THE NEW STATE
By Mary Parker Follett

Chapter III
The Group Process: The Collective Idea(Continued)

What then is the essence of the group process by which are evolved
the collective thought and the collective will?  It is an acting
and reacting, a single and identical process which brings out
differences and integrates them into a unity.  The complex
reciprocal action, the intricate interweavings of the members of
the group, is the social process.

  We see now that the process of the many becoming one is not a
metaphysical or mystical idea; psychological analysis shows us how
we can at the same moment be the self and the other, it shows how
we can be forever apart and forever united.  It is by the group
process that the transfiguration of the external into the spiritual
takes place, that is, that what seems a series becomes a whole. 
The essence of society is difference, related difference.  "Give me
your difference" is the cry of society to-day to every man [1]

     1. Free speech is not an "individual" right; society needs
     every man's difference.

  But the older sociology made the social mind the consciousness of
likeness.  This likeness was accounted for by two theories chiefly:
the imitation theory and the like-response-to-like-stimuli theory. 
It is necessary to consider these briefly, for they have been
gnawing at the roots of all our political life.

  To say that the social process is that merely of the spread of
similarities is to ignore the real nature of the collective
thought, the collective will.  Individual ideas do not become
social ideas when communicated.  The difference between them is one
of a kind.  A collective thought is one evolved by a collective
process.  The essential feature of a common thought is not that it
is held in common but that it has been produced in common.

  Likewise if every member of a group has the same thought, that is
not a group idea: when all respond simultaneously to the same
stimulus, it cannot be assumed that this is in obedience to a
collective will.  When all the men in a street run round the corner
to see a procession, it is not because they are moved by a
collective thought.

  Imitation indeed has a place in the collective life, it is one of
the various means of coadaptation between men, but it is only a part
and a part which has been fatally overemphasized [1].

     1.  It has been overemphasized in two ways: first, many of the
     writers on imitation ignore the fact that the other law of
     association, that of interpenetrating, is also in operation in
     our social life, as well as the fact that it has always been
     the fundamental law of existence; secondly, they speak as if
     it were _necessary_ for human beings to be under the law of
     imitation, not that it is merely a stage in our development.

It is one of the fruits of particularism.  "Imitation," has been
made the bridge to span the gap between the individual and society,
but we see now that there is no gap, therefore no bridge is necessary.

  The core of the social process is not likeness, but the
harmonizing of difference through interpenetration [2].

     2.  This is the alpha and omega of philosophical teaching:
     Heraclitus said, "Nature desires eagerly opposites and out of
     them it completes its harmony, not out of similars."  And
     James, twenty-four hundred years later, has given his
     testimony that the process of life is to "compenetrate."

But to be more accurate, similarity and difference can not be
opposed in this external way -- they have a vital connection. 
Similarities and differences make up the differentiated reactions
of the group; that is what constitutes their importance, not their
likeness or unlikeness as such.  I react to a stimulus: that
reaction may represent a likeness or an unlikeness.  Society is the
unity of these differentiated reactions.  In other words the
process is not that merely of accepting or rejecting, it is bound
up in interknitting.  In that continuous coordinating which
constitutes the social process both similarity and difference have
a place.  Unity is brought about by the reciprocal adaptings of the
reactions of individuals, and this reciprocal adapting is based on
both agreement and difference.

  To push our analysis a little further, we must distinguish
between the given similarity and the achieved similarity.  The
common at any moment is always the given: it has come from
heredity, biological influences, suggestion and imitation, and the
previous workings of the law of interpenetration.  All the
accumulated effect of these is seen in our habits of thinking, our
modes of living.  But we cannot rest in the common.  The surge of
life sweeps through the given similarity, the common ground, and
breaks it up into a thousand differences.  This tumultuous
irresistible flow of life is our existence: the unity, the common
is but for an instant, it flows on to new differings which adjust
themselves anew in fuller, more varied, richer synthesis.  The
moment when similarity achieves itself as a composite of working,
seething forces, it throws out its myriad new differings.  The
torrent flows into a pool, works, ferments, and then rushes forth
until all is again gathered into the new pools of its own unifying.

  This is the process of evolution.  Social progress is to be sure
coadapting, but coadapting means always that the fresh unity
becomes the pole of a fresh difference leading to again new unities
which lead to broader and broader fields of activity.

  Thus no one of course undertakes to deny the obvious fact that in
order to have a society a certain amount of similarity must exist. 
In one sense society rests on likeness: the likeness between men is
deeper than their difference.  We could not have an enemy unless
there was much in common between us.  With my friend all the aims
that we share unite us.  In a given society the members have the
same interests, the same ends, in the main, and seek a common
fulfilment.  Differences are always grounded in an underlying
similarity.  But all this kind of "similarity" isn't worth
mentioning because we _have_ it.  The very fact that it is common
to us all condemns it from the point of view of progress.  Progress
does not depend upon the similarity which we _find_ but upon the
similarity which we _achieve_.

  This view of the social process gives us individual
responsibility as to the central fact of life because it demands
that we grow our own like-mindedness.  To-day we are basing all our
hopes not on the given likeness but the created unity.  To rest in
the given likeness would be to annihilate social progress.  The
organization of industry and the settlement of international
relations must come under the domination of this law.  The Allies
are fighting to-day with one impulse, one desire, one aim, but at
the peace table many differences will arise between them.  The
progress of the whole world at that moment will depend upon the
"similarity" we can create.  This "similarity" will consist of all
we now hold in common and also, of the utmost importance for the
continuation of civilization, upon our ability to unify our
differences.  If we go to that peace table with the idea that the
new world is to be based on that community of interest and aim
which now animates us, the disillusion will be great, the result an
overwhelming failure.

  Let us henceforth, therefore, use the word unifying instead of
similarity to represent the basis of association.  And let us
clearly understand that unifying is a process involving the
continuous activity of every man.  To await "variation-giving"
individuals would be to make life a mere chance.  We cannot wait
for new ideas to appear among us, we must ourselves produce them. 
This makes possible the endless creation of new social values.  The
old like-minded theory is too fortuitous, too passive and too
negative to attract us; creating is the divine adventure.

  Let us imagine a group of people whom we know.  If we find the
life of that group consisting chiefly of imitation, we see that it
involves no activity of the real self but crushes and smothers it. 
Imitation condemns the human race.  Even if up to the present
moment imitation has been a large factor in man's development, from
this moment on such a smothering of all the forces of life must
cease.

  If we have, however, among this group "like-response," that is if
there spring up like thoughts and feelings, we find a more
dignified and worthy life -- fellowship claims us with all its joys
and its enlargement of our single self.  But there is no progress
here.  We give ourselves up to the passive enjoyment of that
already existing.  We have found our kindred and it comforts us. 
How much greater enhancement comes from that life foreshadowed by
the new psychology where each one is to go forth from his group a
richer being because each one has taken and put into its right
membership all the vital differences of all the others.  The like-
mindedness which is now to be demanded of us is the like-mindedness
which is brought about by the enlargement of each by the inflowing
of every other one.  Then I go forth a new creature.  But to what
do I go forth?  Always to a new group, a new "society."  There is
no end to this process.  A new being springs forth from every fresh
contact.  My nature opens and opens to thousands of new influences. 
I feel countless new births.  Such is the glory of our common
every-day life.

  Imitation is for the shirkers, like-mindedness for the comfort
lovers, unifying for the creators.

  The lesson of the new psychology is then: Never settle down
within the theory you have chosen, the cause you have embraced;
know that another theory, another cause exists, and seek that.  The
enhancement of life is not for the comfort-lover.  As soon as you
succeed -- real success means something arising to overthrow your
security.

  In all the discussion of "similarity" too much importance has
been put upon analogies from the animal world [1].

     1.  Also the group-units of early societies are studied to the
     exclusion of group-units within modern complex society.

We are told, for instance, and important conclusions are drawn in
regard to human society, that the gregarious instinct of any animal
receives satisfaction only through the presence of animals similar
to itself, and that the closer the similarity the greater the
satisfaction.  True certainly for animals, but it is this fact
which keeps them mere animals.  As far as the irrational elements
of life give way to the rational, interpenetration becomes the law
of association.  Man's biological inheritance is not his only life. 
And the progress of man means that this inheritance shall occupy a
less and less important place relatively.

  It has been necessary to consider the similarity theory, I have
said, because it has eaten its way into all our thought [2].

     2.  Even some of our most advanced thinking, which repudiates
     the like-minded theory and takes pains to prove that imitation
     is not an instinct, nevertheless falls into some of the
     errors implicit in the imitation theory.

Many people to-day seem to think that progress depends upon a
number of people all speaking loudly together.  The other day a
woman said to me that she didn't like the _Survey_ because it has
on one page a letter from a conservative New York banker and on
another some radical proposal for the reconstruction of society;
she said she preferred a paper which took one idea and hammered
away on that.  This is poor psychology.  It is the same reasoning
which makes people think that certain kindred souls should come
together, and then by a certain intensified thinking and living
together some noble product will emerge for the benefit of the
world.  Such association is based on a wrong principle.  However
various the reasons given for the non-success of such experiments
as Brook Farms, certain religious associations, and certain
artistic and literary groups who have tried to live together, the
truth is that most of them have died simply of non-nutrition.  The
bond created had not within it the variety which the human soul
needs for its nourishment.

  Unity, not uniformity, must be our aim.  We attain unity only
through variety.  Differences must be integrated, not annihilated,
nor absorbed [1].

     1.  When we come to Part III to consider the group process in
     relation to certain political methods now being proposed, we
     shall find that part of the present disagreement of opinion is
     verbal.  I therefore give here a list of words which can be
     used to describe the genuine social process and a list which
     gives exactly the wrong idea of it.  Good words: integrate,
     interpenetrate, interpermeate, compenetrate, compound,
     harmonize, correlate, coordinate, interweave, reciprocally
     relate or adapt or adjust, etc.  Bad words: fuse, melt,
     amalgamate, assimilate, weld, dissolve, absorb, reconcile (if
     used in Hegelian sense), etc.

Anarchy means unorganized, unrelated difference; coordinated,
unified difference belongs to our ideal of a perfect social order. 
We don't want to avoid our adversary but to "agree with him
quickly"; we must, however, learn the technique of agreeing.  As
long as we think of difference as that which divides us, we shall
dislike it; when we think of it as that which unites us, we shall
cherish it.  Instead of shutting out what is different, we should
welcome it because it is different and through its difference will
make a richer content of life.  The ignoring of differences is the
most fatal mistake in politics or industry or international life:
every difference that is swept up into a bigger conception feeds
and enriches society; every difference which is ignored feeds _on_
society and eventually corrupts it.

  Heterogeneity, not homogeneity, I repeat, makes unity.  Indeed as
we go from groups of the lower types to groups of the higher types,
we go from those with many resemblances to those with more and more
striking differences.  The higher the degree of social organization
the more it is based on a very wide diversity among its members. 
The people who think that London is the most civilized spot in the
world give as evidence that it is the only city in which you can
eat a bun on a street corner without being noticed.  In London, in
other words, difference is expected of us.  In Boston you cannot 
eat a bun on the street corner, at least not without unpleasant
consequences.

  Give _your_ difference, welcome _my_ difference, unify _all_
difference in the larger whole -- such is the law of growth.  The
unifying of difference is the eternal process of life -- the
creative synthesis, the highest act of creation, the at-onement. 
The implications of this conception when we come to define
democracy are profound.

  And throughout our participation in the group process we must be
ever on our guard that we do not confuse differences and
antagonisms, that diversity does not arouse hostility.  Suppose a
friend says something with which I do not agree.  It may be that
instantly I feel antagonistic, feel as if we were on opposite sides
and my emotions are at once tinged with some of the enmity which
being on opposite sides usually brings.  Our relations become
slightly strained, we change the subject as soon as possible, etc. 
But suppose we were really civilized beings, then we should think:
"How interesting this is, this idea has evidently a larger content
than I realized; if my friend and I can unify this material, we
shall separate with a larger idea than either of us had before." 
If my friend and I are always trying to find the things which we
agree, what is the use of our meeting?  Because the consciousness
of agreement makes us happy?  It is a shallow happiness, only felt
by people too superficial or too shut-up or too vain to feel that
richer joy which comes from having taken part in an act of creation
-- created a new thought by unifying differences.  A friendship
based on likenesses and agreements alone is a superficial matter
enough.  The deep and lasting friendship is one capable of
recognizing and dealing with all the fundamental differences that
must exist between any two individuals, one capable therefore of
such an enrichment of our personalities that together we shall
mount to new heights of understanding and endeavor.  Some one ought
to write an essay on the dangers to the soul of congeniality. 
Pleasant little glows of feeling can never be fanned into the fire
which becomes the driving force of progress.

  In trying to explain the social process I may have seemed to over
emphasize difference as difference.  Difference as difference is
non-existent.  There is only difference which carries within itself
the power of unifying.  It is this latent power which must forever
and ever call forth.  Difference in itself is not a vital force,
but what accompanies it is -- the unifying spirit.

  Throughout my description of the group process I have taken
committee-meetings, conferences etc. for illustration, but really
the object of every associating with others, of every conversation
with friends, in fact, should be to try to bring out a bigger
thought than any one alone could contribute.  How different our
dinner parties would be if we could do this.  And I mean without
too labored an effort, but merely by recognizing certain elementary
rules of the game.  Creation is always possible when people meet;
this is the wonderful interest of life.  But it depends upon us so
to manage our meetings that there shall be some result, not just a
frittering away of energy, unguided because not understood.  All
our private life is to be public life.  This does not mean that we
cannot sit with a friend by our fireside; it does mean that,
private and gay as that hour may be, at the same time that every
intimacy and lightness must in its way be serving the common cause,
not in any fanciful sense, but because there is always the
consciousness of my most private concerns as tributary to the
larger life of men.  But words are misleading: I do not mean that
we are always to be thinking about it -- it must be such an abiding
sense that we never think of it.

  Thus the new psychology teaches us that the core of the group
process is creating.  The essential value of the new psychology is
that it carries enfolded within it the obligation upon every man to
live the New Life.  In no other system of thought has the Command
been so clear, so insistent, so compelling.  Every individual is
necessary to the whole.  On the other hand, every member
participates in that power of a whole which is so much greater than
the addition of its separate forces.  The increased strength which
comes to me when I work with others is not a numerical thing, is
not because I feel that ten of us have ten times the strength of
one.  It is because all together we have struck out a new power in
the universe.  Ten of us may have ten or a hundred, or a thousand
times the strength of one -- or rather you cannot measure it
mathematically at all.

  The law of the group is not arbitrary but intrinsic.  Nothing is
more practical for our daily lives than an understanding of this. 
The group-spirit is the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night --
it is our infallible guide -- it is the Spirit of democracy.  It
has all our love and all our devotion, but this comes only when we
have to some extent identified ourselves with It, or rather perhaps
identified It with all our common, every-day lives.  We can never
dominate another or be dominated by another; the group-spirit is
always our master
