Our reason for choosing a logical analysis of existing psychic forces instead of a temporal _regressus_--instead, even, of an accurate historical study of the past--is a twofold one: first, we wish to coordinate the new factors we are to emphasize with factors already recognized, and to emerge with a value concept which shall serve the economists in the accustomed way--it is illogical to mix a logical analysis with a temporal _regressus_. But, more fundamental than this logical point, is this: the forces which have historically _begot_ a social situation are not, necessarily, the forces which _sustain_ it. The rule doubtless is that new institutions have to win their way against an opposition which grows simply out of the fact that we are, through mental inertia, wedded to what is old and familiar. We resist the new _as_ the new. Even those who are most disposed to innovate are still conservative, with reference to propaganda that they themselves are not concerned with. The great mass of activities of all men, even the most progressive, are rooted in habit, and resist change. When, however, a new value has won its way, has become familiar and established, the very forces which once opposed it become its surest support. Or, waiving this unreflecting inertia of society, as things become actualized they are seen in new relations. What, prior to experiment, we thought might harm us, we find beneficial after it has been tried, and so support it--or the reverse may be true. The psychic forces maintaining and controlling a social situation, therefore, are not necessarily the ones which historically brought it into being.[166]