Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/712

 688 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

wise antagonistic. Where these elements, however, have no one above them who brings them into unity, but possess relative sov- ereignty, they will easily fall apart if no common sense of danger forces them together a danger which evidently is not pre- sented as a struggle already in existence, but as a permanent threat of such a struggle which exerts a constant menace.

While it is more a question of degree, the principle of con- nection between the coherence of the collectivity and hostility calls for the following addition: Aggressive enterprises tend much more than peaceful ones to draw into co-operation, from their very beginnings, the largest possible number of elements which are otherwise unrelated, and which would not of them- selves have begun the undertaking. In the case of peaceful actions, it is the rule, on the whole, to be confined to those who in other respects are somewhat nearly associated. But for "allies," to which notion verbal usage has already imparted a martial coloring, one selects often enough elements with which one has scarcely anything in common, nor even wishes to have. Reasons for this fact are, in the first place, that war, and not merely the political type, frequently represents a case of desperation in which in selecting reinforcements one may not be finical. In the second place, the situation in question is likely to occur if the object of the action lies outside of the territory or other immediate interest-sphere of the allies, so that they may return after the end of the struggle to their former distance. In the third place, the gain to be made by struggle, although a preca- rious one, nevertheless under favorable circumstances is likely to be especially rapid and intensive, and consequently exercises upon certain natures a formal attraction which it is possible for peace- ful enterprises to exert only through their content. In the fourth place, the struggle causes the essentially personal in the parties in conflict to take a position of relative insignificance, and thereby permits the unification of elements that are other- wise heterogeneous. There comes finally, in addition, the motive that hostilities are easily aroused on both sides. Even within one and the same group, if it maintains a feud with another, all sorts of hidden or half-forgotten enmities of the individual