nN

y

Q

Q

~

“OD

lo

oh

}

n

bY od

on

NUMERICAL RELATIONS OF SOCIAL FORMS 133
fact that it does not grow into a higher, superindividual
unity.
There are, however, exceptions to this rule that the
superindividual unity of the dyadic group does not obtain
objective existence. The first example is the monogamic
marriage. In this case the exception is due to the historical
tradition which has given the marriage form a certain objective
 fixity and superindividual validity. This traditional
 element is projected into the relationship in the individual
 case and suggests the existence of this form as independent
 of the bearers. In that respect it is in sharp contrast
 with a friendship bond into which no traditional element
 enters. The second example is the business partnership.
 Although the formation and the functioning of the
partnership rest on the co-operation of the two individuals,
yet the subject-matter of this co-operation, the business or
the firm, is an objective structure. With regard to this objective
 structure each of the partners has rights and duties
which are in many respects similar to those of outsiders.
But this objectivation has a very different sociological
significance from that observed in the preceding case.
The business is something separated from the beginning
from the individuals who carry it on. And this is true
whether the number of partners be two or more. The relationship
 of the business associates has its purpose outside
of itself, whereas, in the case of marriage, the purpose of the
relationship lies within it. In the former instance the relationship
 is a means to objective ends, in the latter everything
 objective appears really as a means to the subjective
relationship.!
The Triadic Group

That combinations of two elements have specific traits
is shown not merely by the fact that the entrance of a
1 Soz., pp. 80-92.