il 
n 
1S 
(e 
> 
2 
3 
ea 
re 
[11 
"0 
re 
\ 
it 
ir 
a 
i 
apr 
1e 
)- 
n 
he 
{- 
1- 
n 
SPATIAL RELATIONS OF SOCIAL FORMS 149 
lations between diplomats elsewhere than in those between 
war comrades. 
Another instance of sociological delimitation is found 
in the case of associations which have different kinds of 
members participating to different extents in the duties 
and benefits of the organization. The distinction between 
those that are full members and those that are not signifies 
that there is a boundary line between the latter and the 
totality to which they none the less belong. Within the 
group, this boundary marks certain points along the cen- 
tripetal lines of rights and duties, indicating the limit 
which exists for the participation of some but not of others. 
Within the personality of the member, that limit signifies 
the boundary between the part of his individuality that 
falls within and the part that falls outside of the relation- 
ship. 
The difference between the two kinds of participation 
is not so much a difference in intensity as a difference in 
extent. The person who is not a full member has rights 
and duties which are carefully specified and relatively in- 
dependent of the life of the group as well as of his own fate. 
For the full member, a similar separation between his own 
individual life and that of the whole is not made. He par- 
takes with the whole of his personality in the total life of 
the group, and that which will be required of him or which 
will be due him cannot be stipulated in advance. 
The delimitation of the participation of certain mem- 
bers through a specific determination of their rights and 
duties gives to their relations to the group as a whole an 
objective character. The objective character of the social 
relations of modern times is due largely to such limitation 
of the individual participation. In the Middle Ages the 
group claimed the whole of the individual, but stood as a 
whole behind him in mutual solidarity. In modern groups,