Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 2.djvu/829

 COLLECTIVE TELESIS 813

postulate a different nature for the democratic legislator from that of the autocratic ruler. However self-seeking the former may be, social service turns his egoism to the good of society. It is an example of the truth that what are called bad motives are only relatively so, and that the social forces only need to be directed to render them all good. For in seeking his own interests the representative of the people must obey their will. The will of the people must be good, at least for them. Con- stituencies have the same nature as representatives or kings, but whatever they will must be right from their standpoint. The good consists in the satisfaction of desire, and this can only become bad when it is secured at the expense of others. But where a constituency is in question this is not possible except in very sectional questions which cannot be discussed here. A fortiori must obedience to the will of a whole people be right, and therefore the representative of the people, whatever may be his personal character, is constrained by his office to do only what is right. If he fails another is put in his place. It is thus that it comes about that representative governments are essen- tially benevolent, i. e., they always wish well for the people, or, as the more common phrase expresses it, they mean well. And anyone not prejudiced against government must see that, what- ever their faults of the head, they are right at heart.

Democracy has therefore been a great step forward, and has practically solved the moral side of the question of government. Reform in the future must come from the mind side, and surely there is great need of it. How can it be brought about ? This is the problem of sociology. I have wrestled with it for many years, not in the hope of doing anything in this direct inn myself, but with the object of discovering, if possible, a tlu-n- rctical solution to propose to the world for its consideration. The result of my reflections on this subject is given in the second volume of Dynamic Sociology, and although I have not ceased to revolve these matters in my mind during the fourteen years that have elapsed since tin- first edition of that work appeared, I cannot say that my conclusions have undergone any