360 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
Again, this being the case, it would be possible to rewrite history in terms of this condition, and the version would be much truer than many of the pretentious attempts to read the deepest lessons of human experience. The career of human industries is merely the story of one man learning to do some- thing which makes it possible for another to do something else, and for each to get some of the results of the work of both. Dif- ferentiation of the non-industrial pursuits and classes warriors, rulers, artists, priests, scientists is merely a higher elabo- ration of this economy of reciprocity. No human vocation has existed as a tolerated institution, without apparent justification in its supposed utility to others besides those who pursue the vocation.
There is no clearer illustration of this than in the reciprocal feudal incidents of "commendation" and "protection." The feudal relation was a balancing of services, and was mutually advantageous so long as the exchange was real and proportional. Revolutions have been upheavals due to interruption of the vica- rious function, or to tardy or premature belief that the function was arrested. At one point there has been excess of advantage, at another point defect of advantage. The exchange process that would normally equalize levels of advantage has been some- how clogged, and the consequence has been that normal human interests have asserted themselves by breaking through an abnormal order. We should have a juster account than has ever been rendered of every episode in history if we could get a cor- rect answer in each case to the question : Who performed or shirked the vicarious function called for at that point ?
When we approach the problem of present society, we must sooner or later confront the question of the state of vicariousness in our society, namely: Who depends upon whom for what ser- vice, in order that the interests represented by the members of present society may be satisfied ? Is the responsibility dis- charged with a reasonable degree of success ? These questions propose the inevitable test of our present social aims, and of the structure of society by which we are trying to reach those aims. Who fails in performing what service ? is the question which
