requires a greater amount of coercion than does conformity in thought. On the whole education is a powerful means of integration. In fact society tends to use its schools, especially the advanced grades, too much as mere agents of conformity instead of using them as means of mental stimulation and for the development of individuality.

Closely connected with education as an agent of integration is the force of public opinion. Public opinion affects all who have social consciousness; but if we separate it from the consciously organized educational system, we find that it has far greater influence over adults than over the young. Society is not slow to show what it thinks of people who conform or who fail to conform to the established modes of conduct. Public opinion asserts itself both in the form of approval and of disapproval; but disapproval is the form most commonly used. If, for example, an individual conforms to the prevailing fashion in dress in a manner noticeably felicitous, he enjoys the admiration of all about him. But an ordinary degree of conformity is assumed and the person who observes conventions merely escapes the unpleasantness of being conspicuous. But when anyone departs too far from the prevailing fashion, or when indeed in any act he fails to conform to the styles or ceremonies adopted by society, he is made to feel the displeasure, shown perhaps in ridicule, perhaps in open criticism, of the guardians of social conventions. In the last resort he may even be made a social outcast. Extreme isolation usually suffices to bring about conformity again. More frequently, however, isolation is partial and serves merely to drive the offender into another group less discriminating in its tastes. Although the force of public opinion may often be used in a harmful or even brutal manner, it is on the whole an indispensable social force. Any harm resulting from its use may be traceable not to the weapon itself but rather to the fact that society often fails to distinguish the important from the unimportant in social conventions.

Voluntary integration. In considering integrations brought about by voluntary action, we turn from the point of view of society to that of the individual. Coercion is exercised by society on the individual, or by the strong on the weak; but

choice is an attribute of the individual himself. Strictly speaking individual action is merely the obverse of social action, and the one does not exist without some form of the other. For example, even with society in its most compelling mood, the individual may still be said to act from choice even though that choice is made merely to escape certain punishment. On the other hand, when the individual appears to be most free to choose his course, it would be unwise to conclude that society was absolutely unconcerned and exercised no influence whatsoever. Ordinarily, nevertheless, the one force or the other predominates, so that integration may be said to be brought about either by the force of society or by the choice of the individual. As the - relative influence of society and of the individual is merely a matter of degree, instead of separating these modes of action into distinct groups, it is better to trace the varying degrees of influence of society from its most compelling acts through physical force to its milder manifestations in public opinion, and from there on to the point where social compulsion seems to disappear altogether leaving individual choice as the predominant factor.

Individual choice itself is of two kinds. In many cases the individual chooses a particular course of action primarily from convenience without any standard of desirability in his mind. In other instances he has very distinctly in mind the superiority of a particular way of acting and decides accordingly. It may be said that a moral element is present in the second but not in the first class of choices, provided the word moral is not used in too restricted a sense. Conformity merely for convenience will be found to be prevalent if the ordinary acts of life are analyzed. We eat the prepared foods that are put upon the market; we submit to a color or a cut of garment which we are informed is the style; we eat our meals at the hours when others are eating theirs; in a public meeting we applaud when others applaud; in a church service we pray when others pray. To be sure not all these acts can be traced to the same motive. But if we stray too far from the prevailing fashion public opinion soon brings us into line again. Sometimes we appear to be acting from habit, though habit cannot explain the beginnings of an

action. And sometimes we perform an act from a definite motive, while others are doing the same thing without a definite motive. It is this general disposition towards imitation on the part of individuals that gives the final touch to social integration.

In contrast to this semi-blind conformity is that which comes through definite conviction of the desirability of an act. Certain individuals analyze their motives and act through reason much more than do others. This inclination will be considered again in the discussion of selection. It is sufficient to note here that integrations brought about through conviction are much stronger than those arising from imitation.

We have now traced the character of social integrations from those which are enforced contrary to the will of the individual, through those in which the individual is indifferent, to those in which the unity results from conscious desire on the part of the individual, three types of integration differing according to the difference in character of the unifying forces.

The Form of Integration Affects the Character of the Group. The three forms of social cohesion just mentioned represent progressive stages in the development of the group. In ordinary cases it is in the last stage that individual units exercise the most intelligence and enjoy the greatest freedom, with the result that integration is stronger and group action most efficient there. When a group is held together by force much of the energy of the leaders must be devoted to maintaining group unity and therefore less remains for group action. But when a group is held together by the natural cohesion of its units all energy may be used in group action. The difference between the two may be illustrated by the example of two armies, in one of which the soldiers are made to fight against their wills, while in the other the soldiers believe in the righteousness of their cause and willingly fight to uphold it. Another characteristic of the voluntary form of unity is that it is much better adapted to progress than the other forms. In groups where the unity is forced, the governing class permits no changes except those which increase the efficiency of group action without menace to its own position. Changes increasing

individual freedom cannot be permitted for fear the group will fall apart or so alter its nature that the leaders will suffer loss of power.

The second form of cohesion, characterized by increasing imitation, gains its efficiency from the comparative stability arising from customary conduct among group members. When changes do occur or when several possibilities of action present themselves, members are likely to follow their leaders from personal motives rather than from acts of judgment, and a change may not be in the direction of progress. Emotional excitement rather than the control of reason characterizes the rank and file in such a group.

In the third form of cohesion where individuals join a group or take part in an action because they are convinced of its desirability, they will leave the group or alter its nature only after they are convinced that another group or another mode of action is preferable. In this case the judgment of the rank and file is discriminating. Errors of judgment do occur to be sure; but mistakes are much less likely to be made, if individuals deliberate over the results of action than if they do not.

Variation. As integration stands for stability and order in society so variation indicates change and progress. Stability is essential to social action, while change, requiring new adaptations, involves loss of time and energy. The desirability of change is often over-estimated. A society which is continually changing is consuming its energy in new adaptations instead of in actual accomplishment. Moreover there is the additional danger that continuous change will cause a society to lose control of itself and enter a stage of anarchy. The situation of the group is similar to that of the individual who cannot actually accomplish his work so long as he is continually experimenting with new methods of doing it. While one method may be superior to another, some definite scheme must be adopted before the work can be done. Change is desirable only when the advantage of the new method more than compensates for the loss involved in the new adjustment. Furthermore integration requires more time in large societies than it does in small societies, hence with the former changes should follow one

another more slowly. Most societies, however, offer so many possibilities for improvement that a moderate amount of variation is usually desirable. Between the forces of integration and of variation, the danger is not ordinarily that change will be too rapid, but that integration will prove so strong as to blot out variation altogether with stagnation as the result.

Absolute and Relative Variations. Variations are either absolute or relative. Occasionally an idea arises which is entirely new to all societies, and which may therefore be called an absolute variation. More frequently one society or group merely borrows from another. In such a case, as the idea is new to the borrowing group, the effect is similar to that of an absolute variation; yet, as the idea is not new to all societies, it may properly be called a relative variation.

Absolute variations are often more easily adopted than relative ones. If, for instance, an invention arises as a natural product of conditions within a group, it may be introduced there with the minimum of friction. But when an idea is borrowed from another group usually little allowance is made for differences in the conditions within the two groups, and it may be a long time before the new idea is thoroughly adjusted to the new environment.

Conditions Favoring Variations. Variations flourish best when the forces of integration are already somewhat relaxed; and, as has already been pointed out, integration is likely to be less intense in a large group than in a small one. Variations therefore are more likely to occur in a large society where the environment is varied than in a small society where the environment is uniform. In the production of variations, however, a still more important factor is the free social intercourse resulting from density of population or from good means of communication, which brings together ideas and stimulates thought. Association of ideas leads to discussion; and discussion first produces toleration, that is, it introduces the idea that old methods are not the only ones and may not even be the best ones; and, secondly, discussion itself tends to produce more and more ideas. When a variation does occur, other variations are likely to follow and with gathering momentum, for new ideas are the best stimuli to other new ideas.