THE THEORY OF PUBLIC OPINION PUBLIC OPINION AS ORGANIZATION -- AGREEMENT NOT ESSENTIAL-- PUBLIC OPINION versus POPULAR IMPRESSION -- PUBLIC THOUGHT NOTAN AVERAGE -- A GROUP IS CAPABLE OF EXPRESSION THROUGH ITS MOST COMPETENTMEMBERS -- GENERAL AND SPECIAL PUBLIC OPINION -- THE SPHERE OF THE FORMER-- OF THE LATTER -- THE TWO ARE UNITED IN PERSONALITY -- HOW PUBLIC OPINIONRULES -- EFFECTIVE RULE BASED ON MORAL UNITYPublic opinion is no mere aggregate of separate individual judgments， but an organization， a cooperative product of communication and reciprocal influence. It maybe as different from the sum of what the individuals could have thought out in separation as a ship built by a hundred men is from a hundred boats each built by one man.
A group "makes up its mind" in very much the same manner r that the individual makes up his. The latter must give time and attention to the question， search his consciousness for pertinent ideas and sentiments， and work them together into a whole， before he knows what his real thought about it is. In the case of a nation the same thing must take place， only on a larger scale. Each individual must make up his mind as before， but in doing 90 he has to deal not only with what was already in his thought or memory， but with fresh ideas that flow in from (122) others whose minds are also aroused. Every one who has any fact， or thought， or feeling， which he thinks is unknown， or insufficiently regarded， tries to impart it； and thus not only one mind but all minds are searched for pertinent material， which is poured into the general stream of thought for each one to use as he can. In this manner the minds in a communicating group become a single organic whole. Their unity is not one of identity， but of life and action， a crystallization of diverse but related ideas.
It is not at all necessary that there should be agreement； the essential thing is a certain ripeness and stability of thought resulting from attention and discussion. There may be quite as much difference of opinion as there was before， but the differences now existing are comparatively intelligent and lasting. People know what they really think about the matter， and what other people think. Measures， platforms， candidates， creeds and other symbols have been produced which serve to express and assist cooperation and to define opposition. There has come to be a relatively complete organization of thought， to which each individual or group contributes in its own peculiar way.
Take， for instance， the state of opinion in the United States regarding slavery at the outbreak of the civil war. No general agreement had been reached； but the popular mind had become organized with reference to the matter， which had been turned over and regarded from all points of view， by all parts of the community， until a certain ripeness regarding it had been reached； revealing in this (123) case a radical conflict of thought between the North and the South， and much local diversity in both sections；One who would understand public opinion should distinguish clearly between a true or mature opinion and a popular impression. The former requires earnest attention and discussion for a considerable time， and when reached is significant， even if mistaken. It rarely exists regarding matters of temporary interest， and current talk or print is a most uncertain index of it. A popular impression， on the other hand， is facile， shallow， transient， with that fickleness and fatuity that used to be ascribed to the popular mind in general. It is analogous to the unconsidered views and utterances of an individual， and the more one studies it the less seriously he will take it. It may happen that ninety-nine men in a hundred hold opinions to-day contrary to those they will hold a month hence梡artly because they have not yet searched their own minds， partly because the few who have really significant and well-grounded ideas have not had time to impress them upon the rest.
It is not unreasonable， then， to combine a very slight regard for most of what passes as public opinion with much confidence in the soundness of an aroused， mature， organic social judgment.
There is a widespread， but as I believe a fallacious， idea that the public thought or action must in some way express the working of an average or commonplace mind， must be some kind of a mean between the higher and lower intelligences making up the group. It would be (124) more correct to say that it is representative， meaning by this that the preponderant feeling of the group seeks definite and effectual expression through individuals specially competent to give it such expression.
Take for instance the activities of one of our colleges in inter collegiate athletics or debates. What belongs to the group at large is a vague desire to participate and excel in such competitions； but in realizing itself this desire seeks as its agents the best athletes or debaters that are to be found A little common-sense and observation will show that the Jexpression of a group is nearly always superior， for the purpose in hand， to the average capacity of its members.
I do not mean morally superior， but simply more effective， in a direction determined by the prevalent feeling. If a mob is in question， the brutal nature， for the time-being ascendant， may act through the most brutal men in the group； and in like manner a money-making enterprise is apt to put forward the shrewdest agents it can find， without regard for any moral qualities except fidelity to itself.
