Omitting those lowest types which show no differentiations at all, we have but few exceptions to the rule that each society has structures for carrying on conflict with other societies and structures for carrying on sustentation; and the ratios between these admitting of all gradations, it results that no specific classification can be based on their relative developments. Nevertheless, as the predatory type, characterized by predominance of the one, is framed on the principle of compulsory coöperation, while the industrial type, characterized by predominance of the other, is framed on the principle of voluntary cooperation, the two types, when severally evolved to their extreme forms, are diametrically opposed; and the contrasts between their traits are among the most important with which sociology has to deal.
Were this the fit place, some pages might be added respecting a possible future social type, differing as much from the industrial as this does from the predatory—a type which, having a sustaining system more fully developed than any we know at present, will use the products of industry neither for maintaining a predatory organization nor exclusively for material aggrandizement; but will devote them to the carrying on of higher activities. As the contrast between the predatory and the industrial types is indicated by inverting the belief that individuals exist for the benefit of the state into the belief that the state exists for the benefit of individuals, so the contrast between the industrial type and the type likely to be evolved from it is indicated by the inversion of the belief that life is for work into the belief that work is for life. But we are here concerned with inductions derived from societies that have been and are, and cannot enter upon speculations respecting societies that may be. Merely naming as a sign the multiplication of institutions and appliances for intellectual and aesthetic culture, and for kindred activities not of a directly life-sustaining kind, but of a kind having gratification for their immediate purpose, I can here say no more.
Returning from this parenthetical suggestion, there remains the remark that to the complications caused by the crossings of these two classifications have to be added the complications caused by the unions of races widely unlike or little unlike; which here mix not at all, there partially, and in other cases wholly. Respecting these kinds of constitutions, we have considerable warrant for concluding that the hybrid kind, essentially unstable, admits of being organized only on the principle of compulsory cooperation; since units much opposed in their natures cannot work together spontaneously. While, conversely, the kind characterized by likeness in its units is relatively stable; and under fit conditions may evolve into the industrial type, especially if the likeness is qualified by slight differences.
