Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/533

 THE SOCIOLOGY OF CON FLIC T 515

tion of pain within the organism. For precisely the energetic consciousness with which the dissonance makes itself felt, where there is otherwise thorough harmony of the relationships, pre- scribes at the same time removal of the ground of difference, so that it may not half-unconsciously eat farther and farther, even to the foundation of the relationship. In case, however, this fundamental intention of holding together under all circum- stances is lacking, that consciousness of antagonism which is otherwise made precise and pointed by similarity in other respects will sharpen the antagonism. People who have much in common often do each other worse and more unjust wrong than total strangers ; in many cases because the large common territory between them has become matter of course, and conse- quently not this common factor, but that which is momentarily different, defines their reciprocal attitude ; principally, however, simply because but very little is different between them, so that every most petty antagonism has a quite different relative signifi- cance from that between strangers who, of course, calculate upon all sorts of differences. Hence come the family quarrels over the most pitiful trifles. Hence the tragedy of the trifles, over which people who are in full agreement sometimes come to disruption. This by no means always proves that the harmoniz- ing forces were already in decay. It can arise from such a degree of likeness of qualities, inclinations, and convictions that incom- patibility at a quite insignificant point makes itself perceptibly intolerable on account of the very refinement of the antithesis. The foregoing may be further expressed in this way. With reference to the stranger with whom one shares neither qualities nor other interests, one stands in objective contrast, and one reserves the proper personality. On that account a difference in a single particular does not so easily carry the whole person with it. In the case of a person quite unlike ourselves, we come into contact only at the point of a single transaction or coincidence of interests. The accommodation of a conflict will consequently limit itself to this single issue. The more we have, however, as total personalities in common with another, the easier will our whole personality become involved in each separate contact with