ciple is in force, however, in the second place, where
the group as a unity predominates over all individuals and so proceeds
that the passing of votes shall _merely give expression to the unitary
group will_. In the transition from the former to this second principle
the enormously important step is taken from a unity made up merely of
the sum of individuals to recognition and operation of an abstract
objective group unity. Classic antiquity took this step much
earlier--not only absolutely but relatively earlier--than the German
peoples. Among the latter the oneness of the community did not exist
over and against the individuals who composed it but entirely in them.
Consequently the group will was not only not enacted but it did not even
exist so long as a single member dissented. The group was not complete
unless all its members were united, since it was only in the sum of its
members that the group consisted. In case the group, however, is a
self-existent structure--whether consciously or merely in point of
fact--in case the group organization effected by union of the
individuals remains along with and in spite of the individual changes,
this self-existent unity--state, community, association for a
distinctive purpose--must surely will and act in a definite manner.
Since, however, only one of two contradictory opinions can ultimately
prevail, it is assumed as more probable that the majority knows or
represents this will better than the minority. According to the
presumptive principle involved the minority is, in this case, not
excluded but included. The subordination of the minority is thus in this
stage of sociological development quite different from that in case the
majority simply represents the stronger power. In the case in hand the
majority does not speak in its own name but in that of the ideal unity
and totality. It is only to this unity, which speaks by the mouth of the
majority, that the minority subordinates itself. This is the immanent
principle of our parliamentary decisions.

c) _Subordination to an impersonal principle._--To these must be
joined, third, those formations in which subordination is neither to an
individual nor yet to a majority, but to an impersonal objective
principle. Here, where we seem to be estopped from speaking of a
_reciprocal influence_ between the superior and the subordinate, a
sociological interest enters in but two cases: first, when this ideal
superior principle is to be in