unlikely, the reasons which would cause people to refrain from war are of two kinds: first, the knowledge that warring nations will be condemned by the civilized world; and, second, the realization that justice can be obtained in case of disagreements without resorting to war. The more certain this latter appears to be, the stronger will be the condemnation of war. Hence the creation of a just tribunal to which international disputes may be submitted would seem to be the first step towards accomplishing this end. The creation of an active sentiment in favor of the tribunal and against war must be accomplished through education. During the period when the machinery for international peace is being firmly established, the moral sentiment against war may be advantageously supplemented by positive penalties, probably in the nature of economic boycotts. Such penalties however should forestall war itself. They should be imposed upon a nation, not after it has actually declared war, but after it has shown aggressive intention by preparations exceeding the limits prescribed by international agreement. By this means a nation may perhaps be kept from that stage of armament and that spirit of arrogance which prove almost irresistible temptations to aggression.

These are the more fundamental conditions necessary for the establishment of international peace and justice, but they may be supplemented by other means. Quarrels between individuals within the state occur notwithstanding all the machinery of civil justice, and they do so more easily between those who harbor feelings of enmity than between those who have enjoyed friendly sentiments. The same is true of nations. Hence there is danger in all measures which tend to arouse suspicion or fear, such as secret treaties, or systems of trade relations which seem to seek unfair gain. Trade and tariff wars contribute seriously to permanent enmity and resentment. On the other hand, international travel and intercourse, a common literature, free dissemination of intellectual products, - all promote friendship and contribute to a mutual comprehension of ideals. It is also possible that financial and economic unity might be furthered by conscious effort; but such action is difficult, and probably for the present better results will be achieved by concentrating effort on counteracting the present strong tendency towards nationalism and economic self-efficiency.

At the present time strong sentiments exist both for and against war, and the tide may be turned in either direction by consciously active endeavor. With most of the advanced nations opposition to war is already strong, except possibly for two reasons; first, for the settlement of questions of national honor, and, second, for the alleviation of inhuman conditions. With individuals honor is no longer vindicated either through duels or by continued feuds, but through the action of courts of justice. For nations there must be established international tribunals of justice so trustworthy that they can be depended upon to uphold and not endanger the honor of these groups. The danger of leaving questions of honor to the arbitrament of war is that nations become over sensitive to them, often mis taking for a great principle a desire for vengeance, or even ambition to enlarge their areas of influence. As to the advisibility of war for the alleviation of human suffering, it is always of doubtful expediency to try to teach principles of humanity by inhuman means.

Milder Forms of Group Struggle. The discussion of the struggle of groups has been confined to actual warfare, because that has always been its most common form and because it is still of chief interest. But it is not the only form growing out of group contacts. Physical conflict may disappear and be replaced by competition and rivalry of varying degrees of intensity. And as the amelioration proceeds the evils of struggle will diminish leaving only the benefits of stimulating rivalries. The modified form of struggle is best seen in economic life where, to be sure, competition may be bitter and destructive; but it is undeniably less extreme than war and it does bring constructive as well as destructive results. Economic competition, as has already been pointed out, is likely to provoke political conflicts, if oppositions are unrestrained; but the hope is that economic struggles may be confined within safe limits by diminishing their destructive elements.

Group struggles may take still milder forms, such as rivalries in scientific achievements, in artistic productions, or competitions in athletic sports. Such rivalries are almost always constructive in nature, and they are practicable when the point of view of the contestants is cosmopolitan and the underlying spirit friendly. The problem connected with the relationship of political groups then is not the elimination of all struggle, which would mean complete isolation, but the transformation of the struggle from destructive to constructive forms. And this end should be accomplished not merely by the negative method of suppressing or controlling warfare, but by the positive method of multiplying friendly rivalries.

Group struggle properly includes not merely political units but also all kinds of organized groups. As these groups are not sovereign, but subject to the authority of the government, their struggles do not take the form of war, though they may sometimes be of a destructive nature. The struggle between these groups is similar to that between individuals, both being confined within the larger political unit, and the nature of this contest will be discussed in the next chapter.

REFERENCES FOR COLLATERAL READING
BAKELESS, J., The Economic Causes of Modern Wars.
BODART and KELLOGG, Losses in Modern Wars and Race Deteriora-

tion.
BOGART, E. L., Costs of the War.
DE LAPOUGE, G., Les Sélections Sociales.
GUMPLOWICZ, L., Der Rassenkampf.

Outlines of Sociology.
HOLMES, S. J., The Trend of the Race, Ch. 9.
JORDAN, D. S., The Blood of the Nation.

The Human Harvest.
War and the Breed.

War's Aftermath.
KELLOGG, V. L., Eugenics and Militarism, International Eugenics

Congress, Vol. 1., 1912.
NICOLAI, G. F., The Biology of War, Ch. 3.
Novicow, J., Les Luttes entre Sociétés Humaines.

War and its Alleged Benefits.
POPENOE and JOHNSON, Applied Eugenics, Ch. 16.
ROBINSON, E. Van D. War and Economics, in Carver's Sociology

and Social Progress, Ch. 9.

CHAPTER XI

STRUGGLE WITHIN THE GROUP

Nature of the Struggle. The struggle of individuals, or of associations, within the group is necessarily less severe than the struggle of groups with one another. The keynote of group life is coöperation, consequently, if internal struggles and oppositions become too intense, the group is weakened if not disrupted. In fact the state has found it necessary to take out of the hands of individuals the settlement of serious disagreements within the group, and the judgment of anti-social conduct, in order that the organization of the group may not be endangered by continuous internal conflicts.

To understand the nature of struggle within the group it is necessary to distinguish the spirit of the struggle from its degree or intensity. The intensity refers to the effort which must be put forth to obtain the end in view, and this tends to increase with the increase in population. The larger the number of persons entering the competition for livelihood the longer and more careful must be the period of preparation for work, and the more does the actual work itself require energy and application. The spirit of the struggle refers to the methods employed in its promotion. These methods take one or the other of two general forms; they may be combative, or they may be competitive. The struggle is combative when individuals try to gain their ends through infliction of injury upon their opponents. The struggle is competitive when they try to gain their ends through their own superior efforts without in any way interfering with the activities of other individuals. Now while the intensity of the struggle within the group has become keener, its spirit has been moderated and softened. Struggle is gradually changing from the combative to the competitive form. The change, however, has been by no means fully accomplished. Those who assume that society is actually on a competitive basis

are in error, or are deceiving themselves. Very frequently the success of individuals, and the supremacy of corporations, in economic lines is achieved through interference with opponents, rather than through the exercise of superior acumen. Political success also is often attained still by means of subtle and injurious attacks upon opponents, rather than because of the possession of superior ability. Even in the struggle for social and intellectual attainments combativeness has not been entirely eliminated. Much of the effort of the government in regulating industry or politics, which seems to many so dangerously paternalistic, is only its attempts to destroy combative methods and raise the level of individual struggle to a purely competitive plane.

Autogeneric Selection. The extreme effect of struggle within the group is the elimination of individuals, giving rise, as has been said, to autogeneric selection; while milder forms of struggle cause social gradations and division of labor. Autogeneric selection accounts for only a small part of the total number of deaths and the proportion is being steadily reduced. Society does not permit those who have been worsted in the struggle for life to be eliminated entirely. They are assisted in the making of a new start, or if need be are supported by philanthropy. Autogeneric selection is shown in such forms of death as man-slaughter, suicide, and judicial executions. If however the effects of struggle were measured by failures of organizations and institutions instead of by the elimination of individuals, we should be confronted by a long line of wreckage.

Effects of the Struggle. Whether society will gain from struggle within the group will depend upon the form of the struggle involved. The struggle to be favorable must be competitive and it must also be maintained on the basis of equality. Combative struggle is usually detrimental because it results in the survival of qualities adapted only to conflict. But, as cooperation rather than conflict is the principle of social life, the qualities which tend to survive under a system of combat are not those serviceable for group unity and efficiency. Therefore continued combative struggles within the group are not likely to result in favorable social selection, and must be replaced by