The following classification of political attitudes is intended to have suggestive value rather than formal completeness. The first section of this classification refers to the political preferences and expectations or forebodings of the individual investigated. Some individuals cherish a fraternal and some a paternal ideal. The anarchist, socialist, and democrat talk the language of equality among a family of brothers; the monarchists preserve a father.[75] A series of other ideological distinctions are perhaps sufficiently clear from the terms used. CLASSIFICATION OF POLITICAL ATTITUDES SECTION A. POLITICAL VIEWS I. Preferences Paternal ideal Fraternal ideal Strong central authority Weak central authority Revolutionary ideal Counter-revolutionary or reactionary ideal Cataclysmic change Evolutionary change Indulgent toward coercion, secrecy, ruthlessness Insistent upon persuasion, openness, scrupulousness Emancipatory, defensive, expansive ideal for group World-unity ideal II. Expectations and forebodings Small political change can have great results Small political change can have some results of value Little of value can be accomplished by politics Revolutionary changes imminent, eventual, contingent It is probably in relation to political practices, as distinguished from political views, that the intensive study of the individual has the most to offer. I have included a list of questions in Appendix B which are intended to suggest the sort of thing which is directly pertinent to the interest of the political scientist in this regard. How has the individual acted as a subordinate when confronted by superiors of various kinds (in the army, in school, in fraternity organizations, in business, in party clubs, in propaganda organizations, in administrative hierarchies, and the like)? How has the individual acted as a superior when confronted by subordinates of various kinds? Besides considering the behavior of the person as subordinate or superior, we may inquire into his attitude toward individuals who have not been members of his various organizations, but who have been possible helpers or obstacles. Thus he may have approached strangers for money, or sought to win diplomatic support from another organization against a common menace. His tactics may be classified according to the means employed and the measure of success attained. Special attention may likewise be devoted to the behavior of the individual, not toward particular persons, but toward publics, which are necessarily anonymous. Summarizing: SECTION B. POLITICAL PRACTICES I. As subordinate Confronted by superiors who are A. Strong, brutal B. Masterful but rather objective C. Weak Reaction (conscious)