vidual immigrant is considered the unit to be assimilated, and second, the group theory, according to which the immigrant group is regarded as the assimilable unit.

It is difficult to trace the historical backgrounds of the former theory, which is the predominating one, but it may be said this conviction was precipitated about two decades ago. In the sociological writing of that period continual reference is made to the dangers of the so-called "social island" or "social lumps," which resisted changes, tended to become impervious to American traditions and customs, and hence were looked upon as obstacles in the way of building a national solidarity. The conviction grew into a determined effort to impose American traditions and customs upon the members of such groups, even if coercion were needed to accomplish this end. The cohesion of the immigrant group was thought to be of itself an evil, and it thus came about that the attack was directed at the individual.

The above trend of thought affords fascinating leads for historical generalizations. It suggests there has always existed a fundamental conflict in the life of the American people. Collectivism lies at the bottom of the nation's existence, since the nation consists of groups and group settlements. Individualism, as a philosophy of life, was an inevitable consequence of life in an uncultivated area. Puritanic and pioneering habits of thought apparently became rooted so firmly that the phenomenal rapidity of change from pioneer settlements to a fullfledged nation afforded no adequate opportunities of adjustment. Thus individualism as a thought-inheritance and collectivism as a result of economic pressure came into conflict, and still remain as conflicting factors in our national problems.

The most pertinent query is: What are the results of the method of regarding the individual as the unit of assimilation? Some of these results are plainly evident. When the individual is isolated from his group, his differences, as inheritances, language, household habits, feeding, etc., are more emphasized, and it becomes an easy matter to regard these as inferiorities: "Sheeny," "Bohunk," "Wop," become the symbol of wit and disrespect for which the isolated immigrant becomes the target. This disrespect is particularly distasteful to immigrants who have valuable ideas for which they would like to gain recognition. A recent illustration came to the writer's attention in an exlieutenant of the Italian army. He tried to take part in a discussion in which Americans were engaged. His English was poor, but his ideas were perfectly germane. The group let him talk for a few minutes, then went on without noticing what had been said. After that he could get no recognition at all. The Italian's self-esteem was sorely wounded. On several other occasions he tried to be sociable with Americans, but his reception was cruelly cold. Until he becomes undistinguishable from others of the American group he will have to live in a social vacuum.

Does such treatment tend toward a more rapid and complete assimilation?

More rapid, in some cases perhaps, but there are no psychological reasons for believing the individual who conforms because of fear or ridicule is thereby converted into a better citizen. The very fact that he has suddenly consented to capitulate to the American attitude of superiority may be regarded as a deteriorating influence in the immigrant's character. His loss of respect for his personal worth is undoubtedly the most serious setback which the foreigner receives upon his arrival, but there are other corresponding evils which result from this individualizing method.

The recognition of inferiority is the basis of exploitation. One needs only to follow the stories in the daily press to be convinced that a swarm of human parasites exists in almost every port of entry preying on those immigrants who, for the moment, are inferior on account of a strange environment.

The evil effects on individuals who have lost contact with groups in which they have had some recognition are becoming constantly clearer to our psychiatrists. Various forms of insanity are being traced directly to this lack of social contacts which would give some recognition to individuals. This may be the reason for the extraordinary high rate of insanity in immigrants, as found by Dr. Laughlin, who has made a study of foreigners in American governmental custodial institutions. It seems that when aliens have any tendency toward insanity the poignant mental suffering accompanying migration tends to disrupt the association areas of the brain, and the result is mental disease. In this instance, the prognosis of the psychiatrist would be the giving of recognition to every accomplishment or cultural difference of the foreign group or individual.

Therefore these questions present themselves: Are the customs, beliefs, and ideas brought to this country submerged, repressed, destroyed, or are they recognized, conserved, absorbed, integrated? Is it our purpose to perpetuate without change the traditions, ideas, attitudes, ethics, and art of our forbears, or do we seek enrichment through an intelligent selection from the variety of traditions, ideas, and customs existent in America? Finally, how attain enrichment of life and civilization, and how work most constructively?

Those who hold the group theory of incorporation have in mind a potential Americanism, one in the process of becoming, and generally they have the feeling that through the older individualistic method the contributions of immigrants have been submerged or repressed. This condition they feel to be due partly to the lack of a technique which stimulates in the foreign groups activities leading to their full participation in the total environment. It is possible also that the rapid economic development and growth of the population in this country has caused, on the part of Americans, a lack of interest in culture, using the word in the anthropological sense as being "the round of life in its entire sweep of individual activities." The time element has entered, we have been in a great hurry; uniformity makes for efficiency; attention to differences is a waste of time; if a member of a community has a culture trait which makes him different, he must be made to conform. We have no time to waste, so he must

be coerced into the uniform scheme of things. This kind of thinking and activity has given us an intolerant attitude and resulted in a static idea of Americanism. As the charming southern lady expressed it to our great immigrant inventor, "The quicker you forget that you are a Serb and all the ideas of the Serbs, the quicker you will become a good American." If speed is the main requisite demanded of method, then the group method cannot win out over the individual process.

Foreigners do come to us with the propensities and aptitudes for participating in a much richer culture than they find. This is indicated by the foreign names on the list of artists, musicians, sculptors, professors, and writers of note in our population. Does not this suggest that we should supplement our own civilization with the accumulated wealth which comes to us with immigrant groups, and if so, how shall it be done?

A few people who are thinking and experimenting in this field have been led to accept the immigrant group as the unit to be dealt with in the process of amalgamation. They take into consideration the fact that foreigners are with us in groups, held together by certain forces and leaders. Instead of being discredited, these forces are utilized in any plan to help the group adjust itself to its new environment. If the psychologists are right, attitudes are changed largely through activities, and since the incorporation or isolation of individuals generally hinges on the attitudes of the group toward Americans, and vice versa, obviously the need is for a method or technique which will stimulate group activities designed to produce corporative attitudes in both groups. The isolated individual with a cooperative attitude is helpless because he is overpowered by the greater numbers of Americans, and his chance to penetrate American culture with his ideas, sentiments, beliefs—no matter how good they may be are hopeless because he has no group to back him up.

Professor Taggert points out in his Processes of History that the collision of cultures and civilization has always caused a great mental release and a tremendous increase of creative activity. The group method adherents among the social technicians see in the process of incorporation of immigrants into our civilization great hopes for a newly created American culture because of this release.

Therefore, instead of alluring foreigners away from their national groups by glorified propaganda and quick rewards for submission to the American customs, we should place upon the shoulders of their leaders a burden of responsibility for the broader participation of the group. They should never be allowed to forget the importance of bringing the whole group into proper adjustment. The individualists seem to have overlooked this idea almost entirely.

When two cultures are placed in juxtaposition, the significant traits of both are more easily understood and evaluated, therefore foreign groups in this country ought to know their ideas and beliefs even better after residence here

than was possible before leaving the old country. Thus, if the group keeps together for a time and the leaders are aided in their efforts toward educating the group in its own art, religion, literature, history, etc., there will eventually evolve a group consciousness and a determination to make effective in the cultural environment the significant contributions which that nationality has brought to America.

On the other hand, Americans need to know their own culture; and, as we have noted, the best way to know one's culture is to compare it with another, for where there is no intelligent comparison the average man takes life as a matter of course. It is impossible for all to go to Greenland and secure a deep insight into our culture by studying its contrasts in Eskimo life. But few Americans travel to lands where people live by culture patterns different from ours. However, we have within our country peoples of various lands whose culture traits have a distinctly different content from ours. For example, Slavs like to dress to show their place of origin, while most Americans dress with the idea of concealing their origin as completely as possible. This new attitude toward dress is jarred into their consciousness upon the first close contact with American social and economic life. Thus they become aware of a difference between their culture and American life which they never knew existed. Conversely, if alert, we should be able to get a new appreciation of our culture and civilization should we study some of these foreign peoples and their group life in America.

The foregoing is something of the philosophy developed in five years of work with foreign-born people in the Twenty-third Street Young Men's Christian Association of New York City. We were continually seeking a method which would bring about the integration of the foreign group with the American group so that there might be an interpenetration of ideas with the resultant mutual adjustment of groups and individuals. The five years showed a steady increase in the support and interest in the undertaking by both foreign and native born.

From the very beginning we treated the nationality group as the unit to be considered, and service to individuals was done in such a way as to tie them to their group. One of the first things learned was that there must be no suggestion of charity. Individuals wished to retain their sense of independence and insisted on paying for real service. Then we found that the immigrants who had been here the longest and advanced toward financial independence had a great interest in the welfare of their own people. This led us to ask them to support the work. As soon as they saw that through committees they could have some control and responsibility contributions began coming in.

The first committee organized was Greek. It raised $675 the first year. The next year they adopted a $5,000 budget and recommended a Greek secretary for employment. Later, Armenians and Russians came in on the same basis.

The organization consisted of a directing committee for each nationality, represented in the work by a nationality secretary carrying on an educational, recreational, and protective program with each group under the coordinating

leadership of an American secretary. Nationality workers are not an innovation in community work, but foreign groups joined together in an American organization and paying $5,000 a year each into the treasury seems to be an unheard-of thing.

This group organization, like all social agencies, has had its problems and adversities. One foreign secretary lacked discretion in public comments on American problems; another was irregular with funds. The personnel problem is obviously a sensitive one, requiring the use of tact and time to produce happy working conditions. Our great crisis came when the Young Men's Christian Association found their budget and quarters too limited to carry us farther, so that on Janury 1, 1925, we were called upon to establish ourselves independently or disband.

Here was a double test. Were our American committeemen willing to go on? Did our foreign committeemen consider the work worthy of further support independent of the great organization which had sheltered us up to that time?

There was no organization, no money, no home. The Young Men's Christian Association gave us a splendid letter of appreciation and explanation of the termination of their sponsorship. One of the local Russian dailies published the statement that we might be compelled to discontinue our work. The result was a ten-foot petition, signed by over four hundred Russians, asking that the service continue, and pledging themselves to join a new organization. Armenians in numbers also indicated their keen desire that we carry on. The defalcation of the Greek secretary just prior to this wrecked the Greek committee, although individual Greeks indicated their interest in the future.

The staff of five stood by during the first three months of the year without pay. They knew the joys and values of the work. The National Girl Scouts gave us quarters. The Russian and Armenian committees underwrote $5,000 each for three years, conditioned on our securing a working balance from Americans. Because of our record, the petitions, and the foreign committee underwriting, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. made a contribution. Our American committee, supplemented by the chairmen of the Armenian and Russian committees, incorporated the International Community Center under the laws of the State of New York, and we are now in our own four-story building at 190 Lexington Avenue, leased for five years, and our first year's budget unbalanced as yet.

There have been many trials and discouragements. The great encouragement, aside from an inner faith in both our philosophy and method, has been not only constant individual calls, but calls from committees representing groups asking when we could renew our work with them.

The International Community Center is non-sectarian and non-political; its services are educational, recreational, and protective. These are broad terms, including class work, lectures, socials, dances, athletics, and personal case work of a legal, health, and informational nature. We do not duplicate work of other organizations where we can avoid it and still look after our own groups. Our