Page images

The flat self results from the confinement of social feeling to those within one's stratum. This self excludes those below one in the social scale because as beings of coarser clay they inspire only contempt. Although those above are admired and envied, the we feeling does not extend to them because they are “different” and, moreover, look down on one. This horizontal socialization weakens the barriers of dislike and jealousy between neighborhoods, parishes, and provinces, but, on the whole, it creates more ill will than it removes. Hostile local communities can avoid trouble by having little to do with one another, but hostile social classes cannot avoid contacts and relations.

The vein self expands along a vein of folk who are like us or have the same major interest. In big democratic cities fellowship tends to follow occupational lines, steam fitter consorting with steam fitters, newspaper man with newspaper men, the artist in Bohemia with other Bohemians. They are competitors actual or potential, to be sure, but this fact is overshadowed by their community of interest, grievances, and hopes. Those not in love with their calling or without a calling may follow a slender vein of interest, so that they are brotherly only with a special group-baseball fans, spiritualists, Y.M.C.A. men, Browning enthusiasts, or Marxian socialists.

Naturally the expanding self will be discriminating and selective when it has many from whom to choose. The developed personality, however, ought to have a number of strong tastes and interests which bring it into sympathy with several veins of people. Hence the star self which radiates into various planes. The many-sided Roosevelt was linked up with Harvard men, boxers, big-game hunters, bird observers, history writers, explorers, saga lovers, and civic reformers, in each case by one of his interests

There is room in society for all types of the expanded self, but certain types are more desirable from the standpoint of social good-will and team work. On the one hand, the functional differentiation and complexity of modern society are favorable to the development of the star self. On the other hand, the great number of matters calling for team work by the organized local community put a premium on the citizen with a spheric self. The development or combination of these two holds the most promise for the future.


The perception of difference in aspect, ways, beliefs, and sentiments checks the outflow of sympathy. What will repel depends on one's place in the scale of development. With the rude, personal appearance and dietary habits count for much. One stigmatizes the objects of his antipathy as “niggers," “greasers," "round heads," "fuzzy-wuzzies,” “red necks," "high brows," "red-haired foreign devils," "silk stockings,” “hard collars,” or taunts them as "rat-eaters" or "frog-eaters, Somewhat higher is the type who thinks of the alien as "mick," "parley-voo," "goddam," "wop,” " sheeny," "heathen," "papist," "heretic," or "infidel." Higher yet is the man who is struck by cultural differences only, and who recoils from those who are "savage," "barbarous," "benighted,” or “depraved." The most alienating differences are those in diet, manners, and religious exercises. Socializers, therefore, by education, agitation, organization, change of customs, etc., strive to bring about a resemblance along these lines, or else to belittle unlikeness.

Arbitrary discrimination raises a barrier. Discrimination on some relevant basis excites little protest. No one objects that weaklings are not put on the football team, ignoramuses admitted to college, or bunglers allowed to practice medicine. But those are embittered who are shut out from merited good on account of color, race, origin, or religion. The detached immigrant into the United States is readily assimilated, because America has drawn no line against the foreign-born. Any unreasonable discrimination against him, as, for example, restricting the proportion of foreignborn who may be employed on public work, would check the process. It would produce the state of things formerly seen in Eastern Europe, where the socialization of dissimilar population elements was at a standstill. Hence, restrictions on land ownership directed against resident aliens are bad. No one should be admitted to this country whom we are not willing to treat in time as “one of the family.”

Of course, not all discriminations are written into law. If there is a tendency to elect to office or promote to the head of a bank, a business, or an organization the inferior native-born just because he is of “good old American stock," the capable foreign-born and his friends will feel themselves to be, after all, "outsiders," and will be confirmed in their hyphenism.

A resented imputation of inferiority is a stumbling-block to socialization. A “chosen people” will not have many friends among other peoples. A messianic hope isolates the nation that cherishes it. A race or class is not likely to share the we feeling with another race or class which entertains no doubts as to its own superiority. If, however, the alleged lower race or class accepts the inferiority imputed to it and advances no pretensions to equality, the two may come into the relations of older and younger brothers in a family. Trust on the one hand and compassion and a sense of responsibility on the other may result in such reciprocal affection as sometimes appeared under feudalism, or between masters and slaves in our ante-bellum South.

One reason why athletic games between white men and the races with which they come in contact so contribute to good feeling is that they imply equality. The governing race comes down from its “high horse” and takes its chance of being beaten in sport. The Malays of inner Borneo do not resent their being governed by the English, after these English have met them as equals on the football field. Once having scored off the white men they do not much mind conceding their superiority in the matter of government.

Finally traditionalism hinders the socialization of diverse elements when otherwise conditions are favorable. It may be that Irish Catholics and Orangemen, Transcaucasian Armenians and Tartars, Lithuanian coal miners and Polish coal miners, are alike oppressed and ought to feel and act together; but if they are swayed by the past they will stay apart on account of prejudices, hatreds, and memories of ancient wrongs coming down to them from their forefathers. On the other hand, of course, traditions of friendship and mutual aid may perpetuate good feeling when living currents of interest are bearing people in opposite directions.


Chicago School of Civics and Philanthropy

In a paper entitled “Representation and Leadership in Democracy,” in the November (1917) issue of this Journal, the present writer incidentally touched upon the momentous question of industrial democracy versus industrial autocracy or industrial oligarchy. The only point made in that connection was this, that certain questions that are often treated as purely political—such, for example, as the question of making representative government truly and fully representative, or of giving the masses of toilers the weight and influence in government to which their numbers and importance entitle them-are really at bottom social and economic questions, since a degraded, morally corrupt, and ignorant class cannot be expected to value integrity, intelligence, and fidelity in elected representatives of the people, or to know how to utilize democratic election machinery to their actual and ultimate benefit. In other words, the point was that economic and social injustice sooner or later reduces political democracy to a hollow mockery and empty form, and that in order to eradicate such notorious evils as corrupt control of legislation, class legislation, insidious bribery, spoils politics, and waste of public assets, we must gradually remove certain kinds of economic injustice.

That paper brought the writer a spirited letter of admonition and comment from an alert, keen, and thoughtful employer of labor who is not an apologist for the present social economic order, but who yet fears that vague talk about industrial democracy may cause more harm than good. The letter is doubtless typical and symptomatic; many employers who would energetically protest against any reflection on their liberalism and progressivism undoubtedly share the sentiments so candidly expressed therein. So do many influential editors. We have permission to reproduce the letter in its entirety, while the opportunity of considering and meeting the points it raises is most welcome.

The letter is as follows:

With interest I have read your article on “Representation and Leadership in Democracies” and think that you have stated a number of pertinent truths well.

I am a manufacturer and take exception to your statements regarding the democratization of industry, not that this is not desirable, but I believe you and your friends, who for years have been talking about these matters, are on a very dangerous subject that will complicate matters very seriously in the future.

As I wrote Mr. Lyman Abbott years ago, if you want to democratize labor, why do you not start right in your own family, making the cook, treasurer, and the butler, secretary, and submit all questions of matters pertaining to the household to this council. If you first make a success of this, no doubt the industries will follow.

Success in business is at all times dependent on “eternal vigilance.” You have to buy and sell at the right time and produce your material of the right grade and at the right price. It takes practically a genius in these lines to be a successful leader and without that a business goes to smash.

While from the theoretical point, it undoubtedly would be lovely to have a set of artisans that are clever, industrious, honest, and capable of giving counsel, and submit the whole matter to them of course under able leadership from above-yet under present conditions, the results would not be any better than those achieved from the low-grade wards, unless you could pick out an especially efficient, sober, and industrious class of workmen, much above the average. This, of course, is impossible to do as a general rule, as you must employ the average run of laborers offered.

Talking about business over-charging and so on, is, of course, not altogether nonsense, but the business cannot exist on a margin of 5 per cent profit. Now, just before the war, we built a new plant that was intended to work up rock imported from Germany. This plant was hardly in good working order before the importations were stopped-fifteen or twenty thousand dollars thrown into the gutter. Next we had to buy mines down in Georgia and start producing material there. We were very fortunate in getting a good deposit, but now the ore is pinching and from all indications, we will have to move all of our machinery, etc., to Tennessee and there build railroads, etc., to handle this proposition. As far as I can see, we will have to make an investment of about seventy-five thousand dollars, and we will never know the quantity or quality of this ore, until we are through working it. These are just minor things that just come up, and come up every day.

Supposing we had a system of democratized industry with minimum wages, minimum hours, and maximum leisure, and we at the same time had to

« PreviousContinue »