THE ORIGIN OF TRADITION 431 



turn into provinces of which the country is composed. This, 

 however, is not the form of organization which keeps the higher 

 type of society together. That which forms its essential difference 

 from the lower type is the organic nature of the relation of the parts 

 the complementary co-ordination of the various professions one 

 with the other. It is this interlocking of complementary parts 

 and not the coherence of similar segments which cement the form 

 of society typical of the third stage. 



8. The evolution from the segmentary to the organic form 

 of social organization was relatively speaking a rapid process. 

 The approach that can be made to the organic type within the 

 segmentary type is only slight. Doubtless the new type developed 

 within the old forms. Thus we see among the Hebrews the 

 assumption of priestly functions by a single tribe that of the 

 Levites. But the development of the organic type cannot go far 

 without breaking up the segmentary form of organization ; the 

 number and importance of functions does not correspond with the 

 existing forms of organization and cannot long develop within them. 



We have now to ask what brings about the evolution of the 

 organic type of society and then what bearing these forms of 

 organization have upon the growth and transmission of tradition. 

 It is rather that the crumbling away of this segmentary organiza- 

 tion of society brings to birth the organic type than that the 

 growth of the latter is the cause of the disappearance of the 

 former. This must be so because, as we have seen, the existence 

 of the segmentary type is a barrier to the development of the 

 organic type. This crumbling away is brought about by what 

 Durkheim calls the growth of moral density. Growth in moral 

 density comes about through the pressure of the increasing contact 

 between men performing the same functions, and this causes the 

 decay of the segmentary type of organization and brings about 

 an organization resting upon function. The effect acts upon 

 the cause and accelerates the process. The growth in moral 

 density is connected with the growth in volume of society which 

 is measured solely by the increase in population. But growth in 

 moral density, though only made possible by growth in volume, 

 does not of necessity go hand in hand with it. Growth of moral 

 coalescence is not correlated absolutely with the increase in 

 volume. The density of population can become very considerable, 

 while the moral density remains relatively undeveloped. This 



