Every intimate group， like every individual， experiences conflicting impulses within itself， and as the individual feels the need of definite principles to shape his conduct and give him peace， so the group needs law or rule for the same purpose. It is not merely that the over-strong or the insubordinate must be restrained， but that all alike may have some definite criterion of what the good member ought to do. It is a mere fact of psychology that where a social whole exists it may be as painful to do wrong as to suffer it梑ecause one's own spirit is divided梐nd the common need is for harmony through a law， framed in the total interest， which every one can and must obey.
This need of rules to align differentiated impulse with (43) the good of the whole is nowhere more apparent than on the playground.
Miss Buck， the author of an instructive work on Boys' Self-Governing Clubs， suggests that the elementary form of equity is " taking turns，" as at swings and the like； and any on who has shared in a boys camp will recall the constant demand， by the boys themselves， for rules of this nature. There must be a fair distribution of privileges as to boats， games， and so on， and an equal distribution of food. And we learn from Robert Woods that gangs of boys on the streets of cities generally have a " judge" to whom all disputes are referred if no agreement is otherwise reached. [6]
No doubt every one remembers how the idea of justice is developed in children's games. There is always something to be done， in which various parts are to be taken， success depending upon their efficient distribution.
All see this and draw from experience the idea that there is a higher principle that ought to control the undisciplined ambition of individuals. " Rough games，" says Miss Buck， "in many respects present in miniature the conditions of a society where an ideal state of justice， ******* and equality prevails.""Mr. Joseph Lee， in the paper quoted above， expounds the matter at more length and with much insight.
You may be very intent to beat the other man in the race， but after experience of many contests the fair promise of whose morning has been clouded over by the long and many-worded dispute terminating in a general row， with indecisive and unsatisfying result， you begin dimly to perceive that you and the other fellows and the rest of the crowd， for the very reason that you are contestants and prospective (44) contestants， have interests in common梚nterests in the establish ment and maintenance of those necessary rules and regulations with out which satisfactory contests cannot be carried on.... The child's need of conflict is from a desire not to exterminate his competitor， but to overcome him and to have his own superiority acknowledged. The boy desires to be somebody but being somebody is to him a social achievement. And though there is temptation to pervert justice， to try to get the decision when you have not really furnished the proof， there is also a motive against such procedure. The person whom you really and finally want to convince is yourself. Your deepest desire is to beat the other boy， not merely to seem to beat him. By playing unfairly and forcing decisions in your own favor， you may possibly cheat the others， but you cannot cheat yourself But the decisions in most of the disputes have behind them the further， more obviously social， motive of carrying on a successful game. The sense of common interest has been stretched so as to take the competitive impulse itself into camp， domesticate it， and make it a part of the social system.
The acutely realized fact that a society of chronic kickers can never play a game or anything else， comes to be seen against the background of a possible orderly arrangement of which one has had occasional experience， and with which one has come at last to sympathize； there comes to be to some extent an identification of one's own interests and purposes with the interests and purposes of the whole. Certainly the decisions of the group as to whether Jimmy was out at first， as to who came out last， and whether Mary Ann was really caught， are felt as community and not as individual decisions. [7]
No doubt American boys have more of the spirit and practice of this sort of organization than those of any other country， except possibly England：
they have the constant spectacle of self-government among their elders， and also， perhaps， some advantage in natural aptitude to help them on.
But it is doubtful if there is any great difference among the white peoples in the latter regard. American children of German and Irish descent are not (45) inferior to the Anglo-Saxons， and among the newer immigrants the Jewish children， at least， show a marked aptitude for organization. The question might profitably be investigated in our great cities.
Of course the ideals derived from juvenile experience are carried over into the wider life， and men always find it easy to conceive righteousness in terms of fair play. " The Social Question，" says a penetrative writer， " is forever an attack upon what， in some form， is thought to be unfair privilege." [8]
The law or rule that human nature demands has a democratic principle latent in it， because it must be one congenial to general sentiment. Explicit democracy， however梔eciding by popular vote and the like梚s not primary and general like the need of law， but is rather a mechanism for deciding what the rule is to be， and no more natural than the appeal to authority.
