10. Upon simplest analyses, according to Sumner, four societal values stand out with clearness: intellectual, moral, economic, and physical.[XVIII-9] Each of these, however, is composite. The highest societal value seems to result from a harmonious combination of the four values enumerated. The best member of society is he in whom the intellectual, moral, economic, and physical values are more or less equally and harmoniously represented. 11. Sumner divided society into five main classes.[XVIII-10] (1) The masses represent social mediocrity. They are of average social usefulness. (2) Then there are the dependent and defective classes--a drag upon society but not harmful or vicious. (3) The delinquent classes are grossly harmful. They are anti-social and a grievous burden. (4) Above the masses there are the people of talent, and (5) above the talented are the geniuses. “A man of talent, practical sense, industry, perseverance, and moral principle is worth more to society than a genius who is not morally responsible, or not industrious.”[XVIII-11] It is a mistake to think of the masses as being at the base of society; they are located at the core. They are traditional, conservative, and the bearers of the _mores_. The lowest sections of the masses are a dead weight of ignorance, disease, and crime. 12. A social institution is composed of an idea, notion, or interest, and a resultant structure. The primary institutions are property, marriage, and religion.[XVIII-12] These began as folkways; they became customs. Social institutions can be modified only when the _mores_ are changed; they develop rituals, which are ceremonious, solemn, and strongest when perfunctory and when exciting no thought.[XVIII-13] Sumner boldly asserted that nothing but might has ever made right, and that nothing but might makes right now.[XVIII-14] The fact that property began in force is not proof that property is an unjust institution. Marriage and religion also began in force, but the element of justice in the existence of these institutions is not seriously questioned today. Sumner, however, did not discriminate between force as an agent or a tool, and force as a primary cause. He did not distinguish clearly between hate and love as the dynamic factors behind action that is decisive. He did not set forth the distinction between harsh, material, immutable force and a kindly, spiritual, attracting love. 13. The persistency of folkways and _mores_ is illustrated in a thousand ways by Sumner. He described (1) their slow variability under changed life conditions, (2) their sudden variability under revolutionary conditions, (3) the possibility of changing them by intelligent action, (4) the problems involved in adjusting one’s self to the _mores_ of another group, (5) the conflicts between the _mores_ of different groups.[XVIII-15]