THE ESSENCE OF UNIONISM 
75 
units to more complex structural arrangements to meet 
conditions imposed primarily by economic evolution. 
And so long as he looked at the union primarily as a 
structural entity, and thought of aims, policies, and activi 
ties as functions or means of the organic thing, he could 
adopt no other than the unitary or normalistic assump 
tion. 
If, however, the primary and essential union expres 
sion is functional, and if it is further true that functional 
variations may exist regardless of any structural quali 
fications whatever—the same functional variant making 
use of different structural forms without losing its iden 
tity or permanency, and, contrariwise, distinct and con 
tradictory functional variants working through the same 
structural arrangements—it is evident that this appear 
ance of things would be far from conclusive of the real 
character of unionism. Doubtless entire absence of dis 
tinct structural types would render impossible positive 
proof of the nonunitary character of unionism, but it is 
evident that the tests which need be applied to prove their 
existence in harmony with this hypothesis are not the 
same as in the case of the functional types. Absolute 
rivalry is not essential. It is sufficient if the modes of 
organization be vitally different in principle. In short, 
the tests of distinct structural types demanded by our 
hypothesis seem to be merely the contemporary and his 
torical presence in the union complex of distinct and 
alternative forms of organization. 
To recapitulate, then, briefly in regard to the nature of 
the problem involved in the assumption that unionism is 
nonunitary in character : It has been seen that this as 
sumption is one which rests almost exclusively on the 
existence and persistence of functional union types.