and independence, which we may thus
attribute to the antagonistic impulse, there still remains the question
whether it suffices to account for the total phenomena of hostility.
This question must be answered in the negative. In the first place, the
spontaneous impulse does not exercise itself upon every object but only
upon those that are in some way promising. Hunger, for example, springs
from the subject. It does not have its origin in the object.
Nevertheless, it will not attempt to satisfy itself with wood or stone
but it will select only edible objects. In the same way, love and
hatred, however little their impulses may depend upon external stimuli,
will yet need some sort of opposing object, and only with such
co-operation will the complete phenomena appear. On the other hand, it
seems to me probable that the hostile impulse, on account of its formal
character, in general intervenes, only as a reinforcement of conflicts
stimulated by material interest, and at the same time furnishes a
foundation for the conflict. And where a struggle springs up from sheer
formal love of fighting, which is also entirely impersonal and
indifferent both to the material at issue and to the personal opponent,
hatred and fury against the opponent as a person unavoidably increase in
the course of the conflict, and probably also the interest in the stake
at issue, because these affections stimulate and feed the psychical
energy of the struggle. It is advantageous to hate the opponent with
whom one is for any reason struggling, as it is useful to love him with
whom one's lot is united and with whom one must co-operate. The
reciprocal attitude of men is often intelligible only on the basis of
the perception that actual adaptation to a situation teaches us those
feelings which are appropriate to it; feelings which are the most
appropriate to the employment or the overcoming of the circumstances of
the situation; feelings which bring us, through psychical association,
the energies necessary for discharging the momentary task and for
defeating the opposing impulses.

Accordingly, no serious struggle can long continue without being
supported by a complex of psychic impulses. These may, to be sure,
gradually develop into effectiveness in the course of the struggle. The
purity of conflict merely for conflict's sake, accordingly, undergoes
adulteration, partly through the admixture of objective interests,
partly by the introduction of impulses wh