In the same way a school whose discipline is merely formal， not engaging the interest and good-will of the scholar， is pretty certain to turn out unruly boys and girls， because whatever is most personal and vital in them becomes accustomed to assert itself in opposition to the system. And so in a church where external observance has been developed at the expense of personal judgment， the individual conforms to the rite and then feels free for all kinds of self-indulgence. In general the lower "individualism"of our time， the ruthless self-assertion which is so conspicuous， for example， in business， is not something apart from our institutions but expresses the fact that they are largely formal and unhuman， not containing and enlarging the soul of the individual.
(350) The real opposite of both formalism and disorder is that wholesome relation between individuality and the institution in which each supports the other， the latter contributing a stable basis for the vitality and variation of the former.
From one point of view disorganization is a lack of communication and social consciousness， a defect in the organ of language， as formalism is an excess. There is always， I suppose， a larger whole； the question is whether the individual thinks and feels it vividly through some sort of sympathetic contact； if he does he will act as a member of it.
In the writings of one of the most searching and yet hopeful critics of our times [4] we find that "individualism" is identified primarily with an isolation of sentiment， like that of the scholar in his study， the business man in his office or the mechanic who does not feel the broader meaning of his work. The opposite of it is the life of shoulder-to-shoulder sympathy and cooperation， in which the desire for separate power or distinction is lost in the overruling sense of common humanity. And the logical remedy for "individualism" is sought in that broadening of the spirit by immediate contact with the larger currents of life， which is the aim of the social settlement and similar movements.
This is， indeed， an inspiring and timely ideal， but let us hold it without forgetting that specialized and lonesome endeavor， indeed even individual pride and self-seeking， have also their uses. If we dwell too exclusively upon the (351) we-feeling and the loss of the one in the many， we may lapse into a structureless emotionalism. Eye-to-eye fellowship and the pride of solitary achievement are both essential， each in its own way， to human growth， and either is capable of over-indulgence. We need the most erect individual with the widest base of sympathy.
In so far as it is true of our time that the larger interests of society are not impressed upon the individual， so that his private impulses cooperate with the public good， it is a time of moral disintegration. A well-ordered community is like a ship in which each officer and seaman has confidence in his fellows and in the captain， and is well accustomed to do his duty with no more than ordinary grumbling. All hangs together， and is subject to reason in the form of long-tried rules of navigation and discipline.
Virtue is a system and men do heroic acts as part of the day's work and without self-consciousness. But suppose that the ship goes to pieces條et us say upon an iceberg梩hen the orderly whole is broken up and officers， seamen and passengers find themselves struggling miscellaneously in the water. Rational control and the virtue that is habit being gone， each one is thrown back upon his undisciplined impulses. Survival depends not upon wisdom or goodness梐s it largely does in a social system梑ut upon ruthless force， and the best may probably perish.
Here is "individualism" in the lowest sense， and it is the analogue of this which is said， not without some reason， to pervade our own society.
Old institutions are passing away and better ones， we hope， are preparing to take their (352) place， but in the meantime there is a lack of that higher discipline which prints the good of the whole upon the heart of the member. In a traditional order one is accustomed from childhood to regard usage， the authority of elders and the dominant institutions as the rule of life. "So it must be"is one's unconscious conviction， and， like the seaman， he does wise and heroic things without knowing it. But in our own time there is for many persons， if not most， no authoritative canon of life， and for better or worse we are ruled by native impulse and by that private reason which may be so weak when detached from a rational whole. The higher morality， if it is to be attained at all， must be specially thought out； and of the few who can do this a large part exhaust their energy in thinking and do not practice with any heartiness the truths they perceive.
We find， then， that people have to make up their own minds upon their duties as wives， husbands， mothers and daughters； upon commercial obligation and citizenship； upon the universe and the nature and authority of God.
