SOCIAL CONSERVATION 173

TF

{1-c-


ial
up
Cas

apto

we
dy
er.
nit
1al

zes
of
ia
mler

ize
ad.

NIN

neche

his
ANS
Lelr
the
the
ive

practical form to the forces and tendencies of the larger
group and remain the vehicles for the attainment of its
aims and purposes. Though relatively independent, these
organs must serve none the less as a means to the ends of
the larger group.
If the process of differentiation goes too far, if they attain
 a complete independence of the group and exist only
for themselves, then their useful function ceases and they
become the seat of destructive tendencies. There then
arises an antagonism and opposition between the whole
and the parts which endangers the life of the group. The
examples of this danger are numerous. Bureaucratic and
legal formalism have many times placed their own requirements
 above the ends of the group. In the case of legal
formalism it has found its characteristic expression in the
maxim fiat justitia pereat mundus.
A certain amount of dependence is necessary, not only
to avert the danger of antagonism and opposition, but also
to enable the group to take back in certain cases the already
 differentiated functions. In the evolution of society
it often becomes necessary, for the self-preservation of the
group, to throw out of service the existing organs. This
may be because the specific function is no longer required,
or because the rigidity of the structure prevents an adequate
 fulfilment of the function under changed conditions.
When the organ proves unequal to its task, recourse must
be had to the immediate reciprocities between the elements
as a temporary substitute for the differentiated functional
structure.
Many social structures are adjusted from the beginning
to such alternations between the immediate reciprocity and
the fulfilment of functions by special organs. In business
corporations the relation between the general meeting and
the board of directors, and in political organizations the re-