OPEN CLASSES THE NATURE OF OPEN CLASSES -- WHETHER CLASS-CONSCIOUSNESSIS DESIRABLE -- FELLOWSHIP AND COOPERATION DEFICIENT IN OUR SOCIETY --CLASS ORGANIZATION IN RELATION TO FREEDOMWITH the growth of freedom classes come to be more open， that is， more based on individual traits and less upon descent. Competition comes actively into play and more or less efficiently fulfils its function [1] of assigning to each one an appropriate place in the whole. The theory of a free order is that every one is born to serve mankind in a certain way， that he finds out through a wise system of education and experiment what that way is， and is trained to enter upon it. In following it he does the best possible both for the service of society and his own happiness.
So far as classes exist they are merely groups for the furtherance of efficiency through cooperation， and their membership is determined entirely by natural fitness.
This ideal condition is never attained on a large scale. In practice the men who find work exactly suited to them and at the same time acceptable to society are at the best somewhat exceptional梩hough habit reconciles most of us梐nd classes are never wholly open or wholly devoted to the general good.
The problem of finding where men belong， of adapting personal gifts to a complex system， is indeed one of ex-(240)-treme difficulty， and is in no way solved by facile schemes of any sort. There are， fundamentally， only two principles available to meet it， that of inheritance or caste and that of competition. While the former is a low principle， the latter is also， in many of its phases， objectionable， involving waste of energy and apt to degenerate into anarchy. There are always difficulties on either hand， and the actual organization of life is ever a compromise between the aspiration toward freedom and the convenience of status.
We may assume， then， that in contemporary life we have to do with a society in which the constitution of classes， so far as we have them， is partly determined by inheritance and partly by a more or less open competition， which is， again， more or less effective in placing men where they rightly belong.
If classes are open and men make their way from one into another， it is plain that they cannot be separate mental wholes as may be the case with castes. The general state of things becomes one of facile intercourse， and those who change class will not forget the ideas and associations of youth. Non-hereditary classes may have plenty of solidarity and class spirit梒onsider， for instance， the mediaeval clergy梐nd their activity may also be of a special and remote sort， like that of an astronomical society， but after all there will be something democratic about them； they will share the general spirit of the whole in which they are rooted. They mean only specialization in consciousness， where caste means separation.
The question whether there is or ought to be "class consciousness" in a democratic society is a matter of defi-(241)-nitions. If we mean a division of feeling that goes deeper than the sense of national unity and separates the people into alien sections， then there is no such thing in the United States on any important scale (leaving aside the race question)， and we may hope there never will be.
But if we mean that along with an underlying unity of sentiment and ideals there are currents of thought and feeling somewhat distinct and often antagonistic， the answer is that class-consciousness in this sense exists and is more likely to increase than to diminish. A country of newspapers， popular education and manhood suffrage has passed the stage in which sentiments or interests can flow in separate channels； but there is nothing to prevent the people forming self-assertive groups in reference to economic and social questions， as they do in politics.
Class-consciousness along these lines will probably increase with growing interest in the underlying controversies， but I do not anticipate that this increase will prove the dreadful thing which some imagine. A "class-war"would indeed be a calamity， but why expect it？ I see no reason unless it be a guilty conscience or an unbelief in moral forces. A certain sort of agitators expect and desire a violent struggle， because they see privilege defiant and violence seems to them the shortest way to get at it； and on the other hand， there are many in the enjoyment of privilege who feel in their hearts that they deserve nothing better than to have it taken away from them： but these are naive views that ignore the solidity of the present order， which ensures that any change must be gradual and make its way by reason. Orderly struggle is the time-honored method of adjusting controversies among a free people， (242) and why should we assume that it will degenerate into anarchy and violence at just this point ？ Will not feeling be rather better than worse when a vague sense of injustice has had a chance to try itself out in a definite and positive self-assertion ？
It is to be remembered， moreover， that in a society where groups interlace as much as they do with us a conflict of class interests is， in great degree， not a conflict of persons but rather one of ideas in a common social medium梥ince many persons belong to more than one class. Only under conditions of caste would a class war of the sort predicted by some theorists be likely to come to pass. I am not sure that it would be more fantastic to expect a literal war between Democrats and Republicans than between the parties梙ardly less united by common social and economic interests梠f Labor and Capital.