Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/699

 THE SOCIOLOGY OF CONFLICT 675

the opponent is in the foregoing cases far outweighed by the fact that under such constitution of both parties the struggle itself may be one that is concentrated, entirely within the field of vision, and capable of being brought to a conclusion that can assure a permanent and general peace. On the other hand, when one opposes a diffused crowd of enemies, one may oftener gain isolated victories, but it is very hard to arrive at decisive results which definitely fix the relationships of the contestants. This case is so profoundly instructive with reference to the fundamental interdependence between the unitary form and the aggressive action of the group, because it exhibits the utility of this interdependence, to the extent that it triumphs even over the immediate disadvantage in opposing a given enemy. The case exhibits that centripetalism as the objectively ideal form of aggressive constitution which in the surest and shortest way brings the essential issues of struggle face to face. This tele- ology extends alike over the parties and allows each individual party, finally, to find its advantage in it. It realizes the apparent paradox of enabling each opponent to see the advantage of his enemy as his own advantage.

For the sociological significance of the formation there is an essential difference whether the group as a whole enters into an antagonistic relationship to an external group, and, as a conse- quence, that concentration of its parts and increase of its unity of which we have been speaking occurs in consciousness and in action ; or whether each element of a numerous body has an enemy for itself, and because this enemy is the same for all, a coalition of all ensues on that account whether the individuals had previously been entirely independent of each other, or whether now at least new formations come into existence between them. The first case demands this further specification, that the quarrel or war of a group, on the one hand, may disregard many sorts of incidental discrepancies and individual enmities, and, on the other hand, may bring the relationships within the group very frequently to a clearness and definiteness otherwise never to be reached. This will be especially observed in groups of moderate size, and those which may not yet have attained objec-