No More Learning

Where then so much similarity continues to exist that confusion and the blurring of boundaries are possible, points of difference have to be accentuated with a sharpness that is often not at all justified by the matter itself but only by this danger. This functioned, for example, in the case mentioned above of Catholicism in Bern. Roman Catholicism does not need to fear that through an external contact with such a fully heterogeneous church as the Reformed its uniqueness would be threatened, but arguably through contact with one so closely related as Old Catholicism.
This example already touches on the second type in question here, which certainly in practice more or less coincides with the other: the enmity whose intensification is grounded in solidarity and unity--which is in no way also always similarity. The reason for its separate treatment is that here, instead of the sense of difference, a whole new rationale arises, the peculiar appearance of social hatred, i. e. of the hatred for a group member, not from personal motives, but because a danger to the existence of the group comes from that person. Insofar as such a person threatens by discord inside the group, the one party hates the other not only on the substantive basis that provoked the discord, but also on the sociological, in that we simply hate the enemy of the group as such. While this is a reciprocal occurrence, and each blames the other for threatening the whole, an intensification accrues to the antagonism precisely by virtue of the membership of its parties in one unitary group. Most characteristic of this are the cases in which it does not actually come to a breaking up of the group; since until this has occurred, it means a specific solution to the conflict has been found, the personal difference found its sociological solution, and the instigator of ever renewed irritation was removed. It is in fact precisely
254 chapter four
? for this result that the strain between antagonism and the still existing unity must operate. As it is dreadful to be alienated from someone to whom one is nevertheless bonded--outwardly, however also internally bonded in the most tragic cases--from whom one cannot get free, even if one wanted to, so the bitterness increases when one does not want the community to break up, because one does not want to give up the values of belonging to the all-encompassing unity, or because one feels this unity as an objective value, the threat to which generates strife and hatred. From these constellations arise the vehemence with which, for example, fights inside of a political faction or a labor union or a family are settled. The individual soul offers an analogy to this. The feeling that a conflict within us between sensual and ascetic, or selfish and moral, or practical and intellectual tendencies diminishes not only the claims of one or both parties and obviates the possibility of an entirely free fulfillment of life, but often enough threatens the integrity, the balance and the ego-strength of the soul as a whole--this feeling might in some cases suppress the conflict from the very beginning; where, however, it is not sufficient for that, it gives the struggle on the contrary something grim and desperate, an accent as though there were actually something much more essential being fought over than the immediate object of strife in question; the energy with which each one of those tendencies would subdue the other is not nourished only by its, as it were, egoistic interest but by that which goes beyond it to the integrity of the 'I' for which this struggle means a rupture and a degradation when it does not end with an unambiguous victory. So the strife inside a tightly bound group often enough goes beyond the measure that its object and its immediate interest would justify for the parties; for emotion is attached to this to the extent that the dispute is not only an issue of the parties but the group as a whole, so that every party fights, as it were, in the name of this, and in the opponent has not only its opponent but at the same time that of their higher sociological unity.
Finally there is an apparently wholly individual, in reality very sig- nificant sociological fact that can tie the most extreme vehemence of antagonistic arousal to the closeness of association: jealousy. Linguistic usage doe not use this concept unambiguously and frequently does not distinguish it from envy. Undoubtedly both emotions are of the great- est importance in the formation of human relations. With both it is a matter of something valued whose attainment and safeguarding a third person, actually or symbolically, impedes for us. Where it is a matter of attaining, we speak more of envy; where a matter safeguarding, we
conflict 255
? speak of jealousy; but of course the defining allocation of the words is in itself entirely meaningless and only the distinction of the social- psychological processes is important. It is characteristically described as jealousy that the subject thinks it has a rightful claim to that possession, while envy is not concerned about a right but simply for the desirability of what one has been denied; it does not therefore even matter to the subject whether the good is denied it because the third person possesses it or whether loss or renunciation on the part of the third party would not help the subject get it. Jealousy on the other hand is in its inner course and coloring thereby directly determined, in that the posses- sion is denied us because it is in the hands of another, and in that it would immediately fall to us with the breakup thereof: the experience of the envious turns more on the possession, that of the jealous more on the possessor. One can envy the fame of another even when one has not the least claim to fame oneself; one is jealous of that person, however, when one is of the opinion that one is likewise and prefer- ably deserving of it than the other. Embittering and gnawing for the jealous is a certain fiction of the feeling--however unjustified, indeed absurd as it may be--that the other has, as it were, robbed one of the fame. Jealousy is an experience of so specific a kind and strength that it, having arisen from some kind of exceptional mental combination, inwardly adds onto its typical situation.
To a certain extent in the middle between the specific phenomena of envy and jealousy stands a third belonging to this scale that can be identified as resentment: the envious desire for an object not because it is in itself particularly desirable to the subject but only because the other person has it. This manner of experience develops into two extremes that change into the negation of one's own possession. On the one hand the form of passionate resentment that prefers to forego the object for oneself, indeed prefers its destruction rather than grant it to another; and the second: one's own complete indifference or aver- sion to the object and still the thought that the other would possess it is completely unbearable. Such forms of envy draw the reciprocal behaviors of people into a thousand gradations and combinations. The large problem area in which the relationships of people are susceptible to things as causes or effects of their relations with one another is in no small part covered by this type of affect. It is here not only just a matter of money or power, love or social standing being desired, so that rivalry or some other outflanking or removal of a person is a mere procedure, no different in its inner sense than the overcoming of
256 chapter four
? a physical obstacle. Rather, the accompanying feeling that attaches to such a merely external and secondary relationship of persons develops in these modifications of the envy into autonomous sociological forms in which only envy's content plays a part in the desire for the objects; what is then established is that the final indicated stages of the sequence have fully stripped away the interest in the objective contents of the object and maintained it merely as a matter wholly indifferent in itself, around which the personal relationship crystallizes. On this general basis the significance that jealousy has for our particular problem is now manifest, and which it then has for sure if its content is a person or as the case may be the relationship of a subject to it. Incidentally it seems to me that linguistic usage would not accept 'jealousy' as pertinent for a purely impersonal object. What we are concerned with here is the relationship between the jealous individual and the person for whose sake jealousy is directed against a third person; the relationship to this third person has a completely different, much less peculiar and complicated sociologically characteristic form. For this reason fury and hate, contempt and cruelty arise towards that person directly on the presumption of a connectedness, an outer or inner, real or supposed claim to love, friendship, recognition, association of some kind. Here the antagonism, be it felt mutually or unilaterally, stiffens all the more strongly and further the more it derived from unconditional unity and the more passionately its conquest is desired. If the consciousness of the jealous frequently seems to swing between love and hate, that means that both of these strata, of which the second is layered over the first in all its breadth, alternately gain the stronger consciousness for themselves. Especially important is the previously mentioned condition: the right that one believes one has to the psychological or physical possession, to the love or the adoration of the subject who is the object of jealousy. A man might envy another over the possession of a woman; jealous, however, is only the person who has some kind of claim to their possession. However, this claim can exist merely in the passion of desire. Because to derive a right from this is a common human characteristic: the child will excuse itself for the transgression of something forbidden by saying of that forbidden item, "But I really wanted it"; the adulterer, insofar as he possesses the least trace of conscience, would not be able to target the offended husband in a duel if in his love for the woman he did not see a right that he would be defending against the purely legal right of a spouse; just as the mere possession counts everywhere also as the right of possession, so desire too turns into the preliminary stage for such a right, and the
conflict 257
? double meaning of 'claim'--as simple desire and as legally grounded desire--indicates that really wanting the right adds its own force to the force of a right itself. To be sure, jealousy often turns into the most pitiable drama precisely through this claim to a right: to assert claims of right to feelings such as love and friendship is an endeavor with fully ill-suited means. The plane on which one can have recourse for the grounding of a right, of an external or internal one, has nothing in common with that on which those feelings lie; to desire to enforce it with a mere right, however deeply and well deserved it may be in vari- ous ways, is as senseless as wanting to order a bird, who is long gone out of earshot and eyesight, back into its cage. This ineffectiveness of entitlement in matters of love generates the phenomenon characteristic of jealousy: that in the end it clings to the external proofs of the feeling, which are indeed enforceable by the appeal to the sense of duty, yet guarding, with this paltry gratification and self-deception, the body of the relationship as if it still had something of its soul in it.
The claim that belongs to the jealous is often fully acknowledged as such by the other side; it signifies or endows, as every entitlement between persons, a kind of oneness; it is the ideal or legal existence of a bond, of a positive relationship of some sort, at least its subjective anticipation. Rising then over the existing and far-reaching unity is at the same time its negation which the very situation of jealousy creates. Here, as in some other concurrences of unity and antagonism, the two are not separated into different realms and then held together and apart by the total reach of the personalities; rather precisely that unity, still existing in some kind of internal or external form, experienced at least on the part of one party as truly or imaginatively real, is negated. The feeling of jealousy sets a wholly unique, blinding, irreconcilable bitterness between the persons, because the rupture between them has then become exactly the point of their bond, and thus the tension between them has imparted to the negative factor the maximum that is possible in severity and emphasis. From this then, in that this formal social relationship dominates the internal situation, we can account for the strange, actually completely unlimited breadth of factors by which jealousy is nourished and the prevalent substantive meaninglessness of its development. Where either the structure of the relationship clothes such a synthesis by synthesis-and-antithesis from the very beginning, or where the soul of the individual offers this structure inside of its own dispositions, every arbitrary cause will thereby produce consequences, and for sure these will be conceptually all the more easily appealing,
258 chapter four
? indeed more often will have already been in effect. In that every human act and statement lends itself to a multifaceted interpretation of its intent and attitude, jealousy, which wants to see everywhere only one interpretation, provides a fully pliable tool. While jealousy can tie the most passionate hatred to the ongoing continuation of the most pas- sionate love and the annihilation of both parties to the effect of the most heartfelt solidarity--because the jealous destroy the relationship in as much as they are provoked to the destruction of the other--jealousy is perhaps that social phenomenon in which the construction of antago- nism by way of unity achieves its subjectively most radical form.
Specific types of such a synthesis manifest the phenomena that one comprehends as competitions. First it is decisive for the sociological nature of competition that the conflict is an indirect one. Whoever does direct damage to or removes the opponent altogether no longer competes against that opponent. The linguistic usage in general utilizes the word preferably only for such contests that consist of the parallel efforts of both parties for one and the same prize. The differences of these from other types of conflict thus allow a more precise designa- tion. The pure form of the competitive contest is above all not offensive and defensive--for the simple reason that the prize for the contest is not held by one of the opponents. Whoever struggles with another to acquire that person's money or spouse or reputation proceeds in altogether different forms, with a completely different method, than when one competes with another, to direct the money of the public into one's pocket, to win the favor of a woman, to make a greater name for oneself through words and actions. While in many other types of conflict, therefore, the defeat of the opponent brings immediately not only the victory prize but is the prize of victory itself, with competition two other combinations appear: where the defeat of the competitor is the temporally first necessity, because this defeat in itself just does not yet mean anything, but the goal of the whole action is reached only through the presentation in itself of value entirely independent from that fight. The merchant who has successfully cast suspicion with the public on the unreliability of the competitors has thereby not yet won anything if the needs of the public are not directly linked to the goods that that particular businessperson offers; the suitor who has scared off or made it impossible for the rival is thereby not one step further if the desired love rejects the suitor; a proselyte no longer needs to adhere to a faith that strives to win proselytes even if that faith has removed all the competitors from the field by exposing their deficiencies--if
conflict 259
? the nature of that proselyte's needs that it can satisfy is not accom- modated. The competitive struggle thereby acquires its tone with this type in that the decision of the contest does not yet realize the goal for itself, as in those cases where rage or revenge, punishment or the ideal value of the victory as such motivates the conflict. Perhaps the second type of competition differs still more from other conflicts. In this one the conflict generally consists only in each of the contenders striving for the goal for oneself without expending any effort on the opponent. The runner who wants to be effective only through one's speed, the merchant who wants to be effective only through the price of one's goods, the evangelist who wants to be effective only through the internal persuasiveness of one's teachings exemplify this curious type of conflict, which matches, in intensity and passionate exertion to one's utmost, every other type, which rises to its most extreme effort also through the mutual consciousness of the effort of one's opponent, and yet, viewed from the outside, proceeds as though there were no opponent in the world but only the goal. Through the undeviating course in the affair, this competition form can appropriate contents by which the antagonism becomes a pure formality and serves not only a common purpose but allows even the victory of the victor to benefit the defeated. At the siege of Malta by the Turks in 1565, the grand master divided the forts of the island among the various nations to which the knights belonged so that the rivalry over which nation would be the bravest would be exploited for the defense of the whole. Here then is a genuine competition, in the course of which any damage to the oppo- nent that could hinder one's full deployment in the rivalry is, however, excluded from the outset. This is such a very pure example because, to be sure, presumably the wish to conquer in the contest for honor calls forth the entirely particular contingent of strength; the victory to be won for that purpose, however, is such that its success also extends to the defeated. Similarly every competition occasioned by ambition in the scientific realm manifests a conflict that is not directed against the opponent but towards the common goal, wherein it is assumed that the knowledge won by the victor is also gain and advancement for the losers. With artistic competition this last extension of the principle tends to be missing because the aggregate objective value, equally including that of both parties, in light of the individualistic nature of art, is not consciously, albeit perhaps ideally, present. This absence in commercial competition is still more decisive for the consumer who nevertheless belongs under the same formal principle of conflict. For here too the
260 chapter four
? contest is aimed directly at the most perfect service, and the benefit to a third or to the whole is its result. So the subjectivity of the end goal becomes most wonderfully intertwined in this form with the objectivity of the end result; a supra-individual unity of a material or social nature includes the parties and their conflict; one struggles against without directly opposing the opponent, non-contact, so to speak. Thus the subjective antagonistic incitement leads us to the realization of objective values, and the victory in the contest is not actually the result of a fight, but simply the realization of values that lie beyond the conflict.
Therein then lies the enormous value of competition for the social circle, provided that the competitors are enclosed by it. While the other types of conflict--that in which either the prize is originally in the hands of the one party, or where the subjective hostility and not the winning of a prize shapes the motive for conflict--let the values and strengths of the opponents be mutually consumed, and frequently as a result all that remains for the totality is what is left over from the simple subtraction of the weaker power from the stronger; competi- tion, wherever it is kept free from mixing with other forms of conflict, functions conversely, usually increasing value through its incomparable combination: because viewed from the standpoint of the group it offers subjective motives as a means for producing objective social values and, from the standpoint of the party, utilizing the production of the objectively valued as a means to win subjective satisfactions. 16
16 This is a very clear case of a common type: a means being for the species, for the group, in short, for the encompassing formation what an end goal is for the indi- vidual, and vice-versa. At its highest this holds on a wide scale for the relationship of people to the metaphysical totality, to their God. Hence the idea of a divine plan for the world develops because the end goals of the individual being are nothing more than stages and means that help realize the absolute end goal of all earthly activities, as it is set in the divine mind; for the subject, however, in the absoluteness of its ego interests, not only the empirical but also that transcendental reality is only a means for one's goal: one's welfare on the earth or one's salvation in the beyond, happy repose, redemptive completion, or ecstatic fullness of the divine is sought through God who mediates all this to people; just as God as the absolute Being obtains selfhood indirectly via humanity, so humanity obtains selfhood itself via God. This was observed a long time ago with regard to the relationship between the individual and the individual's species in the biological sense; erotic pleasure, for the former a self-justifying end goal in itself, is for the species only a means by which to secure its continuation beyond every temporary population; this preservation of the species, which counts at least analogically as its goal, is for the individual often enough only the means to perpetuate oneself in one's children, to secure a kind of immortality for one's possessions, one's qualities, one's vitality. In social relationships what it amounts to simply is what one describes as a harmony of interests between the society and the individual. The action
? conflict 261
? However, the material advance that competition gains through its characteristically mediated pattern of interaction is not as important here as the directly social. While the goal over which competition among parties exists within a society still favors probably one or more third persons continuously, it drives each of the two parties between whom it occurs with extraordinary closeness against that third. One tends to emphasize competition's poisoning, disrupting, destroying effects and to concede only incidentally those substantive values as its products. Along with it, however, there is nevertheless this enormous society- forming effect: it forces the candidate, who has a competitor nearby and frequently only then becomes an actual competitor, to meet with and to approach other competitors, to combine with them, to explore their weaknesses and strengths and to adapt to them, to seek out or to construct all the bridges that could combine one's own being and capacity with theirs. Of course this happens often at the price of per- sonal dignity and of the material value of production; above all, the competition between the producers of the highest spiritual activities causes those who are set for the leadership of the mass to submit to it; in general just to get to an effective exercise of one's function as teacher or party leader, as artist or journalist, what is required is obedience to the instincts or moods of the mass, as soon as the mass, because of competition, has its choice of the candidates. Thus, of course, substan- tively an inversion of rank ordering and social valuation is created, but this does not lessen the importance of competition for the synthesis of
of the individual is normed and harnessed to carry and develop the legal and moral, the political and cultural conditions of the people; however, what is thereby accom- plished as a whole is only that the individual's own eudaemonistic and moral, material and abstract interests seize those supra-individual values as a means; thus science, for example, is a content of the objective culture and as such a self-sufficient end goal of social development, which is realized through the means of the individual drives for knowledge; for the individual, however, the entirety of the science at hand including the part of it worked on by the individual self is merely a means for the satisfaction of the individual's personal drive for knowledge. Now these relationships indeed are in no way always of such harmonious symmetry; in fact, often enough they harbor the contradiction that certainly the whole as well as the part deals with itself as end and thus the other as means; neither one of them, however, wants to accept this role as means. From this arise frictions that are palpable at every point of life and allow the realization of the goals of the whole as well as of the part only with a certain loss. The mutual self-annihilation of engergies that is of no advantage for positive results, and the futility and wastefulness of those proven to be weaker generate just such reductions inside of competition, which otherwise manifests so clearly that symmetry of one another's parallel goals.
? 262 chapter four
? the society. 17 What works for it countless times is what as a rule works only for love: spying out the innermost wishes of others before they have even become conscious of those wishes themselves. The antagonistic tension of opposition to competitors sharpens the sensitivity on the part of merchants for the preferences of the public to the point of a nearly clairvoyant instinct for the impending changes in its tastes, fashions, interests; but not only with merchants but also with journalists, artists, booksellers, politicians. Modern competition, which is identified as the conflict of all against all, is at the same time, though, the conflict of all for all. Nobody will deny the tragedy therein--that the elements of society work against one another instead of with one another, that immense energy is squandered in the struggle against competitors, energy that would be useful for positive work, that in the end even the positive and valuable achievement comes to nothing, unutilized and unrewarded, as soon as a more valuable or at least more attractive one enters into competition with it. However, all these liabilities of competi- tion on the social balance sheet still stand right along side the immense synthetic power of the fact that competition in society is nevertheless competition for people, a wrestling for praise and employment, for concessions and commitments of every kind, a wrestling of the few for the many as well as the many for the few; in short, an interweaving of a thousand social threads by the concentration of consciousness on the desire and emotions and thinking of one's fellow human beings, by the adapting of supply to demand, by the ingenious manifold pos- sibilities of winning connection and favor. Since the narrow and nai? ve solidarity of primitive and social systems of decentralization gave way, which had to be the immediate result of the quantitative expansion of groups, the effort of people for people, the accommodation of the one to the others just for the prize of competition seems possible, hence the simultaneous conflict against a neighbor for the third--against whom, by the way, one competes perhaps in another kind of relation- ship for the former. Many kinds of interests that ultimately hold the circle together from member to member seem to be vital only with the expansion and individualization of society, when the need and the heat of competition force them onto the conscious subject. Also the socializing power of competition in no way manifests itself only in these coarser, so to speak, official cases. In countless combinations of family
17 Synthesis is in English in the original--ed.
? conflict 263
? life as well as the erotic, of social chitchat as well as the disputation aimed at persuasion, of the friendship as well as the satisfactions of vanity, we meet the competition of the two for the third; frequently, of course, only in hints, comments immediately dropped, as aspects or partial manifestations of a total process. Everywhere it appears, how- ever, there corresponds to the antagonism of competitions an offering or enticement, a promise or attachment, which brings each of the two into relationship with the third; for the victor especially this frequently acquires an intensity to which it would not have come without the characteristically continual comparison of one's own accomplishment with that of another, made possible only through competition, and without the excitation by the opportunities of competition. The more liberalism is inserted, besides the economic and political, also into the familial and social, church-related and friendship-related, hierarchical and across-the-board interactive relationships, in other words, the less these are predetermined and governed by universal historical norms and the more they are abandoned to the unstable equilibrium, produced on a case-by-case basis, or the shifting of powers--the more their form will depend on continuing competition; and the outcome of this, in turn, will depend in most cases on the interest, the love, the hopes, that the competitors, to varying extent, know to excite in the third party or parties, the center of competing movements. The most valuable object for human beings is the human being, both directly and indirectly. The latter because in it the energies of the subhuman nature are stored up, just as in the animal that we consume or put to work for us, are those of the plant kingdom, and just as in the latter those of sun and earth, air and water. Humanity is the most condensed structure and the most productive for exploitation, and to the extent that slavery comes to an end, i. e. the mechanical seizing of a very self, the need arises to win humans over psychologically. Conflict with humans, which was a conflict over them and their enslavement, thus changed into the more complicated phenomenon of competition in which one person certainly fights with another, but over a third. And winning over this third--to attain in a thousand ways only through the social means of persua- sion or convincing, outbidding and underbidding, suggestion or threat, in short, through psychological connection--also means in its results just as frequently only one such bond, only the establishment of one, from the momentary purchase in the store to that of marriage. With the cultural increase of the intensity and condensation of the contents of life, the struggle for this most condensed of all goods, the human
264 chapter four
? soul, must occupy ever greater space and thereby likewise increase as well as deepen the intensity of social interactions that are its means as well as its goal.
Herein was already suggested how very much the sociological char- acter of the circle differs by the extent and type of competition that it permits. This is obviously an aspect of the problem of correlation, to which each part of the previous arrangements made a contribution: there exists a relationship between the structure of each social circle and the degree of hostilities that it can tolerate among its elements. For the political whole, criminal law in many cases sets the limit up to which dispute and vengeance, violence and cheating are still compatible with the continued existence of the whole. When one has character- ized the content of criminal law in this sense as the ethical minimum, then it is not fully applicable--for the simple reason that a state would thus always break apart if, with the strictest prevention, all punishable prohibitions were enacted against all those attacks, injuries, hostilities. Every penal sanction counts on the widespread and predominant part played by inhibitions to which it itself contributes nothing to restrain- ing the development of those corroding energies. The minimum of ethical peaceable behavior, without which the civil society cannot exist, thus goes beyond the categories guaranteed by penal law itself; then it is simply presupposed that these disturbances left exempt from punishment do not themselves overstep the level of social tolerance. The more closely the group is unified, the more the enmity between its elements can have entirely polarizing meanings: on the one hand the group can, precisely because of its closeness, tolerate an internal antagonism without breaking apart, the strength of the synthesizing forces being equal to that of the antithetical; on the other hand a group whose principle of life is an extensive uniformity and solidarity is to that extent directly threatened especially by each internal dispute. Even this same centripetalism of the group renders it, vis-a`-vis the dangers from the enmities of its members, dependent on various circumstances, either more capable of antagonism or less.
Such close unions as marriage show both simultaneously: there is probably no other union that could endure such maniacal hatred, such total antipathy, such continuous contention and irritation without fall- ing apart; and then again it is, if not the only one, nevertheless one of the very few forms of relationship that can, through the outwardly most unremarkable, literally indescribable rupture, indeed through a
conflict 265
? single antagonistic word, so lose the depth and beauty of its meaning that even the most passionate desire on the part of both parties does not gain it back. In larger groups two structures, ostensibly entirely contrary to one another, will allow a considerable measure of internal hostilities. At once easy to mention, a certain solidarity producing ties. By virtue of these, damages that are produced through hostile clashes here and there can be made good relatively easily; the elements grant so much power or value to the whole that it can also secure for the individuals freedom for antagonisms, certainly in that the expenditure of energy effected through them is compensated at the same time by other earnings. This is one reason why very well organized communities can tolerate more internal divisions and frictions than more mechani- cal, internally disjointed conglomerates. The unity which is precisely acquired in greater measure only through more fine-tuned organizations can more easily bring the assets and liabilities into balance within the totality and bring the available strengths somewhere right to the place where weaknesses have arisen through disagreements between the ele- ments--as well as through any other kinds of loss. The inverse structure has precisely the same general effect: comparable to the configuration of the ship's hull made out of opposing firmly closed chambers so that by any damage to the hull the water itself cannot pour through the whole ship. The social principle here is thus precisely a certain sealing off of those parties colliding with one another, who, whatever they do to each other, are then to settle with one another, having to bear their damages, however, without thereby the existence of the whole being damaged. The correct choice or combination of the two methods: the organic solidarity with which the whole compensates for the damages through partial conflicts, or the isolation by which it shelters itself against those damages--is of course a vital issue for every union, from the family to the state, from the economic to the merely psychological sense of unity. The extremes are identified, for example, on the one hand in the modern state, which not only readily tolerates the disputes of political parties, even expending considerable energy in the process, but uses them for its own equilibrium and development, and on the other hand the ancient and medieval city-state, which was often weakened to the point of annihilation by internal party conflicts. On the whole the bigger a group is the better able it will be to unite both methods, and certainly in that form the fact that the parties have to settle their primary damages accruing from the dispute; however, the secondary
266 chapter four
? consequences for the life of the whole can be paid from its reserves--a combination that is obviously difficult when the group is small and all its elements are thereby in action near one another.
While I now return to the particular relationship of the competitive conflict to the structure of its circle, the difference appears first of all: whether the substantive interest of the circle is determined by a form that by itself forbids or limits the competition--or whether it, in itself probably susceptible to the competition, is hindered only by its particular historical formation through principles generally existing in it and apart from the matters at issue. The first is possible under two conditions. Competition enters in when a good, not plentiful enough or accessible to all contenders, falls only to the victor of a competition among them--it is thus obviously excluded where either the elements of a circle do not in general strive for a good that would equally be desired by them--or where it is certainly the case that the good is, however, equally plentiful for all. Everywhere the presumption then speaks in favor of the former wherever the social interaction does not come from a common terminus ad quem but a common terminus a quo of a unifying source. Thus it is above all with the family. Occasional competitions may indeed occur in it: the children can compete for the love or for the inheritance of the parents, or even the parents among themselves for the love of the children. This is, however, determined by personal happenstance--not unlike when two brothers, for example, are business competitors--and without reference to the principle of family. This principle is in fact the one of organic life; the organism is but its own purpose; as such, it does not refer beyond itself to a goal external to itself, for the acquisition of which its elements would have to compete. Purely personal hostility arising out of the clash of personalities is, of course, sufficiently opposed to the principle of peace without which the family cannot exist in the long run; however just the closeness of life together, the social and eco- nomic compatibility, the rather monumental presumption of unity--all this directly brings about friction, tension, and opposition especially easily; indeed, family conflict is a form of conflict sui generis. Its cause, its intensity, its expansion to those uninvolved, the form of the fight as that of the reconciliation is, by its course on the basis of an organic unity matured by thousands of internal and external ties, fully idiosyn- cratic, comparable to no other conflict. However competition is absent in this combination of symptoms since family conflict spins directly from person to person, and the indirectness of orientation toward an objec- tive goal that is innate to competition probably arises by chance rather
conflict 267
? than originating from its specific energies. The other sociological type of competition-free conflict is exemplified by the religious community. Here indeed parallel strivings of all are directed at one and the same goal for all, but it does not become competitive because the reaching of this goal by the one does not exclude the others from it. At least according to the Christian concept there is room in God's house for all. When, nevertheless, predestination withholds this place from some and preserves it for others, the immediate senselessness of any competition is thereby enunciated. This is in fact a characteristic form and destiny of candidatures running in parallel, which one could designate as passive competition; the lottery and games of chance are pure manifestations of precisely the same type. Certainly it is a rivalry for a prize, but it lacks the essence of competition: the difference in individual energies as the basis for winning and losing. The outcome is for sure in some kind of prior concession, but its distinction is not linked to the difference in the latter. 18 This produces, among individuals of a circle incorporated by that kind of chance, a thoroughly unique relationship, an entirely new blend of similarity and dissimilarity of conditions in contrast to real competition. Where a number of people perform exactly the same action and stand exactly the same chances of success, but know that a force they cannot influence is denying success altogether or granting it altogether, on the one hand an indifference will prevail among them, entirely unlike competition where success depends on the comparison of performance; on the other hand consciousness of earning or losing the prize on the basis of the quality of effort operates soothingly and objectively based on identification with the others, while here, where this feeling is lacking, envy and embitterment have their intrinsic place. The elect in a predestination, the winners in trente-et-quarante, will not be hated by the loser but envied; since the performances are indepen- dent of one another, the two competitors have a greater distance and a priori indifference towards one another than the competitors of an economic or sport contest; and with one such precisely the deservingness of the loser will easily produce the characteristic hatred that exists in the projection of one's own feelings of inadequacy onto the one who is responsible for our feeling so. The affinity--always by the way very loose--within that circle, then, insofar as a predestination of godly or
18 The tranlsation loses some word play here, which reads literally "but its distinction (Verschiedenheit) is not linked to the distinction (Verschiedenheit) in that"--ed.
? 268 chapter four
? fate-like or human authorities constitutes what they have in common, is a specific intertwining of indifference and latent envy that becomes actualized after the decision along with the corresponding feelings of the victor. As this deviates very much from the mutually stimulating feelings of competition, as there is still also a smaller or stronger blend of this affinity by way of shared chances even in every genuine com- petition, some kind of an appeal is made to a something in the power over the parties that decides on its own and not from performance. The very transforming extent of this fatalistic addition produces an entirely particular graduation of the relationship of competition up to the type of the election by grace, in which that alone is determinative and the active and differentiating factor that competition as such sug- gests is completely eliminated.
As a second apparent competition in religious groups, jealous passion stands out, trying to outdo others in the production of the highest good, which may increase effort a great deal--the fulfillment of commands and meritorious work, the devotions and the asceticism, prayers and donations. However, that additional feature of competition is absent whereby the prize must remain denied to one because it falls to the other. Here there is a sociologically noticeable difference that one may indicate as that between competition and rivalry. In every competition, even for the ideal goods of honor and love, the meaning of performance is determined by the relationship that it has with the performance of the next person; the performance of the victor, remaining exactly the same, would yet produce a fully different objective return for the victor if that of the competitor were greater than it instead of lesser. This dependence of the absolute outcome on the relative one (expressed dif- ferently: of the objective on the personal) drives the whole movement of competition, but is entirely absent inside that of religious rivalry. Since in this case the action of the individual bears its fruit quite directly, it would be unworthy of the absolute justice of the Highest Authority to allow the wages of individual action somehow to depend on whether the merit of that of any other individual is higher or lower; it is rather recompensed to each only according to that person's deeds, as measured by transcendent norms, while competition actually repays each accord- ing to the works of the next person--according to the relation between the former and the latter. Insofar as the goal for which the members of a circle as such strive is religious, i. e. , unlimited and independent of the relationship among themselves, and possesses the possibility of being granted, the circle will develop no competition. This is therefore
conflict 269
? also the case with all associations that are based plainly on receptivity and offer in general no room for individually differentiated activities: scientific or literary unions that only stage lectures, travel societies, organizations for purely epicurean purposes.
So in all these cases, sociological formations that arise from the par- ticular purposes of the group and that exclude competition can thus, for reasons that stand beyond their substantive interests and character, sim- ply further impose on group life the renunciation of either competition in general or of certain of its means. The former occurs to the degree in which the socialistic principle of the coordinated organization of all work and the more-or-less communist one of the equality of the rewards from labor achieve dominance. Viewed formally, competition rests on the principle of individualism; however, as soon as it occurs within a group, its relationship to the social principle is immediately clear: the subordination of all individuality under the integrative interest of the whole. Individual competitors are to be sure ends in themselves; they apply their energies for the victory of their interests. However, because the conflict of competition is maintained by means of objective efforts and tends to produce some kind of valuable result for a third party, the purely social interest--constituting this result as an end goal that is only a byproduct for the competitors themselves--can not only allow the competition but can directly provoke it. It is thus in no way, as one readily thinks, solidly bound to the individualistic principle for which the individual, the individual's happiness, achievement, and fulfillment comprise the absolute meaning and purpose of all historical life. With regard to the question of the final goal it has in fact the indifference of any mere technology. It finds its opposition and its negation, then, not in the principle of that solely dominating social interest but only in another technology that it creates itself, and which is termed social- ism in the narrower sense. In other words, the valuation of the whole vis-a`-vis the fate of the individual, the tendency of establishments, or at least the thoughts on the totality altogether and inclusive of everyone, is to have every individual generally serving the whole--this is bound up with the school of thought that would organize every single task of labor; i. e. , one seeks to direct these jobs from a unifying, rational plan that excludes every tension between the elements, any expenditure of energy on competition, any chance of purely personal initiative; suc- cess for the whole will thus not be achieved through the antagonistic self-serving measures of spontaneously evoked powers, but rather from the directive of a center that from the outset organizes everything
270 chapter four
?
into a harmonious operation and complementarity, as is achieved most fully in the civil service of a state or the personnel of a factory. This socialist form of production is nothing more than a technique to attain the material goals of happiness and of culture, of justice and of fulfillment--and must therefore give way to competition wherever that appears to be the more practically suitable means. It is in no way, then, only a matter of political party membership, but the question whether the satisfaction of a need, the creation of a value, should be left to the competition of individual workers or their rational organiza- tion, their opposition to one another or collaboration--this question demands to be answered in a thousand partial or rudimentary forms, with nationalization and monopolization, with price competition and children's games; it makes itself felt in the problem whether science and religion engender the deeper values of life when they are organized into a harmonious system or precisely when each of the two seeks to surpass the solutions that the other offers and this competition forces both to the highest possible development; it becomes important for the decisions of the stage director: whether for the overall effect it is more correct to let every actor develop a complete individuality and through competition of the independent efforts enhance and enliven the whole or whether from the outset the overall artistic effect should restrain the individualities to a compliant accommodation; it is mirrored inside the individual when we at one time feel the conflict of ethical and aesthetic impulses, of intellectual and instinctive solutions as the condition for those choices that express our actual being most authenti- cally and vitally, and at another time permit these opposed individual forces to have their say only in so far as they order themselves into a unified system of life led by one tendency. One will not fully understand socialism in its usual sense if one does not recognize it as the com- pleted and purely motivated configuration of a technique of life that, along with its antithesis, extends to approaches and less recognizable realizations over the whole problem area of interlinkage-by-diversity. Although with the insight into the merely technical character of these arrangements, socialistic organization must now give up its claim as a self-justifying goal and final authoritative word, and, along with individu- alistic competition, insofar as that too is a means for supra-individual ends, would have to take up mathematical weighing, though this is not to deny then that such calculation frequently fails our intellectual resources and that the decision depends on the basic instincts of indi- vidual natures. It is only from these, of course, that the establishment
conflict 271
? of the end goals originates, viewed purely abstractly, while the means will be determined by objectively theoretical insight; in practice, how- ever, the insight is not only so incomplete that the subjective impulses must complete the choices in their stead, but also often so weak that it does not withstand their persuasive power. Then very often beyond all reasonable justification, the immediate attraction of this uniformly organized, internally egalitarian, friction-excluding form of group, as it has now been sublimated into socialism, will win the victory over the rhapsodic, the energy wastefulness, the fragmentation and chance of the competitive form of production; insofar as individuals draw close to this frame of mind, they will exclude competition even from realms whose content would not be incompatible with it.
It is much the same where there is no question of an organic unity of the whole but a mechanical similarity of parts. The purest case of the type is shaped by the constitution of the guild, in as much as it rests on the principle that every master should have 'the same nourishment. ' It is of the essence of competition that the parity of each member- element with the other is continuously shifted up or down. Each of two competing producers simply prefers the uncertain chance of dif- ferentiation over the splitting of the profit that is certain with the more exact equality of the opening bid: while one offers something or other, indeed perhaps much fewer than half the consumers will be won, but perhaps also much more. The principle of chance, which is realized in competition, is so inconsistent with the principle of equality that the guild suppressed competition by every means: by the prohibition of having more than one shop and more than a very limited number of assistants, selling anything other than one's own product, offering differ- ent quantities, qualities and prices than the guild had set. How little the conditions of the matter required these restrictions was, however, very soon revealed by their coming breakup; it was simply the, on the one hand, abstract, on the other hand, personal principle of equality that prohibited the competitive from of production. No further examples are needed here. The alternative that determines the countless provinces and individual cases of human behavior--whether to fight for a value or divide it amicably--leads here to that particular form of conflict, competition; since the parties do not wrestle directly with one another here but for the success of their achievements with a third entity, the division of the value consists then in the voluntary equivalence of these achievements. Moreover, the resolution of this does not depend entirely on the calculation of probability alone, which will demonstrate
272 chapter four
? at one time the gamble of competition oscillating between everything and nothing, at another the more certain equal achievement but one more limited than the greater one; in fact the mindset of the social epoch or the temperament of the individuals, often enough beyond all reckoning of reason, will decide for the one or the other, and certainly be able from this intuitive and thus general character of the decision to extend the renunciation of competition there too where the matter itself does not require it at all.
Other modifications of social interaction manifest themselves as soon as the renunciation does not concern competition as such but, during its continued existence, only certain of its means. It is a matter here of stages of development in which the absolute competition of the animal- istic struggle for existence turns into relative competition; i. e. , in which all those frictions and paralyzing of forces alike that are not needed for the purposes of competition are gradually eliminated. Not only the yield but also the intensity of competition remains untouched; the lat- ter is supposed to be really molded only from the yield and deviations therefrom diverted into channels in which the forces of both parties are reduced and thereby also subjective as well as the objective efficiency. This produces two forms that one can identify as the inter-individual and the supra-individual limitation of the means of competition. The one occurs where a number of competitors voluntarily come to an agreement to forego specific practices with which one could outdo the others: the renunciation by the one is here only good so long as the other adheres to it; thus the settlement of the retail book sellers of a location to grant no more than 10 or 5 percent or no discount at all on the selling prices; or an agreement of shop owners to close the businesses at 9 or 8 o'clock, etc. What is decisive here is only egoistic utility; the one forgoes the indicated means of gaining customers, know- ing that the other would immediately follow suit, and the additional profit they would have shared would not have equaled the additional expense they would have also shared. What is here relinquished is thus not actually competition--which always requires some inequality--but just such points in which no competition is possible because equality for all competitors derives directly from them. This type of form, although until now not purely realized all that frequently, is nevertheless of great significance because it shows as a unification of competitors on the field of competition itself to be possible, without this somehow diminishing competition; their antagonism is driven by this demonstration of a point of concurrence of interests all the more intensively on the issue, to
conflict 273
? where it can play out purely, and this inter-individual limitation of the means can continue indefinitely to unburden competition of all that is not really competition because it mutually balances itself without effect. Since the means of competition consists for the most part of advantages that are offered to a third, so in like measure the third will have to bear the costs of the agreement over the renunciation regarding it--in the economy, of course, the consumer; indeed the road to cartelization is thereby directly taken. Once it has been really understood that one can save oneself from the practices of competition in this and many such ways without harm, as long as the competitors do the same, this can have, besides the already emphasized consequence of an ever more intense and pure competition, just the opposite consequence: that one sets in motion the arrangement to the point of abolishing competition altogether, to the point of an organization of firms that now not only no longer fight over the market but maintain it according to a common plan. This renunciation of competition has a whole other sociologi- cal meaning than that accentuated in the guild: because it leaves the individuals independent, their equality required the reduction even of the most capable to that level on which the weakest could also compete with them; this will be the inevitable form in which the independent elements are able to accomplish a mechanical equality. With carteliza- tion, however, it is from the beginning not at all the situation of the subject, but the objective purposiveness of the business that is the starting point. Therein the limitation of the means of competition that removes everything not serving the purposes of competition and which ultimately limits as well the still remaining character of competition now reaches its climax, because the thorough domination of the market and the dependence of consumers won thereby makes competition as such superfluous.
Finally there occurs the limitation of the means of competition that leaves the continuation of competition itself untouched by authorities that stand entirely beyond the competitors and their spheres of inter- est: by law and morality. The law denies to competition in general only those means that are also forbidden among humans in their other relationships: acts of violence and property damage, fraud and slander, threat and forgery. Otherwise, competition is that antagonism whose forms and consequences are affected relatively less by legal prohibitions than the other forms of conflict. Penal law would immediately take action if one would destroy the economic, social, familial, indeed even physical existence of someone through direct attack of that sort, as is
274 chapter four
? possible to do through competition by simply erecting a factory next to someone else's, installing a personnel office next to someone else's, sub- mitting a prize essay alongside someone else's. Why the goods brought to ruin through competition are not protected from it appears quite clear indeed. First of all, because competitors lack any dolus. 19 None of them wants to gain something other than by one's own achievement, and the other thereby going under is a side-effect, fully irrelevant to the victor, albeit perhaps regrettable. Moreover, because the element of actual violation is absent from competition, defeat as well as victory for that matter is simply the apt and suitable expression of the mutual measure of power: victors have available the exact same chances as the defeated, and the latter have to chalk up their ruin exclusively to their own deficiencies. As for the former, dolus directed against the person of the harmed is lacking, just as in a great number of the punishable offenses, in none of which what emerges from revenge, malice, or cru- elty appears: the bankrupt who set capital assets aside simply want to save for themselves a bit of property, and the fact that the claims of their creditors are thereby damaged may be to the bankrupt themselves a regrettable conditio sine qua non;20 those who trek through the streets at night yelling are punished for disturbing the peace even when they only want to give expression to their high-spirited mood and gave no thought at all to the fact that they thereby rob others of their night's rest. Thus at least to some extent negligence would occasion responsi- bility on the part of those who ruin another person through their bid for something. And the exculpation through the similarity of the cir- cumstances, the voluntariness of the whole action, and the justice with which the success of competition follows the strengths deployed--this would likewise argue well against the punishment of almost all types of duels. If in a brawl begun by two sides voluntarily and under identical circumstances, one side is seriously injured, punishing the other side is no more logically consistent than it would be to penalize a merchant who has driven one's competitor into the ground with fair methods. That this does not occur is due in part to legally technical grounds, but mainly doubtless socially utilitarian, in that the society does not like to forego the advantages that competition between individuals brings to it and that outweigh by far the downside that it suffers through the
19 Latin: malice. Simmel is referring to the legal standard of malicious intent--ed.
20 Latin: necessary condition--ed.
? conflict 275
? occasional destruction of individuals in the competitive struggle. This is the obvious provision in the legal principle of the code civil, on which the entire juristic treatment of concurrence de? loyale is built: 21
Everything someone does that causes another damage obligates the former to make reparations to the extent of the fault that produces it. 22
Society would not grant that an individual could harm another indi- vidual directly and simply for one's own advantage in the manner just described; but it allows it because this damage occurs in an indirect way on account of an objective achievement that is valuable for an indeterminate number of individuals--just as our state would not also allow officers' duels if in this case the personal interest of one individual alone actually required the annihilation of another and the inner coherence of the officer corps did not draw a strength from this concept of honor, the advantage of which for the state outweighs the sacrifice of the individual.
French and German legislation admittedly has for some time now proceeded to limit the means of competition in the interest of the competitors themselves. The basic intention for this is to protect the individual merchant against such advantages of one's competitors that could be acquired by morally improper means. Thus, for example, all advertisements are prohibited that are supposed to lead the buyer through deceptive offers to the mistaken belief that this merchant offers more advantageous terms than any other--and if in fact an overcharging of the public is indeed not thereby occurring. Moreover it is forbidden to create an illusion on the part of the buyer by the presentation of the product that it is not otherwise obtainable for the same price--even if the quantity actually sold is for all intents and purposes the usual amount and the price is fair. A third type: a familiar firm with a large clientele can then prevent anyone of the same name from bringing to market a similar brand as though under its name when it can lead the customers thereby to think that it is the brand of that firm--no matter whether the product offered under that name is better or worse than the original.
What interests us here about these provisions is the apparently entirely new viewpoint, to protect the competitors who spurn unsavory methods
21 French for civil code; concurrence de? loyale is unfair competition--ed.
22 French in Simmel's text: Tout fait quelconque de l'homme qui cause a` autrui un dommage
oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrive? a` le re? parer--ed.
? 276 chapter four
? of winning customers from those who would use them; while otherwise all restrictions of business practices are meant to impede cheating the public, this is no motive in the laws in question, and its absence does not hinder their application in any way. Meanwhile if one looks closely, these prohibitions are nothing other than explications of the longest existing fraud clauses; the nature of this explication is not only of legal but also of form-sociological interest. German criminal law punishes it as fraud if someone, in order to procure a pecuniary advantage, "thereby damages the welfare of another by leading the other into error by way of deception through false pretenses. " This is now thus impartially understood as though the error would have to be provoked in the same person whose welfare is supposed to be damaged. However, the wording of the law contains nothing about this identity; and while it therefore also allows it to be prosecuted as fraud if the welfare of A is thereby damaged in that an error has been evoked in a B--it includes those cases of unfair competition entirely. For these mean that a misapprehen- sion is evoked in the public--without it suffering a disadvantage--and thereby the honest competitor is injured in equity--without the false pretenses deceiving that party. Whoever lies to the buyer, saying there is a clearance sale because of a death, perhaps does no injury if the price is about the same steady one as that of the competitor, but this injures the competitor by possibly taking customers away who would have remained faithful without the dishonest enticement. Thus the law is certainly no limitation of competitive means as such, no specific protection of competitors from each other. The behavior of society vis- a`-vis competition is not captured by it now prescribing this limitation of its means, but, on the contrary, by it neglecting it for so long even though it is nothing if not an always logically needed application of valid criminal law. To this we can add the following: If the motives behind these laws everywhere emphasize that they impose no restric- tions whatsoever on honest competition but would hinder only what contravenes true competition conducted in good faith, then one can for our present purposes express it more sharply as their eliminating from competition that which in the sociological sense is just not com- petition. For this latter is indeed an attainment thoroughly fought out objectively, which benefits third parties. Those objective social criteria, however, are contravened and displaced as soon as means of advertising, enticement, deceit are resorted to, which have absolutely no material benefit but represent a kind of extra indirect, purely egoistic struggle, not one directed in a socially useful manner. What jurisprudence identifies
conflict 277
? as 'honest' competition is taken precisely to be whatever conforms to that pure concept of competition. An annotation of the German law expressly excludes the following case from it: That someone place a huge competing business next to a clothing shop and sell at cutthroat prices, made known through showy advertisements, until the small merchant has been destroyed. Here is presented the most brutal violation, and the relationship between the two competitors, viewed individualisti- cally, is certainly nothing other than that between a strong robber and a weak victim. However, from the social standpoint, it is genuine, i. e. , competition exclusively conducted through the object and the third party--because the advertising, as long as it communicates only truth, serves the public. But what contained, for example, misleading state- ments, although they may do no harm, would still not be something useful, and from that point onward the protection of the competitors against ruin can therefore enter in; indeed, it even must in order to keep the competing powers entirely focused on the pure, i. e. , the socially utilitarian form of competition. Thus even the specific limitations that the law places on the means of competition are revealed precisely as a limitation of the limitations, which competition undergoes through merely subjectively individualistic practices.
All the more should one believe that here the law, as is often the case, would be complemented by morality, which, however, is not bound to social utility but rather repeatedly regulates human behavior according to norms that lie within or beyond the interests of society: according to the impulses of an immediate feeling that simply seeks peace even with oneself and finds this often precisely in the opposition to the claims of society--as in accordance with metaphysical and religious ideas that sometimes even include these claims, sometimes, however, altogether also reject them as historically limited contingencies. From both sources flow behavioral imperatives from person to person that are not social in the usual sense--albeit sociological--and by virtue of them the whole of human nature now only finds itself once again in the ideal form of the ought. That ascetic, altruistic, fatalistic morals reduce competition as much as possible, together with its means, requires no comment. Typical European morality, however, conducts itself more tolerantly towards competition than towards many other types of antagonism. This has to do with a specific combination of character traits that con- stitutes competition. On the one hand, as moral beings we hesitate all the less to employ our strength against an opponent; we are conscious of an ever further distance between our subjective personality and our
278 chapter four
? resolute performance called forth in struggle. Where immediate personal strengths wrestle against one another, we feel obliged rather to resort to respect and reservation, less able to avoid the appeal to compassion; indeed, a type of modesty sometimes hinders us in immediate antago- nism from letting loose our energies entirely without reservation, from revealing all our cards, from involving our whole being in a struggle in which personality stands against personality. With struggles that are driven by objective results these ethical and aesthetic reservations fall by the wayside. Consequently, one can compete with personalities with whom one would altogether avoid a personal controversy. By turning to the object, competition receives that cruelty of all objectivity that exists not from a desire for others' suffering but precisely in the subjective factors ruling out calculation. This indifference towards the subjective, as characterizes logic, law, and the money economy, allows personalities who are absolutely not cruel, nevertheless, to perpetrate all the severities of competition--and with a clear conscience, indeed not wishing evil. While here then the retreat of the personality behind the objectivity of the system unburdens the moral consciousness, the very same effect is also achieved through the immediate oppositional element of com- petition, through the exact proportionality with which the outcome of competition corresponds to the peculiar strengths called forth from the subjects. Apart from deviations that have nothing to do with the nature of competition but stem from their interweaving with other fates and relationships, the outcome of competition is the unerring indicator of the personal ability that has been objectified in accomplishment. What benefits us at the cost of others through the favor of people or conjunctures of coincidence or deeply foreordained destiny we do not exploit with as good a conscience as the yield that goes back only to our most individual action. For next to the sacrificial morality stands self- affirmation; both of them have their common opponent simply in the fact that our relationship to others is at the mercy of external powers, independent of the 'I. ' Where finally, as in pure competition, the self tips the scales, a satisfied sense of justice compensates our instinctive morality for the ruthlessness of the competition--and to be sure not only that of the victor, but perhaps also of the defeated. 23
23 This is arguably one of the points at which the relationship of competition stands out in the traits of modern existence. Humanity and its mission in life, individuality, and the material content of its activity appear before the beginning of the modern era to be in greater solidarity, more fused, as it were, in a more unselfconscious reciprocal
? conflict 279
? The various unitings among the parties to conflict discussed so far have revealed blendings of antithesis and synthesis, a structure with one over the other, and mutual restrictions as intensifications. Besides these, there is the further sociological importance of conflict, which it possesses not for the relationship of the parties to one another but for the inner structure of each party. Daily experience shows how easily a conflict between two individuals changes the individual not only in one's relationship to the other but also within oneself; and to be sure--quite apart from its distorting or refining, weakening or strengthening conse- quences for the individual--through the pre-conditions that it imposes, the inner alterations and adaptations that it breeds on account of their usefulness for the prosecution of the conflict. Our language provides an unusually apt formulation for the essence of these immanent changes: Combatants must 'sich zusammennehmen' ('get a grip on themselves' or 'pull themselves together'), i. e. , all their energies must be concentrated at one point as it were, so that they can be employed in any given instant in the precisely needed direction. In peacetime one may 'sich gehen lassen' ('let oneself go')--oneself, i. e. , the individual strengths and interests of one's being, which may unfold in various directions independently of one another. In times of attack and defense, however, this would bring with it a loss of power through the contrary strivings of a divided being and a loss of time through its repeated regrouping and reorganization, so that now the whole person must accept the form of concentration as one's inner disposition for conflict and chance for victory. Behavior that is similar in form is needed by a group in the same situation. This necessity of centralization--of the tightening up of the solidarity of all elements which alone insures their deployment for the respective needs
abandon than afterwards. Recent centuries have, on the one hand, created objective interests, an establishment from material culture of otherwise unheard of power and autonomy; on the other hand, deepened the subjectivity of the Ego, the belonging- to-oneself of the individual soul vis-a`-vis all material and social prejudices, likewise unheard of. This sharply differentiated consciousness of the issue and the self on the part of modern people allows the conflict form of competition to appear as though it were created for them. Here is the pure objectivity of action that owes its effect exclusively to the cause and its legal effects, along with full indifference towards the personality standing behind it. And yet here is also the full self-responsibility of the person, the dependence of success on individual strength, and to be sure precisely because here personal ability is weighed against personal ability entirely by imper- sonal forces. The deepest tendencies of modern life, the material and the personal, have found in competition one of their meeting points in which they directly belong practically together and thus demonstrate their contrariety as members of a historical unity complementing one another.
? 280 chapter four
? without a waste of time and energy--is so self-evident in conflict that in countless historical examples it prevails over even the most complete democracy of peacetime, beginning, for example, from the well-known differences of the peace and war organizations of the North American Indians to London's apprentice tailors who in the first quarter of the nineteenth century possessed completely different organizations for peace and for war with employers. In calm times they consisted of small autonomous general assemblies in 30 lodges. In times of war each lodge had a deputy; these deputies formed a council and elected in its turn a very small council, from which all commands emanated and which were to be obeyed unconditionally. In general the labor unions at that time had the principle that all should decide upon what was also in the interests of all. Here, however, the emergency demon- strated an organic formation of the most stringent effectiveness, which functioned completely autocratically and whose blessing the workers recognized without opposition. The known reciprocal effect between the condition of despotism and warlike tendencies of a group rests on this formal basis: war requires the centralistic sharpening of the group form that despotism best guarantees; and conversely once this exists and that form is realized, the energies cumulated and compressed in this manner strive very easily towards natural discharge, towards an external war. In this context an example of the reverse may be offered for its characteristic clarity--one of the most anarchistic peoples is the Greenland Eskimos. No kind of chieftainship exists among them at all; to be sure, they gladly look to the most experienced one among them when it comes to fishing, but that person possesses no kind of author- ity and there exists no means of coercion at all for those who would exclude themselves from the common endeavor. And then it is reported of these people that the only manner in which disputes among them are fought out--is a singing contest. Those who believe themselves injured by others devise derisive verses about them and recite them in an assembly of the people summoned only for this, whereupon the opponents answer in the same way. Corresponding to the absolute absence of any warlike instinct, thus, is likewise the absolute absence of any political centralization. For this reason, among all the respec- tive organizations of the totality of a group, that of the military is always the most centralized--excepting perhaps the fire department, which is formally faced with quite comparable necessities--the one in which any independent action on the part of elements is excluded by the unconditional domination of the central authority, and therefore
conflict 281
? the momentum is realized without any dynamic loss in the movement of the whole. On the other hand, what characterizes a confederation as such is its unity as a war-making power. While in all other respects each state may keep its independence, in this it is not permitted when a relationship of confederation is actually supposed to exist, so that what is identified as a virtually complete confederation is that it would form an absolute unity in its--essentially yet open or latent warlike--rela- tionship to other states, while its members would possess complete independence in their relationship to one another.
In view of the incomparable benefits of a united organization for the purpose of conflict, one would believe every party would thereby have to have the most extreme interest in having the opposing party lack this unity. 24 Nevertheless, there are several cases of the contrary: the form of centralization into which the situation of conflict forces the party outgrows the party itself and provokes it to mostly prefer seeing even the opponent over against itself in this form. In the struggles of recent decades between workers and employers, this extended to a most unlikely place. The Royal Commission on Labour in England judged in 1894 that the fixed organization of workers would be favorable for the employers in an industry, and likewise that of the employers for the workers. Admittedly the result of that would then be that an out- break strike could become greatly extended and of long duration, but for both parties this would still always be more advantageous and less costly than the many local deals, work stoppages, and minor conflicts that do not cease in the absence of a strict organization of the par- ties. In the same way a war between modern states, destructive and costly as it may be, is still always better on balance than the incessant small conflicts and frictions in periods in which the governments were less strongly centralized. In Germany too the workers had recognized that one strict and effective organization of employers precisely for the fighting out of conflicts of interest is for all intents and purposes in the interest of the workers themselves. Since only that kind of an organization can present representatives with whom one is able to negotiate with full confidence, only when faced with that is the work force of the industry in question certain that the result arrived at is not immediately called into question by those employers not present. The disadvantage that a party suffers on account of the unified organization
24 Compare the earlier comments about divide et impera.
? 282 chapter four
? of the opponent--because it is also an advantage for itself--is more than offset here by the fact that with both parties so constituted the conflict itself can be one of more focus, more visibility, securing a lasting and truly general peace--whereas one certainly more often wins individual victories against a diffuse mass of foes, but arrives with great difficulty at decisive actions actually fitting the ratio of strengths. This case is thus so deeply instructive regarding the fundamental connection between the form of unity and the conflict behavior of the group because it allows the practicality of this connection to triumph over even the immediate disadvantage for the respective opponent. It reveals that centripetalism that places the objective outcome of conflict on the surest and shortest path as the objectively ideal form of the constitution for conflict; this teleology, as it were, more-or-less transcending the parties, lets each individual party do its own arithmetic and thereby be able to fashion the apparent contradiction of turning each advantage of the opponent into an advantage of its own.
It makes an essential difference for the sociological meaning of a formation whether a group as a whole enters into an antagonistic rela- tionship with an externally situated power, and thus the tightening of its bonds and increase in its unity occurs in consciousness and action; or every element of a larger grouping has its enemy, and, because this is the same one for all, now more than ever a federation of all comes about--whether formerly they had in general nothing to do with each other or whether at least for the moment new formations develop among them. It must still be emphasized for the first case that conflict or war can on the one hand get a group past various discrepancies and individual deviations within it; on the other hand, however, it can often bring to the relationships within it a clarity and decisiveness achieved in no other way. This is to be observed especially in groupings that are smaller and have not yet attained the objectification of a modern state. If a political party that unites multiple interests sees itself forced into a very definite and one-sided situation of conflict, this is a straightforward opportunity for secessions; in such moments all that is left is to forget about the internal opposing interests or to expressly clarify them by expelling certain members. Should a family contain individuals with strong but latent differences, the moment danger or attack forces them into the greatest possible closeness will be just the one that secures its unity in the long run or destroys it permanently, the moment at which it is decided absolutely accurately how great a cooperation of such per- sonalities is possible. When a school class plans a prank on the teacher
conflict 283
? or a brawl with another class, it takes care certainly on the one hand to silence all kinds of inner enmities, but on the other hand, however, it always causes certain students to break off from the rest, not only out of material motives but rather because they do not want to join in on such peremptory attacks with them and the others with whom they readily cooperate in other respects within the framework of the class. In short, the condition of peace for a group permits antagonistic elements within it to live among themselves in an unsettled situation because each one can go one's own way and can avoid confrontations. The condition of strife, however, pulls the elements so firmly together and places them under an impulse of such unification that they have to get along with each other or completely repel each other; for that reason too an external war is sometimes the final means for a state shot through with internal hostilities to overcome them; sometimes, however, precisely that allows the whole to disintegrate definitively.
For that reason groups who find themselves in some kind of state of war are not tolerant; they can tolerate individual deviance from the unity of the principle of cohesion only up to a critically limited extent. The method for this is occasionally an apparent tolerance exercised in order to be able to exclude with all the more resoluteness those not definitively falling into line. The Catholic Church found itself actually forever in a double state of war: against the entire complex of various teachings that together comprise heresy, and against the life interests and powers alongside it that lay claim in some way to a realm of power independent of it. The cohesive form of unity that it needed in this situation was thereby won by it nevertheless treating dissidents as long as possible as still belonging to it; from the moment, however, when this was no longer possible, it repudiated them with an incomparable energy. For that kind of formation a certain flexibility of its form is of the utmost importance,25 not in order to produce a conversion and reconciliation with the antagonistic powers but rather precisely to set itself in opposition to them with extreme severity, yet without somehow suffering the loss of useful elements. The flexibility is not an extension beyond its own boundary; rather that closes off the flexible body no less unequivocally than it marks the boundary of a rigid one. This malleability characterizes, e. g. , the monastic orders, through which the
25 On the flexibility of social forms in general, compare the end of the chapter on self-preservation.
? 284 chapter four
? mystical or fanatical impulses, surfacing in all religions, could here live out their absolutely arranged life style innocently in one church, while exactly the same thing in Protestantism, with its sporadically much greater dogmatic intolerance, often led to secessions from and splin- terings of its unity. Sociological patterns of action that are specific to the female gender appear to go back to the same motive. Among the most diverse elements of which all the relationships between men and women consist, there is found also a typical animosity emergent from the two sources--that women, as the physically weaker, are always in danger of economic and personal exploitation and absence of rights,26 and that they, as the objects of the sensual desire of men, must maintain a defensive posture against them. So seldom then does this struggle, flowing through the inner and personal history of human gender, lead to a direct cooperation of women against men, that there is instead a transpersonal form that serves as a means of protection against both of these dangers and in which therefore the female gender is interested, so to say, in corpore: custom--whose sociological nature, characterized above, is to be drawn upon once again for its current implications. The strong personality knows to protect itself individually against attacks or, if needed, simply needs legal protection; the weak would be lost, in spite of the latter, if the individuals with superior power did not them- selves somehow abstain from the exploitation of this superiority. This occurs in part through morality; but since morality has no executive apart from the conscience of the individual, it functions uncertainly enough that it needs to be supplemented by custom; admittedly this does not have the precision and certainty of the legal norm, but in any case it is guaranteed by an instinctive aversion to and by some perceptibly unpleasant consequences of its violation. Now custom is the real protection of the weak who would be no match in a fight of unfettered forces. Its character is thus essentially that of prohibition, of restriction; it effects a certain equality between the weak and the strong that goes so far in its constraint on the merely natural relationship of the two that it even favors the weak--as chivalry demonstrates, for example. In the chronic struggle between men and women those that are the stronger and the aggressor are compelled into the protection
26 I speak here of the relationship as it has existed for the greater part of known history, and leave aside whether that will henceforth become or has already become partially invalid through the modern development of rights and strengths of women.
? conflict 285
? of custom, so they are assigned--assigned by their own interest--to be its guardians. For that reason they themselves are of course also occupied most strictly with the observance of the whole complex of custom codes, as well as where it is not at all immediately a matter of masculine harms: all norms of customs exist together in a dense interrelationship; the violation of each one weakens the principle and thereby every other one. For this reason women tend out of necessity to stick together; here an actual unity corresponds to the peculiar ideals with which men generalize about them when they speak of 'women' as such, and which certainly has the character of a partisan-like opposition. This solidarity which they have apart from men and which is already expressed by Freidank:27 "The man bears his dishonor alone--But when a woman falls--They all come under reproach"--this gender- like solidarity has in its interest in custom a real vehicle as its shared means of conflict. And therefore finally repeated here is the sociological form now under consideration. As a rule women know, concerning one woman, only the complete inclusion or the complete exclusion from the realm of custom. There exists among them the tendency, as far as possible, not to admit a breach in custom by a woman, to interpret it as insignificant except where scandal mongering and other individual motives are working against it. If this, however, is no longer possible, they pass a judgment of exclusion from 'good society,' unable to be appealed and unconditionally harsh; if the breach of custom must be acknowledged, the guilty one is radically eliminated from that unity that is held together by the shared interest in custom. So one knows that women make the same damning judgment of Gretchen as they do the Lady of the Camellias, Stella as well as Messalina,28 without making an adjustment for those standing between the inside and the outside of custom by way of a concession to distinctions of degree. The defensive position of women does not allow for the wall of custom to be reduced at even just one point; the party of women knows no compromise in principle, but only dogmatic acceptance of an individual into the ideal totality of 'decent women' or just as dogmatic expulsion from it--an
27 Freidank was a 13th-century poet who became known for his aphorisms-ed.
28 Two references seem to be the successive wives, Gretchen and Stella, in Lilian
Gask's The Fairies and the Christmas Child; Gretchen made her husband jealous by giv- ing hospitality to an old man who turned out to be an elf, and Stella was a wealthy but scolding wife.