174 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
group ; as provisional representative of the intellectual energy, in contrast with the momentary disposition of the parties to be controlled more by will and feeling, he reinforces these parties, so to speak, to completeness of the psychic unity which resides in the life of the group. He is, on the one side, the retarding factor opposed to the impulsiveness of the other, while, on the contrary, he may carry and lead the movement of the whole group in case the antagonism of the two other elements would paralyze its energy. Nevertheless, this result may be trans- formed into its opposite. In case of the assumed correlation the elements of the group that are intellectually most endowed will especially incline to nonpartisanship, because cool intelligence is likely to find light and shade on both sides, and is not likely to find objective equity wholly on either side. Consequently the most intelligent elements are often unable to exert influence upon the decision of conflicts, although such influence from pre- cisely such a quarter were highly to be wished. Just such ele- ments as these should throw their weight into the balance when the group must choose between yes and no, since with their help the balance would be the more likely to incline toward the right side. If, therefore, nonpartisanship does not contribute to prac- tical mediation, the consequence will be that through its connec- tion with the intellectuality of the group the decision will be left to the play of the more foolish, or at least the more preju- diced, forces of the group. If, consequently, the nonpartisan attitude as such is so often, since Solon, the object of disap- proval, the fact is, in the social sense, very salutary, and it runs back to a much deeper instinct for the welfare of the whole than merely to the suspicion of cowardice, to which nonpartisanship is often, though also often quite falsely, liable.
2. The tertius gaudens. The nonpartisanship of the third ele- ment has benefited or injured the group as a whole, in the com- binations thus far discussed. The mediator and the arbitrator alike wish to preserve the group unity against the danger of dis- ruption. The nonpartisan, however, may use his relatively superior status in a purely egoistic interest. While in the former cases he acted as a means to the ends of the group, in this case,
