration just as nobody will ever set up a right of exclusive ownership regarding public monuments. They are of the house. But every one of the family will surely set up a right to the exclusive use of his or her clothes. They are of the Individual. It is therefore, just a question of production and use and not of impulse that a thing is appropriated. Thus the creative and the possessive are on different levels and the methods of augmenting the former as of diminishing the latter are bound to be different. The more of one will not ensure the less of the latter.
With this we must close the review of Mr. Russell’s book. There is much in it that can be laid at the foundation of the future reconstruction of Society. Mr. Russell deserves full credit for having emphasized the psychic basis of social life. Social reconstruction depends upon the right understanding of the relation of individual to society—a problem which has eluded the grasp of many sociologists. Mr. Russell’s conception of the relation—as being of impulse to institution is, beyond doubt the truest. However, to understand this and many other problems the book touches I will strongly recommend the reader to go to the original. I have confined myself to putting Mr. Russell in his right place where I thought he was likely to be misunderstood and to guarding his uncritical readers against certain misconceptions that may pass off unnoticed. In both cases I have attempted to do my duty to Mr. Russell and to his readers.
���