CONDITIONS FAVORING OR OPPOSING THE GROWTH OF CASTE THREE CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE INCREASE OR DIMINUTION OFCASTE -- RACE-CASTE -- IMMIGRATION AND CONQUEST -- GRADUAL DIFFERENTIATIONOF FUNCTIONS； MEDIAEVAL CASTE； INDIA -- INFLUENCE OF SETTLED CONDITIONS-- INFLUENCE OF THE STATE OF COMMUNICATION AND ENLIGHTENMENT -- CONCLUSIONTHERE seem to be three conditions which， chiefly， make for the increase or diminution of the caste principle.These are， first， likeness or unlikeness in the constituents of the population； second， the rate of social change (whether we have to do with a settled or a shifting system)， and， finally， the state of communication and enlightenment.Unlikeness in the constituents， a settled system and a low state of communication and enlightenment favor the growth of caste， and vice versa.The first provides natural lines of cleavage and so makes it easier to split into hereditary groups；the second gives inheritance time to consolidate its power， while the third means the absence of those conscious and rational forces which are its chief rivals.
The most important sorts of unlikeness in the constituents of the population are perhaps three： differences in race； differences， apart from race， due to immigration or conquest， and unlikeness due to the gradual differentiation of social functions within a population originally homogeneous Two races of different temperament and capacity， distinct to the eye and living side by side in the same community， tend strongly to become castes， no matter how equal the social system may otherwise be.The difference， as being hereditary， answers in its nature to the idea of caste， and the external sign serves to make it conscious and definite.
The race caste existing in the Southern United States illustrates the impotence of democratic traditions to overcome the caste spirit when fostered by obvious physical and psychical differences.This spirit is immeasurably strong on the part of the whites， and there is no apparent prospect of its diminution.
The specially caste nature of the division梐s distinguished from those personal differences which democratic tradition recognizes梚s seen in the feeling， universal among the whites， that the Negro must be held apart and subordinate not merely as an individual， or any number of individuals， but as a race， a social whole.That is， the fact that many individuals of this race are equal， and some superior， to the majority of whites does not， in the opinion of the latter， make it just or expedient to treat them apart from the mass of their race.To dine with a Negro， to work or play by his side， or to associate in any relation where superiority cannot be asserted， is held to be degrading and of evil example， no matter what kind of Negro he may be.It is the practice and policy of the dominant race to impress upon the Negro that he belongs by birth to a distinct order out of which he can in no way depart.There or nowhere he must find his destiny If he wishes to mingle with whites it must be as an acknowledged inferior.As a servant he may ride in the same railway car， but as a citizen he may not do so.
Thoughtful whites justify this attitude on the ground， substantially， that a race is an organic whole梑ound together by heredity and social connection梐nd that it is practically necessary to recognize this in dealing with race questions.The integrity of the white race and of white civilization， they say， requires Negro subordination (separation being impracticable)， and the only available line of distinction is the definite one of color.Adivision on this line is even held to be less invidious梐s involving no judgment of individuals梐s well as more feasible， than one based on personal traits.Particular persons cannot， in practice， be separated from their families and other antecedents， and if they could be the example of mixture on an equal footing would be demoralizing.
This argument is probably sound in so far as it requires the recognition of the two races as being， for some purposes， distinct organisms.In this regard it is perhaps better sociology than the view that every one should be considered solely on his merits as an individual.
At the same time it is only too apparent that our application of this doctrine is deeply colored with that caste arrogance which does not recognize in the Negro a spiritual brotherhood underlying all race difference and possible inferiority." The matter of unequal ability， in races as in individuals， is quite distinct from that sharing in a common spirit and service from which no human being can rightly or Christianly be excluded.The idea that he is fundamentally a man like the rest of us cannot and should not be kept from the Negro any more than from other lowly orders of people.Science， religion and the democratic spirit all give him a right to it； and the white man cannot deny it to him without being false to his own best self.Anything in our present attitude which does deny it we must hope to be transitory， since it is calculated， in a modern atmosphere， to generate continuing disquiet and hatred.It belonged with slavery and is incongruous with the newer world.
These may be subtleties， but subtlety is the very substance of the race question， the most vital matter being not so much what is done as the spirit in which it is done.
