296 ADAPTATION AND PROGRESS 



Social control is distinguished from class control by the fact 

 that in the latter case society being on the competitive basis, " the 

 hopelessly poor and wretched are, to a large extent, the weak and 

 incompetent who have accumulated at the lower end of the social 

 scale, because they or their parents have failed to meet the tests 

 of the competitive system." In this case control is largely in the 

 hands of the efficient and in the interest of the social whole. 



Ross assumes in the above that the present competitive system 

 is a success in producing social segregation on the basis of native 

 ability and social worth, — a questionable assumption. 



The vicissitudes of social control, he points out, are primarily 

 in response to social needs, and of these the economic are con- 

 sidered of first importance. 1 Conflict of groups and conflict 

 of classes within the group are also recognized as potent causes 

 of change, the class conflict being due not alone to sharp conflict 

 of interest but to great contrast of means and a great inequality of 

 opportunity. 2 " Another cause of vicissitude," he says, " is 

 change in the culture and habits of a people" whether due to fresh 

 knowledge, new ideas, foreign influences, or novel experiences. 3 



Ross divides the supports of order into two groups, the ethical, 

 including public opinion, suggestion, personal ideals, social 

 religion, art, and social valuations based on sentiment rather than 

 judgment of social utility, and the political, including law, belief, 

 ceremony, education and illusion, — the last, " frequently the 

 means deliberately chosen in order to reach certain ends." 4 The 

 political supports are instruments of the ethical. 



He believes that social control by the hero, by custom, by 

 supernatural religion, and by mob, ban or boycott, is passing, and 

 that enlightened self-interest, suggestion, moral idealism and 

 social religion will become increasingly potent. 6 



In discussing the limits of social control he takes a decided 

 stand against all social theories that place the good of the group 

 above that of its constituent members, holding that " society is 

 not a being, but just people in their collective capacity," and 



1 Social Control, p. 395. * Ibid., p. 411. 



2 Ibid., p. 402. 6 iim ; pp 4 i S - 4I 6. 

 s Ibid., p. 404. 



