THE HEREDITARY OR CASTE PRINCIPLE NATURE AND USE OF CLASSES -- INHERITANCE AND COMPETITIONTHE TWO PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH CLASSES ARE BASED -- CONDITIONS IN HUMANNATURE MAKING FOR HEREDITARY CLASSES -- CASTE SPIRITSPEAKING roughly， we may call any persistent social group， other than the family， existing within a larger group， a class. And every society， except possibly the most primitive， is more or less distinctly composed of classes. Even in savage tribes there are， besides families and clans， almost always other associations： of warriors， of magicians and so on；and these continue throughout all phases of development until we reach the intricate group structure of our own time. Individuals never achieve their life in separation， but always in cooperation with a group of other minds， and in proportion as these cooperating groups stand out from one another with some distinctness they constitute social classes.
We may say of this differentiation， speaking generally， that it is useful.
The various functions of life require special influences and organization， and without some class spirit， some speciality in traditions and standards， nothing is well performed. Thus， if our physicians were not， as regards their professional activities， something of a psychological unit， building up knowledge and senti-(210)-ment by communication， desiring the approval and dreading the censure of their colleagues， it would be worse not only for them but for the rest of us. There are no doubt class divisions that are useless or harmful， but something of this nature there should be， and l have already tried to show that our own society suffers considerably from a lack of adequate group differentiation in its higher mental activities.
Fundamental to all study of classes are the two principles， of inheritance and of competition， according to which their membership is determined.
The rule of descent， as in the hereditary nobility of England or Germany， gives a fixed system， the alternative to which is some kind of selection梑y election or appointment as in our politics； by purchase， as formerly in the British army and navy； or by the informal action of preference， opportunity and endeavor， as in the case of most trades and professions at the present day.
Evidently these two principles are very much intermingled in their working.
The hereditary distinctions must have a beginning in some sort of selective struggle， such as the military and commercial competition from which privileged families have emerged in the past， and never become so rigid as not to be modified by similar processes. On the other hand， inherited advantages， even in the freest society， enter powerfully into every kind of competition.
Another consideration of much interest is that the strict rule of descent is a biological principle， making the social organization subordinate to physical continuity of life， (211) while selection or competition brings in psychical elements， of the most various qualities to be sure， but capable at the best of forming society on a truly rational method.
Finally it is well to recognize that there is a vast sum of influences governed by no ascertainable principle at all， which go to assign the individual his place in the class system. After allowing for inheritance and for everything which can fairly be called selection (that is， for all definite and orderly interaction between the man and the system)， there remains a large part which can be assigned only to chance. This is particularly true in the somewhat tumultuous changes of modern life.
When a class is somewhat strictly hereditary， we may call it a caste梐name originally applied to the hereditary classes of India， but to which it is common， and certainly convenient， to give a wider meaning.
Perhaps the best way to understand caste is to open our eyes and note those forces at work among ourselves which might conceivably give rise to it.
On every side we may see that differences arise， and that these tend to be perpetuated through inherited associations， opportunities and culture.
The endeavor to secure for one's children whatever desirable thing one has gained for oneself is a perennial source of caste， and this endeavor flows from human nature and the moral unity of the family. If a man has been able to save money， he anxiously invests it to yield an income after his death； if he has built up a business， it is his hope that his children may succeed him in it； if he has a good handicraft， he wishes his boys to learn it. And so with less tangible (212) goods梕ducation， culture， religious and moral ideas？there is no good parent but desires his children to have more than the common inheritance of what is best in these things' It its， perhaps， safe to say that if the good of his children could be set on one side and the good of all the rest of the world over against it on the other， the average parent would desire that evil might befall the latter rather than the former. And much of the wider social spirit of recent times comes from the belief that we cannot make this separation， and that to secure the real good of our children we must work for the common advancement.
That this endeavor to secure a succession in desirable function is not confined to the rich we may see， for instance， in the fact that labor unions often have regulations tending to secure to the children of members a complete or partial monopoly of the opportunities of apprenticeship. In Chicago， not long since， only the son of a plumber could learn the plumber's trade.