Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 6.djvu/43

 moment a hill is lifted above the plain the agents of erosion begin to wear it down. The moment a finer type of animal is bred it is liable to be swamped by crossing with scrubs. So the moment there is reared above the common feelings about conduct—the folk ethos—a set of ideals and standards good for the group—the social ethos—this superior set is subject to strains tending to lower it. It would be natural to expect the folk ethos and the social ethos to modify each other until they are assimilated ; and in this case, of course, the folk ethos would yield the less because it is rooted in the instincts of the race. Now, as a matter of fact, the social ethos worked out by superior men or classes does not always sag and decline. For centuries it may keep its high plane, drawing the people up to it rather than sinking down toward them. Here, then, is a problem. If the social ethos steadily exalts righteousness while the individual values power, if it continues peace-loving while the heart of the folk is warlike, if it stays austere while the common man is sensual, there must be forces that hold up the higher elements stiffly against the influence that would debase them, forces, in short, that oppose natural gravity. What are these forces? In other words, how are ethical elements maintained in their pristine strength and purity?

For one thing ethical gains are safe once they have been fixed in the heart of folk-tradition. A sacred book, for instance, is a wonderful vehicle for transmitting without loss perishable spiritual products. While Mahomet was yet alive an important city like Taif could offer to become Moslem if he would modify his commands against usury, adultery, and wine. But at his death the canon of the Koran was closed. All this gristle became bone, and there was no longer any danger of lowering the standards of Islam. The Bible is another conserver. However the ideals of the prophets and of Jesus may be alloyed