The fact that some phases of society are more dominated by settled types， whether traditional or conventional， than others， indicates， of course， a certain equilibrium of influences in them， and a comparative absence of competing ideas.This， in turn， is favored by a variety of causes.One is a lack of individuality and self-assertiveness on the part of the people梐s the French are said to conform to types more readily than the English or Americans.Another requisite is the lapse of sufficient time for the type to establish itself and mould men's actions into conformity； even fashion cannot be made in a minute.A third is that there should be enough interest in the matter that non-conformity may be noticed and disapproved； and yet not enough interest to foster originality.We are most imitative when we notice but do not greatly care.Still another favoring condition is the habit of deference to some authority， which may impose the type by example.
Thus the educated classes of England are， perhaps， more conventional in dress and manner than the corresponding classes in the United States.
If so， the explanation is probably not in any intrinsic difference of individuality， but in conditions more or less favorable to the ripening of types； such as the comparative newness and confusion of American civilization， the absence of an acknowledged upper class to set an authoritative example， and a certain lack of interest in the externals of life which our restlessness seems to foster.On the other hand， it must be said that the insecurity of position and more immediate dependence upon the opinion of one's fellows， which exist in America， have a tendency toward conventionalism， because they make the individual more eager lo appear well in the eyes of others.It is a curious fact， which may illustrate this principle， that the House of Commons， the more democratic branch of the British legislature' is described as more conventional than the House of Lords.Probably if standards were sufficiently developed in America there would be no more difficulty in enforcing them than in England.
Perhaps we should hit nearest the truth if we said that American life had conventions of its own， vaguer than the British and putting less weight on forms and more on fellow-feeling， but not necessarily less cogent.
EndnotesGabriel Tarde， Les lois de 1'imitation， English translation The Laws of Imitation.Democracy in America， vol.ii， book iii， chap.21.The Works of Edmund Burke (Boston， 1884)， vol.iii， p.277.Amenomori in the Atlantic Monthly， Oct.， 1904.French Traits.P.G.Hamerton's works， especially his French and English， are also full of suggestion.French Traits， page 284.Page 295.Page 295.Idem， page 304.Page 64.Imitation-coutume and imitation-mode.Americans should notice that what they are apt to call the snobbishness of the English middle class梩heir anxiety to imitate those whom they regard as social superiors梙as its good result in producing a discipline in which many of us are somewhat grossly lacking.It may be better， in manners for instance， that people should adopt a standard from questionable motives than that they should have no standard at all.The trouble with us is the prevalence of a sprawling， gossiping self-content that does not know or care whether such things as manners， art and literature exist or not：
