self absolute non-resistance would mean acceptance of the evil principle and in society it would mean the decay of healthy institutions and customs. The presence of evil does not call for passivity or negligence. On the contrary it requires strenuous action. But it is the kind of opposition employed which is of vital concern. Inasmuch as evil is energy misdirected or misunderstood, reform implies a readjustment of forces and a higher degree of coöperation. And this end is never accomplished by retaliation. Resistance in kind, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” merely adds one evil to another and also increases the area and intensity of the enmity. In their beginnings, hate and strife are strengthened by resistance and devitalized by conciliation and sympathy. But inasmuch as reprisals satisfy a primitive instinct of vengeance, and as restraint under aggression is humiliating, non-resistance becomes one phase of the sacrifice of the individual to the higher interests of the group. Methods of retaliation and of revenge in the treatment of criminals fail to reform the spirit of the delinquents and only aggravate their feeling of hostility towards society. This does not mean of course that force should never be used to check evil influences. Forcible restraint is often a preliminary measure to the reform of misguided energy; but such restraint should never be vindictive and it should be regarded as a means and not as an end. Force may repress but it does not regenerate evil. In many cases, however, attempts at forcible suppression are dangerous and defer rather than hasten harmony in the social order. Higher adjustment may frequently, perhaps usually, be obtained by education more speedily than it would be if force were employed as the intermediary agent. At any rate this phase of the subject is the one deserving sharp emphasis in modern times. The suppression of evil by force does not need to be urged, for too often it seems only to enhance an individual's self-assertiveness and self-complacency. The modern mania for reform by force of law is merely a new expression of the old primitive instinct of the chase, tinged with modernism and respectability through the use of laws as the weapons of restraint. It is doubtful if conflict with its resulting suppressions is ever a regenerative force. The milder forms of opposition, rivalry and competition, are progressive in that they are stimulating; but the grosser forms increase antagonism and render coöperation more difficult. The Character of Oppositions is Altered in Two Ways. From the nature and functions of oppositions, it is clear that the forces of evolution will never completely eliminate this factor, though they will modify it by making it less of a destructive and more of a constructive force. Oppositions appear to be undergoing modifications in two ways: first, their intensity is diminishing, open hostility gradually giving way to friendly rivalry; and, secondly, their object is changing, being diverted from persons to principles. The lessening intensity of oppositions indicates a greater degree of socialization. Antagonisms which would weaken or disrupt groups are gradually being modified, permitting greater unity within groups or hastening the amalgamation of competing groups into larger units. Even where oppositions are not entirely eliminated, they tend to become less uncompromising, and while feeling may still be bitter, on the whole the trend is towards that friendly competition which stimulates unity and progress rather than disruption in groups. The transference of the object of conflict from persons to principles indicates an increasing clarity of perception as to the cause of differences and facilitates the final adjustment of opposing forces. No true incompatibility exists between persons, but only between ideas and principles. To antagonize the individual for the purpose of settling a divergence of views is like avoiding ill tidings by executing the bearer of them. It is the principle and not the person that must be modified or suppressed. Sometimes, to be sure, the difference in principle is so fundamental and complete as to seem to include the whole personality, so that the antagonism is general; but it is never entirely so. Although occasionally restraint of the individual himself may be essential in the control of destructive influences, it is always a temporary expedient and does not achieve a final adjustment. To the degree that oppositions find their true objective in principles, these principles can be perfected through discussion and the process will promote higher adjustments and more complete unity. This change in the character of oppositions may be seen in almost every department of life. In politics it was formerly the custom to attack vigorously the personalities of opposing candidates for office; but this custom is gradually being abandoned, the struggle now being confined more closely to the principles involved, with a consequent improvement in the tone of political campaigns. Even the socialists no longer interpret . class conflict as applying to individuals of opposing classes, but rather to the principles exemplified by each class. The more intelligent socialists regard individuals as mere irresponsible victims of the conditions which gave rise to classes. Discussions on scientific propositions are ordinarily conducted on the highest plane of all. Although conflict among competing theories may be vigorous it remains almost wholly impersonal. It is rarely . diverted from the principles to the personalities of the advocates of the theories. The conclusion is that, as the character of oppositions changes from conflict of individuals to rivalries of principles, they become attenuated and refined in their nature and more progressive and constructive in their action. Reasons for the Change in the Nature of Oppositions. The milder forms of opposition are so much more favorable to progress than the cruder and more violent forms that it will be worth while to review the conditions which modify oppositions, though they have for the most part already been implied in the previous discussion. Original cause and effect in social relations are not always easily distinguishable because so many forces are continually interacting, but the most important influences in this case are apparent. The increasing size of the group has been represented as the effect of the decline in the intensity of opposition; and this is necessarily the case unless the integration has been forced. But larger size in the group is itself favorable to the weaker forms of opposition, and for two reasons. First, in the large group individuals are farther removed from their rivals and therefore feel less intensely the enmity of opponents or the imminence of danger. And, secondly, because a large group absorbs the individual more completely than does a small group. Its diversity of interests offers much wider scope for his activities, so that his attention is less concentrated on the activities of other groups. He feels himself less interfered with than he would if he belonged to a smaller group. This multiplicity of interests causes the individual to be less strongly concentrated on any one phase of social life, and therefore rivalries are carried on with less bitterness than they would be if they assumed greater importance. In case of intense rivalry between a large group and a small one, members of the small group always feel the antagonism much more keenly than do those of the large group. Sometimes the latter are not even cognizant of the intensity of feeling which exists in the small group. And when the attitude of the smaller rival is perceived it comes as a surprise and is not always understood. The people of the United States have unfortunately permitted enmities of considerable intensity to smoulder in small nations without being conscious of them, simply because they did not feel the restrictions of competition which had become oppressive to weaker rivals. Furthermore if the larger society has also the denser population, the increased associations resulting will tend to produce stronger feelings of equality. And as the recognition of the importance of others grows, and as the self-feeling relatively declines, oppositions between individuals and groups of individuals will tend to soften and unity will be promoted. Finally, the effects of increasing division of labor, discussed in a previous chapter, should be mentioned in this connection. Oppositions arise because of seeming diversities of interest; and division of labor is a factor in harmonizing interests, because it increases interdependence and turns the struggle to diverse ends. While division of labor is, in the first place, primarily a result of struggle, in its perfection it serves to attenuate conflict, because it makes the interference of individuals less direct. Even international or territorial division of labor, while not removing all causes of group conflict, must be recognized as a powerful force in the promotion of unity. The conditions favoring the decline of extreme forms of opposition, therefore, naturally appear as the reverse side of those conditions which stimulate integration and division of labor. As the material side of progress includes increasing group inte grations and differentiations, so the psychological side involves a wider conception of individual values and a decline in the intensity of social antagonisms. The social conditions and the psychological reactions are closely related. Declining opposition, however, does not imply more exact imitation. On the contrary imitation becomes more rational, permitting a larger degree of variation. In early phases of social life the tendency was for small groups to show great uniformity through unvarying imitation and to develop uncompromising opposition to other groups. Progress brings less extreme oppositions, but also less perfect repetitions. Societies become more plastic in their organization as the units become more harmonious. REFERENCES FOR COLLATERAL READING Social Process, Ch. 4. 8 and 9. PARSONS, M. G., Selected Articles on Non-Resistance. 490, 672 and 798. TARDE, G., Social Laws. VINCENT, G. E., The Rivalry of Social Groups, Amer. Journ. of Sociology, XVI, 469. |