ich may be satisfied otherwise
than by struggle, and which, in practice, form a bridge between struggle
and other forms of reciprocal relationship. I know in fact only a single
case in which the stimulus of struggle and of victory in itself
constitutes the exclusive motive, namely, the war game, and only in the
case that no further gain is to arise than is included in the outcome of
the game itself. In this case the pure sociological attraction of
self-assertion and predominance over another in a struggle of skill is
combined with purely individual pleasure in the exercise of purposeful
and successful activity, together with the excitement of taking risks
with the hazard of fortune which stimulates us with a sense of mystic
harmony of relationship to powers beyond the individual, as well as the
social occurrences. At all events, the war game, _in its sociological
motivation_, contains absolutely nothing but struggle itself. The
worthless markers, for the sake of which men often play with the same
earnestness with which they play for gold pieces, indicate the formalism
of this impulse which, even in the play for gold pieces, often far
outweighs the material interest. The thing to be noticed, however, is
that, in order that the foregoing situations may occur, certain
sociological forms--in the narrower sense, unifications--are
presupposed. There must be agreement in order to struggle, and the
struggle occurs under reciprocal recognition of norms and rules. In the
motivation of the whole procedure these unifications, as said above, do
not appear, but the whole transaction shapes itself under the forms
which these explicit or implicit agreements furnish. They create the
technique. Without this, such a conflict, excluding all heterogeneous or
objective factors, would not be possible. Indeed, the conduct of the war
game is often so rigorous, so impersonal, and observed on both sides
with such nice sense of honor that unities of a corporate order can
seldom in these respects compare with it.

b) _Feud and faction._--The occasion for separate discussion of the
feud is that here, instead of the consciousness of difference, an
entirely new motive emerges--the peculiar phenomenon of social hatred,
that is, of hatred toward a member of a group, not from personal
motives, but because he threatens the existence of the group. In so far
as such a danger threatens through feud within the group, the one party
hates the other, not alone o