On the other hand， the results of a confused competition may be worse than those of order， cvcn if the latter rests upon an artificial principle Thus it is said with some truth梐nd this is perhaps the most considerable argument for caste in modern life？that a class having hereditary wealth and position， like the English aristocracy， makes a permanent channel for high traditions of culture and public service， and that it is well to preserve such traditions even at the cost of a somewhat exclusive order to contain and cherish them. De Tocqueville， himself imbued with the best traditions of the old French aristocracy， held this view， and ascribed the lack of intellectual distinction in the America of his day largely to the fact that there was no class "in which the taste for intellectual pleasures is transmitted with hereditary fortune and leisure， and by which the labors of the intellect are held in honor." [1]
The answer， of course， is that there are other means than caste for securing the continuity of special traditions， and， more particularly， that voluntary associations are capable of supplanting inherited wealth as channels of culture. In the various branches of science， for example， we have vigorous and continuing groups， with plenty of esprit de corps， by which the labors of the intellect are held In honor. If libraries， associations and educational institutions can do this for one phase of culture， why not for others？
(236)
It would be unfair， however， not to acknowledge that great services are constantly rendered to society by persons whom inherited wealth enables to devote themselves earlier and more independently to high aims than would otherwise be possible. There is certainly something favorable to originality in an inherited competence， without which one is more apt to be coerced into seeking a kind of success already in vogue， and so having a market value And the movement to foster originality by endowments depending upon merit rather than birth will be most difficult to make effectual， since such endowments almost inevitably fall into the control of an institutional sort of men who cannot be expected to subsidize heresy. Funds for this purpose will probably aid only those sorts of originality already recognized， and in a manner established； not the radical innovations from which important movements usually start. It is hard to see how they can do much outside of experimental science， in which there is a sort of conventional test of originality.
On the whole， whatever is good in the principle of descent may be appropriated by a democratic society without going back to formal rank or exclusive opportunity. Freedom offers no bar to continuity of function in the family， so long as efficiency is maintained， but merely requires this， like everything else， to meet the test of service. There is no adequate reason why a hereditary group， transmitting special culture and fitness， should not continue their functions under a democratic system梐s is actually the case to a certain extent with the political families of England. They will do their work all the (237) better for not being too sure of their position. I see nothing but good in the fact that a military career has become traditional in a number of American families who have rendered distinguished service of this sort. The more special family ambitions we have， of a noble kind， the better for the country.
No sober observer will imagine that the opposing forces are to abolish the power of inheritance； they merely set reasonable limits to its scope.
When the way of ambition is opened to the most energetic individuals， the sharpest teeth of discontent are drawn， and the mass of men very willingly avoid trouble to themselves and to society by keeping on in the paternal road. The family is after all too natural and too convenient a channel of social continuity not to play a great part in every phase of organization， and there seems little reason to depart from the opinion of Comte that it must ordinarily be the main influence in determining occupation.
I am inclined to expect that， owing to somewhat more settled conditions of life， inheritance of function will be rather more common， and the tendency to see the individual as one of a stock rather greater， in the future than in the immediate past. On the other hand it is nearly certain that educational opportunities will become more open and varied， making it easier than now for special aptitude to find its place. These things are not inconsistent， and both will make for order and contentment.
Also much more endeavor will be directed to the welfare of the less privileged classes as classes梩hat is， of those who are content to remain in the ancestral status instead (238) of trying to get into one more favored. Heretofore we have given too much thought， relatively， to the one man who aims at distinction， and too little to the ninety and nine who do not.
Endnotes Democracy in America， vol. i， chap. 3.
