14
that we are inclined to forget that there is an instinct at all, apt to forget not how low down but how deep down it lies. This instinct, it has been well observed, tends "in mankind to lend the immense energy of its impulse to sentiments and complex impulses into which it enters while its specific character remains submerged and unconscious."[1] This is not the case with hunger, nor yet, save to some slight degree, with fear. But, if it is important that we should not lose sight of the basal instinct, it is still more important that we clearly recognise the complexity of the emotional system into which that basal instinct enters, because therein lies the complexity of the problem of relating the individual to the herd. So long as the need is simple and instinctive, its inherent egotism is not seriously anti-social; but when the simple instinct of sex develops into the complex sentiment of love, the impulse and its attendant egotism is, if less violent, far more extensive and all-pervading, far more difficult to content and balance. Desire is a ruthless tyrant, but simple-hearted; love the most exacting of taskmasters.
This egotism, this exclusiveness in sex-emotion, is most easily observed in its acuter phases, and in these analytic days is noted by patient as well as spectator. Take the letters of the newly-engaged. Old style (frankly self-centred and self-projective): "We feel that all the world is the richer for our new-found joy." New style (introspective, altruistic): "We shall try not to be more selfish than we can help." The practical
- ↑ See W. McDougall, Social Psychology, p. 82.
