communistic sect of the middle ages, rebuffed all offers of compromise and peace on the part of the church, and thereby preserved their unity and fighting power. The older socialists maintained a consistent attitude of uncompromising opposition to the government, and by so doing they retained unity and strength of organization and retarded the process of disintegra

As long as opposition was emphasized as their chief aim little discussion took place within the ranks. All were loyal and orthodox. Divergence of views and reconstruction of theory came only when they were strong enough to be sure of their continued existence.

Strength of Oppositions. Oppositions vary greatly both in intensity and in their results, all the way from mere rivalries which may be stimulating, to open conflicts which are destructive, for reasons depending partly on the nature of the questions at issue, and partly on the character of the individuals or groups in conflict.

Depends upon the importance of the question at issue. The intensity of oppositions varies normally with the importance of the controversy to the group. If the question at issue is looked upon as a fundamental one, so that a change would alter the composition of the group or even threaten its existence, all available energy will be marshalled for the conflict. If the question at issue is not vital to the group, or if the differences are not absolutely irreconcilable, resistance will be less intense, and a compromise will be effected before the group is seriously embarrassed.

The group estimate of the importance of a particular subject varies however under different circumstances, and is noticeably dependent upon the complexity of the social organization. In a simple social organization, a particular belief or institution may assume exaggerated importance, because interests may be so few that attention easily becomes concentrated upon one of them. On the other hand the importance ascribed to it may not be entirely imaginary, for a society with few institutions may of course be more seriously affected by a single change than a society which has reached a higher stage of differentiation and organization. Furthermore complicated societies

are

usually more plastic than simple societies and they can adjust themselves more easily to changes in the social organization. They contain more elements that are variable and offer less resistance to modifications in the social structure. In the Middle Ages, religious questions were all-important, due partly to the simplicity of social life and partly to the character of the mental life, and so conflicts over religious doctrines were much more serious that they would be now. The lesser degree of importance attached to religious differences in modern times cannot be ascribed so much to an absolute decline of interest in religion, as to a relative decline due to the increased complexity of total interests. Varieties in religious beliefs no longer arouse such strong antagonisms because they no longer threaten the social structure nor do they greatly modify social relations.

In modern times differences in economic beliefs, especially those concerning the relation of labor and capital, arouse much more intense feeling because interests are centered to a greater extent in economic activities; and there is a realization that changes in the economic organization of society would affect not only individuals but whole classes, and indeed might even alter the entire social organization. So while differences in religious beliefs no longer arouse emotions in the majority, disagreements over economic questions stir up strong antagonisms, because changes in economic organization may endanger social order and stability. And the more imminent the possibility of change is felt to be, the more intense will be the antagonisms.

Variations in group emphasis are obvious where simple and complex organizations exist side by side. In small villages disagreements among church members, or differences of opinion over school policy will arouse more interest and create warmer feeling than the same problems in a city. Where interests are few the importance of any one of them is bound to be magnified. It is for this reason that gossip is a characteristic of the small group, gossip being a symptom of narrow interests within the group and of poverty of ideas in the individual.

In advanced as well as in simple societies, however, interests vary in real importance, and those which are felt to be of greatest moment will always arouse the most intense antagonisms. But in any case it is the estimated rather than the actual importance of the question which counts, and for various reasons the weight of a particular subject in a social group may be overestimated either temporarily or permanently.

Depends upon intensity of association. A second principle is that oppositions are often stronger between persons having the greatest community of interest than between those having little in common. The reason is that intense and continuous association presupposes similarity. When, therefore, differences occur, they are much more destructive to the social relation. In the more casual social relationships disagreements may arise without endangering social life, and hence they do not arouse any intensity of opposition. Family quarrels and lovers' quarrels may become very intense because these relationships imply fundamental harmony, and small differences are therefore more irritating and disruptive than those occurring between more casual acquaintances. According to the same general principle a quarrel in a small village may be much more intense and lasting than one over the same subject in a large city. In a small community personal contacts in all departments of social life are more frequently with the same individuals. Therefore a quarrel which may start in one organization, the church for example, will extend to trade, to politics, and to social relations, because the same persons opposed in the one organization encounter one another in those other departments of life; so that the controversy tends to gather strength and to cause a general alignment of the whole population on one side or the other. In a city, on the other hand, a disagreement starting in a church may end there, because the particular individuals concerned may encounter each other only in that one social organization. In that case the opposition will be confined to one phase only of the social life of the individual, and will take up only a part of his attention; and opposition will tend to die out as time passes.

In this principle is to be found one explanation of those difficulties which have constantly been encountered in keeping the alliance close between England and the United States. The

two peoples are so similar that minor differences attract attention and assume unmerited importance; and oppositions are stronger than they would be between peoples more divergent in character and in mode of life.

Depends upon degree of opposition aroused. Finally, oppositions strengthen as they encounter opposition, but where no resistance is met antagonism is dissipated. No strong spirit of antagonism can be maintained against passive submission any more than physical force can be exerted against a continually yielding object. Hate is a self-preservative instinct and is normally active against anyone who inflicts an injury. It ceases to function against a harmless person, and it cannot even be aroused in the face of genial friendly acts. The basic principle is then that opposition feeds on resistance and dies out with non-resistance, and this is due to the fact that oppositions are preservative in their nature. If a danger encountered is great, oppositions strengthen; but when the danger declines the forces of defence are relaxed.

The first application of this principle is that in all cases in which oppositions are desirable, that is, where they are stimulating, effort should be met with equal effort; but wherever oppositions are pernicious and destructive they should not be stimulated by resistance, but should be replaced by coöperation. In athletic contests good sporting spirit requires that the opponents should be evenly matched in order that there may be a true contest. When one opponent is decidedly inferior neither is stirred to his utmost endeavor. Achievement through competition or emulation requires, in the first place, fair conditions, by which is meant such regulations as will permit the desired qualities to be freely exercised; and, in the second place, approximate equality between the competitors, so that each side will be stimulated to maximum effort.

The principle of stimulating effort by opposition is obvious enough in cases of rivalry and emulation; but the principle of non-resistance in a case of destructive conflict is not so easily stated, partly because the dividing line itself between stimulating and destructive conflict is not always evident, and partly because there are differences in the nature of conflicts, due to the different motives prompting them. To understand the reactions in the severer forms of conflicts one must distinguish between defensive and offensive struggles, because the former are an expression of the instinct of self-preservation, while the latter are crude manifestations of the desire for self-assertion taking the form of aggrandizement at the expense of another. Resistance for self-preservation normally grows in proportion to the danger encountered, because self-preservation is a basic instinct. But force exercised for aggression does not grow uniformly as opposition increases, because self-aggrandizement is not so vital a need as self-preservation and hence aggression becomes more cautious if failure threatens. One does not undergo the same sacrifice for self-exaltation that one will for self-preservation or for the vindication of a just principle. For this reason a bully may often be cowed by determined resistance. And in the case of war the populace is always made to feel that it is in danger and on the defensive, for the rank and file will not undergo great sacrifices for aggression alone, even though they may acquiesce in a war of conquest if the costs are to be borne by the enemy. Oppositions for purposes of aggrandizement, therefore, do not increase directly with resistance. They do increase with slight resistance, for that is not dangerous and it stimulates effort; but they decline with formidable resistance, for no possible gains are worth the risk of defeat. Therefore to restrain a bully, whether an individual or a nation, fearlessness and determination are essential, for feeble opposition or vacillation merely serves to incite the aggressor.

Such in brief is the character of opposition when it encounters opposition. But the analysis does not determine the question, so often argued, of the expediency of resistance, or of nonresistance, to the aggression of evil forces. Should evil be kept in check by determined resistance, or should it be unresisted in the hope that it will die out? Absolute non-resistance to evil would be absurd and would not gain the end sought. It would avoid conflict, in so far as that is desirable; but in the end, without struggle evil would prove overwhelming. Conflict between good and evil is universal. It begins in the individual mind and extends throughout social life. In the individual him