"All things grow clear in the United States，" says Paul Bourget， "when one understands them as an immense act of faith in the social beneficence of individual energy left to itself." * The "individualism" of our social system is a commonplace of contemporary writers. Nowhere else， not even in England， I suppose， is there more respect for non-conformity or more disposition to (161) assert it. In our intensely competitive life men learn to value character above similarity， and one who has character may hold what opinions he pleases. Personality， as Mr. Brownell points out in contrasting the Americans with the French， is the one thing of universal interest here：
our conversation， our newspapers， our elections are dominated by it， and our great commercial transactions are largely a struggle for supremacy among rival leaders. [4] The augmenting numbers of the people， far from obscuring the salient individual， only make for him a larger theatre of success； and personal reputation梬hether for wealth， statesmanship， literary achievement， or for mere singularity梚s organized on a greater scale than ever before. One who is familiar with any province of American life， as for example， that of charitable and penal reform， is aware that almost every advance is made through the embodiment of timely ideas in one or a few energetic individuals who set an example for the country to follow. Experience with numbers， instead of showing the insignificance of the individual， proves that if he has faith and a worthy aim there is no limit to what he may do； and we find， accordingly， plenty of courage in starting new projects. The country is full of men who find the joys of self-assertion， if not always of outward success， in the bold pursuit of hazardous enterprises.
If there is a deficiency of literary and artistic achievement in a democracy of this kind， it is due to some other cause than a general submergence of the individual in the mass.
The dead-level theory， then， is sufficiently discredited (162) as a general law by the undiminished ascendancy of salient individualities in every province of activity. The enlargement of social consciousness does not alter the essential relation of individuality to life， but simply gives it a greater field of success or failure. The man of genius may meet with more competition， but if he is truly great a larger world is his.
To imagine that the mass will submerge the individual is to suppose that one aspect of society will stand still while the other grows. It rests upon a superficial， numerical way of thinking， which regards individuals as fixed units each of which must become less conspicuous the more they are multiplied. But if the man of genius represents a spiritual principle his influence is not fixed but grows with the growth of life itself， and is limited only by the vitality of what he stands for. Surely the great men of the past桺lato， Dante， Shakespeare and the rest梐re not submerged， nor in danger of being； nor is it apparent why their successors should be.
The real cause of literary and artistic weakness (in so far as it exists)I take to be chiefly the spiritual disorganization incident to a time of rather sudden transition. How this condition， and others closely associated with it， are unfavorable to great aesthetic production， I shall try to point out under the four heads， confusion， commercialism， haste and zeal for diffusion.
With reference to the higher products of culture， not only the United States， but in some degree contemporary civilization in general， is a confused， a raw， society， not as being democratic but as being new. It is our whole newspaper and factory epoch that is crude， and scarcely (163) more so in America than in England or Germany； the main difference in favor of European countries being that the present cannot so easily be separated from the conditions of an earlier culture. It is a general trait of the time that social types are disintegrated， old ones going to pieces and new ones not perfected， leaving the individual without adequate discipline either in the old or in the new.
Now works of enduring greatness seem to depend， among other things， on a certain ripeness of historical conditions. No matter how gifted an individual may be， he is in no way apart from his time， but has to take that and make the best of it he can； the man of genius is in one point of view only a twig upon which a mature tendency bears its perfect fruit.
In the new epoch the vast things in process are as yet so unfinished that individual gifts are scarce sufficient to bring anything to a classical completeness； so that our life remains somewhat inarticulate， our literature， and still more our plastic art， being inadequate exponents of what is most vital in the modern spirit.
The psychological effect of confusion is a lack of mature culture groups， and of what they only can do for intellectual or aesthetic production.
What this means may， perhaps， be made clearer by a comparison drawn from athletic sports. We find in our colleges that to produce a winning foot-ball team， or distinguished performance in running or jumping， it is essential first of all to have a spirit of intense interest in these things， which shall arouse the ambition of those having natural gifts， support them in their training and reward their success. With (164) out this group spirit no efficient organization， no high standard of achievement， can exist， and a small institution that has this will easily surpass a large one that lacks it. And experience shows that it takes much time to perfect such a spirit and the organizations through which it is expressed.
In quite the same way any ripe development of productive power in literary or otner art implies not merely capable individuals but the perfection of a social group， whose traditions and spirit the individual absorbs， and which floats him up to a point whence he can reach unique achievement.