676 I HE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
tive existence, in contrast perhaps with a modern state. When a political party which unites many sorts of interests finds itself forced into a very definite and one-sided antagonism, this becomes at once an opportunity for secession. At such moments the only alternatives are, either to forget the inner antitheses, or by exclusion of certain members to bring the interests involved to sharper expression. If a family contain individuals of strong but latent dissimilarity, the moment in which a danger or an attack demands of it the most possible coherence will be pre- cisely the moment which assures its unity for a long time or which destroys it forever. Such a crisis will decide with precision how far a co-operation of such personalities is possible. If a school class has on hand a trick on the teacher or a fight with another class, this usually, to be sure, brings, on the one side, all sorts of enmities to silence; on the other side, however, it stimulates certain pupils to separate themselves from the rest, not merely from motives material to the question, but because they are not willing to be led by the same string with this or that other pupil with whom, in other respects, they co-operate without further thought in the class structure, but with whom they are unwilling to be drawn into closer union for such decided attacks. In short, the state of peace within the group permits antagonistic elements to live side by side in a somewhat unde- cided situation, because each may go his own way and may avoid collisions. The state of conflict, however, draws the elements so closely together, and subjects them to such a unified impulse, that they either tolerate each other with perfect reciprocity, or they must completely repel each other. On this account foreign war, in the case of a state split by internal antitheses, is often the ultimate means of overcoming the same. It also happens that the foreign war may, however, give occasion for fatal develop- ments of these antipathies.
Hence groups which find themselves in any sort of war are not tolerant. They cannot endure individual departures from the unity of the correlating principle beyond a certain definitely limited latitude. The technique for this purpose is sometimes an apparent tolerance, exercised, however, in order the more surely
