Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 8.djvu/41

 NUMBER AS DETERMINING FORM OF GROUP 2g

closeness of the relations between the elements. The three cir- cumstances namely, the relationships of the host to each of the guests for himself, that of the guests to each other, the manner in which each participant subjectively reacts with all these relation- ships these constitute the basis upon which now the number of participants determines whether a " society," or a mere exist- ence together of a friendly or of a materially utilitarian sort, is present. In this case, consequently, a numerical modification always produces a very surely perceived transformation into a quite special sociological category, however imperfectly the degree of this modification may be determined by our available psychological means. At least, however, the qualitatively socio- logical consequences of the quantitative occasions are in a certain measure describable.

In the first place, the "society" demands a quite specific external apparatus. If one invites from a circle of acquaint- ances of, say, thirty persons only one or two, he need "put himself to no trouble." If, however, he invites the whole thirty at once, there at once emerge quite new requirements in respect to food, drink, toilet, forms of behavior, and extraordinarily enhanced expenditure on the side of the sensibly stimulating and enjoyable. This is a very clear example of how consider- ably the mere mass-construction depresses the level of the personality. In a meeting of a very few, such a reciprocal adaptation is possible. The things in common, which constitute the content of their sociability, may include so comprehensive or so eminent portions of their individuality that the meeting bears the character of intellectuality, of differentiated and highly developed psychic energy. The greater the number of persons who come together, however, the smaller will be the probability that they can coincide in those more worthy and intimate sides of their nature, and, accordingly, the point must be sought lower down which is common to their impulses and interests. 1 In the

1 Complaint about banality in the intercourse of general society betrays, conse- quently, complete sociological unintelligence. The relative depression of the level upon which a company of large numbers actually finds itself is, in principle, unavoid- able. For all higher and finer cultures are of an individual sort, and consequently do not adapt themselves to the contents of the general mind. They may, to be sure,