the unity
of the sociological relationship is accordingly shown by the judicial
struggle not less than by the war game. Precisely the most extreme and
unlimited phases of struggle occur in both cases, since the struggle is
surrounded and maintained by the severe unity of common norms and
limitations.

d) _The conflict of impersonal ideals._--Finally, there is the
situation in which the parties are moved by an objective interest; that
is, where the interest of the struggle, and consequently the struggle
itself, is differentiated from the personality. The consciousness of
being merely the representative of superindividual claims--that is, of
fighting not for self but only for the thing itself--may lend to the
struggle a radicalism and mercilessness which have their analogy in the
total conduct of many very unselfish and high-minded men. Because they
grant themselves no consideration, they likewise have none for others
and hold themselves entirely justified in sacrificing everybody else to
the idea to which they are themselves a sacrifice. Such a struggle, into
which all the powers of the person are thrown, while victory accrues
only to the cause, carries the character of respectability, for the
reputable man is the wholly personal, who, however, understands how to
hold his personality entirely in check. Hence objectivity operates as
_noblesse_. When, however, this differentiation is accomplished, and
struggle is objectified, it is not subjected to a further reserve, which
would be quite inconsistent; indeed, that would be a sin against the
content of the interest itself upon which the struggle had been
localized. On the basis of this common element between the
parties--namely, that each defends merely the issue and its right, and
excludes from consideration everything selfishly personal--the struggle
is fought out without the sharpness, but also without the mollifyings,
which come from intermingling of the personal element. Merely the
immanent logic of the situation is obeyed with absolute precision. This
form of antithesis between unity and antagonism intensifies conflict
perhaps most perceptibly in cases where both parties actually pursue one
and the same purpose; for example, in the case of scientific
controversies, in which the issue is the establishment of the truth. In
such a case, every concession, every polite consent to stop short of
exposing the errors of the opponent in the most unpitying fashion, every
conclu