Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 5.djvu/505

 THE RA CE-PRESER VA TION DOGMA 48^

different from its constituent individual members ; whence arises our habit of dwelling at great length, and with much satisfaction, on the frequent antagonisms between the welfare of the indi- vidual and the welfare of the race, without pausing to reflect why one group of individuals should be called the race rather than another, or why the preservation of one group should be more "justifiable" than the preservation of another group ; or whether, when both groups are threatened in their very existence, there can really be any antagonism between their interests, in so far as their interests relate to the bare fact of the preservation of the groups in question.

Instead of constantly speaking, as we do, of the antagonism between "the race" and "the individual," it would be more proper to describe all cases of conflict as occurring between the interests of one or more individuals and the interests of the other individuals, it being obvious that neither side can be taken as the exclusive representative of the race at large. Nor is there, that I can see, any "ethical justification," founded on the " hypothetical postulate" (that the preservation of the race is 2. desideratum) , for sacrificing the interests of one group to those of the other ; for, whichever of the two may be destroyed, if this destruction does not involve the destruction of the other, the latter will remain as the race, and therefore the race will be preserved ; while, if the destruction of one of the contending groups implies the destruction of the other, the case is evidently not one of con- flict of interests, but, on the contrary, one of identity of inter- ests ; so that, on this supposition, it cannot be said that one group is sacrificed for the benefit of the other, but succumbs in the pursuance of its own interests. And where the more powerful portion of the race compels the other portion to sacrifice its interests without the interests of the weaker portion being other- wise threatened, the case is barely one of force and wholesale selfishness ; and, whether the action be " ethically justifiable " or not, the justification can certainly not rest on the race-preser- vation postulate.

As a matter of fact, the much-spoken-of " rights of the com- munity " are, when all rhetorical adornments have been trimmed