Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 8.djvu/367

 THE SOCIAL WILL 351

sible in his life, society as a whole must feel responsible for what- ever transpires in any of its members. All are thus at bottom good and bad together, or master and slave, civilized and unciv- ilized, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, perhaps even alive and dead. All, whatever lines of difference may be drawn, are responsible parties to a single social life. If the paradox is still unintelligible, reflect further that, whatever may be true else- where, in society the differences that make rival social classes are always in the parts or phases of the individual as well as in the classes themselves, that the spirit, if not the letter, of Plato's famous analogy still holds. A religious class, for example, means a religious part, a thinking class a thinking part, a crimi- nal class a criminal part, and so on ; and the conflicts in society, accordingly, are never merely of class against class or of indi- vidual against his fellows, but always also, at least with as much truth, of each class with itself or of the individual with himself or of society as a whole with itself. But, if the conflict of society can be described indifferently in these several ways, the will of society, and particularly the location of the will of society, must be quite independent of the distinction between individual and society or between class and class. The will of society must dwell at once in the life of each part and in the life of the whole. The will of society is very far indeed from being a god that comes down from the mountains or the clouds and takes sides.

Throughout the recent discussion of the importance of divi- sion and consequent self-opposition in the social will, in this will as having both unity and indwelling character, 1 the most trouble- some point has probably been the principle of participation through resistance, the direct consideration of which, it will be remembered, was postponed. Incidentally some light upon the meaning of this principle has been cast already, but more may be said with advantage. The principle is troublesome, not because it will not have some meaning to everybody, for all are quite familiar with the idea that resistance is a positive condi-

1 " Indwelling character " that is, of course, with reference to the will being one with the life of society, not in any way or degree external to it.