A life of service of some sort梚n behalf of the clan or tribe， of the chief， of the sovereign， of the mistress， of the Church， of God梙as always been the ideal life， since no imaginative and truly human mind contents itself with a separate good： what is new is that the object of this service tends to become wider， with the modern expansion of the imagination， and to include all classes， all nations and races， in its ideal scope.The narrower boundaries do not disappear， but as they become less distinct the greater whole becomes more so.As the child grows until he can see over the hedges bounding his early playground， so the democratized individual has outgrown the limits of the clan or the caste.
In the United States， at least， the feeling that e.verybodv ought to be doing something useful is so established that there s no influential class within which idleness is respectable.Whatever narrowness there may be in this spirit， in the way of undervaluing activities whose usefulness is of an inobvious sort， it is sound on the whole and does incalculable service in redeeming riches from vulgarity and corruption.If it be true， as is asserted， that the children of the wealthy， with us， are on the whole less given to sloth and vice than the same class in older countries， the reason is to be found in a healthier， more organic state of public opinion which penetrates all classes with the perception that the significance of the individual lies in his service to the whole.That this sentiment is gaining in our colleges is evident to those who know anything of these institutions.Studies that throw light on the nature and working of society， past or present， and upon the opportunities of service or distinction which it offers to the individual， are rapidly taking the place， for purposes of culture， of studies whose human value is less， or not so apparent.Classes in history梡olitical， industrial and social梚n economics， in government and administration， in sociology and ethics， in charities and penology， are larger year by year.And the young people， chiefly from the well-to-do classes， who seek these studies， are one and all adherents of the democratic idea that privilege must be earned by function.
The tendency of manners well expresses that of sentin~ent， and seems to be toward a spontaneous courtesy， expressing truth and equality as against the concealment and， sometimes， the arrogance， of mere polish.The best practice appears to be to put yourself， on approaching another， into as open and kindly a frame of mind toward him as you can， but not to try to express more than you feel， preferring coldness to affected warmth.Democracy IS too busy and too fond of truth and human nature to like formality， except as an occasional amusement.A merely formal politeness goes with a crystallized society， indicating a certain distrust of human nature and desire to cloak or supplant it by propriety.Thus a Chinese teacher， having a rare opportunity to send a message to his old mother， called one of his pupils saying， " Here， take this paper and write me a letter to my mother." This proceeding struck the observer as singular， and he enquired if the lad was acquainted with the teacher's mother， learning that the boy did not even know there was such a person."How， then， was he to know what to say， not having been told ？ " To this the schoolmaster made reply： "Doesn't he know quite well what to say ？ For more than a year he has been studying literary composition， and he is acquainted with a number of elegant formulas.Do you think he does not know perfectly well how a son ought to write to a mother？" The letter would have answered equally well for any other mother in the Empire.Here is one extreme， and the kindly frontiersman with "no manners at all"is at the other.
No doubt form， in manners as well as elsewhere， is capable of a beauty and refinement of its own， and probably raw democracy goes to an anarchic excess in depreci--ating it； but the sentiment of reality which demands that form and content should agree， is perhaps a permanent factor in the best manners.
Conflict， of some sort， is the life of society， and progress emerges from a struggle in which each individual， class or institution seeks to realize its own idea of good.The intensity of this struggle varies directly as the vigor of the people， and its cessation， if conceivable， would be death.There is， then， no prospect of an amiable unanimity， and the question arises， What change， if any， in the nature of opposition and of hostility， accompanies the alleged growth of the sense of brotherhood ？
The answer to this is probably best sought by asking ourselves what is the difference between the opposition of friends and that of enemies.
Evidently the former may be as energetic as the latter， but it is less personal： that is， it is not directed against the opponent as a whole， but against certain views or purposes which the opponent？toward whom a kindly feeling is still cherished梖or the time being represents.The opposition of enemies， on the other hand， involves a personal antagonism and is gratified by a personal injury.