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 ob- 
jective fixity and superindividual validity. This tradi- 
tional element is projected into the relationship in the in- 
dividual case and suggests the existence of this form as in- 
dependent of the bearers. In that respect it is in sharp con- 
trast with a friendship bond into which no traditional ele- 
ment enters. The second example is the business partner- 
ship. 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 ob- 
jective 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 re- 
lationship 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 rela- 
tionship is a means to objective ends, in the latter every- 
thing 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.