but pessimistic about man in the concrete, the bureaucrat takes the world as he finds it judges men as men, rather than as Man, whom he has never met probably never worried about. Second, the bureaucrat's agnosticism nominalism his rejection of the enthusiast's true faith abstract man -combine to make him profoundly suspicious of short-cuts; he is likely to be satisfied with piecemeal progress, scorning as fatuous unrealistic the or nothing approach which is so characteristic of the enthusiast. Half a loaf is 50 per cent better than no loaf, he submits, and tomorrow we can go after the other half. 43 To this end, he builds his cadres, convinced that ideals are no stronger than the organization engaged in institutionalizing them, that organized pressure, not doctrinal purity, is the key to success. Indeed, it is this dedication to technique, to means, which is the bureaucrat's supreme gift to a movement. It is he who builds the instruments of social action, the structural machinery necessary to channel, concretize, implement the group's aspirations, it is he who puts organizational flesh on the bones of theory. Denied the vision of the enthusiast, sneered at by the high-flying intellectual, he spends his life in the quagmire of detail, in so doing renders a unique invaluable service to his cause. While the enthusiast is out exploring the nature of the cosmos, the bureaucrat is repairing the mimeograph machine; yet, who will deny that a well-working mimeograph is as essential as correct doctrine to the effective operation of a social movement? Thus, both the bureaucrat the enthusiast supply a movement with vital components. Each by himself works badly; left alone, the bureaucrat simply goes in concentric circles around his precious organization, while the enthusiast rushes unbridled from one ideological orgasm to another. Consequently, a healthy vital social movement needs both, profits from their complementary assets. True, there will always be conflict, for to the bureaucrat, the enthusiast impatient, emotional, dogmatic, sanctimonious will always ipso facto remain a threat to the organization; to the enthusiast, the bureaucrat -timid, opportunistic, cynical, manipulative will always seem indifferent to, if not subversive of, the very ideals values from which the enthusiast draws his inspiration. But this conflict, inevitable as it is, is by no means a mere disruptive influence; on the contrary, it is a life-giving dialectical process in which each force counters the weaknesses of the other from which a movement can emerge with both dynamism stability. 43This conflict between the possibilists the impossibilists has been endemic in socialist movements; see Sturmthal, op. cit., passim; as well as in religious organizations; see Knox, op. cit., passim. 260 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.166 on Thu, 07 Jul 2016 04:24:34 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE BUREAUCRAT AND THE ENTHUSIAST The history of social movements is the history of this conflict. On the one hand, we find groups, such as the German Social Democratic party of 1900-1914, or the American Federation of Labor of 1900-1937, which have been stricken with bureaucratic paralysis have lost all power to move. On the other, we see those movements, such as the French Socialist party of our era, or the Puritan left of Cromwell's time, which disintegrated, or are in the process of disintegrating from the unchecked centrifugal force of enthusiasm triumphant. These are the extremes, for we can also find organizations which have moved on from generation to generation, expanding their horizons as they go, because they have attained a proper balance between these two forces. How this balance is struck is the subject of another analysis; suffice it here to conclude that the struggle between bureaucratism enthusiasm is part of a larger canvas on which similar battles, between security freedom, realism idealism, means ends, passion perspective, are waged, in which the outcome is likewise determined by the extent to which factors which are logically irreconcilable are reconciled.44 44 Passion perspective are the criteria submitted as central to political analysis by Max Weber in his Politics as a Vocation, in Gerth Mills, op. cit. 261 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.166 on Thu, 07 Jul 2016 04:24:34 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms