rches are drawing together with mutual tolerance to
present a united front against modern skepticism and cynicism which are
directed against the older faiths and moralities.

The subjective side of group rivalry offers an important study. The
reflection of the process of control in personal consciousness is full
of interest. The means by which the rebellious variant protects himself
against the coercion of his comrades have been already suggested in the
description of ridicule and epithet. These protective methods resolve
themselves into setting one group against another in the mind of the
derided or stigmatized individual.

A national group is to be thought of as an inclusive unity with a
fundamental character, upon the basis of which a multitude of groups
compete with and rival each other. It is the task of the nation to
control and to utilize this group struggle, to keep it on as high a
plane as possible, to turn it to the common account. Government gets its
chief meaning from the rivalry of groups to grasp political power in
their own interests. Aristocracy and democracy may be interpreted in
terms of group antagonism, the specialized few versus the
undifferentiated many. The ideal merges the two elements of efficiency
and solidarity in one larger group within which mutual confidence and
emulation take the place of conflict. Just as persons must be
disciplined into serving their groups, groups must be subordinated to
the welfare of the nation. It is in conflict or competition with other
nations that a country becomes a vivid unity to the members of
constituent groups. It is rivalry which brings out the sense of team
work, the social consciousness.

3. Cultural Conflicts and the Organization of Sects[214]

It is assumed, I suppose, that contradictions among ideas and beliefs
are of various degrees and of various modes besides that specific one
which we call logical incompatibility. A perception, for example, may be
pictorially inconsistent or tonically discordant with another
perception; a mere faith unsupported by objective evidence may be
emotionally antagonistic to another mere faith, as truly as a judgment
may be logically irreconcilable with another judgment. And this wide
possibility of contradiction is particularly to be recognized when the
differing ideas or beliefs have arisen not within the same individual
mind but in different minds, and are therefore colored by personal or
partisan interest and warp