he goes to B and to C to compare notes; B and C do likewise; those reactions which the consensus of opinion establishes become validated and erected into facts of experience or knowledge. A's ideas without this social reference would have remained vague and inchoate, if indeed they remained at all. But by the very communicating of them — and he must communicate them 1 — they get clipped and pared down to a certain definiteness; their comparison with the ideas of others clears them up still more; if the social reference results in a verdict of approval, then they become collective, socially capitalized, funded in the common social experience. Social reference and approval once secured, the idea becomes fixed, consolidated, crystallized into a conviction. Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est vere catholicum, etc. This process of concept and language forming Professor Jerusalem calls eine soziale Verdichtung.2

Most of our life, bodily and mental, goes along according to this sheep-like process. To be sure, there is in every individual thought an element of originality, due to the universal tendency to mutation and variety: that is, every one is at the same time himself and Herr Omnes; he is an "absolutely singular and unrepeatable personality," and withal a bundle of wholesale borrowings and imitations, a "collective self-consciousness." The more of himself, the more he is a heretic and departs from the mere on dit or social-accord standard of truth and knowledge. If the dose of himself be extreme, we have the genius, the scientist, the seer, the perceiver of new verities, the announcer of new ideas, the prophet of new heavens and new earths. But

1 "The impulse to communicate is not so much a result of thought as it is an inseparable part of it. They are like root and branch, two phases of a common growth so that the death of one presently involves that of the other." Cooley, Human Nature, p. 56.

2 "Sociologie des Erkennens,” in Die Zukunft, 1909, pp. 236–46.

here again the inevitably social character of the knowledge process reappears; for social reference must intervene before the new ideas can be incorporated into the group intelligence to become new convictions. At this point enters the function of education and its opportunity for social control, control not only of sentiments and will, but also of the very stuff and fiber of intelligence as well. And this education will always bear in mind that the social self, character as a social product, does not mean absolute dead level of capacity, that monotonous égalitarianism which used to be the nightmare of thoroughgoing individualists. It merely demands a minimum of effective socializing and admits of unlimited variations in ability and aptitude.

But in addition to common knowledge its correlative, common activity, creates a society out of individuals. If men were purely static, self-sufficing, contemplative, fixed, each like a bronze Buddha upon his separate pedestal, then we might very well talk of absolute, discrete individuals. But men are by nature active, and for the fullest play of their activity require their fellows to act with and upon. And it is really out of this common activity that we get our socialized knowledge and sentiments. Hence group activity is the forge blast which fuses the unit selves or persons into the social whole; and conversely it is through this same group activity that the units find their selves and become real persons.

It is perfectly in order to assume, if anybody chooses to do so, that there is a Person-in-itself, akin to the metaphysical abstraction of the thing-in-itself. But neither the assumption nor such a hypothetical being could have any serious value. For, as we have sought to show over and again, the human person has become human and a self-conscious person only through identification with his fellows in human society and through activity with and

upon them. Not one of us knows himself as some eternal, colorless person-in-itself, but as a warm, living complex of our social fellows. "It is . . . the most remarkable outcome of modern social theory -the recognition of the fact that the individual's normal growth lands him in essential solidarity with his fellows, while on the other hand exercise of his social duties and privileges advances his highest and purest individuality."

1

Further, the group activity not only really confers personality upon the individual, but it also actually increases the individual's ability and output. It is frequently assumed that the output of a given group of, say, laborers or school children, is merely the sum of the unit, individual outputs, and that such a sinking of individuals into the mass even lowers the total capacity. But the contrary seems to be true. Dr. Mayer of Würzburg found that the boys of the fifth school year in the people's schools in Würzburg did superior work when in groups than when working as individuals. Another investigator after a careful test of school children in their home work as compared with school group work concluded that for most kinds of work the product in the classroom was superior. Mayer's study indicated that the tendency to distraction is diminished rather than increased by class work. The class acts as a sort of pace-maker; it also contributes certain affective or emotional stimuli. The imaginative stimulus of the group has too often been proved in both primitive and contemporary society to need further argument. Group work through its mental rapport or "class spirit"

1 Baldwin, The Individual and Society, 16; cf. Paul Natorp, Sozialpädagogik, p. 84: "Der einzelne Mensch ist eigentlich nur eine Abstraktion, gleich dem Atom des Physikers. Der Mensch, hinsichtlich alles dessen, was ihm zum Menschen macht, ist nicht erst als Einzelner da, um dann auch mit Andern in Gemeinschaft zu treten, sondern er ist ohne diese Gemeinschaft gar nicht Mensch."

E

develops superior concentration and yields not only a larger product but also a better work-spirit. Tests in the psychological laboratories confirm these conclusions. Ergograph and dynamometer experiments show uniformly that when the subject of the experiment is alone he works less, and more painfully, than when others are present. The evolution of industry adds striking testimony to the same fact. Karl Bücher's Arbeit und Rhythmus is full of illustrations of the disciplinary effects of rhythmic concerted action. An excellent example of Bücher's theory occurs in a recent description of Negro labor on the railways of the South. A southern railway official says that a leader must be provided for each gang of workers, and that he must be gifted with a good voice. He uses a chant which enables the men to work in unison. "Every pick rises and falls at the same instant in time with the rhythm of the song of the leader, and it is surprising to note the speed with which the work can be done by this means.' At Calavan and other places in the Philippine Islands the natives transplant rice to rhythmic tunes on a banjo; this device was introduced by the Spaniards to secure steady and sustained work from their untutored dependents. Such schemes are not by any means mere "speeding-up" devices; for, in addition to securing a larger product, they yield a by-product of pleasure in the process.

"1

We conclude, then, with Professor Burnham, that like the constant peripheral stimulation necessary to keep us awake, "a social stimulus is necessary as an internal condition, as we may say, of consciousness." 2 Perhaps we should add that this conclusion holds good in spite of the exaggerated criticism of the group stimulus and its formulation into the bogy of "mob-mind." M. LeBon has re

1 The Outlook, June 8, 1912, p. 318.

2 Science, May 20, 1910, p. 767.

cently reiterated his former pronouncements on this subject. by saying: "Democratic theories pretend that the isolated individual is nothing, but acquires all his capacities by participating in that entity called the 'people.' Psychology teaches, on the contrary, that the collective individual is mentally very inferior to the isolated man."1 But it is perfectly evident that, put in this unqualified way, psychology teaches no such thing. It is further apparent that for M. LeBon the group, the collectivity, society, association, always spells Mob. Sound thinking needs both society and solitude; society for stimulus and access to the common heritage of culture; solitude for digestion and elaboration.

But, some one objects, this is determinism. If society. furnishes the mold into which our very selves are cast, and furnishes moreover the materials to be poured into the molds, if social organization is essentially an integration of individual wills, what becomes of us, of our personal responsibility, our self-respect, our free will? Well, our sense of personal responsibility, our sense of self-respect, our sense of free will are created and developed in precisely the same way that we achieve a sense of our self in general. They come through activity with and upon our fellows, through experience, through imitation, through trial and error. But does this not destroy the moral order by putting a premium upon irresponsibility? Not in the least; for to have a stable society the idea of coöperation, of social service, of social responsibility, if they have not grown normally into the individual's sense of self must be incorporated into it through proper social discipline and treatment. Responsibility to some supra-mundane moral order is replaced by obligation to develop and maintain an efficient social "self."

1 Figaro, January 11, 1912.