On the other hand if no real association takes place the sentiment of inequality may continue indefinitely. It is easy for us to rate the foreigner inferior so long as we never associate with him.

Democracies then have sprung up either in small densely populated regions, or in large areas where means of communication have been sufficient to make casual association possible. Cities have been centers of democracy for two reasons apparently. Conditions in centers of population are of a kind to foster ideas of equality, to increase agitation for equal rights, and also to diminish the resistance of the privileged classes to the establishment of democracy. In centers of population people associate freely, ideas are stimulated, grievances are aired, leaders are developed, and revolutionary movements are more easily started. Cities are proverbially centers of radicalism, while rural districts are conservative. Boston was called a hotbed of revolution in Colonial times, and Paris was the center of the French Revolution. Peasants, even when they have been grieviously oppressed, have found it almost impossible to organize and successfully carry on a revolution.

Not only have urban conditions fostered agitations for equal rights, they have also tended to weaken opposition to them. While it is not true that opposition on the part of the privileged classes declines to the extent that struggle is unnecessary, nevertheless conditions of association in urban centers seem to arouse sufficient sympathy among intellectual leaders and other people of influence to assist materially all kinds of movements towards equality.

By heterogeneity of population. In still another way density of population contributes to the growth of democracy. It has already been pointed out that a large and dense population stimulates the division of labor, and that specialization is favorable to ideas of equality. A heterogeneous population, such as is found in industrial centers, is more receptive to democratic ideas than is a population separated into two opposing classes, such as owners and peasants in an agricultural country.

While heterogeneity favors ideals of equality, the heterogeneity must be individual and not too evident. If individual differences, such as racial characters, are easily distinguishable, they hinder rather than help the development of democracy. When differences are external, such as color, casual association reveals the differences instead of the similarities and does not promote sentiments of equality. If the idea exists that one race is inferior to another, casual association merely reveals the racial character and immediately classifies the individual as a member of an inferior race without regard to his individual qualities. Superior qualities would be manifested only after intimate association and such association is uncommon among peoples harboring antipathies. For this reason casual association between whites and blacks does not stimulate dem atic sentiments. Similarly a distinctive form of dress worn by manual laborers tends to differentiate them at a glance as members of an inferior group; and consequently such a custom is undesirable in a country striving to realize democracy.

By the size of the state. Finally it may be said that a large state provides conditions more favorable to democracy than does a small state, though it may not be easier to win democracy in a large state. Size itself tends to stimulate broad-mindedness and to diminish exclusiveness. In a large state an individual counts for less, tending to become lost in the mass. Furthermore, the privileged class is larger and hence less exclusive. When the franchise already includes large numbers there is less opposition to its further extension than where the privileged class is small and self-sufficient. If, to be sure, actual equality exists to a high degree in a small state, political justice is more easily realized there. But if actual inequality is considerable the advantage lies in the large state.

To recapitulate, the form of government usually reflects the social conditions in a state. A small state with a comparatively homogeneous population and no sharp class distinctions is likely to be democratic in its political organization. A state which has strong class distinctions, and especially one which has very diverse elements in its population, is likely to have an absolute form of government. But, as population becomes more dense and concentrated, as means of communication improve, and division of labor develops, and as the intelligence of the mass of the population increases, the state will become more and more democratic. Environmental conditions which favor concentrated populations and good means of communication have been outlined in a previous chapter and need not be repeated here.

The Influence of Political Conditions. The conditions above outlined are those which stimulate the growth of democratic ideals; but the realization of those ideals may be brought about more or less quickly according to the strength of the governing class. If the governmental machinery is well organized and efficient, radical ideas may be kept in check and revolutionary attempts may be suppressed much more easily. If the privileged class is united, — and probably it is more likely to remain united if it is not too large, - it will offer much more effective resistance to the extension of political power. If the governing class is divided, it is possible for the masses slowly to acquire power by playing one party against the other. In England the split between the king and the nobility offered the commons the opportunity to increase their power. Each party was willing to concede greater power to the commons in return for assistance. Sometimes a division arises between the landowning and the industrial classes, resulting in political advantage to the common people. And if the aristocratic class is large it is somewhat easier for others to gain admission to it than when it is small and united.

Finally it may be said that if the ruling class is using its power wisely, if it is ruling ostensibly for the good of all, the people may be kept contented and tractable much longer than if the rulers use their power arbitrarily and oppressively. Bismark's industrial reforms doubtless helped to defer the realization of democracy in Germany, even though those measures were not satisfactory to the socialists.

The attainment of democracy, therefore, in any country rests upon the outcome of the struggle between the forces favoring equality on the one hand, and the resistance of the privileged classes on the other.

REFERENCES FOR COLLATERAL READING

BOUGLÉ, C., Les Idées Égalitaires.
FOWLER, W. W., City State of the Greeks and Romans.
GETTELL, R. G., Readings in Political Science, Chs. 2, 3, 5 and 6.
SIMMEL, G., The Persistence of Social Groups, Amer. Journ. of

Sociology, 3: 662 and 829 and 4: 35. - Superiority and Subordination as Subject Matters in Sociology,

Amer. Journ. of Sociology, 2: 167 and 392. SPENCER, H., Principles of Sociology, Vol. II, Pt. 5, Chs. 17 and 18.

CHAPTER XIV

LAW

The Nature of Law. The instrument through which the state exercises its authority over the individual is law. Gareis says 1 that “the law is the means of peaceable regulation of the external relations of persons and their social communities among themselves.”

Law necessarily arises out of the exigencies of the life in common. In the process of satisfying his desires man inevitably comes into conflict with others who are also attempting to satisfy their desires. Among nations such competition leads to war; but within the group, inasmuch as unrestrained conflict is inconsistent with group welfare, it becomes necessary to curb primitive passions so that individual rivalries may be subordinated to the needs of group unity. Hence even in primitive groups certain regulations were gradually formed restraining the individual in the interest of the group, and were summarily enforced by the leading men of the group. The rules were of the nature and had the force of custom; and they existed and were executed before the formation of any definite social organization such as we now understand by the state. When the state was organized law became its regular method of expression, and law functioned only through the agency of the state, though other forms of social control were exercised through other channels. Thus, while in its origin law may be traced back to custom, among all advanced peoples it is the expression of the supreme power lodged in the state.

Law Represents the Supreme Authority of the State. Of all forms of social control law is supreme, for it is the voice of the state, that form of social organization having ultimate authority. Other methods of social control, such as conven