group only to find it bursting forth, with all the fury of pent-up power, in conflict between economically antagonistic groups? Conversely, the presence of impending conflict between groups or classes or races is often the motiveforce compelling people to unify. Germany accomplishes something like national unity, only to fall with crushing force upon France. The inevitable conflict with Russia for control of land upon which to place an expanding population gives a great impetus to the growth of Japanese unity. Laborers no sooner combine to restrict individual competition than employers do the same, and a new mode of warfare is the result. The greater the commercial unity of one country-the more efficient its industrial organization—the keener its conflict with other countries for the markets of the world, a form of competition that did not before exist in any intensity. Even the family, while limiting conflict on one side, tends to intensify it on the other. Within the family sympathy overrules selfishness, but the man with a family will be a harder competitor, whether a bricklayer or a stock speculator, than his unmarried brother. Sympathy, moreover, is playing something of an uphill game, considering the impersonal and corporate organization of modern industry. Patriotism, also, which Professor Carver mentions as a restrictive influence, as it undoubtedly is in part, is of two kinds, and the one most often in evidence is of the "trade-follows-the-flag" brand. It is not a very strong ally of universal peace projects. National conflict, class conflict, race conflict-would any of these be so serious if they were not in large measure economic conflict in disguise?

I believe, then, that Professor Carver has demonstrated, as fully as possible within the time at his disposal, that the economic conflict "is about the most fundamental fact in sociology or morals." Glad as I should be to disagree with him, I find myself essentially in accord with his conclusions. At the same time the fact that "the economic problem is the fundamental one, out of which all other social and moral problems have grown," even should it be widely admitted a fact, does not, in my opinion, signify that economics has first claim to the position of master science among the social sciences. There is still need of a specific economic science and of a "sociology"-the latter to give more due attention to the economic motive and the economic conflict than it has as yet given.

PROFESSOR E. A. Ross, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

Professor Carver has explained with faultless logic the origin of the economic factor in social conflicts. But I think he puts the part for the whole. Economic scarcity is probably the principal cause of conflicts, but by no means the only one. He insists that moral evil grows out of non-moral evil, i. e., out of the disharmony between man and Nature. If this were so, how could so many quarrels arise in a leisure class lifted far above economic solicitude? Think of the countless duels between European cavaliers or

Japanese samurai on account of a word, a gesture, or a look construed as a slight or an insult! Think of the brawls between gentlemen in the streets of mediaeval Italian cities-Montagues against Capulets, etc. In fact it seems as if the swollen, interfering egos of haughty nobles provoke more conflict than the conflicting economic wants of the needy commoners.

Besides egotic conflict there is conflict arising from sex scarcity. Was the Kadi a fool whose first remark was-whenever two brawlers were brought before him-"Find the woman"? Have not most of the schemes, rivalries, stratagems, treacheries, and duels of those lifted above economic worry related to women? The multiplication and refinement of economic wants is well-nigh paralleled by the multiplication and refinement of genesic wants. Professor Carver says that a society in an environment sufficiently bountiful to supply all their desires for goods would be a paradise. Would it? Suppose there were not enough comely women to go around? How about the rivalries of suitors?

He traces the institution of the family to "the antagonism of interest which grows out of scarcity." Surely the giving to the man a permanent legal hold upon a woman, analogous to the property right, originates in that jealousy which prompts the male to want to keep the female all to himself. Unhampered, the economic factor tends to polygamy-the appropriation of numerous women by the rich. The establishing of obligatory monogamy is a limitation upon the economic factor, and marks the triumph of the sex cravings of the many over the monopoly power of the few.

Along with the economic exploitation of the weak by the strong has often gone sex exploitation. "Booty and Beauty" have been the two spurs pricking the young men of the tribe to the warrior life. Sometimes the beaten people binds itself to deliver every year to the conquerors not only a tribute of produce, but also a tribute of maidens. Recall the feudal lords' jus primae noctis and the fact that in certain Malay states the sultan not only exacts his dues of taxes, but requires every maiden to pass through his harem.

Again there is a scarcity of glory as well as a scarcity of goods. "Gold and glory" are often held out as inducements to wage warfare. Many a tribe, ruling class, or dynasty has attacked its neighbor just to wreak its lust for domination, or to make the world resound with the fame of its prowess. There is also the religious motive to conflict, the desire to procure women to dedicate to the national god, captives to sacrifice, or proselytes to swell the number of his worshipers.

I think I perceive beside the interference of interests another great cause of conflict, viz., consciousness of difference. Does anyone suppose that the pressure of the Chinese upon the California labor market in 1879 would have sufficed to create an opposition resulting in Chinese exclusion had there not been in these immigrants certain striking physical and cultural differences for the agitation to seize upon? The most determined attempts have been made to interpret religious schisms and religious wars in economic terms; and they

have failed. Political scientists, in setting forth the conditions under which a stable political society can be formed by a people, take care to postulate not only a certain agreement of interests, but a certain community in blood, language, religion, culture, etc. Is this not a recognition of the principle that heterogeneity is one root of conflict? Professor Carver's theory would oblige us to discard the contribution that Gumplowicz and Ratzenhofer have made to sociology. For they both assume that the process of reciprocal accommodation and increasing resemblance between the conquerors and the conquered socializes them with respect to one another and removes at last the roots of their original antagonism.

I am willing to grant the all-pervasiveness of economic interest, and to put economics as the first in importance of the social sciences. But economics is not the master science, because the motives it considers can by no means explain all the phenomena. The only master science for social phenomena is sociology.

PROFESSOR EDWARD C. HAYES, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

It was said, in the opening paper, that the other forms of struggle grow out of economic struggle. It would be quite as true to say that what passes for economic struggle frequently grows out of egotic, or some other noneconomic motive.

Grant that the sociologist of insight will detect an economic motive as the spring of much of the political struggle, and other ostensibly non-economic conflict. It must equally be seen that ostensibly economic struggle is largely an expression of desires other than the physical wants calling for material things. Why is it that the great mass of those men who already have an income that is adequate to their comfort continue in business? Why is it that the great magnates of trade and commerce are still in the race? Because it is a race. Not bread and butter, but victory, success, sense of achievement, and a socially triumphant self, are the prizes sought. It is the desire for such prizes, and the Thaetigkeitstrieb, the urge to "wreak one's self," more than the needs of the body for material things, that keep men turning the wheels of industry on the greatest scale.

Another point: The third form of conflict mentioned in the paper was the conflict between different desires that arise within the individual breast. Even this he would have arise from the desire for, and the scarcity of, material things. I do not trust even Professor Carver's logic to make that convincing. The struggles within us are not expressions of one kind of motive. It is the variety of our motives that gives to life its interest and value, and its difficulty. Because of it we have been credited with original sin, with natural depravity. Now we do not deserve that bad reputation. Life is so complicated a proposition that one of the motives is likely to have its way at the sacrifice of the other values that are at stake, and so we make

a mess of life-not because our natural motives are bad, but because they are diverse; and it is the very richness and worth of our endowment that occasions the great moral difficulty.

This is true, not for individuals only, but for societies also. Appraisal of things is only one of the forms of social valuation. The most important differences between societies are in the valuations that prevail in them and the corresponding motives and ambitions that prompt the activities of their members. The most fundamental social progress is progress toward the prevalence of a rational balance of social valuations and of motives due to social suggestion and control. The greatest social problem grows out of the diversity of motives and is incomprehensible when any single kind of motive is taken as the sole clew.

MRS. C. P. S. GILMAN, NEW YORK CITY

I would like to make one or two points as to the pressure of economic interest.

If conflict is due to the lack of economic goods, would it not be in proportion to that lack? In those parts of the world where life is most difficult, as in Iceland, would not the struggle be keenest? But do we find that so? Again, if scarcity of goods causes conflict of interests between individuals, would not conflict be in proportion to numbers? But do we find the most crowded nations, like China, most combative? Then, have we not the economic fact that individual interests are best subserved by equitable distribution and that we should profit more by peaceable co-operation? If this is true, does it not show some other factor bringing on conflict when we should be better off without it?

We should recognize two things: The first is the fact that we, on the one hand as individual animals and on the other hand as members of a social group, carry within ourselves the recognized ego interest and the equally recognized social interest; and there is conflict between them in every human soul. But there is still another thing: economic conditions have produced among various groups of animals (such as the well-worn examples of the bees and ants) perfectly peaceable communal organization. But these structures are distinctly of a gynecocentric nature, while the human race has been androcentric. In both sexes egotic motives are found, though in the male preponderantly. It is the turkey cock who struts as well as fights. Combat is an essentially male sex-instinct.

PROFESSOR FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGS, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

I do not care to enter into a discussion, in any proper sense of the term. Let me merely call attention to one or two facts that have an important bearing on our problem.

Whether conflicts all grow out of economic conditions or not, depends upon the construction that we give to the word "economic." According to

accepted definitions of "economy," the economic adjustment is not the fundamental or the primary one for any organism. The first life necessity of the organism is not to take in food-it can wait a few minutes for that; it is to resist or to withstand certain environmental influences. There is a limit to the light, to the electrical tension, to the heat, to the mechanical pressure, that can be endured. Adjustment of the organism to these things is the beginning of psychological, as it is the maintaining of physical, life. It is an adjustment to degrees, to shadings, to congruities, to harmonies, and to admit this is to acknowledge that the primary adjustments are aesthetic, rather than economic. We shall one day base our economics upon aesthetic premises, as we are attempting today to base other social sciences on economics.

PROFESSOR E. H. VICKERS, TOKIO, JAPAN

It seems bold to question such a carefully reasoned paper without having an opportunity to have thought it over, but a protest against the general thesis brought out in this paper, it seems to me, should be made, because the fundamental conflicts are the ones which the writer has put in the third class. Professor Carver said the first and fundamental conflict was between man and nature; the second between man and man, and the third the conflict of interests in the individual. I would like to say that it is in this third group we find what is fundamental.

The egotic interests of which Professor Ross spoke are of two classes: (1) leading us to something better in social as well as individual life; and (2) leading us to something worse. We are on the wrong track, we are after the wrong thing, when men continue to struggle for an abundance of the scarce goods. If the Orient has had a lesson for us, it is in impressing us with the fact that we have got to be satisfied by limitation. We must put a limitation upon our desires, and that is one way in which we come to true social and individual happiness. To illustrate what I mean: if a man is suffering from the disease of drink, is it best for him to have more drink? Is it right to concede that he should struggle for more drink? When we are putting our civilization upon a purely materialistic basis, we are fighting for more drink.

The basis of social conflict is therefore in this conflict of motives of the individual; which uplift or drag down the individual. We need to recognize that conflict as fundamental. When we are after the wrong thing we give a license to those motives which are leading us as individuals in the wrong way.

DR. EDWARD T. Devine, NeW YORK CITY

The chief objection that I have to the rejoinders thus far made is that they seem to leave the writer of the paper undisputed in the field of economics. I am, therefore, inclined to join issue distinctly upon economic grounds.