As to the sharper differentiation that goes with modern life， we see it on all hands. The city is more clearly mark' off from the country， in its functions， and is itself broken up into quarters the inhabitants of which have often little or no intercourse with those of other quarters.
Trad and professions subdivide into specialties， and， a mo elaborate training being demanded， it is more necessary (233) than formerly that a man should know from the start what he wants to do and assiduously prepare himself to do it. Not' forgetting that there is another side to this， a side of unification implied in these differences， one may yet say that ill themselves they tend to separate people more sharply into social groups which might conceivably become hereditary.
The forces antagonizing inheritance of function come chiefly under two heads， the opposition of ambitious young men and the general current of democratic sentiment.
Caste means restriction of opportunity， and consequently lies across the path of the most energetic part of the people. Its rule can prevail only where individual self-assertion is restrained by ignorance and formal institutions. Under our flexible modern conditions， it is safe to say， no system can endure that does not make a point of propitiating the formidable ambition of youth by at least an apparent freedom of opportunity. Even the inheritance of property is constantly questioned in the minds of the young， and nothing but the lack of a plausible alternative prevents its being more seriously assailed. And since this stronghold of inequality can hardly be shaken， there is all the more demand that it be offset by opening every other kind of advantage， especially in the way of education and training， to whomsoever may be fit to profit by it.
Somewhat vaguer but perhaps even more effective than the resistance of young men is the opposition of the general current of sentiment to any growth of inheritance at (234) the expense of opportunity. To abolish extrinsic inequalities and give each a chance to serve all in his own fit way， is undoubtedly the democratic ideal. In politics this is expressed by doing away with hereditary privilege and basing everything on popular suffrage； in education it is seeking an expression quite as vital by striving to open to every one the training to any function for which he may show fitness. But the spirit of unity and brotherhood is far from satisfied with what has been achieved in these directions， and aspires to bring home to every child that fair access to the fruits of progress which， in spite of theoretical liberty， is now widely lacking. It calls for social democracy， the real presence of freedom and justice in every fibre of the social fabric.
To this spirit any increase of the privileges， already unavoidably great， which come by inheritance， is evidently hateful.
In America at least this sentiment is not that of a struggling lower class but of， practically， the whole community. With reference to so vital a part of our traditional ideal there are no classes； all the people feel substantially alike； and there is no public purpose for which wealth is so freely spent as in the support of institutions whose purpose is to keep open the path of opportunity from any condition of life to any other.
There is also， back of this sentiment， a belief that equal opportunity makes for the general good， since that system of society will be most efficient， other things equal，： in which each individual is required to prove that he has more fitness than others for his special function. Every one can see， at times， the deteriorating effect of family (235) influence梐s upon business establishments when a less Competent son succeeds his father， or upon military service， as in the British army at the outbreak of the Boer war.
