Essentials of Social Psychology
Chapter 12: Group Conflicts
Emory S. Bogardus
Table of Contents | Next | Previous
1. The Nature and Function of Group Conflicts.
Conflicts between groups are vital group phenomena which arise from primitive struggles for existence. These struggles are motivated by the fighting instinct. Pugnaciousness in the individual when combined with pugnaciousness in other individuals assumes mass proportions, organized methods, and gigantic power. Families compete with families for social standing, business vies with business for trade, and nations war with nations for commercial advancement and territorial expansion.
Conflicts occur continually between the individual and his group. The small son defies both parents, the adolescent boy violates the rules of the team, the adult breaks the laws of society. An individual becomes a leader of a clientele and the conflict becomes one between a minority and the parent group. A new idea is expressed by some strong-minded individual, and immediately other individuals begin to allign themselves with or against the new propaganda. The leader and the adherents of the new program enter into conflict with the parent organization.
Conflicts between groups are sometimes primarily open and announced, as in the case of political parties in a national election. They are frequently conducted
(222) under cover and behind apparently friendly advances, e. g., rivalries between business houses. Even in open political campaigns, it is often difficult to learn the attitude of various influential organizations, because of secret alliances and agreements.
Certain conflicts are highly destructive; others are mutually advantageous. The conflict between a corporation and a competitive individual entrepreneur usually ends in the destruction or at least the absorption of the small business by the corporation. Two neighboring farmers, however, who are competing for honors in regard to corn yield per acre will both gain, as well as society. Two granges in productive competition may both reap advantages with no losses. Through conflict two universities may so inter-stimulate one another that students and faculties of both institutions and the public all profit.
Conflict between groups is an element of progress, unless the conflict becomes too unequal, unless it assumes the form of competitive consumption of goods, both economic and non-economic, or unless it fails to rise to high, open, and socialized levels. The strength of any one of these provisos is great; and of all of them together, tremendous. Society must guard itself against destruction by keeping intra-conflicts within productive bounds. Today the United States is in grave danger because capital and labor have clinched and are fighting, regardless of the public. If individual spectators are killed or adjacent property is destroyed, the fight goes on just the same. The nation must take a hand in the struggle and say
"This brutal fight shall be stopped, or we will all go
(223) to the dust together. Your conflict crust proceed only along the lines of productive competition."
Conflict between marked unequals results in the annihilation of the lesser unequal, and in no appreciable gain to the other. A strong football team that rushes through a weak line for fifteen touchdown: learns little football; the weak team learns no football. Neither gain and the public is cheated. The college professor who talks "over the heads" of his pupils receives no stimulations from his class, and neither do they from him. Both lose.
Competition in the consumption of socially valuable goods instead of competition in the production of human values, is socially disintegrating. Competition in the consumption of pleasure automobiles is wasteful and unpatriotic. Conflicts which involve deception, physical combat instead of open discussion, and a repudiation of social values lead to barbarism and savagery.
No conflict means no interstimulations and hence no group progress. Too much conflict creates so much excitement that progress is halted. Conflicts must serve socially constructive ends exclusively. Needless social friction and social destruction must be prevented. It is at this point that T. N. Carver's theory of social progress should be stated.[1] Professor Carver recognizes an evolution in the forms of conflict, but seems to assume that the group, and particularly the national group, is an end in itself. He starts with the elemental type of conflict, namely,
(224) destructive, and familiar to us as war, sabotage, robbery, and duelling. A higher form of competition is deception, which like the first type is characteristic of some animals, and which is common among human beings in forms of swindling, counterfeiting, adulterating, and mendacious advertising. A third, higher, and almost entirely human form of conflict is persuasion such as political (campaigning for office), erotic (courting), commercial (advertising and salesmanship), and legal (litigation). Then there is productive conflict, such as rivalry in producing goods and rivalry in rendering service. Competitive consumption is sharply distinguished from competitive production of economic goods.
Beyond these points, the analysis does not go. It needs to be developed further in its psychological phases. It emphasizes the biological bases of conflict; it stresses perhaps too much the survival of the fittest in the sense of the survival of the strongest; it deals little with conflicts between motives, moral standards, and societary values. It is difficult to see how a group whose highest activity is competitive production of economic goods can avoid the world-wide condemnation which fell upon Germany. There must be competitive production of harmonizing and co-operating activities. There must be a competitive production of moral and spiritual values. If not, then the production of economic values will exceed the production of ethical and socialized values and the nation will fall into materialism, decline, and decay.
As the economic struggle bulks large in Professor Carver's writings, so psychological conflicts are
(225) stressed by Gabriel Tarde. To Tarde there are three leading forms of conflict, or opposition, namely; political, economic, and social; or war, competition, and discussion. These terms in order are used to indicate a decreasing degree of destructive action and an ascending scale of constructive opposition. The first two classes, war and competition, are usually destructive-Tarde underrates the social value of competitive production of economic goods. The third class, discussion, is generally constructive-Tarde fails to indicate clearly the deception which sometimes underlies discussion and the wasteful character of much discussion.
Discussion is a mental duel. Further, it often causes mental torture, e. g., when a prosecuting attorney persecutes the defendant, or when a newspaper "exposes" the private affairs of innocent victims of evil.
Two ideas, or institutions, or systems of technique may engage in a duel. Tarde has discussed at length the psycho-societary duel,[2] illustrations of which are the duels between Christianity and atheism, between Protestant Christianity and Catholic Christianity, between aristocracy and democracy, between steamships and sailing vessels, between high tariff and low tariff, or between though and tho, and between the Victrola and Edison talking machines.
The psycho-societary duel ends in one of two ways.[3] (1) One idea meets another and annihilates it. In the minds of thinking people, the idea of a round
(226) earth has completely superseded the idea of a flat earth. The annihilation may take place slowly, or suddenly by resort to arbitrary means, such as war or governmental fiat. The tractor is slowly triumphing over the farm horse. For those who understand, the discovery of the tubercle bacillus ended suddenly previous conceptions of the cause of tuberculosis. The contest between voluntary and compulsory military service was settled suddenly in the United States in 1917 by Congressional action.
(2) The psycho-societary duel may end in compromise. Strong elements of each protagonist will be combined in a set of phenomena. The languages of the Saxons and the Angles met the languages of the Celts, Latins, and Greeks and the result was a new, composite vehicle of speech. Words themselves are often combinations of inherently antagonistic roots. Coal miners compete for earnings with coal barons--and the result is generally a compromise. As the orbit of the earth represents an equilibrium between centripetal and centrifugal forces, so our democracy is a compromise between anarchism and absolutism. A business college is a compromise between actual business experience and a regular college education. The covenant for a League of Nations is a series of compromises between antagonistic interests.
In both types of duels the conflicts are between inventions-usually a new invention (or discovery) which is attempting to drive out a somewhat outworn but well-established invention. When a new social invention meets an established invention, the result is either annihilation of one by the other, or in the case
(227) of somewhat equal conflict, the formation of a new, compromise invention.
F. H. Giddings has pointed out how conflicts between groups that are nearly balanced in strength (secondary conflicts) lead to progress, because out of conflict between more or less equal social forces arise tolerance and compromise, then co-operation, alliance, and mutual aid.[4] Since the contestants are balanced in power, neither can win; they must tolerate one another. From this toleration there comes at first a minimum mental interchange, then the establishment of interrelationships, and ultimately of co-operation. Nations today are in the main current of this process. The amount, however, of national co-operation is still small and suspicion based on national selfishness is rampant.
Conflict is the best way to settle the dualism between opposing social forces, according to Georg Simmel. [5] The main purpose of conflict is to create organization. A hundred athletes compete for places on a team and then the winners co-operate in forming the teamorganization. But this theory is unduly harsh. Conflicts do not all take place upon the blind levels of force. Antagonistic elements may become socialized and blend into a new whole. The dualism of social groups may exhibit decreasing conflict and increasing co-operation. A laboring group and a capitalist group may become socialized and each recognize the vital part that the other plays in the success of an industrial establishment. Each may become willing
(228) to arbitrate differences and to co-operate in industrial production. Professor Simmel speaks of the whop history of society in terms of the striking conflict between socialistic adaptation to society and individualistic departure from its demands. This is the duality which is expressed biologically in the conflicts between heredity and variation, and which is found sociologically in the interactions between heredity and environment. The results are new forms of life (biological organisms), new types of mental life (inventions), and new social structures (institutions).
Conflict has been treated as a correlative term with co-operation by Gustave Ratzenhofer [6] and Albion W. Small.[7] Everywhere in the processes of social adjustment the element of conflict appears, and the line of progress moves from a maximum of conflict to a maximum of reciprocity.[8] Under a maximum of cooperation conflict will not be eliminated, but will function in modified, dignified, and controlled ways. Maximum is not absolute reciprocity. Maximum reciprocity between a model husband and a model wife would provide for certain conflicts which would stimulate the growth of both personalities in a way that would not occur if both were exactly alike.
Another element in this fundamental societary phenomenon of conflict, according to Durkheim, is that opposing groups which are fighting for differentiated interests find it necessary to combine in order that both may advance.[9] On the desert a mesquite springs
(229) up. Seeds of cacti also grow; "and the cactus and the mesquite combine their armature of thorns for mutual protection. Then wind-blown grass seeds lodge about the roots, and grasses grow and seed beneath the sheltering branches, and next small mammals seek the same protection . . . . Thus does a large part of the plants and animals in the desert dwell together in harmony and mutual helpfulness."[10]
In summary it may be said that conflict is an indispensable element in progress, that its lowest levels are brutal and viciously destructive but that its highest reaches are stimulating, spiritual, and wholly constructive. The socialization of conflicting interests produces unification which is strength. Small competing businesses unite. The antagonistic American colonies united. The mutually jealous Allies united. Progress is born of a moving equilibrium of stimulating, constructive, and socialized conflicts.
2. The Social Psychology of War. Since war is the most destructive type of conflict known to mankind and since it persists in raising its ugly form above the highest phases of modern civilization, it will here receive special attention. How strange it is that civilization has not yet found a better means of settling national disputes!
As shown in an earlier chapter, war has its origins in the pugnacious instinct of man. These tendencies doubtless served useful purposes in primitive society. Once man had to depend on his fists and his bow and arrow to defend himself. Men who could not fight
(230) well succumbed. With the development of private property, organized defense became necessary. Tribes that were unskilled in fighting lost their lands, were captured and enslaved, or were wiped out by the powerful tribes whose fighting strength made them a law unto themselves and hence unmoral or immoral in their attitudes toward weaker tribes. The modern philosophic flood tide of this doctrine was reached in the teachings of such men as Nietzsche and Bernhardt.
The only groups whom primitive fighting tribes respected were those whose warring abilities were established. Fighting propensity ruled the world for millenniums. As a result the fighting instinct acquired greatly exaggerated power in the constitution of the individual and the group. The wolf and tiger qualities of men and groups were abnormally fostered and supported.
In parallel stages the counter movement to war developed. Among animals and primitive people small groups of individuals lived harmoniously together. The social spirit gained momentum. Within groups individuals learned to respect differences of opinion and to build a code for settling disputes. Observance of this code prevented civil wars. The pistol duel was a sophisticated survival of personal fighting in those groups which had established a legal procedure.
Courts of law have developed in our country until they rule the desires of practically every individual when moved to settle a dispute by violent means. It is only the sportive or criminal American who carries a revolver, or the immigrant from traditional lands
(231) who carries a concealed dagger. Individuals have learned the art of living together peacefully and harmoniously. They have learned to be moral and social.
But groups, especially large groups, find it difficult to be moral. Reputable citizens assert that corporations have no conscience, and that nations are moral derelicts. Every citizen of our land should be proud, therefore, to support in thought and action the proclamation of President Wilson when in 1917 he asserted that the United States has no selfish national ends to serve.
It is a sad but true fact that nations on the slightest provocation glare at one another like wolves. They do not yet possess dependable inter-national habits of a moral character, which would in themselves guarantee the stability and efficacy of a League of Nations. They still view one another with jealousy and suspicion-and perhaps justly so. Nations, however, as fast as they become nationally unselfish (as tested by deeds) and as soon as they learn to live harmoniously and justly and constructively together should confederate for unselfish international ends. Even they must be ready for war until all other powerful nations have demonstrated clearly their conversion to democratic world purposes. When nations deal with one another according to the principles of openness, mutual respect, and fair play, swords may be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning-hooks. Even then there will be considerable need for pruning-hooks.
One of the greatest ideas that President Wilson ever expressed was to the effect that the business of
(232) national representatives is to organize the friendship of the world.[11] International friendship is not so plentiful that we can afford to allow it to remain unutilized and unorganized. Without it, the League of Nations is doomed to failure; on the other hand, one of the main businesses of the League and of every nation within the League will be to promote it.
War breeds some good as well as much evil. Military training guarantees the advantages of out-of-door life and the building of strong chest and leg muscles. It succeessfully counteracts the slouchy habit of walking and standing which is almost a national disgrace in our land.
The soldier "gains in courage." He is mass inspired. Indirectly and through the private and public applause of and rewards to bravery, he becomes increasingly brave. After a few months of military drill, the diffident youth-if he does not succumb--is transformed into a potential hero.
The soldier develops "an enlarged morality." Instead of working for self, he finds himself joined with others in the support of national interests and public welfare. From self-service he is turned to othersservice. His eyes are shifted from his own welfare to national welfare for which previously he may have cared little. [12]
The group which fights increases its unity. Dissident elements are brought closer together and at least temporarily united. Attack from the outside drives people together. This fear of a common danger is a
(233) better unifying factor than the hope or experience or common happiness which arises from economic prosperity.[13]
War favors virility. The strong are honored. Luxury is made odious. Before the World War the United States was showing signs of fatty degeneration. Thrift was being forgotten and smug economic complacency was enthroned. The war revealed to our nation the true situation with startling clearness. To a degree, war-suffering reveals weak places nationally-, and evokes national interest in behalf of all the: citizens. This national activity, however, tends to assume a harsh, compulsory, undemocratic character. Further, at the close of a successful war, a nation tends to swing back to careless, riotous living.
War necessitates organization. Witness the way in which our country organized for war-through the draft law, the government operation of railroads, the Liberty loan "drives." From such procedure a nation should learn valuable lessons in organizing in peace times for constructive and socialized ends.
The weaknesses of military control are many. While the officer assumes responsibility, the private is relieved of directive work and becomes machinelike. It is his business to obey, and not to question or "to reason why." Military life tends first to make the officer and then the private autocratic. One day a big, handsome officer in a German regiment, wearing decorations of bravery, and receiving the personal commendations of the Kaiser, was approached by a little girl five or six years old with a letter in her
(234) hand which she wished to post in a box behind the tall officer. She stood on her tiptoes but could not reach the box-it was too high. She looked longingly for aid, and finally, summoning all her courage, she handed the letter to the officer. "He took it mechanically, with one or two glances back and forth between it and her. His intellect was evidently less bright than his uniform. Presently the idea took shape in his brain that this slip of a girl had called on him for help. With an arrogant toss of his head and a contemptuous snap of his wrist, he threw the letter to the ground."[14]
The cost of war in dollars and cents-one of the least of its costs-is tremendous. It has been estimated that the financial cost of the World War was 250 billion dollars. If this sum were in one dollar bank-notes and were laid end to end, it would extend 29,198,000 miles, or 1160 times around the earth or 145 times to the moon. If laid side by side and end to end, these bank-notes would cover 920,000 acres. The paper in them would weigh 250,000 tons.
Incomprehensible as is the financial cost of the World War, the greatest effort of the imagination cannot describe the cost in human suffering. If it were possible to review the dead instead of the living soldiers and if they came past the reviewing stand in double file we should get an impression of the human cost of war. Suppose that the British dead were called first-the double lines would pass the reviewing stand day and night for l00 days. Then the French dead would file past for 190 days longer; the German dead, for ago
(235) days; and the Russian dead, for 230 days snore-a total of 740 days and nights, or over two years. Then suppose that the wounded could be reviewed and that they could come in double file at the same pace-this procession would last day and night for five years. Suppose finally that loved ones who suffered at home because of the war casualties could march rapidly in double file past our reviewing stand. This procession, it is estimated, would last day and night for fifteen years. This entire panorama of suffering, twenty-two years long, ought to convince even the hardest-hearted of the cost of war and convert him into all ardent advocate of a League of Nations for the settlement of national difficulties by constructive measures.
War is brutalizing. Returned soldiers who went "over the top" refrain from describing the scenes that they witnessed or in which they participated. "War confronts human beings with situations in which they must act inhumanly."[15] If you are going to kill systematically, it is necessary to hate systematically. After a war has continued for some time, hatred increases and ideals decline, and any measures which will help to bring victory or to postpone defeat are likely to be justified. War lying and calumniation rapidly increase. War is "a brutal acknowledgement that nations have failed to live together harmoniously."
War keeps alive the inferior. It immediately rejects those who cannot pass a satisfactory physical and mental examination-they are left at home. In
(236) battle the bravest take the greatest chances and suffer the largest casualties. During a long war the best physical specimens of manhood, including the bravest, are killed, and the nation's work must be carried forward by and its racial stock replenished from its lower physical and mental grades. After a very long war the future generations will be the descendants of "stay-at-homes, the idiotic and sickly."
But war cannot be ended merely by pointing out its evils, by denouncing it, or by declaring that "this is a war to end war." Widespread attention must be given to measures for building up the friendship of the world and of helping the international machinery to run harmoniously, justly, and constructively.
Further, the combative instinct must be elevated to spiritualized and socialized forms of expression. We can scarcely afford, as shown in Chapter III, to eliminate it absolutely. But we can change its methods and direct it to societary ends.
Moral and social equivalents of war must be provided. Courage must be fostered by making life less easy for those who now are idling away their time in frivolous pleasure, and by making the game of life more worth while for those who are struggling forward against overwhelming economic odds. Physical education must be expanded to give to all the valuable training which military life gives to selected physical groups. Education in citizenship for everyone will create a new sense of public responsibility. The common presentation of international and world needs and ideals will evoke a new world spirit.
(237)
3. The Social Psychology of Race Prejudice. I1 war is the most spectacular form of conflict, their race prejudice is the most subtle and insidious. It is an impassable barrier to race assimilation. Nearly all race problems in the United States today could be solved if it were not for race prejudices-both way:.
Race prejudice is an antagonistic attitude of a person of one race toward the members of another race. It is usually a non-scientific pre-judgment. The prejudgment may have been caused by hearsay, by experience with a few non-typical members of the other race, or by sneering remarks, rather than by scientifically obtained evidence.
The social psychology of race prejudice reveals several causal elements. (1) An elemental fear of the strange underlies race prejudice. This is the only or at most the chief inherited factor in the phenomenon; the other causes come from the social environment. The individual who would survive must regard the stranger with caution. In primitive days, the stranger was necessarily assumed to be an enemy until he proved himself otherwise. The stranger today without credentials at the cashier's window is helpless. The stranger at the front door of a private residence is viewed askance. An American at a European court does not gain entry without acceptable introductions. The need for self-preservation and the wanton practices of many strangers have produced the elemental fear of the stranger.
(2) The strange tribe is an enemy tribe-until proved otherwise. Race preservation demands that each race must maintain its own values and its own
(238) entity. Consequently, each race has built up a set of beliefs which stress the virtues and overlook the vices of that race, and which elaborate the weaknesses of other races. A race attaches "the idea of beauty to everything which characterizes their physical conformation." The members of each race come to believe that their race is the best race in the world.
The Englishman, the Italian, the German, the African Negro, the Eskimo each declares that his race is the superior race of mankind. For example, the African Negro believes that brown and black are the most beautiful colors, and pities the Caucasian because of his pale, sickly hue. After living for a few months among the black races of Africa, white Caucasian travelers have admitted a sense of shame because of the pale skins of their race-so powerful has been the opposite influence among the blacks. The Negress enhances her beauty by painting the face with charcoal while the Caucasian lady puts on a chalky white to increase her whiteness. The Negro considers his gods as black and his devils as white; the Caucasian reverses the order. If there are thirty-five leading races in the world today and the leaders of each are declaring that each is the best, then there is prevalent a thirty-five-fold contradictory statement that there are thirty-five "best" races.
(3) Ignorance causes race prejudice. Ignorance cannot be separated from a false emphasis upon race pride. We must really know other races before we are entitled to a positive opinion. Leading ethnologists have concluded that all races are potentially similar, that race differences are due to differences in
(239) physical and social environment. For example, a part of the Mongolian peoples moved to Japan, where they have undergone many changes. Others of the Mongolian peoples moved westward and finally through their descendants became established in Europe in Hungary, namely, the Magyars, where they were surrounded by a sea of Slavs. In the United States, the Japanese and the Magyars meet today as immigrants, but neither of these groups of Mongolian brethren recognizes the other. In coming from the opposite sides of the earth and in circumnavigating the globe, these two races of originally the same stock have undergone widely different experiences and encountered different environments. Consequently, they vary in type.
False traditions and false education cause race prejudice. These errors can be corrected by a scientific study of the worthy and unworthy qualities of races in the light of the experiences of those races. Upon examination, each race is found to be superior in some particular to other races. At their best and at their worst the members of all civilized races in our country are found to be pretty much alike.
(q.) Separation increases race prejudice. Separation breeds misunderstanding, false estimates, and hence, prejudice. In the overcongested districts of any of our large cities, the immigrant frequently learns of the United States at its worst, and likewise, the American sees the foreign-born at his worst. In the coal mines, the illiterate immigrant first of all learns or is compelled to learn American profanity-these vivid impressions remain with him and, unhappily,
(240) constitute a part of his Americanization.
In the Far East, Europeans do not associate with natives. In Yokohama, according to Melville E. Stone, on ground which was donated to the foreign representatives for their consulates, the sign was placed: "No Japanese are permitted on these grounds."[16]
While race preservation demands a certain degree of race separation, yet race exclusiveness naturally generates prejudice, out of which rumors of war, and wars themselves often come. If there are no provisions for an increasing interchange of ideas and for opportunities for constructive contacts, friendship between nations cannot materialize.
(5) Differences in race appearance foster prejudices. These variations are often superficial. We cannot judge the worth of a race by the slant of the eye, the color of the skin, or the shape of the shinbone.[17] We are still ignorant regarding real race distinctions, and hence need to guard against assuming that differences in appearances connote basic disparities.
(6) Competition engenders prejudice. The Chinese came to the United States upon invitation and at first were welcomed. When their labor competed with that of Americans, hatred of them arose. Many people take a generous attitude toward the Negro, but if the Negro successfully competes for economic positions, then the white persons who have lost, immediately experience race hatred. Both economic and
(241) social competition set off dynamic charges of prejudice.
The result of race prejudice is isolation. Race prejudice isolates the race which feels it and the one against which it is directed. It plays havoc with whatever potential spirit of co-operation may exist in either. It barricades race against race.
Race prejudice easily becomes one of "the most hateful and harmful" human sentiments. It is arbitrary, vicious, and narrowing; it culminates in lynchings, pogroms, and war. One of America's ablest scholars has indicted it in the following incisive language :[18]
It has incited and excused cannibalism, warfare and slavery.
It has justified religious persecution and economic exploitation.
It has fostered tyranny, cruelty and the merciless waste of human life.
It has bred the spirit of caste; and it has done most to create the sweat-shop and the slum.
It is the archenemy of social peace throughout the world.
It is a sinister factor in world politics.
Only through its removal shall we ever realize the vision of the dreamer-the brotherhood of man.
In a brief summary of group conflicts it may be said that they function as means to a social end; operate in the long run upon an ascending scale, namely, war,
(242) competition, discussion; and give way to the rise of co-operation, alliance, and mutual aid. They arise out of the fighting tendencies and run the gamut from brutal ruthlessness to that high type of corrective effort which is promulgated by love. Conflicts culminate in spiritualized contests for rendering service. In their lowest forms they are struggles to see who can deceive most, who can exploit most, who can shirk most; at their best, they are contests to see who can serve his fellow man most.
PROBLEMS
(THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF GROUP CONFLICTS)
1. Illustrate a conflict between an individual and his group.
2. Illustrate a conflict between two groups of similar strength.
3. Illustrate a conflict between a small group and a large group of which the small group is a part.
4. Illustrate a conflict between two ideas.
5. Illustrate competitive consumption of economic goods.
6. Illustrate competitive production.
7. Why is discussion able to "hurry conflicts to a conclusion" ?
8. When is discussion profitless?
9. What are the leading foes of new ideas?
10. Would you expect to find the truth of the matter in a given discussion with either extremist?
(243)
11. Should a false dogma be attacked directly, or undermined "by marshalling and interpreting the adverse facts" ?
12. Should a conflict between types of water filtration or armor plate be referred to the voters?
13. What types of public questions should be submitted to the voters for a decision?
14. Why have theological controversies been more bitter than scientific disputes?
15. What are the strong and weak points of compromising?
16. Illustrate competition in rendering service to others.
(THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF WAR)
17. What is the leading cause of war?
18. Is national anger a scientific guide to national action
19. What is the chief good that comes from war?
20. Why do battles always take place between two armies, or between two sets of opposing forces?
21. What is the chief evil of war?
22. Is the man who has invented a deadly instrument of war a social benefactor?
(THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF RACE PREJUDICE)
23. Why do different races have different standards of beauty?
24. Is race prejudice innate or acquired?
25. Is there more race prejudice against the Negro in the North or the South?
26. Do small children draw the color line?
(244)
READINGS
(THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF GROUP CONFLICTS)
Bagehot, Walter, Physics and Politics, Sects. II, V.
Cooley, C. H., Social Organization, Chs. XXVIII-XXX.
——, Social Process, Ch. IV.
Giddings, F. H., Principles of Sociology, pp. 100-196
Gumplowicz, L., Der Rassenkampf.
Howard, G. E., Social Psychology, (syllabus), Sect. 111.
Le Bon, Gustave, The Psychology of Revolution.
Novicow, Jacques, Le luttes entre societies humaines.
Ross,E. A., "Class and Caste," Amer. Jour. of Sociol., XXII: 461-76, 594-608, 749-60; XXIII:67-82.
Simmel, Georg, "Sociology of Conflict," Amer. Jour. of Sociol., IX: 490-525.
Vincent, G. E., "The Rivalry of Social Groups," Anier. Jour. of Sociol., XVI:469-82.
(THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF WAR)
Bird,C., "From Home to the Charge, a Psychological Study of the Soldier," Amer. Jour. of Psychol., 28:315-48.
Eltinge, Le Roy, Psychology of War.
Hall,G. Stanley, "Practical Relations between Psychology and the War," Jour. of Applied Psychol., 1:9-16.
Kelsey, Carl, "War as a Crisis in Social Control," Publ. of the Amer. Sociol. Society, XII: 27-45.
Lord, H. G., The Psychology of Courage, Ch. XI.
McLaren, A. D., "National Hate," Hibbert Jour., 15:407-18.
Marshall, H. R., "War and Human Nature," North Planer. Rev., 103 : 265-74.
Morris, C., "War as a Factor in Civilization," Popular Science Mon., XLVII:823-34.
Nicolai, G. F., The Biology of War.
Novicow, Jacques, War and its Alleged Benefits.
Pugh, E., "The Cowardice of Warfare," Fortnightly Rev., 727-34.
Todd, A. J., Theories of Social Progress, Ch. XIX.
Stratton, G. M., "The Docility of the Fighter," Intern. Jour. of Ethics, 26: 368-76.
Wells, F. L., "The Instinctive Bases of Pacifism," Atlantic Mon., 1 18 : q.7-46.
(THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF RACE PREJUDICE)
Cowen, John, "Race Prejudice," Westminster Rev., 173: 631-39.
Ellis, G. W., "The Psychology of American Race Prejudice," Jour. of Race Development, 5:297-315.
Leopold Lewis, Prestige, pp. 33-43
Morse, J., "The Psychology of Prejudice," Intern. Jour. of Ethics, X V I I : 490-5o6.
Shaler, N. S., "Race Prejudices," Atlantic Mon., 58: 510-19.
Stone, M. E., "Race Prejudice in the Far East," Natl. Geographic Mag., 21:973-85.
Thomas, W. I, "The Psychology of Race Prejudice," Amer. Jour. of Social., IX: 593-611.
"Views of Dr. Rizal, the Filipino Scholar, upon Race Differences," Popular Science Mon., 61 : 222-30.
