ABSTRACT
A DOCTRIN E whic h ha s a grea t vogu e a t th e presen t time , an d which derives from variou s sources, seek s to explain the origi n of the legal norms and, occasionally, also of the other socia l norms, especially those of morality, by the power of the dominant groups in society , which have establishe d them , and are enforcin g them in their own interest. Bu t power over men can be maintained and exercised permanentl y onl y by unitin g the m in associations an d prescribing rules of conduct fo r them within th e association , i.e . by organizing them. I n this sense the doctrine referred to would be i n harmon y wit h tha t taugh t here , accordin g t o whic h th e social norms are but the order of the human associations. Bu t the statement tha t the dominant groups of the associations se t up the norms of conduct for the other members of their association solely in thei r ow n interest i s meaningles s o r incorrect . Ma n alway s acts in his own interest, and he who is able to state exhaustively the interest s whic h motivate human conduct is able to solve not only the question of the sanction of the norms but practicall y all questions o f socia l science . O n th e othe r hand , i t i s quit e incorrect t o sa y tha t th e interest s o f the dominant groups in the associations conflic t wit h thos e of the whole association o r wit h those of the other members . T o a certain extent the interests o f the dominant groups must coincide with the interests o f the whole association, or at least wit h those of the majority o f the member s of the association; for if this were not so, the other members would not obey the norms established by the dominant group. I t is unlikely tha t on e coul d ever gain the suppor t o f a great numbe r of men for any project unless every individual had a t leas t a vague idea that the project, if realized, would redound to the advantag e of all . An d this idea is never altogether without foundation. Th e order of an association, abstractly considered, may be a poor one, may perhaps afford undu e advantages to its leaders, may impose
heavy burden s upo n th e others , bu t i t is always better tha n n o order at all . An d the fact that there is no better order in existence is always a cogent proof tha t the association, in its given spiritual and moral condition, and in view of the economic supplies i t has had a t it s disposal, has bee n unable t o create a better order .
