competition. Of equal importance to favorable selection is equality of opportunity. Even when the principles of competition are in force, inequality of opportunity may be so great as to counteract all the beneficial results of the contest. Some enter the struggle with nothing but their untrained native abilities, while others, because of wealth, have had every opportunity from training and position. Under such circumstances victory is not to the strong, but to the well armed. Opportunity at the start must be equal to guarantee the proper selection of individual qualities; and competition must govern the spirit of the contestants to ensure the survival of social qualities. The fact should be emphasized however that the principle of equality of opportunity applies only at the start while innate qualities are being tested. After ability is proved opportunity and equipment should be unequal. To those who have should be given much training, and to those who have not should be given little or none. Many who are crying out for equality blind their eyes to this second clause of the principle of social justice. They demand that equality be preserved, if need be, by artificial restraints; but both nature and society protest against such a monstrous injustice.

The result of competition with equal opportunity is to range people in a hierarchy, if not in accordance with actual ability, at least in accordance with the use which society can, or thinks it can, make of them. Such competition is not merely favorable, it is absolutely essential to social progress. The problem of social reorganization is not one of the continuance or of the abolition of competition in society, it is rather a question of the form which competition shall take. Its abolition would be not only detrimental, but it would be unthinkable as well. However, the discussion, it may be well to repeat, refers to competition amongst individuals and not to competition of capital. That presents an entirely different problem. The elimination of competition in capital is possible, and it is even conceivable that competition of material things will have to be modified and tempered, if the competition of individuals is to be free and fair. Under any system of social organization competition of individuals must persist in some form or other and serve as the basis of selection. It is the normal channel through which the individual seeks to assert himself.

The persistence of competition in a favorable form seems to be dependent in the long run upon the existence of rewards for services and their distribution in proportion to services rendered. Rewards may be either material or social in form, but an adequate reward of some kind must be offered lest individuals lose their stimulus to exertion; and the rewards must be in proportion to social service, or effort will be diverted to useless or fanciful ends. One of the severest criticisms of present day society is that rewards are not so proportioned. So long as social recognition and material rewards come to those who make little exertion, or to those who are a menace to society, or are parasitic upon it, just so long will there be a basis for social discontent.

Social Stratification. The second result of struggle within the group is social grading, or the formation of social strata, a result which is evidently much less extreme than elimination and is accompanied by less shock to the social system. Social gradations may be individual and temporary or they may settle into permanent class distinctions if they become rigid through inheritance. Individual and temporary variations are desirable and beneficial if, as has just been explained, they arise out of a struggle which is both competitive and personal. Permanent social stratification, although a phenomenon of such antiquity as to be regarded by many as natural and inevitable, may nevertheless become an impediment to social progress. Social stratification, in the form of caste or class distinctions, is usually the result of conflict of groups, but it may also arise out of struggle within the group. The underlying forces at work in producing stratification are not very dissimilar whether they arise from one or the other of these causes, though the forces manifest themselves in different ways.

The method of stratification through subjugation is evident. It usually begins with warfare, and when one group is definitely conquered it is subjected to the will of the conquerors either in the form of slavery, or in some less extreme degree of exploitation. Conquerors and conquered may coalesce into a group in which the conquerors retain their superior position by military means or by monopolizing and manipulating the powers of government and law.

Permanent stratification through internal conflict is brought about by similar steps, though the means employed are more subtle. The first step in the process is the achievement of individual ranking or gradation, resulting from some sort of struggle or competition. The second step, in which individual ranking passes into rigid social stratification, is taken when these individuals of superior rank make their position permanently secure by capturing or retaining various privileges.

The first step in social stratification, that is, the achievement of distinction, should be considered in greater detail because struggle does not always produce gradations. Sometimes it results in elimination and sometimes in division of labor; consequently the different forms of struggle which cause these different results require analysis. The detailed social conditions which are likely to result in division of labor are described in a later section; here it will suffice merely to indicate the broad differences in the form of the struggle. Where the end sought is individual gain and the means employed are also individual, all the contestants will ordinarily employ the same means to attain the end and the result will be either elimination or social gradation. These are the conditions to be found in a foot race which results in gradation. Contestants seek an individual prize or honor and they use the same method in competing for it. If groups compete as units, a gradation of units will result. Next, if the end sought is social, in the sense that it requires united effort, contestants will ordinarily employ different means to attain the common end and the result will be a simple form of division of labor. A baseball game is a contest of groups. Each member of the team strives for the same end, but each contributes to the result in a different way, - that is, by filling a different position. This makes a division of labor group. Lastly, if the end sought is social and the means employed are also social, that is, if groups rather than individuals combine to produce the end, a complex form of division of labor results. This is the form common in economic life, but rare in other

departments of social life, for ordinarily the attitude of groups towards one another is likely to be that of opposition rather than coöperation.

Returning now to the first form of struggle described which produces either elimination or gradation, and analyzing the conditions still farther, it will appear that the competition results in elimination or in gradation according to the nature of the ends sought. If the objective is broad enough to accommodate all contestants, no elimination will be necessary and contestants will tend merely to be ranked according to ability. If the goal is narrow so that few are eligible, superfluous contestants must be rejected, and those who are accepted are likely to be graded according to attainment. For example, if students should strive for intellectual proficiency or for physical culture, all could attain some degree of success, and gradation without elimination would result. If however the number of contestants was large, for instance, for a position on a particular athletic team, some would have to be rejected, for the goal would be limited and could accommodate but few individuals. Competition for office necessarily results in elimination because one candidate only can occupy the position.

In conclusion, therefore, it appears that social stratification, whether produced by struggle of groups or struggle within a group, has its origin in conflict, resulting in superiority and subordination, a relationship next cemented by the use of force, though in some cases the force is so innocuous and indirect that its nature may not be recognized or admitted. The character of the compulsion used will vary according to the basis of class distinctions. Among primitive peoples a distinction is to be found based on sex, and in this case the male sex fortifies its position by the exclusive appropriation of certain occupations, and the monopolization of other privileges, especially that of intimacy with spirits. In the period of barbarism also the privileged class reserved to themselves certain occupations, usually those which carried with them the opportunity for exploit. The possession of land has, in various social stages, been both a mark of superiority and a means of ret ing superior position. In modern times, the powers of the state and of the law have been utilized to preserve class distinctions. Whenever wealth has been the basis of stratification the superior have usually been able to retain special privileges yielding a continuous source of income. In so far as superiority rests on culture, or education, or access to influential associates, the superior stratum has been able to retain its rank because it alone is in a position to acquire the desirable attributes. In the last situation the exercise of any compulsion appears to be lacking, or at least unintentioned, the advantage appearing merely as the natural result of previous attainments. But in this case the position is actually the survival of previous advantages or privileges which social conditions have enabled their possessors to retain. Members of the favored class may finally appear rather as victims of these stratifications than as active agents in preserving them. Reform requires not so much that advantages be denied them, as that these aforesaid advantages be extended to other deserving persons. Not opportunity, but exclusiveness of opportunity, should be abolished.

Division of Labor the Most Desirable Result of Struggle. Division of labor is the mildest, and at the same time the most advantageous, result of individual struggle within the group. In place of the elimination or subordination of inferior individuals, division of labor tends towards the maximum utilization of all kinds of ability. Persons who would be inferior in some occupations have opportunity to show superiority in other lines. Moreover, when there exists diversity in occupations for members of a group, oppositions tend to disappear and the coöperative principle of group life is strengthened. Therefore the system of division of labor combines the greatest amount of opportunity for all with the smallest degree of opposition. In modern industrial societies division of labor is the chief result of the struggle for life, and it forms the basis of modern social organization. Bücher in his Industrial Revolution estimates that there are ten thousand modes of activity which may furnish the basis for occupations in the modern industrial world.

Causes of Division of Labor. In primitive times little division of labor existed except that between the sexes. This elementary social cleavage among savage peoples, however,