attempt is made to secure uniformity of belief. To secure these results man has resorted not only to the teaching of the young by precept and example but has everywhere used ridicule, threat, or punishment, even to the extent of taking of life or expulsion from the group, the two being practically synonymous in earlier social stages. The efficacy of the means employed or the degree of success obtained need not be considered. For argument's sake we may assume that an isolated group like the Eskimos, in a relatively fixed environment, might work out a happy solution and conduct their life for ages with few changes and few new problems. Sooner or later, even for the Eskimo, comes the contact with another group of different culture and a conflict of custom arises. Are the old group standards to be applied to the members of the strange tribe? Early man thought not. Not infrequently race differences are present and the struggle becomes more acute. History teems with illustrations of various solutions from the extinction of the weaker group, or the absorption of one by the other, to some final form of toleration. Even to-day we are witnessing the tardy evolution of world standards now that all groups are more or less in contact. Similar problems often arise where a large area is under the control of a single government, whether race complications are or are not involved. Differences in local conditions are so great in America that serious friction is bound to arise even though in general a single code of morality be accepted. Even in a given smaller area group interests may be very divergent, as in a modern city. Every man speaks with some background of interests. The one hundred per cent American is a creation of our imagination. No man knows or represents the social whole when the whole includes hundreds of millions. The Congressman who forgets the situation of his local constituents is soon forgotten himself. If this crude sketch be roughly correct we may seek to analyze social institutions a bit more in detail. It is indicative of the present status of "social science" that no scheme of analysis is generally adopted nor is there one wholly satisfactory to its maker. In part this arises from the difficulty of giving exact values to common terms. The attempt to escape from this difficulty involves the use of an artificial terminology which few will master or accept. Much more serious is the fact that our present information is too meager to justify complete analysis. All that can be sought is to mention some of the things which seem to be fundamental. Roughly stated it appears that society must try to standardize man's relations in at least four matters: (1) The use of the physical environment. (2) The use of wealth. (3) The relations of man to man. man to the gods. (4) The relations of Evidently no one statement could cover all historical or present groups. Every group has had some standards with reference to the use or ownership of land and its products, water rights, hunting rights, mineral rights, etc. So, too, each group makes its own decisions as to the use, ownership, inheritance of wealth, whether one has in mind the simple tools and clothing of the savage or the complicated forms of modern wealth. The relations of the sexes, of children and adults, of natives and foreigners adequately illustrate the third group. The whole gamut of practices from the lower realm of magic used to secure personal benefit or to harm an enemy, to the highest ethical teachings of self-sacrifice for the welfare of others, the emphasis on certain things as leading to heaven or hell indicate the range of the fourth group. Classes of Social Institutions The situation may be stated in another way. There appear to be four major interests in the life of man, universal and permanent. To meet these interests there are four groups of institutions found among all peoples and everywhere considered important. These are: Interests 1. Self-preservation.... Primary Institutions .Domestic institutions .Religious institutions In as much as such an analysis is intended to be suggestive rather than complete there is little occasion to attack or defend it. It calls, however, for a bit of explanation. To begin with, we must remember that we think of our life as a unity. It is not sharply separated into departments. When we draw such distinctions we do so for the sake of clearness of discussion. The interests named appear to fall into two distinct groups. The first three deal with man's relations to the outer world whose phenomena are matters of observation. The fourth is the result of introspection. The critic may object to its inclusion. The term soul-preservation may be unsatisfactory. Yet I know of no better term to convey the idea of personal integrity, the faith in immortality of personality, which every one must admit as having played a rôle in history. No one can deny that religious institutions have been, and are, very powerful. They cannot be ignored even if they are hard to classify. The student knows full well that these great institutions did not arise overnight, nor have they been kept separate and distinct, whether one considers any given group over a long period of time, or compares their rôles in different groups. Doubtless they arose together. They overlap in endless fashion. All are found in every social group and there seem to be no others to be compared to them in importance. Now one is emphasized or made almost dominant, now another. Some one may suggest that educational institutions are important. Granted. Only in well-advanced societies have these developed save as functions of one of the others. A complete table would require many subheads, such as judicial, medical, or charitable institutions, whose present value is beyond question. We have to deal, then, with those comprehensive, fundamental institutions which I have called primary, and also with their later offspring, the secondary institutions, such as educational, which appear as society develops and functions are subdivided for administrative purposes. Secondary, therefore, does not mean unimportant. By contrast consider the crowd which collects about a street fight to cheer the winner, or the enthusiastic volunteers who rush to the fire and act as if bent on seeing how much they may add to the destruction of property. The incident over, they disperse and the matter is closed unless some wealthy eccentric creates an endowment, or the hope of pensions leads to organization. Temporary needs do not give rise to institutions save in such rare cases as the Red Cross. There the need is really permanent but its geographical location fluctuates. An emergency may reveal permanent need beyond local resources. Permanent organizations based on temporary needs or chance associations usually become sources of mischief. Institutions as Agencies of Social Control a All these institutions either exercise power over the individual to secure the desired uniformity of conduct or delegate this power to some other, usually to the state. The source of this power and the justification for its use have given rise to endless discussions and many theories. group is ever particularly worried over its own exercise of power but is often enraged when some other group ventures to deal with one of the members of the first. For our pur No poses it is sufficient to say that every child is born into some group and is brought up in accordance with its standards. The group forbids some things, permits others. These last become the rights of the individual and he likes to think of them as natural or God-given. Such is not their origin. My physical or mental powers are not given me by the group but my exercise of them is not left to my decision. I am accepted as a member in good standing so long as I obey its laws. If I refuse obedience and defy the laws I am liable to punishment. Civilized man can shift from one group to another more easily, perhaps, than could primitive man, but an isolated career is about as impossible for one as for the other. Since the individual cannot in real life follow the example of Robinson Crusoe it follows that he must abide by the decisions of some group, in appearance at least. Usually he does not debate this fact, nor study its causes. He finds it easier to conform than to protest. He observes a certain advantage to himself in social regulations as, for instance, in knowing on which side an approaching car will pass. He grumbles at the laws and is sure he could devise better ones, but he obeys, save where there is a clash of group morality. If a bachelor he may protest being taxed to maintain schools but if he studies the situation he finds that he gets indirect benefits. The net result is that unthinking loyalty to group standards is generally characteristic of mankind. In as much as the group realizes that some matters are important and others trifling it draws a vague line between good manners and good morals. A man ought to know whether to drink coffee from the cup or the saucer; whether to use the knife or the fork in conveying pie to the mouth. Yet, no one considers him as anything but untrained and unrefined if he violates these conventions. Naturally the conventions vary from group to group. Barring the defectives and the insane, criminals generally |